Justice Dehinde Dipeolu of the Federal High Court in Lagos has ordered the initial forfeiture of a property, Park View Estate, Ago Palace Way, Lagos, bought by some suspects allegedly involved in a N986 million fraud.
Justice Dipeolu ordered the temporary seizure of the property after entertaining an ex-parte motion filed by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) through one of its lawyers, Chineye Okezie.
Justice Dipeolu also directed the EFCC to publish the interim order in a national newspaper, inviting interested parties to present their case within 14 days regarding why the property should not be permanently forfeited to the federal government.
While moving the application, Okezie told the judge that the property was allegedly acquired using funds from a fraudulent diesel transaction involving Mrs Hannah Nwaguzor and Ajayi Olushola.
The lawyer also informed the court that the anti-graft agency received a petition from a businessman, Chukwulota Onuoha, and two companies, G3 Solid Farms & Agro Allied Industries and Bohr Energy Ltd, alleging that they were defrauded under the pretence of receiving a supply of Automotive Gas Oil (AGO) worth N986 million.
He also claimed that the commission discovered that in May 2024, Onuoha and the companies were introduced to Nwaguzor and her associate, Olushola, through an intermediary named Irene Abidemi and that based on their assurances, Bohr Energy Ltd transferred funds to Mozann Global Merchants Ltd on May 14 and 15, 2024.
He further stated that the promised diesel was never delivered, and the funds were allegedly misappropriated.
Okezie revealed that EFCC investigators traced N500 million naira to Hola Jayu Nigeria Ltd, from which N261 million naira was allegedly paid to Orobosa Michael Ubogu for purchasing the forfeited property.
The EFCC lawyer also submitted that the funds used to acquire the property are suspected to be proceeds from unlawful activities, violating the Advance Fee Fraud and Other Fraud Related Offences Act of 2006.
He said, “The application was made under Section 17 of the Act and Section 44(2)(b) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended).
It aimed to preserve the property pending the hearing of a motion for final forfeiture.”
In its written address, the EFCC argued that interim forfeiture is a preventive measure to protect suspected proceeds of crime. Citing the Supreme Court’s decision in Dame Patience Jonathan v. FRN, the EFCC argued that a forfeiture order under Section 17 does not necessitate a criminal conviction.
“The suspicion required does not have to lead to a conviction, but it must reasonably persuade the court that the property is likely to be proceeds of crime,” the anti-graft agency submitted.
Justice Dipeolu has adjourned the case to September 2 for a hearing on the motion for final forfeiture.
