BY SAM ALFAN.
A senior official of Post Bank has found himself in trouble for allowing a customer to withdraw funds that had been frozen over suspicion that it was illegally obtained.
High Court Judge Esther Maina ordered George Onyango, the operations manager at Post Bank to refund the over Sh3.7 million that were withdrawn by Congolese businessman Fumbisha Ilunga in September last year.
The judge said the money should be refunded by Onyango, should the Assets Recovery Agency (ARA) fail to get back the money from Ilunga.
The judge ruled that Post Bank being a public institution, cannot be compelled to refund for a mistake done by the official.
The court was informed that the funds were frozen in June last year, following an application by ARA.
The order was to subsist for 90 days, but ARA was about to file the application for forfeiture of the funds to the State, they were informed that it had already been withdrawn.
When they were summoned for cross-examination Ilunga that he withdrew the money after being informed by Onyango that the freeze order had lapsed.
“Accordingly, the finding of this court is that Ilunga must, in the first instance, be held personally liable to refund the funds. In the premises, it is hereby ordered that Ilunga shall, within 21 days of this ruling, refund the funds by depositing the same into an account as shall be advised by the Asset Recovery Agency,” ruled Justice Maina.
The judge noted that Ilunga withdrew the funds upon the invitation, prodding and advice of Onyango who even went to the extent of referring him to an advocate.
“I reject the argument by the Bank’s lawyer that George Onyango, acted in good faith and did not benefit from the violation of the court orders,” ruled the judge .
The judge noted neither Onyango nor lawyer for the bank explained the legal basis for referring Ilunga to an advocate, even assuming the order had lapsed and what justification there was to charge 10 percent of the preserved funds.
The judge said Onyango’s conduct of referring Ilunga to “an Advocate who demanded 10% of the preserved funds so that the Congolese could access the funds betrays his motive.
“What pray, may I ask, was this 10% for? Was the payment of 10% necessary given that the bank did not incur any costs upon the preservation order being granted? Was the involvement of an Advocate necessary given that all Fumbisha required to do, upon lapse of the order at the appropriate time, was for him to go to the bank to access his funds?
“This court condemns George Onyango’s conduct and urges the Director of the Financial Reporting Centre to look into it with a view of censuring the bank if nothing else,” ruled the court .
