sum of money via the bond. This Court has searched very hard for compelling evidence that this said sum of money was forcibly paid by the Defendant to PW1" Regrettably, none. This is strengthened by the fact that neither the Defendant nor her father, DW2 complained that an extra kobo was paid to any of the police officers" From the evidence before Court, it was the Defendant who with deliberateness refused to carry out the said audit reconciliation account when requested to do so by PW1. Then, after admitting in Exhibit B of her inadequacies and the fact that she cannot account for the said sum of money missing, then, turns around, to say that she was compelled to pay N400,000= out of the said sum of money which the said defendant admitted that she could not give an account of, and, that it was indeed missing. Even Exhibit D which the Learned Counsel to the defendant alluded shows clearly and unequivocally that Onyeka, the maker, stated that he was aware that the reconciliation was done at the Police Station. Also, beyond doubt, that, he too acknowledged the fact at P. 2 of Exhibit D thereof that the Defendant after the reconciliation had a deficit of N1,553,154 from her own record unaccounted for, which she, the Defendant accepted. So, why the hullabaloo? Yes, part of the account reconciliation took place at the Police Station, Ebrumede. But, there was no form of involuntariness in making same, Exhibit B. lt must be pointed out that Exhibit B is the Defendant's own records, and, in her own handwriting. PW1 has magnanimous in accepting the Defendant's own figure arising out of the Defendant's own personal account reconciliation. The defendant has started by making a payment of N400,000= out of it. That is the finding of this Court, and I so hold. This Court must point out that the Police Officers, namely the DPO, Ebrumede and the lPO, did not act as debt collectors. From the evidence, the Defendant herein was not indebted to PW1. Founded on criminality vide Exhibit B.' Then on Exhibit A1 - A27, they are all referable to PW1 The Defendant herself stated that PW1 is her boss and employed by her Besides, PW1 explained to this Court that she has a franchise with MTN. DW1, the Defendant even told this Court under cross examination that the account reconciliation which she did correlated with the items in her possession. She also stated under cross examination, that she was employed by 17 Mrs.