The Ghana International Bank has clarified that an ongoing tribunal hearing that has captured the public’s attention, is not about whether the Asantehene, Otumfuo Osei Tutu II engaged in money laundering or not.
There is not even any suggestion of money laundering allegations against the Asantehene, the Ghana International Bank said.
A statement from the UK-based bank asserted that, the ongoing litigation between the bank and a former Executive Director, Mark Arthur, concerned breaches of the Bank’s internal policies and UK laws.
These breaches were said to have happened when Mr. Arthur carried out a transaction on behalf of the Asantehene, reportedly involving £350,000.
This transaction at Ghana International Bank triggered a money laundering alert and cost Mr. Arthur his job.
After first being suspended and then sacked following an investigation, Mr. Arthur is claiming wrongful dismissal, unfair dismissal and failure to protect a whistle-blower.
“The Tribunal’s proceedings and its findings will be about whether the Bank was entitled to dismiss Mark Arthur as it did, and not about the King, Otumfuo Nana Osei Tutu II. There has never been any suggestion by the Bank that the King was or is involved in money laundering. In fact, we have no evidence to that effect. The bank has also not in any of its submissions questioned the integrity of the King,” the statement said.
The bank had even attempted to put in place an anonymity order in September 2017, to keep the Asantehene’s name away from proceedings.
“With a focus on the substance of the matter, and for customer confidentiality purposes, the bank had applied for an anonymity order in September of this year [2017], ahead of the Tribunal Proceedings in October.
This would have eliminated the mention of the name of the king in the proceedings of the tribunal. Additionally, the Bank never mentioned the King nor identified him in any of the documents submitted to the Tribunal in its defence.”
In his witness statement, Mr. Arthur said he was not able to follow anti-money laundering rules when he accepted the cash because of the Asantehene’s status, who was traveling on a diplomatic passport.
“I could not carry out the necessary due diligence by talking to His Majesty so I decided it would be best to verify the deposits at the bank and to speak directly to Mr. Mensah rather than disrespect His Majesty in a face-to-face meeting,” he said in his witness statement.
The day after the bank accepted the cash and made the transfer to Jersey, it reported the transactions to the National Crime Agency as suspicious.
Find below the full statement
Mark Arthur V. Ghana International Bank Public Liability Company
Ghana International Bank Plc’s attention has been drawn to certain misrepresentations in the matter above and wishes to clarify its position as follows:
Ghana International Bank Plc. operates in the United Kingdom and is subject to the regulations of the Prudential Regulatory Authority, the Financial Conduct Authority and the UK as a whole.
These regulations guide the bank’s internal procedures, policies as well as the conduct of all of its employees.
The Bank takes its legal and regulatory obligations very seriously as well as its duties and obligations to its customers. In this regard, staff are required under the bank’s whistleblowing policy and UK laws to report all suspicious transactions to the appropriate authorities. The consequences of the Bank not fulfilling its obligations can be far-reaching at times. In some instances, staff seen to be liable could face a possible jail term and in extreme cases the Bank itself could face a withdrawal of its operating licence.
The ongoing case which has caught public attention is about Mark Arthur’s breaches of the Bank’s internal policies and procedures as well as UK laws.
The Tribunal’s proceedings and its findings will be about whether the Bank was entitled to dismiss Mark Arthur as it did and not about the King, Otumfuo Nana Osei Tutu II.
There has never been any suggestion by the Bank that the King was or is involved in money laundering. In fact, we have no evidence to that effect. The bank has also not in any of its submissions questioned the integrity of the King.
With a focus on the substance of the matter and for customer confidentiality purposes, the bank had applied for an anonymity order in September of this year ahead of the Tribunal Proceedings in October. This would have eliminated the mention of name of the king in the proceedings of the tribunal. Additionally, the Bank never mentioned the King nor identified him in any of the documents submitted to the Tribunal in its defence.
Mark Arthur had however contested this and had won thus exposing the identity of the king and his name in the proceedings.
The Bank has maintained a long standing relationship with the King and has worked closely with him on initiatives such as the Otumfuo Education Fund, in providing IT education to children in deprived communities. This is a project that the Bank is keen to continue supporting.
“The bank also wishes to clarify that contrary to earlier media reportage, Mark Arthur had neither sought nor received authorization from the Chief Executive Officer of the Bank, Joe Mensah.”
THANK YOU
SIGNED
MYDDLETON COMMUNICATIONS LIMITED
(ON BEHALF OF MANAGEMENT OF GHANA INTERNATIONAL BANK PLC)