Bitcoin Tower Dispute: Police Still Holding €5.6 Million Bail Security Despite Court Order Freeing Austrian Investors

Written by: Seringe S.T. Touray

The Bitcoin Tower dispute has entered another troubling phase, with Austrian investor Manuel Di Stofleth Mitterer telling The Fatu Network that police are still refusing to return bail security provided during the now-collapsed criminal case against him and his wife, Angelika Mitterer, despite a court order that cleared them and directed the return of their seized property.

The issue concerns security provided by two Gambian sureties during the criminal proceedings brought against the Austrian couple in the case of The Inspector General of Police v Angelika Mitterer and Manuel Di Stofleth Mitterer.

The two Gambian sureties provided one title deed each as security. One also surrendered a passport while the other provided a national identity card. The two title deeds represented properties valued at a combined €5.6 million — approximately €2 million for Manuel and €3.6 million for Angelika.

“Both Gambians have each provided the following: 1x title deed. One person handed over a passport and another handed over his ID card,” Manuel said, explaining that the title deeds represented properties worth “2 million euros” for him and “3.6 million euros” for Angelika and were provided as security for bail.

The continued retention of those items raises fresh questions about police compliance with the ruling of Principal Magistrate Muhammed Krubally, who on June 10 discharged and acquitted the Austrian couple after finding that prosecutors had failed to establish a case against them.

The court had ordered the return of their passports, laptop, cryptocurrency-related devices, bags, security bonds and any other property held in connection with the matter. In one of the strongest observations from the bench, the magistrate described the nearly year-long retention of their passports and property as “unreasonably long” and held that it amounted to a restriction on their constitutional right to freedom of movement.

Despite that ruling, the police are still holding the bond-related security provided by their Gambian sureties.

The criminal case itself arose from the wider fallout surrounding the Bitcoin Tower – The Gambia’s tallest residential building – and The Edge luxury apartment development in Bijilo. Manuel, who relocated to The Gambia with Angelika and their daughter, is a shareholder in Kasumai Real Estate Ltd alongside local businessman Ebrima Solomon Tamba and Dutch investor Marcel van Andel.

Kasumai Real Estate is the company behind both developments.

Their relationship with Tamba and van Andel broke down over allegations of undocumented project expenditures, disputed payments, shareholder control, apartment management and a €165,000 private loan Manuel had given to Tamba. Under the signed loan agreement, Tamba pledged his shares in Kasumai Real Estate as security. After Tamba failed to repay the loan, Manuel took control of the pledged shares, which became central to their wider dispute.

The Fatu Network’s earlier investigations reviewed findings from an independent internationally certified audit, payment records, loan documents, court filings and correspondence linked to the dispute. The audit, commissioned by Manuel and Angelika, questioned approximately D18 million in project-related payments, of which auditors said only D5 million was supported by receipts. Tamba denied wrongdoing and disputed many of the allegations made against him.

The police investigation later became a major issue of its own. As previously reported by The Fatu Network, the investigation began after Tamba lodged a complaint alleging that Manuel and Angelika had improperly taken company funds and other assets connected to the developments.

However, Manuel and multiple witnesses later alleged that Tamba said he reported the Austrian couple to the police because Manuel had taken ownership of his pledged shares in Kasumai Real Estate. According to their account, Tamba made the statement in Manuel’s presence, allegedly saying, “I reported you to the police because you sold my shares.” The complaint later became the basis of the police investigation and criminal proceedings against the Austrian couple.

Tamba did not respond when The Fatu Network sought his comment before publishing those allegations.

During that investigation, investigators pursued allegations linked to cryptocurrency accounts, a laptop and financial records connected to the projects. Manuel and Angelika said they provided investigators with extensive documentary material, including the internationally certified audit, financial records and other supporting documents.

Prosecutors later accused Manuel and Angelika of disobeying a lawful court order by allegedly failing to provide access to the laptop and cryptocurrency-related information.

But when the matter reached court, the prosecution’s own witnesses confirmed under cross-examination that the laptop had been opened, passwords had been provided and cryptocurrency-related devices had been handed over to investigators. The court found that the prosecution had failed to prove its case. The evidence was so weak that Manuel and Angelika were not required to present a defence before being acquitted.

That judgment brought the criminal case before the Banjul Magistrates’ Court to an end. The police investigation that led to those proceedings, however, remains ongoing.

Despite providing police with a certified audit and other documents alleging financial irregularities involving Tamba and van Andel, no criminal investigation has been opened against either man.

The size of the bail security itself is likely to attract further scrutiny. The two title deeds lodged as security represented properties valued at a combined €5.6 million in a case that ultimately failed before the accused were even called to defend themselves.

That figure is especially striking given the nature of the charge before the court: disobeying a lawful court order. The case was not a final determination of the wider commercial dispute, nor was it a conviction for theft, fraud or money laundering. It was a criminal proceeding tied to alleged non-compliance with an investigative order, and the court ultimately found that the prosecution had not established the allegation.

The continued retention of the sureties’ title deeds and identity documents raises another legal and public interest question. If the accused persons have been acquitted and the court has ordered the return of property and security bonds, on what basis are documents belonging to third parties still being held?

Manuel told The Fatu Network that he is now considering legal action against the police for damages and defamation.

The latest development adds another layer to a case that has already raised questions about police conduct, investor protection and the use of criminal proceedings in a bitter commercial dispute.

For nearly a year, Manuel and Angelika were unable to travel freely while their passports and property remained in state custody. The court has now acquitted them, criticised the prolonged retention of their documents and ordered the return of property connected to the case. Yet, the title deeds and identity documents lodged as security, representing properties valued at a combined €5.6 million, remain withheld from the Gambian sureties who provided them.

The Fatu Network is seeking clarification from the police regarding the legal basis for the continued retention of the title deeds and identity documents provided as bail security, whether those items remain tied to the ongoing police investigation, and whether they will now be returned following the court’s ruling.

The wider Bitcoin Tower and The Edge dispute continues through separate legal and commercial proceedings. Manuel is also pursuing civil claims against Tamba and van Andel over alleged financial irregularities, which he told The Fatu Network are intended to protect the projects and the interests of investors.

The central question now is straightforward: what is the legal basis for continuing to hold the title deeds and identity documents lodged by Gambian sureties after the Banjul Magistrates’ Court ordered the return of those security bonds?

This is the seventh in a series of reports.