The Receiver of collapsed uniBank, Nii Amanor Dodoo has told an Accra High Court that management of the bank decided to misreport the true financial position of uniBank in their reports to the Bank of Ghana (BoG)

He explained that the financial reports were produced by the management team of uniBank and not by anyone in a sole capacity.

Mr. Dodoo added that though a former Executive Head of the Credit Risk Department of uniBank, Benjamin Ofori in his sole capacity did not submit any such report directly to BoG, he did that as part of the management team of uniBank.  

The Receiver admitted that the financial reports of uniBank submitted to BoG went through uniBank’s internal processes.

He explained further that misreporting did not only involve communicating a false state of affairs but also involved being part of the process of falsifying reality.

According to the Receiver, the matters that were misreported to the BoG were the fictitious loans, the fictitious income generated as a result of those fictitious loans and the amounts siphoned out of uniBank by the shareholders.

The Receiver affirmed that Mr. Ofori played a critical role in all these.

He added that Mr. Ofori, in generating the fictitious loans and the fictitious income, knew it would form part of the financial reports to be submitted to BoG and other stakeholders.

He added that the other accused persons played vital roles in misreporting the amounts siphoned by the shareholders of uniBank.

The Receiver informed the Court that Mr. Ofori played a key role in opening fictitious accounts and assisted with memos which resulted in the creation of fictitious loans.

He informed the Court further that between 2016 and 2018, Mr. Ofori was the executive head of Credit Risk of uniBank.

As far as loan approval processes were concerned, Mr. Ofori had the responsibility of assessing the credit risks of loan applicants and making recommendations.

Meanwhile, the Counsel for Mr. Ofori referred the Receiver to a memorandum dated 30^th November 2016 which, according to the Receiver, formed the basis on which a purported loan of GHS 14 million was disbursed to Fuzak Construction.

Mr. Dodoo said the account to which the funds were disbursed was not the regular account of Fuzak Construction but a fictitious one. The said amount of ¢14 million was subsequently transferred to the shareholders’ account.

The Receiver sought to distinguish between fictitious and irregular loans.

He explained that an irregular loan may be a loan approved by a person beyond his approval limits.

He clarified that where a person intentionally included a fictitious account number and presented a memo seeking approval as if it were a regular thing, that loan could not be described as irregular.

The Receiver admitted that the memo of November 30, 2016 had an inscription “subject to the terms and conditions stated in the individual letters” by Mr. Ofori.

Mr. Dodoo explained that the said inscription was made by Mr. Ofori to give the impression that those fictitious loans were regular.

He added that though Mr. Ofori did not approve loans, he was expected to ensure memos channeled through him contained accurate facts.

Mr. Ofori was also expected to confirm that the account numbers in the memos were the regular account numbers of the customers listed in those memos.

The Receiver informed the Court that no offer letters were generated in respect of the fictitious loans.

The Case was adjourned to 11^th,12^th and 13^th July 2023 at 12:00pm for continuation.

The court was presided over by Justice Bright Mensah a Justice of the Appeal Court sitting as an additional High Court Judge.