An Accra Circuit Court has sentenced a trader who defrauded a Kumasi-based businessman of GH¢270,000 on the pretext of supplying the latter with a 40-footer container of shoes, to 10 years imprisonment in hard labour.
This was after the court, presided over by Ms Evelyn Asamoah, found the convict, Frank Addai, guilty after a full trial.
Addai pleaded not guilty to the charges levelled against him when he first appeared in court.
The court, in its judgment, held that Addai did not show any sign of remorse and decided not to refund the money to the complainant.
The facts of the case as presented by the Prosecutor, Chief Inspector Simon Apiosornu, were that on July 1, 2019 the businessman who was the complainant in the case, was introduced to Addai by two men whose names were given as Anthony and Frimpong for transaction in shoes.
Addai, according to the prosecutor, showed the complainant variety of shoes and gave the complainant a sample and told him that he sold one pair for GH¢365.
He further convinced him that his 40-footer consignment of shoes would be arriving in three weeks’ time.
Based on that, Chief Inspector Apiosornu said the complainant made an initial payment of GH¢100,000 to show his interest in the shoes.
After three weeks, Addai called the complainant that the shoes had arrived and needed some money to facilitate clearing.
Since the complainant and the accused person had earlier bargained and settled at a total cost of GH¢500,000, the prosecutor said the businessman gave Addai an additional amount of GH¢170,000 to enable him clear the shoes and promised to pay the remaining balance of GH¢330,000 after he had received the consignment but that did not materialised.
The complainant, according to the prosecutor, made a report to the police and the accused person was arrested.
“Addai denied the allegations raised by the complainant but admitted having received the GH¢270,000 from the complainant and has duly supplied him with the shoes and further added that it was rather the complainant who owed him GH¢330,000 as his balance.
“Investigations could not substantiate evidence of the supply of the shoes to the complainant but rather the payment agreement made by both parties,” the prosecutor said.