reveals some movement of instrumentalities (funds) involved in the act. It is thus my view that the offence which the Respondent was arraigned and made to stand trial is no doubt a specie of financial and economic crime within the meaning of Section 46 of the Economic and Financial crimes (Establishment) Act, 2004. The next germane issue is the binding force of the Supreme Court decision of NWOBIKE V. F. R. N. (supra) to the instant case. By virtue of Section 36 (12) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended) a person cannot be convicted of a criminal offence unless that offence is defined and the penalty prescribed in written law. The Supreme Court in the case of NWOBIKE V. F. R. N. (supra) has reiterated the already settled legal principle that Section 97 (3) of the Criminal Law did not define the offence of perversion of course of justice for which the appellant in that case was charged, tried and convicted. Can that be said of the offence for which the Respondent in this case was arraigned before the lower Court? I do not think so, because Sections 311 and 312 of the Penal Code not only defined the offence of criminal breach of trust but specifically prescribes the penalty for its infractions. And having held the firm view that the offence of criminal breach of trust is a specie of financial and economic crimes, the facts and circumstances of the two cases are not mutually the same, or similar. Put differently, the facts in the decision of NWOBIKE V. F. R. N. (supra) are not on all fours with the facts in the present case. Therefore, the Learned trial judge was patently wrong in his reasoning that charge no. SS/34C/2021 against the Respondent was not an economic and financial crime and that the case of Dr. Nwobike V. F. R. N. CA/S/114C/2022 Page 13