Alleged Ponzi scheme: Appeal Court fixes today for CitiTrust case

• EFCC opens criminal trial

• Adeleke writes CBN over LivingTrust Mortgage bank

The fraud case against CitiTrust Financial Services Limited, the parent company of Osun State’s partially-owned LivingTrust Mortgage Bank, is opening today at the Lagos Court of Appeal.

The financial services provider was prosecuted at the Federal High Court, Lagos, for money laundering and illegal financial operations by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC).

The Federal High Court ordered the forfeiture of the assets of the mortgage bank to the Federal Government.

The EFCC had specifically accused the firm of running a Ponzi scheme.

The executive directors of the company were also declared wanted by the anti-graft agency, which claimed they were on the run.

READ ALSO: Meet 25-year-old Emmanuel Oyelami with 9 A1s in WAEC, First Class UI Law, First Class Law School

The company’s three subsidiaries - CitiTrust Financial Services Limited, CitiTrust Asset Management Limited, and CitiTrust Holding Plc - were equally successfully prosecuted by the commission.

The indictment and forfeiture judgment was appealed by the CitiTrust Group.

The hearing notice for the continuation of the appeal was issued on April 15, 2026.

Listed as the appellant is CitiTrust Financial Services Limited, while the Federal Government of Nigeria is the respondent.

The notice reads: “Take notice that the above-mentioned matter will be listed for hearing of the motion before the Court of Appeal sitting at Tafawa Balewa Square, Lagos, on Monday, April 20, 2026 at nine o’clock.”

The hearing is scheduled to consider the application the appellants filed for the leave of the court to file their appeal out of time.

The hearing is listed for Court 1.

The notice was signed by the appellate court’s Assistant Executive Officer, Alakoso Yetunde M.

Counsel to the appellants, Oyetola Muyiwa Atoyebi (SAN), claimed in the motion, dated September 23, 2025, and brought pursuant to Order 6 Rules 1 and 9(1), Order 19 Rule 3(6)(A) of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2021, and under the inherent jurisdiction of the court that circumstances compelled the request made to the court.

In support of his request, Atoyebi said: “The Record of Appeal of this appeal were transmitted to this court on May 26, 2025. The appellants have 45 days from the date of transmission to file their Brief of Argument.”

The counsel to the appellants could not file the brief within time due to some constraints amidst other pending works.

“By the time counsel finished settling the appellants’ brief, time had already elapsed. The appellants’ brief of argument is in excess of 35 pages provided for by the Rules of this court by 3 pages, hence there is need to seek leave of the court to allow it. This has made this application a necessary one for the consideration of the court.”

Orders being sought include:

* An order of this court granting leave to the appellants/applicants to file and serve their Brief of Argument out of time.

* An order enlarging the time within which the appellants/applicants may file and serve their Brief of Argument.

* An order deeming the already filed and served appellants’ Brief of Argument as properly filed and served.

* An order of court granting leave to the appellants to use the Brief of Argument being 38 pages long in arguing this appeal.

Checks at the anti-graft agency showed that it would be filing its reply to the appeal today after the appellants’ motion is settled by the court.

It was learnt that the criminal charges filed against the firm and its directors at the Federal High Court in Lagos will proceed simultaneously with the appeal.

The charges are to be pasted on the last known addresses of the defendants and the subsidiaries of the embattled financial services firm.

Efforts were said to be ongoing to get the Interpol involved in the tracking of the fleeing directors of the indicted firm.

The criminal trial of the company has also brought back into focus the concern of Osun State Governor Ademola Adeleke with the way the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) has been conducting its oversight functions on LivingTrust management and board.

In a letter to the governor of the apex bank that Adeleke personally wrote, the Osun helmsman said: “I am staggered that the bank allowed the erstwhile Managing Director exit the management of the bank without the CBN requesting for adequate disclosure and accountability of the huge unauthorized drawings.

“It is also surprising that all the nominees of CitiTrust (to the board) were cleared by the CBN even when there are allegations that the said company has been classified as a Ponzi by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission while the nominee of Osun was rejected.”

The letter, dated March 21, 2025, was also copied to the Director, Other Financial Institutions Supervision Department of the apex bank.

In holding a commission of crime case against the CitiTrust group, Justice Friday Nemakonam Ogazi of the Federal High Court had held thus: “There are legions of evidence of unlawful practices all through the report and other exhibits before this court inclusive of Letter of Shittu SAN written to IGP (Exhibit D) on behalf of the respondents (CitiTrust).

“EXHIBIT EFCC 7 indicates that the 3rd Respondent is not registered with SEC and CBN.

“In my view, these are involvements in unlawful activities despite being a registered corporate body.

“It is obvious that these conducts constitute financial crimes and thus unlawful conducts for which one can infer that there is reasonable suspicion that there is unlawful conduct.

“I note also that petitions of two of the Respondents’ staff Nkemdirim dated 11/09/2023 and Mrs. Promise Ubadiagha dated May 19, 2022, also border on money laundry and fraud respectively.

“In final forfeiture of this nature which is not conviction-based, the applicant (EFCC) succeeds by proving his case on balance of probability that there is reasonable suspicion of unlawful activity or that the property sought to be forfeited is a proceed of crime or proceed of an unlawful activity. See Section 12 of Proceeds of Crime (Recovery and Management) Act, 2022.

“I hold that there is merit in the applicant’s case as there is proof of reasonable suspicion on balance of probability that the properties sought to be forfeited are proceeds of unlawful activity.

“The law is that when issues of fraud arise, corporate veil must be lifted as statutory provisions and legal principles cannot be used as refuge to justify illegality. See Section 10(1) Advance Fee Fraud and other Fraud Related Offences Act; Section 65 CAMA and Oyebanji v State (2015) LPELR - 24751.

“I also order for the final forfeiture of all the shares of Livingtrust Mortgage Bank Plc held by the third respondent.

“I make an ancillary order in line with the provisions of section 11 of Advance Fee Fraud and other Fraud related offences Act, 2006 and Section 19(2)(a) and (b) of the Proceeds of Crime Act for the victims (petitioners and other victims) of the respondents to be paid the value of their investments from the sale of the forfeited shares and the forfeited account balance in the banks.

“The remnant after the payment to investors/victims shall be forfeited and paid to the designated account of the federal government” the judge ruled.