Be it as it may, the essential element of the offence of obtaining money by false pretence under section 1(1) (a) of the Advance Fee Fraud and other Fraud Related Offences Act, 2006 are set out in the case of OMOREDE DARLINTON V FRN, (2018) LPELR, 43850 Supreme Court states as follows:(1) That there was a false pretence made by the accused to the person defrauded. (2) That the thing stolen or obtained is capable of being stolen. (3) That the Accused did same with intent to defraud. The Supreme Court in the case of ODIAWA V FRN, ALLFWLR (pt439) page 436 at 447 broke down in simplified style the ingredients further as follows:(1) There is a pretence (2) The pretence emanated from the Accused (3) It is false (4) The Accused knew of its falsity or did not believe in its truth (5) There was intention to defraud (6) That the thing is capable of being stolen (7) That the Accused induced the owner to transfer his whole interest in the property. In respect of the offence of forgery, under section 363 of the Penal Code, the prosecution is required to establish the following:(a) That the Defendant made the false document; (b) That he did so with the intention to commit fraud. See MUHAMMAD AL- AMEENAL- HALEEL V FRN, 11