Prosecution ordered to reveal investigation stage in Kitilya’s case

 
THE Kisutu Resident Magistrate’s Court in Dar es Salaam yesterday ordered the prosecution to disclose the stage of investigations so far reached into trial of ex-Commissioner General with Tanzania Revenue Authority (TRA), Harry Kitilya and two others, facing 12bn/-money

Principal Resident Magistrate Cyprian Mkeha gave the order when the case came for mention after receiving a complaint by advocate for the accused persons, Dr Masumbuko Lamwai, that investigation into the matter was taking too long.

“The prosecution should give the actual position of the investigation on the next mention date,” the magistrate directed. He adjourned the case to November 18. Dr Lamwai had submitted that in the last court session, the court had ordered the prosecution to disclose the stage investigations had reached so far.

“The accused persons are in remand because of the certificate of the Director of Public Prosecutions, but they do not know the outcome of their case,” the seasoned advocate said. He told the court that the endless song by the prosecution that they were still conducting investigations into the matter was not acceptable considering that money laundering charges do not need forensic research but deals with only documents.

Dr Lamwai was responding to a position given by State Attorney Estaziah Wilson, for the prosecution, who reported that the file of the case was still in the hands of the investigative authority, the Prevention and Combatting of Corruption Bureau (PCCB) for further investigations.

Other accused persons in the matter apart from Kitilya, are Shose Sinare, who is former Miss Tanzania and Head of Investment Banking at Stanbic Bank and Sioi Graham Solomon, former Chief Legal Counsel to the bank.

Apart from money laundering count, the three accused persons are also charged with conspiracy to commit and offence, forgery, uttering false documents and obtaining six million US dollars (about 12bn/-) by false pretences.

On diverse dates between August 20123 and March 2013, within the city of Dar Esc Salaam, the three accused persons allegedly conspired together and other people who were not in court to commit offence of obtaining money by false pretence from the government.

It is claimed that on 5 November, 2012, at Stanbic Bank in the city, all the three accused persons, with intent to deceive, made a false collaboration agreement purporting to show that the bank had established a consortium to collaborate with Enterprise Growth Market advisors (EGMA) Limited.

The purpose, according to the prosecution, was to arrange for financing in the amount of 550 million US dollars to the government of Tanzania under which EGMA would arrange for negotiation of a meeting involving the financing facilitate understanding on the technicalities of the financing to the government.

It was further claimed that the EGMA was also to arrange for review finance documents and facilitate the provision of relevant documents or approval that would be required by relevant Tanzania authorities, the fact which the accused persons knew to be false.

According to the prosecution, in March 2013 in the city, Kitilya, Sinare and Solomon, with intent to defraud, jointly and together obtained from the government six million US dollars (about 12bn/-) by falsely pretending that the money was a facilitation fee payable to EGMA Limited. Such amount, it was alleged, was to facilitate together with Stanbic Bank Tanzania a loan to the government of the United Republic of Tanzania in the amount of 600 million US dollars.

The prosecution further charged the three accused persons with money laundering, an offence allegedly committed between March 13 and September last year within the city of Dar es Salaam.

They are alleged to have directly engaged themselves in a transaction involving six million US dollars by transferring, withdrawing and depositing money relating to that transaction in different bank accounts maintained by EGMA Limited at Stanbic Bank Tanzania Limited and KCB Bank Limited.

The prosecution further told the court that the accused persons ought to have known that the said money was the proceeds of a predicate offence, which is forgery.