She contended that the 2nd Defendant had stated in his examination in chief that he informed the 1st Defendant that the houses were no longer available and yet they went ahead and received the sum of N20,000,000 to process the houses that were no longer available. Relying on the case of ALAKE V. STATE (1991) 7 NWLR (PT. 205) P. 557, the Prosecution Counsel listed the ingredients to prove the offence of obtaining by false pretence. She submitted that the Prosecution in this case has proved all these ingredients beyond reasonable doubt. She said the Prosecution Witnesses’ evidence was to the fact that the false pretence emanated from the 1st – 3rd Defendants when they held themselves out as capable of procuring House 11B Vanem Crescent, Abuja and No. 84 Yakubu Gowon Street, Asokoro from the Ad-hoc Committee on the sale of Federal Government Houses for the nominal complainant and premised on this the nominal complainant paid the sum of N20,000,000 as processing fees for the said properties. Counsel contended that this false pretence from the Defendants operated in the minds of the nominal complainants who believed it and parted with N20,000,000 as processing and facilitation fees. She further submitted that it is apparent that the Defendants knew that the properties were no longer for sale as the 2nd Defendant admitted in his examination in chief that as at when he met with the 1st and 3rd Defendants to discuss about the properties, the sale of federal government properties had stopped bidding since 2008. That the 2nd Defendant had shared with the 1st Defendant that the houses were no longer available. Counsel submitted that evidence which is not disputed is before the Court that the sum of N20,000,000 was received vide bank drafts through the account of the 5th Defendant on pretence of purchasing properties. On the ingredient of intent to defraud, Counsel reiterated that the Defendants knew about the false pretence and yet obtained the said sum from the nominal complainants. Learned Prosecution Counsel submitted that the testimonies of all prosecution witnesses were not contradicted or shaken in cross 10