Prime News Ghana

Prince Tagoe granted GH¢100,000 bail over fraud

By Vincent Ashitey
facebook sharing button Share
twitter sharing button Tweet
email sharing button Email
sharethis sharing button Share

An Accra Circuit Court trying former Black Stars player, Prince Tagoe for alleged fraud has granted him a GH¢100,000 bail with three sureties, one of whom should be a civil servant.

The Court presided over by Mr Samuel Bright Acquah, ordered that one of the sureties could be justified with a landed property.

The former player has paid GH¢129,000 out of the $40,000 which is equivalent to GH¢265,200 on the charge of defrauding by false pretence.

A former footballer, Mr George Antwi Boateng, is the complainant. Tagoe has since denied the offence.

Detective Chief Inspector Agartha Abena Asantewaa earlier informed the court that Mr Antwi Boateng, also a former Ghanaian footballer, was based in Germany.

The accused person, Tagoe once lived in Germany, the Prosecutor said, adding that Tagoe was once a player under the management of the complainant in Germany and in 2020, both parties met in Ghana and it was during their conversations which the complainant told the accused person that he needed a 4X4 Lexus vehicle to buy.

Detective Chief Inspector Asantewaa said the accused person allegedly agreed to import the vehicle for the complainant at $40.000.00, equivalent to GH¢ 265, 200.00

The prosecution said on January 8, 2021, $40,000 was paid into the accused person’s Bank Account with the accused person acknowledging receipt through a phone call to the complainant.

It said the accused person then promised to deliver the vehicle to the complainant on March 30, 2021 but failed.

The prosecution said Tagoe then called the complainant and pleaded for an additional two weeks to produce the vehicle and the complainant agreed.

The Court heard that the two weeks expired and still the accused person was not able to import the vehicle as promised.

The prosecution said on April 27, 2021, the complaint came to Ghana to receive his vehicle but to no avail and when the complainant called to demand the vehicle, the accused person stated that he could not import the vehicle and that he had allegedly used the money for some personal pressing issues.

Source: GNA