Court Frees Binance Executives from Tax Evasion Charge

Alex Enumah in Abuja

Justice Emeka Nwite of a Federal High Court in Abuja, yesterday, discharged two executives of Binance Holdings Limited, accused of tax evasion.

The two freed staff of the crypto currency firm are Tigran Gambaryan, who have been in custody since his arrest in late February and his colleague, Nadeem Anjarwalla, who is said to be at large after escaping from custody in Nigeria.

They were freed after the court struck out their names from the four-count charge preferred against them by the Federal Inland Revenue Service (FIRS).

This was also sequel to the filing of an amended charge by FIRS’ counsel, Moses Ideho, wherein Binance is listed as sole defendant.

Recall that in the earlier charge while Binance is the 1st defendant, Gambaryan and Anjarwalla were listed as 2nd and 3rd respectively.

When the matter was called yesterday, Gambaryan stepped into the dock.

Tonye Krukrubo, SAN, who appeared for Binance (1st defendant), then informed the court that the cryptocurrency firm had just appointed a representative in Nigeria.

The new appointee, who was also in court, stood up and announced his name as Ayodele Omotilewa.

Ideho confirmed that his office received a notice of appointment of a representative by Binance.

He said the notice was dated June 13, 2024, appointing Omotilewa as its agent in the country.

The FIRS lawyer told the court that against the development, an amended four-count charge listing Binance Holdings Limited as sole defendant was filed on June 13.

He therefore applied that Omotilewa should be docked to take a plea on behalf of the company.

But Krukrubo disagreed with Ideho’s application.

The senior lawyer, who argued that the company’s representative was yet to be served with the fresh amended charge, said Omotilewa was only appearing in court for the first time.

“I think my learned friend should confirm whether he has served him or not first. We are not there yet,” he said.

He insisted that the prosecution had not served them with the amended charge.

Krukrubo said Omotilewa ought not to enter the dock.

According to him, he was only appointed for specific purposes; to receive processes.

“He is one of us; a legal practitioner,” he said.

He said the proper thing for the prosecution to do was to address the court on the charge he intended to substitute.

C.J. Caleb, who appeared for Gambaryan (2nd defendant), aligned himself with Krukrubo’s submission.

According to him, “our jurisprudence for criminal trial of a corporation as it stands today does not contemplate that a corporation or its representative should be in the dock.

“More importantly, the ACJA (Administration of Criminal Justice) Act, particularly Part 47, did not leave us in doubt on how a trial should proceed in respect of a corporation,” he said.

But Ideho disagreed, citing Section 481, he submitted that a representative cannot just sit in the gallery and watch like a spectator how the trial is conducted.

“He should be in the dock because this is a criminal charge not civil matter,” he said.

After listening to submissions of counsel, Justice Nwite, allowed the substitution of the June 13 amended charge for that of May 17.

He subsequently set aside the earlier order, directing Gambaryan to be served on behalf of the company and discharged him from the charge.

On the controversy whether the Binance representative should be docked or not, the judge ordered the parties to file written addresses to state their arguments.

Justice Nwite adjourned the matter until July 12 for plea.

In the latest amended charge marked: FHC/ABJ/CR/115/2024, while the Federal Republic of Nigeria is the complainant, Binance Holdings Limited is the sole defendant.

The charge is dated June 13 and filed June 14.

Count one alleged that while involved in carrying and offering services to subscribers on their platform, known as Binance, failed to register with the FIRS, for the purpose of paying all relevant taxes administered by the service.

The offence is said to be punishable under Sections 8 of the Value Added Tax (VAT) Act of 1993 (as Amended).