do so because it appears from the facts and circumstances of the case of sale of the properties it was a sham and as rightly pointed out by PW2 in exhibit 6, these were part of the game to lure the unsuspecting individual, as in this case, the nominal complainant and her husband to part with their well earned N20,000,000.00. In any event, exhibits 12 and 12 (a) admitted in evidence in this case, I hold the view that they were wrongly admitted and I so hold. Accordingly exhibits 12 and 12(a) are hereby expunged from the records of this case. In respecting of exhibits 13-17 (a), the documents relates to a piece of land situate at Kuruduma District while the evidence of PWS1, 3 and indeed DWs1 and 2, the evidence is consistent to the effect that the title documents referred to by the 2nd defendant was a piece of land in Asokoro District, Abuja. I am therefore of the view that the documents, exhibits 13-17 (a) are not relevant in the instant case and I so hold. In the instant case therefore, by the actus reus of the 1st,2nd and 3rd Defendants in this case, it is easier for me to locate and draw the mens rea to the open of the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Defendants. In otherwords, by the evidence and circumstances of doing things by the 1st ,2nd and 3rd Defendants, conspiracy can be inferred. Further, by section 8 (a) of the Act, for the offence to be establish or proved, another important requirement of obtaining under false pretence is the elements of the falsity of information and the knowledge of the falsity of the information. See the cases of BENNETH UZUEGBUNAM V. C.O.P (2018) LPELR 43931 (CA). In the instant case the information given to the nominal complainant, her husband, Mr. Victor and PW1 that Houses Nos 84 Yakubu Gowon Asokoro and 11B Vanem Crescent Maitama, Abuja, by the evidence of PWs2 and 3 and indeed PW1, such Houses never existed for sale by the Ad-Hoc Committee on sale of Federal Government Houses. Furthermore, by the actus reus of the Defendants for failing to deliver the letters of allocation within two weeks and even after three months and then offering the nominal complainant alternative at Gwarimpa clearly establishes the facts that the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Defendants have or had knowledge of the falsity of the information. The draft cheques 36