By Abdulwahab  Abdulah
Defence counsel in the on the on-going case of fraud brought against former Managing Director of Bank PHB, Mr. Francis Atuche, has argued that the investigations conducted by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) to prosecute the matter was faulty.

The defence team led by Mr. Anthony Idigbe (SAN) under cross-examination had faulted the EFCC through its witness, Miss Nam Kappa, who is an EFCC female detective, stating that the alleged unauthorized sales of Afribank shares owned by Caverton Helicopters by Bank PHB as claimed by the anti graft agency was “a transaction on a non-recourse basis.”

In her evidence in chief before Justice Adeniyi Onigbanjo, the witness had told the court that EFCC investigation which based on petitions written to the commission by the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) and management of Caverton Helicopters found out how bank PHB plc under the management of the Atuche alleged misuse a margin loan facilities amounting to N60billion granted the Helicopter company.

Led in evidence by EFCC counsel, Mr Kemi Pinheiro, SAN, Kappa said the Caverton petition was just a part of the issues being investigated by the EFCC against the bank.

Under cross-examination however, defence counsel, Idigbe maintained that EFCC to his best of knowledge did not actually study the title of the shares sold as well as the terms of offer before it arrived on the conclusion that the company’s shares were sold without authority.

The lawyer maintained that banks engaged in series of transactions under Special Purpose Vehicles (SPVs) in spite of strict regulations by the CBN, which he said enabled them to give out loans under special arrangement.

“In a margin loan transaction, the bank bites the bullet, that is the bank takes the business risk”, Idigbe stated. He pointed out that the transaction between Bank PHB and Caverton probably may have come under a special arrangement as mentioned in a statement made to the agency by one Francis Maduka, a staff of Bank PHB.

Idigbe disclosed that contrary to the position maintained by the prosecution, four companies benefited from the margin loan facilities, saying Caverton only complained because it was asked to pay the bridge loan, another loan facility it took from Bank PHB.