Oluwasheun v Federal Republic of Nigeria (CA/J/268C/2014) [2016] NGCA 30 (19 May 2016)

JUDGMENT
(DELIVERED BY JUMMAI HANNATU SANKEY, J.C.A.)
This is an Appeal against the Judgment of the Gombe State High Court of Justice in Charge No. GM/4C/2009, delivered on the 10th August, 2012, wherein the lower Court entered Judgment in favour of the Respondent herein in a charge against the Appellant for obtaining money by false pretences.

The brief facts of the case are this: The Appellant set up an office in Gombe as an Outlet Manager of GI Network International Limited, a company engaged in the business of raising money for property development. This was with the knowledge and consent of the company after having registered as a member and been trained for the responsibilities of a manager. The objectives and operational policy of the company business were spelt out in its flyers, (Exhibits 1 and 2) as follows: a pragmatic means to help most Nigerians achieve their dreams of becoming home owners through the Multi Level Marketing (MLM) method of savings by making enough savings to acquire non-controversial but affordable homes. They stated that their products therefore, as real estate agents, were selling of land, houses and home care products to Nigerians through the MLM system. The operation of this policy referred to as ‘Multi-Level Marketing’, was as follows: members were registered with a modest sum of N3, 500.00 and thereafter, receive monthly benefits in kind and in cash whenever they introduce a new member to the program. The program consisted of seven stages. The benefits in kind were household products such as creams, soaps, perfumes, etc; while the cash rewards, referred to as “bonus”, was from N500.00 for those at the level of Stage 1, N1000.00 for those on Stage 2, and so on until they reach Stage 7. A new member would start from Stage 1 Level 1, and depending on his performance, would move up the ladder until he reached Stage 7. A member who attains Stage 7 would then be rewarded with the award of a house or the sum of $2000 as an incentive for his performance. Thereafter, he could commence the cycle again from Stage 1. On the face of the flyers therefore, the promise for the members is: “An easy strategy for making N3, 937, 000 to build your own house”. 

The Appellant, after registering as a member of in the program and been trained as an Outlet manager, moved to Gombe from Lagos in February, 2008. A few months thereafter, he began operating the business by marketing and registering members into the program. In line with the training he received as an Outlet Manager which allowed Managers to be independent of the parent company at the headquarters in Lagos, and in addition to the initial training materials he received from the company such as flyers and ID cards, the Appellant printed more flyers, receipts, and the like, to facilitate the smooth and effective running of the office. In addition however, out of his own initiative, he developed a further marketing strategy which he coined “long term and short term investments”. The “long-term investment” was essentially in tandem with the operational policy of the parent company whereby persons register as members and move through the seven stages until they reach the objective of acquiring a house or the sum of $2000. The “short term investment” however consisted of a registered member paying a lump sum of money into the personal account of the Appellant as an investment, and after a period of six weeks, he would receive 21% on the sum paid as a return on his investment, plus a refund of his principal sum. Apparently, this was not in line with the operational policy of the parent company, and the President and Operational Director at the parent company in Lagos were not aware of the activities of the Appellant in this regard.

Meanwhile, the Appellant continued to promote and market the short-term investment program to more and more persons who deposited large sums of money into his account with a view to reaping from their investments after a period of six weeks, as promised. He even persuaded the Commissioner of Education, Gombe State, of the viability and efficacy of this program and the benefit to Nigerians, such that he was granted free access to schools under the Ministry to market the program to teachers and other staff. The program achieved quite a measure of success such that between the months of August and September, 2008, he had 39 registered members on the program who had invested the total sum of N2, 395, 700.00 (Exhibits 14A, 14B and 14C). 

However, the investments were yet to mature when he was arrested by the operatives of the EFCC in Gombe. The EFCC, acting on intelligence reports received, arrested the Appellant, sealed up his office and froze his bank account. They accused him of obtaining money under false pretences. The Appellant was subsequently charged on six counts, which charge was later amended and increased to eight counts as contained in the Amended Charge dated 27th May, 2010. Each of counts one to six in the Amended charge accused the Appellant of obtaining money by false pretences from named persons under Section 1(1) (a) and punishable under Section 1(3) of the Advance Fee Fraud and other Fraud Related Offences Act, 2006; while by Counts 7 and 8, he was charged with Forgery and being in possession of a forged document punishable under Sections 364 and 368 of the Penal Code Law (pages 45-48 of the printed Record).

The Appellant was duly arraigned before the High Court of Justice, Gombe State where he pleaded not guilty to all counts of charge. To prove their case, the prosecution called nine witnesses, while four witnesses, (the Appellant inclusive), testified for the defence. The President and the Operational Director of the parent company, G.I. International Network Limited, testified as PW1 and PW2, while persons who paid monies to the Appellant for registration as members of the company in Gombe and also as investors into the investment program of the Appellant testified as PWs 3, 4, 5 and 6. PW7 and PW8 were EFCC operatives who arrested the Appellant and conducted investigations into the allegations of obtaining money by false pretences and forgery. 

At the close of trial and in the course of final oral addresses by Counsel, the Prosecuting Counsel withdrew counts 7 and 8 of the Amended Charge, whereupon the learned trial Judge discharged and acquitted the accused person on the said counts of charge. In addition, the Prosecution having not led any evidence in respect of counts 2 and 4 of the Amended Charge, the Appellant was discharged and acquitted on both counts. The Judgment of the lower Court was delivered on 10th August, 2012, wherein the Appellant was convicted on counts 1, 3, 5 and 6, and sentenced to a period of seven years imprisonment without an option of fine. The lower Court also ordered that the properties confiscated in the office of the Appellant be forfeited to the Federal Government of Nigeria.

Dissatisfied with the Judgment of the lower Court, the Appellant promptly filed a Notice and Grounds of Appeal on the 23rd October, 2012 wherein he complained on five grounds. Thereafter, with the leave of this Court sought and obtained, he filed six additional Grounds of Appeal, which were incorporated into an Amended Notice of Appeal filed on 29th October, 2015, as Grounds 6 to 11.

In line with the rules and practice of this Court, the Appellant filed his Brief of argument on 29-10-15, and the Respondent responded thereto with his Brief of argument filed on 18-02-16, but deemed duly filed on 22-02-16. At the hearing of the Appeal on 22-02-16, M.A. Galaya Esq, learned Counsel for the Appellant, adopted the Appellant’s Brief of argument as the argument of Appellant in the Appeal. He urged the Court to allow the Appeal and set aside the Judgment of the lower Court. In like vein, Onjegu Obe Esq, learned Counsel for the Respondent, adopted the Respondent’s Brief of argument as the submissions of the Respondent in the Appeal. He urged the Court to dismiss the Appeal and affirm the Judgment of the trial Court.

In the respective Briefs of argument, whereas the Appellant distilled two issues for the determination of the Appeal, the Respondent framed three issues. After a careful perusal of both sets of issues, I am of the view that the issues as distilled by the Appellant will serve to finally resolve all the issues thrown up by the eleven grounds of appeal. They are therefore adopted for consideration by this Court in the resolution of the Appeal.  They as set out hereunder: 

1.    Whether the learned trial Judge is justified in convicting the Appellant on allegations of false pretences not covered by the charge before the lower Court, and upon the unreliable and discredited evidence of PW1 and PW2 who have their own interest to protect? (Grounds 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 11 of the Amended Notice of Appeal)
2.    Whether it was not wrong of the learned trial Judge to have convicted the Appellant and confiscated some of his properties on the allegation of representation to pay interest after six weeks of investment, which representation relates to a future event or occurrence and discloses no criminal offence? (Grounds 5 and 10 of the Amended Notice of Appeal)

Issue one:
Whether the learned trial Judge is justified in convicting the Appellant on allegations of false pretences not covered by the charge before the lower Court, and upon the unreliable and discredited evidence of PW1 and PW2 who have their own interest to protect?

Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that the allegations contained in Counts 1, 3, 5 and 6 upon which the Appellant was convicted are similar and all brought under Sections 1(1)(a) and 1(3) Advance Fee Fraud and Other Related Offences Act, 2006, and that the allegations of false pretences are common to all the counts. Thus, the same ingredients are required to be proved by the Prosecution beyond reasonable doubt for all the counts of charge. He contends that in proving the first ingredient of the offence, the prosecution put forward the evidence of PW1 and PW2 at the trial where both witnesses bluntly denied the involvement or engagement of their Company in the real estate business. He however argued that the denial contradicts the contents of the Company’s flyers and the Memorandum of Association, (Exhibits 2 and 17 respectively). He argues that therein, it is stated that Guarantee Investment Network International Limited, of which PW1 and PW2 are the Operation Director and President respectively, engages in real estate business. He contends that both witnesses chose to deny this obvious fact to avoid criminal liability as they were the principals on whose behalf the Appellant acted and could have also been charged under Section 10 of the Advance Fee Fraud and other Fraud Related Offences Act, 2006. However, after a thorough scrutiny of both Exhibits 2 and 17, and placing same side by side with the testimonies of PW1 and PW2, the learned trial Judge found for a fact that the assertion that the company is engaged in real estate business is true.

Learned Counsel submits that the second aspect of the charge in respect of false pretence deals with the gaining of interest and owning a house after investing in the company. He contends that it was also pronounced upon by the learned trial Judge at page 209 of the Record. Despite this finding, he contends that the lower Court surprisingly proceeded at page 212 of the Record to consider and rely on the evidence of ‘short term investment’ and ‘long term investment’ given by PWs 3, 4, 5 and 6, as if there was any such allegation in the Charge; that it applied the same holding in respect of counts 1, 3, 5 and 6 of the Charge. The Appellant was consequently convicted on the four counts and sentenced to seven years imprisonment without an option of fine. 

Counsel submits that none of the counts in the Charge raised any allegation of false pretence on ‘short term investment’ or long term investment’, and those pieces of evidence by PWs 3, 4, 5 and 6 regarding this issue which the lower Court relied upon are at variance with the allegation of false pretence laid out in the Charge before the lower Court. He relies on Adeyemi V Commissioner of Police (1961) WNLR 137 at 139. He therefore contends that the allegations of false pretence in each of counts 1, 3, 5 and 6 were not proved beyond reasonable doubt by the Prosecution since the evidence adduced is at variance with the allegations laid out in the Charge.

Counsel further submits that the evidence of PWs 3, 4, 5 and 6 relied upon by lower Court in convicting the Appellant relates to an allegation of false pretence regarding the engagement of G.I. Company in ‘short term’ and ‘long term’ investment, and the collection of interest six weeks from the date of the investment. He argues that this is different from the allegation of engagement in real estate business contained in the Charge. Counsel also argues that the learned trial Judge did not exercise the necessary caution in accepting and relying on the evidence of PW1 and PW2 regarding the engagement of their Company (G.I.) in the ‘short term investment’ and ‘long term investment’, as well as the issue of six weeks interest. He contends that the evidence of the Appellant and other pieces of evidence at the disposal of the lower Court leads to the irresistible conclusion that both PW1 and PW2 engaged in a desperate effort to twist the facts, fabricate falsehood and deny the obvious, with a view to denying their involvement in any of the allegations levelled against the Appellant.

Counsel also submits that both PW1 and PW2 are the alter egos of Guarantee Investment, and that it was on their behalf that the Appellant acted as an Outlet Manager. He thus contends that a relationship of principal and agent existed between the Appellant on the one hand and PW1 and PW2 on the other.

Also, both PW1 and PW2 admitted in their evidence that the Appellant remitted the sum of N1, 000,000.00 (One Million Naira) into the company account from the money alleged to have been collected under false pretences in the charge. Counsel submits that it was also part of the evidence before the lower Court that the Appellant was prompted and instigated by the Directors of the company (PW1 and PW2) to source for funds to revive the company from its financial crisis after the company was defrauded. He argued that it was therefore not surprising that both PW1 and PW2 kept mute even after seeing Exhibits 5 and 6 designed by Appellant on his own initiative to achieve the company’s target. Without conceding that the short term investment and long term investment programs were not part of the programs of the company, Counsel submits that the failure or neglect of the company directors to report the Appellant to the Police as they allegedly threatened to, or to take decisive action to stop the Appellant from using un-approved programmes, amounted to a tacit approval and ratification of the actions of Appellant.
Counsel further submits that the evidence of DW2 buttressed the conclusion that PW1 and PW2 deliberately denied the Appellant in order to avoid criminal liability. He claims that DW2 testified that he spoke with PW1 who told him that the reason he disowned the actions of the Appellant was because of the involvement of the EFCC (pages 121 and 190 of the Record). He contends that this crucial piece of evidence was ignored by the learned trial Judge who chose instead to rely on the unreliable, uncorroborated and discredited evidence of PW1 and PW2 who, Counsel claimed, were accomplices and persons who have their own interest to protect. He further submits that both PW1 and PW2 gave evidence on oath which contradicts the contents of Exhibits 2 and 17. Also that being accomplices, their testimonies are suspect and unreliable and require corroboration. Counsel therefore submits that the conclusion of the learned trial Judge at page 217 lines 1 -9 of the Record is not justified in law and not supported by the evidence before the Court. He relies on Amadi V State (1993) 8 NWLR (Pt. 314) 644 at 661, GH; Ononuju V State (2014) 8 NWLR (Pt. 1409) 345 at 387, FG; Ozaki V State (1990) 1 NWLR (Pt. 124) 92 at 117, G; Ezemba V. Ibeneme (2000) 10 NWLR (Pt. 674) 61 at 74, AC; Ahmed V Nigerian Army (2011) 1 NWLR (Pt. 1227) 89, FG; Gabriel V State (2010) 6 NWLR (Pt. 1190) 280 at 327, F-H; Iko V State (2001) 14 NWLR (Pt. 732) 221 at 241, D-E; & Ahmed V Nigerian Army (Supra) at 113, H.

Furthermore, Counsel submits that the learned trial Judge did not only fail to avert his mind to all the areas of doubt in the Prosecution’s case, but also shifted the burden of proving his innocence to the Appellant, even when the Prosecution had not established all the ingredients of the offences alleged against him. He submits that it is trite law that any doubt in the Prosecution`s case ought to be resolved in favour of the accused person, and relies on Orji V The State (2008) 4 SCNJ 85; & Adekoya V The State (2012) 3 SC (Pt. 111) 36.

In response to the submissions of the Appellant on this issue, learned Counsel for the Respondent submits that the issue rests on the requirement that, in criminal proceedings, the burden of proof lies on the Prosecution which it must discharge beyond reasonable doubt.  For this, he relies on Alo V State (2015) All FWLR (Pt. 775) 262 at 289 para F-G. He submits that counts 1, 3, 5 and 6 out of the six counts of charge preferred against the Appellant wherein he was convicted and sentenced to a term of seven (7) years imprisonment without an option of fine, all hinged on the offence of obtaining property in Nigeria or in any other country or an inducement to that effect by way of false pretence and with intent to defraud the person delivering such property. He relies on Section 1 of the Advance Fee Fraud and other Fraud Related Offences Act, 2006. He submits that from the foregoing, the elements needed for the Prosecution to secure a conviction on a charge based on that offence are:
I.    There was false pretence on the part of the accused.
II.    The false pretence operated in the mind of the victim who delivers a property to the accused or any other person.
III.    The accused knew of his false pretence and intends by it, to defraud the victim.

He relies on Alake V The State (1991) 7 NWLR (Pt. 205) 567 at 591.
Counsel submits that the Prosecution adduced evidence through nine witnesses and tendered Exhibits 1-17. Exhibits 1 and 2 are flyers meant to inform members of the public of the business carried out by the company at the material time and how their network marketing system works, for the benefit of those interested in registering with the Company. They do not in any way state or explain any investment programme referred to as “long-term and short-term investment”, as was falsely represented by the Appellant in Exhibit 5. He contends that Exhibit 5 was a separate flyer designed by the Appellant for his programme where he misled his victims into believing that they could pay certain amounts of money as investment in Real Estate and Property Development. Instead, the intendment of Exhibits 1 and 2 (the Company’s flyers) was to show members of the public, particularly those that registered with the Company, easy ways to make money and develop their personal property through multi-level marketing. Counsel submits that despite the fact that Exhibit 17, the Company’s Memorandum & Articles of Association, contains an object clause for engagement in real estate, the Company was shown not to have tapped into that object. He argues that where the Company has not engaged itself in the Object Clause relating to investment in real estate, it is not within the power of the Appellant, an Outlet Manager, to unilaterally venture into such an investment. It was a decision meant to be taken only by the management of the Company.

Counsel further submits that the Appellant falsely represented and held himself out as the General Manager of G.I. Network International Limited at Gombe by reason of which his victims paid various amounts of money for a programme he designed and termed ‘long term and short term investment’. For the purpose of this conception, he printed Exhibit 5 (his own flyer) and charged a registration fee of N3, 700.00 (Three Thousand Seven Hundred Naira) only as against the registration fee of N3, 500.00 (Three Thousand Five Hundred Naira) charged by the company. In furtherance of this programme designed by him, he represented to his victims to deposit certain amounts of money upon which they would be paid interest after six months. This was not a part of the company’s object. 

Counsel also submits that the Appellant further designed and printed Exhibit 6 being a ‘Guarantee Investment Network International Members’ Confidential Form’. By this Form, he collected lump sums of money for his designed ‘long term and short term investment’ programme outside the company’s business of buying and selling of household products. It is on record by Exhibit 7, a Guaranty Trust Bank deposit slip with the account titled “Abatan Oluwaseun”, that PW4, Ibrahim Mohammed Arabi, paid in the sum of N600, 000.00 (Six Hundred Thousand Naira) for the interest yielding programme of the Appellant. Counsel submits that what the law requires to secure a conviction in this regard is to prove that the Appellant acted as he did in order to obtain property under false pretences. Counsel submits that the trial Court found all these germane in arriving at its decision. He therefore prays that that its findings should not be disturbed by this Court. He again relies on Alo V State (supra) at 293 paras A-B.

Furthermore, Counsel submits that the Appellant knew full well his design to enrich himself and that was why he proceeded to send the sum of N1, 000, 000.00 (One Million Naira) out of huge amount of money collected by him, to lure and win the favour of the management of the Company. He contends that the remittance made by the Appellant is a mischievous attempt made to hide under an existing company to defraud his victims even more.

Counsel submits that with the avalanche of evidence before the lower Court, the trinity elements of the offence of obtaining by false pretences were proved by the Prosecution beyond reasonable doubt to sustain the conviction. If the Appellant admitted the facts of running a short term and long term investment programme, which was never contemplated by the company for which he purportedly worked, and he obtained money for that purpose, and no evidence was adduced by the Appellant at the trial to prove the existence of such investment, then it is false and anything obtained in connection with this design is fraudulent and punishable, as was rightly held by the trial Judge. Counsel therefore urged the Court to disregard the submissions of the Appellant in this regard.

Findings:
The Charge against the Appellant in counts 1, 3, 5 and 6 which is obtaining money by false pretences, alleges (in paraphrase) that, with an intent to defraud, the Appellant obtained various sums of money from the persons named in the counts of Charge, under false pretences, to wit: that the Appellant is engaged in the business of real estate, and that the money obtained would be invested to enable the investor gain interest thereon and also to own a house. The evidence adduced by the Prosecution disclosed that the Appellant made the representation to the PW3, PW4, PW5 and PW6, among other persons, that the Company, Guaranty Investment Network International Limited (GI), was engaged in the business of short term and long term investments; that he held himself out as the “General Manager” of Outlet 04331 Gombe of ‘GI’ Company authorised to engage in the business of investment and real estate; that for the short term investment, the investors would receive a return thereon after a period of six weeks. In addition, the Prosecution alleged that, induced by this representation, the PW3, PW4, PW5 and PW6, as well as other members registered on the program, paid various sums of money into the personal account of the Appellant as a short term investment. That since the Appellant was not authorised by the company to engage in any such investment or real estate business, he had consequently obtained the said monies under false pretences. Now, the question is: from the totality of the evidence adduced before the trial Court, can the Appellant be said to have inveigled and beguiled the PW3, PW4, PW5 and PW6 into parting with their monies under false pretences?

In the old English case of R. V John James Sullivan 30 Cr. App. R. 132 at 134, which was quoted with approval by Obaseki, JSC in Ijuaka V Commissioner of Police (1976) LPELR (1466) 1 at 11, Humphreys, J., dealing with what had to be proved in order to establish intent to defraud, which is an essential element necessary to secure conviction on a charge of obtaining by false pretences, stated as follows:

“In order that a person may be convicted of that offence it has been said hundreds of times that it is necessary for the prosecution to prove to the satisfaction of the jury (court) that there was some mis-statement as to an existing fact made by the accused person; that it was false and false to his knowledge; that it acted on the mind of the person who parted with the money; that the proceeding on the part of the accused was fraudulent. That is the only meaning to apply to the words, with intent to defraud.”
Thus, can it be said that the Prosecution proved by credible evidence that the Appellant induced the persons named in counts 1, 3, 5 and 6 of the Charge to part with their monies upon a representation which he knew was false, which is that, he was authorised to invest their monies in the short term and make returns on that investment within six weeks? Secondly, having received the monies from the investors, did he use the money for the purpose represented, i.e. investment in real estate, and ultimately deliver on the representation made to them by paying them the promised return of 21% on their investments? 

The term “false pretences” denotes the offence of knowingly obtaining someone’s property by misrepresenting a fact with the intent to defraud that person. In Black’s Law Dictionary, Tenth Edition it is also termed: 
“The crime of knowingly obtaining title to another person`s property by misrepresenting a fact with the intent to defraud.” 

 The offence has also been fittingly defined in Section 20 of the Advance Fee Fraud and Fraud Related Offences Act, 2006, in this way:  

“20. In this Act – 
“false pretence” means a representation, whether deliberate or reckless, made by word, in writing or by conduct, of a matter of fact or law, either past or present which representation is false in fact or law, and which the person making it knows to be false or does not believe to be true;”
In the instant case, it is worth noting from the onset that, even though the Appellant was charged on eight counts for Advance Fee Fraud and Forgery, he was only found guilty on four counts of obtaining by false pretences, exonerated on the two other counts of obtaining by false pretences, while he was discharged on the two counts alleging forgery, upon the withdrawal of the latter counts of Charge by the prosecution. The complaints of the Appellant in this Appeal are therefore restricted to his conviction and sentence on the four counts of Charge, namely: counts 1, 3, 5 and 6. These counts are accordingly set out hereunder: 

“COUNT ONE
That you ABATAN OLUWASEUN sometimes 2008 in Gombe, in the Judicial Division of the High Cocurt of Gombe State with intent to defraud, obtained the sum of  N600, 000 (Six Hundred Thousand Naira) from one ARABI IBRAHIM MOHAMMED under false pretence that GUARANTY INVESTMENT NETWORK INTERNATIONAL LIMITED which you are the Distributor and the Manager of Outlet 04331, Gombe State is engaged in the business of Real Estate and Property Development, Sales of Land and Houses and to invest the said sum N600, 000 (Six Hundred Thousand Naira) to enable him gain interest and own a house which he knew to be false and thereby committed an offence contrary to section 1(1) (a) of the Advance Fee Fraud and other Fraud Related Offences Act 2006 and punishable under section 1(3) of the same Act.

COUNT THREE
That you ABATAN OLUWASEUN sometimes 2008 in Gombe, in the Judicial Division of the High Court of Gombe State with intent to defraud, obtained the sum of  N100, 000 (One Hundred Thousand Naira) from one MRS. JOSEPHINE J. SAMUEL under false pretence that GUARANTY INVESTMENT NETWORK INTERNATIONAL LIMITED which you were the Distributor and the Manager of Outlet 04331, Gombe State is engaged in the business of Real Estate and Property Development, Sales of Land and Houses and to invest the said sum N100, 000 (One Hundred Thousand Naira) to enable her gain interest and own a house which you knew to be false and thereby committed an offence contrary to section 1(1) (a) of the Advance Fee Fraud and other Fraud Related Offences Act 2006 and punishable under section 1(3) of the same Act.

COUNT FIVE
That you ABATAN OLUWASEUN sometimes 2008 in Gombe, in the Judicial Division of the High Court of Gombe State did with intent to defraud, obtained the sum of  N250, 000 (Two Hundred and Fifty Thousand Naira) from one SANI YAKUBU GOMBE under false pretence that GUARANTY INVESTMENT NETWORK INTERNATIONAL LIMITED which you are the Distributor and the Manager of Outlet 04331, Gombe State is engaged in the business of Real Estate and Property Development, Sales of Land and Houses and to invest the said sum N250, 000 (Two Hundred and Fifty Thousand Naira) to enable him gain interest and a house which you knew to be false and thereby committed an offence contrary to section 1(1) (a) of the Advance Fee Fraud and other Fraud Related Offences Act 2006 and punishable under section 1(3) of the same Act.

COUNT SIX
That you ABATAN OLUWASEUN sometime 2008 in Gombe, in the Judicial Division of the High Court of Gombe State did with intent to defraud, obtained the sum of  N300, 000 (Three Hundred Thousand Naira) from one USMAN LUKA under false pretence that GUARANTY INVESTMENT NETWORK INTERNATIONAL LIMITED which you are the Distributor and the Manager of Outlet 04331, Gombe State is engaged in the business of Real Estate and Property Development, Sales of Land and Houses and to invest the said sum N300, 000 (Three Hundred Thousand Naira) to enable him gain interest and house which you knew to be false and thereby committed an offence contrary to section 1(1) (a) of the Advance Fee Fraud and other Fraud Related Offences Act 2006 and punishable under section 1(3) of the same Act.

Thus, from these counts of Charge wherein the Appellant was convicted for obtaining money by false pretences, the necessary elements to be established by the prosecution to sustain the Charge are as follows:
a)    That there was a pretence;
b)    That the pretence emanated from the accused person;
c)    That the pretence was false;
d)    That the accused person knew of the falsity of the pretence, i.e. he did not believe its truth;
e)    That there was an intention to defraud;
f)    That the property or thing is capable of being stolen;
g)    That the accused person induced the owner to transfer his whole interest in the property.

See Aguba V FRN (2014) LPELR-23211(CA) 1 at 40-41; Odiawa V FRN (2008) ALL FWLR (Pt. 439) 436; & Onwudiwe V FRN (2006) ALL FWLR (Pt. 319) 774 at 812-813, per Niki Tobi, JSC. Therefore, question to be answered is, whether there was sufficient evidence adduced before the trial Court to justify the conviction of the Appellant as charged on these counts?

From the evidence adduced before the lower Court, the Parent Company - GI Network International Limited, engaged in the business of multi-level mark