Modupe Gbadeyanka
By Modupe Gbadeyanka
The arraignment of Binance Holdings Limited and two of its representatives detained in Nigeria, Mr Tigran Gambaryan and Nadeem Anjarwalla, has been adjourned till Monday, April 8, 2024.
The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) brought the suspects, except for Mr Anjarwalla, who is now at large, to court on Thursday, April 4, 2024.
They were brought before Justice Emeka Nwite of the Federal High Court in Abuja on a five-count charge bordering on tax evasion, currency speculation and money laundering to the tune of $34.4 million.
Arguing on a ruling on the service of charges on the company today, the defence counsel, Mr Mark Mordi (SAN) objected to the arraignment of the second defendant without the prosecution properly serving the charges on the first defendant, stressing that his client is not an agent, director or representative of the company in the country, and as such could not be served on behalf of the first defendant.
“My Lord, it is a joint charge, the prosecution is supposed to have served the first defendant the charge and having not accomplished service to the first defendant, I don’t see how the arraignment can go my Lord.
“He’s not a Director, not a partner, and not even the Secretary. He does not reside in Nigeria to qualify as an agent within the jurisdiction, he has no physical footprint here, so he’s not an agent here. There’s no proof of service in the court’s file, so the prosecution cannot assume that he has been served through my client,” he informed the court.
But counsel to the EFCC, Mr Ekele Iheanacho, disagreed with him, noting that the second respondent is a representative of the first defendant in the country, adding that the charge was served on him on behalf of the company.
“My Lord Section 123 of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act states that on effecting service; ‘the person effecting service of a summons shall effect it by delivering it on: (a) an individual, to him personally; or (b) a firm or corporation; (i) to one of the partners, (ii) to a director, (iii) to the secretary, (iv) to the chief agent within the jurisdiction, (v) by leaving it at the principal place of business in Nigeria of the firm or corporation, or (vi) to anyone having, at the time of service, control of the business of the firm. So, my Lord, the law allows that the service can be effected to the chief agent within the jurisdiction, and in this case, the second defendant is the only physical agent within the jurisdiction,” he argued.
He also pointed out that “the law does not command an impossibility. A party that has no physical presence in Nigeria but has a physical agent in Nigeria can properly be served through that agent. He is the only physical agent we have, hence we served him on behalf of the first defendant though he refused the service, but it is in our proof of evidence that we served him”.
