In the instant case, apart from the testimonies of PWS 1 – 4 and the exhibits tendered in Court, the statements of the Defendants, exhibits 7 (a), 8, 8 (a) and 9 admitted to PW1 that exhibits 1 and 2 were genuine that eventually made PW1 to part with the sum of N8,500,000.00 to the Defendants. Thus, by the actus reus of the Defendants which have now drawn the mens rea in the open, the offence of Conspiracy has been established against the Defendants by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt and I so hold. In respect of count two, by the evidence of PWS 1 and 3 and indeed the statements of the Defendants exhibits 7(a), 8, 8 (a) and 9, there was a representation by the Defendants and the representation was made to PW1 upon which PW1 parted with the sum of N8,500,000.00. Further, the Defendants knew that exhibits 1 and 2 do not exist and yet they induced the nominal complainant to deliver and transfer the sum of N8,500,000.00 to the Defendants. The sum of N8,500,000.00, there is no doubt is capable of being stolen. In the case of OMOREDE DARLINGTON V FRN (Supra) Peter – Odili JSC, on the elements of obtaining money under false pretence state the ingredients thus: - (1) that there was a false pretence made by the accused to the person defrauded. In the instant case, by exhibits 7 (a), 8(a) and (b) and 9, the Defendants admitted that exhibits 1 and 2 were genuine and this was further confirmed by the testimonies of PWS 1, 3 and 4 until PWS 1, 3 and 4 discovered that Plots ED3 and ED4 contained in exhibits 1 and 2 were none existent. And the evidence of PW2, a staff of Federal Capital Development Administration posted to Abuja Municipal Area Council confirmed that exhibits 1 and 2 did not emanate from their office. Thus, the representation was false and there is no doubt that the sum of N8,500,000.00 which was paid to the Defendant is capable of being stolen. And more importantly, the representation by the Defendants of exhibits 1 and 2 was done with the intention of defrauding the nominal complainant and that was why the 1st Defendant agreed to provide alternative plots which PW1 refused to accept. 29