A FEDERAL High Court in Abuja, on Friday, June 14, discharged an executive of Binance Holdings Limited, Tigran Gambaryan, and his fleeing colleague, Nadeem Anjarwalla, from the alleged tax evasion charge preferred against the company by the Federal Inland Revenue Service (FIRS).
According to the News Agency of Nigeria (NAN), Justice Emeka Nwite, in a ruling, discharged and struck out Gambaryan and Anjarwalla’s names from the four-count charge after FIRS’ Counsel, Moses Ideho, filed a fresh amended charge, wherein Binance is listed as the sole defendant.
Binance was the 1st defendant in the May 17 amended charge filed by FIRS, while Gambaryan was listed as 2nd defendant and Anjarwalla’s name appeared as being at large.
But at the resumed hearing on Friday, Gambaryan stepped into the dock, just as Tonye Krukrubo (SAN), who appeared for Binance (1st defendant), informed the court that the cryptocurrency firm had just appointed a representative in Nigeria, Mr. Ayodele Omotilewa, who was also in court, stood up and announced his name.
Ideho confirmed that his office received a notice of appointment of a representative, Omotilewa, by Binance, dated June 13, 2024.
The FIRS lawyer told the court that against the development, an amended four-count charge listing Binance Holdings Limited as sole defendant was filed on June 13.
He, therefore, applied that Omotilewa should be docked to take a plea on behalf of the company.
But Krukrubo disagreed with Ideho’s application, arguing that the company’s representative was yet to be served with the fresh amended charge and was only appearing in court for the first time.
“I think my learner friend should confirm whether he has served him or not first. We are not there yet,” he said, insisting that the prosecution had not served them with the amended charge.
Krukrubo said Omotilewa ought not to enter the dock, as he was only appointed for specific purposes, which is to receive processes, saying: “He is one of us; a legal practitioner.”
He said the proper thing for the prosecution to do was to address the court on the charge he intended to substitute.
Mr. C.J. Caleb, who appeared for Gambaryan (2nd defendant), aligned himself with Krukrubo’s submission, noting that the jurisprudence for criminal trial of a corporation, as it stands, does not contemplate that a corporation or its representative should be in the dock.
“More importantly, the ACJA (Administration of Criminal Justice Act), particularly Part 47, did not leave us in doubt on how a trial should proceed in respect of a corporation,” he said
Caleb said the Act also specified all that is required for a representative in criminal trial, citing Sections 478 , 481, 482 and 483, adding: “So, I align with my learned colleague that the representative is enough to be in court, but does have to be in the dock.”
Ideho, however, disagreed, citing Section 481 of ACJA to back his argument, insisting: “If my lord is to look carefully at the provisions of this section and subsection, a representative cannot just sit in the gallery and watch like a spectator how the trial is conducted.
“He should be in the dock, because this is a criminal charge, not civil matter.”
Responding, Krukrubo argued that there was nowhere in the section cited by Ideho where it was said that a company’s representative must be in the dock.
“Section 481 is written in black and white and it does not say that a representative of a corporation must be in dock. What he is saying is not contemplated by ACJA,” he said.
Also speaking, Caleb argued that Section 418 of ACJA only talked about the power of a representative.
The Judge, while directing lawyers to the parties to file processes on whether the Nigerian representative should be in the dock or not,the case is adjourned until July 12, 2024 for plea.
FIRS is accusing Binance of offering services (in the buying and selling of cryptocurrencies and the remittance and transfer of those assets) to Nigerians while failing to deduct the necessary Value Added Taxes (VAT) arising from its operations.
