Access Bank Plc has approached the Federal High Court in Lagos seeking an order to freeze accounts linked to beneficiaries of an alleged unauthorised transfer of N1.34bn from four of its customers’ accounts.
The bank filed the application, marked Suit No. FHC/LAG/CS/1168/2026, against 71 banks, microfinance banks, fintech companies and other payment service providers.
The application was filed on August 13, 2026, following a fraud incident which the bank said was perpetrated through its internet banking platform, the Access SME App.
Access Bank said it discovered the incident when it resumed operations on August 12.
According to an affidavit filed in support of the application, the bank’s internal investigation established that N1,340,425,393 was transferred without authorisation from four customer accounts to accounts held with Access Bank and other financial institutions.
The affected accounts were identified as MIB TXN Bullion-Aba Branch, from which N590,975,889 was allegedly transferred; AllCO General Insurance Company Limited, N420,449,504; Apogee Engineering Limited, N136 million; and Sims Nigeria Limited, N193 million.
The four transactions amounted to N1.34 billion.
In the court document, Access Bank stated: “Upon resumption on 12th August 2026, the Applicant noticed a fraud incident which occurred on some accounts domiciled with the Applicant and was perpetrated through one of the Applicant’s internet banking application known as Access SME App.”
The bank said further investigation showed that the allegedly diverted funds had been dissipated into several accounts domiciled with the respondent institutions.
It also said it traced the Bank Verification Numbers (BVNs) of the alleged beneficiaries and identified other accounts linked to the BVNs.
Access Bank is asking the court to direct the respondent financial institutions to place post-no-debit (PND) restrictions on the accounts and BVNs linked to the funds.
The proposed restrictions would apply to the amounts allegedly received by individual beneficiaries and remain in place pending the determination of the substantive suit.
The bank also wants the institutions to disclose the amounts recovered from the affected accounts and provide details of the accounts listed in schedules attached to the application.
In addition, Access Bank asked the court to direct the financial institutions to watchlist the relevant BVNs and prevent further movement or dissipation of the funds until the N1.34 billion is recovered, to the extent received by each beneficiary.
It also sought an order directing the reversal of any recovered funds into an Access Bank account belonging to the applicant.
The bank told the court that it had already contacted the respondent institutions over the alleged fraud and asked them to preserve the funds and provide information required for its investigation.
According to the affidavit, some of the institutions had already placed PND restrictions on the accounts but required a court order to sustain the restrictions.
“The 1st-71st Respondents have placed a PND on the accounts, but they need an order of this Honourable Court to sustain it,” the bank stated.
Access Bank argued that urgent judicial intervention was necessary to prevent the further dissipation of the funds.
“There is an urgent need for the order of this court to preserve the res and every other account in receipt of the funds to avoid further dissipation of the funds,” it said.
The bank further argued that it had a responsibility to ensure that funds transferred from its customers’ accounts without authorisation were not withdrawn, transferred or otherwise dissipated before recovery.
It also told the court that granting the application would help combat cybercrime, which it said had the potential to undermine economic and national interests.
“The grant of this application is also necessary to prevent cyber-crime which has the capacity to undermine economic and national interest,” the affidavit stated.
Access Bank undertook to pay damages should the court subsequently determine that the order ought not to have been granted.
It warned that failure to act urgently could lead to financial losses and irreparable damage.
The bank is represented by lawyers from Country Hill Attorneys and Solicitors, including Ifeoma Esther Enyinnaya, Aishat Nurudeen and Faith Itua-Oboh.
The motion was brought pursuant to Order 26 Rule 6 of the Federal High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules 2019, relevant provisions of the 1999 Constitution and the inherent jurisdiction of the court.
The 71 institutions named as respondents include First Bank, Fidelity Bank, Ecobank, FCMB, Guaranty Trust Bank, Keystone Bank, Stanbic IBTC Bank, Sterling Bank, Union Bank, United Bank for Africa, Wema Bank and Zenith Bank.
Others include OPay Digital Services, PalmPay, Moniepoint Microfinance Bank, Kuda Microfinance Bank, Paga, Carbon Microfinance Bank, FairMoney Microfinance Bank, Branch International Financial Services, eTranzact International, KongaPay, MoMo Payment Service Bank, SmartCash Payment Service Bank and 9Payment Service Bank, among others.
(The Whistler)