The Convenor of Proud Menzgold Customers, Maurice Ampaw, has averred that the outcome of the court proceedings involving the Chief Executive Officer of embattled gold dealership firm, Nana Appiah Mensah, otherwise known as NAM1 will not serve in the interest of customers.
He stated categorically that prosecuting NAM 1 will not help retrieve their locked-up funds, hence, the need for the government to support him to get his investments from Horizon Diamond in Dubai.
The legal luminary further said it was prudent for both customers and the government to believe in the vision of Nana Appiah Mensah.
Speaking at a press conference held in Accra on Friday, January 5, 2024, Maurice Ampaw said, "Granted that the matter before the court, the prosecution of NAM1 will end up in two things. Either NAM1 will be convicted and sentenced. The sentence can come in two forms, can be a fine, can be a custodial sentence, it can be a pardon... or NAM1 will be acquitted and discharged. "
"In both scenarios, it does not serve our interests. It doesn't bring back our money so to us, what is happening in the court does not serve the prime interest of the Menzgold customers because if NAM 1 is incarcerated, we will not get our money back. If he is acquitted and discharged, we will not get our money back. What will make us get our monies back is to continue to believe in what NAM1 stands for," he added.
In his view, monies from the Dubai investment can settle the debt owed customers.
NAM1 has been slapped with 39 counts of defrauding by false pretense, engaging in gold trading without a license, and money laundering.
Meanwhile, the Minister of Justice and Attorney General, Godfred Yeboah Dame, has said justice will be served all Menzgold customers.
It would be recalled that in 2018, Menzgold was asked, by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), to suspend its gold trading operations with the public.
According to SEC, Menzgold had been involved in the purchase and deposit of gold collectables from the public and issuing contracts with guaranteed returns to clients without a valid license from the Commission.
This was in contravention of “section 109 of Act 929 with consequences under section 2016 (I) of the same Act,” according to the SEC.
