The former Branch Chief Executive (BCE) of the Tema Community (1) branch of the now-defunct Beige Bank has informed the High Court that allegations claiming funds were moved from customer accounts at the instruction of Michael Nyinaku, without the consent of the affected customers, are false.

He stated that the absence of complaints from any of the over 10,000 customers whose funds were allegedly siphoned casts significant doubt on the veracity of the allegations.

Harold Mensah, the 6th Defense Witness for the former Chief Executive of the defunct bank, conveyed this to the High Court, presided over by Justice Afia Serwah Asare-Botwe, during his Evidence-in-Chief.

Nyinaku, the founder and former Chief Executive Officer of the defunct bank, faces charges for allegedly embezzling GH¢2.1 billion of depositors' money. He has pleaded not guilty to 43 charges, including stealing, fraudulent breach of trust, and money laundering, and has been granted bail.

Testifying as the 6th Defense Witness for Michael Nyinaku, the former Branch Chief Executive also mentioned that the lack of recorded complaints at the time the funds were moved further undermines the allegations.

He emphasized to Justice Afia Serwah Asare-Botwe, a Justice of the Court of Appeal, that it is not standard banking practice for someone who is not a signatory to an account to initiate fund transfers from that account.

The Witness explained that the accused, as CEO, was not involved in the bank's operational activities. He considered various scenarios in which the allegations could have been executed, concluding that all scenarios he posited were highly improbable, if not impossible.

During his tenure at the bank, he never encountered such scenarios. As a branch manager before the bank's receivership, he was intimately familiar with the bank's internal processes and operations.

Referring to the testimony of Julius Ayivor, the first Prosecution's Witness, he clarified the contradiction in the claim that customer deposits were transferred from their fixed deposit accounts without consent.

He explained that once fixed deposits (FDs) are booked, they cannot be moved, as the funds would have already been debited from the customer's account at the time of booking. Therefore, an established FD cannot be moved again, rendering the assertion inaccurate.

Addressing the claim of unauthorized movement of funds from current accounts, the Witness stated that such a movement would imply that the customer did not intend for the funds to be transferred, necessitating a reversal of the transaction.

He categorically stated that the allegation of moving current account deposits of over 10,000 customers to BCAM at the instruction of the accused is utterly impossible and untrue.

Drawing from his banking experience, he outlined that only documented signatories can authorize transactions on an account, and every transaction must originate from a transaction advice signed by the account's signatory.

The Witness presented hypothetical scenarios to illustrate the implausibility of the accused instructing the movement of funds from customer accounts, including hacking the banking system, forging signatures, and issuing over 10,000 emails or memos to the banking operations team.

The case has been adjourned to May 24, 2024, for the Prosecution to cross-examine the Witness.

The full Witness Statement of DW6 is attached for reference.