Bcci V. Akindele Notes
This is a sample of our 4 page long Bcci V. Akindele notes, which we sell as part of the Restitution of Unjust Enrichment BCL Notes collection, a Distinction package written at Oxford in 2013 that contains 333 pages of notes across 161 different documents.
The original file is a '' whilst this sample is a 'PDF' representation of said file. This means that the formatting here may have errors. The original document you'll receive on purchase should have more polished formatting.
Bcci V. Akindele RevisionThe following is a plain text extract of the PDF sample above, taken from our Restitution of Unjust Enrichment BCL Notes. This text version has had its formatting removed so pay attention to its contents alone rather than its presentation. The version you download will have its original formatting intact and so will be much prettier to look at.
BCCI V. AKINDELE
FACTS The first claimant in the action is Bank of Credit and Commerce International
(Overseas) Ltd ("BCCI Overseas"), a company incorporated under the laws of the
Cayman Islands and at all material times a whollyowned subsidiary of Bank of Credit
and Commerce International Holdings (Luxembourg) SA ("BCCI Holdings"). The
second claimant is International Credit and Investment Co (Overseas) Ltd ("ICIC
Overseas"), also a company incorporated under the laws of the Cayman Islands,
whose affairs were at all material times effectively controlled by the BCCI group…
The defendant, Chief Labode Onadimaki Akindele, is a Nigerian citizen and a highly
prominent businessman of that country. It was made between the defendant ("the investor") of the one part and ICIC Overseas
("the company") of the other part. It recited, first, that the company was operating as
an investment company, market maker and financier, secondly, that the investor was
desirous of investing US$10m in the shares of a banking group with potential for
growth and good return on his investments and, thirdly, that the company had offered
to arrange for investment of the investor's funds to the extent of US$10m in the shares
of BCCI Holdings on the terms and conditions as set out therein. In their statement of claim the claimants alleged that both the defendant and ICIC
Overseas intended and knew that the 1985 agreement was a sham, in that ICIC
Overseas never intended to sell or procure the sale of any shares in BCCI Holdings to
the defendant and that the defendant never intended to purchase any shares, the
agreement being merely a device for ICIC Overseas to obtain the use of the US$10m
for a minimum period of two years and for the defendant to obtain a 15% guaranteed
return on his investment. Employees of the claimants acted fraudulently: The judge had no difficulty in finding
that in procuring ICIC Overseas to enter into the 1985 agreement and in procuring
BCCI Overseas to pay the defendant the US$16.679m pursuant to the divestiture
agreement, Mr Naqvi, Mr Hafeez and Mr Kazmi acted in fraudulent breach of
their fiduciary duties to the claimants.
Fraud by employees of the claimants:
The judge had no difficulty in finding that in procuring ICIC Overseas to enter into
the 1985 agreement and in procuring BCCI Overseas to pay the defendant the
US$16.679m pursuant to the divestiture agreement, Mr Naqvi, Mr Hafeez and Mr
Kazmi acted in fraudulent breach of their fiduciary duties to the claimants. In order fraudulently to boost the amount of its capital in the eyes of the regulators, its
depositors and the public at large, BCCI Holdings acquired parcels of its own shares
through nominees who included ICIC Overseas and an individual called Wabel
Pharaon. The acquisitions were funded by dummy loans made to the nominees by
companies within the BCCI group, each of which was entered in the books of both
****************************End Of Sample*****************************
Buy the full version of these notes or essay plans and more in our Restitution of Unjust Enrichment BCL Notes.