PASTOR EMMANUEL ESSEL AND BETHEL CALVARY PRAYER MINISTRY vs. ECONOMIC & ORGANISED CRIME OFFICE [2013]DLHC4194

PASTOR EMMANUEL ESSEL AND BETHEL CALVARY PRAYER MINISTRY vs. ECONOMIC & ORGANISE... [2013]DLHC4194

Date	2013-07-22
Suit No.	SUIT NO. FTRM/218/13
Citation No.	[2013]DLHC4194

HIS LORDSHIP MR JUSTICE P. BRIGHT MENSAH

J. AYIKOI OTOO FOR THE APPLICANTS

EDWARD CUDJOE FOR THE RESPONDENT

[2013]DLHC4194
																																						<div class="restriction-wrapper">
														<div class="container-lg">
															<div class="row">
																<div class="col-md-12 restricted-content">
																	<div class="restricted-content-img-wrapper">
																		<div class="lock-icon bounce-7">
																			<img class=""
																				src="https://www.dennislawgh.com/dl-assets/dl-images/lock-content.png"
																				alt="Subscription based content">
																		</div>
																	</div>
																	 
																		<a href="https://www.dennislawgh.com/login"
																		class="btn btn-primary btn-lg"
																		style="font-family: 'open sans'; text-transform: capitalize; border-radius: 8px"> 
																		Login to Read Full Case </a>
																	 
																	
																</div>
															</div>
														</div>
													</div>
													<main id="main" class="content" style="min-height: 60rem" >PASTOR EMMANUEL ESSEL
AND BETHEL CALVARY PRAYER MINISTRY<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>ECONOMIC &amp; ORGANISED
CRIME OFFICE<o:p></o:p>[HIGH
COURT (FINANCIAL DIVISION 1), ACCRA]<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">

SUIT NO. FTRM/218/13&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;DATE:&nbsp; 22ND JULY, 2013<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>J.
AYIKOI OTOO FOR THE APPLICANTS<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">

EDWARD
CUDJOE FOR THE RESPONDENT<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM:<o:p></o:p>HIS
LORDSHIP MR JUSTICE P. BRIGHT MENSAH<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border-top:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
border-left:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;border-right:none;
padding:1.0pt 0in 1.0pt 0in">

<p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="text-align:center;line-height:115%;
border:none;mso-border-top-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;mso-border-bottom-alt:
solid windowtext 1.5pt;padding:0in;mso-padding-alt:1.0pt 0in 1.0pt 0in">RULING<o:p></o:p>

</div>On
or about the 14th day of November, 2012 a Luo Zhi Hao, a Chinese national,
transferred from the Republic of China an amount of US$ Forty Thousand, Five
Hundred Dollars into bank account No. 117200004662301 with the Agricultural
Development Bank at Achimota, Accra being operated by 1st Applicant
herein.&nbsp;&nbsp; The bank being suspicious of
the transaction might have filed a Suspicious Transfer Report (S.T.R) with the
appropriate institution and the matter referred to the Economic &amp; Organised
Crime Office for further investigations into the suspicious transaction.<o:p></o:p>According
to the 1st Applicant, the bank then informed him that the bank account has been
frozen and was asked to report to the E.O.C.O which he did on 19/11/12.&nbsp; It has been averred in paragraph 12 of the
accompanying affidavit sworn to by the 1st Applicant that upon reporting to the
Offices of the E.O.C.O on the said date he was detained but was subsequently
granted bail after having been made to a write a statement.&nbsp; Regardless of his numerous visits to the
Respondent’s Offices the account remains frozen.&nbsp; It is for this obvious reason which is why his
lawyer has filed in this court, a motion to defreeze the account.<o:p></o:p>Upon
a “Notice of Motion to Discharge freezing Order” filed by Hon. J. Ayikoi Otoo
on 24/05/13, learned Counsel for the Applicants is praying for an order to
discharge this court’s previous freezing order made on 10/01/13.&nbsp; The grounds of the application are catalogued
in the accompanying affidavit.&nbsp; I have
already set out some of the reasons above, by which the Applicants are
demanding the discharge of the freezing order.&nbsp;
It has also been averred in paragraphs 23 and 24 of the accompanying
affidavit that although the Respondent had the freezing order confirmed by the
court in January, 2013 and that the 1st Applicant has been reporting the
Respondent every Monday since November, 2012 the E.O.C.O has not conducted any
investigations into the matter since then.&nbsp;
It has also been averred in paragraph 27 of the affidavit in support
that the account was frozen in November, 2012.&nbsp;
Yet no person has made a claim to the holding bank that he/she has been
duped. <o:p></o:p>Significantly,
these material averments in the Applicants’ affidavit have not been
specifically denied and I shall revisit it in the course of this Ruling.<o:p></o:p>In
reaction to the concerns of the applicants raised in their supporting
affidavit, the Respondent per an affidavit in opposition sworn on its behalf by
a Vincent Okutu, who described himself as a Deputy Staff Officer with the
Anti-Money Laundering Unit of E.O.C.O, Accra has averred in paragraph 4 thereof
that the Respondents commenced investigations into the suspicious transaction
in December, 2012.&nbsp; They then proceeded
to court on 10/01/13 to confirm the freezing, pursuant to a motion exparte
application filed on 21/12/12.<o:p></o:p>It
has been admitted per paragraph 6 of the affidavit in opposition that the
inflow of the $40,500 in the account was on 14/11/12 from the said Luo Zhi Hao
who claimed to be a Secretary to Valentine Abayori.&nbsp; However, the 1st Applicant has failed to
disclose any information about his claim that the said Luo Zhi Hao is a proprietor
of an English teaching institution in China and a member of his church.&nbsp; The basis for the suspicion that the
Applicants are engaged in prohibited cyber activity is catalogued in paragraphs
9 – 12.&nbsp; According to the deponent,
whereas it is claimed that the money was for church building project the swift
message accompanying the amount indicated that it was for “living expenses”
thus contradicting the earlier purpose.&nbsp;
It is therefore the case of the Respondent that the claim by the
Applicants that the money was for a church project was self serving and an
afterthought.<o:p></o:p>It
is also the case of the Respondent that the Office has always acted fairly and
in accordance with the 1992 Constitution and the parent Act setting up E.O.C.O.
ie Act 804.&nbsp; The Respondent also complied
with the requirement of the law in informing the Applicants of the confirmation
of the freezing by the court within the statutory period.&nbsp; According to the Respondent, the Applicants
are being investigated for prohibited cyber activity and that requires
painstaking effort and time especially in this case where there is an
international dimension to it. <o:p></o:p>Attached
to the affidavit in opposition is Exhibit E.O.C.O 1 (Request for Legal
Assistance) to the Chinese Embassy here in Ghana soliciting for information on
the remitter, Luo Zhi Hao. <o:p></o:p>It
is also the case of the Respondent that the instant application is premature as
the E.O.C.O needs “ample time to receive a response to its letter of request
and effectively conclude investigations into this suspicious transaction”. See:
paragraph 23 of the affidavit in opposition.&nbsp;
The Respondents also contend that even though a court can exercise its
discretion in the discharge of a frozen account, the facts of the instant case
do not warrant the prayer.&nbsp; It has
therefore been urged on the court to dismiss the instant application.<o:p></o:p>Needless
to say, I have critically considered the argument of both advocates for the
parties in the application.&nbsp; I have
equally scrutinized the affidavit evidence before this court together with the
exhibits attached to both the affidavit in support and the affidavit in
opposition.<o:p></o:p>To
begin with, the facts which do not appear in any serious disputes are that the
amount which triggered the suspicion is US$40,500.&nbsp; The money was transferred from China and it
hit the Applicants’ bank account with the Agricultural Development Bank,
Achimota branch, Accra on November 14, 2012.&nbsp;
What I find very difficult to appreciate is that although the 1st Applicant
</main>