[ 2017-10-12 ]

£350k Scandal: Otumfuo clean – Sacked Bank Official
The sacked official of the Ghana International
Bank in the UK Mark Arthur has said the Asantehene
Otumfuo Osei Tutu is innocent in the cash
transaction that subsequently got him to lose his
job.

Mr. Arthur was dismissed after the traditional
ruler of the Kingdom of Ashanti, summoned him to
his multimillion-pound residence in
Henley-on-Thames and handed him a bag containing
almost £200,000 in sterling as well as $200,000
in US currency for saving at the bank.

The aggrieved banker, from New Barnet,
Hertfordshire, a dual citizen of the UK and Ghana,
drove to his own home with the cash and then took
it in an Uber taxi to the bank’s City offices
for deposit in the king’s account, he told an
employment tribunal.

In a statement submitted to the court Thursday and
cited by Starr News, Mr Arthur  Insists he also
did nothing wrong in the huge financial
transaction.

“Mr Arthur’s position throughout his
suspension, investigation, disciplinary process
and the Employment Tribunal hearing is that he had
done nothing wrong.
“Mr Arthur has consistently confirmed in
evidence that at no time did he suspect that the
Asantehene, Otumfuo Osei Tutu II, did anything
wrong,” portions of the statement said.

Below are details of the statement

1.All evidence in this case has now been given to
the Employment Tribunal which will soon retire to
consider its’ decision.

2.Mr Arthur’s position throughout his
suspension, investigation, disciplinary process
and the Employment Tribunal hearing is that he had
done nothing wrong.

3.Mr Arthur has consistently confirmed in evidence
that at no time did he suspect that the
Asantehene, Otumfuo Osei Tutu II, did anything
wrong.

4.Mr Arthur’s evidence through the
investigation, disciplinary and at the tribunal
hearing makes it clear that the CEO of the bank,
Mr Joe Mensah, approved the transactions before
completion in accordance with the King’s
instructions and did not think that there was
suspicious activity.

5.The banks’ position is that Mr Mensah did not
approve the transactions. The morning after the
transaction and following an internal conversation
with other members of his senior staff, Mr Mensah
changed his position and reported the transactions
to the UK authorities as being suspicious.

6.There is a conflict between the evidence that Mr
Arthur and Mr Mensah have given regarding whether
or not Mr Mensah approved the transactions and Mr
Arthur has asked the Employment Tribunal to decide
which of the two is telling the truth.

7.It should be noted that Mr Mensah decided not to
give any evidence at the Employment Tribunal
hearing, even though he was and should have been
the bank’s number one witness as he was central
to the events that have unfolded.

8.The person that Mr Mensah retained to conduct
the disciplinary hearing of Mr Arthur, Mr Peter
Haines (former chairman of the Bank’s Board
Audit Risk & Compliance Committee) also decided
not to make himself available in person to the
tribunal to give evidence and to be
cross-examined.

9.Mr Haines’ directorship was not however
renewed shortly after his decision to dismiss Mr
Arthur.

10.Mr Arthur has confirmed to the Employment
Tribunal that the collection and transportation of
cash from the Asantehene’s residence
(transported by Uber taxi) was not in breach of
the bank’s insurance policies. The bank however
relies on an insurance proposal and not the actual
insurance policy itself (the latter of which Mr
Arthur asserts supports his position).

11.Mr Arthur believes that the Employment Tribunal
decision when delivered will demonstrate that the
transactions involving the Asantehene’s account
were above the suspicions cited by the bank. It is
important to note however that the Employment
Tribunal has not been asked to determine the
nature of those transactions, those transactions
merely create the background relating to the
employment issues that the Employment Tribunal has
to decide.

Source - StarrFMonline

... go Back