Twenty-eight former customers of defunct gold dealership company, Menzgold Ghana Limited have sued four state agencies claiming that they were negligent in the Menzgold saga.
The four agencies the former customers have sued are the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), the Economic and Organised Crime Office (EOCO), Bank of Ghana (BoG) and the Attorney General’s Department.
They are demanding GH¢11,402.000.00 in damages.
The suit was filed on behalf of the customers by the Head of Chambers at Clinton Consultancy, Ms Amanda Akuokor Clinton.
According to Ms Clinton, her clients would establish in court how the negligence of the plaintiff's led to her clients investing in Menzgold and losing their deposits.
"Although courts do not readily award damages against public institutions, in some cases the court may impose liability in negligence where the authorities owe the claimants a duty of care (involving reasonable foreseeability of loss, sufficient proximity of relationship and where it would be fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty)," Ms Clinton said in a statement.
Statement of claim
The plaintiffs argue that the defendants did not actively work together in a coherent and efficient manner in order to identify and shut down the enterprise of Menzgold Ghana Ltd and Brew Marketing Consult so as to prevent the plaintiffs, who were late investors, from investing in the companies.
They also insist that notices by BoG were not enough "to prevent the plaintiffs from investing in Menzgold Ghana Limited and in turn Brew Marketing Consult Limited and that the early identification and shutting down of an unregulated deposit-taking institution" by the defendants would have prevented them from investing in the same.
The plaintiffs maintain that the "defendants did not follow their own internal policies when it comes to ponzi schemes, illegal deposit-taking and criminal enterprises including specifically laid down policies on how to detect a ponzi scheme: ‘unreasonable and unrealistic high returns, unregistered financial products that are difficult to understand, complex strategies to confuse victims, multi-layered complex and fairly new products, inadequate documentation on the product, paper work is not properly made out, poor administration, band-wagon signs and herd mentality and behaviour.’