With experience, if there is any suspicious transaction in an account, a money laundry report is forwarded to the law enforcement agency while a temporary post no debit is usually placed on it and the owner of the account is contacted for explanation on the transaction. Upon satisfactory explanation, the PND is usually lifted. If the explanation is not satisfactory, or the account holder could not be traced or is at large, a further instruction is placed on the account to alert security operatives should the owner turn up at anytime to transact with the account.


In Mrs Fani Kayode & Fayose Vs EFCC case:

1. When was the said suspicious transaction by Nenadi Usman done?
2. Was the account holder contacted for explanation?
3. Are there contact information- address, phone number , email address on the account?
4. Who opened the account, is there no passport on the account? was there no address and identity verification?
5. Was the lady at large?
6. Is there any evidence that EFCC or the bank made efforts to invite the account owner for explanation but she declined?
7. When was the last transaction in the account?
8. Did EFCC investigate Mrs. Nenadi Usman? Did they discover the said transaction then? If yes, why was FFK's wife not arrested or
invited then?
9. Is FFK's wife that dumb to turn up for a transaction in an account that she knows is under investigation if her hands are dirty?

I think there is a procedural flaw in the process of investigation in the case between Mrs. Fani Kayode and EFCC. A suspicious transaction does not automatically mean a fraudulent transaction.
Why arrest someone based on suspicion when you have not interviewed the person before? The first point of interview should have been by the bank, or the EFCC on invitation. If she absconds, declare her wanted instead of waiting for her to work into the bank then your arrest her in an embarrassing manner. Her identity is not hidden. I think the EFCC erred in its procedure and is enough to elicit suspicion of a political vindictiveness.

This was exactly what i was saying in the other thread.

[size=48pt]GOD Bles You, Big TIME!!!
[/size]

Gaskia:
With experience, if there is any suspicious transaction in an account, a money laundry report is forwarded to the law enforcement agency while a temporary post no debit is usually placed on it and the owner of the account is contacted for explanation on the transaction. Upon satisfactory explanation, the PND is usually lifted. If the explanation is not satisfactory, or the account holder could not be traced or is at large, a further instruction is placed on the account to alert security operatives should the owner turn up at anytime to transact with the account.


In Mrs Fani Kayode & Fayose Vs EFCC case:

1. When was the said suspicious transaction by Nenadi Usman done?
2. Was the account holder contacted for explanation?
3. Are there contact information- address, phone number , email address on the account?
4. Who opened the account, is there no passport on the account? was there no address and identity verification?
5. Was the lady at large?
6. Is there any evidence that EFCC or the bank made efforts to invite the account owner for explanation but she declined?
7. When was the last transaction in the account?
8. Did EFCC investigate Mrs. Nenadi Usman? Did they discover the said transaction then? If yes, why was FFK's wife not arrested or
invited then?
9. Is FFK's wife that dumb to turn up for a transaction in an account that she knows is under investigation if her hands are dirty?

I think there is a procedural flaw in the process of investigation in the case between Mrs. Fani Kayode and EFCC. A suspicious transaction does not automatically mean a fraudulent transaction.
Why arrest someone based on suspicion when you have not interviewed the person before? The first point of interview should have been by the bank, or the EFCC on invitation. If she absconds, declare her wanted instead of waiting for her to work into the bank then your arrest her in an embarrassing manner. Her identity is not hidden. I think the EFCC erred in its procedure and is enough to elicit suspicion of a political vindictiveness.