Maureen Adebayo v Central Investigtion Court No 3 Madrid (Spain)
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Mr Justice Fordham |
| Judgment Date | 28 March 2023 |
| Neutral Citation | [2023] EWHC 691 (Admin) |
| Docket Number | Case No: CO/365/2022 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) |
[2023] EWHC 691 (Admin)
Mr Justice Fordham
Case No: CO/365/2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
KING'S BENCH DIVISION
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
Alex Tinsley (instructed by Raj Law Solicitors) for the Appellant
David Ball (instructed by CPS) for the Respondent
Hearing date: 16.3.23
Approved Judgment
I direct that no official shorthand note shall be taken of this Judgment and that copies of this version as handed down may be treated as authentic.
THE HON. Mr Justice Fordham
Introduction
This is an extradition case at whose heart is the difference between (a) a non-particularised allegation and (b) a non-allegation. It comes before me as an appeal against the decision of District Judge Zani (“the Judge”) who on 27 January 2022 ordered that the Appellant (aged 54) be extradited to Spain. He did so, after an oral hearing on 14 December 2021, for the reasons set out in a 22-page judgment (“the Judgment”). Extradition is sought in conjunction with an accusation European Arrest Warrant (“the EAW”) issued on 5 April 2019 and certified on 29 November 2020. The Appellant was arrested on 29 November 2020 and the old law (EU Framework Decision) applies. The EAW is accompanied by Form A — Supplementary Information (“SI”) and has been augmented by Further Information (“FI”) dated 8 January 2021 (“FI#1”) and 30 March 2021 (“FI#2”). It is common ground that the SI, FI#1 and FI#2 are “part and parcel” of the EAW. I can proceed straight to the three issues.
The Section 2 Issue (Particulars)
Section 2(4)(c) of the Extradition Act 2003 prescribes, as required information for a statutorily-compliant accusation EAW:
particulars of the circumstances in which the person is alleged to have committed the offence, including the conduct alleged to constitute the offence, the time and place at which [they are] alleged to have committed the offence and any provision of the law of the category 1 territory under which the conduct is alleged to constitute an offence .
In FK v Germany [2017] EWHC 2160 (Admin) the Court said (at §54):
About the particularisation required by these provisions, the following propositions, regularly repeated in the authorities … are uncontroversial. There is a particularly high level of mutual trust, confidence and respect between states which are parties to the Framework Decision. The object of the EAW process is to remove the complexity and potential for delay in extradition between such states. There is consequently no requirement for full and exhaustive particularisation, the appropriate level of particularisation being dependent upon the circumstances of the specific case. In assessing whether a description is adequate, the EAW should be considered as a whole. However, sufficient circumstances must be set out to enable the requested person and the requested state (i) to identify the offence with which the requested person is charged; (ii) to understand, with a reasonable certainty, the substance of the allegations against the requested person and in particular when and where the offence is said to have been committed, and what he is said to have done; (iii) to perform a transposition exercise, when dual criminality is in issue; and (iv) to determine whether any compulsory or optional barriers to extradition apply. Where a request for extradition is made in respect of more than one offence, each offence must be adequately particularised .
The EAW identifies three alleged offences and the applicable provisions of the Nigerian Criminal Code. The following appears in EAW box [e], under the heading “Nature and legal classification of the offence(s) and the applicable statutory provision/code” (numbering in square brackets is added for ease of cross-referencing):
[i] Continual swindling, set forth in Article 74, 249 and 250–1.5 of the Criminal Code, [ii] receiving stolen goods and/or money laundering, set forth in Articles 298 and 301 of the Criminal Code, and [iii] participation in a criminal organisation, set forth in Article 570 bis of the Criminal Code .
EAW Box [e] says this, under the heading “Description of the circumstances in which the offence(s) was (were) committed, including the time, place and degree of participation in the offence(s) by the requested person” (numbering in square brackets added):
Investigations conducted so far provide rational indications of criminal activity, through which it is possible to establish the following facts:
[1] The current investigation is being carried out on a criminal organisation dedicated to swindling and money laundering .
[2] They are criminal activities that adopt one of the deceptions used in the so called “Nigerian letters” criminal modality: fraudulent offering of transactions for an apparent money gain .
[3] The investigated Maureen MOWUNMI ADEBAYO is engaged in the criminal organisation, playing the role of a “mule”, which consists of knowingly providing the organisation with bank accounts, in her own name or in the name of legal entities of which she is the administrator, so as to receive the fraudulent transfers made by the victims, and then making further transfers or withdrawals of cash; in this way, the profits made from the criminal activity committed are channelled, facilitating the circulation of the fraudulent economic benefit and its laundering, with full knowledge of the illicit origin of the funds .
[4] The charged person, Maureen MOWUNMI ADEBAYO, following the methodology used by this organisation, after receiving a transfer from Klaus Dieter MULLER, transfers the money to someone called Gladys, with the aim of moving the money between different accounts, generally belonging to people from her country, thus making it more difficult its tracking. These people, called mules, sometimes hold a network of bank accounts, either in their own name or in the name of various companies, as in the case of Maureen MOWUNMI ADEBAYO, who is the sole administrator of ALKABIR GLOBAL SERVICES and of the company M.A.M Holding Incorporations S.L .
[5] Documents received from the banks with the accounts held by legal entities or companies related to this charged person show transactions for which she uses three accounts in two banks .
[6] In short, international transfers and revenues received by Maureen MOWUNMI ADEBAYO from illicit origin amount to, at least, €30,915.33 .
The SI says, under “Description of the Circumstances”:
The present investigation deals with deception through the use of ‘Nigerian letters’. The defendant Maureen MOWUNMI ADEBAYO is related to the Criminal organization where she provided bank accounts for the organization. This way she received fraudulent transfers from the victims. Each time she received a money remittance, she would make another transfer in order to make it difficult to follow the money. At the end the income received with fraudulent origin, adds up to at least a total of 30.915,33 euros .
FI#1 says (again, with numbers in square brackets added):
[1] Maureen Mowunmi ADEBAYO, with NIE Y-1697661-E, born on 11/08/1968 in Lagos (Nigeria) sole administrator of the company that owns the described Cajastur account, it is about which, following the methodology used by this After receiving the transfer from Klaus Dieter MÜLLER, the organization makes a transfer to Gladys JOHNSON with NIE X-3286801-D, born on 07/15/1974 in Delta (Nigeria), with the aim of moving the money between different accounts, generally of compatriots, and thus make it difficult to follow .
[2] The banking operations described are consistent with the modus operandi that the organization has been using to receive money from alleged victims of fraud, through social engineering. In this way, those investigated would make use of psychological techniques and social skills used in a conscious and premeditated way, to manipulate and produce deception in order to get potential victims to carry out acts to their own detriment, consisting of making bank transfers .
[3] The involvement of the affiliate stems from the relevant effects intervened against the defendant SAMSON EBERE, alias “Bigi” with NIE X-2913442-D. Among them are documents related to the Cajastur entity in relation to banking operations of the account 20480323173404001679 in the name of the company ALKABIR GLOBAL SERVICES S.L. as of 07/23/2014. The transactions include the receipt of a transfer dated 07/22/14 for the amount of €12,000 from the sender of Klaus Dieter Müller, followed by the sending on the same day of another transfer for the amount of €10,000 to Gladys Johnson .
[4] This people. called mules, are sometimes holders of a network of bank accounts, either in their name or in the name of various companies, as is the case of the so-called Maureen Mowunmi ADEBAYO, which appears as the sole administrator of the aforementioned ALKABIR GLOBAL SERVICES and of the company MAM HOLDING INCORPORATIONS SL, establishing a police record for this person for reasons such as Usurpation of Civil Status, Fraud, Money Laundering, Documentary Falsehood and Illicit Association .
[5] TRANSFER NUMBER 01 On 08/19/2013, MAUREEN MOWUNMI ADEBAYO receives in this account by international transfer, the amount of 2,884.33 euros, from SWIFT BOFAUS3NXXX, from the account / 0000149342257, belonging to the entity BANK OF AMERICA, NA. Located in (NEW YORK, NY) with MARY HADDEN METCALF as payer, being the concept “transfer: Foreign Currency” .
[6] TRANSFER NUMBER 02 On 09/13/2013, MAUREEN MOWUNMI ADEBAYO receives in this account by international transfer, the amount of 3,031.00 euros, from SWIFT DEUTDEFFXXX, from the account / 1000151545661, belonging to the entity DEUTSCHE BANK AG. Located in GERMANY stating as...
To continue reading
Request your trial