Whether Agents/Officers Automatically Become Vicariously Liable for the Offences of the Corporate Entity Under the Money Laundering Prohibition Act 2022

CASE TITLE: TANGWAMI v. FRN (2025) LPELR-82119(CA)

JUDGMENT DATE: 8TH SEPTEMBER, 2025

PRACTICE AREA: EVIDENCE

LEAD JUDGMENT: FREDERICK OZIAKPONO OHO, J.C.A.

SUMMARY OF JUDGMENT:

INTRODUCTION:

This appeal borders on criminal law and procedure.

FACTS:

The Appellant, along with two other Defendants, was charged with accepting and making payments of sums of money above the threshold contrary to Section 1(a) and punishable under Section 16 of the Money Laundering (Prohibition) Act, 2022, as amended. The Appellant at the material time held the position of Director-General of the Adamawa2022 State People’s Democratic Party (PDP) Campaign Organisation for the 2015 Presidential Elections. The Appellant was also a member of the Funds Disbursement Committee constituted by the PDP to disburse funds meant for the 2015 Presidential Elections.

The funds meant to be distributed were made available to the Committee by the two other Defendants, who collected the same in cash from Fidelity Bank Plc after fulfilling all banking protocols and procedures. The accountant and cashier of the Adamawa State Government House were said to have distributed the funds to the various local government representatives, whereby each person who collected the money was required to sign a document before one Barr. Atiku Ribadu, who prepared the document as evidence of collection.

All said and done, the trial Court sustained the no-case submission of the other two Defendants on the ground that the money was paid through a financial institution. The trial Court also sustained the no-case submission of the Appellant on counts 1 and 2 of the charge but directed the Appellant to enter his defense in respect of counts 3 to 23. The prosecution called 21 witnesses and tendered 21 exhibits and closed its case in 2024. The Appellant proffered his defense on the 5th day of July, 2024, and the trial Court in its considered judgment convicted the Appellant on Counts 3 – 23.

Dissatisfied with the judgment, the appellant appealed.

ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION:

The Court determined the appeal on the following issues:

1. Whether the act of making a cash payment beyond the threshold was the action of the Appellant or the PDP itself?

2. Whether the trial Judge was right when he held that there were no contradictions in the prosecution’s case to absolve the appellant from liability for making cash payments above the threshold contrary to the Money Laundering (Prohibition) Act, 2022 (as amended)?

3. Whether the trial Court was not wrong when it relied on Exhibits G and J in holding that the Appellant had admitted the offence in his confessional statement before the investigating officers?

DECISION/HELD:

The appeal succeeded and was allowed. The Appellant was discharged and acquitted of all the counts in the charge.

RATIOS:

• EVIDENCE-CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT: Effect of failure to comply with the Administration of Criminal Justice Act in the process of taking the confessional statement of an accused person
• EVIDENCE- CONTRADICTION IN EVIDENCE: Instance of material contradiction that will discredit the evidence of a witness
• LEGISLATION- MONEY LAUNDERING (PROHIBITION) ACT: Whether agents/officers automatically become vicariously liable for the offences of the corporate entity under the Money Laundering Prohibition Act 2022

To read the full judgment or similar judgments, subscribe to Prime or Primsol