Controversy Over Evidence as Court Weighs No-Case Submission in Gold Fraud Trial

A Freetown Magistrate Court is currently grappling with a contentious legal issue: whether the evidence presented so far is sufficient to require the two accused persons to answer to a series of serious allegations involving alleged gold fraud, or whether their no-case submission should be upheld, leading to their acquittal at this stage of proceedings.

The State, represented by Prosecutor Yusuf Isaac Sesay, has urged Magistrate Jah to dismiss the defence’s no-case submission filed by M.C. Wilson, representing the accused.

The case involves over US$335,000 in disputed transactions linked to alleged gold dealings, and the accused are jointly facing an 11-count indictment. The charges include 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.

During the hearing, the prosecution argued that the evidence laid before the court by the State is sufficient to establish a prima facie case against the accused, compelling them to answer the charges.

State Counsel Sesay explained that a no-case submission is not the final verdict but a procedural move that the court must evaluate by examining the charges, the legal elements involved, and the evidence presented.

“The defence’s position that the transactions were legitimate gold dealings does not sufficiently explain the circumstances surrounding the payments and the documentation involved,” Sesay stated.

He further outlined how the investigation revealed that the complainants, Italian nationals, were introduced to the accused through Gudi, a manager at Langooda Restaurant in Freetown.

Initially interested in purchasing diamonds, the complainants were later persuaded by the second accused, Alhaji Jalloh, to consider buying gold instead.

The court was told that on August 3, 2025, during a meeting at the accused’s residence in Mile 12, the complainants were introduced to the first accused, identified as the wife of the second accused and as the Chief Executive Officer of their business. It was alleged that they were told the couple dealt in the sale and transportation of gold.

Further, the prosecution claimed that on August 6, 2025, after a failed diamond transaction, the second accused purportedly convinced the complainants to purchase gold, negotiating a price of US$70,000 per kilogram. The complainants allegedly agreed to buy three kilograms of gold for US$210,000.

Trouble reportedly arose when the complainants attempted to withdraw the money from Rokel Commercial Bank, which requested documentation explaining the purpose of the transaction. The prosecution alleged that the accused facilitated the withdrawal, resulting in the complainants receiving US$100,000 and US$110,000 in separate transactions.

The prosecution also cast doubt on the legitimacy of GAN Mineral SL Ltd, the company involved in the transactions. Evidence indicated that the company was not properly licensed or registered to carry out mineral activities, lacked an official business address, and did not possess the necessary permits, raising suspicions about its operations.

Additionally, the prosecution highlighted that the accused appeared to operate as business partners rather than simply as spouses, based on testimonies and evidence. One of the accused was alleged to have instructed the complainant not to open the gold’s seal, which the prosecution argued pointed to an intent to commit fraud.

Although the sale of gold is not inherently unlawful, the prosecution contended that conducting such transactions without the required legal authority, coupled with the use of false documentation, could constitute criminal conduct.

In urging the court to reject the defence’s no-case submission, State Counsel Sesay cited Section 105 of the law, asserting that the evidence presented warrants the accused persons being asked to answer the charges.

Magistrate Jah, after listening to the submissions from both sides, indicated that he would carefully consider the arguments and evidence before making a ruling.

The case was subsequently adjourned to August 24, 2026, for the court’s decision on whether the accused should be called upon to defend themselves or be acquitted at this stage.

The outcome of this legal contention will have significant implications for the ongoing investigation and potential prosecution, amid public interest in the high-profile case involving alleged gold fraud and financial misconduct.