Srem-Sai’s claim on UMB account closure contradicted by PW4’s testimony in court

A claim by Deputy Attorney-General and Minister for Justice, Dr Justice Srem-Sai, that a Universal Merchant Bank (UMB) account linked to the case was closed after the bank became suspicious of how funds were being moved appears to be false and at variance with evidence given in court by the prosecution’s fourth witness, Frank Marshal Cromwell, the Economic and Organised Crime Office (EOCO)’s lead investigator.

Speaking on Joy News’ *PM Express*, Dr Srem-Sai said the account had reached a point where the bank became suspicious of the movement of funds, raised red flags and eventually caused the account to be closed.

“Up to the point where the account was depleted and the bank even was suspicious of how the money was moving and raised red flags which eventually caused the account to be closed and the remaining of the money moved to another company,” Dr Srem-Sai said.

He added that the prosecution had traced the funds to the company to which the money was subsequently moved.

“We traced to that company as well, you know,” he said.

Dr Srem-Sai further maintained that the prosecution had presented witnesses in court who had testified to the movement of the funds and the circumstances surrounding the account.

“So as far as we are concerned, we have put in the box witnesses, who have testified to this,” he said.

According to him, the prosecution had also demonstrated how the accused person “basically misinterpreted the purpose of funds.”

*Contradictions*

However, testimony given by PW4 Frank Marshal Cromwell under cross-examination by defence counsel Samuel Atta Akyea on Thursday, July 30, 2026, presents a different account of the circumstances surrounding the UMB account, particularly the alleged suspicious transactions and the eventual closure of the account.

*PW4 confirms 2020 Suspicious Transaction Report*

During cross-examination, Mr Cromwell confirmed that a Suspicious Transaction Report (STR) had been filed on UMB account number 0241424233018.

Counsel first established that the STR related to the year 2020 and that the evidence relied upon by the investigator was a screenshot tendered in court as Exhibit AH.

Q (Counsel Atta Akyea): You testified that a Suspicious Transaction Report (STR) was filed on the UMB Bank account numbered 0241424233018, not so?

A (Frank Marshal Cromwell): Yes my Lord.

Q (Counsel Atta Akyea): And this was in the year 2020, not so?

A (Frank Marshal Cromwell): Yes my Lord.

Q (Counsel Atta Akyea): And this purported STR is based on the screenshot you have tendered in court as Exhibit AH, not so?

A (Frank Marshal Cromwell): Yes my Lord.

Counsel then questioned PW4 about the role of the Financial Intelligence Centre (FIC) in relation to Suspicious Transaction Reports.

Q (Counsel Atta Akyea): Suspicious Transaction Reports are filed with the Financial Intelligence Centre (FIC) and the FIC investigates the matter reported, not so?

A (Frank Marshal Cromwell): Yes my Lord.

Q (Counsel Atta Akyea): Did you confirm from the Financial Intelligence Centre whether or not an STR was actually filed?

A (Frank Marshal Cromwell): No my Lord.

Counsel then asked whether the investigator could point to evidence confirming that the FIC had acknowledged the report.

Q (Counsel Atta Akyea): Are you able to point to any evidence confirming an acknowledgment of the said report by the Financial Intelligence Centre?

A (Frank Marshal Cromwell): Based on the screenshots from UMB Bank presented before the court, there are narrations of Suspicious Transaction Reports filed and accepted through a platform called goAML and also from what I know, FIC reports back to the banks that filed a Suspicious Transaction Report but in our engagement with the bank, it appeared that there was no report back from the FIC.

The answer established that while the UMB screenshots contained narrations indicating that Suspicious Transaction Reports had been filed and accepted through goAML, PW4 had not independently confirmed from the FIC that the STR was actually filed.

He also told the court that, in EOCO’s engagement with UMB, it appeared there had been no report back from the FIC to the bank.

*Bank filed the report*

Counsel then put it to PW4 that the absence of a report from the FIC to UMB was because the FIC had not found anything suspicious.

Q (Counsel Atta Akyea): I put it to you that there was no report from FIC to the Bank because FIC did not find anything suspicious.

A (Frank Marshal Cromwell): The Bank found transactions suspicious and filed their report.

Counsel then questioned PW4 on whether this meant that the bank was the final arbiter in determining whether the transactions were suspicious.

Q (Counsel Atta Akyea): So to your mind, the bank is the final arbiter, is that so?

A (Frank Marshal Cromwell): The Bank did their part as mandated by filing the suspicious transaction report on the account.

The cross-examination then moved to the specific transactions identified in Exhibit AH.

*GH¢7.2 million transaction was the principal concern*

Counsel asked PW4 whether, from his reading of Exhibit AH, the principal concern of the purported report was the movement of GH¢7.2 million from the BNC Communications Bureau account through A1’s account and back into the Director-BNC account at Fidelity Bank, from which it had originally been paid.

Q (Counsel Atta Akyea): From your reading of Exhibit AH, the purported report's principal concern was the movement of the sum of GH¢7.2 million from the BNC Communications Bureau account through A1's account and back into the Director-BNC account at Fidelity Bank from which it had originally been paid?

A (Frank Marshal Cromwell): Yes my lord.

PW4 therefore confirmed that the movement of GH¢7.2 million was the principal concern identified in the purported report.

Counsel then examined whether other aspects of the account had also been identified as suspicious.

*Account opening not identified as suspicious*

Q (Counsel Atta Akyea): From Exhibit AH, the report did not find the account opening suspicious?

A (Frank Marshal Cromwell): It did not find the account opening suspicious.

The testimony therefore did not identify the opening of the UMB account itself as a suspicious transaction in the report.

*Three BNC Operations cheques*

Counsel also questioned PW4 about three cheques deposited into the account, with the payee stated as “BNC Operations.”

Q (Counsel Atta Akyea): Again the purported report did not indicate any suspicion with the depositing of the three cheques which had the payee as 'BNC operations', did it?

A (Frank Marshal Cromwell): Per this report, that was not mentioned.

Counsel then asked whether the purported report had identified any other transaction on the account as suspicious.

Q (Counsel Atta Akyea): The purported report did not find any other transaction on that account to be suspicious, that is clear, is it not?

A (Frank Marshal Cromwell): On this report, there was no other information with respect to suspicious transactions mentioned.

The evidence from PW4 therefore confined the information contained in Exhibit AH to the transactions specifically identified in the purported report, with the movement of GH¢7.2 million being its principal concern.

*Who closed the UMB account?*

The cross-examination eventually addressed the closure of the UMB account.

Counsel asked PW4 (Frank Cromwell) whether it was his testimony that the account was closed by A1 and A2 on March 2, 2023.

Q (Counsel Atta Akyea): It is your testimony that the UMB Bank account was closed by A1 and A2 on March 2, 2023?

A (Frank Marshal Cromwell): Yes my Lord.

The answer is different from the explanation subsequently given by Dr Srem-Sai on Joy News.

While the Deputy Attorney-General said the bank became suspicious of how the money was moving, raised red flags and that this eventually caused the account to be closed, PW4 testified under cross-examination that the UMB account was closed by A1 (Kwabena Adu-Boahene) and A2 (Angela Adjei Boateng) on March 2, 2023.