₦airaland Forum

uniquetechng:
According to the post Peter's claim that he was not aware of the company was false, he also claimed that Jude is the sole signatory but it turned out PETER is a category B signatory to the same account and has personally made withdrawals from the said account.
With those inconsistency a good lawyer will turn the case against Peter.
I studied business law as a borrowed course in school in 2002, so from experience I think Jude have a very good case.
Both men are guilty of the same offense.

You will make a terrible judge.

An efficient Judge would:

Ensure that both defense and prosecution attorneys have access to all exhibits and documents filled in court so that both parties can present their defense.

Listen to both defense and prosecution attorneys arguments to decide the case.

You just quoted the defense positions against the witness and complaint. You didn't care to listen to the defense of the prosecution attorneys and see the exhibits in counter filing.

Don't jump the gun, you heard the Judge insist that the documents to be used in the court must be filed with the court and served on the other party, prosecution and defense attorneys, as the case may be.

The defense attorney didn't share those documents with the prosecution before presenting them in court. Those documents must be scrutinized, investigated and confirmed.

Jude, and his wife, have a bad case if established that funds of PSquare was diverted into unauthorized accounts and for unapproved use.

Education issue is just to show that he can lie for Africa it is not a bone of contention.

saphiere:
Diddy and all the men in the world are demons

I thought you said you’ve changed.

Let's hear from Peter side of the proceedings? Lawyers always sound to be right. That's the real definition of lawyer.

Invest4growth:
How does being a graduate.relate to misappropriating funds? This will not make the judge to fault the evidences of peter. Putting it out here is to intimidate Peter. Is Bill Gates a graduate yet counting billions and employing thousands globally. What of Zuckerberg? So because Peter is not a graduate therefore judge must steal his money? What is the connection ?

you just read the headline

next time try and read well

Miramonica:
Lawyers always looking for lacuna to explore.

This discovery may affect this case.

He who must come to equity should ensure he comes with a clean hands.

You are guilty of what you accuse someone of.

How does whether he is a graduate or not affect anything? he attended the university of Abuja, he dropped out to chase his music career, 7 years later he enrolled again, payed some lecturers millions of Naira, spent another 3 years part time in school, then was discharged & graduated with honors, where is the crime?

MrPresident1:
Dem no get elders for their family ne? If you brother chop your money, no be on top him family him go spend am? If na outsider wey get power pass you nko, wetin you go do?

Dat him family no be your blood?

Even if you are angry, temper rage with commonsense and let your family leadership and community leaders settle for you and accept their final decision.

The Pan Igbo Ohaneze are just interested in politics. Their status an international fame is enough to attract such intervention, especially when both parent are no more. It's a pity.

LuQuLuQu:
Wetin consign education consign him money?

Abeg gee am him money joor

For him to lie in writing that he is graduate then it means that whatever he said with his mouth isn't tenable cos he has established himself as a person that tells lies and that's not good !

Miramonica:
Lawyers always looking for lacuna to explore.

This discovery may affect this case.

He who must come to equity should ensure he comes with a clean hands.

You are guilty of what you accuse someone of.

Exactly!

This means that for him to tell lies that he is a graduate ..how can the judge believe the case of 1 million dollars when small things are lied about


That lawyer is smart

Peter had previously testified that he was unaware of the contract with Mad Solutions and had only received $25,000 and $20,000 in royalty payments, implying that Jude had siphoned the larger share.

But the defence countered the narrative by presenting documents to the court confirming that the agreement with Mad Solutions was signed by all three parties—Jude, Peter, and Paul—and that each had equal entitlement to royalty payments.

The document contrary to Peter’s assertion, according to the defence, revealed that he actually received $4,330.47 and $5,837.35 as his first and second payments, respectively—figures far lower than the $25,000 and $20,000 he claimed under oath.

baralatie:
Peter had previously testified that he was unaware of the contract with Mad Solutions and had only received $25,000 and $20,000 in royalty payments, implying that Jude had siphoned the larger share.

But the defence countered the narrative by presenting documents to the court confirming that the agreement with Mad Solutions was signed by all three parties—Jude, Peter, and Paul—and that each had equal entitlement to royalty payments.

The document contrary to Peter’s assertion, according to the defence, revealed that he actually received $4,330.47 and $5,837.35 as his first and second payments, respectively—figures far lower than the $25,000 and $20,000 he claimed under oath.

Defence actually now implicated Jude the more o

baralatie:
Defence actually now implicated Jude the more o

No...

It implicates Peter. And exonerates Jude.

Or what are you talking about?

It shows Peter was aware of the agreement. Which he claimed to know nothing about.

It shows he was a signatory to the account and agreement!

baralatie:
Defence actually now implicated Jude the more o

how did he (Jude) implicate himself ?

brain54:
No...

It implicates Peter. And exonerates Jude.

Or what are you talking about?

It shows Peter was aware of the agreement. Which he claimed to know nothing about.

It shows he was a signatory to the account and agreement!

Peter had previously testified that he was unaware of the contract with Mad Solutions and had only received $25,000 and $20,000 in royalty payments, implying that Jude had siphoned the larger share.

But the defence countered the narrative by presenting documents to the court confirming that the agreement with Mad Solutions was signed by all three parties—Jude, Peter, and Paul— and that each had equal entitlement to royalty payments.

The document contrary to Peter’s assertion, according to the defence, revealed that he actually received $4,330.47 and $5,837.35 as his first and second payments, respectively—figures far lower than the $25,000 and $20,000 he claimed under oath.

baralatie:
Peter had previously testified that he was unaware of the contract with Mad Solutions and had only received $25,000 and $20,000 in royalty payments, implying that Jude had siphoned the larger share.

But the defence countered the narrative by presenting documents to the court confirming that the agreement with Mad Solutions was signed by all three parties—Jude, Peter, and Paul— and that each had equal entitlement to royalty payments.

The document contrary to Peter’s assertion, according to the defence, revealed that he actually received $4,330.47 and $5,837.35 as his first and second payments, respectively—figures far lower than the $25,000 and $20,000 he claimed under oath.

So how does this implicate Jude...

Rather than Peter?

Or you are mixing things up!

brain54:
So how does this implicate Jude...

Rather than Peter?

Or you are mixing things up!

What is the crux of the case?

baralatie:
What is the crux of the case?

Your post I quoted clearly states the documents implicates Jude...

While you are pulling out facts implicating Peter instead!

Invest4growth:
How does being a graduate.relate to misappropriating funds? This will not make the judge to fault the evidences of peter. Putting it out here is to intimidate Peter. Is Bill Gates a graduate yet counting billions and employing thousands globally. What of Zuckerberg? So because Peter is not a graduate therefore judge must steal his money? What is the connection ?

Education is not important but why did he lie that he's a graduate?

tonychristopher:
Exactly!

This means that for him to tell lies that he is a graduate ..how can the judge believe the case of 1 million dollars when small things are lied about


That lawyer is smart

that's just it.

That's why people say that law is stupid. It doesn't judge with emotions, it's just facts and evidence.

chukwutee:
The same people accusing an Erudite accountant that has worked in top capacity like exonmobile then work his way to become the president of the country, yet part of the same person propaganda for denigrating him was him forging result!so he actually forge his bsc result to get a PhD in Benin republic? These are the fraudulent people spearheading obisdenses movement! I pity who Dey pity these people.

fuulish full

LuQuLuQu:
Wetin consign education consign him money?

Abeg gee am him money joor

You go court go dey lie . Na evidence to prolong matter. Most of you just love anyhow.

frisky2good:
Many people here don't know that the lawyer is trying to show the judge that the plaintiff is not credible. If he lied about his education, who knows what else he lied about? I am not saying the fraud did not happen but a judge relies on testimonies and evidences. That is why you see that symbol of justice is a blindfolded lady with a scale in one hand and a sword in the other hand. Lady justice does not witness the event. She only hears from those involved, weighs your version against your opponents version and delivers justice with the sword. Once a judge begins to see you as a liar, then you are not a credible witness.

My brother Nigerians too dey attach emotions to everything. That his lie go prolong the matter . Person carry another person go court he go dey lie.

Invest4growth:
How does being a graduate.relate to misappropriating funds? This will not make the judge to fault the evidences of peter. Putting it out here is to intimidate Peter. Is Bill Gates a graduate yet counting billions and employing thousands globally. What of Zuckerberg? So because Peter is not a graduate therefore judge must steal his money? What is the connection ?

Oga carry your mouth go one side. Everything no be emotion. Why he dey lie for court. He go just spoil him case

The case revolves around fraud.
If a fraud was committed, then the lies told by Peter is immaterial.
The prosecution team should prove beyond all reasonable doubt a fraud indeed took place.

Miramonica:
that's just it.

That's why people say that law is stupid. It doesn't judge with emotions, it's just facts and evidence.

Exactly.... Based on precedence that the guy lied about his educational career..why wouldn't he lie about his financial dealings

AfonjaPriest:
The case revolves around fraud.
If a fraud was committed, then the lies told by Peter is immaterial.
The prosecution team should prove beyond all reasonable doubt a fraud indeed took place.

How would you believe someone that is claiming financial fraud when smallest things like education qualification he is telling lies

The defence lawyer should face the main allegations against his client, peters schools isnt the topic of any allegation moreover it is common knowledge that peter didnt finish unibuja it was only paul & his wife who graduated so defence lawyer should face his main job.

frisky2good:
Many people here don't know that the lawyer is trying to show the judge that the plaintiff is not credible. If he lied about his education, who knows what else he lied about? I am not saying the fraud did not happen but a judge relies on testimonies and evidences. That is why you see that symbol of justice is a blindfolded lady with a scale in one hand and a sword in the other hand. Lady justice does not witness the event. She only hears from those involved, weighs your version against your opponents version and delivers justice with the sword. Once a judge begins to see you as a liar, then you are not a credible witness.

You are correct at the same time that mostly works on the jury, case hasnt gone to trail yet in fact the defence lawyer just made paul more guarded now cos he wasn't supposed to release such defence till the case gets to trail if there will be any, moreover peter can still claim he was misquoted most importantly his school qualifications has no relation to the case of fraud brought against his brother except he was rusticated from the school for stealing or falsifying documents which therefore can paint peter as a serial fraudster or liar nevertheless the defence must still defend themselves completely.

uniquetechng:
Peter said Jude is the sole signatory to the said company's account, but it turned out that Jude is category A signatory while Paul and Peter are category B signatories. So yeah in law Peter lied.

The 3 need to sign for individual withdrawal ,did they coutersign for peter?

Miramonica:
Lawyers always looking for lacuna to explore.

This discovery may affect this case.

He who must come to equity should ensure he comes with a clean hands.

You are guilty of what you accuse someone of.

The young man did say that he "attended" that Uni... It doesn't mean he finished his course of study. Because of the digital trails and instant verifications from Unis that exist, I absolutely doubt if his main intention was to mislead the EFCC, the legal system, and everyone by falsely clakming that he graduated from that Uni when he didn't. However, this should serve as a lesson to everyone to always come clean about these kinds of situations so as NOT to be perceived as a liar down the road by investigators and close friends or relatives.