Receiver of collapsed uniBank, Nii Amanor Dodoo, has informed the Accra High Court that the management of the bank deliberately misrepresented the true financial position of uniBank in their reports to the Bank of Ghana (BoG).
The Receiver clarified that the financial reports were prepared by the management team of uniBank collectively, and not by any individual. While Benjamin Ofori, a former Executive Head of the Credit Risk Department of uniBank, did not submit any report directly to the BoG in his personal capacity, he did so as part of the bank’s management team.
The Receiver acknowledged that the financial reports of uniBank, which were submitted to the BoG, went through the bank’s internal processes. He further explained that misreporting involved not only communicating false information but also participating in the falsification of reality.
The misreported matters included fictitious loans, fictitious income generated from those loans, and the amounts illegally transferred out of uniBank by the shareholders. The Receiver affirmed that Benjamin Ofori played a critical role in these activities.
The Receiver also revealed that Mr. Ofori played a key role in opening fictitious accounts and assisted with memos that led to the creation of fictitious loans. From 2016 to 2018, Mr. Ofori held the position of executive head of Credit Risk at uniBank, responsible for assessing credit risks and making loan recommendations.
During the court proceedings, the Receiver referred to a memorandum dated 30th November 2016, which formed the basis for a purported loan of GHS 14 million disbursed to Fuzak Construction. The funds were transferred to a fictitious account instead of the regular account of Fuzak Construction, and later transferred to the shareholders’ account.
The Receiver distinguished between fictitious and irregular loans, explaining that an irregular loan may be one approved by someone beyond their approval limits. However, a loan intentionally obtained using a fictitious account number and presented as if it were a regular transaction cannot be described as irregular.
The Receiver highlighted that Mr. Ofori was expected to ensure accurate facts in the memos he reviewed and confirm the regular account numbers of customers listed.
The Receiver further informed the court that no offer letters were generated for the fictitious loans. The case was adjourned for continuation on 11th, 12th, and 13th July 2023.