Chief Registrar of the Judiciary Anne Amadi has been accused of conspiring to defraud a Dubai-based company Sh102 million in a fake gold scam.
Amadi and her son, Brian Ochieng Amadi, are accused alongside four others of illegally obtaining $742,206 from Bruton Gold Trading LLC — a company in Dubai — with a promise of selling 1.5 tonnes of gold bars.
Justice David Majanja has frozen Amadi’s personal bank accounts together with those of her son and two others pending the hearing of the suit filed by the Dubai-based company that deals in gold.
It is said that a Mr Edward Taylor introduced its directors to Daniel Kang’ara Ndegwa who claimed to be representing an entity called Universal Global Logists Limited (UGL).
UGL purported to be in the gold export business and that it could export gold from Kenya to Dubai.
UGL and Bruton Gold Trading LLC then signed an agreement stating that Taylor was to deliver gold for export (in Kenya) which Ndegwa would then export to Dubai for sale. The export was to be at Bruton’s cost and the arrangement was that the Dubai company would be reimbursed its total costs for export and be paid a commission of 10 per cent of the market value of the gold at the point and time of sale.
No gold was ever exported from Kenya to Dubai (UAE), and when the plaintiff’s director enquired as to why the consignment had not left Kenya, Ndegwa informed the company that it had been named as a second defendant in a suit filed in the High Court at Milimani.”
Court documents
UGL was supposed to facilitate the export of gold, the Dubai-based company entered into a transaction with it. UGL’s legal representative for the transaction was after Amadi’s law firm, Amadi and Associates Advocates. The transaction was for the export of 1,500kg of gold bars allegedly ultimately owned by Ndegwa and his family.
The Dubai-based company paid $592,970 through a bank transfer to Amadi’s law firm, which her son runs. The company also made payments totaling $149,236.48 to Ndegwa’s account for his accommodation and other transaction costs on the understanding that the money would be recouped at the close of the transaction. According to the company, Taylor sent them documents meant to mislead them into believing that a genuine transaction was taking place.
“The plaintiff’s counsel subsequently discovered that all of the foregoing were false and fraudulent documents… There was even a tracking number provided which seemed to show that the consignment of gold had left Kenya yet when the plaintiff sought confirmation from its customs agent in Dubai, it was informed that there was no such shipment that arrived aboard Kenya Airways Flight 304,” reads one of the documents filed in court.
When the director of the Dubai company asked why the gold wasn’t aboard the flight on arrival, Taylor and Ndegwa claimed that it had been taken off the plane as there were some more payments that needed to be made.
“No gold was ever exported from Kenya to Dubai (UAE), and when the plaintiff’s director enquired as to why the consignment had not left Kenya, Ndegwa informed the company that it had been named as a second defendant in a suit filed in the High Court at Milimani,” says court documents.
After discovering that they had been duped, Dubai firm filed a complaint at the Kiambu Police Station.
According to the Dubai firm, after becoming aware of the investigations, Brian and Kiarie requested and held a meeting with the firm’s advocates on record on the May 10, last year, during which they admitted that the suit which had fake orders was filed from their offices and paid for using Kiarie’s mobile phone line.
They also admitted that they had sent the funds they had received from the company to their accomplices in cash and that they did not have any of the money left and that Taylor was the main perpetrator of the fraud and they could lead the police to him. The two acknowledged their liability and undertook to come up with a proposal to return the money they had received.
Amadi’s firm thereafter wrote a letter dated May 10, 2022, to the company’s advocates in which they forwarded two cheques for $4,500 each totaling to $9,000.
“The payment was characterised as a commitment towards resolution of the matter,” they claimed in court documents.
The Dubai firm also claims that Amadi, in telephone conversations, with its lawyers made proposals to clear the sum in six months, a proposal which was rejected as no security for performance on their part was forthcoming.
