7 FIBank Employees’ US$1.2M Bond in Trouble


Star International Company, which filed a US$1.2 million bond to release seven employees of First International Bank (FIB) has gotten itself into trouble with Criminal Court ‘C’ at the Temple of Justice.

The insurance company in early 2014 wrote the Court that it was withdrawing its US$1.2 million bond filed as a surety for co-defendants Angie Brooks, Kebbeh Kulah Clark, Jerimen Telibeli, Beyan Dagzi, Arricanus Freeman, Robert Cummings and Richard Gboyah.

They have been charged with the commission of the crimes money laundering, theft of property, criminal conspiracy, facilitation and forgery by the government. They were accused of allegedly stealing US$4 million from the bank.

At Thursday, May 15, hearing, Judge Yussif D. Kaba declared that “Star International Company remains obligated under its bond until and unless they can have all of the defendants presented to the court as provided under the law.”

Judge Kaba said, however, that surety has the right to ask the court to withdraw its bond file to release an accused from prison, but that “The bond’s surety remains obligated until the order to file a new bond is complied with.”

According to Judge Kaba, since the surety to the existing bond declared its inability to continue to provide coverage for the defendants as contracted with the court, the clerk of the court is hereby mandated to cite Star International Company to appear before this court on Tuesday, May 20, at the hour of 2 p.m. along with the living body of all of the defendants for whom they filed the bond.

He further instructed, “Their failure will lead the Court without any other alternative but to hold them in contempt of Court.”

The case started when the defendants through Star International Company filed a criminal appearance bond in the tune of US$1.2 million to secure their day-to-day appearance before the court for allegedly stealing US$4 million from the bank.

Unfortunately, the Company without a new bond wrote the Court that it was withdrawing its bond.

However, the prosecution argued that since the Company was no more serving as security for the defendants, the court should re-arrest the defendants before they escaped from the country.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here