By: Alimatu Kargbo
The State has urged Magistrate Jah of the Freetown Magistrates’ Court to dismiss a no-case submission filed by defence counsel M.C. Wilson in a high-profile alleged gold fraud case involving two accused persons and more than US$335,000 in disputed transactions.
The accused are jointly facing an 11-count indictment, including conspiracy to defraud, obtaining money by false pretences, conspiracy to rob, money laundering, receiving money through a forged receipt, uttering a forged document, selling minerals without lawful authority and tax evasion.
The charges include allegations involving US$210,000, US$100,000, US$110,000 and US$15,000 allegedly connected to gold transactions and export taxes.
State Counsel Yusuf Isaac Sesay, in his response to the defence’s no-case submission, argued that the prosecution had presented sufficient evidence requiring the accused persons to answer the allegations.
Sesay told the court that a no-case submission should not be treated as the final stage of a trial. He explained that at this stage, the court is required to consider the charges, their legal elements and the evidence presented by the prosecution to determine whether a prima facie case has been established.
According to the prosecutor, the defence’s position that the accused were engaged in legitimate gold transactions did not adequately explain the circumstances surrounding the payments and documentation.
Sesay alleged that the complainants, Italian nationals, were introduced to the accused through Gudi, a manager at Langooda Restaurant in Freetown. He said the complainants initially expressed interest in purchasing diamonds but were later persuaded by the second accused, Alhaji Jalloh, to consider buying gold.
The court heard that during a meeting on 3 August 2025 at the accused persons’ residence in Mile 12, the complainants were introduced to the first accused as the wife of the second accused and the Chief Executive Officer of their business. They were allegedly told that the couple dealt in the sale and transportation of gold.
Sesay further submitted that on 6 August 2025, after a proposed diamond transaction failed, the second accused allegedly persuaded the complainants to purchase gold instead. The court heard that the parties negotiated a price of US$70,000 per kilogramme.
The prosecutor said the complainants subsequently agreed to purchase three kilogrammes of gold for US$210,000.
According to Sesay, difficulties arose when the complainants attempted to withdraw the money from Rokel Commercial Bank. The bank allegedly requested documentation explaining the purpose of the payment.
The prosecution further alleged that the accused subsequently became involved in facilitating the withdrawal, resulting in the complainants receiving US$100,000 and US$110,000 on separate occasions.
Sesay also challenged the legitimacy of GAN Mineral SL Ltd, the company allegedly used in the transaction. He told the court that evidence from the relevant authorities suggested that the company had not been properly licensed or registered to conduct the alleged mineral business.
He questioned why a company purporting to conduct such transactions would allegedly operate without an official business address or the required licence.
The prosecutor also referred the court to evidence and exhibits tendered during the trial, arguing that they showed the accused persons were not merely acting as husband and wife but were allegedly operating as business partners in the transactions under investigation.
Sesay further pointed to testimony that one of the accused allegedly instructed the complainant not to open the gold’s seal, arguing that this formed part of the circumstances pointing to an alleged intention to defraud.
He maintained that while the sale of gold itself is not unlawful, conducting such transactions without the required legal authority and allegedly using false documentation could amount to criminal conduct.
The State Counsel urged the court to reject the defence’s no-case submission and rule that the accused have a case to answer. He further asked the court to commit the matter to the High Court, citing Section 105 in support of the prosecution’s position.
After hearing submissions from both sides, Magistrate Jah said it was now his responsibility to carefully consider the arguments and evidence before making a determination.
The matter was subsequently adjourned to 24 August 2026 for ruling on the no-case submission
