Imagine losing a quarter of a million cedis in a deal that seemed too good to be true—only to find out the assets you paid for weren’t even owned by the sellers. This is the shocking reality for one scrap dealer in Accra, who is now at the center of a high-profile fraud case. But here’s where it gets even more intriguing: the alleged perpetrators are three businessmen who promised to sell five excavators as scrap, only to vanish with the money. And this is the part most people miss—the excavators didn’t belong to them in the first place.
On Friday, Akwasi Boateng (42), Eugene Ofosu (40), and Richard Adomako were brought before an Accra Circuit Court, accused of defrauding Imoro Alhassan, a scrap dealer from Twifo Praso, of GHC250,000. The trio allegedly posed as owners of the excavators, luring Alhassan into a deal that unraveled spectacularly. The charges? Conspiracy to commit crime and defrauding by false pretenses—a serious offense that could land them in hot water.
Here’s how the scheme unfolded: In October 2025, Ofosu approached Alhassan, claiming his boss, Adomako, had five excavators for sale as scrap. Alhassan, interested, was sent to Anyinam in the Eastern Region to inspect the machines. After negotiating a price of GHC70,000 per excavator (totaling GHC350,000), Alhassan made two payments—GHC150,000 and GHC100,000—to Boateng in Accra. But when he returned to Anyinam to dismantle the excavators, a security guard stopped him, revealing the machines weren’t owned by the accused.
The controversy doesn’t end there. Boateng, who appeared in court, pleaded not guilty, while Ofosu was absent and Adomako remains at large. The court granted Boateng bail of GHC350,000 with two sureties, but issued bench warrants for the other two. Meanwhile, Ofosu’s cautioned statement admitted to luring Alhassan into the deal, and Boateng confessed to receiving GHC250,000. But here’s the question: Were they acting alone, or is there a larger network at play? And how did they manage to convince Alhassan without raising red flags sooner?
This case raises important questions about trust in business transactions and the lengths some will go to for financial gain. Is it ever safe to take a seller’s word at face value, or should buyers demand proof of ownership upfront? Share your thoughts in the comments—do you think the accused deserve sympathy, or is this a clear-cut case of fraud? One thing’s for sure: this story is far from over, and the courtroom drama is just beginning.
