Nigerian Court Rejects Binance Exec Tigran Gambaryan Bail

The Federal High Court in Abuja, Nigeria, refused Binance executive Tigran Gambaryan’s bail plea on charges of crypto money laundering.

A federal high court judge in Abuja, Justice Emeka Nwite, has denied bail to Tigran Gambaryan, an executive of the leading crypto exchange Binance. 

The ruling attributed his possible escape upon release to concerns. 

Consequentially, Gambaryan and the organization are each accused of money laundering on five counts.

Reasons Behind Dismissal Of Binance Executive’s Bail Application

Both defendants admonished the court throughout the proceedings. Defense counsel Mark Mordi advocated for the release of the bond. 

He underscored the court’s jurisdiction to enforce rigorous requirements to guarantee Gambaryan’s adherence and attendance during the trial. 

Furthermore, the defense attorney emphasized that the court has the discretion to grant bail and urged it to be considered.

However, Ekele Iheanacho, representing the prosecution, vehemently opposed the parole application. 

According to Iheanacho, Gambaryan presents a substantial danger of escape. 

Gambaryan, he disclosed, recently attempted to acquire a new passport under dubious circumstances, asserting that his old passport fell victim to theft. 

This occurrence elicited concerns, particularly considering the recent escapade of a colleague from custody.

In addition, Iheanacho emphasized that Gambaryan has no substantial affiliations with any Nigerian community. 

Therefore, this raises the probability that he will evade capture if released on parole. 

As a result of these considerations, Iheanacho argued that the court could not afford to undertake such a risk.

After thoroughly examining the arguments presented, Justice Nwite rendered a verdict supporting the prosecution. 

Furthermore, he underscored the gravity of the allegations and the possible peril of Gambaryan evading the legal system. 

As a result, he denied the bail application and issued an order for Gambaryan to remain in detention pending the outcome of additional court proceedings.

Iheanacho further asserted that Gambaryan, aware that Nigerian authorities had acquired his international passport, endeavored to apply for a fresh United States passport. 

In lieu of this, the EFCC advised the court to reassign Gambaryan to its custody pending the conclusion of the trial. 

In response, Mordi, the defense attorney, contended that the absence of a prior incident of bail fleeing by his client (Gambaryan) ought to be a factor in the court’s evaluation of his bail application.

The Final Verdict

Justice Nwite stated in his decision regarding the bail application that a defendant facing a criminal charge carrying a sentence of three years or more is typically eligible for parole. 

Attempts to conceal evidence, on the other hand, are excusable in such circumstances. 

Furthermore, any interference that may have been present during the trial also eliminated the potential for parole.

According to Justice Nwite, an affidavit purporting to be from a Binance representative acknowledged the exchange’s participation in meetings with government officials in Nigeria. 

Moreover, the judge emphasized that the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) asserted that intelligence gathering by the Nigerian government had uncovered Binance’s involvement in foreign exchange regulation violations.

Furthermore, the transgressions mentioned above ultimately affected the Naira’s value. 

Additionally, Nwite highlighted that Nadeem, an associate of Gambaryan’s, had eluded legal apprehension. 

As a result, the bond was denied to prevent the Binance executive from evading the country’s jurisdiction.

In the past, the Nigerian government, represented by the EFCC, levied charges against Binance, Gambaryan, and fugitive Nadeem Anjarwalla because they conspired to obscure the provenance of alleged illicit financial gains derived from activities within Nigeria. 

This includes the sum of $35,400,000, constituting an offense under Section 21(a) and punishable by Section 18(3) of the Money Laundering (Prevention and Prohibition) Act, 2022.