This case revolves around Monalisa Abigail Semeha, known as Mona Gucci, a travel and event consultant, who was accused of defrauding Comfort Obiri, a trader, of GHC103,400 under the pretense of securing American visas. The alleged transaction took place in February 2019, after Obiri was introduced to Semeha by an acquaintance named Esther. Semeha reportedly quoted a price of GHC40,000 per visa. Obiri subsequently introduced three individuals to Semeha for visa acquisition, leading to the total sum of GHC103,400 being paid to Semeha. However, despite receiving the funds, Semeha allegedly failed to deliver the promised visas.
The prosecution, led by Assistant Superintendent of Police (ASP) Seth Frimpong, presented their case before an Accra Circuit Court, charging Semeha with defrauding by false pretenses. Three witnesses testified against Semeha during the trial. The prosecution argued that Semeha had intentionally misrepresented her ability to secure the visas, collecting a substantial amount of money from Obiri and her associates without fulfilling her obligations. They further highlighted Semeha’s unfulfilled promise to refund the money, reinforcing the claim of fraudulent intent.
Semeha, however, pleaded not guilty to the charge. Her defense counsel countered the prosecution’s arguments by filing a submission of no case. This legal maneuver essentially argued that the prosecution had failed to present sufficient evidence to establish a prima facie case – meaning that, even if the prosecution’s version of events were taken as true, there wasn’t enough evidence to support a conviction. The defense contended that the dispute was essentially a civil matter – a breach of contract or a failure to deliver a service – rather than a criminal act involving fraudulent intent.
Presiding over the case, Judge Isaac Addo carefully considered the arguments and evidence presented by both sides. He ultimately ruled in favor of the defendant, Semeha, agreeing with the defense’s assertion that the case was essentially a civil dispute gone awry. The judge determined that the prosecution had not sufficiently proven the crucial element of fraudulent intent, a necessary component to secure a conviction on the charge of defrauding by false pretenses. The core of the issue, in the court’s view, appeared to be a contractual disagreement or a failure to perform a service, a matter better suited for resolution in a civil court.
Consequently, Judge Addo acquitted and discharged Semeha. This decision meant that Semeha was cleared of all criminal charges related to the alleged visa fraud. The court’s ruling, however, did not address the underlying civil dispute regarding the GHC103,400 paid to Semeha. Obiri and her associates retain the option to pursue civil legal action to recover the funds, a process separate from the criminal proceedings that concluded with Semeha’s acquittal.
This case underscores the distinction between criminal and civil law, specifically within the context of accusations of fraud. While the criminal court focused on proving intent to deceive, a civil court would focus on whether a contractual obligation was breached and whether monetary damages are owed. The acquittal in criminal court does not preclude the possibility of a civil suit, where the burden of proof and the desired outcome are different. While the criminal case focused on potential punishment for alleged wrongdoing, a civil case would focus on compensating the plaintiffs for their financial losses.
