they lured the nominal Complainant and her husband, by the evidence of PW3 was a trick to convince the nominal complainant and her husband to part with N20,000,000.00, the purported facilitation fee. Accordingly to PW3 the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Defendants refused or failed to present the draft cheques to Ad-hoc Committee as confirmed by PW2. Accordingly I hold the view that the prosecution has adduced credible evidence to prove the offence of conspiracy contrary to section 8 (a) and punishable under section 1(3) of the Advance Fee Fraud and other Related Offences Act against the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Defendants beyond reasonable doubt and I so hold. Count two (2) and three (3) of the amended charge, the Defendants are alleged to have committed an offence contrary to section 1(1) (a) of the Advance Fee Fraud and other related Offences Act, 2006 and punishable under section 1(3) of the same Act. Section 1(1) of the Act provides:“1(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other enactment or law, any person who by any false pretence, and with intent to defraud.” (a) Obtains, from any other person, in Nigeria or in any other country for himself or any other person; or (b) Induces any other person, in Nigeria or in any other country to deliver to any person/or (c) Obtain any property, whether or not the property is obtained or its delivery is induced through the medium of a contract induced by the false pretence, commits an offence under this Act. For the prosecution to succeed against the Defendants, the following ingredients must be established by the prosecution against the Defendants beyond reasonable doubt: (1) That there was a pretence; (2) That the pretence emanated from the accused person; (3) That it was false (4) That there was intention to defraud; (5) That the thing is capable of being stolen (6) That the accuse person induce the owner to transfer his whole interest in the property. 37