Binance Tax Evasion Case Delayed Due to Charge Sheet Service Issue

The arraignment of Binance Holdings Limited and two of its executives for alleged tax evasion faced a delay on Thursday due to a complaint regarding the service of the charge sheet to one of the executives.

The Federal Inland Revenue Service (FIRS), which is prosecuting the case, informed the court that the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) denied access to the detained Binance executive, hindering the serving of the charge sheet.

The executives charged alongside the firm are Tigran Gambaryan and Nadeem Anjarwalla, with the latter currently evading authorities after escaping from custody.

Anjarwalla was absent from court on Thursday, leading to the FIRS lawyer’s statement regarding the inability to serve the charge sheet on Gambaryan, who was in EFCC custody.

ADVERTISEMENT

Consequently, an oral application was made to serve the charge sheet on Gambaryan in the courtroom through his lawyer, Chukwuka Ikwuazo (SAN), which was granted by Justice Emeka Nwite of the Federal High Court in Abuja.

Related News: IGP: INTERPOL to Re-Arrest Binance Manager Who Fled Custody

The FIRS lawyer requested either a stand-down or an adjournment to allow Gambaryan’s lawyer time to review the charges and prepare a defense. The judge opted for an adjournment, setting the next hearing for April 19 for arraignment.

The charges against Binance Holdings Limited, marked FHC/ABJ/CR/115/2024, include failure to register with FIRS, evading taxes, and failure to issue invoices for taxable services.

Meanwhile, the Inspector General of Police, Olukayode Egbetokun, assured the re-arrest of Anjarwalla through INTERPOL. Anjarwalla had escaped custody on March 22, 2024.

In a separate case, the money laundering charges against Binance Holdings Limited and its official were adjourned till April 8.

The defendants were meant to be arraigned on five charges bordering on money laundering but faced objections from the counsel for the second defendant, Mark Mordi (SAN), citing improper service of the charge. The EFCC, however, argued that the charge was served on behalf of the company but was rejected.