Courtroom Dispute Erupts Over Digital Evidence in Trial of Austrian Investors

Proceedings at the Banjul Magistrates’ Court turned contentious last week as lawyers clashed over digital evidence in the trial of two Austrian nationals accused of defying a court order tied to a cryptocurrency dispute.

The defendants, Manuel Di Stofleth Mitterer and Angelika Mitterer, are charged under Section 109 of the Criminal Offences Act with disobeying a lawful order of the court. Prosecutors say the couple refused to grant police access to a laptop and a cryptocurrency wallet believed to be linked to the “Bitcoin Tower,” a real estate project promoted by Kasumai Real Estate.

The hearing on Thursday quickly became a battleground over both corporate responsibility and the technical nature of the digital evidence at the center of the case.

During cross-examination, Ida Drammeh, lead counsel for the defense, sought to distance Angelika Mitterer from the company, noting that she was not listed as a shareholder.

“Is it correct that the second defendant is not a shareholder in the company in which the first defendant owns 30 percent?” Ms. Drammeh asked.

The prosecution’s second witness, Lamin Saidykhan, acknowledged that Angelika Mitterer was not a shareholder but alleged that she played a role in handling funds linked to the project.

“She received funds on behalf of the first defendant and is therefore a suspect,” Mr. Saidykhan testified. He further claimed that she had purchased a device—described in court as a “box,” believed to be a hardware wallet used in cryptocurrency transactions—to facilitate digital transfers.

The questioning soon shifted to the technical mechanics of cryptocurrency access. Ms. Drammeh attempted to establish that digital assets are not stored directly on a computer but are instead accessed online through an internet browser.

“I want to put it to you that cryptocurrency accounts are accessed by a browser,” she said.

Mr. Saidykhan responded that a browser had been found on the laptop and that the first defendant had printed a document from it.

As the exchange continued, debate erupted over the precise wording of a definition of a browser cited during questioning. Commissioner A. Sanneh, representing the prosecution, interrupted to note that the defense was relying on a definition taken from Google.

The disagreement escalated when the witness said he had not heard the word “navigate” in the definition he had been asked to confirm. Principal Magistrate Krubally declined a defense request to amend the record.

“You are not here for one person; you have to hear everyone,” Commissioner Sanneh told the court.

“I will not change it,” Magistrate Krubally replied.

The courtroom dispute intensified again when the defense demanded that the devices referenced by the witness—the laptop and the so-called “crypto box”—be brought to court for inspection.

Commissioner Sanneh objected strongly, arguing that the items remained part of a broader criminal investigation, including a separate theft inquiry, and that granting the defense access could compromise the case.

“She wants to be smart with us,” Mr. Sanneh said of the defense counsel, adding that the defendants were “experts in computers.”

Ms. Drammeh countered by invoking Section 34 of the Gambian Constitution, which guarantees the right to a fair trial. She argued that the defense must be allowed to examine the physical evidence in order to question witnesses properly.

“It cannot be an answer for someone to say it’s not relevant,” she told the court.

The devices were eventually produced and admitted into evidence as Exhibit D1. But another dispute quickly followed over who should retain custody of them.

Ms. Drammeh argued that because the police had held the laptop for five months, it should remain with the court to ensure transparency. Prosecutors insisted the devices were still required for ongoing investigative work.

“Investigation has no timeline,” Commissioner Sanneh said, noting that officers in the Serious Crime Unit still needed access to the laptop for questioning additional witnesses.

Magistrate Krubally ultimately sided with the prosecution. Although the laptop and device were admitted into evidence, he ordered that they be returned to investigators, citing the prosecution’s application to retain them for further inquiry.

The case arises from a July 2025 investigation into Kasumai Real Estate’s “Bitcoin Tower” development. Police say they began investigating after receiving complaints from two individuals, Ebrima Tamba and Marcell, concerning a disputed cryptocurrency transaction connected to the project.

Investigators later seized a laptop and a specialized cryptocurrency hardware wallet from the defendants’ residence, believing the devices contained access to digital funds at the center of the dispute.

Prosecutors say the Banjul Magistrates’ Court issued an order on July 21, 2025, directing the defendants to provide passwords and grant access to the cryptocurrency accounts. According to the prosecution, the Mitterers have refused to comply.

The trial is scheduled to resume on April 1 for further cross-examination.