Access Bank Seeks Freeze of Accounts Over ₦1.34bn Transfer

Access Bank has asked the Federal High Court in Lagos to freeze accounts linked to an alleged unauthorised transfer of ₦1.34 billion from four customer accounts.

The bank filed the application under Suit No. FHC/LAG/CS/1168/2026, naming 71 financial institutions and payment service providers as respondents.

According to an affidavit filed with the application, Access Bank discovered the alleged fraud after resuming operations on August 12, 2026. Its preliminary investigation found that four customer accounts had been affected, with a combined ₦1,340,425,393 allegedly transferred without authorisation through the bank’s Access SME App.

The affected accounts are:

Customer	Alleged amount transferred
MIB TXN Bullion-Aba Branch	₦590,975,889
AllCO General Insurance Company Limited	₦420,449,504
Apogee Engineering Limited	₦136 million
Sims Nigeria Limited	₦193 million

Access Bank said its internal investigation traced parts of the money to accounts held with the bank and the 71 respondent institutions.

“The Applicant’s internal investigation revealed that monies moved from the accounts without authorisation had been dissipated to several accounts domiciled with the Applicant and the 1st–71st Respondents,” the affidavit stated.

The bank also said it traced the Bank Verification Numbers (BVNs) connected to the alleged beneficiaries and identified additional accounts associated with those BVNs.

As part of its request, Access Bank wants the court to order the respondent banks, fintech companies and payment service providers to place post-no-debit (PND) restrictions on accounts and BVNs connected to the allegedly diverted funds.

Under the proposed order, the restrictions would cover the amount received by each beneficiary and remain effective until the court determines the substantive application.

The lender is also asking the court to compel the respondent institutions to disclose the amounts recovered and provide information about accounts listed in schedules attached to the application.

In addition, the bank wants the relevant BVNs placed on a watchlist and seeks to prevent further movement or dissipation of the funds until the ₦1.34 billion is recovered, subject to the amount received by each beneficiary.

It also wants any recovered funds returned to an Access Bank account belonging to the applicant.

The bank said it contacted the affected institutions immediately after discovering the alleged fraud. It notified them of the incident and requested that the funds be preserved and relevant account information provided.

Some of the institutions had already imposed PND restrictions on certain accounts, according to the affidavit. However, Access Bank said a court order was necessary to maintain those 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 told the court that urgent intervention was needed to prevent further movement of the money and preserve assets potentially connected to the alleged fraud.

“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 lender said it has a duty to prevent funds transferred from customers’ accounts without authorisation from being withdrawn or moved before recovery. It also argued that the application would help combat cybercrime, which it said could threaten Nigeria’s economic and national interests.

“The grant of this application is also necessary to prevent cybercrime which has the capacity to undermine economic and national interest,” the affidavit stated.

Access Bank undertook to pay damages if the court later finds that the requested order should not have been granted. It also warned that delays could lead to further financial losses and irreparable damage.

The application was filed under Order 26 Rule 6 of the Federal High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules 2019, alongside relevant provisions of the 1999 Constitution and the court’s inherent jurisdiction.

The bank is represented by lawyers from Country Hill Attorneys and Solicitors, including Ifeoma Esther Enyinnaya, Aishat Nurudeen and Faith Itua-Oboh.

The respondents include major banks such as First Bank, Fidelity Bank, Ecobank, FCMB, GTBank, Keystone Bank, Stanbic IBTC, Union Bank, United Bank for Africa, Wema Bank and Zenith Bank.

Several microfinance banks, fintech companies and payment service providers are also named, including OPay, PalmPay, Moniepoint, Kuda, Paga and SmartCash.

The case highlights the growing need for rapid coordination between banks, fintechs and law enforcement agencies when suspected unauthorised transfers occur, particularly where funds move quickly between multiple accounts.

Do you think stronger real-time controls between banks and fintechs could help prevent large-scale fraud before funds are moved?