Justice Rahman Oshodi of the Lagos State Special Offences Court in Ikeja will rule on Friday on Audu’s bail application for the main suspect in an alleged $2.6 million USDT and N3.5 billion fraud case on June 2.
Audu, along with his now-defunct company, Genting International Ltd, was arraigned before the court by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) on a seven-count charge of conspiracy, possession of stolen property, forgery, and possession of fraudulent documents.
In the charge dated April 15, 2025, the EFCC accused Audu and Genting International Ltd of conspiring to retain $1,262,000 USDT in a Binance wallet (TP6UTEmch6cto72Y7Pj3Bkn84LSqjSr7PX) and an additional $1,300,203 USDT in a BYBIT wallet (TQbgiFXAf17RX8j2nkFwwzBDo22WWrdcRn), both proceeds of fraudulent transactions.
The anti-graft agency claimed that the defendants retained N3.5 billion in Genting International’s Union Bank account and forged the Ultimate Beneficial Ownership (UBO) Declaration Form, purportedly signed by Mr Baffale Yakubu.
The defendants pleaded not guilty to the charge.
At the resumed hearing of the matter on Monday, EFCC counsel Mrs Bilikisu Buhari informed the court that the second defendant, Genting International Ltd, had no representative present. She noted that the company is no longer operational.
Buhari told the court that the charges were served by pasting them at the company’s last known address, as reflected in a report from the Corporate Affairs Commission (CAC).
Although a counsel claiming to represent the defunct company appeared, he stated he had not been adequately briefed.
The prosecution then requested that a not-guilty plea be entered on behalf of the second defendant under Section 257 of the Administration of Criminal Justice Law (ACJL)
The first defendant’s lawyer, Dr Muiz Banire (SAN), moved the bail application and urged the court to grant bail. He argued that the charges were similar to those already submitted at the Federal High Court, where Audu had previously been granted bail.
In contrast, the EFCC opposed the application, arguing that the current charges differ from those of the Federal High Court, which involves cyberterrorism and mutual legal assistance (MLA).
