The curious case of Mr Ojo Eghosa Kingsley, who preferred a prison cell to the repayment of a ₦272 million debt, has reignited a critical debate within Nigeria’s legal and financial sectors. While the common adage suggests that “possession is nine-tenths of the law,” the Nigerian judiciary is increasingly making it clear that when that possession stems from a bank’s clerical error, the law remains firmly on the side of restitution.
The Legal Doctrine of Unjust Enrichment
At the heart of “wrongful credit” cases lies the principle of Unjust Enrichment. Under Nigerian common law, heavily influenced by English precedents, a party who receives a benefit at the expense of another in circumstances where it would be inequitable to retain it is legally obligated to make restitution.
In the banking context, a mistaken credit does not constitute a gift. The relationship between a bank and its customer is contractual; while the bank has a duty to protect a customer’s funds, the customer has a reciprocal duty of honesty. Ignoring a sudden, unexplained billion-naira increase in one’s balance is viewed not as “good fortune,” but as fraudulent conversion.
Criminality vs. Civil Liability
The Kingsley ruling highlights a dual-track approach to justice that is becoming the standard in the Federal Republic:
- Criminal Prosecution: As seen in the Edo State High Court, the EFCC typically charges such individuals with theft or obtaining property by false pretences under the Criminal Code or the Cybercrimes (Prohibition, Prevention, etc.) Act.
- Civil Restitution: Even after a criminal sentence is served, the debt remains. A prison term satisfies the “debt to society,” but it does not extinguish the “debt to the bank.”
The Precedent of ‘Knowingly Diverting’
Legal precedents in Nigeria have established a high threshold for “intent.” The courts often ask: Could a reasonable person have believed this money was theirs? In the case of a ₦1.5 billion credit to a standard personal account, the answer is a resounding “no.” By moving the funds to family accounts, as Kingsley did, the recipient demonstrates mens rea (guilty mind). The court views the active dispersal of funds as a deliberate act of larceny rather than a passive error.
“The law is not a tool for the opportunistic; it is a shield for equity. A bank’s mistake does not grant a licence for a customer’s theft.” — A common judicial sentiment in Nigerian financial litigation.
The ‘Prison vs. Payment’ Gambit
Kingsley’s decision to choose incarceration over repayment is a calculated, if cynical, gambit. By opting for a one-year term, he likely hopes that the “outstanding balance” will become harder for the bank to recover through civil litigation whilst he is behind bars.
However, this sets a dangerous precedent for Moral Hazard. If the judiciary allows “time served” to be perceived as a trade-off for retaining stolen millions, the integrity of the banking system is compromised. Consequently, we expect to see more robust Mareva Injunctions (asset freezing orders) used by banks in the future to seize assets from relatives and associates long before a defendant even reaches the plea stage.
The Kingsley saga serves as a cautionary tale. For the average citizen, a “wrongful credit” is a legal minefield, not a lottery win. The Nigerian courts are increasingly impatient with the “finders keepers” defence, ensuring that those who attempt to profit from a bank’s digital slip-up find themselves not in the lap of luxury, but in the dock of a courtroom.
Statutory Framework for Electronic Funds Diversion under the Cybercrimes Act
The prosecution of financial opportunism in the digital age relies heavily on the Cybercrimes (Prohibition, Prevention, etc.) Act 2015, as significantly bolstered by the 2024 Amendment. While traditional “theft” is covered by the Criminal Code, the act of diverting electronically credited funds falls under specific “computer-related” provisions that carry stringent penalties.
Below are the primary sections applicable to cases involving the unauthorized retention and dispersal of electronic “windfalls.”
1. Computer-Related Fraud (Section 14)
This is the cornerstone for prosecuting the diversion of mistaken credits. It targets any individual who, “knowingly and without authority,” causes a loss of property to another (in this case, the bank) by:
- Altering, inputting, or suppressing data held in a computer.
- Conferring an economic benefit upon themselves or another person through such data manipulation.
Key Precedent: The act of transferring funds from one’s account to a third party (like a relative) constitutes “inputting or altering data” to confer an illicit benefit.
2. Unauthorized Access and Modification (Sections 6 & 8)
While a customer has “authorized access” to their own bank account, they do not have the authority to “modify” the balance through the dispersal of funds known to be erroneous.
- Section 6: Criminalizes unauthorized access to a computer system for fraudulent purposes.
- Section 8: Prohibits the “unauthorized modification of computer data.” Moving ₦1.5 billion that does not belong to you is viewed as an unauthorized interference with the bank’s digital ledger.
3. Duty to Report and Reversal (Section 37)
The 2024 Amendment places a heightened emphasis on the responsibilities of both financial institutions and, by extension, the beneficiaries of electronic transactions.
- Reporting Timelines: Financial institutions are now mandated to report suspicious transactions within 24 to 72 hours.
- Restitution: Under Section 32, the court is explicitly empowered to order restitution or payment of compensation to the victim (the bank) in addition to any custodial sentence.
Statutory Penalties at a Glance
| Offence | Legal Section | Maximum Penalty (General) |
| Computer-Related Fraud | Section 14 | 7 years imprisonment and/or ₦7 million fine |
| Unauthorized Access | Section 6 | 5 years imprisonment or ₦5 million fine |
| Identity Theft/Diverting Instructions | Section 12/13 | 3 years imprisonment or ₦7 million fine |
| Conspiracy/Aiding & Abetting | Section 27 | Same as the principal offender |
The “Family Account” Trap
It is important to note that under Section 27 (Aiding and Abetting), relatives who receive and retain portions of a “wrongful credit” can also be held liable. This explains why the EFCC in the Kingsley case was able to recover funds directly from the accounts of his mother and sister; the law views these recipients as participants in the “money laundering” of the diverted funds unless they can prove they were unaware of the illicit source.
To ensure you remain on the right side of the law and the Cybercrimes Act, following a strict protocol is essential. In the eyes of the Nigerian judiciary, silence is often interpreted as complicity when a significant financial anomaly occurs.
The “Sudden Windfall” Compliance Checklist
If you wake up to an unexpected balance, whether it is ₦1.5 million or ₦1.5 billion, follow these steps to avoid the fate of Mr. Kingsley:
- [ ] Cease All Transactions Immediately Do not attempt to move, spend, or “test” the funds. Any outward transfer, no matter how small, can be cited in court as evidence of criminal intent (Mens Rea).
- [ ] Document the Entry Take a screenshot of the transaction alert or your mobile app dashboard. Note the date, time, and the “remarks” or “narration” attached to the credit.
- [ ] Formal Notification (The Paper Trail) Do not rely solely on a phone call. Send an email to your bank’s official customer service address and copy their “Fraud” or “Compliance” desk. This creates an indelible digital record that you acted in good faith.
- [ ] Request a “Lien” or “Freeze” Explicitly ask the bank to place a temporary restriction on the specific amount of the excess credit. This prevents accidental spending (such as automated loan repayments or standing orders) from depleting the funds.
- [ ] Avoid Third-Party Transfers Under no circumstances should you transfer the money to family members or other accounts to “keep it safe.” This is legally classified as money laundering or diversion of property.
Understanding the Legal Recovery Process
When a bank realizes an error has occurred, a specific legal and administrative machinery is set in motion. Knowing this process can help you manage the situation calmly.
Why “Finders Keepers” is a Legal Fallacy
In Nigeria, the Contract of Debtor and Creditor governs the relationship between you and your bank. While the bank “owes” you the money you deposited, you “owe” the bank any money they mistakenly give you.
- Restitution in Integrum: This legal maxim means “restoration to the original condition.” The court’s primary goal is to put the bank back in the position it was in before the error.
- Constructive Trust: The moment that ₦1.5 billion hit Kingsley’s account, the law viewed him as a “Trustee” holding that money for the bank. Spending it was a Breach of Trust.
The Final Verdict on Kingsley’s Choice
By choosing a one-year sentence over a ₦272 million refund, the convict may believe he has made a “profitable” trade. However, under the Cybercrimes Act and civil law:
- The debt is not erased: First Bank can still obtain a civil judgement to seize his future assets, properties, or even garnish his future wages.
- Stigma: A conviction for fraud under the Cybercrimes Act effectively bars an individual from holding directorships or working in regulated industries for life.
