Court Acquits Lagos Socialite, Akindele Ikumoluyi of Money Laundering

 The Federal High Court in Lagos State has acquitted a Lagos socialite, Akindele Ikumoluyi, of money laundering charges filed against him by the National Drug Law Enforcement Agency (NDLEA).

Justice Ibrahim Buba found him not guilty of the offence.

He discharged and acquitted the defendant of the six-count charge as well as agreed with the arguments of defence counsel, Wahab Shittu.

Ikumoluyi was initially arraigned for money laundering along with his late mother, Funke, on a-six count charge dated July 6, 2009.

They were accused of conspiracy to convert resources, collaboration, concealment and disguising, contrary to Sections 14 and 17 of the Money Laundering Act.

The prosecution later withdrew the charge against Funke who died in the course of the proceedings.

The prosecution initiated an amended charge on December 20, 2012, and later brought another amended charge of October 15, 2015, with Ikumoluyi as the only defendant.

NDLEA said sometimes in 1998 at Lagos Island, Ikumuluyi converted resources derived directly or indirectly from illicit trafficking in narcotic drugs by using them to acquire landed property at 6, Freeman Street, Lagos Island.

The prosecution said it was with the aim of concealing or disguising the origin of the resources.

He was also accused of concealing or disguising the ownership of a house on No 7, Ajoku Oduyebo Street, Sabo, Ikorodu in Lagos State, by purchasing it in the name of Peter Ikumoluyi, a dead person, using resources derived directly or indirectly from the proceeds of illicit trafficking in narcotic

Other properties he allegedly acquired and concealed include 20 Ikemu Street, Oworonshoki, Lagos in 2005 as well as a property at 35/37 Akerele Street, Oworonsoki, which he allegedly acquired in conspiracy with his late mother in the name of a the dead person in 2007.

He was also alleged to have acquired a landed property at 11, Olaolude Street, Oworonsoki, Lagos, in 1994.

NDLEA accused him of knowingly refusing to make a full disclosure of his assets, which is contrary to Section 35(1) and punishable under Section 35(3) of the NDLEA Act of 2004.

Shittu argued that the burden of proof on the prosecution is only discharged when the essential ingredients of the offence charged has been established.

The lawyer argued that to sustain a conviction under Section 14(1) of the Money Laundering Prohibition Act 2004, it must be proven that the defendant converted or transferred resources, and  that the resources were derived from illicit traffic in narcotic drugs or any other crime or illegal act, which the conversion or transfer was done purposely to conceal or disguise the illicit  origin of the resources.

Shittu submitted that the investigation report tendered by the prosecution contained unsubstantiated allegations on the ownership of the property, adding that most of the conclusion in it showed that the property are owned by some other persons other than the defendant.

Besides, Shittu said there was no nexus between the defendant’s conviction on March 18, 2008, when a forfeiture order was made in respect of a plot of land traced to him at Elegushi Ajah, and the current charge.

“Clearly, the prosecution did not furnish any proof in the proceedings against the defendant of how the conviction of the defendant in 2008 was related to property allegedly acquired by the defendant without proof of eight years preceding the conviction,” he said.

Adopting Shittu's arguments, Justice Buba held that the prosecution did not link the ownership of any of the property in charge to the defendant and did not show that any of the property was acquired with proceeds of crime.

He held that the prosecution did not show the nature of crime allegedly committed by the defendant leading to the alleged acquisition of the property.

The Justice, in the judgment delivered last December 15, held that the prosecution did not show that the defendant was convicted at all times material to the acquisition of the property alleged in the counts.

He added that the prosecution did not show how much of the proceeds of the alleged crime was deployed in the acquisition of alleged property and under what circumstances if any.

“The prosecution failed woefully to establish ownership of the said property before filing this charge against the defendant and neglected to extend its searches to the land registry to ascertain ownership of the property,” Justice Buba held.

According to him, the prosecution failed to prove the case against the defendant, who he said defended each of the six counts.

The judge, therefore, discharged and acquitted Ikumoluyi of the six-count charge.