The defendant in court
A Federal High Court in Abuja has adjourned the money laundering suit against Binance Holdings Limited and its official till April 8.
The trial judge, Justice Emeka Nwite, adjourned the matter for ruling after listening to the parties’ submissions on the service of the charge on Binance Holdings Limited.
The defendants; Binance Holdings Limited and Tigran Gambaryan were meant to be arraigned on Thursday on five counts bordering on money laundering but it was stalled following objection from the counsel for the second defendant, Mark Mordi, (SAN).
The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission had accused Binance, Gambaryan, and fleeing Nadeem Anjarwalla of concealing the source of the $35,400, 000 generated as revenue by Binance in Nigeria knowing that the funds constituted proceeds of unlawful activity.
The anti-graft agency said the offences committed between January 2023 and December 2023 in Abuja were contrary to and punishable under Section 18(3) of the Money Laundering (Prevention and Prohibition) Act, 2022.
During the proceedings, Mordi contended that his client could not be arraigned following the failure of the EFCC to perfect service on Binance Holdings Limited.
Mordi said, “This matter is premature. The prosecution ought to have served the first defendant but that has not happened. It is a joint suit, the prosecution should do the needful. We can’t proceed having failed to serve the first defendant.”
But the counsel for the EFCC, E.E. Iheanacho, disagreed with him.
He noted that the second defendant is a representative of the first defendant in the country, adding that the charge was severed on him on behalf of the company, but it was rejected.
He said, “The second defendant is a representative of the first defendant. We have served him, but he rejected it. The court can enter a not-guilty plea for him and proceed with trial as contained in Section 478 of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act 2015. ”
Reacting to Iheanacho’s submission, Mordi argued that the prosecution counsel omitted Section 477 of the Act he cited.
He added that his client was not duly nominated by the company to receive the charge on its behalf.
Mordi said, “He omitted Section 477. The second defendant is not duly nominated by the first defendant to receive the charge on its behalf.
“It is clear that there should be an instrument to that effect. Each defendant should be separately served. My client refused to receive the service because he was not a representative of the first defendant. Punch
