Five men have gone on trial at Dublin Circuit Criminal Court for their roles in an alleged fraud conspiracy involving more than $143 million in forged bank drafts.
The men are alleged to have been seeking multimillion dollar payments from people in exchange for some of the bank drafts.
Prosecutors say the men were presenting themselves as a financial clearing company while the transactions were taking place. Mr Christian Obumneme (35), with an address at Prussia Street, Dublin; Mr Thomas Anthony O'Brien (61), of Kent Walk, London SW9; Mr Raymond Folkes (38), of Dunstans Road, London SE22; Mr Achike Okigbo (26), with an address at Blessington Street, Dublin; and Mr Obiora Uzodike (29), of Oakcourt Avenue, Palmerston, Dublin, have all pleaded not guilty to trying to defraud Mr Heinz Althoff by forming a fraudulent company and claiming they could procure a payment of $56.5 million for him in exchange for $2.825 million of the takings.
The alleged offence also includes forging or counterfeiting US dollar drafts in large amounts, alleged to have occurred between February 1st, 1999, and March 3rd, 1999. The court heard the five also claimed they had bank drafts in their possession worth $32 million and sought $2 million from Mr Terry Smith in exchange for them. The alleged offence also includes forming a fraudulent company. Mr O'Brien and Mr Folkes also allegedly had a document purporting to be an international bank draft issued by the Bank of Ireland and drawn on Chase Manhattan Bank. The two are further charged with having a document on March 3rd, 1999, purporting to be a bank draft worth $15 million issued by Bank of Ireland, drawn on Chase Manhattan Bank and made payable to Leslie Trading Ltd.
The trial is expected to last up to five weeks. During the hearing, Judge Patrick McCartan said he was "outraged" and "scandalised" that a national Sunday newspaper was planning not to pay one of its employees, who was a juror, for the time served on the jury.
He said that unless the issue was resolved the paper might be facing contempt of court proceedings.
He was surprised that an organ representing itself as a public, informed organisation had not informed itself that a juror was entitled by law to be paid while on jury service.
He made his comments after one of the jurors said he might not be able to sit through the trial because of work commitments. When another juror said she was also not being paid by her employer during her jury service, Judge McCartan said this employer could also find itself "on the wrong side of the law". Judge McCartan said he hoped his comments would be carried by the media.
He said he wouldn't tolerate anyone who refused to pay an employee during jury service and was very disturbed by the position taken by both employers.