The question that arise is whether the prosecution have established all the essential ingredients of obtaining money by false pretence with intent to defraud contrary to Section 1(1) of the Advance Fee Fraud and Other Fraud related Offences Act No. 14 of 2006. Count Two – Six relate to the above section while the 1st count relate to the offence of conspiracy contrary to Section 8(a) of the Advance Fee Fraud and Other Fraud Related Offences Act No. 14 of 2006 and punishable under Section 1(3) of the same Act. No shred of evidence was given by the prosecution witnesses about the accused conspiring with any other person to commit the offence in count one. The accused person is hereby discharged and acquitted in respect of Count one of the six counts charge. See NORATURNOCHA v STATE (2011) 6 NWLR (Pt 1242) P 170 where the court held as follows: “The prosecution has to prove all the essential elements of the offence as contained in the charge, while discharging the responsibility of proving all the ingredients of the offence, vital witnesses must be called to testify during the proceedings. Before a trial court comes to conclusion that an offence had been committed by an accused person” In trying to see whether the prosecution had established the ingredients of counts 2 – 6, we have to state the ingredients of the remaining five counts charge which border on obtaining money by false pretence with intent to defraud contrary to Section 1(1) of 10