Benin: Former financial delegate of the presidency sentenced to 48 months in prison
The Court for the Repression of Economic Offenses and Terrorism (CRIET) has delivered its verdict. On Monday, July 7, 2025, the former financial delegate of the presidency of the Republic was sentenced to four years in jail and fined one million CFA francs. He was found guilty of “abuse of authority and money laundering,” according to the judgment announced in public court and reported by Banouto.
SUMMARY
In addition to the deprivation of liberty, the court ordered the confiscation of several assets, including a personal vehicle, acquired through the incriminated actions.
Practices revealed during the investigation
According to information gathered by the Court, the defendant is said to have organized setups of public procurement files in connection with subscribers, provided confidential information to certain privileged providers, and reinvested the proceeds from these public contracts into personal acquisitions.
However, the CRIET did not fully follow the public prosecutor’s requisitions, who asked for a sentence of seven years in prison and a fine of 10 million CFA francs.
Two other defendants were also prosecuted in this case. The brother of the former delegate, accused of complicity, was released due to the benefit of the doubt, as was the collaborator of the Person Responsible for Public Procurement (PRMP), also mentioned in the file.
At the bar, a plea for loyalty
Summoned to explain himself, the former delegate rejected the accusations in their entirety, denouncing a “persecution” against him. He presented himself as “a legal and financial regulator” whose mission was to ensure the compliance of administrative files.
He also mentioned delays observed in the management of files transmitted by the Republican Guard, explaining that they were due to “a faulty software”. This argument was deemed unconvincing by the special jurisdiction, given the material evidence of fraud revealed during the investigation.
The defense lawyers argued for release due to the benefit of the doubt, assuring that “their client has always acted with complete loyalty”. In vain. The court ruled that the charges were sufficiently proven to pronounce the conviction.
Comments