… Says We Relied On These Documents To Prosecute Ibori
SAN FRANCISCO, September 24, (THEWILL) – The confiscation of assets hearing of former Delta State Governor, James Ibori turned dramatic as it entered its 6th day in a London court yesterday (Monday) as the Crown Prosecution accepted that they relied on forged and falsified documents, letters and ledgers obtained from Arlington Sharmas solicitors to nail Ibori.
Mr. Peter Clark, who led the British police financial investigation into Ibori’s money laundering case said while being cross examined by Ibori’s lawyers that Mr. Bhadresh Gohil, a convicted solicitor, had forged, backdated and falsified documents and letters with as much as six years gap between documents and the dates the documents were actually said to refer.
When Ibori’s counsel, Krolic directly asked if Mr. Gohil’s documents which were used against Ibori were actually “not genuine documents as they never existed in reality”, DC Clark answered: “correct”.
Krolic continued, “you as an experienced financial investigator, you will not be impressed by this ledger created 6 years before the actual dates it referred to (the financial statements created by Mr. Gohil to prosecute James Ibori). DC Clark said, “I would not be impressed”.
Krolic then addressed the court: “the prosecution chief witness, DC Peter Clark has said Crown Prosecution relied on documents they knew were not genuine, true and accurate to prosecute James Ibori. In any judgement, such documents are not admissible against an accused as they are unreliable and not genuine”.
Facing Clark, a British Police Officer, he asked: “In the course of your investigation, reference to the documents tendered by the prosecution being used in the court in the cross examination, did you find any letter signed by James Ibori?”
Clark: “No”
Krolic: “what is the source of your allegation that Ken Oil and Gas transferred funds on behalf of James Ibori? Are you saying your source is from the tainted and forged records kept by Gohil?”
Clark: “Yes”
Krolic: “These are all fake letters, aren’t they?”
Clark: “Yes”
Krolic not satisfied by the admission of the prosecution that the documents used against Ibori were fake, forged and cannot be relied upon, pressed on: “it is not only that Mr. Gohil created fake letters, do you also agree he also created fake responses claimed to be from his client?”
DC Clark: “Yes.”
Krolic: “While reviewing the consolidated account with the names James Ibori, Victor Attah, Opobo and Samutete, did you find out, or was there any clear indication anywhere that the monies in the ledger came from James Ibori?”
Clark: “no …apart from the ledgers”.
Krolic: “So the funds in this account did not indicate from whom the money came?”
Clark, “it is from the consolidated ledger”
Krolic, “No this is a ledger created by Mr Gohill – for whatever reason he chose to do it?
Clark, “yes”
Reacting to the development in the court after the court proceeding, James Ibori’s solicitor, Jonathan Epelle said “it must be obvious to all that the whole foundation of the prosecution case is built upon conjecture, half truths and fabrication”. He said “this is a proverbial house built on sand, with no solid foundation”.
The Bhadresh Gohill, whose forged documents were used in nailing Ibori was actually at a time Ibori’s own lawyer. The questions on most lips as people exited the court on Monday was, one, who Gohill was actually working for; Ibori or the Police. The second one was why Ibori pleaded guilty to some of the charges against him – after all, the British financial investigator’s while being crossed examined accepted that the documents, letters and ledgers from Mr Gohil which they relied upon were falsified, forged and back dated.
The hearing continues.
