Justice Dehinde Dipeolu of the Federal High Court in Lagos has ordered the interim forfeiture of a property located at No. 29 Oyindamola Shogbesan Street, Park View Estate, Ago Palace Way, Lagos, over its connection to an alleged diesel supply fraud involving N986 million.
The order followed a motion ex-parte filed by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), through its counsel, Chineye Okezie.
The counsel told the court that the property was allegedly purchased using proceeds from a fraudulent diesel transaction involving one Hannah Ify Nwaguzor, Ajayi Edward Olushola, and others.
According to the EFCC, the Commission received a petition from one Chukwulota Benneth Onuoha and two companies—G3 Solid Farms & Agro Allied Industries and Bohr Energy Ltd—alleging that the suspects defrauded them under the guise of supplying Automotive Gas Oil (AGO) worth N986 million.
In May 2024, the petitioners were introduced to Mrs Nwaguzor and her associate, Olushola, by one Irene Abidemi. Based on their representations, Bohr Energy Ltd transferred the funds to Mozann Global Merchants Ltd on May 14 and 15, 2024.
However, no diesel was delivered, and the funds were allegedly diverted. Investigators traced N500 million to Hola Jayu Nigeria Ltd, from which N261 million was allegedly paid to Orobosa Michael Ubogu for the purchase of the forfeited property.
The EFCC maintained that the funds used to acquire the property were reasonably suspected to be proceeds of unlawful activity, in violation of the Advance Fee Fraud and Other Fraud Related Offences Act, 2006.
The application was brought pursuant to Section 17 of the Act and Section 44(2)(b) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended), seeking to preserve the property pending the hearing of a motion for final forfeiture.
In its written address, the Commission emphasised that interim forfeiture is a preventive measure to safeguard suspected proceeds of crime.
Citing the Supreme Court’s decision in Dame Patience Jonathan v. FRN, the EFCC submitted that a forfeiture order under Section 17 does not require a criminal conviction.
“The suspicion required is not one that leads to conviction but one that reasonably persuades the court that the property is likely to be proceeds of crime,” the EFCC argued.
In an affidavit in support of the motion, deposed to by EFCC investigating officer Waziri Abdullahi, it was stated that he was assigned to investigate a petition involving the offence of obtaining by false pretenses against Mrs Nwaguzor, Olushola, and Mukhatul Makarama.
FLASHBACK: In 2006, EFCC ‘Detained’ Tinubu’s Appointee Muhammed Babangida Over Globacom Ownership
Despite EFCC Probe, CBEX Resumes Operations
The EFCC maintained that the said property, described in Schedule A of the application, was acquired with proceeds of the alleged fraud and not from any legitimate source of income.
The Commission urged the court to grant the application in the interest of justice.
While granting the application, Justice Dipeolu also ordered the EFCC to publish the interim order in a national newspaper, inviting interested parties to show cause within 14 days why the property should not be permanently forfeited to the Federal Government.
Justice Dipeolu adjourned the matter to September 2, 2025, for hearing on the motion for final forfeiture.
For More Latest News, Join Our WhatsApp Channel
https://whatsapp.com/channel/0029Va9qtzXHwXbIyBGtjk2o
