He argued that the vital evidence of all the prosecution witnesses was not discredited under cross examination and urged me to hold that the prosecution has established all the ingredients of the offences for which the defendant is charged. He submitted that the combined effect of the testimony of all the prosecution witnesses is that the defendant actually forged the document described in Count 2 of the charge. He submitted that the free and voluntary statement of the defendant is sufficient proof of her guilt. He craved in aid of his submission the case of AKPAN VS. THE STATE (2000) 12 NWLR Pt. 682 Pg. 607. He submitted further that from the statement of the defendant it is clear she was aware that the certificate of occupancy she gave Amasi Okon was forged. He finally urged me to hold that the prosecution has proved all the ingredients of the offences proffered against the defendant and convict her accordingly. He further urged me to order that the defendant refund the sum of N30million to Amasi Okon as restitution pursuant to the provision of Section 11 of the Advance Fee Fraud and Other Related Offences Act 2006. It is trite that in criminal trials, the prosecution has the unshifting burden and duty to prove all the ingredients of the offence charged beyond reasonable doubt. The standard of proof is such that if there is any element of doubt in relation to any of the ingredients the doubt is resolved in favour of an accused person. See TANKO VS. STATE (2008) 16 NWLR Pt. 1114 Pg. 597 at 636 – 637 Paras. D - B. as well as Section 135 of the Evidence Act 2011. The defendant under Count one of the charge is accused of committing the offence of obtaining by false pretence contrary to Section 1(1)(a) of the Advance Fee Fraud and Other Related Fraud Offences Act. 10