Police Investigate Kudiwave Over ₦750m Fraud, Probing Account Ownership, KYC Protocols

Kudiwave Technologies Ltd is facing mounting scrutiny over the ownership, control, and use of a PalmPay account that police investigators allege received ₦750 million traced to suspected digital-banking fraud.

The dispute—which has sparked protests at PalmPay’s Lagos office and a series of court applications—now centres on a central question: who opened, controlled, and was authorised to operate the Kudiwave account into which the disputed funds were transferred?

Kudiwave has challenged the transfer of about ₦750.37 million from its PalmPay account to a designated Police Special Fraud Unit (SFU) recovery account. However, police investigators claim the funds were laundered through multiple accounts and banks within 24 hours, ultimately ending up in Kudiwave’s PalmPay account.

Account Ownership in Focus

Sources familiar with the investigation said that the Nigeria Inter-Bank Settlement System (NIBSS) and the Police SFU traced the allegedly fraudulent funds through a network of bank accounts before they landed at PalmPay under Kudiwave’s name. The money reportedly arrived in three rapid transfers of roughly ₦250 million each.

Such patterns—large, closely timed incoming credits—would ordinarily trigger scrutiny under anti-money-laundering and fraud-monitoring frameworks. Police also visited the KYC address given for the account but could not locate the premises. A man appearing as Kudiwave’s company secretary reportedly told police that the account opener was unavailable, and the purported account owner has not appeared before the SFU.

Court Orders and Fund Preservation

Public records show the SFU obtained a Federal High Court order requiring PalmPay to disclose the account balance and transfer the funds into a Nigeria Police Force Microfinance Bank “exhibit” or recovery account. This type of account is used to hold disputed money during investigations, not as a private beneficiary account.

This means, contrary to protester claims, the police cannot simply “make the funds disappear.” The stated role of the police and the Police Microfinance Bank is to preserve the funds while the original source and lawful owner are determined.

PalmPay’s Role

PalmPay’s role is complicated by the legal instructions it received. News reports indicate PalmPay was ordered to freeze, disclose, and transfer the funds as part of the SFU investigation. Kudiwave has disputed the transaction and sought reconciliation, requesting account activity, instructions, and beneficiary account details.

While PalmPay’s actions are not beyond scrutiny, a key question remains: did the payment service provider comply with SFU and court orders, and did it maintain proper records and account-holder rights?

Legal Process Still Unfolding

The case has seen several procedural twists. After the SFU’s initial recovery order, Kudiwave challenged it, arguing lack of service. The Federal High Court vacated the recovery order on those grounds, but the police appealed and requested a stay, while Kudiwave pursued a fundamental rights case. The police have also filed criminal charges against individuals they believe are connected to the alleged fraud.

No final court ruling has yet determined Kudiwave’s innocence, the rightful ownership of the funds, or whether any party—including PalmPay or the Police Microfinance Bank—acted unlawfully. Legal experts say the courts, supported by banking records, KYC evidence, signatory testimony, and transaction tracing, will have the final say.

Why Banks Must Act Quickly in Fraud Cases

With electronic-payment fraud costing Nigeria’s financial sector ₦25.85 billion in 2025 (and ₦134.48 billion from 2020–2025, according to CBN and NIBSS), financial institutions have a public interest duty to act fast when fraud is suspected. They must freeze and trace suspicious funds swiftly but also comply with court procedures and ensure a lawful process for account holders to challenge restrictions.

If banks wait until every ownership dispute is resolved before freezing assets, alleged fraud proceeds could be lost beyond recovery within hours.

The Core Question

While protests have focused on the ₦750 million debit from a PalmPay account, the deeper investigative issue remains: who truly owned and controlled the Kudiwave account that received the funds, and who can prove a legitimate claim? Until the account opener, signatory, and beneficial owner are fully identified with verifiable documentation, the question of ownership will remain central.

The available evidence suggests the SFU and Police Microfinance Bank’s actions were aimed at preserving contested funds during an investigation—not laying private claim. Ultimately, the courts—not protests or social media—will determine the rightful owner and the lawfulness of all parties’ actions.