First prosecution witness in the case in which the founder and Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of the defunct Beige Bank, Michael Nyinaku is standing trial has been discharged after he was yet again confronted by defence lawyers with evidence to show that all transactions happened with the consent of customers.
It was the case of defence lawyers led by Thaddeus Sory that, Julius Ayivor’s own documents to the court will show that the transfer of customers funds from Beige Bank to Beige Group, a company owned by the accused, had the blessings of those customers.
This was in response to the Receiver’s allegations that customers funds were rather siphoned.
Michael Nyinaku has been accused of allegedly siphoning customers funds and has been charged for stealing GH¢2.1 billion of depositors’ money from the bank.
He has pleaded not guilty to 43 charges including stealing, fraudulent breach of trust and money laundering and has been granted bail.
Mr Julius Ayivor, a Chartered Accountant with the KPMG, a financial auditing firm and a team member of the Receiver of the Beige Bank had testified as the first prosecution witness and is facing scrutiny.
On his final day of cross-examination, counsel for the Defence confronted him on his own exhibits before the court to show that all transactions that took place had the consent of the customers.
He was also confronted with a list of Cheques detailing payments and showing that those customers instructed the transfers of those funds.
Testing the veracity of the witness’ evidence, counsel asked the Witness if it was his testimony that the accused wrote a proposed terms of repayments to the Receiver.
The witness while agreeing added that he had also provided correspondence the Receiver.
Shown a document by counsel and asked to identify the said document, he said, “It’s a letter from Beige Village dated April 12, 2019 addressed to the Receiver of Beige Bank and the subject read: ‘Disclosures to defunct Beige Bank.’
He also identified another document which he stated that, “It’s a letter from the Receiver of Beige Bank dated May 22, 2019 which was in response to the letter from Beige Village dated, April 12, 2019.”
These documents were tendered in evidence through the witness after the prosecution did not raise any objection.
Mr Ayivor also identified another document he described as “a letter from Beige Business Solution, dated, May 10, 2019 and addressed to the Receiver and the subject matter was – Exposure to Beige Bank.”
Answering a second leg of the question, the witness said, it was a letter from Beige Bank, dated, May 23, which was in response to April 15, Beige Business
Solutions for Exposure
Again, the witness was confronted with a letter dated April 15, 2019 from BBS Truck addressed do the Receiver of Beige Bank with the subject matter – Exposure to Beige Bank, while the second document he said was a response from the Receiver of Beige Bank, dated 23, May 2019.
All these documents the witness identified were tendered in evidence through the witness by the court presided over by Justice Afia Serwah Asare-Botwe.
Payments
Asked by counsel if it was his testimony that in relation to payment made by Beige Capital Assets Management (BCAM) to a certain Charlotte Awuah, those payments could not relate to the monies transferred from that Charlotte Awuah account to BCAM, because, it would mean that BCAM was paying interest of about 50 per cent where BCAM could not ascertain, the Witness said that was the case.
Counsel also said, paragraph 30(b) of his witness statement (page 14), showed one Ernest and Barbs Real Estate Developer had placed investment at the Bank at the rate of 49.5%.
Clarified from the Witness, Counsel said if Exhibit AC was a document containing a list of customers deposits he had alleged were transferred from the Beige Bank to the Beige Group, the Witness answered in the affirmative.
Customers in reference
At this point, counsel directed the witness to pay attention to some customers whose names appeared on the said exhibit AC and the names of Kojo Ohene Kyei, Customer number 2, Customers 10 and 20 being a certain Addo Duffuor and Appiah Janet
Counsel also pointed out customer number 18 which is Nordia Capital, Customer number 29 which is Comez Savings and Customer number 31- All Time.
It was the case of Counsel that, each of the customers he had mentioned had a start date of their deposits and a particular sum of money deposited.
He therefore called on the witness to check if the names and transactions listed by the prosecution in exhibit AC can be traced in exhibit AD2 as has been alleged by the prosecution.
The said ‘Exhibit AD2’ is the bank statement of the Beige group’s account held with the Beige Bank.”
Responding to counsel’s request, in relation to Customer number 2, he said the start date is February 11, 2016 and that Exhibit AD2 start from February 11 and the start date of the investment was Feb 14, 2016.
In relations to the others he said “My lady transaction number 10, 18, 29 and 31 are not on exhibit AD2.”
“In explaining deposits that have been transferred from the accounts of the 23 customers to the Beige Group, two examples involving Tobinco’s GH¢20m that was siphoned from their account and then three deposits of Ernest and Barbs which were also siphoned from their account to the Beige Group were issued and those were the specific exhibits provided to support those specific examples,” he stated.
Counsel then said it was true that he had used Tobinco and Ernest and Barbs as example but “your exhibit AC deals with the period of transactions as you will want the court to believe covered by exhibit AD2 and to the extent that all the customers I have referenced you to cannot be found on exhibit AD2 and that your exhibit AC cannot be credible.
In his response he said “Exhibit AC is a very credible and as a matter of fact, the Beige Group does not have one account with Beige Bank, adding that “any transactions on exhibit AC that is not contained on exhibit AD2 is contained in those other bank accounts of the Beige Group which are available and if counsel want it we will provide them.”
He said the transactions specific to the examples provided are the ones extracted from Beige Group account.
When counsel put it to him that “in respect of these customers which I have just referred you to, as far as your evidence is concerned, their deposits were never transferred to Beige Group”
The Witness said “They were siphoned,” adding that, “those specific were siphoned from the accounts of those customers siphoned to Beige Group and the evidence of these customers beings paid with BoG bail out package is contained on exhibit 5.”
Counsel said, If he looked at exhibit AC, he would realised the names of some customers appeared more than once, which the witness agreed.
Multiple transfers
Counsel said the witness’s suggestion for exhibit AC appears that those customers funds were transferred to the Beige Group more than once, this Mr Ayivor agreed.
Asked if the Receiver found out if these customers were specifically targeted for the transfer of their deposits or if there was a special reason why their deposits were transferred to beige group, he answered in the negative.”
“I don’t know for a fact that those customers were specifically targeted or there was a special reason that necessitated the siphoning of their funds but what is apparent from the grand scheme that was perpetuated is that once the customers had a lot of funds that appeared to be an opportunity for the accused person to oversee the siphoning of those funds to his companies,” the witness stated.
Asked if his investigation from the Receiver revealed what could be the sums of monies in terms of amount, he said it ranges from GH¢1,000 to in excess of GH¢20 million as seen in the case of Tobinco.
Customers sanctioned transfers
When Mr Sory, put to him that, the only reason why these customers had their funds transferred to the Beige Group was because they sanctioned the transfer of their funds from Beige Bank to the Beige Group as investment.
But, the said “that’s a blatant untruth,” adding that,”…the Beige Group which is a company limited by liability is not licensed to take deposits neither it is licensed to operate business of banking or fund management, so there is no way that any of these customers sanctioned the siphoning of their funds to the Beige Group.
He added that “the Beige Group is just supposed to be a holding company with the responsibility of supervising from what I understand companies that fall under them which are all owed by the accused.”
The Beige Group he said “has no power or authority to take deposits.”
Asked if he was aware that the Beige Group sourced funds from various sources including the bank and from its businesses, it was able to support the bank’s payment of interest to its customers, the Witness said he was unaware.
He said “all that I know is that the Beige Group under the accused turned the bank into a cash-cow where funds of customers were siphoned by the accused into Beige Group.
He, however,agreed with Counsel when it was put to him that if he looked at exhibit AC once more, customers number 11 and 23 are related to one customer Ernest and Barbs.
Evidence based
Again counsel said the transactions in respect of the customers dated January 15,and March 27, 2018, the first transaction of January 15, 2018 on exhibit AD2, was in the sum of GH¢12.3 million.
Counsel explained to him that, the narration there clearly stated that it was a fund transfer from Ernest and Barbs, but the witness disagreed saying, “No my lady, the narration is finds transfer – Ernest and Barbes to the Beige Group.”
The witness added that, “it did not say funds transfer by Ernest and Barbes.”
In respect of the transaction dated, March 27, 2018, recorded on exhibit AD2, he said the narration of that transaction was, “funds transfer from Ernest and Barbs Real Estate Developers to the Beige Group which was in the sum of GH¢2,755,332.92.
Again in respect of customers numbers 6 and 8, counsel said they relate to the same customer – Progress Savings and Loans, which the witness agreed.
When it was put to him that the information on exhibit AC reflects transaction of December 4, 2017 and October 5, 2017, the Witness answered in the affirmative.
Asked to trace the transaction on Exhibit AD2, Mr Ayivor said, it was a transaction with reference number FT1727813607 in an amount of GH¢3 million and the narration was fund transfer to the Beige Group Limited
With reference to a customer numbered 12 on exhibit AC whose name was – Duku Joseph Amankwah, counsel said his transaction date was January 17, 2017.
While agreeing with counsel, the witness stated that, it was a transaction with transaction number that begins with FT …in an amount of GH¢1,462, 500.
Asked to explain to the court this transaction, he said it was from Joseph Amankwah Duku to the Beige Group and that “narration simple means the funds were transferred from Joseph’s Amankwah Duku’s account to the Beige Group account and this was not from the instructions of Joseph Amankwah Duku.”
In respect of another customer numbered ‘3’ on exhibit AC, counsel said that customer as by name Anthonie and Linda Vanelda with a transaction which started on January 19 2017.
Asked to trace it on exhibit AD2, the witness said the extract which Exhibt AD2 which is an extract of Beige Group account started from February 4.
He however admitted that he could find the transaction on January 19, 2018 under the transaction with same reference transaction.
“Yes my lady, I can find the January 2018 you are referring to, but because of the differentials of the date, I want to be very sure of it is the same transaction being talked about here,” the Witness noted.
Counsel said that transaction involved an amount of GH¢700,000 per the exhibit AC but the witness said, “I will need to check to confirm.”
Mr Sory said, exhibits AD2 and AC emanated from the witness and should be able to confirm that sum without any difficulty.
The witness then said the transfer on exhibit ‘AC’ the start date was January 19,2017 and the amount was GH¢700,000, adding that “on exhibit AD2 is the same amount GH¢700,000 and the date is January 2018 and I am quite confident that it would be the same transaction but I will just need to check and be very sure.”
By Order transfer
Asked to tell what the narration was with regard to that particular transaction, the witness said it was “Transfer of BO – Antonie and Linda Vanelder.”
At this point counsel put to him that the “BO” that preceded his answer meant ‘By Order’ but the witness after agreeing with counsel said, Antonie and Linda Vanelder did not sanctioned this transfer
Asked if that explanation was written in exhibit AD2 or it was his own explanation, he said it was “based on the validation work we have done ,” and “I can confirm that description is just a fasade.”
Progress Savings and Loans
With particular reference to another customer – Progress Savings and Loans with its particulars on page 6 of Exhibit AD2, counsel said it involved a transaction of GH¢12 million to the account of Beige Group.
Again counsel said the transaction of that customer number 5 was – Progress Savings and Loans and its transaction was a principal of GH¢12 million, the witness agreed.
When it was put to him if he would find that transaction of GHc12m on exhibit ‘AC’ of Progress Saving and Loans also on exhibt AD2, the witness agreed.
Asked to tell the court the narration on it, he said “I believe it is investment placement.”
He added that, “the investment is not written in full but I believed it is placement and my lady Beige Group is not a deposit taking institution and so there is no reason why Progress Savings and Loans will place a fixed deposit with the Beige Group
Cheque payments
The Witness was also confronted with series of exhibits that confirmed that payments were made by Beige Bank to Tobinco Pharmaceutical and Ernest and Barbs Real Estate Developers through Cheques.
The witness confirmed to the court a transaction dated February 6, 2018 in the sum of GH¢507,375.00, paid to Ernest and Barbs by cheque numbered 00096.
He also confirmed to the court a transaction dated March 7, 2018 at page 26 of Exhibit AD2, that there were five transactions with the same date and that it was in the sum of GH¢507,375.00 and that it was paid by a cheque numbered 000978
But when it was put to him that, that payment was made to Ernest and Barbs, the Witness said “ I do not know that for a fact.”
“My lady it is photocopy of a cheque of in favour of Ernest and Barbs Real Estate Developers in an amount of GH¢507,375 and it is dated 5th March, 2018,” the Witness’s response when asked to identify another document.
He admitted that, the cheque number on the document corresponds exactly with the cheque number on Exhibit AD2.
The Witness also identified Cheque numbered 000996 with transaction dated April 3, 2018 in the sum of GH¢83,808.04, paid to Ernest and Barbs.
“My lady it is a photocopy of a cheque in favour of Ernest and Barbs in an amount of GH¢83,808.04.
“It is dated 3rd April, 2018 and it is signed by the accused person like in the case of Cheque number 000978,” he noted.
A Cheque numbered 001000 with transaction dates April 6, 2018 with the sum of GH¢507,375.00, was also identified by the witness which counsel said was also a payment made to Ernest and Barbs.
But the witness said “I do not know that for a fact.”
“It is a photocopy of a cheque dated 5th April, 2018 in favour of Ernest and Barbs Real Estate Developers in an amount of GH¢507,375.00 signed by the accused person. The cheque number is 001000,” the witness explained.
Again cheques numbered 00968, 00012, 00015 on transaction dated May 3, May 9 and July 6, 2018 were also identified by the witness and same tendered in evidence without objection.
More Cheques
Again a list of cheques, numbered 117, 118, 132 and 133 were shown to the witness for which he identified them.
Counsel said in respect of cheques numbers 117 and 118, at page 36 of Exhibit AD2, he would find two payments in the sum of GH¢35,000 each, the witness agreed.
Mr Sory again said, those two payments were made by cheques numbers 117 and 118 and the witness agreed.
In respect of cheque numbers 132 and 133, at page 38 of his Exhibit AD2, counsel said there were two payments in the sum of GH¢70,000, the witness answered in the affirmative, adding that it was in the sum “GH¢70,000 each.”
Counsel said Exhibit AD2 records that those payments were made by virtue of the cheque payments of cheque numbers 132 and 133, the witness agreed.
When it was put to him that those payments were made to customers number 4 on his Exhibit AC, Anim Kwame and James Kwadwo Owusu, the Witness disagreed.
“Exhibit AC shows a joint account in the name of Anim Kwame and James Kwadwo Owusu whiles cheques 132, 133, 117 and 118 were made in favour of one Kwame Owusu Anim. I think they are two separate transactions,” the witness stated.
Asked to tell the court whose names were the two other cheques made, the witness said “Cheque 133 and 118 are in the name of James Kwadwo Owusu.”
But he, however, agreed with counsel that those cheques can all be found in Exhibit AD2.
Directed to Exhibit AD2 at page 32, counsel said there was a transaction dated May 3, 2018 in the sum of GH¢538,520.55.
Counsel again said the narration of that transaction stated that the amount there was transferred in favour of Progress Savings and loans, the Witness response was positive.
Tobinco’s letter of confirmation
Mr Sory again said for Exhibit AD3, there was a letter from Tobinco to the Receiver, which was attached a document confirming that Tobinco had made a fixed deposit with the Beige Bank.
But the witness while acknowledging the said letter, however disagreed it was a fixed deposit investment.
“The document attached to the 10th August, 2018 from Tobinco to the Receiver is an investment certificate issued by the Beige Group creating the impression that Tobinco invested GH¢20 million with the Beige Group which was not the case. That 20 million was brought by Tobinco to the Beige Bank to be invested with the Beige Bank as fixed deposit.
“By the instruction of the accused person, that 20 million was siphoned to the Beige Group and this certificate that just has the embossment “Beige” with no relation to the Beige Bank was issued to Tobinco misleading Tobinco into thinking that it is a legitimate Beige Bank certificate.”
While ending his cross-examination, counsel said “I am putting it to you that, your testimony this morning which confirmed clearly that Tobinco and Ernest and Barbs all received payments directly from the Beige Group’s account all of which payments represents interests on their investments confirms that, Tobinco and Ernest and Barbs always knew that they were dealing with the Beige Group.”
But the witness in his response disagreed saying “it can never be true. As I stated earlier, all the transactions involving all the affected customers are 23 in number and were done without their knowledge and express instructions.”
The High Court in Accra presided over by Justice Afia Serwah Asare-Botwe, a Justice of the Court of Appeal, sitting as an additional High Court judge has adjourned the case to April 17 for Prosecution to call its 2nd Witness.
Source: starrfm.com.gh