Court quashes freezing order against Micoz Bluelink Enterprise’s $163,592, faults EFCC 

Justice Emeka Nwite delivered the verdict on Wednesday and quashed the freezing order.

The verdict followed an application filed by Akpasi Micheal Oziegbe (trading under the name and style of Micoz Bluelink Enterprise) against a freezing order of the court made on 9th September 2024, against its bank accounts.

In EFCC processes exclusively seen by Naijaonpoint, Austin Chika Elem, an investigator with the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, deposed in an affidavit that on 14th July 2022, Micoz Bluelink Enterprise’s account with UBA received an inflow of $163,592 from the law firm of Steve J. Mandel.

According to Elem, “Citi Bank requested that the said funds be recalled on the grounds that the funds were related to ‘unjust enrichment’ and ‘fraudulent transfer,’ prompting UBA Plc to place a restriction on the account.”

“The American Embassy is yet to respond to the letter,” he added.

“The FBI has commenced investigations but is yet to conclude,” Elem stated.

“The Respondent/Applicant has not provided any evidence before this Honourable Court to show that the funds were for the procurement of miniature artefacts in ceramic form,” he added.

Elem urged the court to uphold the freezing order granted on 9th September 2024, asserting that lifting the order would prejudice the EFCC’s ongoing investigation.

The applicant, through its lawyers, Ojukwu Chikaosolu SAN and Adeyemi Dolapo Richard Esq., disagreed with the EFCC’s claims, arguing that the Commission’s allegations were false and aimed at misleading the court.

“A person to whom miniature artefacts in ceramic form were supplied may believe that the artefacts are overpriced and may thus initiate a callback. Selling such artefacts at a high price does not constitute a criminal offence,” the applicant stated.

“There is no reasonable suspicion to sustain the freezing order on the applicant’s account. The EFCC’s counter-affidavit does not demonstrate that the funds constitute proceeds of fraud,” the company argued.

Delivering the verdict, Justice Nwite agreed with the applicant’s counsel that, in the absence of any report by the bank indicating criminal evidence, the funds in the applicant’s account were not proceeds of crime.

The judge held that the EFCC “does not have any concrete or reasonable suspicion that an offence was committed by the applicant and merely sought the court’s order to punish the applicant, who, in fact, was the one who lodged the complaint.” 

He further stated that perpetuating the order would amount to enabling the EFCC to violate the applicant’s rights to fair hearing.

“I hold that the application of the applicant is meritorious. I hereby declare that the funds in Micoz Bluelink Enterprise’s account with UBA are not proceeds of fraud, crime, or any unlawful activity,” he said.

“I hold that the application of the applicant is meritorious. I hereby declare that the funds in Micoz Bluelink Enterprise’s account with UBA are not proceeds of fraud, crime, or any unlawful activity,” he said.

The judge declared that the applicant is constitutionally entitled to access its funds, having not been proven to be involved in any crime.

Consequently, he discharged the freezing order made on 9th September 2024, which had authorised the EFCC to direct UBA to freeze the applicant’s domiciliary account.

The court’s verdict implies that a request to freeze bank accounts by a party must be accompanied by credible suspicion or evidence such as a criminal indictment, among others.