You are here: HomeBusiness2024 01 10Article 1910282

Business News of Wednesday, 10 January 2024

Source: www.ghanaweb.com

We support the prosecution of NAM1 - Aggrieved Menzgold Customers

CEO of defunct Menzgold Ghana Limited, Nana Appiah Mensah CEO of defunct Menzgold Ghana Limited, Nana Appiah Mensah

Coalition of Aggrieved Customers of Menzgold has said they support the prosecution of the Chief Executive Officer of defunct Menzgold Company, Nana Appiah Mensah (NAM1).

In a press release sighted by GhanaWeb Business, Convener of the group, Fred Forson said, "We are by this statement reiterate our collective support and commitment for the prosecution of Nana Appiah Mensah aka NAM1). We are solidly backing decision by the Attorney General and Minister of Justice and Director of Public Prosecutions to pursue justice for Menzgold customers."

"We also dissociate ourselves from the statement made over the weekend by an unknown group to the struggle for the retrieval of our money," he added.

His comment comes after the Convener of a group called Proud Menzgold Customers, Lawyer Maurice Ampaw, averred that the outcome of the court proceeding involving NAM1 will not serve the interest of customers.

He stated categorically that prosecuting NAM 1 will not help retrieve their locked-up funds, hence, the need for government to support him to get his investments from Horizon Diamond in Dubai-UAE.

NAM1 has been slapped with 39 counts of defrauding by false pretense, engaging in gold trading without a license, and money laundering.

Meanwhile, the Attorney General and Minister of Justice, Godfred Yeboah Dame, has said justice will be served to all Menzgold customers.

It would be recalled that in 2018, Menzgold was asked to suspend its gold trading operations with the public by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).

According to SEC, Menzgold had been involved in the purchase and deposit of gold collectables from the public and issuing contracts with guaranteed returns to clients without a valid license from the Commission.

This was in contravention of “section 109 of Act 929 with consequences under section 2016 (I) of the same Act,” according to the SEC.

SA/MA