The Banjul Magistrates’ Court heard on Friday that Angelika Mitterer received funds on behalf of her partner in the sale of Bitcoin Tower apartments and is, therefore, a suspect.
The second prosecution witness in the trial of Austrians Manuel Di Stofleth Mitterer and Angelika Mitterer yesterday testified under cross-examination that though Angelika is not a shareholder in the Kasumai Real Estate, she created the perfect condition under which the proceeds could be transferred to her partner, digitally.
The Bitcoin Tower apartments were sold under the Kasumai Real Estate brand.
The Stofleths are being tried at the lower court in Gambian capital, Banjul on a single-count charge of disobeying a lawful order by allegedly barring police investigators from getting access to the laptop in which details of the apartments sales are being stored as Manuel reportedly told investigators.
“Is it correct that the second defendant[Angelika] is not a shareholder in the company [Kasumai Real Estate] in which you said the first defendant [ Manuel] owns 30%,” lead defense lawyer Ida Drammeh quizzed 2nd prosecution witness Saidykhan at Friday’s sitting.
“She is not, but she received funds on behalf of the first defendant and is, therefore, a suspect,” replied the witness.
The witness disagreed with the defense lawyer’s assertion that he did not know his way around a laptop computer, saying that his knowledge of computers precipitated his request for the Stofleths’ laptop to aid the police probe.
“I want to put it to you that cryptocurrency accounts are accessed by a browser,” said counsel Drammeh.
“In the laptop, there was a browser and the accused himself printed a document that is part of the laptop,”replied Saidykhan.
When counsel Drammeh further put to him that a browser is used to navigate websites on the internet, witness Saidykhan concurred with her but lead prosecutor Sanneh casually interjected:”She is using Google definition.”
“I want to be accurate,” calmly replied counsel Drammeh.
However, a heated argument followed when the prosecution tried to convince the presiding magistrate that the witness did not entirely agree with the defense counsel’s definition of a browser. Saidykhan told the court that the word “navigate” in the counsel’s definition eluded him.
“Counsel used the right definition and he [witness] agreed,” Principal Magistrate Tabally held.
“I didn’t hear the word navigate,” contradicted the witness.
“I will not change it,” insisted the presiding magistrate.
This insistence on the part of the magistrate did not sit well with the prosecution.
“You are not here for one person. You have to hear everyone,” lead prosecutor Sanneh told Principal Magistrate Tabally.
“I will not change it,” further insisted Tabally.
“That’s for you but I want to tell you that you are here for everyone,” Commissioner Sanneh maintained.
When asked by counsel Drammeh as to whether it’s correct that details of cryptocurrency transactions are not lodged in a laptop, Saidykhan responded:”I do know that before you open a cryptocurrency account, there is a box that will help you to access cryptocurrency… The accused used the same laptop and the box to access the cryptocurrency account.”
“What box are you talking about?”asked counsel Drammeh.
“This is the box bought by Angelika, who is not a member of Kasumai Real Estate, to create a cryptocurrency account or wallet so the funds would be transferred,” answered Saidykhan.
“I would like the witness to bring the laptop,” requested the lead counsel.
However, the prosecution objected to this as, according to the lead prosecutor, the laptop “is a subject of investigation”, adding that the case before the court is about disobedience to lawful order.
“We rely on Section 3 that it has no relevance. Assuming without conceding the laptop is brought, it should be taken back immediately because investigation is ongoing. And the accused are experts in computer.”
“Our application is for the laptop and the box to be brought,” argued Ms. Drammeh.
The laptop and the box were later produced in court but when counsel Drammeh made an application for them to be used as exhibits so the court could go into their contents, Commissioner Sanneh objected.
“I object. She wants to be smart with us and if she fails in one, she wants to make up for it with the other. This case has to do with disobedience to lawful order. This laptop is a subject of investigation about theft and this case is about disobedience,” argued Sanneh, but counsel Drammeh counter-argued:”Everyone has a right to a fair hearing. Section 34 of the Constitution guarantees the right to fair and speedy trial. It cannot be an answer for someone to say it’s not relevant. At this stage, we would like to tender it so we can ask future questions.”
Principal magistrate Tabally, relying on Section 3 of the Evidence Act, then ruled that the laptop be put under the custody of the court until otherwise needed by investigators through a judicial application.
At this juncture, the lead prosecutor said that “the prosecution will make an application for the laptop, the box and stick to be returned as we speak, there are witnesses at the crime department of the police HQ that need to be questioned, regarding exhibit D1[the computer].” He added:”We further make an application that the exhibit remain under the custody of the police and anytime the court needs it, the police will surrender it.”
But counsel Drammeh disagreed and argued:”The witness has said he had the laptop for five months. All the exhibits are in the custody of the court. My position is that it [computer] should remain with the court.”
“Investigation has no timeline,” contended Sanneh.
After hearing both sides, the magistrate ruled that the laptop and the box, which were earlier tendered in court and admitted as pieces of evidence, should remain in court and a judicial application should be made if the prosecution wants them back.
“And this is what the prosecution has done. As said by the prosecution, the laptop is a subject of investigation and should be returned to the police,” the magistrate read.
The case resumes April 1st, for continuation of the cross-examination of witness Saidykhan.
