REPUBLIC VRS. AMANKWAH (D6/169/2023) [2025] GHACC 33 (31 January 2025)

_**IN THE CIRCUIT COURT ‘10’ OF GHANA, ACCRA, HELD THIS MONDAY THE 31**_ _**ST**_ _**DAY OF JANUARY, 2024 BEFORE HER HONOUR EVELYN E. ASAMOAH (MRS).**_ _**SUIT NO. D6/169/2023**_ **REPUBLIC** **V.** **DORCAS TWENE AMANKWAH** CHIEF INSPR BENNEH FOR PROSECUTION ================================================================ **JUDGMENT** ● The accused was charged with the offence of defrauding by false pretence contrary to section 131(1) of the Criminal and Other Offences Act, 1960 -Act 29. She pleaded not guilty to the charge. ● The facts presented by the prosecution are as follows: The complainant is an immigration officer residing at Nsawam. The accused is a trader who also resides in Nsawam. Somewhere in the year 2021, the accused presented to the complainant that she works at the Jubilee House and has protocol slots to recruit people into the various security agencies in the country. She encouraged the complainant to bring people for the protocol enlistment at a fee ranging from GHC 7000 to GHC 15,000. The complainant sold the idea to his acquaintances and other individuals. Those who bought into the idea paid various sums ranging from GHC 7000 to GHC 15,000 to the complainant, who handed over the money to the accused for the accused protocol enlistment. In total, the accused collected an amount of GHC 402,000 from the complainant to enlist 97 people into the Ghana Immigration Service, Ghana Fire Service, and other security agencies. The accused failed to enlist the people in the various security agencies. The complainant became alarmed and reported the matter to the police for assistance. On 4th May 2022, the accused person was arrested for investigations. In her written investigation caution statement to the police, she admitted having collected an amount of GHC 400,000.00 from the complainant to enlist 49 acquaintances of his into the Ghana Police Service, Ghana Immigration Service, and Ghana Police Service. She mentioned one Boadi as her accomplice but has since been unable to lead the Police to the said person. On 5th May 2022, other victims numbering 147 also reported that the accused person had collected the sum of one million and seventy-nine thousand GHC (1,079,000) from them under the pretext of recruiting them into the various security services but failed. ● The prosecution bore the legal burden to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. In the case of _**Derick Adu-Gyamfi vs. the Attorney-General**_ [2023] DLHC16660 -Justice Ackah-Yensu JSC stated: _The common law presumption acknowledged among the comity of nations and given constitutional recognition in our legal system, that a person charged with a criminal offence be_ ___presumed innocent until_ ___he_ ___admits_ ___his guilt_ ___or his_ ___guilt_ ___is_ ___otherwise proven by_ ___the prosecution beyond_ ___reasonable doubt,____is_ ___pivotal_ ___to_ ___the_ ___instant suit._ _… The_ ___function of_ ___the_ ___courts_ ___in_ ___a_ ___democracy to_ ___decide who_ ___is_ ___culpable of_ ___a_ ___criminal_ ___offence_ ___and therefore_ ___deserves_ ___to suffer_ ___sanction_ ___for_ ___the crime is a_ ___cornerstone of our Constitution so there can be no justification whatsoever for the legislature to mete out sanctions to any person who has only been charged with a criminal offence without a determination_ ___of_ ___her_ ___culpability_ ___by_ ___the_ ___courts...”_ In the case of**Elvis Philip Yamoah V. The Republic Criminal Appeal No. H2/7/19 Court of Appeal** dated 8th July 2020, Justice Mensah-Datsa J.A stated the essential ingredients of the offence of defrauding by false pretence as follows**:** _Section 131(1) of Act 29 makes defrauding by false pretence a second-degree felony. Section 132 of Act 29 defines defrauding by false pretence as “a person defrauds by false pretences if, by means of a false pretence, or by personation that person obtains the consent of another person to part with or transfer the ownership of a thing.”_ _For the prosecution to succeed on a charge of defrauding by false pretences, it must prove the following:_ _1\. That the accused made representations to the victim that he knew were false or without the belief that they were true.That he obtained the consent of the victim to part with his money._ _2\. That he made the representations with an intent to defraud._ _See_ _**Kuma v. The Republic (1970) CC 113.**_ ● The first prosecution witness, the complainant, contended that in October 2020, he was introduced to the accused by a friend, who is a civilian employee at the Cantonment police station. According to the complainant, he had the contact details of the accused from his friend. He called the accused, who directed him to her house in Doboro. The accused informed him that she works at the Jubilee House and could assist anyone interested in being recruited into any security services. He pointed out that he had already gone through some recruitment processes in the Ghana Police Services and had also applied to the Ghana Immigration Service but he did not inform her about that. He was called to commence training at the Ghana Immigration training school, so he informed the accused that he would rather assist some people interested in being enlisted in the security agencies. The complainant further asserted that he mobilized 97 people, and the accused charged each person GHC 7000-GHC 15,000 for general recruits and under-cadet. He collected an amount of GHC 402,000 from the people and gave it to the accused in her house, in the presence of her mother. That the accused promised to refund the amount if she failed to honour her promise. The complainant asserted that the accused failed to ensure that the 97 people were recruited into the various security services, and not even one of them was recruited. The accused stopped communicating with him and went into hiding. ● According to the investigator, the accused led the police to her place of abode. A search revealed recruitment forms from various security agencies, various academic certificates, and other documents such as testimonials, birth certificates, passport pictures, identity cards, and result slips of some of the victims. ● The court, after the prosecution had closed its case, ruled that a prima facie case had been established and called upon the accused to open her defense. In the case of _**Eunice Adu Vs. The Republic**_ [2023] DLCA15135, the court ruled: “…It is our respectful opinion that where the Prosecution has closed its case in a summary trial, as it is in this instant case, the law requires the trial court to consider the evidence on record and to satisfy itself whether a prima facie case has been established or not. If the answer is in the positive, the court then invokes **S.174 of Act 30** and calls upon the accused person to enter into his defence. ● The accused in her witness statement, indicated that she got to know the complainant in 2020 and that the complainant requested that she assist him to secure entry into the Police Service. She informed the complainant that one Alex Boadi assisted, so she called Boadi in the presence of the complainant. According to her, she paid GHC 10,000 to Boadi on behalf of the complainant. The complainant assured Boadi that he would bring other people on board, and before she realized it, she had become a conduit for transferring money to Boadi on the complainant's behalf. She alleged that Boadi failed to honour the promises made to them and went into hiding. ● **The Scheme/Representation** The accused admitted that the police officers retrieved the documents from her room but indicated that they were given to her by the complainant and were to be given to Boadi and vice versa. She claimed that some of the documents belong to orphans she takes care of but failed to prove her assertion. She pointed out that the complainant benefited immensely from all those transactions, taking commission from the money given to him by the real victims before forwarding the remaining amount to her. The accused further contended that she deposited the money into Boadi’s account and via his mobile money account and handed over physical cash to him. In her witness statement, the accused further stated that she acted in good faith, actuated by no fraudulent mindset. ● The evidence on record reveals that the accused not only received money from the victims but also photographs, birth certificates, and other documents from the victim in furtherance of her representation. In her caution statement, she admitted that she received various sums of money from the complainant and that the particulars of the applicants were given to her. She indicated that she received GHC 400,000 from the complainant and has refunded GHC 50,000. In furtherance of her scheme, the accused took the victims' school certificates (Exhibit G series). They submitted their application forms (Exhibits C series) and other documents to the accused. These attest to the fact that the accused indeed made representations to the complainant/victims that she would assist in getting them enlisted in security services. ● In this case, documents (Exhibit B series—F series, purportedly issued by the security services) were found in the accused person’s room. The accused signed Exhibit M, which is a list of documents found in the accused person's room. Ghana Immigration Service e-recruitment application forms, Ghana Police Service e-recruitment application forms, and the other security services e-recruitment forms, passport pictures, and certificates were found in her room. ● **Recruitment Documents** -The accused also had in her possession documents which indicate that some of the complainants had qualified for the next stage of the recruitment process- Exhibit B2 states: _**Ghana Police Service-**_ _**National Headquarters Accra -Ghana**_ _**Qualified**_ _**Hello Yeboah Comfort, you have applied for General Duty. Congratulations, you have successfully qualified for the next stage of the recruitment exercise… you will be messaged on your body screening and documentation date soon.**_ This evidence indicates that some of the applicants were purportedly enlisted. The facts establish that none of the victims proceeded to any stage of the recruitment exercise or enlisted in any of the security services- as indicated on the documents retrieved from the accused’s room - Exhibit B-F series. **In the case of Richard Kwabena Asiamah** **V. The Republic Criminal Appeal No. J3/06/2020** [2020] DLSC9911 - Justice **Torkornoo (Mrs.), JSC** stated: _The criminal enterprise of defrauding by false pretence requires these people to agree to get a third person, to give consent to part with or transfer the ownership of a thing. They may obtain the consent directly or through personation of another person. For the charge of achieving this purpose by false pretence to succeed, these two or more people should have represented the existence of a state of facts, with the knowledge that such representation is false, or without the belief that it is true. They should also have made this false representation with an intent to defraud._ ● There is no evidence on record that the accused only facilitated the process and gave the money from the victims to Boadi and others, as she alleged. In her caution statement, she indicated that she deposited the money in their bank accounts (Ecobank), mobile money, and cash but failed to prove her assertion. In her bank statement (Exhibit J), there is no indication that she paid the money to third parties. The money was paid directly to her, and all the aforementioned documents were found in her possession. The accused made false representations to the complainant, issued fake recruitment documents, and succeeded in defrauding them. The prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. The accused is hereby convicted of the offence. **Plea in mitigation** Counsel for accused – In sentencing the accused, we pray this court to consider that the accused is remorseful in her demeanor. We pray this court to temper justice with mercy. **Prosecution** \- One of the fundamental principles under pining our criminal jurisprudence relating to sentencing is that sentencing should serve 5 folds purpose, namely to be punitive, to deter others to reform the offender, to appease to society and to be a safe guard to this country. This principle was established by Kamil vs. the Republic 2011, 1SCGLR 300. The accused person herein is charged with a criminal offence which attracts a maximum custodial sentence of 25 years. She is also charge with an offence which is also prevalent in our society. We humbly pray that the accused person is given a punitive sentence that will deter not only the accused person herein but others who have similar criminal propensity. Humbly submitted **Sentence** Mr. Daniel Korang in his book Criminal Prosecution in Ghana – Practice and Procedure at page 593 – 596 stated: “ _It is an important principle of sentencing that the punishment should be commensurate with the gravity of the offence. Where the offence is grave and prevalent, the punishment must be severe and punitive. … An analysis of the gravity of the offence requires an understanding of both the character of the offender’s actions and the consequences of those action …_ _It is well established tenent of our Criminal Law that the quantum of sentence imposed should be broadly commensurate with the gravity of the offence and the moral blame – worthiness of the offender … Proportionality is one that expresses to some extent, society’s legitimate shared values and concerns …_ **In Adu Boahene vs The Republic (1972) 1GLR 70 – 78** , where the court held: “… _where the court finds an offence to be grave, it must not only impose a punitive sentence, but also a deterrent or exemplary so as to indicate the disapproval of society of that offence. Once the court decides to impose a deterrent sentence, the good record of he accused is irrelevant._ _Wilson J expressed in - … R & B C Motor Vehicle Act, page 533:_ … _It is a basic to any theory of punishment that the sentence imposed bear some relationship to the offence, it must be fit” sentence proportionate to the seriousness of the offender. Only if this is so can the public be satisfied that the offender “endorsed” the punishment he received and feel a confidence in the fairness and rationality of the system. … In imposing sentence, the court must consider the prevalence of the crime with their particular locality … in the country generally”_ In this case, the accused – who claims to be a nurse, defrauded 97 people. The court takes into consideration the prevalence of the crime in the country – especially by professionals. Custodial sentence will be imposed to serve as deterrence to likeminded individuals. The maximum custodial sentence is 20 years. The court takes into account the fact that the accused has been in custody for about two years having been unable to fulfil bail term in other cases. The accused is hereby sentenced to 5 years imprisonment with hard labour. She is ordered to refund the money to the victims/complainants **(SGD)** **H/H EVELYN E. ASAMOAH (MRS)** **CIRCUIT COURT JUDGE** 4