5 According to the prosecution Counsel, SECTION 46 OF THE EFCC ACT lists a catalogue of offences that constitute “economic and financial crimes”. However, the use of the phrase “et cetera”, which simply means “and so on”, in the section, connotes the elasticity and in exhaustiveness of the list. This implies in effect that “economic and financial crimes” could include other criminal offences, although not listed specifically, but which in the opinion of the commission may constitute “economic and financial crimes”. The prosecution Counsel postulates that by SECTION 363 OF THE PENAL CODE, all that he is required to show is that there is a document in writing (the statement of result) and the forgery is by the accused person and that the accused person knows the document was forged. See AWUNE VS STATE (1995) NWLR (PART 516) 418 AT 438. Thus, having proved beyond reasonable doubt that the document presented by the accused person (Exhibit G) and which was examined by an expert, and which was not signed by PW2 being the authorized officer, but was used by the accused person to commit fraud, the onus now shifts to the accused to show that the document was indeed made by PW2 and that the document is not a “he”. The prosecution Counsel urged the Court to hold that he proved the offence of forgery against the accused person. USING AS GENUINE: SECTION 366 OF THE PENAL CODE. This offence is contained in the second count of the charge. The prosecution Counsel submitted on this count that the purport for which Exhibit G was forged by the accused person was to be used and indeed was used as genuine. This, the accused person achieved when he presented Exhibit G, which actually is a “lie” in order to get a job. He presented it as though he actually graduated with a second class lower, knowing full well that he graduated with a third class. In charge of using as genuine, the presenting Counsel submitted that he must prove that: -