New questions have emerged in the Sh50 million alleged Canadian visa scam case after a Standard Chartered Bank official testified that a disputed account linked to the transactions was opened as a personal account and could be accessed by a limited number of authorised employees.
The testimony was given before Paul Mutai during proceedings at the Milimani Law Courts. The bank official explained how the account was opened and operated, while responding to questions regarding transactions that form part of the ongoing case.
The court also heard that the account holder was reportedly experiencing depression during the period under review. According to testimony presented in court, her condition allegedly worsened after she became aware of claims that millions of shillings had been lost through a visa-processing scheme involving Brian Reeves Obare. Prosecutors allege that Obare falsely represented himself as a Canadian consular official and obtained money from victims under the pretext of facilitating Canadian visas. The allegations remain before the court, and Obare is presumed innocent unless proven guilty.
Amos Muriithi, a Standard Chartered Bank officer, told the court that an account registered in the name of Nancy Odhungo was opened as a personal account in 2022. He testified that the account was later used by the company under agency commission terms and guidelines in accordance with company policy.
The admission emerged during cross-examination by defence lawyer Lewis Kanyoko, who questioned the legitimacy of the account and the circumstances surrounding its opening.
During the proceedings, Kanyoko referred to a Doctors assessment report from Nakuru County Referral and Teaching Hospital indicating that Odhungo suffers from an active depressive condition. The report, dated March 10, 2026 became a point of contention after the defence initially objected to its production before later relying on it in support of its case.
According to the medical assessment, Odhungo’s condition was aggravated by the alleged fraud scheme orchestrated by Brian Reeves Obare. The report states that the events nearly caused her a complete mental breakdown and that she remains on medication to manage her condition.
The defence questioned how a person allegedly suffering from such a condition could have successfully opened and operated a bank account. However, evidence presented in court established that the account was opened in March 2022, while Odhungo’s mental health challenges emerged in 2024 after she allegedly discovered that Brian Reeves Obare had duped the company of millions of shillings through a scheme involving promises to fast-track Canadian visas.
The court also heard that, despite her suspicions, Odhungo initially remained in denial before the full extent of the alleged losses became apparent.
Kanyoko further alleged that the email address and telephone number linked to the disputed account belonged to one of the directors of Golden Key Company. However, evidence presented in court indicated that in 2022, Golden Key was operating as a business name ,and had not yet been incorporated as a limited liability company. The defence argued that this raised questions regarding the ownership, management, and operation of the account during the period when the alleged transactions took place.
The defence argued that the emerging inconsistencies cast doubt on the complainant’s case and raise questions about the ownership of the account but failed to explain why Brian received millions of shillings or the purpose for which those transactions were made. They were unable to exonerate him from the charge of obtaining money unlawfully. Instead, their arguments focused largely on who operated the account rather than addressing the central issue.
From the evidence presented, it appears undisputed that the millions were indeed received through the account linked to Brian. Both defense lawyers seem to have avoided the fundamental question before the court: Did Brian receive the money, and if so, for what purpose? Without a satisfactory explanation for the transactions, their arguments did little to rebut the allegation of obtaining the funds .
The defence continues to raise questions regarding the operation of the bank account. However, it was established that the employees were expressly authorized, under their letters of employment and company policy, to operate individual accounts as commission agents. As such, the mere operation of the account does not, in itself, demonstrate wrongdoing, since the authority to do so had been granted by the employer.
