Cecilia Dapaah set up businesses under different Aliases to clean her money- OSP.

The office of the special prosecutor in an attempt to get the court to confirm the seizing of Cecilia Dapaah the Ghanaian embattled Sanitation Minister’s assets has filed court documents detailing the facts of their investigations.

The OSP stated that Cecilia Dapaah created businesses under different aliases to register companies so she could receive profits from those businesses undetected.

One of her real estate companies that raked in huge profits was registered under a different name. The Sanitation minister couldn’t provide a tangible source of income when the OSP investigated her.

Read Also: Cecilia Dapaah arrested by the OSP for corruption-related offenses

“The OSP’s criminal intelligence further suggested that the first respondent, as a Minister of State, was engaged in an undisclosed and undeclared real estate business in which she obscured and concealed the transactions by employing the use of aliases to avoid detection of the actual ownership of the business and properties, while cleverly receiving the proceeds of the transactions in her bank accounts and investments,”

The OSP added that: “criminal intelligence suggested that the first respondent had unexplained large cash sums of money (far above her income as a Minister of State) secreted and stashed up in her residence; and that her house-helps had allegedly helped themselves to part of said sums of money through larceny.” the Court document read.

Cecilia Dapaah sued her house helps for stealing huge sums of money stacked in her residence. This attracted the interest of the OSP because the monies were way above the pay grid of a minister. The prime suspect couldn’t provide a convincing source of her income.

Read More : Sanitation Minister’s missing $1 million and €300K makes Ghanaians question why she has such an amount in her house.

It was disclosed in the filed court document that “here are no financial records and traces of the origin(s) of the money reportedly stolen from the residence of the respondents and the money discovered by the OSP at said residence.

Further, there is no evidence of the amounts of money having been derived from any legitimate businesses, profession or vocation, and no evidence of said amounts having been lawfully declared and subjected to any statutory payments.”