The High Court in Freetown has sentenced Abubakarr Barrie to seven years imprisonment after finding him guilty on two counts of fraudulent conversion of property under Section 20 (1) (iv) (a) of the Larceny Act of 1916.
The judgment, delivered by Justice Adrian Fisher on 27th February 2026, followed a full trial in which the prosecution established that the accused dishonestly converted property entrusted to him for commercial use.
State Counsel Christopher Cole Esq. prosecuted the matter on behalf of the State, while Randy S. Bangura Esq. represented the accused during the proceedings.
According to evidence presented in court, Barrie unlawfully converted to his personal use a Renault truck with registration number AQF 318 valued at Forty-Six Thousand Euros (€46,000), equivalent to Five Hundred and Fifteen Thousand Five Hundred and Thirty-Eight Leones (Le 515,538). The vehicle had been entrusted to him by James Maitland and Ann Marie Sesay for commercial operations.
The court also found him guilty on a second count involving the fraudulent conversion of Four Hundred Thousand Leones (Le 400,000), which represented income generated from the commercial use of the same truck.
In delivering the ruling, Justice Fisher stated that the actions of the convict constituted a serious breach of trust rather than a simple business disagreement. He noted that the vehicle and its proceeds were given to the accused for a clearly defined commercial purpose, but he intentionally diverted both the asset and the revenue for his personal benefit.
The judge emphasized that offences of fraudulent conversion undermine trust in business dealings, stressing that individuals entrusted with property have a legal obligation to act with honesty and accountability.
Prior to sentencing, the court considered a plea in mitigation submitted on behalf of the convict. However, Justice Fisher ruled that the significant value of the property involved and the deliberate manner in which it was misappropriated justified a custodial sentence.
Barrie was consequently sentenced to seven years imprisonment on each of the two counts, with the sentences ordered to run concurrently. The court’s decision followed the acceptance of the prosecution’s evidence establishing entrustment of the property, its unlawful conversion, and the dishonest intent of the accused.









