3 risks Seyi Tinubu faces from purchase of London mansion under investigation
According to Bloomberg, Seyi bought the property that was allegedly part of the biggest corruption scandal that the administration of President Muhammadu Buhari investigated.
The news that Seyi Tinubu, son of Nigeria’s President-elect, allegedly purchased a $10.8 million (over ₦5 billion at the current official exchange rate) mansion in London that is now under investigation by the Federal Government has caused a stir among lawyers.
According to Bloomberg, Seyi bought the property in 2017 through his company, Aranda Overseas Corp, which is the main shareholder.
The property was allegedly part of the biggest corruption scandal that the administration of President Muhammadu Buhari was trying to investigate. READ MORE ON SCANDAL
Reactions have trailed the wake of this news, with many wondering what the implication would be for Seyi, son of President-elect Bola Tinubu.
Seyi could lose the mansion to the court
Lawyers have warned that buying a property that is under investigation or litigation can be a risky business. It is wise to avoid such properties until the matter is dispensed with.
According to Abdulrasheed Ibrahim, a lawyer, when a property is under investigation, it is not advisable to buy it.
The court may rule against the buyer, and the other aggrieved party may appeal the judgment, which means it may have to end up at the Supreme Court.
The issue of bona fide purchaser
A bona fide purchaser is someone who exchanges value for property without any reason to suspect irregularities in the transaction.
Yemi Omodele, another lawyer, suggests that if the buyer didn’t know that the property was under investigation, the issue of a bonafide purchaser would assist in that regard.
However, if it is discovered that the property was acquired with proceeds of crime, the property may be forfeited to the government, or the property may be seized.
Other variables
Christian Oti, a lawyer, says that it depends on certain variables. For instance, the court may consider whether notice of such an investigation was made to the public, patently or otherwise, and whether the vendor and purchaser colluded to dissipate the property.
Then, the court may nullify such a sale upon conviction of the vendor.
It is also important to know that Seyi bought this property in his business name, hence it is expected that no legal action would be brought against him, as a person.
Comments