Beige Bank case: I provided to all information on financial position of bank to receiver – 1st Defence Witness

A chartered accountant who is testifying as the First Defence Witness for the founder of the defunct Beige Bank, Michael Nyinaku, has told the High Court in Accra that he has provided “all the information about the financial position of the bank” to the Receiver of Beige Bank.

Dawda M. Hafisdeen, also a lawyer, told the court that he worked as the leader of the financial team of the bank, which was placed in receivership for three months between August and October 2018.

The witness made this known to the Financial and Economic Division of the High Court in Accra, presided over by Justice Afia Serwah Asare-Botwe, a Justice of the Court of Appeal sitting as an additional High Court judge when he was facing cross-examination from state prosecutors.

Mrs. Evelyn Keelson, a Chief State Attorney, had told him during cross-examination that he was in the position where he had the opportunity to provide the receiver with all the required information, particularly connected to the financial position of the bank.

The witness, while agreeing with the Chief State Attorney, Mrs. Keelson, added that “I did provide all the information about the financial position of the bank, including most of the issues that are contained in my present witness statement.”

The former Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of the defunct Beige Bank Limited, Michael Nyinaku, who is mounting a defence to charges, told the Court that he would be calling 61 witnesses.

The founder of the defunct bank has been charged with stealing, fraudulent breach of trust, and money laundering and has pleaded not guilty.

The prosecution had closed its case after calling five witnesses.

In court on Monday, April 8, 2024, the first witness, Hafisdeen, concluded his Evidence-In-Chief, which started on March 25 after being led by Thaddeus Sory, Counsel for the accused.

The case has been adjourned to April 15, 2024.

Cross-examination of First Defense Witness by Mrs. Evelyn Keelson on April 8, 2024:

Q: Can you confirm that the statement Exhibit 70, which is dated March 13, 2020, to the SIT was the only statement you gave to the SIT?

A: I do not exactly remember because I appeared before the SIT a couple of times and I also signed another statement, I do not remember whether it was a caution statement because at a point I had to get someone to come and sign a bail bond for me so I do not remember whether it was a caution statement or not.

Q: In your statement in Exhibit 70, all you said to the SIT in Exhibit 70 had to do with the vouchers you used in processing the various transactions.

A: Yes, my lady. I was given a lot of vouchers, but I do not remember the individual transactions. I was asked if the transactions there were familiar to me, and I said yes. I also inquired what they wanted me to write about them, and they indicated that I could write what I had said, that the vouchers were familiar to me, and some of the vouchers that we used in processing transactions at the bank.

Q: And these vouchers that you spoke about in your statement were vouchers that were processed based on approvals given by the accused, who was the CEO. Is that not so?

A: That is so.

Q: The accused person was the managing director and CEO of the Beige Bank and CEO of the Beige Group; is that correct?

A: That is so.

Q: And as you have stated, the accused person, together with the Beige Group, were the shareholders of the Beige Bank?

A: That is so, my lady.

Q: After the bank had been placed in receivership, you worked closely with the receiver between August 2018 and October 2018, which was about three months?

A: That is so, my lady.

Q: In fact, you did not just work with the receiver; you were the leader of the financial team of the bank, which had been placed in receivership.

A: That is so, my lady.

Q: In fact, even after three months, the receiver still contacted you for any clarification on relevant matters of the receiver’s work.

A: That is so, my lady. From time to time, they would call me and inquire about specific matters, and I would usually provide answers or explanations to the best that I knew or could remember.

Q: I am putting it to you that you were in a position where you had the opportunity to provide the receiver with all the required information, particularly connected to the financial position of the bank.

A: Yes, my lady, that is so, and I did provide all the information about the financial position of the bank, including most of the issues that are contained in my present witness statement.

Q: Are you aware that the receivership engagement between the receiver and the Bank of Ghana (BOG) was set out by law?

A: Yes, my lady, I am aware that the receivership is regulated by law, but I do not know whether there was any detailed engagement specifically between the BOG and the receivership or if it was just regulated by law.

Q: So, you do not know specifically what the agreed-upon procedures were between the BOG and the receiver?

No, my lady, I do not know.