Failure to serve charges on Binance executives stalls arraignment

ARRAIGNMENT of Binance Holdings Limited and two of its executives, Tigran Gambaryan and Nadeem Anjarwalla, was stalled, yesterday, due to the inability of the Federal Inland Revenue Service ( FIRS) and the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission ( EFCC) to effect service of the charge on the defendants.

When the matter, in the charge numbered FHC/ ABJ/ CR/ 115/ 2024, was called for the defendants to take their pleas before Justice Emeka Nwite of the Federal High Court, Abuja, only Gambaryan, who is the second defendant, was represented in court by a lawyer.

Neither the company nor Anjarwalla, who recently escaped from lawful custody, was represented by counsel.

Gambaryan's lawyer, Chukwuka Ikwuazonu, SAN, told the court his client had not been served with the charge, hence, his arraignment could not proceed.

FIRS lawyer, Moses Ideho, who acknowledged that the agency had not served Gambaryan's with the charge, said all efforts to do so proved abortive because the defendant could not be reached at the EFCC'S detention.

Ideho then prayed the court to serve Gambaryan in the open court and the judge directed that the charge be served on him in the dock. The lawyer, therefore, sought a stand- down of the matter or an adjournment to enable Gambaryan to consult with his lawyer.

Ikwuazonu did not raise any objection to the oral application for adjournment and the court adjourned the matter till April 19 for him to take his plea.

The defendants were charged on a four- count, bordering on alleged tax evasion. In the charge, filed on March 22 by the FIRS, the defendants were alleged to have committed the offence on or about February 1.

Count one alleged that while involved in carrying and offering services to subscribers on their platform, known as Binance, they failed to register with FIRS, to pay all relevant taxes administered by the service.

The offences are said to be punishable under Sections 8 and 29 of the VAT Act of 1993 ( as Amended), Section 40 of the FIRS Establishment Act, 2007 ( as amended) and under provisions of Section 94 of the Companies Income Tax Act ( as amended) respectively.

In the same vein, the arraignment of the defendants in the five- count charge filed against them by the EFCC could not hold, because of the inability of the prosecution to serve the first defendant with the charge.