Widow in court over fraud

Deborah Adjei, a trader, who allegedly took GHC 3,130,800 from a contractor under the pretext of securing the release of a fleet of cars seized by the police, has appeared in court.

The fleet of cars belonged to Deborah’s late husband.

She allegedly collected the money to "settle" the police who had seized her late husband’s fleet of cars in a fraud case handled by the Property Fraud Unit of the Ghana Police Service.

According to the police facts presented in court, Deborah was to reimburse the complainant for obtaining the fleet of vehicles from the police.

Appearing before the Accra Circuit Court, Deborah pleaded not guilty to the charges of conspiracy to commit a crime and defrauding by false pretenses.

Her accomplices are Winston Gary Jones, one Philip who is now at large, and one Mujeed Mohammed, now deceased.

The court, presided over Samuel Bright Acquah, admitted Deborah to bail in the sum of GH¢ 3,500,000 with three sureties, one to be justified.

The court ordered her to report to the police every Wednesday.

The matter has been adjourned to July 15, 2024.

The prosecution, led by Inspector Drinda Otumfour, who held the brief, said the complainant, Mallam Issah Ishak, was a building contractor residing at Spintex.

The prosecution stated that Deborah Adjei, aka Deborah Gary Jones, was a trader based in Koforidua.

In 2021, a cousin of the complainant, the deceased Mujeed Mohammed, introduced Deborah to the complainant as a friend who needed help to settle a case of fraud being investigated by the police and to retrieve her late husband’s property seized by the Property Fraud Unit of the Police Headquarters.

The prosecution stated that Deborah confirmed the seizure of her husband’s fleet of cars by the police.

The court heard that the complainant agreed to help on the condition that any amount of money given to her would be reimbursed after the cars were released to her.

The prosecution said the complainant then delegated his late cousin, Mujeed Mohammed, to visit the police officer in charge of the case to find out the genuineness of Deborah’s claims.

A few months later, the complainant handed over GH¢ 1,600,000 to Deborah to settle the alleged fraud case pending at the Police Station.

The prosecutor said, "Nothing was heard from the accused person (Deborah) again until the latter part of the year 2022, after the death of the complainant’s cousin, Mujeed Mohammed."

He said after the death of Mujeed Mohammed, she called the complainant, claiming that Mohammed had owed her and had not paid until his death.

Subsequently, the prosecution stated that Deborah visited the complainant at his office and surprisingly told him she still needed to pay the police.

The prosecution stated that the complainant parted with some money totaling GH¢ 1,230,000 to Deborah.

The court was told that in May 2024, Deborah visited the complainant in his office and informed him that the matter had been settled with the police and that she was only waiting for the release of the fleet of cars.

Deborah also forwarded an unsigned letter, purported to be a withdrawal letter authorizing the police to discontinue the case.

A few weeks later, the prosecution stated that Deborah turned up in the complainant’s office and demanded GHC 308,000 to be paid to the police as payments for ground rent and safekeeping of the vehicles before they could be released to her.

On June 25, 2024, at about 1:00 pm, Deborah called the complainant to collect GH¢300,800 as the remaining balance to be paid to the police.

The prosecution stated that Deborah was taken to the Consolidated Bank of Ghana, where GH¢300,800 was withdrawn and handed over to her.

When the complainant demanded a meeting with the said police officer at the Police headquarters, Deborah took him to the Fitness Centre at the Police headquarters but failed to identify the officer who had requested the money.

The prosecution stated that the complainant became suspicious of Deborah’s behavior and reported the matter to the police.

The court heard that Deborah could also not lead the complainant to where the fleet of cars was located, nor to the unit or office handling the case.