Court Remands Alleged Fraudsters For Hacking Interswitch Server

Justice Yellim Bogoro of the Federal High Court in Lagos had remanded two alleged hackers, Daniel Ikeoha and Sylvester Ebeta, to the Ikoyi facility of the Nigerian Correctional Services (NCoS) over allegations of defrauding Interswitch Nigeria Limited of N622 million.

Justice Bogoro gave the order after Ikeoha and Ebeta pleaded not guilty to the three-count charge of conspiracy, hacking into Interswitch’s server and unlawful conversion/taking possession of proceeds of illegal acts brought against them by the police.

The police prosecutor, Justine Enang, told the judge that the defendants committed the offences in Lagos between January 2022 and October 12, 2023.

Enang also claimed that the two defendants and others at large unlawfully suppressed the Interswitch Payment Gateway Merchants to interchange the system switch and caused multiple fraudulent transfers and withdrawals of N622 million from various bank accounts of other customers to their accounts.

He further informed the court that the defendants wired the N622 million to their under-listed bank accounts: Kuda Microfinance Bank, account no. 2012900334; UBA Plc, account no. 2259918436; Zenith Bank Plc, account no, 225135546; Eco Bank Nigeria Limited, account no. 4360057510 and 4360057503; GTB Plc account nos. 0025473624, 0560512839; FCMB, account nos. 7358218027, 7358218010;

Moniepoint Microfinance Bank, account no. 5397559320; GTB Plc, account no. 0167915358; Stalonvee Concept, Stalonvee Concept, account no. 6397559320, 5397602542 and Zenith Bank Plc account no. 240753383.

The prosecutor maintained that the offences contravened sections 27(1)(b) and 14(1)of the Cyber Crimes (Prohibition, Prevention etc. Ct, 2015, as Amended in 2024, read along with Section 14(1) of the same Act.

The offence also contravened section 18(2)(b)(d) and is punishable under Section 18(3) of the Money Laundering (Prevention and Prohibition) Act, 2022.

The defence counsel, Nancy Hart, informed the court that she had two applications, the first challenging the court’s jurisdiction to entertain the charges against her client because they had been charged before a magistrate court.

The lawyer argued that the charge against them before the high court was an abuse of court processes.

Hart also told the court that the second application was for bail for her clients.

In response, the prosecutor told the court the charge before the magistrate court had been withdrawn and that he had responded by filing a counter-affidavit to the bail application.

Based on the lawyers’ submissions, Justice Bogoro ordered them to move the bail application.

After listening to them, the judge fixed November 14 for a ruling.