registered and the 1st defendant is a director of the company. First Bank also confirmed that defendants have an account in the bank. He submitted that these facts vitiate the intention to defraud. Mr. Osuwa Okechukwu further reasoned that: “It is important to note that the office address of the Accused is still at No. 11 Moses Majekodumi street, Utako Abuja and that he has not relocated. More so, it is evident that 2 units of duplexes had been completed as prototype while 32 units have reached 70% completion which is a fact that speaks for itself because the buildings are there and a visit to locus in quo will buttress that fact.” He concluded that the prosecution has not proved the offence charged beyond reasonable doubt. Learned counsel for the prosecution referred to the case of Onwudiwe v. F.R.N. [supra] for the definition of fraud. Mr. Sylvanus Tahir argued that: [a] the 1st defendant misrepresented to PW1 that he is the owner of the property; [b] PW1 parted with his money due to the misrepresentation; and [c] at the time 1st defendant agreed with PW1 to sell the land and gave him the application form to fill, made him pay money, took him to a purported site, he knew he did not own the land in question. It was therefore submitted that the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that defendants had the intention to defraud the PW1. The Court was urged to convict the defendants; and to order the 1st defendant to make restitution of N3,620,000.00 to PW1, being loss he sustained as a result of the false pretence pursuant to section 11[1][a] of the said Act. . In Onwudiwe v. F.R.N. [supra], it was held that fraud, the noun variant of fraudulent, is: 15