Embattled Labianca Company Limited has contended that the findings of the Office of the Special Prosecutors differ from their dealings with the office, arguing that the OSP’s handling of the matter is against fair trial rules.
Although the Office of the Special Prosecutor has not written formally to the company on its findings as required by due process and fair “trial” rules, “we believe that the report findings are at variance with our recollection of events and submissions made to the office,” the company said in a statement.
It also denied allegations that its owner, who is also a Member of the Council of State, Madam Eunice Asomah-Hinneh, obtained “Customs Advance Ruling” through influence peddling or trade peddling.
The company further stated that “over the years, the company has, in accordance with due process, applied for customs advance rulings under the Customs Act 2015 (Act 891).” They added that their operations are subject to periodic post-clearance audits by the Ghana Revenue Authority to check for any possible underpayment of taxes.
According to the company, the Special Prosecutor’s acceptance of authority over this post-clearance audit and payment of their associated taxes does not mean they engage in corruption and corruption-related activities.
The company also served notice of their intention to challenge the OSP’s findings in court.
The OSP on August 8th charged Labianca Limited for corruption and influence peddling, resulting in a write-down of customs tax liabilities amounting to GHC 1.07 million, which is the full amount the company has paid to the OSP.
The findings of the OSP on the company have since been challenged by the Commissioner of Customs, Col (Rtd.) Kwadwo Damoah, and the Chamber of Freight and Trade.
Below is the full statement from Labianca Company Limited:
Management of La Bianca Company Limited is saddened to learn of the recent publication of the alleged report by the Office of Special Prosecutor regarding the activities of the company and its subsequent discussions in the media.
Although the Office of the Special Prosecutor has not written formally to the company on its findings as required by due process and fair “trial” rules, we believe that the report findings are at variance with our recollection of events and submissions made to the office.
We deny that the company and its Chief Executive Officer, Mrs. Asomah-Hinneh, procured customs advance ruling through “influence peddling or trading of influence”.
We take the findings of the Office of the Special Prosecutor seriously and have consequently instructed our lawyers to take the necessary action on this matter.
Over the years, the company has, in accordance with due process, applied for customs advance rulings under the Customs Act 2015 (Act 891). Indeed, over the years, the company has been tax compliant and has discharged all its obligations dutifully. Due to the nature of the operations of importers like us, the Ghana Revenue Authority, per Act 891, conducts periodic post clearance audits to determine possible undervaluation or overpayments of taxes.
Consequently, the assumption of jurisdiction by the Office of the Special Prosecutor on such post clearance audit and our settlement of such taxes arising from such an audit is not synonymous with corruption and or corruption-related activities by the company. The several communications between the Office of the Special Prosecutor and the company confirm this.
As importers of quality frozen foods, we will always comply with the laws of Ghana.
We are committed to contributing our quota to national development by investing right in our cold store infrastructure, and value chain, creating jobs, and paying taxes.
