An Ikeja Special Offences Court on Tuesday refused to re-admit an ex-convict, Kolawole Erinle to bail in an alleged 1.4 million dollars internet fraud.
Justice Ramon Oshodi denied the defendant bail owing to the fact that he had a previous criminal record and that he might not surrender himself for trial if granted bail.
“It is remarkably clear that the bail documentations of the sureties were not agreed by my noble lord, Taiwo before she retired.
“I have now been urged by the defence counsel to re-admit the defendant to bail with the same sureties as the bail as now been documented.
“I must consider the probability that the defendant may not surrender himself again for further trial owing to the fact that he had a previous criminal record where he was jailed in the United States of America.
“Again, I was misled that the defendant was granted bail by my noble lord Taiwo before she retired.
“Bail is hereby denied and accelerated hearing is hereby ordered,” Oshodi said.
The judge adjourned the case until May 15 for the defendant to open defence.
Erinle is standing trial alongside his firm, Rinde-Remdex Nigeria Ltd on a three-count charge bordering on conspiracy, retention of proceeds of criminal conduct, and obtaining money under false pretence to the tune of 1.4 million dollars.
The defendant, however, pleaded not guilty to the charge.
The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, EFCC, counsel, Temitope Banjo, had on Monday called the fourth and the last prosecution witness, an investigator with the commission, Mr Alex Ogbole, who testified against the defendant
Ogbole told the court how the EFCC led the Nigerian-end of the investigation into the alleged crime and that investigation showed that the mother of the defendant was a beneficiary.
The witness said that EFCC received a petition from the United States, US Federal Bureau of Investigation, FBI, which indicated that the victim of the alleged fraud, Kansas City University of Medicine and Biosciences, KCUMB, had been a victim of Business Email Compromise, BEC.
The offence, the prosecution said, contravened the provisions of Section 8 of the Advanced Fee Fraud Related Offences, 2006
NAN
