The prosecution then set out conspiracy and then submitted evidence by PW’s 1 – 4 on Defendants carried into effect as genuine. the ingredients of the offence of that there is enough corroborative the facts adduced and that the their decision to forge documents On the offence of obtaining money under fake pretence against the Defendants, at page 8 of the prosecution’s written address, she set out the ingredients of the offence and also relied on the cases of ONWUDIWE V FRN, (2006) 10 NWLR (pt 988) page 382 at 431 – 432, ALAKE V STATE, (1991) 7 NWLR (pt 205) page 567 and EDE V FRN (Supra). To prove the 1st and 2nd ingredients of the offence, the prosecution relied and referred me to the vivid testimony of PW1, the nominal complainant and how he knew the 2nd Defendant and how the 2nd Defendant introduced two plots (exhibits 1 and 2) for sale. According to the prosecution that the 1st and 3rd Defendants played different roles as owner and promoter to the land respectively. In respect of 3rd, 4th and 5th ingredients, the prosecution relied on the evidence of PW’s 1 – 3 and exhibits P3 and P5 which according to her are very clear on the issue. According to the prosecution that the Defendants knew that the land was not genuine but gave PW1 the impression that they had conducted search on the land and found it to be genuine. The prosecution relied on exhibit 3, the receipt issued by the 2nd Defendant for part-payment for the land. On counts 6 and 7, submitted that the amount of N8,500,000.00 is capable of being stolen and she relied on the evidence of PW’s 1 – 4 and exhibits tendered in Court. As to whether the prosecution has proved Counts 2 and 5 bothering on forgery of exhibits 1 and 2, the prosecution set out the ingredients the prosecution is required to prove as follows: 1. That the Defendants made false documents; 21