A Nairobi court has rejected an application by the prosecution seeking to detain two suspects for 10 days in connection with an alleged international gold scam involving over US$447,000.
The prosecution had moved the court seeking orders to hold the two respondents at Kilimani Police Station to allow investigators complete probes into offences of obtaining money by false pretences and conspiracy to defraud under Sections 313 and 317 of the Penal Code.
According to an affidavit sworn by investigating officer Corporal Dennis Mugambi, the complainants were allegedly defrauded by individuals posing as legitimate gold dealers capable of exporting gold consignments from Kenya to Dubai. The prosecution told the court that investigations had uncovered movement of suspected proceeds of crime through multiple cryptocurrency wallets linked to the respondents and other accomplices who are still at large.
The state further alleged that the first respondent resisted arrest by locking herself inside Crystal Villas House No. 10 during the operation, arguing that her conduct showed she was a flight risk. Investigators also claimed that the suspects had persistently evaded arrest until police received intelligence information leading to their apprehension.
However, the respondents, through their lawyer Danstan Omari and Lawyer Lisa Wanjohi, strongly opposed the application, arguing that the prosecution had failed to establish compelling reasons to warrant continued detention. The defence argued that no evidence had been produced to demonstrate how the respondents would interfere with investigations, tamper with evidence or obstruct the arrest of other suspects.
The first respondent’s lawyer further told the court that she is a mother of three children and is expectant, producing birth certificates and a medical report in support of the claims. The court also heard that she is the primary caregiver to her critically ill mother.
On allegations of resisting arrest, the defence maintained that officers failed to properly identify themselves or produce a search warrant, causing her apprehension. The second respondent’s lawyer told the court that his client had already spent three days in custody and was willing to cooperate fully with investigators.
The court further heard that the second respondent, who resides in Sicily and works as a taxi driver, is recovering from a back fracture.
In determining the matter, the court cited Article 49 of the Constitution on the rights of arrested persons, emphasizing that bail can only be denied where compelling reasons are established. While the court acknowledged that police acted in good faith during the arrest, it found that the prosecution had failed to demonstrate, on a balance of probabilities, that detaining the respondents for 10 days was necessary.
The court noted that investigators already had orders allowing them to continue investigations and preserve evidence. It further observed that the first respondent was arrested at her known residence, weakening claims that she posed a flight risk.
Consequently, the court dismissed the prosecution’s application for custodial detention and instead granted the respondents bond terms.
Each respondent was released on a bond of KSh2 million with one surety of a similar amount or an alternative cash bail of KSh200,000 with two contact persons.
