The First Prosecution witness in the ongoing trial of Michael Nyineku has told the High Court in Accra that the institution to which customers’ deposits were periodically transferred from the defunct Beige Bank was a sister institution named Beige Capital Asset Management which was licensed as a fund manager with SEC.
The Witness said though the funds that were allegedly moved (siphoned) from the Beige Bank to the Asset Management Firm were funds belonging to customers, their consent ought to have been sought first.
But the Defence Counsel led by Thaddeus Sory while debunking the witness’ claims during further cross-examination, that customers’ consent were not sought, had confronted him with a certificate of investment of one of the said customers.
Counsel argued that these customers were those who no longer were interested in the low rates of interest the bank was offering and they were in the known of their investment.
Julius Ayivor, a Chartered Accountant at the KPMG and a lead team member of the Receiver of Beige Bank who revealed this while under cross-examination also said he does not “recollect” if they officially wrote to engage officials of BCAM on alleged monies siphoned by the accused.
According to him, though he can confirm to the court that they had an oral discussion, his response on whether there was a written document was negative.
The Star Witness for the Prosecution who is under further cross-examination from defence lawyers led by Thaddeus Sory, told the court that, he personally did not also engage customers of BCAM, a sister institution he mentioned customers’ money from Beige Bank were moved to.
Oral discussions
Asked by counsel if he ever engaged BCAM in connection to monies that were moved from customers’ accounts into BCAM accounts, the witness answered in the affirmative.
When asked if the said engagement was oral or written correspondence, he said “I can’t recollect if there were any written correspondences but I can confirm oral discussions.”
Counsel again asked the witness if he could confirm to the court that he considered monies siphoned from the bank that they sought to recover through oral discussions, the witness offered explanation.
“The receiver took steps to recover these monies through the legal system (trial) which is currently ongoing,” he stated.
Registered fund managers
“We confirmed the registered business style of BCAM by checking their profile from the online platform of the Registrar General’s Department, the witness said this when counsel asked if in his discussions with BCAM officials he discovered that it was registered as a fund manager.
When the witness was again asked if he ever bothered to find out whether BCAM was registered by Security and Exchange Commission (SEC) that it was licensed as a fund manager, he answered in the affirmative saying “that was done.”
Counsel then pointed to him in paragraph 11 of his Witness Statement where he said the Beige Group is not licensed to receive funds and the Witness said, it was “licensed to accept deposits.”
In paragraph 12 counsel said the witness never disclosed that BCAM is licensed as a fund manager. In his response the witness said yes and “not explicitly” stated.
At this point, counsel put it to the witness that he deliberately did not disclose in his witness statement that BCAM was a licensed fund manager because if he did then his theory that funds were purported to have been siphoned to BCAM would only be an allegation shrouded in mischief because BCAM as a licensed fund manager, it has capacity to receive and manage the funds belonging to those customers who no longer wanted the low rates being offered by the new bank.
The witness said “the reason why the word siphoned was used to describe these transfers is because these monies were moved out of the accounts of the affected customers to the accounts of BCAM without their knowledge and authorization.
“My lady in any bank it is only a customer that has the authority to instruct monies to be moved out of his or her account to the account of another,” he explained.
“The fact that officials of the bank can see monies in their account does not give them the authorization to transfer these monies to another entity in this case BCAM. Yes, so I still stand by the use of the word siphoned which has got nothing to do with the license BCAM was given to operate,” the Witness noted.
Sourcing banking business
When Counsel asked the witness to tell the court whether in his discussions with officials of BCAM any of them ever told the Receiver that “BCAM sourced a lot of business from the bank,” the witness answered in the positive.
“My lady what was confirmed to the Receiver was that where a customer wishes to place a deposit with the bank at an interest rate which above the bank’s lending rate those deposits were transferred to BCAM that was the confirmation that the accused gave to the Receiver when asked about the purpose of all these siphoning,” he pointed out.
With particular reference to one Emmanuel Richard Ofori (a Customer) whose statement – (Exhibit H23) in connection with his investment with BCAM, counsel asked the witness if had spoken to him, the witness said he had “not personally” spoken to him.
“But discussions were had with him by other members of the team and the CBG before the amount were repaid to him and he had had to prove that indeed he brought money to the bank to be invested with the bank.”
He also told the court that, the accused did not explain the process of the customers whose interest rates cannot be supported with BCAM.
Email correspondence
The witness confirmed to the court an email from a certain daniel.darko@beige bankcapitalassetmanagement whose subject is Emanuel Richard Ofori one of the then customers of Beige Bank.
He also confirmed to the court that the information on the said email indicated it is FYA – meaning (For Your Attention) dated, Thursday, March 22, 2018 and it was sent to naomi.konotey@thebeigebank.com
This counsel said Naomi’s attention was then being called to the certificate of investment about the said Emmanuel Richard Ofori’s investment placement.
But the witness said, “I’m not able to confirm by just the mere reading of this document what the specific attachment was.”
Certificate of investment
The witness has since failed to produce the investment certificates though it had been officially requested by the accused through the court.
But, when he was confronted with Emmanuel Richard Ofori’s investment certificate, he then said “I have seen the certificate before and I had it at the office.”
Counsel tendered the document through the witness which was not objected to by the prosecution.
The court presided over by Justice Afia Serwah Asare-Botwe, a Justice of the Court of Appeal sitting as an additional High Court judge said the document marked -Investment certificate of Emma Richard Ofori is admitted with objection as exhibit 2.
At this point, counsel drew the court’s attention to formal requests for the prosecution to furnish the defence with the investment certificates of some clients that the prosecution themselves had sampled.
But, prosecution failed to present these certificates saying that they do not have them.
Bank phase of life
The defunct Beige Bank previously operated as a savings and loans company and during that phase of its life, it offered high rates of interest to its depositors.
However, upon transitioning into a universal bank it had to reduce its rates significantly in order that it will become competitive and also be in alignment with other universal banks in terms of its pricing.
The case has been adjourned to Friday, February 24, 2023, for continuation.
Source: Ghana/Starrfm.com.gh/Murtala Inusah
