Skip links

BINANCE: Federal High Court Abuja rejects Binance executive’s bail plea

The Federal High Court sitting in Abuja, on Friday, refused to grant bail to a top official of Binance Holdings Limited, Tigran Gambaryan, who is currently in prison custody.

The court, in the ruling that was delivered by Justice Emeka Nwite, said it was not convinced that the defendant, who is facing a five-count money laundering and terrorism financing charge alongside the company, would be available to face his trial once he is released on bail.

According to the court, the defendant, failed to present sufficient materials to sway its discretion in his favour.

Justice Nwite held that based on affidavit evidence that was adduced by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, EFCC, there is the likelihood that the defendant may jump bail.

Consequently, it dismissed the defendant’s application to be granted bail, pending the determination of the case against him.

The court ordered accelerated hearing of the matter.

The EFCC had on April 23, urged the court to allow the Binance official to remain in Kuje prison.

The anti-graft agency maintained that it got a reliable intelligence that plans were afoot for the defendant to escape from custody and flee the country like his colleague.

It told the court that the defendant had attempted to secure a brand new international passport from the embassy of the United States of America.

EFCC further alleged that the defendant is an Armenian citizen by birth, saying there was a clear danger that he would jump bail if released from custody.

The defendant had in an application he filed on April 4 through his team lawyers led by Mr. Mark Mordi, SAN, relied on provisions of sections 157 and 162 of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act, 2015, to plead for bail.

He contended that the charge the EFCC preferred against him contained bailable offences, insisting that under the Constitution of Nigeria, 1999, as amended, he is presumed innocent of the allegations against him.

Mordi, SAN, argued that the prosecution failed to place any evidence before the court to establish that his client posed a flight risk.

“The prosecution has not presented any credible evidence to establish why the defendant should not be granted bail,” the defense lawyer submitted, adding that the claim that his client was planning to escape from the country was based “hearsay, unreliable and inadmissible evidence.”

“My client is anxious and very desirous to prove his Innocence. This whole thing is that they want to use the defendant as a leavrage to obtain information from his employer. That is basically what this case is all about.

“This is purely a state sanctioned hostage taking,” the defence counsel added.

He, therefore, prayed the court to grant the defendant bail and stipulate conditions that would ensure his attendance to his trial.

However, while opposing the bail application, EFCC’s counsel, Mr. Ekele Iheanacho, drew attention of the court to the fact that defendant’s colleague escaped from lawful custody.

“There was an attempt by this defendant to procure another travelling document even when he was aware that his passport was in custody of the state. He pretended as if the said passport was stolen.

“My lord, he made the move within the same period that his colleague escaped from custody and fled the country.

“If not that operatives of the Commission intercepted him, that act would have been completed.

“This court will be taking a grave risk to grant the defendant bail. This is also considering the fact that he has no attachment to any community in Nigeria.

“The fact that the passport of the defendant is with the complainant does not also guarantee that he will remain in Nigeria. He is not only an American citizen, he was born in Armenia and has its citizenship by birth.

“The experience we have had with the man who escaped to Kenya while his United Kingdom passport is in Nigeria will certainly repeat itself if this defendant is granted bail.

“Because of information we have received, we have even proposed that the defendant be returned to EFCC custody where he will be taken good care of, instead of the prison. It was an option we initially opposed.

“The 1st defendant (Binance) is operating virtually. The only thing we have to hold on to is this defendant. So, we pray my lord to refuse bail to the defendant,” the prosecution counsel added.

After he had listened to both sides, trial Justice Emeka Nwite adjourned the matter for ruling.

Gambaryan is answering to a five-count charge alongside his employer, Binance Holdings Limited.

The Federal Government had arrested and detained him and his colleague, Nadeem Anjarwalla over alleged involvement of their firm in money laundering and terrorism financing.

Even though their international passports were seized, however, Anjarwalla, who is the Africa Regional Manager of Binance, escaped from custody and fled to Kenya, with the government initiating the process to arrest and extradite him back to the country for trial.

Despite the development, both the EFCC and the Federal Inland Revenue Service, FIRS, slammed separate criminal charges against the duo and the company.

Whereas the anti-graft agency is prosecuting the company and Gambaryan for alleged financial malfeasance, the FIRS, in its own charge, accused the defendants of engaging in tax fraud.

Leave a comment