A businessman who absconded with Ghana Institute of Management and Public Administration (GIMPA) Students Representative Council’s (SRC) ¢45,000 six years ago, has been arrested by the Police.
Prince Elorm Dor is said to have collected ¢45,000 out of ¢60,000 meant for the production and supply of 2014 diaries, key holders, and pens for the SRC.
He was put before an Accra Circuit Court on a charge of defrauding by false pretences.
But, before the court, presided over by J. A. M. Ahmed could pronounce judgment, he absconded from the jurisdiction.
The Court sentenced him to a prison term of 36 months in absentia and he was ordered to refund the ¢45,000 to the SRC.
However, when he resurfaced to get married to his lover on October 2, this year, the Police nabbed him so he could serve his prison term.
Dor’s sentence was handed down on October 12, 2016.
Prince Elorm Dor is said to have defrauded Benjamin Essuman, then President of GIMPA SRC, and the complainant in the matter.
Dor promised to provide the SRC with 2014 customised pens and diaries hence he took ¢45,000 from the complainant.
The accused, now a convict, provided the SRC with a proforma invoice which indicated that the items would cost about ¢60,000.
Police say the proforma invoice was in the name of Dor-Consult.
Following series of meetings, Dor made the Complainant and his colleagues believe that the production was being done in China and he needed an advance payment so the souvenirs would be produced and supplied on time.
On January 24, 2014, the complainant paid ¢45,000 to Dor.
The Court in its judgment on October 12, 2016, held that by Accused representation, he induced the Complainant to part with ¢45,000 when he had no intention of fulfilling the contract.
According to the Court, it was informed that due to the conduct of Dor, the complainant was not awarded his degree.
It held that the prosecution had proved their case with enough evidence.
The Court said it considered the fact that Dor was a first-time offender and sentenced him to 36 months imprisonment.
It further ordered the convict to refund the ¢45,000 he collected from the complainant.
READ ALSO: