The Banjul Magistrates’ Court was the scene of an intense legal showdown as the trial of Austrian nationals Manuel Di Stofleth Mitterer and Angelika Mitterer descended into sharp confrontations between the prosecution, the defence, and the presiding magistrate.
The pair stands accused of disobeying a lawful court order under Section 109 of the Criminal Offences Act, following their alleged refusal to grant police access to a laptop and cryptocurrency wallet linked to the “Bitcoin Tower” real estate project.
The session began with lead defence counsel Ida Drammeh attempting to distance the second accused, Angelika Mitterer, from the corporate liability of Kasumai Real Estate.
“Is it correct that the second defendant is not a shareholder in the company… in which the first defendant owns 30%?” Drammeh asked.
The second prosecution witness (PW2), Lamin Saidykhan, conceded she was not a shareholder but levelled a heavy accusation: “She received funds on behalf of the first defendant and is, therefore, a suspect. She created the conditions under which the funds could be transferred to her partner digitally.”
The witness further alleged that Angelika purchased a box presumably a hardware wallet or specialised device—used to facilitate cryptocurrency transactions.
The atmosphere then turned to the technical definition of an internet browser. Counsel Drammeh sought to establish that the digital assets were not “inside” the laptop but accessed via the internet.
Counsel Drammeh: “I want to put it to you that cryptocurrency accounts are accessed by a browser.”
Witness Saidykhan: “In the laptop, there was a browser and the accused himself printed a document.”
Counsel Drammeh: “A browser is used to navigate websites on the internet.”
At this point, Commissioner A. Sanneh interjected “She is using a Google definition,”
“I want to be accurate,” Counsel Drammeh retorted, witness claiming he didn’t hear or understand the word “navigate.”
A heated exchange followed between the prosecution and Principal Magistrate Krubally. When Saidykhan claimed he did not hear the word “navigate” in the definition he had just agreed to, the Magistrate refused to strike it from the record.
“You are not here for one person; you have to hear everyone,” Commissioner Sanneh cautioned the Magistrate.
“I will not change it,” Magistrate Krubally firmly replied.
Commission Sanneh: “That’s for you, but I want to tell you that you are here for everyone.”
The cross-examination then turned to the physical evidence. Saidykhan mentioned a “box” bought by Angelika to facilitate the wallet transfers
Counsel Drammeh demanded tthat he items be brought to court to examine their contents, while the prosecution commissioner Sanneh vehemently objected, arguing the devices are central to a broader, ongoing theft investigation.
Commissioner Sanneh argued that the laptop was “a subject of investigation” regarding a separate theft case and should not be tampered with. “She wants to be smart with us,” Commission Sanneh argued, referring to Counsel Drammeh. “If she fails in one aspect, she wants to make up for the other… the accused are experts in computers.”
The accused are experts in computers,” Commissioner Sanneh argued, expressing concern that the integrity of the investigation could be compromised if the defence gained access.
Counsel Drammeh invoked Section 34 of the Constitution, insisting on the right to a fair trial. “It cannot be an answer for someone to say it’s not relevant,” she argued. “We would like to tender it so we can ask future questions.”
After the devices were produced and admitted as Exhibit D1, the second battle began over who should keep them. Counsel Drammeh argued that since the police had already held the laptop for five months, it should now remain in the court’s custody to ensure transparency.
Commission Sanneh countered, “Investigation has no timeline,” stating that officers at the Crime Department still needed the device to question other witnesses.
Ultimately, Magistrate Krubally ruled in favour of the police. While acknowledging they were admitted to evidence, he ordered the laptop and box be returned to the investigators, noting that the prosecution had made a valid judicial application for their return to the Serious Crime Unit.
The trial is set to resume on April 1, 2026, for further cross-examination.
The case stems from a July 2025 investigation into Kasumai Real Estate and its “Bitcoin Tower” project. Police received complaints from two individuals, Ebrima Tamba and Mr. Marcell, regarding a cryptocurrency transaction.
Investigators seized a laptop and a specialized “crypto box” (hardware wallet) from the accused’s residence, believing these devices hold the keys to the disputed funds.
The prosecution alleges that on July 21, 2025, the Banjul Magistrate’s Court issued an order compelling the defendants to provide their passwords and grant access to their cryptocurrency accounts.
The prosecution witnesses testify that the Mitterers have refused to comply, locking the evidence away from investigators.
