was made on the 21st of January 2013. I can see the back page of the statement line 11. I still insist I did not sell the property to Lead British School. I do not know Lead British School.” Learned counsel to the defendant in his written address formulated a sole issue for determination to wit: “Whether in the circumstances of this case, the Prosecution has failed to proof (sic) its case beyond reasonable doubt against the Defendant, thereby necessitating her discharge and acquittal.” On the first count of the charge which is an allegation of obtaining by false pretences contrary to Section 1(1)(a) of the Advance Fee Fraud Act, defence counsel submitted that the prosecution failed to establish the ingredients of the offence to the satisfaction of the Court. He submitted further that the prosecution failed to establish or prove the essential ingredients of the offence of forgery under Section 362(a) and 366 of the Penal Code. He submitted that the prosecution failed to prove that the defendant intended to defraud Mutual Property Development Co. Ltd. or committed forgery. He submitted further that there was no evidence that the defendant carried out the alleged forgery and that there was contradictions in the prosecution’s evidence in the description of the property. He urged me to hold that the prosecution has failed to prove the offences for which the defendant is charged beyond reasonable doubt and discharge and acquit her accordingly. For his part, learned counsel to the prosecution submitted one issue for determination to wit: “Whether the Prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt as required by Section 135 of the Evidence Act.” 9