By: Osman Marah
The alleged gold fraud case involving Admire Bio Jalloh and Dauda Jalloh continued on the 13th August,2026 at Pademba Road Magistrate Court No. 1, with State Prosecutor Yusuf Isaac Sesay, Esq. opposing the defense’s no-case submission and also urged that the accused persons gold deal was “a scam under the disguise of trading.
The State Prosecutor requested that Magistrate Mustapha Braima Jah send the matter to the High Court for trial. Presenting the prosecution’s response, Yusuf Isaac Sesay said the evidence already presented before the court was sufficient to establish a case against the two accused persons.
Sesay said the prosecution was presenting its case theory to provide the court with a clear understanding of the evidence and the circumstances that led to the charges against the defendants.
He argued that what the defence had described as a legitimate gold transaction was, according to the prosecution, “nothing short of a scam under the disguise of trading in gold.”
The prosecutor outlined the sequence of events involving Italian nationals Alfio Siracusa and Giuseppe Fanni, who, according to the prosecution, met a Lebanese national identified as “Boody,” the manager of Lagoonda Restaurant, on 2 August 2025.
Sesay told the court that the complainants had expressed interest in purchasing diamonds, but Boody allegedly told them that although he did not deal in diamonds, he knew someone who could assist them.
The prosecutor said Boody already knew the second accused, Dauda Jalloh, and contacted him after learning of the complainants’ interest.
According to Sesay, Dauda Jalloh subsequently arranged a meeting at his residence around Mile 13 on 3rd August 2025. He said this was the first time the complainants met Dauda, who allegedly introduced Admire Bio Jalloh as his wife and described himself as the CEO of the gold mining company, with his wife serving as deputy.
Sesay further told the court that after the complainants rejected diamonds shown to them at Lagoonda Restaurant, they were allegedly persuaded to consider purchasing gold.
He said the second accused initially quoted a price of US$85,000 per kilogram, before negotiations allegedly resulted in an agreed price of US$70,000 per kilogram.
The prosecutor said that on 6 August 2025, the complainants and Boody went to the accused persons’ residence to finalize negotiations, where the first and second accused allegedly showed them pieces of gold.
On 11 August, according to Sesay, the complainants went to Rokel Commercial Bank to withdraw US$210,000, representing payment for three kilograms of gold.
He said the bank advised that the amount was too large for a cash withdrawal and recommended a bank transfer instead.
Sesay told the court that Boody subsequently contacted the accused persons about the issue, after which Dauda allegedly said he would contact his wife to intervene.
The prosecution alleged that on 12 August 2025, Admire Bio Jalloh went to the complainants’ hotel and accompanied them to the bank to facilitate the withdrawal.
Sesay maintained that there was evidence of active participation by both accused persons throughout the alleged transactions, including the issuance of a receipt under the name GAN Minerals Sierra Leone Limited.
The prosecutor stressed that the prosecution was not arguing that selling gold was unlawful, but that the manner in which the alleged transaction was conducted constituted illegal activity.
He referred the court to Exhibit Q, which he said contained a response from the Sierra Leone Minerals Agency indicating that the agency had no record of GAN Minerals.
Sesay argued that this evidence supported the prosecution’s position that GAN Minerals was allegedly being used as a criminal enterprise.
On the conspiracy to defraud charge, Sesay questioned the alleged method of payment, particularly the attempt to withdraw the US$210,000 in cash.
He argued that if the transaction had been legitimate, the parties could have used a bank transfer, which would have created a clearer financial trail.
The prosecutor also raised questions about the address appearing on the receipt, 92 Wilkinson Road. He told the court that the owner of the property allegedly informed investigators that GAN Minerals had never operated from that address.
Sesay argued that the use of a company name without a legitimate operating address further supported the prosecution’s case.
On the conspiracy to rob allegation, the prosecutor said the circumstances surrounding the alleged transaction were suspicious, particularly the alleged arrangement for the complainants to go to the accused persons’ residence at night.
He further alleged that Admire Bio Jalloh told the complainants not to open the parcel because it had already been sealed for export.
According to Sesay, immediately after the complainants left the location, they observed a grey vehicle approaching them from behind.
The prosecutor also referred to Admire Bio Jalloh’s police statement, arguing that her alleged inability to identify the location of GAN Minerals further supported the prosecution’s claim that the company was not genuine.
The Jallohs are facing 11 charges, including conspiracy, obtaining money by false pretences, conspiracy to rob, money laundering, forgery, selling minerals without a licence and other related offences.
Sesay subsequently relied on Section 111(5) of the Criminal Procedure Act in urging the court to reject the defence no-case submission and allow the matter to proceed to the High Court.
Magistrate Mustapha Braima Jah said he had heard both the defence application seeking dismissal of the case and the prosecution’s opposition.
The matter was adjourned to Monday, 24 August 2026; as the Magistrate may decide whether to conclude the matter or hear further arguments.
