[ad_1]
badbadbadxx from Saturday, July 27, 2019
Source: mynewsgh.com
2019-07-27
A total of 105 policemen are on the heels of Nana 1, a troubled businessman, Nana Appiah Mensah, nicknamed NAM 1, for the sum of more than 3 906 000 GH ¢ invested in his gold distribution company, Menzgold.
It is thought that out of the total number of casualties, some are retired while others are still on active duty and recount the ordeal that they suffered almost a year after their inability to recover. cash blocked.
Sampson Addai Mensah, the 62-year-old chief superintendent (retired), who acts as spokesman for the group, unfortunately reveals how he stopped building his retirement home because of his inability to raise money with Menzgold.
According to him, on Asempa Fm, based in Accra, his colleagues and himself took the case to the High Court of Accra a few months later and were allocated an amount, but Nana Appiah Mensah Was no way to find a way to enforce the court's decision.
He welcomed the decision by a circuit court in Accra to grant him a deposit of 1 billion GH ¢, but advised him to put in place a payment plan to ensure that customers are badured that he would repay their investments.
"I sent my investments less than six months and regularly received interest. We were motivated by ads on radio stations with an imposing desk. We welcome the court's decision, but we only need our money. We now have 3,906,000,000 GH ¢ with Menzgold and it is therefore important that we have a payment plan very quickly to get our money, "he said.
On Friday, July 26, 2019, an Accra circuit court chaired by Jane Helen Akweley Quaye granted NAM a 1 GH ¢ 1 bond with five surety bonds, three of which must be justified.
NAM 1 charged with fraud under false pretenses and two counts of incitement to engage in unlicensed banking activity, in violation of Article 6 (1) of the Banks and Specialized Deposit Institutions Act, 2016 (Act 930).
Two of its companies – Brew Marketing Consult and Menzgold Ghana Limited – represented by itself, have been charged with fraud under false pretenses, in violation of Articles 20 (1) and 13 (1) of the Criminal Offenses Act of 1960 (Law 29). .
Source link