less of fraud and I so hold. That the defendant was able to use the forged document to convince and hoodwink Okon Amasi does not make it an authentic document. From all the foregoing, it is my view that the defendant gave Okon Amasi the certificate of occupancy, Appendix ‘B’ to Exhibit 1 and I so hold. Furthermore, at the time she gave Okon Amasi the Certificate, she knew she had given the authentic copy, Appendix A to British International School as part of her title documents for the sale to Dyna Ladejj Investment Ltd. who eventually sold to the school and I so hold. I have no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that the defendant knew that the certificate of occupancy she gave to Okon Amasi as collateral for a loan was a fake document which she knowingly presented as a genuine document and I so hold. She presented the forged document as an authentic title document for the property it purportedly covered. She admitted the document was made under her direction in her statement. It follows therefore that the defendant either forged the document herself or procured someone else to do it. She derived benefit from using the fake document as a genuine one. She used it as collateral to secure advantage in a transaction she had with Okon Amasi over the land covered by the document. Okon Amasi received the document and acted on it under the belief that it was genuine. In the case of OSONDU VS. F.R.N. (2000) 12 NWLR Pt. 682 Pg. 483 at 505 Paras. A - D Edozie JCA held as follows: “It is the law that where a document was shown to be used as an intermediate step in a scheme of fraud in which an accused person was involved, then if it is shown that such document was false and was presented or uttered by an accused in order to gain advantage an irresistible inference 25