Olalekan Jacob Ponle, who prosecutors say was expelled from the United Arab Emirates to face federal criminal charges in Chicago, was arraigned on Friday on an eight-count indictment.
Ponle, along with several unnamed co-schemers, is accused of using the companies' compromised email accounts to communicate with employees or others doing business with the companies to induce them to wire money to certain accounts, falsely representing that the requested transfers were related to legitimate business expenses.
The alleged scheme, which ran from approximately January 2019 to September, led to more than $600,000 in fraudulent transfers, according to prosecutors. One email sent to a Florida company requested more than $19 million, they said. Other companies, which are unnamed in the indictment, are located in Illinois, Virginia, Missouri, Kansas, Michigan and California.
Prosecutors say Ponle had his co-schemers create bank accounts to receive the fraudulent transfers — including some in the names of both existing and phony businesses — and instructed them to convert the fraud proceeds to bitcoin cryptocurrency and send the majority of them to the bitcoin account Ponle used and controlled.
He and others sent emails pretending to be employees from the victim companies or employees from other companies purporting to do business with the victim companies, sending messages "that were often drafted to appear like prior, legitimate emails requesting wire transfers," the government says.
Ponle operated under an alias, "Mark Cain," to recruit others to join the scheme, and used encrypted messaging applications and voice over internet protocol applications to communicate with those other individuals, in order to conceal his identity and location, according to prosecutors.
Ponle was arrested earlier this month by law enforcement in the United Arab Emirates.
Ponle is represented by attorney Michael B. Nash.
The government is represented by Melody Wells of the U.S. Attorney's Office.
The case is USA v. Ponle, case number 1:20-cr-00318, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.
--Editing by Nicole Bleier.
from law360.com
Can A Lawyer explain what 21 and 22 means?
Doh
ReplyDeleteWhat kind of conflicting of audience is this?
DeleteYesterday he was granted bail
Today he remain in prison🤥🤥🤥🤥
Dey shld let him speak wt her,even if d world is against u,mothers will always be there to comfort u.
ReplyDeleteI totally agree
DeleteNa she know the "road", de cook the "ponle"....
DeleteDidn't they say he was released??
ReplyDeleteStellz, paragraph 21 means that the prosecution, in this case the American government, filed a motion to dismiss the complaint filed against the named defendant without prejudice. It simply means the prosecution wants to put its house in order after which it will refile the charges. The prosecution wants to make sure it dots all "i"s and crosses all "t"s so that the case would not be lost due to technicalities. In the American criminal justice system in most states, a defendant can get off easily based on technicalities. The prosecution must ensure that due process is followed in its entirety.
ReplyDeleteThe phrase "without prejudice" simply means the dismissal is temporary. The prosecution will refile the charges, probably the next day. In the interim, the defendant remains in police custody pending arraignment, since he was refused bail. The case against the defendant isn't over.
As for paragraph 22, it flows from paragraph 21. Since the court was not put on notice as to the arraignment scheduled for 23/07/2020, it struck out the date and fixed it for the next day, 24/07/2020 by 12:00 noon. This information will be sent to all parties involved either by email, telephone or both, to put them on notice.
In a nutshell, the prosecution, the defence and the court are trying to ensure due process is followed. If the prosecution is no longer interested in the case, it would have filed a motion for "dismissal with prejudice". If granted, that would be the end of the matter and no subsequent charges bordering on the previous charges can be filed. So, Mr. Olalekan Jacob Ponle A.K.A Woodberry, or whatever he goes by, is still facing criminal charges. The government hasn't withdrawn all charges.
This is basically the record of processing. A record revealing what went on in court and the stage the case is at.
This explanation is clear as day.
DeleteYou no chop your school fees. I guess that was what confused people. Thank you for educating us.
DeleteTo further add that once a legal document is marked "without
DeletePrejudice", it can't be admitted in a legal proceedings. See Section 196 of the Evidence Act 2011
Thank you
DeleteLekwa people wey go school.
DeleteRonalda's analysis, correct and concise.
DeleteRonalda you no chop your school fees
DeleteThanks for the explanation
DeleteThanks for this Jare.
DeleteHnmmm
ReplyDeleteBut he's handsome sha, very cute, see Hus mouth
ReplyDeleteThat is why you ladies will keep prostrating before money and criminals. 🐥🐤🐥🐥🐥
DeleteReally is that all you see?
DeleteSo what should we prostrate before?? Hardship??? So cos he is a criminal we can’t comment on his fineness again?? Hian. Anon 12:22 u must be an ugly poor man!!
Delete😂😂😂😂😂
DeleteSome of these bvs are so sweet and have zero worries.
My dear anon.don't mind anyone choose the one wet you wan talk Jo😁
Look at him enjoying his grades. It will be years before he taste fresh grapes again.
ReplyDeletePlease be nice, lol.
DeleteA mother that watched him degenerate to this point must be kept in jail with him. No be to born be koko, na to raise an upright child be everything. May he rotten there for everyone he caused pain. Taking people's money to flex, is that life?
ReplyDeleteYou mean his mother that's probably in the village should be blamed? You are sick. As all parents know exactly what their kids are doing abroad. I'm abroad working hard legitimately, and I told my parents what I do. Now how are they supposed to know for sure what I do?
DeleteWhy do I feel he wants to direct the mum to where she can find money he stashed to at least survive on. Dude probably knows he might not come out alive
ReplyDeleteSimple. His arraignment based on "criminal complaints" is discharged. Now he is being arraigned based on "criminal indictments" by a grand jury. In other words, in a layman's term, he is being newly charged based on facts/evidence instead of rumours/suspicion/gossip. That is why he remains in custody. He was "technically" discharged but not acquitted. The prosecutor didn't file nole prosequi. Ponle is in for a long ludo game in the judiciary system.
ReplyDeletePlease allow him speak with his mum
ReplyDeleteHis mother is his backbone...Once he speaks to her,then your guess is is good as mine...
ReplyDeleteOil dey your head,if you know, you know
Delete