EGUNJOBI v FRN (2001) 53 WRN 20 at 54; and THE STATE v OSOBA (2004) 21 WRN 113. Learned Counsel submitted that since the offence of conspiracy consists of the meeting of the minds for a criminal purpose and same can be proved only through inference from surrounding circumstances, the circumstantial evidence needed to prove same can be predicated on evidence not of the fact in issue, but of other facts from which the fact in issue can be inferred, which irresistibly points to the guilt of the Defendant(s). He placed reliance on ODUNEYE v THE STATE (supra). He argued that it was in evidence that the Defendant was working along with others at large to achieve a common purpose which was to obtain money from the Defendant under the pretence that they were able to remove the charm in the bag full of money. He cited GAJI v PAYE (2003) 8 NWLR (Pt. 823) 553 at 605, paras. A – C; OBIAKOR v STATE (2002) 10 NWLR (Pt. 776) 612 at 628-629, paras. G – A; DEVIN v STATE (1994) 5 NWLR (Pt. 346) 522 at 534; and EDE v FRN (2001) 1 NWLR (Pt. 695) 502 at 512-513, para. C. Counsel urged the Court to draw the necessary inference from the evidence adduced and hold that the Prosecution has proved the offence of conspiracy against the Defendant beyond reasonable doubt. As for the offence of obtaining under false pretence, learned Counsel cited Section 20 of the Advance Fee Fraud and other Fraud Related Offences Act, 2006 which defines false pretence and pointed out that to prove the offence of obtaining under false pretence, the Prosecution must establish that: (a) there was a pretence; (b) that the pretence emanated from the Defendant; (c) that it was false; (d) that the Defendant knew of its falsity or did not believe in its truth. Counsel argued that the evidence of PW1, PW2 and PW3, and the confessional 10