Rescheduling the Initial Hearing of Binance Company's Executive to April 8
Remember, the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) has taken legal actions against Binance and its higher-ups, Tigran Gambaryan and Nadeem Anjarwalla, for five separate allegations including evading taxes, engaging in currency speculation, and laundering money amounting to $34,400,000.
Justice Emeka Nwite, presiding over the case at the Federal High Court in Maitama, Abuja, decided to push the executive of Binance Holdings Limited's court appearance to April 8, also postponing the decision regarding the delivery of the formal accusations to the company.
During the court session on Thursday, the defense attorney, Mark Mordi (SAN), contested the legal process against the second accused without the proper notification of the charges to the first accused.
Mordi highlighted that his client holds no position as an agent, director, or representative of the firm within the nation, thereby voiding service of the first accused's charges through him.
Mordi highlighted that his client holds no position as an agent, director, or representative of the firm within the nation, thereby voiding service of the first accused's charges through him.
He remarked, presenting his argument, “A joint charge requires the prosecution had to have notified the first accused of the charges. Without this done, I don’t see a pathway for the arraignment to proceed, my Lord.
"He’s neither a Director nor a secretary, nor does he have residency in Nigeria to act as an agent within jurisdiction. Lacking any physical presence, he cannot represent the agent here.
With no evidence of notification in the court’s records, the prosecution’s assumption of his receipt of the notification through my client stands invalid."
"He’s neither a Director nor a secretary, nor does he have residency in Nigeria to act as an agent within jurisdiction. Lacking any physical presence, he cannot represent the agent here.
With no evidence of notification in the court’s records, the prosecution’s assumption of his receipt of the notification through my client stands invalid."
Conversely, the EFCC's legal representative, Ekele Iheanacho, opposed this viewpoint, declaring that the second defendant indeed represented the company within the country and hence, rightfully received the charges on behalf of the organization.
Iheanacho clarified, "According to Section 123 of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act, notification must be made directly to an individual or to a corporation through a partner, a director, the secretary, the main agent in the region, or by leaving it at the business's main office in Nigeria, or to any individual in control of the business at the time of delivery.
Iheanacho clarified, "According to Section 123 of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act, notification must be made directly to an individual or to a corporation through a partner, a director, the secretary, the main agent in the region, or by leaving it at the business's main office in Nigeria, or to any individual in control of the business at the time of delivery.
Therefore, the law allows for the notification to be given to the main agent within the jurisdiction, which, in this situation, pertains to the second defendant."
He further explained, “The legislation does not mandate the impossible. A party without a physical presence in Nigeria but which has a local representative can legitimately receive notices through that representative.
He further explained, “The legislation does not mandate the impossible. A party without a physical presence in Nigeria but which has a local representative can legitimately receive notices through that representative.
He is the only physical representative we recognized, thus we notified him on behalf of the first defendant. Although he declined the receipt, our proof of evidence shows that we notified him.”
According to Iheanacho, "Section 124 of the ACJA targets individuals not corporations, hence the refused delivery to the first defendant stands as a legitimate notification.
According to Iheanacho, "Section 124 of the ACJA targets individuals not corporations, hence the refused delivery to the first defendant stands as a legitimate notification.
And moreover, the second defendant's lawyer cannot speak for the first defendant, therefore every statement from him should be considered irrelevant because they have no basis."
He argued that the second defendant's counsel had no right to dispute for the first defendant, hence he urged the court to recognize the plea for the first defendant and proceed with the case.
Justice Nwite took into account all the legal arguments before deciding to postpone the verdict until April 8.
He argued that the second defendant's counsel had no right to dispute for the first defendant, hence he urged the court to recognize the plea for the first defendant and proceed with the case.
Justice Nwite took into account all the legal arguments before deciding to postpone the verdict until April 8.
2 comments