Court Freezes 71 Banks’ Accounts Over N1.34bn Access Bank Cyber Fraud

Access Bank Plc

Court Freezes 71 Banks’ Accounts Over N1.34bn Access Bank Cyber Fraud

Justice Akintayo Aluko of the Federal High Court in Lagos has granted interim orders freezing accounts across 71 financial institutions following an alleged N1.34 billion cyber fraud perpetrated against Access Bank Plc through its internet banking platform. The court’s ruling, delivered on Friday, August 15, 2026, came after Access Bank filed an ex-parte application seeking urgent judicial intervention to prevent further dissipation of funds allegedly stolen from four of its customers’ accounts. The bank discovered the fraud upon resumption of operations on August 12, 2026, after noticing suspicious transactions on its Access SME App, an internet banking platform designed for business customers.

Access Bank’s internal investigation revealed that a total of N1,340,425,393 had been transferred without authorisation from four customer accounts. According to an affidavit deposed to by Sodiq Jimoh, a litigation clerk with Country Hill Attorneys & Solicitors, the stolen funds were traced to multiple accounts domiciled with Access Bank and 71 other financial institutions. The affected customer accounts included MIB TXN Bullion (Aba Branch), from which ₦590,975,889 was allegedly stolen; AIICO General Insurance Company Limited, which lost ₦420,449,504; Apogee Engineering Limited, which was defrauded of ₦136,000,000; and Sims Nigeria Limited, which lost ₦193,000,000. The bank’s investigation further identified the Bank Verification Numbers (BVNs) of alleged beneficiaries and other accounts linked to those BVNs, enabling a comprehensive tracing of the illicit funds across the financial ecosystem.

Access Bank filed an ex-parte motion marked FHC/LAG/MISC/1168/2026, seeking four principal reliefs from the court, with the bank represented by lawyers from Country Hill Attorneys and Solicitors, including Ifeoma Esther Enyinnaya, Aishat Nurudeen, and Faith Itua-Oboh. The bank sought Post-No-Debit (PND) restrictions on all accounts and BVNs that received portions of the unauthorised funds, pending the determination of the substantive suit; affidavits of disclosure from the respondent banks stating the amounts salvaged in the beneficiary accounts; watchlisting of BVNs linked to the beneficiary accounts until the full N1.34 billion is recovered, to the extent received by each beneficiary; and the reversal of recovered funds into a designated Access Bank account belonging to the applicant. Justice Akintayo Aluko granted the first three reliefs, holding that the essence of the application was to preserve the funds from further dissipation and that the court had a duty to protect the subject matter of the case. However, the judge declined to grant the fourth relief seeking immediate reversal of the salvaged funds, ruling that such an order would amount to a final determination of a substantive issue at the interlocutory stage. The judge also directed Access Bank’s counsel to file an undertaking as to damages in the event that the orders are subsequently determined to have been unwarranted, and the matter has been adjourned to August 31, 2026, for further proceedings.

READ ALSO:

The 71 financial institutions named as respondents in the suit represent a cross-section of Nigeria’s financial services sector and include major commercial banks such as First Bank, Fidelity Bank, Ecobank, FCMB, Guaranty Trust Bank, Keystone Bank, Stanbic IBTC Bank, Sterling Bank, Union Bank, United Bank for Africa, Wema Bank, Zenith Bank, Globus Bank, and Jaiz Bank, among others. The list also includes fintech companies like OPay Digital Services, PalmPay, Moniepoint Microfinance Bank, Kuda Microfinance Bank, Paga, Carbon Microfinance Bank, FairMoney Microfinance Bank, and Branch International Financial Services, as well as payment service providers including eTranzact International, KongaPay, MoMo Payment Service Bank, SmartCash Payment Service Bank, and 9Payment Service Bank. These institutions are now required by court order to place PND restrictions on the identified accounts and BVNs, and to provide affidavits disclosing the amounts recovered from the affected accounts.

In its court filing, Access Bank argued that urgent judicial intervention was necessary to prevent further dissipation of the funds, disclosing that it had already contacted the respondent institutions and requested them to preserve the funds, with some institutions already placing temporary PND restrictions. However, the bank said a court order was required to sustain those restrictions, stating in its affidavit that there was an urgent need for the order of the court to preserve the funds and every other account in receipt of the funds to avoid further dissipation. The bank further argued that granting the application would help combat cybercrime, which it said had the potential to undermine economic and national interests. It also undertook to pay damages should the court subsequently determine that the order ought not to have been granted, and warned that failure to act urgently could lead to financial losses and irreparable damage.

This case highlights the increasing vulnerability of Nigeria’s financial system to cyber fraud, particularly through digital banking platforms, as fraudsters become more sophisticated in exploiting vulnerabilities. The Access SME App breach demonstrates how a single point of weakness can be exploited to siphon massive sums across multiple financial institutions within a short period, with the rapid movement of stolen funds across banks and fintech platforms posing significant challenges for recovery efforts. The court’s intervention in this case underscores the importance of judicial cooperation in preserving assets and ensuring that victims of fraud have a path to recovery. For financial institutions, this case serves as a reminder of the critical need for robust cybersecurity measures, real-time transaction monitoring, and rapid incident response protocols, as well as the importance of regular security audits and penetration testing to identify and patch vulnerabilities before they can be exploited.

For customers, particularly businesses that rely on digital banking platforms, this case highlights the importance of regular monitoring of account activity to detect unauthorised transactions, prompt reporting of suspicious activity to banks, understanding the limits of bank liability in cases of fraud, and maintaining proper documentation to support claims. The case also raises important questions about the liability of banks and fintechs in safeguarding customer funds and the effectiveness of current regulatory frameworks in addressing emerging cyber threats. The interim orders granted by the court mean that the focus is now on preserving whatever portion of the alleged N1.34 billion remains in the identified accounts while the case progresses, with respondent institutions expected to comply with the court’s orders by placing PND restrictions on all accounts and BVNs identified, filing affidavits disclosing the amounts recovered, and watchlisting the relevant BVNs to prevent further movement or dissipation of funds.

The court has adjourned the matter to August 31, 2026, for further proceedings, at which hearing the court will likely consider whether to extend or modify the interim orders and may also address the substantive issues in the case. For Access Bank and the wider financial system, the case underscores the growing risks of cyber fraud in Nigeria’s banking sector and the critical role of the judiciary in protecting the integrity of the financial system. As digital banking continues to expand, the need for robust cybersecurity frameworks, effective regulatory oversight, and swift judicial intervention will only become more urgent.