Sacked Otumfuo's banker will struggle to prove wrongful dismissal - UK prosecutor

Sacked Otumfuo's banker will struggle to prove wrongful dismissal - UK prosecutor
Source: Ghana | | Naa Sakwaba Akwa |
Date: 11-10-2017 Time: 10:10:10:am

A former senior prosecutor in the United Kingdom (UK) has said the banker who was dismissed for failing to follow anti-money laundering rules in depositing money for Otumfuo Osei Tutu II will struggle to prove that his dismissal was wrong.

Godwin Adjei Gyamfi who was also a crown advocate in the UK and an expert in money laundering laws in the UK said, Mark Arthur could have prevented his dismissal if he had followed laid down anti-money laundering rules.

Speaking on Joy FM’s Super Morning show Wednesday, Mr. Adjei Gyamfi said although there is nothing wrong with Otumfuo’s directive, it is “the duty of the banker to use the money laundering regulation in order to find out if indeed a money laundering offence has been committed…which this banker did not do."

“The bottom line is the banker will struggle in proving to the tribunal that his dismissal is wrongful,” he added.

A story published by the UK-based The Telegraph has cited the Asantehene, Otumfuo Osei Tutu II, for allegedly laundering an amount of £200,000 and $200,000 in cash.

The King, according to the report, was said to have summoned Mr Arthur to his home in Henley-On-Thames and handed him a bag containing the said amounts £200,000 and $200,000 in US currency with consecutive serial numbers.

However, the subsequent deposit of the cash at the Ghana International Bank triggered a money laundering alert in the City of London and Mr Arthur was suspended and then sacked following the incident, after an investigation by outside accountants Grant Thornton.

He is, however, claiming wrongful dismissal, unfair dismissal and failure to protect a whistleblower.

In his witness statement, in the case which is currently ongoing, Mr Arthur said he was not able to follow anti-money laundering rules when he accepted the cash because of the king's status.

Mr Gyamfi said it is possible for a person to be dismissed for violating money laundering provisions even if the source of the money is not actually proven to be criminal or even if the source of the money is legitimate.

He added, Mr Arthur’s conduct will be difficult to justify because he has violated laid down rules governing money laundering in the UK.

Although the source of the money is yet to be proven, he is certain that the money handed over to Mr Arthur exceeds the limit banks have signed up to.

With this; “The money laundering key factors would have been triggered and once it has triggered, investigations by the bank have to take place.

“And if you bypass the money laundering system that all the banks have adhered, to then it is a serious conduct,” Mr Gyamfi added.