Abuja, Nigeria, April 4, 2024 – The arraignment of a Binance Holdings Limited executive, Tigran Gambaryan, faced a setback in the Federal High Court of Abuja due to procedural disputes over the service of the legal charge. The court, presided over by Justice Emeka Nwite, has deferred the money laundering case to April 8, pending a ruling on these objections.
The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) accuses Binance Holdings Limited, alongside Gambaryan and Nadeem Anjarwalla (currently at large), of laundering $35.4 million. This sum, allegedly accrued as revenue in Nigeria between January and December 2023, is suspected to be the proceeds of unlawful activity, violating the Money Laundering (Prevention and Prohibition) Act, 2022.
Legal Dispute on Service Procedure
The issue at hand involves the EFCC’s attempt to serve Binance Holdings Limited through Gambaryan, which was contested by Mark Mordi, SAN, counsel to Gambaryan. Mordi argued that the charge’s service was improper since his client was not officially designated to receive it on behalf of Binance, stressing that due process was not followed.
In contrast, EFCC’s counsel, E.E. Iheanacho, maintained that serving Gambaryan was valid as he represents Binance in Nigeria. Iheanacho further urged the court to enter a not-guilty plea on behalf of Binance and proceed with the trial, citing legal provisions for such situations where service evasion occurs.
The Court’s Deliberation
The debate centered around the appropriate method for serving a corporate entity in criminal proceedings and whether Gambaryan could be considered a lawful representative of Binance Holdings Limited for the purpose of service. Mordi contended that without an official designation, Gambaryan’s receipt of the charge does not constitute valid service on Binance.
On the other hand, the EFCC argued for the application of substituted service principles, suggesting that attempts to serve Binance directly were futile and that Gambaryan’s refusal to accept the charge should not hinder the arraignment process.
Implications and Next Steps
This legal impasse underscores the complexities of prosecuting international corporate entities and their representatives under Nigerian law. The court’s decision on April 8 will likely address critical questions about jurisdiction, representation, and the adequacy of service in cases involving foreign companies without physical operations in Nigeria.
As the case unfolds, it will test the Nigerian judiciary’s capacity to navigate the intricacies of international law and corporate representation, potentially setting precedents for future prosecutions of similar nature. The global cryptocurrency community and legal observers await the outcome with keen interest, given its implications for regulatory oversight and the operation of digital asset platforms in Nigeria.
