the EFCC can only amount to an afterthought. He urged the Court to rely on the confessional statements of the Defendant and convict the Defendnt. On proof by circumstantial evidence, learned Counsel contended that where circumstantial evidence is overwhelming and leads to no other conclusion that the guilt of the Defendant, the Defendant can be found guilty and be convicted. He cited the case of OKORO v THE STATE (1993) 3 NWLR (Pt. 282) 425 at 431; ILIYASU v THE STATE (2015) LPELR-24403(SC); and OMOTOLA & ORS v STATE (2009) LPELR-2663(SC), per Nweze, JSC at page 39,paras. B – G. Counsel submitted that in the two confessional statements, the Defendant had admitted that he is a member of 419 gang; and that PW1 was bringing money to the tune of over N2 Million to him under the false pretence that he (the Defendant) is capable of removing the charm in the bag full of dollars; and that PW1 who was the victim had stated how he boarded a taxi and he was asked to bring money to remove charms from a bag full of dollars and how he went to his GTB and ECO Bank Accounts to withdraw money via ATM because the Defendant asked him to bring only cash. Counsel also referred to the evidence of PW2 who stated that he arrested the Defendant who made confessional statement in his presence admitting collecting the sum of over N2 Million from PW1; as well as the evidence of PW3 who also interviewed PW1 and obtained the bank statements of PW1 which show clearly how PW1 was withdrawing the monies from his bank accounts via ATM and the inflow of cash PW1 alleged to have borrowed in order to give same to the Defendant. Learned Counsel submitted that from the chain of evidence adduced, one can only come to the conclusion that the Defendant actually committed the offences and the monies being withdrawn by PW1 was 7