Eighty Million Naira (80, 000,000.00) is a Valuable Thing obtained for no Services Rendered by Alusab International Limited to the Defendant to warrant such Payment. There was also no Consideration flowing from the Defendant to Alusab International Limited for this Payment and there is no Legal Reason justifying the Payment and Receipt of this Sum and therefore the Court finds that the Prosecution has satisfied the Ingredients of the Offences in Count 4 for Gratification and Count 5 for obtaining a Valuable Thing without Consideration. Now, as seen from the earlier referred to United Kingdom’s Supreme Court Decision in the case of IVEY VS GENTING CASINOS (UK) LTD TRADING AS, CROCKFORDS [2017] UKSC 67. DELIVERED 25TH OCTOBER 2017, the Decision of whether a Particular Action or Set of Actions is Dishonest remains Separate from the Issue of Moral Justification. For example, when Robin Hood robbed the Sheriff of Nottingham, he knew that he was, in effect, stealing from the Crown, and knew that he was acting dishonestly and would have been properly convicted of robbery. His argument would have been that he was morally justified in acting in this way, but in Modern Legal Terms this could only have been brought to the Court by way of Mitigation of Sentencing and would not have affected the Inference of Dishonesty. Coming back home, here in Nigeria, the actions of the Notorious Lawrence Anini can be compared to Robin Hood, when he was brazenly robbing people in Benin City and was throwing Money around to small children and widows. When convicted, such benevolent behavior constituted no defence to the Charges of Robbery and Stealing. The New Trend in English Law is for only the actions to be tested OBJECTIVELY and not to apply any Test as to the Subjective State of Mind of the Defendant. It is amazing that the Defence in this Case, provided the Entire Arsenal the Prosecution needed to take home the Charges. With each Statement tendered by the Defence, it can be liken to pointing a gun at ones foot and 280