Alleged N4.29bn Forex Fraud: Arraignment of bank, four others stalled as defendants stay away from court

The Lagos State Special Offences Court in Ikeja was set to arraign United Bank for Africa (UBA) Plc and four other defendants on charges of alleged N4.29 billion foreign exchange fraud. However, the arraignment was stalled for the second time as none of the defendants appeared in court.

The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) is prosecuting the case on four counts, including forex racketeering, conspiracy, concealment of proceeds of unlawful activities, retention of criminal proceeds, and money laundering. The defendants are UBA, Muyiwa Akinyemi, Amangbo Eziashi Stephen, Geeos Global Service Limited, and Fedat Global Limited.

“

The first, second and third defendants have not been served with the information or the hearing notice for today’s proceedings or the previous adjourned date. We got wind of it through newspaper reports. That is why we are here.

One of the counts alleges that between September 2022 and March 2023, the defendants conspired to sell foreign exchange at rates exceeding those set by the Central Bank of Nigeria. Another count states that in September 2022, they allegedly concealed N4.3 billion in a UBA account, derived from unlawful activities.

“

all defendants had been served with the charge and other processes, adding that affidavits of service had already been filed.

During the court session, EFCC lawyer T. J. Banjo announced that all defendants had been served with the charge and other processes. However, the absence of the defendants drew a sharp reaction from the prosecution, who described it as another attempt to frustrate the commencement of trial. Banjo also informed the court that efforts were underway to arrest the second and third defendants after they allegedly absconded while on administrative bail.

Conversely, defense counsel Adewale Kamourudeen, representing the first, second, and third defendants, argued that his clients had not been served with any charge or hearing notice and only became aware of the proceedings through media reports. He requested access to the case file to verify the prosecution's proof of service. The prosecution maintained that service had been effected through UBA's compliance officer.

“

another attempt to frustrate the commencement of trial.