BY Daniel Bampoe
Lawyer Samuel Atta Akyea has mounted a detailed challenge to the prosecution’s account of an alleged GH¢49.1 million financial trail, probing a key prosecution witness over bank transactions, withdrawals, deposits and documentary evidence said to connect the funds to the accused persons.
The exchanges formed part of the continued cross-examination of PW4, Frank Marshall Cromwell, Economic and Organised Crime Office (EOCO) Investigator in the case of The Republic v. Kwabena Adu Boahene, Angela Adjei Boateng and Advantage Solutions Limited, heard at the High Court of Justice in Accra on Thursday, August 27, 2026.
The proceedings, held before Justice Francis Apangabuno Achibonga, JA, sitting as an additional High Court judge, centred heavily on the interpretation of bank statements, flow charts and other financial documents tendered in evidence by the prosecution. The proceedings are recorded under Suit No. CR/B0418/2025.
Atta Akyea appeared with Kwasi Osei Asare, Beyeeman Ofosu-Akyea and Charles Boakye for the accused persons. The prosecution was represented by Dr Justice Srem-Sai, who subsequently took over as lead counsel for the Republic during the sitting.
The latest hearing was significant because the defence sought to test whether the prosecution’s interpretation of the financial records could establish, rather than merely suggest, that the alleged GH¢49.1 million had been dissipated through the transactions identified in its exhibits.
Atta Akyea challenges the GH¢49.1m computation
A major part of the cross-examination focused on Exhibits Y and Y1, which the witness had relied upon in tracing what the prosecution considers to be movements of the alleged GH¢49.1 million.
Atta Akyea began by questioning the witness about whether the total withdrawals shown in those exhibits actually amounted to GH¢49.1 million. The witness disagreed, prompting further questions about the precise value of the withdrawals and whether the exhibits demonstrated the alleged dissipation of the funds.
The defence counsel also confronted the witness with the fact that Exhibit Y contained withdrawals totalling approximately GH¢68.2 million from the BNC operations account, a figure substantially higher than the GH¢49.1 million at the centre of the prosecution’s case.
The witness explained that consideration had been given to a fixed deposit associated with the account and maintained that the analysis was intended to determine what happened after the alleged GH¢49.1 million was lodged into BNC Communications Bureau Limited.
Atta Akyea, however, continued to probe the distinction between money actually traced to the alleged transaction and other credits or withdrawals appearing in the same bank records.
The questioning exposed an important issue in the evidentiary debate: whether every transaction appearing on the relevant bank statements could properly be treated as part of the alleged GH¢49.1 million trail.
Bank records become central to defence challenge
The witness acknowledged that the BNC account showed total credits and debits of approximately GH¢179.46 million, including a fixed deposit that matured and other inflows and withdrawals.
Atta Akyea used the figures to establish whether the prosecution’s analysis was capable of distinguishing the alleged GH¢49.1 million from other monies that entered or left the account.
The witness agreed that the total credits and debits shown on Exhibit U were significantly higher than GH¢49.1 million. The witness further acknowledged that some funds were deposited into the account at different times and that the financial records contained transactions extending beyond the period immediately associated with the alleged GH¢49.1 million.
The defence also revisited an earlier statement concerning a GH¢200,000 transaction on June 29, 2020. The witness admitted that he had previously stated that the amount came from Stanbic Bank but corrected the evidence, explaining that the transaction should instead have been treated as a deposit into the Vertex Solutions UMB account.
That admission became another point used by the defence to question the accuracy of the witness’s earlier interpretation of the financial records.
Mayfair Estates payments questioned
Atta Akyea also turned his attention to payments involving Mayfair Estates Limited, challenging the witness over whether such payments could properly be classified as part of the alleged GH¢49.1 million.
The witness acknowledged that Exhibits AA and related documents contained receipts for payments made to Mayfair Estates. One receipt was dated December 14, 2016, while another was dated February 1, 2018.
The defence counsel established that these transactions predated the opening of the UMB account number 024142433018 that featured prominently in the financial analysis, and the witness agreed that the payments could not have been disbursements from that account.
The questioning went further when Atta Akyea pointed out that the flow chart contained payments to Mayfair Estates described as GH¢1.22 million from Vertex on November 8, 2021, and GH¢1.017 million from Securigence on February 21, 2022.
The witness maintained that the investigation had not established which particular account was used for some of the payments but said investigators had formed the opinion that the transactions were made after receipt and dissipation of the alleged GH¢49.1 million.
That distinction became crucial as the defence sought to demonstrate that some portions of the flow chart represented investigative conclusions or opinions rather than direct documentary proof of the source of the funds.
Private-source payments come under scrutiny
The defence subsequently examined a GH¢1.210 million credit into Advantage Solutions Limited’s account on June 8, 2021.
The witness confirmed that the credit did not come from the UMB account containing the three cheques totalling approximately GH¢1.911 million. Instead, the witness explained that the narration on the transaction indicated a payment connected to a contract involving GWCL and another party.
Atta Akyea then put it to the witness that the remaining payments to Mayfair Estates were also from private sources. The witness agreed that the remaining payments were matters of interest and investigation.
The defence later challenged the witness over an alleged GH¢100,000 payment to Sammlungen on May 4, 2020.
When asked whether the witness could establish that there was no such payment related to the GH¢49.1 million, the witness referred to the analysis of bank statements and deposits into related-party accounts.
Court admits UMB correspondence over GH¢100,000
One of the notable developments in the hearing occurred when Atta Akyea sought to tender correspondence between the investigative team and UMB Bank concerning the alleged GH¢100,000 transaction.
The prosecution objected on grounds of relevance and argued that the information requested was not connected to the issue being considered by the court. Defence counsel, however, argued that the document was highly relevant because the witness had confirmed that investigators had contacted the bank concerning the amount.
The court, after considering the arguments, ruled that the document was relevant to the prosecution’s case insofar as the alleged GH¢100,000 withdrawal or transfer was concerned. The court consequently admitted the correspondence into evidence as Exhibits 39 and 39A, relating respectively to the May 14, 2025 request and the bank’s response dated May 16, 2025.
The court nevertheless observed that the document did not establish withdrawals or transfers of GH¢100,000 on May 4, 2020 and November 11, 2020, but considered the document relevant to the specific issue being investigated.
Defence questions whether flow chart contains assumptions
Atta Akyea then returned to Exhibit Y and challenged the witness over the basis for entries contained in the prosecution’s flow chart.
The witness maintained that the chart was not merely a collection of suspicions but represented conclusions reached from analysis of bank statements and other information available to investigators.
The defence, however, put it to the witness that the flow chart contained transactions that had not been established by direct evidence from UMB Bank.
One example involved an alleged GH¢1.5 million transfer on April 24, 2020. The witness maintained that the amount had been transferred from the UMB account into Advantage Solutions Limited’s account.
Atta Akyea confronted the witness with Exhibit U and asked the witness to identify the transaction on the account statement. The witness explained that the narration showed a withdrawal in favour of A1 and an amount of GH¢1.5 million credited to Advantage Solutions.
“Layering” explanation enters the proceedings
The witness was also questioned about the absence of a direct withdrawal instruction, transfer request or deposit slip from UMB Bank for the alleged GH¢1.5 million transaction.
The witness explained that investigators had relied on bank statements, withdrawal slips and other banking information to trace what was described as movement of funds into related-party accounts.
In explaining the investigative methodology, the witness referred to the concept of “layering” in money-laundering investigations, describing it as the movement of funds through multiple transactions intended to conceal their source.
According to the witness, investigators believed that the withdrawals and subsequent deposits into related accounts represented such movements and therefore included them in Exhibit Y.
The defence nevertheless pressed the witness on whether the absence of the underlying transaction instructions weakened the evidentiary foundation of the conclusion.
Enterprise Dream Collections transaction challenged
Another significant portion of the cross-examination concerned an alleged GH¢1.3 million transaction dated May 7, 2020, which the prosecution had associated with the purchase of a vehicle.
The witness had earlier testified that GH¢1.3 million was transferred to Advantage Solutions on May 7, 2020, and that the transaction was described in the company’s account as a debit for payment for a vehicle.
Atta Akyea questioned why the witness continued to maintain that position when investigations had identified Enterprise Dream Collections, a company involved in vehicle sales and rentals, in connection with the transaction.
The witness confirmed that Enterprise Dream Collections was incorporated in 2023, even though the transaction under investigation occurred in 2020. The witness also confirmed that the bank account of Enterprise Dream Collections, as contained in Exhibit 18, began operating in 2023.
The defence counsel then asked whether there was therefore any established connection between Enterprise Dream Collections and the alleged GH¢1.3 million transaction in 2020.
The witness clarified that he had not stated that the vehicle was imported by Enterprise Dream Collections. Rather, the company emerged during the investigation because investigators found that the accused persons operated a company of that name involved in the rental and sale of vehicles.
Crucially, the witness admitted that investigators did not proceed further to establish whether the vehicle had actually been purchased.
No National Security verification conducted
The defence subsequently tested another aspect of the prosecution’s interpretation of the GH¢1.3 million transaction by asking whether inquiries had been made at the National Security Council Secretariat or elsewhere to establish whether the vehicle was acquired or reserved for National Security purposes. The witness answered no.
The witness answered no.
Atta Akyea then put it to the witness that the GH¢1.3 million transaction was for a National Security Special Operations payment. The witness rejected that suggestion.
The defence counsel further argued that the failure to identify the vehicle, its purchaser, consignee or ultimate recipient meant that linking the payment to a National Security Special Operations purpose was unsupported and amounted to a further attempt to push an unsubstantiated narrative.
The witness rejected that characterization.
Defence strategy centres on distinction between evidence and inference
The proceedings therefore highlighted a recurring theme in Atta Akyea’s cross-examination: the distinction between transactions directly established by bank records and conclusions investigators drew from patterns of movement in those records.
Rather than limiting the questioning to whether money moved between accounts, the defence repeatedly sought to establish the source of each payment, the purpose of each transaction, the identity of the recipient and whether the underlying banking documents existed to support the conclusions presented in the prosecution’s flow chart.
The exchanges also exposed instances in which the witness corrected earlier testimony, acknowledged that certain transactions came from private sources, or accepted that investigators had not pursued further inquiries into particular transactions.
The defence’s questioning was particularly focused on whether transactions predating the relevant UMB account, payments from unrelated private sources and transactions involving accounts that were not directly connected to the alleged GH¢49.1 million could legitimately be incorporated into the prosecution’s financial narrative.
Case adjourned to September 1
At the close of the sitting, PW4 was sealed at that stage and the court adjourned the case to September 1, 2026, at 9:30 a.m. for continuation.
