details of his company (the 5th Defendant) to enable her conclude a transaction. The 4th Defendant obliged her and the total sum of N20,000,000.00 was credited into that account. He testified that upon the instruction of the 1st Defendant, he made payment during that period totaling N21,000,000.00. He said the bank charges and other transactional charges on the said amount were not included and he bore those costs. He was however invited in 2013 by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission to explain the transaction surrounding that money. He made his statement to the EFCC and was told to leave but was however arraigned in 2014 before this Court on an amended charge. It was during the course of the EFCC investigation that he got to know more facts about the transaction involving the money paid into the 5th Defendant’s account. He testified that the 1st Defendant was his wife and he had no reason to doubt the transparency of the transaction she was involved in when she requested for the 5th Defendant’s bank details. He said there have been precedents and Mr. Victor who made the payment was at that time the 4th Defendant’s employer. He was therefore fairly certain that the source of funds and the intended purpose had integrity. The 4th Defendant testified that of the sums disbursed, the sum of N9,000,000.00 cheque was issued to the 3rd Defendant. He said the sums of N6,500,000.00, N2,000,000.00 and N200,000.00 were issued to the 1st Defendant. He said N3,500,000.00 was issued to himself out of which N1,100,000.00 was his own money and the balance of N2,400,000.00 was given to the 1st Defendant. He said although the 1st Defendant is his wife, he only met the 2nd and 3rd Defendants before the trial commenced. He has never had any meeting with the other Defendants as regards the present transaction and was not privy to the transaction until Mr. Victor asked him to visit the site of the 2nd Defendant’s plot. The 2nd Defendant testified that he did not benefit from the transaction. Under cross- examination, the 2nd Defendant repeated that he was not privy to the details of engagement of the 1st Defendant by Mr. Victor. When he asked the 1st Defendant what the money was meant for, she told him that Mr. Victor asked her to act as agent in a property transaction. The 4th Defendant stated that Mr. 25