Access Bank Plc has approached the Federal High Court in Lagos seeking urgent orders to preserve and recover ₦1.34 billion allegedly transferred without authorisation from the accounts of four customers in what the bank described as a cyber fraud incident.

The affected accounts belong to MIB TXN Bullion, Aba Branch; AIICO General Insurance Company Limited; Apogee Engineering Limited; and SIMS Nigeria Limited. According to documents filed before the court, the bank alleged that the funds were moved through its Access SME App, an internet banking platform, and subsequently transferred into several accounts domiciled with Access Bank and 71 other banks.

TAAG Cargo Safely Transports Lions From South Africa To Nigeria Via Angola

The bank’s application, marked FHC/LAG/MISC/1168/2026, was brought through an ex parte motion pursuant to the Federal High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules 2019, relevant provisions of the 1999 Constitution and the inherent jurisdiction of the court. Access Bank asked the court to urgently prevent the funds from being withdrawn or further transferred while investigations and recovery efforts continued.

How the ₦1.34bn Was Allegedly Moved

According to an affidavit filed in support of the application, the bank discovered the alleged fraud upon resumption on August 12, 2026.

The affidavit, deposed to by Sodiq Jimoh, a litigation clerk in the law firm of Country Hill Attorneys & Solicitors, which represents the bank, stated that the unauthorised transfers were traced to four customer accounts.

The alleged amounts were listed as follows:

• MIB TXN Bullion, Aba Branch — ₦590,975,889
• AIICO General Insurance Company Limited — ₦420,449,504
• Apogee Engineering Limited — ₦136 million
• SIMS Nigeria Limited — ₦193 million

The four transactions amounted to ₦1,340,425,393.

The bank said its internal investigation showed that the money was subsequently dispersed into multiple accounts held with Access Bank and other financial institutions.

Access Bank Identifies Beneficiary Accounts

The bank told the court that its investigation had enabled it to identify the Bank Verification Numbers (BVNs) of some beneficiaries as well as other accounts linked to those BVNs.

Access Bank said the information was contained in schedules attached to the court processes and marked Exhibit Access 1 and Exhibit Access 2.

According to the bank, identifying the linked accounts was necessary to trace and recover the allegedly diverted funds.

The bank also said it immediately contacted the other financial institutions involved, notifying them of the alleged fraud and requesting that the funds be preserved and information supplied to assist the investigation.

71 Banks Listed as Respondents

In its application, Access Bank listed 71 banks as respondents, alleging that the suspected hackers had used accounts within those institutions to receive or warehouse portions of the money.

The bank asked the court to place a Post-No-Debit (PND) restriction on the accounts listed in the schedules and any other accounts that benefited from the unauthorised transfers.

A PND restriction prevents money from being withdrawn or transferred from an account while allowing the account itself to remain in existence.

Access Bank told the court that several of the banks had already placed PND restrictions on the identified accounts following its notification, but argued that a court order was required to sustain the restrictions.

Four Major Orders Sought

Access Bank sought several orders from the Federal High Court.

Among them was an order directing Access Bank and the 71 respondent banks to place PND restrictions on the identified accounts and BVNs to the extent of the amounts received from the alleged unauthorised transfers.

The bank also sought an order compelling the respondent banks to disclose the amounts still available in the affected accounts.

Another relief sought was an order placing the relevant BVNs on a watchlist until the entire ₦1.34 billion was recovered, limited to the amounts received by individual beneficiaries.

The bank further asked the court to order the immediate reversal of any salvaged funds into an Access Bank account.

However, this final request became the major point of distinction in the court’s ruling.

Court Grants Three Orders, Rejects Immediate Reversal

After hearing submissions from Access Bank’s lawyer, Ifeoma E. Enyinnaya, and reviewing the processes and authorities presented before it, Justice Akintayo Aluko granted three of the bank’s requests.

The judge held that the central purpose of the application was to preserve the funds and prevent further dissipation while the matter remained before the court.

Justice Aluko stated:

“The essence of the application is to preserve the funds from further dissipation. The court has a duty to preserve the ‘res’.”

The judge, however, refused to grant the fourth relief, which sought immediate reversal of the recovered funds into Access Bank’s account.

According to the court, granting that relief at the stage of an ex parte application would effectively amount to making a final order.

The judge therefore ruled:

“Reliefs 1 to 3 are grantable, while relief 4 cannot be granted at this stage, because it [is] more like final order.”

Consequently, reliefs one to three were granted, while relief four was refused.

Court Orders Undertaking as to Damages

Justice Aluko also directed Access Bank’s lawyer to file an undertaking as to damages.

This means the bank is required to undertake to compensate affected parties if it is ultimately established that the interim orders should not have been granted.

The court adjourned the matter until August 31, 2026, for further proceedings.

Bank Warns of Wider Cybersecurity Implications

In urging the court to grant the application, Access Bank argued that the alleged incident went beyond the immediate financial loss to its customers and raised broader concerns about cybercrime and the security of Nigeria’s financial system.

The bank maintained that allowing the allegedly diverted money to be withdrawn or transferred further could make recovery significantly more difficult.

It told the court that preserving the funds was necessary because of the risk of further dissipation and the potential financial loss that could result if immediate protective measures were not taken.

The bank also argued that the court’s intervention was necessary to protect the integrity of the financial system and prevent cybercrime from undermining economic and national interests.

What the Court’s Ruling Means

The ruling does not amount to a final determination of who was responsible for the alleged cyber fraud.

At this stage, the court has primarily ordered measures aimed at preserving the disputed funds and preventing further movement of the money while the case proceeds.

The allegations against the suspected hackers and the beneficiaries of the transfers remain subject to investigation and further judicial proceedings.

The next significant development in the case is expected when the matter returns before the Federal High Court in Lagos on August 31, 2026.