Binance and its two officials - Tigran Gambaryan and Nadeem Anjarwalla - were scheduled to be arraigned before the Federal High Court in Abuja on five counts of money laundering and tax evasion on Thursday.
The scheduled arraignment of top Binance officials at the Federal High Court in Abuja failed on Thursday after the Federal Inland Revenue Service (FIRS) said it could not serve charges on the defendants.
The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) similarly failed to arraign them in a separate case before another judge of the court.
A lawyer to the Nigerian tax agency, FIRS, Moses Ideho, informed the judge, Emeka Nwite, that his client made efforts to serve the charges on Tigran Gambaryan, one of the two Binance executives charged in the case, but was denied access.
Mr Gambaryan is being held by the EFCC in Abuja, Nigeria's capital city.
Binance and its two officials - Tigran Gambaryan and Nadeem Anjarwalla - were to be arraigned on five counts of money laundering and tax evasion before Mr Nwite on Thursday.
"My Lord, the prosecution has not been able to serve a copy of the charge on the second defendant (Tigran Gambaryan).
"As a result, we mobilised the court bailiff to serve the second defendant but he was denied access, too," Mr Ideho told the court.
Thereafter, the prosecution lawyer sought the court's permission to serve Mr Gambaryan with a copy of the charge.
He, also, prayed the court to allow Mr Gambaryan to confer with his lawyers to determine the mode of plea he would take.
But, Mr Gambaryan's lawyer, Chukwuka Ikwazom, a Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN), opposed his client's taking of plea in the matter.
Mr Iwazom said he needed time to discuss the case with Mr Gambaryan.
"For another agency of government to say it has no access to the defendant shows the 'seriousness' of how the prosecution handles the case," Mr Gambaryan's lawyer told the court.
After a heated argument over the failure of the government to effect service on the second defendant, Mr Ideho sought an adjournment to enable Mr Gambaryan to consult with his team of lawyers regarding the charge.
The charge was eventually served on Mr Gambaryan, prompting the judge to adjourn further hearing until 19 April for arraignment of the defendants.
The other case
Meanwhile, a separate case against Binance and its executives before Mr Nwite was stalled on Thursday after Mr Gambaryan's lawyer, Mark Mordi, a SAN, contested the mode of service of the charge concerning money laundering on his client.
The suit is being prosecuted by Nigeria's anti-corruption agency, the EFCC.
At the hearing on Thursday, EFCC lawyer, Ekele Iheanacho, urged the court to direct Mr Gambaryan to take his plea.
But, Mr Mordi challenged the joint nature of the charge which has Binance, Messrs Gambaryan and Anjarwalla as co-defendants.
The defence lawyer contended that the EFCC was statutorily required to serve the charge on each of the defendants.
"This is a joint charge and it is incumbent on the prosecution to serve the charge on the 1st defendant (Binance). Having not done that I do not think this matter can go on," Mr Mordi argued.
Citing Section 477 of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA), 2015, Mr Mordi further contended that "each of the defendants should be served separately."
However, the EFCC lawyer, Mr Iheanacho disagreed with the defence lawyer's submissions.
The prosecution lawyer told the court that Mr Gambaryan declined to receive service of the charge on behalf of Binance.
Mr Iheanacho argued that Mr Gambaryan serves as a Binance representative in Nigeria, who should receive the charge on behalf of the crypto exchange company.
He based his argument on Section 487 of the ACJA.
"Binance has no physical footprint in Nigeria. But Mr Gambaryan qualifies as an agent of Binance in Nigeria," the EFCC lawyer argued.
He noted that the service on Binance which Mr Gambaryan refused to accept was a proper service on the crypto exchange firm.
He urged the court to dismiss Mr Mordi's submission, adding that the latter lacks the capacity to question the mode of service of the court document on Binance.
Responding, Mr Mordi told the court that his client declined to accept service of the charge on behalf of Binance because he is not a representative of the company in Nigeria.
"My Lord, let us not treat this matter with trifle. Due process must be followed; service has not been effected," Mr Mordi said.
After taking the arguments both lawyers and the judge adjourned the case until 8 April for ruling.
Charges
In the FIRS case marked: FHC/ABJ/CR/115/2024 dated and filed 22 March by the FIRS' team of lawyers, led by Moses Ideho, the prosecution accused the defendants of committing the alleged offences on or about 1 February.
Sign up for free AllAfrica Newsletters
Get the latest in African news delivered straight to your inbox
Count one alleged that while involved in carrying and offering services to subscribers on their platform, known as Binance, they failed to register with the FIRS, for the purpose of paying all relevant taxes administered by the service.
Count two alleged that while they were offering taxable services to subscribers on their trading platform known as Binance, they failed to issue invoices to those subscribers for the purposes of determining and payment of their Value Added Tax (VAT).
Count three accused them of offering services to subscribers on their trading platform in the buying and selling of cryptocurrencies and the remittance and transfer of those assets, and that having offered those services, it was obliged to deduct VAT and did fail to deduct necessary VAT arising from their operations.
In count four, the prosecution accused them of offering services to subscribers on their trading platform, aided and abetted those subscribers to unlawfully refuse to pay taxes, or neglect to pay those taxes.
The alleged offences, according to the prosecution, are punishable under Sections 8 and 29 of the VAT Act of 1993 (as Amended), Section 40 of the FIRS Establishment Act, 2007 (as amended) and under provisions of Section 94 of the Companies Income Tax Act (as amended) respectively.
