(2015)LPELR 25902 (CA). AITUMA V THE STATE (2007) 5 NWLR (pt 1028) page 466. While in respect of the offence of conspiracy to obtain money by false pretence have the same ingredients as provided under section 96 and 97 of the Penal Code. Hence the ingredients lies in the bare agreement and association to carry out an unlawful Act which is contrary to or forbidden by law, whether that act be criminal or not and of course whether or not the Accused persons had knowledge of its unlawfulness. See the cases of ADESINA KAYODE V THE STATE, (2016) LPELR 40028 (SC), IKECHUKWU OKON V THE STATE, (2014) CLARIK V THE STATE, (1986) 4 NWLR (pt35) page 381. Having stated the ingredients of the offences contained in the six count amended charge, the question now is whether the prosecution has established a prima facie case against the 1st Defendant in the instant suit. Firstly, the submissions of the learned Counsel for the 1st Defendant to the effect that by the testimonies of PW1 and PW4 exonerated the 1st Defendant from the commission of the offence. The submission of Counsel for the 1st Defendant is far from the truth. I have seen exhibits 7 and 7 (a), the statements of the 1st Defendant made to the officials of the Economic and Financial Crime Commission. The statements of the 1st Defendant exhibit 7 (a) supports the testimony of PW2 as well as PWS1 and 4. Further, by the evidence of PW2, exhibits 1 and 2 are not within the approved layout of Abuja Municipal Area Council hence amounting to not being genuine. This also appears supported by the statement of the 1st Defendant, exhibit 7 (a) wherein he admitted to getting alternative plot or refund the amount paid by the nominal complainant. Thus, by the testimonies of PWS1, 2, 4 and exhibits 7 and 7 (a), the 1st Defendant requires to make some explanation and 12