On the 30th day of March, 2022, Hon. Justice M. S Shuaibu of the Federal High Court, Benin Judicial Division sentenced one Mrs. Debest Osarumwense to five years imprisonment for receiving the sum of over N91,000,000 (Ninety One Million naira) from her son, Endurance Osarumwense a.k.a “yahoo boy”, an alleged internet fraudster, being proceeds of stolen money.
The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission had prosecuted her on a one count charge for aiding her son and secured her conviction.
The law does not just frown on the offence of stealing, it is also clearly against the offering of aid to a person who steals. One of the ways that the law deals with the act of aiding a thief or an alleged thief is by the criminalization of the act of receiving stolen property. The offence of receiving stolen property is provided for in section 427 of the Criminal Code and section 317 of the Penal Code.
Section 427 of the Criminal Code provides thus: “Any person who receives anything which has been obtained by means of any act constituting a felony or misdemeanor, or by means of any act done at a place not in Nigeria, which if it had been done in Nigeria would have constituted a felony or misdemeanor, and which is an offence under the laws in force in the place where it was done, knowing the same to have been so obtained, is guilty of a felony…..”
The proviso to the above section provides thus:
“For the purpose of proving the receiving of anything it is sufficient to show that the accused person has, either alone or jointly with some other person, had the thing in possession, or has aided in concealing it or disposing of it.”
By the provision of Section 317 of the Penal Code, it reads thus: “Whoever dishonestly receives or retains any stolen property knowing or having reason to believe the same to be stolen property shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to fourteen years or with fine or with both.”
In proving the offence receiving stolen property, it is sufficient to prove that the accused received the goods in question knowing them to be stolen. Also, even if the accused is not in actual possession of the goods, if he has control over those in possession or he helps in concealing the goods, he is liable for the offence of receiving stolen property.
By the provision of Section 36 of the Evidence Act, the following are adequate in order to prove the knowledge of the accused in the offence of receiving stolen property:
If any other property, stolen within a period of 12 months before he was charged, was found in his possession.
If he has been convicted for fraud or dishonesty within a period of five years prior to his present case.
There is also something called the doctrine of recent possession in proving the offence of receiving stolen property. This is contained in S.167 (a) of the Evidence Act. According to this provision, if soon after a particular property has been stolen, they were found in another person’s possession, such person would either be assumed to be the thief or to have received stolen property. However, this would not apply if the person involved can give a reasonable explanation for the state of affairs.
In IBRAHIM v. STATE (2020) LPELR-51425(CA), the court held thus: “In order to secure a conviction for the offence of dishonestly receiving stolen property, the prosecution must prove the following ingredients of the offence – 1. The property must have been received; 2. It must have been previously stolen; 3. The person receiving the stolen property must know it was stolen; and 4. The receiver must intend to deprive the owner of his or her property.”
In order to prove that the property is stolen and that the accused person received same knowing or believing it to be stolen, there must be knowledge, which is the mens rea of the offence of receiving stolen property.
In STATE v. NNOLIM & ANOR (1994) LPELR-3222(SC), the apex court on what must be proved in a charge of stealing and receiving stolen property had this to say:
“In order to prove the offences of stealing and receiving stolen property knowing it to be stolen against an accused, there must be evidence that the property in question was stolen. It must also be proved in the case of the offence of receiving stolen property knowing it to be stolen that the accused, when he came into possession of the stolen property, knew that it was stolen.”
It therefore behooves on the prosecution who is charging a person for the offence of receiving stolen property to prove the ingredients of the offence as stated by the decisions of the courts.
By Davidson Duru
