CRIET: a father and his son brought before the courts in a cybercrime case
The Court for the Repression of Economic and Terrorism Offences (CRIET) of Benin examined, on Tuesday, January 27, 2026, an unusual case mixing charges of cybercrime, online fraud, and money laundering involving a father and his son.
The case was entered on the docket of CRIET’s Criminal Section II after the Special Public Prosecutor brought charges against A. S., held at the Cotonou detention center, for acts described as ‘online fraud’.
At a previous appearance, the defendant denied any involvement, stating that his mobile phone had been used without his knowledge and without his consent by his son.
According to the father’s version, the young man had left the family home with the device between February and March 2025, before returning it to him later. A. S. contends that his son subsequently committed electronic fraud using this phone, without his knowledge.
The Court then summoned the 22-year-old son, detained at the Ouidah remand prison, for a separate theft case in order to hear him on these accusations. Questioned on the stand, the young man also pleaded not guilty, rejecting the cybercrime allegations and stating that the phone in question had been entrusted to him after he found it at a friend’s place, before handing it to his uncle due to family tensions.
The hearing led to tense exchanges between the two parties, with cross-accusations and divergent interpretations of the events.
The public prosecutor’s representative presented several incriminating elements, notably the seizure of multiple national and international SIM cards during a search of the father’s home, considered as physical evidence supporting the charges of fraud and money laundering.
Following the arguments, the prosecutor requested a five-year prison term to be served along with a fine of two million CFA francs against the father, while seeking to reclassify the facts as ‘online fraud and money laundering’.
The defense argued for acquittal on the basis of doubt, challenging in particular the reliability of the testimonies and the scope of the seized physical evidence.
The Court’s decision is awaited at the deliberations scheduled for Tuesday, March 3, 2026.
Comments