Lawyers Complete Prosecution Stage in US$114,000 Vehicle Fraud Case

By Mamajah Jalloh

Harding Sesay and Partners Law Firm has taken centre stage in an ongoing vehicle-related fraud case involving two lawyers accused of defrauding a businessman of US$114,000 through the alleged acquisition of three Toyota 4Runner vehicles.

The prosecution has completed its stage of the trial, with the defence now seeking to have the case dismissed through a no-case submission.

The accused, 34-year-old Maurice Jenner Mohamed Seisay and 35-year-old John Mans, made another appearance before Magistrate Mustapha Brima Jah of Pademba Road Court No. 1 in Freetown on Monday, August 24, 2026.

They are facing two counts of conspiracy to defraud and obtaining property by false pretences, contrary to Section 32(1) of the Larceny Act, 1916.

According to the particulars of the charges, between November 1 and 30, 2023, at Harding Sesay and Partners Law Firm, No. 49 Dundas Street, Freetown, the accused allegedly conspired with other persons unknown to defraud businessman Bockarie Conteh.

The second count alleges that during the same period and at the same location, the accused obtained three Toyota 4Runner vehicles, valued at US$114,000 and belonging to Conteh, on the representation that payment would be made within 30 working days, knowing the representation to be false.

When the charges were read and explained to the accused, no plea was taken, as the matter is being dealt with under committal proceedings.

Yusuf Isaac Sesay appeared for the State, while J.M. Gengo and M.C. Necole Wilson represented the accused.

Defence counsel J.M. Gengo informed the court that the defence had prepared and served a written no-case submission on the State counsel, Yusuf Sesay, with a copy also sent to the Registrar.

Counsel told the court that the defence would rely primarily on the written submission but sought leave to make additional oral submissions.

Gengo raised concerns about certain documents relied upon in the proceedings, including police statements and other materials which, he argued, were not dated in 2026. He questioned the basis upon which such documents should be relied upon, describing them as materials originating from the other side.

Responding, State counsel Yusuf Sesay informed the court that he had received the defence’s no-case submission only a few minutes earlier. He argued that the defence was expected to serve the prosecution with its submission at least 48 hours in advance.

Despite the short notice, Sesay told the court that he had perused the document and was prepared to respond to its substance.

The State’s response was organised around several issues, including the exhibits already tendered before the court, the circumstances surrounding the supply of the three vehicles and how the complainant came into contact with the alleged investor.

Sesay also addressed the role of lawyers in preparing agreements between parties, arguing that the involvement of lawyers in a transaction could become relevant where those same lawyers subsequently become witnesses in proceedings arising from the transaction.

He further drew the court’s attention to Section 113 of the Criminal Procedure Act No. 8 of 2024, arguing that the proceedings formed part of the continuing investigative and judicial process leading to committal.

The State counsel urged the court to carefully consider the evidence relating to how the complainant allegedly came to know the investor through the accused.

According to Sesay, the complainant did not previously know the alleged investor and only came into contact with him through the first and second defendants, whom he trusted and relied upon in their professional capacity as lawyers.

He further pointed out that the second defendant was not only the complainant’s legal representative but was also his cousin, which, he argued, strengthened the level of trust placed in him.

Sesay also placed emphasis on a document prepared under the name “Harding Sesay and Partners”, which he said demonstrated the involvement of the two accused, who were partners at the law firm.

The State maintained that the accused had represented parties involved in the transaction and that their role in preparing the agreement could not simply be separated from the allegations now before the court.

Sesay argued that while a transaction may initially appear to be civil in nature, the circumstances and evidence surrounding it could, depending on the facts, give rise to criminal liability.

He therefore urged Magistrate Jah to reject the defence’s no-case submission, arguing that the evidence already before the court was sufficient to justify the continuation of the proceedings towards committal.

The magistrate is now expected to determine the issues raised by both the defence and the prosecution.

Meanwhile, Magistrate Mustapha Brima Jah refused bail to both accused and ordered them to be remanded at the Male Correctional Centre in Freetown.

The matter was adjourned to August 27, 2026, for further proceedings.