By Hassanatu I. Conteh
State Prosecutor, Yussef Issac Sesay has exposed the fake company of Admire and her Husband, Dausy Jalloh, to which documents were shown to the court indicating that GAN GOLD Limited was never a registered company in Sierra Leone.
He made this statement on Thursday the 13 August 2026, before Magistrate Brima Jah of Court No.1 Pademba Court, Freetown, whiles replying to the No case submission made by Defence Councel Melron Nicole Willson on behalf of Admire Bio and Dausy Jalloh.
State counsel Yussef Issac Sesay, also informed the court that Exhibit Q which was tended before the court with title Government of Sierra Leone National Mineral Agency denied giving license to GAN GOLD Limited which is owned by Admire and her Husband Dausy Jalloh as the CEO and Deputy CEO of the said company.
Yussef Issac Sesay further submitted that the second defendant, Dausy Jalloh in his statement made to the police, stated that GAN Gold limited is a sister company to DAJ Sierra Leone Mineral Limited, But when he was questioned by the police about the address of the said sister company, he was unable to provide the address. It was later discovered that the said building was owned by one Esther Dauda, which was an incompletes building. She also denied knowing the said Gan Gold Company Limited.
The prosecution stated that maintaining that the evidence presented before the court had established a prima facie case against the accused persons was sufficient to warrant their being sent to the High Court for trial.
In its submission, the prosecution further said it was important to distinguish between a submission of no case to answer and submissions made at the conclusion of a full trial.
The prosecutor said the court was not required at this stage to determine the guilt or innocence of the accused, but rather whether the prosecution had presented sufficient evidence to establish a prima facie case.
The prosecution alleged that the accused persons presented themselves to two Italian nationals, identified as Alfio Saracusa and Fanny Giuseppe, as persons engaged in the gold business.
According to the prosecution, the complainants initially expressed interest in purchasing diamonds after meeting a man identified as Budi, the manager of Lagunda Restaurant.
The prosecution added that the said Budi contacted the second accused, who allegedly informed him that he knew someone who could assist the complainants in obtaining diamonds.
The complainants subsequently met the accused persons at their residence at mile 13, along the Freetown Peninsula and that the second accused introduced the first accused to the complainants as his wife and represented himself as the Chief Executive Officer of a gold-mining business, while describing the first accused as the Deputy Chief Executive Officer.
The prosecution argued that the accused should not be viewed merely as husband and wife, but as two people allegedly operating within the same business.
On August 5, 2025, the prosecution said the second accused contacted Budi and told him that he had found someone who could supply diamonds.
A meeting was subsequently held at Lagunda Restaurant involving the complainants, Budi, the second accused and the alleged diamond seller.
The complainants allegedly rejected the diamonds presented to them. The prosecution said the second accused and Budi then suggested that the complainants purchase gold instead.
According to the prosecution, the initial price was US$85,000 per kilogram, but following negotiations the parties agreed on US$70,000 per kilogram.
The following day, August 6, 2025, the complainants and Budi allegedly went to the residence of the accused persons, where pieces of gold were shown to them.
The prosecution said the complainants subsequently went to a commercial bank intending to withdraw money for the purchase of three kilograms of gold.
However, the bank allegedly advised them that, because of the amount involved and the nature of the transaction, the payment should be made by bank transfer and that relevant documentation concerning the transaction and intended recipient would be required.
Budi reportedly contacted the second accused and informed him of the bank’s position. The second accused then allegedly contacted his wife, the first accused, who accompanied the complainants to the bank on August 12, 2025.
The prosecution said the complainants eventually paid US$100,000 on one occasion and US$110,000 on another occasion.
It further alleged that an additional US$15,000 was later demanded from the complainants in connection with the exportation of the gold.
The prosecution pointed to the alleged participation of both accused persons in meetings with the complainants, negotiations, payment arrangements and the issuance of invoices and receipts.
The prosecutor also relied on correspondence from the Directorate of Precious Minerals Trading (DPMT) of the National Minerals Agency (NMA).
According to the prosecution, the DPMT stated that it had no official engagement with Gan Minerals Limited concerning gold or any other mineral export and was not aware of any licence issued to the company to trade in or export gold.
The prosecution argued that the evidence was significant because the statutory body responsible for regulating the trade and export of precious minerals had confirmed that the company had no such license.
The prosecution therefore maintained that any gold trading activities conducted by the company without the required license were unlawful.
The prosecution referred to evidence from a property owner, identified as Madam Esther, who allegedly stated that her property had never housed a company known as Gan Minerals Limited. The prosecutor described the alleged absence of a genuine business address as a “red flag”, arguing that it raised questions about the legitimacy and traceability of the company.
The prosecution further relied on receipts allegedly issued to the complainants under the name of Gan Minerals Limited. According to the prosecutor, the accused persons did not deny the receipts or the payments made by the complainants.
The prosecution further argued that if the company was not authorised to conduct the relevant gold business, the representations contained in the receipts were false and the documents were relevant to the allegations of false pretences and forgery.
The prosecution also drew the court’s attention to the circumstances surrounding the alleged delivery of the gold. While previous meetings had allegedly taken place during the day, the prosecution said the alleged delivery occurred at about 9 p.m.
The prosecutor argued that the timing of the delivery was significant when considered alongside the other evidence. The prosecution also addressed an alibi raised by the defence, arguing that an alibi did not by itself answer an allegation of conspiracy.
The prosecutor submitted that conspiracy could be established through communication, instructions, conduct and other circumstances demonstrating an agreement between the accused persons. The prosecution further referred to the statement allegedly made by the second accused during police investigations.
According to the prosecutor, the second accused described Gan Minerals Limited as a “sister company” and later as an affiliate, but when asked about its location or address, he allegedly stated that he did not know.
The prosecution argued that it was difficult to understand how someone who described a company as a sister or affiliated company could not identify its location. The prosecutor submitted that the evidence raised questions that should properly be examined at a full trial.
In conclusion, the prosecution urged the court to consider the evidence cumulatively, including the representations allegedly made to the complainants, the roles of the accused persons, the absence of a mineral-trading licence, the receipts, payments, alleged business address, delivery of the gold and the statements made during police investigations.
The prosecution maintained that the evidence was sufficient to establish a prima facie case and urged the court to dismiss the no-case submission and commit the accused persons to the High Court for trial.
The two defendants are facing an eleven-count charge, including conspiracy to defraud, obtaining money by false pretences, conspiracy to rob, money laundering, receiving money on a forged document, uttering a forged document, selling minerals without legal permission, and tax evasion. The defendants have denied the allegations.
According to the particulars of offence, between August 10 and 14, 2025, at No. 1 DAJ Drive, Mile 13, Freetown Peninsula, Western Area, Freetown, the accused allegedly conspired with other persons unknown to defraud Fanni Giuseppe and Alfio Siracusa of US$210,000.
The prosecution alleges that the accused falsely represented that they were operating a genuine gold-dealing business and induced the complainants to part with the money.
Count Two alleges that the accused obtained US$100,000 from the complainants by falsely representing that they operated a genuine gold business known as GAN Minerals Sierra Leone Limited, which was licensed to sell three kilograms of gold, knowing the representation to be false.
Count Three alleges that the defendant obtained a further US$110,000 from the complainants under the same representation. The fourth count alleges that the defendants obtained US$15,000, purportedly to pay exportation taxes for three kilograms of gold, knowing the representation to be false.
On Count Five, the prosecution alleges that on August 13, 2025, at Milton Margai College Drive, Goderich, the accused conspired with other persons unknown to rob Fanni Giuseppe and Alfio Siracusa of three kilograms of gold valued at US$210,000.
The sixth and seventh counts relate to alleged possession of US$100,000 and US$110,000, respectively, which the prosecution claims were proceeds of unlawful activities. Count Eight alleges that the accused received US$210,000 from the complainants by virtue of a forged receipt purportedly issued by GAN Minerals Sierra Leone Limited.
Count Nine alleges that the accused uttered a forged payment invoice of GAN Minerals Sierra Leone Limited, knowing it to be forged and intending to defraud. The tenth count alleges that the accused sold three kilograms of gold bars to the complainants without legal permission.
The eleventh count alleges that the accused, being persons chargeable to income tax, wilfully evaded payment of tax arising from the sale of the three kilograms of gold under the business name GAN Minerals Sierra Leone Limited.
Magistrate Mustapha Brima Jah subsequently indicated that the court would consider the written submissions, authorities and oral arguments before delivering its ruling at 9:30 a.m. on the date fixed by the court, the matter was adjourned to the 24th of August 2026, after which it would be determined whether the matter would be concluded or further proceedings would be required.