Africa-Press – Gambia. The Committee asked the witness whether he had a signed copy of his written statement. In his response, the witness stated that he did, and subsequently submitted a copy to the Committee. Upon the Committee’s instruction, the witness read his statement aloud before the Committee. Following the reading, the Committee motioned for the statement to be admitted as evidence, which was duly adopted.
When questioned about his professional trajectory, the witness indicated that upon joining the GPF in 2011, he was posted to the Fraud Unit until 2015, when he was transferred to the FIU. He also confirmed that he served with the Janneh Commission of Inquiry.
Asked about his reporting line, the witness clarified that he reports directly to the Director of the FIU and does not report to the GPF regarding FIU-related matters. However, he remains a member of the Gambia Police Force.
Responding to a question on his role at the FIU, the witness stated that he is responsible for conducting onsite examinations of both financial and non-bank financial institutions (NBFIs), assessing their compliance frameworks, analysing information assigned by the Director, and delivering training sessions on compliance obligations.
The committee asked the witness about his background in finance. The witness stated that he holds an AAT Technician Certificate and is pursuing the Association of Chartered Certified Accountants (ACCA) qualification. At this point, the Committee referred the witness to an alteration in his written statement. The witness acknowledged the correction, and the statement was adopted with amendments.
When asked how the information about the petroleum-related matter was communicated to him, the witness responded that the FIU receives intelligence through various channels, including open-source reports and individual tips.
The Committee inquired about the potential offences highlighted in the FIU report. The witness cited suspected tax evasion, unlicensed operations, and money laundering as primary concerns. However, the witness cautioned that money laundering is a derivative offence, and the FIU report was inconclusive. It did not establish tax evasion or other predicate offences that may occasion money laundering.
When asked about the bribery and corruption allegation referenced in the FIU report, it was not mentioned in the witness’s statement. The witness responded that the documentation related to account openings, bank statements, and how certain documents were obtained suggested potential elements of bribery and corruption. He cited that there was circumstantial evidence and examples, including repeated suspicious withdrawals, inadequate documentation for the sub-account openings, and a comfort letter issued by Access Bank that did not conform to established banking regulations.
When asked what happened with Access Bank during the investigation, the witness explained that the investigative panel engaged the bank, focusing on the sub-accounts and the comfort letter issued to Creed Energy. The Committee sought clarification on whether the panel could establish the motive behind the bank’s actions and whether bribery or corruption was proven. The witness confirmed that while bribery and corruption were not conclusively established, the bank admitted to failing to undertake enhanced due diligence. The witness further informed the Committee that Access Bank had been requested to provide a written statement, although he was unsure whether it was eventually submitted. Upon request, the witness disclosed the names of the members of the investigation panel.
The Committee asked how many times Access Bank was engaged during the investigation. The witness stated that he was aware of one meeting. He could not confirm whether there were others since he was absent throughout the process. He clarified that his role was to guide the panel through the FIU report, especially concerning financial transactions and bank documentation.
The Committee asked whether the investigative panel could establish why the banks acted in the manner they did. The witness explained that while their intentions could not be fully established, he believed the banks were motivated by profit interests. He reiterated that both banks admitted shortcomings in due diligence, particularly regarding sub-account openings.
The Committee asked whether there were distinct issues in the Ecobank case compared to Access Bank. The witness confirmed similarities, but noted additional concerns with Ecobank, including:
a) Transactions involving Yulia, who is listed on a US sanctions list,
b) A letter authorising the bank to honour instructions from Apogee FZC, despite Apogee not being a client of the bank,
c) An ineffective agreement between Creed Energy and Cross Breed for the use of Cross Breed’s licence to trade in petroleum products.
d) A transaction where both the ordering and beneficiary parties were Apogee FZC, raising questions of transparency.
The Committee asked whether any additional concerns were discussed with Ecobank officials. The witness replied that the engagement was similar to that of Access Bank. He further stated that the compliance officer at Ecobank had informed the panel that, at the time of account opening, they did not realise that Apogee FZC was not a legal entity, assuming instead that it was a label or trading name under Creed Energy.
The Committee then inquired whether Aurimas Steiblys had been invited or arrested. The witness said he met Aurimas at the GPF Headquarters and believed he had been invited.
The Committee then asked whether Aurimas had been issued a cautionary statement. The witness confirmed that he was. However, he stated that Aurimas was not charged, and the investigation’s OC issued the cautionary statement. When asked why Aurimas was granted police bail if he was not accused, the witness replied that this decision was at the authorities’ discretion.
On whether the witness was aware of the halting of the investigation, he replied in the affirmative, stating that this was communicated by the OC, who indicated that the investigation had been put on hold until further notice. The Committee asked whether, in the witness’s opinion, the investigation was halted due to bribery and corruption. The witness stated that that was the case, but he could not present any tangible evidence to substantiate that claim, noting that a conclusion could only be drawn if the investigation had been completed.
When asked who was invited on behalf of Creed Energy, the witness stated that it was the Managing Director and confirmed that a statement was submitted. The Committee also asked about the relationship between Creed Energy and Apogee FZC. The witness explained that the petroleum products in question were initially destined for.
On behalf of Ultimate Biege Logistics, Ghana had a contract with Apogee FZC. However, the products were later re-routed to The Gambia on behalf of Creed Energy, who had a contract with Ultimate Biege, even though Apogee FZC remained the original owner of the products.
When asked whether Gam-Petroleum was invited during the investigation, the witness said the panel did not invite them. Finally, the Committee made the following requests:
a) A copy of the investigation panel’s report,
b) Invoices issued by Creed Energy about the transactions.
The witness advised the Committee to write to the FIU to obtain formally:
a) Bank statements of the relevant accounts, and
b) Document all transactions related to the matter.
135. He further suggested that the Committee should request the FIU to freeze the account(s) where the proceeds from the transaction are currently lodged.
Findings!
1. The testimonies revealed indications of tax evasion and unlicensed operations as primary concerns about the petroleum saga, which might predict money laundering.
2. The testimonies also indicate that the way the sub-accounts were opened and transfers made to various individuals were bribes and corruption. Access Bank further cements this by not issuing the comfort letter in conformity with established banking regulations.
3. The evidence also revealed that while bribery and corruption were not conclusively established during the police investigation, it is clear that the bank has admitted failing to undertake enhanced due diligence regarding a high-profile customer.
4. The investigation also revealed that the panel engaged the Access Bank once during the investigation, which indicated a lack of credibility in the whole process.
5. The testimonies revealed that the bank was purely motivated by the profit margins and inflows (deposits) that the clients would bring, thereby not performing a complete and comprehensive due diligence assessment.
6. The investigation revealed that the police granted Mr. Aurimas self-bail but did not seize his passport to ensure his continuous availability in the inquiry. However, he was not charged as per the normal police investigation process and procedures, and according to the witness, this decision was issued by the police command.
7. The Committee noted that after the police granted self-bail, evidence shows that Mr Aurimas never reported to the police again, ending the investigation.
For More News And Analysis About Gambia Follow Africa-Press
