Lagos High Court Acquits Businessman Percy Abah of ₦99.05m EFCC Proceeds of Crime Charge, Citing Lack of Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt

The Lagos State High Court sitting in Ikeja has discharged and acquitted businessman Percy Abah, who was accused of retaining ₦99.05m allegedly linked to fraudulent transactions involving First City Monument Bank (FCMB).Court

The court ruled that the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that Abah knew the funds were proceeds of crime or that he retained the money on behalf of individuals involved in criminal activities.

Justice Ismail Ijelu delivered the judgment on October 20, 2026, in Suit No. ID/27872C/2026, holding that although the transactions surrounding the funds raised suspicion, the prosecution failed to establish the essential elements of the alleged offence.

According to the certified true copy of the judgment obtained by The PUNCH, the judge said the prosecution established that the money entered Abah’s FCMB account and that substantial amounts were subsequently transferred to other accounts.

However, he maintained that the evidence did not establish the defendant’s knowledge of the alleged criminal origin of the funds.

“The prosecution has established receipt, control and suspicious movement of the funds. It has not established beyond reasonable doubt the Defendant’s knowledge of their criminal origin or their retention on behalf of a criminal principal,” the judge held.

Abah, who operates under the business name Percy Sea Integrated Concept, was charged with retaining proceeds of criminal conduct under Section 17(a), punishable under Section 17(b) of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (Establishment) Act, 2004.

He was arraigned on March 30, 2026, and pleaded not guilty to the charge.

The case stemmed from allegations that approximately ₦99.05m, forming part of ₦3bn allegedly fraudulently withdrawn from accounts domiciled with FCMB, was paid into his account in December 2025.

During the trial, the prosecution called two EFCC investigators, who testified about the movement of the funds and tendered documentary evidence, including bank statements and Abah’s statements to investigators.

Evidence before the court showed that substantial amounts were transferred from Abah’s account to other accounts. These included ₦40m paid to Muhibbaty Multisynergy and ₦1m transferred to an account associated with Adamu Ado.

Additional transfers of ₦23m and ₦25m were made to accounts linked to other entities, while approximately ₦10.027m remained in Abah’s FCMB account.

The EFCC investigators questioned the transactions, citing the unusual inflow, the rapid movement of the funds, the absence of a formal sales agreement and the lack of precise delivery addresses.

However, Abah maintained that the money was connected to a rice supply transaction.

Testifying in his defence, with his lawyer, Victor Emeruwa, and D. Achioso representing him, the businessman said he had been involved in rice production and sales since 2014 and operated a rice mill in Ganaja, Lokoja, Kogi State.

He told the court that Ado had ordered 644 bags of rice at ₦90,100 per bag, comprising 300 bags for Abuja and 344 bags for Port Harcourt. The order was valued at approximately ₦58m.

According to Abah, after about ₦99.05m was paid into his account, Ado informed him that the amount exceeded the agreed purchase price and instructed him to transfer the excess ₦41m to designated accounts.

He added that he moved the remaining funds into other business accounts to purchase rice directly from farmers.

Abah denied knowing that the money was connected to fraud, explaining that the rice was not supplied because FCMB subsequently restricted his account around December 27 or 28, 2025.

In evaluating the defence, Justice Ijelu noted that Abah had provided substantially the same explanation during the EFCC investigation, meaning the account was not introduced for the first time during the trial.

The judge also considered testimony from the second prosecution witness, who admitted under cross-examination that the investigation showed Abah received the funds for business purposes.

The witness further confirmed that investigators found nothing establishing that the money was not intended for a rice supply transaction. She also said the investigation uncovered no evidence contradicting Abah’s explanation for transferring money between his accounts.

Justice Ijelu observed that the prosecution had not conclusively established whether the purported rice transaction was fictitious, noting that the investigators gave inconsistent accounts on the issue.

One investigator admitted that neither he nor members of his team visited the alleged rice mill. Another testified that EFCC operatives from its Abuja zonal office visited the address but did not find a mill.

The judge noted that none of the operatives who allegedly visited the location testified in court, and no independent report documenting the visit was identified in the evidence.

He also considered the restriction placed on Abah’s account before his arrest, observing that the development was relevant to the claim that the businessman deliberately failed to supply the rice.

“Non-delivery does not, without more, establish that the defendant never intended to supply rice,” the judge held.

On whether Abah knew the funds were proceeds of crime, Justice Ijelu said the prosecution failed to establish the required knowledge.

He noted that there was no evidence directly connecting Abah to the individuals who allegedly carried out the original fraud or showing that he participated in the alleged unauthorised access to FCMB’s system.

The judge also distinguished between knowing that a payment was expected and knowing that the money had been obtained illegally.

“Knowledge that a payment is expected is not the same as knowledge that the payment represents proceeds of crime,” he said.

Justice Ijelu further held that the prosecution failed to establish clearly that Abah retained the funds on behalf of a person whose criminal conduct generated the money, as required under Section 17(a) of the EFCC Act.

Although the judge acknowledged that the transaction was unusual because of the large inflow, rapid transfers and inadequate documentation, he said those circumstances did not rule out the reasonable possibility that Abah received the money in connection with a commercial transaction without knowing its alleged criminal origin.

He emphasised that the defendant was not required to prove his innocence where the prosecution had failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt.

“The defendant bears no burden of proving the latter explanation. It is sufficient that a reasonable inference consistent with innocence remains upon the evidence,” the judge held.

Citing the Supreme Court decision in Onwuta v. State of Lagos (2022) LPELR-57962(SC), Justice Ijelu reiterated that circumstantial evidence relied upon for a conviction must be compelling and incompatible with innocence.

“Suspicion, however strong, cannot replace proof beyond reasonable doubt,” he said.

The judge consequently resolved the sole issue for determination in Abah’s favour, ruling that the prosecution had failed to prove all the essential elements of the alleged offence under Section 17(a) of the EFCC Act.

“I find the defendant, Percy Abah, not guilty,” Justice Ijelu held, before discharging and acquitting him.

E.S. Okongwu appeared for the prosecution, while Victor E. Emeruwa, assisted by D. Achioso, represented Abah.