JUSTICE Deinde Dipeolu of the Federal High Court in Lagos has ordered 54 banks to immediately return a total of N9,329,322,870 fraudulently transferred by hackers from an unnamed old generation bank.
The receiving banks include; Union Bank, Zenith, Sterling Bank and 51 Others.
The judgment, delivered on April 15, 2025, follows an ex parte motion filed in suit number FHC/L/CS/629/2025.
The court directed the financial institutions to place a Post No Debit restriction on all accounts that received the stolen funds and to begin the immediate return of all available funds to the originating bank.
The plaintiff bank reported that on March 23, 2025, a breach in its core banking system resulted in unauthorised debits from multiple customer accounts.
The stolen funds—amounting to over N9.3bn—were then dispersed across accounts in 54 financial institutions.
Upon detection of the incident, the bank said it promptly alerted the institutions involved and began tracking the disbursements.
The investigation revealed that the funds were transferred in multiple tranches from the bank into primary accounts and subsequently rerouted to other accounts held by secondary and tertiary beneficiaries.
Justice Dipeolu ruled that the affected banks must provide details of the implicated accounts, including balances and amounts already transferred.
The judge further ordered the immediate return of all recoverable funds to the plaintiff bank.
The financial institutions are also to share comprehensive customer data related to the transactions, including names and destination accounts.
Restrictions are to be maintained on all accounts that received any portion of the funds until full recovery is made, limited to the amount each received.
The judge clarified that the ruling applies strictly to erroneously transferred funds and does not infringe on other customer deposits.
“For the avoidance of doubt and for clarity, the order is only in respect of funds erroneously transferred and sums salvaged,” the ruling emphasised.
Justice Dipeolu concluded that the stolen funds “belong to the plaintiff and not the customers of the respondent banks,” affirming the court’s authority to direct full restitution.