The Director of Business Operations at Dalex Finance, Mr Joe Jackson, has said he was sad that the state could not retrieve all the money from the Chief Executive Officer of the defunct Capital Bank, William Ato Essien before he was imprisoned.
Mr Joe Jackson who earlier expressed concerns over the lack of prosecution of the directors of the failed banks, said the state needs the money back.
It is recalled that the Bank of Ghana issued a press release on August 14, 2017, announcing the revocation of the license of Capital Bank due to insolvency.
The CEO of the bank Essien was subsequently slapped with a total jail term of 95 years for multiple counts of stealing and money laundering. These sentences are to run concurrently hence, he will be spending 15 years in jail.
Despite reaching an agreement to refund GHC90 million to the state, he only managed to refund GHC37 million to the state, hence the imposition of the custodial sentence.
Speaking on the News 360 onTV3 Thursday, October 12, Mr Joe Jackson said “I am filled with sadness, the sadness is on two levels. Number one is that, more than a conviction we really need to get our money back. The public purse was raided to resolve this issue and if there is an establishment that funds have been misused, we have to get the money back and so the conviction just shows that we haven’t still been able to the money back. For me that is sad.
“The second level of sadness is this; Capital Bank represented local indigenous ownership of our financial sector, nobody is going to grow this country or our financial sector for us, eventually Ghanains have to own it so that we can do the best for the country and not to ship the money out or ship the money in depending on where you stand.”
He further said the jailing of Ato Essien sends a signal to corporate Ghana that they cannot get away with wrongdoing.
“It is a really good thing not just for the financial sector but all of corporate Ghana so in that sense showing out that our legal system works, showing that you can’t get away with the wrong thing., that is wonderful,” he said.
But Deputy Attorney-General, Alfred Tuah-Yeboah said that even though Ato Essien has been jailed the state managed to retrieve an amount of GHC37 million from him before the sentence.
Mr Tuah-Yebuah indicated that if Ato Essien had been jailed last year, when an agreement to repay the money had not been reached, the state would not have benefited by retrieving this much of the money.
Speaking to TV3 after the sentencing, on Thursday, October 12, the Deputy-Attorney General said “Effectively, he has been sentenced to 15 years imprisonment. This is a matter that started long ago and last year, he decided to enter into an agreement for him to take advantage of section 35.
“We were expecting that he would go by the agreement that we had but unfortunately on his part, he could not fulfill his part of the bargain. As we speak he has been able to pay close to about 37 million Cedis and because of his inability to pay the rest, per the agreement that we had, the court had the right to sentence him to a prison term and the court just did that.
“I am yet to get the full complement of the orders of the court, now that he has been imprisoned if he gets the money to pay that is another ballgame to look at because after a court has given its ruling or judgment the court becomes functus officio, so my expectation is that when he pays then he goes into mitigation when he wants to appeal the sentence.
“Let’s hope that he gets the money to pay. Let us also add that even if he is going to serve the 15 years Ghanaians have also benefited somehow because at least 37 million Cedis has been paid to the state. if he had been sentenced last year we wouldn’t have even recovered this.”
Section 35 – Offer Of Compensation Or Restitution
(1) Where a person is charged with an offence before the High Court or a Regional Tribunal, the commission of which has caused economic loss, harm or damage to the State or any State agency, the accused may inform the prosecutor whether the accused admits the offence and is willing to offer compensation or make restitution and reparation for the loss, harm or damage caused.
(2) Where an accused makes an offer of compensation or restitution and reparation, the prosecutor shall consider if the offer is acceptable to the prosecution.
(3) If the offer is not acceptable to the prosecution the case before the Court shall proceed.
(4) If the offer is acceptable to the prosecution, the prosecutor shall in the presence of the accused, inform the Court which shall consider if the offer of compensation or restitution and reparation is satisfactory.
(5) Where the Court considers the offer to be satisfactory, the Court shall accept a plea of guilty from the accused and convict the accused on his own plea, and in lieu of passing sentence on the accused, make an order for the accused to pay compensation or make restitution and reparation.
(6) An order of the Court under subsection (5) shall be subject to such conditions as the Court may direct.
(7) Where a person convicted under this section defaults in the payment of any money required of the person under this section or fails to fulfil any condition imposed by the Court under subsection (6), any amount outstanding shall become due and payable and upon failure to make the payment, the Court shall proceed to pass a custodial sentence on the accused. [As substituted by the Courts (Amendment) Act, 2002 (Act 620).