Connect with us

News and Report

Unethical Banking Practice: Wema Bank Swims In Customer Data Abuse Scandal With “ALAT By Wema”

Published

on

Some customers of Wema Bank Plc (ALAT By Wema) have accused the deposit money bank of abuse of customers’ data and unethical banking practices in the country by using their data to open illegal ALAT by Wema accounts without their authorization or permission. We understands that Wema bank has been opening multiple accounts for some Nigerians on its much-hyped digital banking platform, ALAT by Wema, without their knowledge or permission in a bid to celebrate the platform’s 5th anniversary.

Wema Bank Reportedly Aiming ‘A Million Account In One Day’ – Thereby Using Customers’ Data To Illegally Populate ALAT By Wema Digital Platform

According to information reaching Society Reporters, while the actual number of such unauthorized bank accounts opened on behalf of unsuspecting or undiscerning Nigerians are unknown, Wema Bank was alleged to be aiming to achieve “a million accounts in one day”, thereby using Nigerian customers’ data to populate the digital platform.

They said they discovered that the bank and its agents had allegedly been opening unauthorized accounts for customers with information or data in the bank’s possession.
The financial institution, led by Ademola Adebise, is accused of allegedly opening accounts for some Nigerians on its digital banking platform, ALAT, without their knowledge or consent in a bid to celebrate its 5th anniversary.

Customers Accuse Wema Bank Of Illegally Using Their Data To Open ALAT By Wema Accounts

Adebayo Tayo, a mental health advocate, took to his Twitter account to publicly accuse Wema Bank of opening an account in his name without authorization from him.

Tayo lamented that he never knew he had a new Wema Bank account until his mother contacted him, because she received an alert that was intended for him – shocking, how come he owns an account he’s unaware of, and his mom receives the alert.

“I am concerned about how my info has been used by Wema Bank and I need detailed explanations about the account including every transaction it has performed before someone uses my details for an account to launder money or collect ransome, ” he stated.

Wema Bank, in response to the report, claimed the unauthorised accounts were opened for certain persons “to celebrate with us” despite not informing them ahead or receiving approval to create the accounts.

Wema Bank Illegal Banking Practice Similar To Wells Fargo Accused Of Opening 1.5m Accounts Ilegally

This illegal banking practice is similar to that of Wells Fargo, a United State bank, which was accused of opening 1.5 million accounts without authorisation, with over 565,000 credit cards applied for, allegedly without customers consent.

About 5,300 employees at Wells Fargo were sacked for opening the illegal accounts, and the company was fined $185 million by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau in the United States.

The unauthorised Wells Fargo accounts were only uncovered by the affected persons when the accounts started accumulating debt from bank charges on the unsuspecting individuals.

Just as the sacked Wells Fargo employees were said to have indulged in fraudulently opening sham accounts to beat target, Wema Bank vendors and marketers may have used the same strategy to achieve the lender’s anniversary target.

That of Wema Bank is expected to also place a financial burden on the unsuspecting persons through account maintenance cost, from which the lender generated about N2.10 million last year, surpassing N1.24 million of 2020.

Affected Nigerians smell insider abuse

Recently, Mental Health Advocate, Adebayo Tayo, took to his Twitter account to publicly accuse Wema Bank of opening an account in his name without authorisation from him.

Tayo lamented that he never knew he had a new Wema Bank account until his mother contacted him, because she received an alert that was intended for him – shocking, how come he owns an account he’s unaware of, and his mom receives the alert.

“I am concerned about how my info had been used by Wema Bank and I need detailed explanations about the account including every transactions it has performed before someone uses my details for an account to launder money or collect ransome, he stated.

Following a probe into Tayo’s claim, an online publication, Ripples Nigeria discovered he was not the only one whose identity was used by the financial institution, to open accounts on its digital banking platform, ALAT by Wema, without the knowledge or consent of the individuals.

Another affected Nigerian is Oyenike Ojo, whose name was used to open an ALAT by Wema account. However, when money was sent to the account, the alert details showed another name, Oluseyi Bamgboyi as account owner – which means two different names seem to have been used to open one account.

Ojo’s husband was quoted as saying that something was shady about the account, “What I said is, the current name on the account number in my screenshots is not my wife’s name. If you look at that screenshot, the account was opened with my wife’s name and a new account number.

“She also got a credit alert notification via sms with the new account number. This shows that her details were used to open that account. However I tried to do a transfer to that account this morning when I read the news only to see that the account name is Oluseyi Bamgboye and not Oyenike Ojo (which is my wife’s name). Something is definitely fishy”, he explained to Ripples Nigeria.

Ojo said his wife has an account with Wema Bank which she hasn’t used for about seven years, and the new account created in her name doesn’t seem to carry the same number with her old account.

He stressed that the unauthorised accounts opened is “definitely an inside job.”, stating , “Customer’s details are compromised and they are being used to open new accounts. Whether by marketers so as to meet targets of number of accounts opened, or for money laundering, I can’t tell.”

Ojo asked for an investigation into the illegal accounts opened by Wema Bank, saying the situation is questionable, “How Oyenike Ojo’s savings account opened without her permission has now become Oluseyi Bamgboye’s account is definitely questionable.” Ojo said, expressing his worry.

Another name used to open unauthorised account, Abimbola Fakoyejo, disclosed that he was still wondering about his unused account on ALAT by Wema, when he saw a message notifying him that an account has been opened in his name.

News and Report

Absence Of Oba Otudeko, Bisi Onasanya, Others Stalls Arraignment Over N12.3Billion Fraud As Otudeko’s Lawyer Protests In Court

Published

on

By

The counsel for Oba Otudeko, Chairman of Honeywell Group, who is facing charges of a N12.3 billion fraud, appeared before a Federal High Court in Lagos on Monday to protest the charge.

Mr. Bode Olanipekun (SAN) informed the court that he was protesting because the charge had not been served on Otudeko or the two other individuals charged alongside him, the News Agency of Nigeria reports.

Olanipekun informed the court that, despite not being served with the charge, the defendants were shocked to learn about the planned arraignment through the media when the story broke last Thursday.

The 13-count charge was filed by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) against Oba Otudeko, former Managing Director of FirstBank Plc. Olabisi Onasanya, and former Honeywell board member Soji Akintayo.

Olanipekun is the counsel for the three defendants.

They were charged alongside the company, Anchorage Leisure Ltd.

 

The EFCC alleges that the defendants obtained the sum under false pretenses.

 

According to the EFCC, the four committed the fraud in tranches of N5.2billion, N6.2billion, N6.150billion, N1.5billion and N500million, between 2013 and 2014 in Lagos.

 

The 13-count charge, filed by EFCC counsel, Bilikisu Buhari, on January 16, 2025, further claimed that the defendants used forged documents to deceive the bank.

Specifically, count 1 accused the defendants of conspiring “to obtain the sum of N12.3Billion from First Bank Limited on the pretence that the said sum represented credit facilities applied for by V-TECH DYNAMIC LINKS LIMITED and Stallion Nigeria Limited, which representation you know to be false.”

 

In Count 2, it was alleged that the defendants, on or about 26th day of November, 2013 in Lagos, “obtained the sum of N5.2 billion from First Bank Limited on the pretence that the said sum represented credit facilities applied for by V TECH DYNAMIC LINKS LIMITED which representation you know to be false.”

 

The 3rd count alleged that the defendants, between 2013 and 2014 in Lagos, obtained N6.2billion from First Bank Limited on the pretence that the said sum represented credit facilities applied for and disbursed to Stallion Nigeria Limited, which representation you know to be false.”

 

In the 4th count, they were accused of conspiring to spend the N6.15billion, out of the monies.

According to the Commission, the offences contravened Section 8(a) of Advance Fee Fraud and Other Fraud Related Offences Act 2006 and was punishable under Section 1(3) of the same Act.

Counts 5 reads: “That you, Chief Oba Otudeko, Stephen Olabisi Onasanya, Soji Akintayo and Anchorage Leisure Limited on or about 11th day of December, 2013 in Lagos, procured Honeywell Flour Mills Plc to retain the sum of N1.5 billion, which sum you reasonably ought to have known forms part of proceeds of your unlawful activities to wit: Obtaining by False Pretense and you thereby committed an offence contrary to Section 18(c), 15 (2) (d) of the Money Laundering (Prohibition) Act, 2011 (as amended) and punishable under Section 15(3) of the same Act.”

Meanwhile, Otudeko had reportedly fled Nigeria ahead of his scheduled arraignment on fraud charges.

 

According to TheCable Newspaper, Otudeko’s exit from the country is linked to the mounting legal pressures and financial disputes he is facing.

The newspaper reported that the businessman left the country via one of the land borders.

Continue Reading

News and Report

Loan controversy: Bisi Onasanya’s lawyer condemns media trial….Judge adjourns case to February 13

Published

on

By

In line with his resolve to defend himself and clear his name, Dr. Bisi Onasanya through his lawyer, Adeyinka Olumide-Fusika, SAN, at a session at the Federal High Court Lagos on Monday, January 20, 2025, demanded the service of proof of evidence and summons.

Onasanya, a chartered accountant and a former Group Managing Director of First Bank is defending himself against a controversial loan that allegedly occurred at First Bank 12 years ago. The retired banker is refuting the allegations alongside three others namely former Chairman of the bank, Chief Oba Otudeko, a former board member of Honeywell, Soji Akintayo, and a firm, Anchorage Leisure Ltd.

At a hearing at the Federal High Court in Lagos on Monday, Fusika condemned the media trial his client had been subjected to, saying he was not formally invited by the EFCC or served a notice of the charge.

He expressed surprise at seeing news stories in major newspapers linking Dr Onasanya to a trial on loan controversy during his time as First Bank Group Managing Director without prior notification.

“My Lord, it is concerning that my client has been unduly exposed to media trial without being formally served. This is a procedural anomaly that undermines his right to a fair hearing and personal dignity,” Olumide-Fusika said.

The prosecuting counsel, Rotimi Oyedepo, denied any involvement by the EFCC in the media coverage of the case.

He stated that the commission had not issued a press statement and suggested that journalists may have obtained information through other means.

“My Lord, we disassociate ourselves from any media reports,” Oyedepo said.

The EFCC also applied for an ex parte motion to issue a bench warrant for the defenders’ arrest and sought permission to serve them through substituted means, alleging they had evaded service.

Olumide-Fusika opposed the motion, arguing that his client had always been available and had not evaded service. Demonstrating his determination to clear his name, the senior lawyer prayed to the court to have the EFCC serve the charge and the proof of evidence in the open court.

“This application is unwarranted and speculative. My client has neither avoided service nor absented himself from this matter. The claims of the prosecution are baseless. Since I am here and my client is ready to go ahead with this case, I ask to be served the charge and the proof of evidence here in the court,” Olumide-Fusika argued.

Justice Chukwujekwu Aneke, who presided over the case, dismissed the EFCC’s motion for substituted service on Onasanya since he has accepted to be served in the open court.

The judge consequently ordered that the EFCC serve Olumide-Fusika the charge and proof of evidence in open court.

The EFCC complied with the directive, and Olumide-Fusika who confirmed the receipt of the document extracted a confirmation from the prosecution counsel that the proof of evidence submitted is exhaustive and there wouldn’t be an addendum. The defence counsel said EFCC’s confirmation should be on record, insisting that his client was ready to defend himself and clear his name.

Justice Aneke adjourned the case to February 13, 2025.

It will be recalled that Onasanya, through his Communication Advisor, Mr Michael Osunnuyi, had earlier dismissed allegations, describing the claims as baseless and an attempt to tarnish Onasanya’s stellar reputation for professionalism, integrity and humaneness.

Continue Reading

News and Report

Abuja-Lagos Super Highway Project faces threat as two consortiums engage in battle for FG’s nod

Published

on

By

AEC Unity Network Limited, the officially recognised concessionaire for the Abuja-Lagos Super Highway and High-Speed Train projects, has denied any association with an entity known as AEC-Geofocus Consortium (Geofocus).

AEC Unity Network clarified that Geofocus has no role in the planning, financing, construction, or operation of the 470-kilometer superhighway and high-speed rail projects, which are part of President Bola Tinubu’s Renewed Hope agenda to boost national infrastructure.

In a statement released on Sunday, the company emphasised that it is the sole concessionaire authorized by the Federal Government of Nigeria, having received approvals from the Federal Ministry of Works, the Federal Ministry of Finance, and the Infrastructure Concession Regulatory Commission (ICRC).

Barrister Ayodeji Ademola, legal consultant for AEC Unity Network, said in the statement that AEC-Geofocus has no basis whatsoever to make any claim in relation to the Super Highway project, having not been part of its conception from the onset.

In the statement, AEC Unity Network reaffirmed that it is the sole concessionaire authorised by the Federal Government of Nigeria to design, finance, construct, operate, and maintain the 470-kilometer superhighway and high-speed rail linking Abuja and Lagos.

According to the statement, the company’s approvals are from the Federal Ministry of Works, the Federal Ministry of Finance, and the Infrastructure Concession Regulatory Commission (ICRC).

The reaction by the AEC Unity Network may have been informed by media publications credited to one Engineer Mutiu Yinka Idris, who asserted that AEC-Geofocus was in charge of the project for the federal government.

Idris, who claimed to be Director of Operations for AEC-Geofocus, had in the publication described the company as a consortium of engineers, planners, and investors that had successfully attracted $16 billion from Middle Eastern investors, with additional interest from European financial institutions and the World Bank.

He had also claimed that the financial framework was designed to minimize government expenditure, safeguard public funds, and prevent cost overruns through an efficient risk-sharing mechanism.

Idris had assured stakeholders of a grand project flag-off before February 2025, reiterating AEC-Geofocus’ commitment to delivering world-class infrastructure.

“The $16 billion project will be led by AEC-Geofocus, a consortium of engineers, planners, and investors, and plans have been concluded to commence it by February this year, 2025,” Idris had asserted.

He said that the Lagos-Abuja corridor, spanning approximately 500 kilometers, will connect Lagos, Ogun, Oyo, Osun, Kwara, Kogi, and Niger states before reaching Abuja, under a design, Build, Finance, Operate, and Maintain (DBFOM) model.

But in its sharp reaction, AEC Unity Network expressed surprise at the emergence of AEC-Geofocus out of the blue to make claims on a project it was never part of.

Part of the statement read: “We emphatically state that AEC Unity Network Limited has no relationship whatsoever with AEC-Geofocus Consortium or Geofocus. Any claims made by Geofocus regarding involvement in the projects are ‘spurious and false.’”

“We categorically state that AEC Unity Network Limited has no relationship whatsoever with Engineer Mutiu Yinka Idris or Geofocus.”

“These fraudulent claims are completely at variance with our proposed infrastructure plans and are intended to confuse and defraud unsuspecting stakeholders,” the statement added.

The statement by Engineer Mutiu Yinka Idris, who claimed involvement in the projects on behalf of Geofocus in several media outlets and amplified on social media, is baseless and an attempt to mislead the public.

The company warned investors and the public to disregard any media advertisements or reports from Geofocus, describing them as unauthorized and misleading.

AEC Unity Network stated that its project is still in the planning stages, with no concurrent developments on the same corridor by any other entity.

To prevent confusion and potential fraud, AEC Unity Network urged local and foreign investors to verify information only through its official channels and avoid engaging with Geofocus on matters relating to the Abuja-Lagos Super Highway and High-Speed Train projects.

This infrastructure initiative, which includes a direct expressway and rail connection between Abuja and Lagos, is expected to enhance transportation efficiency and foster economic growth.

AEC Unity Network reiterated its commitment to transparency and professionalism, urging the public to engage only through its official channels for accurate information about the projects.

Continue Reading

Trending