News

EFCC Arraigns CBEX Operators Over Alleged $1bn Crypto Fraud

EFCC Arraigns CBEX Operators Over Alleged $1bn Crypto Fraud
  • PublishedJuly 7, 2025

The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) has arraigned two operators of the controversial Crypto Bridge Exchange (CBEX), Awerosuo Otorudo and Chukwuebuka Ehirim, before the Federal High Court in Abuja over alleged illegal financial activities and unlicensed investment operations.

The defendants were docked on Monday before Justice Mohammed Umar on a three-count amended charge marked FHC/ABJ/CR/216/2025.

They were accused of collecting funds from the public and promising returns of up to 88 per cent without regulatory approval.

During the hearing, EFCC counsel, Fadila Yusuf, informed the court of the amended charge filed on July 7 and urged the court to substitute the previous one.

Defence counsel, Justice Otorudo, did not oppose the application, prompting the court to order that the amended charge be read to the defendants.

Both Otorudo and Ehirim pleaded not guilty.

Yusuf applied for the defendants to be remanded in a correctional facility pending trial.

However, the defence lawyer urged the court to grant bail, citing a pending application filed since June 30.

He argued that his clients had no prior convictions and voluntarily surrendered to the EFCC after learning they were under investigation.

He added that the offences were bailable and that there was no evidence that funds were deposited with the defendants.

He also dismissed a publication by the EFCC claiming the defendants obtained $1bn by false pretence, saying such a charge was not before the court.

Opposing the bail application, Yusuf argued that the defendants only turned themselves in after being compelled by court orders and might flee if granted bail.

She insisted the offences were serious and claimed others involved in the matter were still at large.

When the court moved to fix a date for ruling on the bail request, the defence asked that the defendants be kept in EFCC custody.

Yusuf objected, noting that the accused were now under the court’s jurisdiction.

Justice Umar ruled that the two men be remanded at the Kuje Correctional Centre and adjourned the case to July 18.

According to the EFCC, between January 2024 and May 2025, the defendants lured the public to invest funds in CBEX, promising high returns without obtaining authorisation from the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).

The act allegedly violates Section 1 of the Investment and Securities Act, 2025, and is punishable under Section 96(5).

In another count, the defendants were said to have advertised CBEX to the public to collect deposits without being a licensed bank or financial institution, contrary to Section 44(1) of the Banks and Other Financial Institutions Act (BOFIA), 2020.

The third count alleged that they operated an investment management scheme on CBEX without a valid licence, violating Sections 57(1) and (2) of BOFIA, 2020.

Justice Emeka Nwite of another court had earlier authorised the EFCC to arrest six CBEX operators, including the two arraigned, over their alleged involvement in the fraud.

In a motion filed on April 23, the EFCC said it received intelligence about the investment scheme in April 2025, leading to a cybercrime investigation.

It alleged that the defendants, through ST Technologies International Limited and CBEX, deceived the public with false investment opportunities in cryptocurrency, promising returns of up to 100 per cent.

Victims reportedly deposited over $1 billion in digital assets, which became inaccessible, prompting suspicions of fraud.

The EFCC claimed ST Technologies was registered with the Corporate Affairs Commission (CAC) but not licensed by the SEC.

It also revealed that the defendants had relocated from their last known addresses in Lagos and Ogun States.

The anti-graft agency insisted that arrest warrants were necessary to track and prosecute the suspects.

Justice Nwite had previously denied bail to three detained CBEX promoters, ruling that the weight of the evidence was strong and warranted continued detention.