issued to him by Mohammed Abubakar the account owner which he knew is false. Submitted that the statement of the accused person to the EFCC i.e. Exhibits H1, K, L, N, O and P are confessional and consequently sufficient to convict the accused person. See SOLOLA v STATE (2005) All FWLR (Pt 269) 1751 at 1782. It is submitted that from the evidence before the court, the prosecution has discharged the burden placed on it by proving all the counts beyond any reasonable doubt and therefore urged the court to convict the accused accordingly. I have carefully considered the processes filed, the evidence of witnesses and the submission of learned counsels on both sides, I do agree with learned counsel for the prosecution that the sole issue that is due for determination is whether from the evidence adduced by the prosecution, it could be said it has discharged the burden on it by proving the offences for which the accused is charged beyond reasonable doubt. It is trite law that the standard of proof in a criminal trial is proof beyond reasonable doubt; this means that it is not enough for the prosecution to suspect a person of having committed a criminal offence; there must be evidence, which identified the person accused with the offence, and that it was his act, which caused the offence. See AIGBADION v STATE (2000) 4 SC 9Pt 1) 1 at 15. Looking at the 27 count charges, it will be appropriate to categorize same as follows: 20