Ibori assests case: Delta State did not funs Ibori's alleged assets----Defence

...We  agree, but Delta was uncooperative---British Police

At the weekend, the British Metropolitan Police investigators into the former governor of Delta State, Chief James Ibori case agreed that they never questioned any Delta State official about any missing funds nor linked any property of Ibori as having been bought with the state’s money.

Buffeted by a barrage of questions from Ibori’s legal team, the man who lead the investigation against Ibori, Police Detective Mr. Peter Clark, said “I agree, however, we were unable to ask Delta State Government because Delta State was uncooperative.”

The reply came after a series of questions were fired at Clark, a prime prosecution witness, in relation to Ibori’s property having a link with Delta state funds in any way and even in some of the charges Ibori had already pleaded guilty to.

Led by Mr. Ivan Krolic, QC, Obori’s lead counsel in the asset confiscation hearing put it to the court “that in confiscation cases, the issue for consideration before the court is not about any asset acquired but the sources of funds for the purchase of the asset.”

To make his point clearer, Clark stated: “when it comes to benefit in confiscation hearing, it is not about what the defendant buys but the source of the money used to buy what has been bought.”

Thus as the two weeks old asset confiscation was about to enter its final week, and hearing is gradually drawing to a close, the main British police financial investigator in the money laundering case against Ibori, may have admitted that he has not been able to directly link the source of funds for the purchase of the alleged Ibori assets to Delta State accounts.

Uncomfortable with this, the Crown Prosecutor’s Sasha Wass interjected “Ibori has pleaded guilty to money laundering and defrauding Delta State, the crown has concerns as to why QC Krolic is going through these matters the way he is.”

Krolic obliged her; and reading a section of Police detective Clark’s statement that deals with the purchase of a Maybach vehicle, a car alleged to have been bought by Ibori with funds stolen from Delta State, said “the position of the defendant, James Ibori, is that he admits purchasing the vehicle and that Stanhope is an account which he is a beneficial owner.”

He continued, “it is denied, however that the funds going into Stanhope were funds that came directly or indirectly from Delta State, but they came from very clear and genuine sources. There is no evidence showing any payment from Delta State.”

Then he took the Police investigator through various bank accounts and statements, and said that “no money from Delta State is identified other than salary into GTB bank from the state paid by Oghoro.”

Krolic argued: “this is Ibori's confiscation hearing in 2013 and the defence is entitled to ask how the prosecution qualify their case. There is a big difference between a conviction and criminal benefit in confiscation and the judge is here to consider the sole issue of criminal benefit. This was the same thing that was considered in the case of (Terry) Waya. It is the crown's burden to prove the benefit. The court can't just fill in the blanks with what happened at other trials.”

Also during the same sitting, the British police investigator, DC Clark had produced in his evidence another document he had tendered against James Ibori and which the Police claimed to have originated from Barclays Bank as statements dealing with the finances of Ken Oil and Gas.

Reviewing the faxed document obtained from Ibori’s former lawyer, Mr. Bhardresh Gohil of Arlington Sharmas Solicitors, Krolic said “this document was faxed on September 25.”

Clark: “Yes”

Krolic: “what is BBG/4370/115”

Clark: “BBG is Bhardresh Gohil”

Krolic: “This document was not faxed from Barclays Bank, someone has written on it.”

Clark: “This was how it came from Barclays Bank”

Krolic: “What you produced in evidence is a bundle of documents faxed from an unidentified source at about 1'0 Clock on Sept 25.”

Clark: “it came from Barclays.”

Krolic: “it is apparent this document has come from Arlington Sharmas, meanwhile you said this document came from Barclays”.

Krolic, still on the tendered document claimed to be from Barclays Bank and which the prosecution has listed as evidence against Ibori, said “in fact, there is a schedule behind these documents produced by Arlington Sharmas. This document does not support your assertion.”

That same day, another document relating to Edgeways Resources Ltd which Ms. Wass, introduced as evidence of Ibori’s hidden assets was shot down.

Krolic did the shooting: “this document should not be received in this case. This document is prejudicial, it makes no mention of Mr. Ibori; it has not been disclosed to the defence. In cross-examinations, the prosecution can only raise a matter which must have been mentioned earlier.”

The judge, Anthony Pitts, ruling against the crown prosecution said “it ought to be a document that should be disclosed. It is quite clear it has not been disclosed, for that reason, Mr. Krolic, I am with you.”

The judge's ruling in this instance may clearly show that the crown prosecution may have been adopting several tactics to ambush Ibori, making him for whatever reasons, to plead guilty to some of the charges on which the Prosecution had nothing incriminating.