Seven Acquitted in GPA Fraud Trial as Court Finds Prosecution Case Built on Suspicion

Seven of nine accused persons standing trial over an alleged D2,591,000 fraud involving the Gambia Ports Authority (GPA) have been acquitted and discharged by Justice S.K. Jobarteh, after the High Court ruled that the prosecution failed to establish a prima facie case against them. The court, however, ordered the first and second accused persons to enter their defence.

The accused persons, including Vista Bank tellers, a branch manager, and a branch coordinator, were charged alongside others over allegations of conspiracy, document falsification, and theft relating to unauthorized withdrawals from GPA’s dalasis current account at Vista Bank between 22 April and 5 November 2022.

Delivering her ruling on a no-case submission in State v. Jackile Kanteh & 8 Others, Justice Jobarteh held that the prosecution’s evidence against the third to ninth accused persons amounted to no more than indications of internal administrative lapses within Vista Bank, which fell far short of the legal threshold required to sustain criminal charges.

The nine accused persons were arraigned on six counts, including conspiracy to commit a felony under section 368 of the Criminal Code, making documents without authority under section 332, making false documents under section 320, and theft under section 245.

Prosecutors alleged that the accused persons, together with one Buba Jobe (still at large), conspired to defraud GPA through the issuance and processing of unauthorised cheque books, resulting in withdrawals totalling D2,591,000.

The state called 14 witnesses and tendered 21 exhibits in support of its case. The prosecution maintained that the first accused, a former GPA Cash Office Manager, unlawfully signed a cheque requisition form, while the second accused filled and processed the form, with Vista Bank staff allegedly facilitating the transactions.

Justice Jobarteh, however, found that the prosecution failed to link the third to ninth accused persons to any criminal intent or participation in a coordinated fraudulent scheme.

On the charge of conspiracy, the court held that the evidence showed only that the accused persons were performing their official duties at Vista Bank, with no proof of communication, agreement, shared proceeds, or any “meeting of minds” necessary to establish conspiracy.

The judge further noted that no witness testified that any of the accused persons knew the cheque books were fraudulently obtained or that the instruments processed were forged.

“Failure to detect irregularities does not, without evidence of criminal intent or agreement, amount to conspiracy. The essential ingredient of a meeting of minds is completely absent,” Justice Jobarteh stated.

On the charge of making documents without authority, the court found no evidence that any of the third to ninth accused persons fabricated documents, altered signatures, or knowingly processed forged instruments.

Justice Jobarteh emphasized that routine processing of banking transactions, in the absence of knowledge of fraud, could not amount to criminal conduct.

The court also placed weight on evidence that some accused persons had attempted to verify transactions through official channels before approval, describing such conduct as consistent with compliance with banking procedures rather than participation in fraud.

The judge further criticised the prosecution for failing to produce key email correspondence relating to transaction verification, describing the omission as a significant evidential gap that weakened the State’s case.

On the theft charge, the court held that there was no evidence linking any of the third to ninth accused persons to the alleged stolen funds. No financial records, bank statements, or witness testimony showed that they received, benefited from, or controlled any portion of the withdrawn money.

Relying on sections 238 of the Criminal Procedure Code and 215 of the Criminal Procedure Act, the court discharged and acquitted the third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, eighth, and ninth accused persons on all counts.

Justice Jobarteh concluded that the prosecution’s case against them was based largely on suspicion rather than credible evidence capable of sustaining a conviction.

In contrast, the court found that a prima facie case had been established against the first and second accused persons.

The court held that the first accused, a former Cash Office Manager, was directly involved in the cheque requisition process, including signing documentation without proper authorisation and engaging in communications linked to the transaction chain.

For the second accused, the court noted evidence suggesting she completed the requisition form and received the cheque books, creating sufficient circumstantial evidence to require her to respond in her defence.

Justice Jobarteh declined to go into further detail on the evidence against the two accused persons, stating that doing so could prejudice the outcome of the ongoing trial.

The matter has been adjourned for the first and second accused persons to enter their respective defences in accordance with the Criminal Procedure Code.