Nigeria does not have a single financial crime code. Instead, financial crime offences are contained in various federal statutes and regulatory frameworks. The principal offences relevant to companies and their directors and officers include:

Fraud and False Pretences

Fraud-related offences such as obtaining property by false pretences, forgery, cheating and related dishonest conduct are criminalised under several statutes including the Criminal Code Act, the Penal Code Act, the Cybercrimes Act, the ICPC Act, the EFCC Act, and the Advance Fee Fraud and Other Fraud Related Offences Act 2006. Corporate bodies may be held liable, and directors, managers and other officers may also be prosecuted where the offence was committed with their consent, connivance or neglect.

Money Laundering and Terrorism Financing

The Money Laundering (Prevention and Prohibition) Act 2022 criminalises the laundering of proceeds of crime and imposes customer due diligence, record-keeping and reporting obligations. Companies convicted of money laundering may face substantial fines, while responsible officers may be prosecuted personally. The Terrorism (Prevention and Prohibition) Act 2022 creates corresponding offences relating to terrorism financing.

Corruption and Bribery

The Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Act 2000 and the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (Establishment) Act criminalise bribery, corruption, unlawful gratification, fraudulent acquisition of property and other economic crimes. Liability may attach to both companies and individuals involved in the offending conduct.

False Accounting and Company Law Offences

Under the Companies and Allied Matters Act 2020 (CAMA), companies and their officers may be liable for fraudulent trading, false statements in corporate filings, falsification or concealment of company records, undisclosed conflicts of interest, secret profits and fraudulent conduct during winding up. Directors who participate in such misconduct may face fines, imprisonment, personal liability and disqualification from management.

Tax Evasion

Under the Nigeria Tax Act 2025 and the Nigeria Tax Administration Act 2025, tax evasion remains a criminal offence. Companies and individuals may be liable for deliberately evading tax, making false tax declarations, submitting fraudulent returns or obstructing tax authorities, with sanctions including fines, administrative penalties and imprisonment.

Market Abuse and Securities Offences

The Investments and Securities Act 2025 prohibits insider dealing, market manipulation and the operation of unregistered investment schemes. Both corporate entities and responsible officers may incur liability for violations.

Sanctions and Terrorism Financing Designations

Nigeria implements targeted financial sanctions under the Terrorism (Prevention and Prohibition) Act 2022. Financial institutions and designated non-financial businesses are required to comply with asset-freezing and reporting obligations relating to designated persons and entities.

Banking and Financial Malpractice

The Banks and Other Financial Institutions Act 2020 (BOFIA) and related legislation create offences specific to the banking sector, including insider-related lending, falsification of bank records and obstruction of regulatory examinations.

Position of Companies and Individuals: Most financial crime statutes impose liability on both companies and the directors, officers or employees whose conduct gave rise to the offence. It is therefore common for enforcement agencies to prosecute a company and its principal officers simultaneously.

Yes. Nigerian law recognises companies as separate legal persons capable of being prosecuted and punished for criminal offences. A company may be held liable where an offence is committed by persons acting on its behalf, particularly directors, senior managers or other officers exercising decision-making authority.

Where a company is convicted, sanctions typically include fines, forfeiture or confiscation of assets, regulatory sanctions and, in serious cases, winding up. Corporate liability does not prevent the simultaneous prosecution of the directors or officers involved in the offending conduct.

In practice, EFCC and ICPC prosecutions against directors and officers most commonly involve:

a. Obtaining property by false pretence/advance fee fraud under the AFF Act;

b. Money laundering and related concealment or conversion offences under the MLA 2022, including as accessories, conspirators or persons who “aid, abet or counsel” the substantive offence;

c. Corruption offences under the ICPC Act bribery, gratification, and fraudulent acquisition of property, applicable to officers dealing with public officials or, in the private sector, with counterparties;

d. Criminal breach of trust, stealing and conspiracy under the Criminal Code/Penal Code, frequently charged alongside economic crime counts;

e. Forgery and uttering of forged documents, commonly charged where financial statements, board resolutions or banking instruments have been falsified;

f. Fraudulent trading and making false statements to the Corporate Affairs Commission or to auditors/regulators under CAMA 2020;

g. Insider dealing and market manipulation under the ISA 2025, applicable to directors and key management personnel of listed companies and capital market operators;

h. Personal liability for tax offences where a director, secretary or manager is shown to have connived in, consented to, or been negligent in respect of, the company’s default under tax legislation.

Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC)

Established by the EFCC Act 2004, the EFCC is Nigeria’s foremost economic crime agency. It has broad powers to investigate and prosecute money laundering, advance fee fraud, corruption-related economic crime, terrorism financing, cybercrime and other economic and financial crimes, and is charged with enforcing the substantive statutes listed in section 7(2) of the EFCC Act (the MLA, the AFF Act, BOFIA, The Failed Banks (Recovery of Debts) and Financial Malpractices in Banks Act and other economic crime legislation, in addition to the Criminal Code/Penal Code).

Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission (ICPC)

Established by the ICPC Act 2000, the ICPC investigates and prosecutes corruption in both the public and private sectors, reviews systems and procedures of public bodies that are prone to corruption, and educates the public. Every prosecution under the ICPC Act is deemed to require the consent of the Attorney-General of the Federation.

Nigeria Police Force

Retains general jurisdiction to investigate and (through the office of the Attorney-General or its own prosecutors, depending on the offence and forum) prosecute financial crime under the general criminal law, particularly at the state level.

Nigeria Revenue Service

Investigates tax offences, conducts audits, and refers cases of suspected tax fraud for prosecution.

Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC)

Regulates the capital market and, under the ISA 2025, has significantly enhanced powers to investigate insider dealing, market manipulation and unregistered investment schemes, including data-driven surveillance and information-gathering powers over telecommunications and internet providers.

Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) and Nigerian Financial Intelligence Unit (NFIU)

The CBN regulates banks and other financial institutions and enforces AML/CFT compliance; the NFIU receives and analyses suspicious transaction reports and disseminates financial intelligence to law enforcement.

Attorney-General of the Federation / State Attorneys-General

As chief law officers, the Attorneys-General hold the constitutional power to institute, take over, or discontinue (via nolle prosequi) criminal proceedings, and their consent underpins prosecutions under several statutes.

Other bodies

The Nigeria Sanctions Committee (NIGSAC) implements targeted financial sanctions; the Nigerian Customs Service enforces currency declaration and smuggling offences; and the Code of Conduct Bureau/Tribunal deals with asset declaration breaches by public officers.

Nigeria has no jury system: all criminal trials, including financial crime prosecutions, are heard and determined by a judge sitting alone, who is the trier of both fact and law.

Federal High Court

Under section 251 of the Constitution, the Federal High Court has exclusive jurisdiction over federal revenue matters, taxation of companies, banking, currency and exchange control matters, and any criminal causes and matters connected with those subjects. In practice, most EFCC prosecutions for money laundering, advance fee fraud with a federal dimension, and offences under BOFIA and the ISA are brought in the Federal High Court.

State High Courts and the FCT High Court

Jurisdiction under the ICPC Act and the AFF Act is not treated as exclusive to the Federal High Court; the State High Courts (and the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory) share jurisdiction with the Federal High Court over ICPC prosecutions, and the AFF Act itself confers jurisdiction on “the High Court” of the State concerned (including the FCT High Court).

Investments and Securities Tribunal (IST)

Under the ISA 2025, the IST has exclusive jurisdiction over disputes arising from investment and securities transactions and over direct actions against, or appeals from, decisions of the SEC, though the more serious criminal offences under the ISA are prosecuted in the regular courts.

Code of Conduct Tribunal

Hears breaches of the Code of Conduct for Public Officers (including non-declaration or false declaration of assets), a quasi-criminal jurisdiction distinct from the ordinary courts. Established under Section 153 of the Constitution.

Appellate courts

Appeals lie to the Court of Appeal and, ultimately, the Supreme Court of Nigeria.

Triggers for investigation

a) Petitions or complaints from members of the public, whistleblowers, competitors or aggrieved counterparties;

b) Reports under the Federal Government’s Whistleblower Policy (which offers a financial reward for information leading to recovery of stolen public funds);

c) Suspicious transaction reports filed by financial institutions or designated non-financial businesses with the NFIU/Special Control Unit against Money Laundering (SCUML), which are disseminated to the EFCC or other agencies for investigation;

d) Referrals from sectoral regulators (CBN, SEC, NRS, NAICOM) following examinations or audits;

e) Media investigations and intelligence-led operations initiated by the agencies themselves;

f) Mutual legal assistance requests received from foreign law enforcement or financial intelligence units.

Investigative powers

Raids and searches are a common feature of Nigerian financial crime enforcement, though they have attracted public and judicial scrutiny over proportionality and procedure. The EFCC, Police and ICPC Acts, together with the ACJA, empower officers to enter and search premises (with a warrant, or without one in defined circumstances such as pursuit of a suspect), to seize documents, electronic devices and other exhibits, and to arrest with or without warrant depending on the circumstances.

The EFCC and ICPC also have express statutory powers to compel production of documents and information: any person (including banks and other institutions) can be required to produce books, accounts, statements of affairs or other records relevant to an investigation, and it is itself an offence to make a false or misleading statement to an officer of the Commission. The EFCC/NFIU may additionally place an administrative stop order (of up to 72 hours) on an account or transaction suspected of being connected with unlawful activity, pending a court order for a longer freeze.

Increasingly, the agencies also proceed by way of a written invitation requiring a suspect or witness to attend for interview, particularly for corporate officers and professionals, rather than by an unannounced raid.

EFCC, Police and ICPC officers have express statutory power to require any person to attend and answer questions relevant to an investigation and to produce any document or information in that person’s possession or control. Refusal to attend, or providing a statement known to be false or misleading, is itself a criminal offence under the EFCC Act.

The police and other law enforcement agencies must, on arrest, inform the suspect of the reason for arrest and of certain procedural rights before questioning proceeds. Interview powers extend to obtaining statements from suspects, witnesses and third parties (including bank officials and professional advisers, subject to legal professional privilege), and to requiring the production of documents held by financial institutions or corporate bodies under investigation.

The making of statements, particularly confessional statements, is increasingly expected to be corroborated by video or audio-visual recording where practicable, reflecting both statutory encouragement and appellate guidance aimed at improving the reliability and admissibility of confessions and reducing allegations of coerced statements.

Right to be informed of the reason for arrest/interview

Section 35(3) of the Constitution requires that a person who is arrested or detained be informed, in writing and in a language they understand, of the facts and grounds for the arrest or detention within twenty-four (24) hours.

Right to legal representation

Section 35(2) of the Constitution and section 6 of the ACJA give a suspect the right to remain silent, or to avoid answering any question, until after consultation with a legal practitioner or any other person of their choice, and the right to consult a legal practitioner before making, endorsing or writing any statement. Indigent suspects are entitled to free legal representation through the Legal Aid Council.

Right to silence — qualified, not absolute in practice

Nigerian law recognises a privilege against self-incrimination consistent with the presumption of innocence, but the right of silence at the investigation stage is generally treated by commentators and practitioners as a qualified, time-limited right: once the suspect has had the opportunity to consult a lawyer or person of their choice, they are typically expected to respond to questions and give a statement.

Right to humane treatment

The ACJA and the Constitution under Section 34 require that a suspect be treated humanely and prohibit torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, reinforced by the Anti-Torture Act, 2017.

Right to bail

A suspect must generally be granted bail or brought before a court within 24 (or, in some cases, 48) hours of arrest for non-capital offences, and has a statutory right to apply for bail in respect of most financial crime charges (which are non-capital).

Recording of interviews

There is no absolute statutory guarantee of a right to pre-interview disclosure of the evidence held by the investigating agency (Nigeria has no formal pre-charge disclosure regime comparable to some other common law jurisdictions). Statements are typically taken in writing, read back to and signed by the interviewee, and increasingly recorded by audio or video means, particularly for confessional statements, to strengthen their evidential reliability and admissibility at trial.

Position for companies: A corporate body cannot itself be “interviewed”; the rights above attach to the natural persons directors, officers or employees who are interviewed as suspects or witnesses on the company’s behalf or in their personal capacity.

Yes, in several key respects, although extraterritorial reach in the statute books does not always translate into practical enforcement without international cooperation.

a) The MLA 2022 expressly extends the money laundering offence to any person or body corporate, in or outside Nigeria, and the Federal High Court has jurisdiction to hear and determine proceedings whether the offence was commenced in Nigeria and completed abroad, or vice versa.

b) The AFF Act criminalises obtaining property by false pretence, or inducing a person to visit Nigeria for a fraudulent purpose, whether the relevant conduct or victim is located in Nigeria or in any other country.

c) The ICPC Act’s definition of “public officer” extends to persons employed by companies floated by government or its agencies (including subsidiaries), whether located within or outside Nigeria, and its asset-tracing powers extend to property held outside Nigeria.

d) The Terrorism (Prevention and Prohibition) Act 2022 and Nigeria’s sanctions framework operate to implement UN Security Council obligations that are inherently transnational in character.

Practical enforcement of this extraterritorial reach against persons or assets located abroad depends on international cooperation mechanisms (extradition, mutual legal assistance, or informal agency-to-agency cooperation); Nigerian courts have held, for example, that reliance on a multilateral instrument such as the UN Convention against Transnational Organized Crime, without an underlying bilateral extradition treaty or reciprocal domestic legislation, is not by itself a sufficient legal basis to extradite a person from Nigeria.

Yes. Nigeria has built up a growing (if still developing) framework for international cooperation in financial crime matters:

• The Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Act 2019 (which repealed the earlier Commonwealth-only mutual assistance regime) provides a general statutory framework for Nigeria to request, and to render, assistance to foreign states in criminal matters including locating and identifying suspects and witnesses, taking evidence, executing search and seizure requests, tracing, freezing, restraining, confiscating and forfeiting proceeds of crime, and facilitating the interception of telecommunications on a reciprocal basis, whether or not a bilateral treaty exists;
• Nigeria is a party to bilateral extradition and/or mutual legal assistance arrangements with a number of states (including a long-standing extradition treaty with the United States dating from 1931, and mutual legal assistance treaties/arrangements with other jurisdictions), under the Extradition Act 1966;
• Nigeria is a party to multilateral instruments including the UN Convention against Corruption (UNCAC) and the UN Convention against Transnational Organized Crime (UNTOC), which provide additional (though not unlimited) bases for cooperation;
• The EFCC and ICPC cooperate directly with foreign law enforcement and anti-corruption agencies (for example, the US FBI/DOJ, the UK’s National Crime Agency, and INTERPOL) on asset recovery and joint investigations, and Nigeria is a member of the Inter-Governmental Action Group against Money Laundering in West Africa (GIABA), the FATF-style regional body for the region;
• The NFIU exchanges financial intelligence with foreign financial intelligence units, including through the Egmont Group international network.

Legal professional privilege is recognised under Nigerian law, principally through sections 192 to 196 of the Evidence Act 2011, which provide that a legal practitioner may not, without the client’s express consent, disclose communications made in the course of and for the purpose of their professional employment, the contents of documents they have become acquainted with in that capacity, or advice given to the client. This is reinforced by Rule 19 of the Rules of Professional Conduct for Legal Practitioners, which imposes a professional duty of confidentiality.

Exceptions

Privilege does not extend to communications made in furtherance of an illegal purpose (the “crime-fraud” type exception), to disclosures required by law or court order, or to disclosures reasonably necessary for the lawyer to establish or collect fees or to defend against an allegation of professional misconduct.

Anti-money laundering reporting and privilege

The Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) has issued an Anti-Money Laundering Policy pursuant to the Money Laundering (Prevention and Prohibition) Act 2022, the Terrorism (Prevention and Prohibition) Act 2022, and applicable regulations issued by the Special Control Unit Against Money Laundering (SCUML). The Policy recognises that legal professionals occupy a position of trust and may, in certain circumstances, be exposed to risks associated with money laundering and terrorism financing. Accordingly, the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Financing of Terrorism (AML/CFT) Policy sets out the obligations of the NBA and its members in preventing, detecting, and mitigating financial crime, which also mandates record keeping and certain reporting requirements in specified circumstances.

What is protected from seizure

Material that is genuinely privileged communication between a lawyer and client for the purpose of giving or receiving legal advice, or created for use in litigation, is in principle protected from compelled production and from indiscriminate seizure by investigating authorities.

Section 37 of the Constitution guarantees the privacy of citizens, their homes, correspondence, telephone conversations and telegraphic communications. The Nigeria Data Protection Act 2023 (NDPA) is the principal data protection statute, enforced by the Nigeria Data Protection Commission (NDPC), and grants data subjects rights including access, rectification, erasure and data portability, subject to important exemptions.

Law enforcement exemption

Critically, the NDPA does not apply to processing of personal data by a competent authority for the purpose of the prevention, investigation, detection, prosecution or adjudication of a criminal offence, or the execution of a criminal penalty. This means that, in general, the EFCC, ICPC and other investigating agencies are not constrained by the NDPA’s core obligations (lawful basis, purpose limitation, consent, etc.) when gathering and using personal data for financial crime investigations, although the Commission retains a residual power to assess such processing and the constitutional right to privacy continues to apply. See Sections 3 and 25 of the NDPA.

Interception of communications

Interception of electronic communications and telecommunications data is separately regulated (principally under the Cybercrimes (Prohibition, Prevention, etc.) Act and, for terrorism-related matters, the Terrorism (Prevention and Prohibition) Act and the Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Act), and generally requires judicial authorisation except in narrowly defined circumstances.

Protection against unlawful search and seizure

The ACJA requires a valid search warrant in most circumstances, and Nigerian courts have held that evidence obtained through an unlawful search may be excluded. Individuals and companies retain the ability to challenge unlawful searches, seizures or detentions through the fundamental rights enforcement procedure and through applications before the trial court.

Nigerian law does not have a well-developed, codified doctrine of automatic successor criminal liability comparable to that found in some other jurisdictions. The position in Nigeria can be summarised as follows:

a. Criminal liability is, as a starting point, personal to the entity or individual who committed the offence. A company retains its separate legal personality (and its own criminal exposure) unless and until it ceases to exist as a legal person.

b. CAMA 2020 provides a statutory framework for court-sanctioned mergers, under which the assets and liabilities of merging companies vest in the surviving or new entity; however, this framework is directed at civil, contractual and regulatory consequences of a merger rather than at the transfer of subsisting or inchoate criminal liability, and there is no settled statutory or apex-court authority confirming that fines, confiscation orders or ongoing prosecutions automatically pass to a successor entity on a merger or amalgamation.

c. Where a target company is acquired by way of share purchase (rather than a true merger/amalgamation), the acquired company continues to exist as the same legal person and, in principle, remains liable as itself for pre-completion conduct, whether or not it has since become a subsidiary of a new parent.

d. Where the alleged offence was orchestrated by identifiable directors or officers (the “directing mind” of the target), prosecutors have tended in practice to focus on those individuals personally, given the more settled doctrinal basis for individual (as opposed to successor corporate) liability.
Because the area is undeveloped, buyers in Nigerian M&A transactions typically manage the risk of inherited criminal exposure through thorough anti-corruption/AML due diligence, contractual warranties and indemnities, and post-completion remediation, rather than relying on any settled Nigerian legal doctrine allocating or excluding successor criminal liability.

There is no single, codified prosecutorial code of the kind found in some other jurisdictions, but the constitutional framework and prevailing practice point to the following considerations:

Constitutional public interest test

Sections 174(3) and 211(3) of the Constitution require the Attorney-General of the Federation and State Attorneys-General, in exercising their prosecutorial powers (including the power to institute, take over or discontinue proceedings by nolle prosequi), to have regard to the public interest, the interest of justice, and the need to prevent abuse of the legal process.

Sufficiency of evidence

As in most common law systems, prosecutors are expected to assess whether there is a reasonable prospect of securing a conviction on the available evidence before proceeding to charge, including the attribution difficulties.

Gravity and impact of the alleged conduct

The scale of the loss or harm caused, the number of victims, the vulnerability of victims, the seniority and culpability of those involved, and whether the conduct forms part of a wider pattern of offending are all relevant to the public interest assessment.

Availability of alternative remedies

The EFCC in particular makes frequent use of negotiated settlements, restitution and asset recovery/forfeiture arrangements (including plea bargaining under section 270 of the ACJA) as an alternative or a supplement to full prosecution, particularly where recovery of stolen assets is a priority.

Statutory consent requirements

For certain offences (notably under the ICPC Act), prosecution is deemed to require the consent of the Attorney-General, which introduces an additional layer of central oversight of the charging decision.

Double jeopardy and related constitutional protections

Section 36(9) of the Constitution’s protection against double jeopardy (autrefois convict/acquit), together with the general principle against abuse of process, constrains repeated charging of the same person for the same conduct.

Practical and policy considerations

Resourcing and cost of complex financial crime prosecutions, cooperation of the suspect (including under whistleblower or plea-bargaining frameworks), and the wider public interest in deterring economic crime and recovering public funds are all routinely cited by Nigerian prosecuting authorities as relevant to charging decisions.

The evidential standard required to secure a criminal conviction is proof beyond reasonable doubt. Section 135(1) of the Evidence Act 2011.

This is the highest standard of proof known to law and requires the prosecution to establish every essential element of the offence beyond reasonable doubt. While it does not require proof beyond all possible doubt or absolute certainty, the evidence must be sufficiently cogent, credible and compelling to leave the court with no reasonable doubt as to the guilt of the accused. Where such doubt exists, it must be resolved in favour of the accused.

In Nigeria, this standard is constitutionally and statutorily entrenched. Section 36(5) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended) guarantees the presumption of innocence, while Section 135(1) of the Evidence Act 2011 provides that if the commission of a crime is directly in issue in any proceeding, it must be proved beyond reasonable doubt.

Accordingly, to secure a conviction, the prosecution must present admissible, credible and reliable evidence establishing each ingredient of the offence beyond reasonable doubt. Any reasonable doubt arising from the evidence, inconsistencies in the prosecution’s case, or failure to prove an essential element of the offence must be resolved in favour of the accused.

Generally, no. Under Nigerian law, there is no general statute of limitations applicable to criminal proceedings. As a rule, criminal prosecutions may be commenced at any time after the commission of an offence, irrespective of the lapse of time.

However, this general rule is subject to specific statutory exceptions, including:

a) Treason and Treasonable Felonies – proceedings must be commenced within two (2) years from the commission of the offence. Notably, there is no limitation period for conspiracy to commit these offences. Section 43, Criminal Code, LFN 2004

b) Sedition – proceedings must be commenced within six (6) months of the commission of the offence. Section 52(1), Criminal Code LFN 2004.

c) Proceedings under the Nigeria Customs Act, 2023 (NCA) – must be commenced within seven (7) years from the commission of the offence. Section 255(4), NCA.

d) Private complaints under Section 92 of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA) – must be initiated within six (6) years.

e) Certain sexual offences – some statutes prescribe that proceedings must be commenced within two (2) months of the commission of the offence.

f) Offences by military service personnel after retirement – proceedings must generally be commenced within three (3) months after retirement. While the officer remains in service, proceedings may generally be commenced within three (3) years, except for offences such as mutiny, failure to suppress mutiny, and desertion, to which these limitations do not apply. Section 169(1)–(2), Armed Forces Act.

Yes. Although Nigeria does not presently have a statutory framework for Deferred Prosecution Agreements (DPAs) or Non-Prosecution Agreements (NPAs) similar to those in the United Kingdom or the United States, Nigerian law recognises a number of mechanisms that may resolve financial crime matters without proceeding to a full criminal trial. These include plea bargaining, civil asset recovery and forfeiture proceedings, and non-conviction-based forfeiture under the Proceeds of Crime (Recovery and Management) Act 2022.

Plea Bargaining

Plea bargaining is the principal negotiated mechanism for resolving financial crime cases in Nigeria. It is governed by section 270 of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act 2015 (ACJA), which empowers the prosecutor to enter into a plea agreement with a defendant before the defendant enters a plea or at any stage before judgment is delivered.

In determining whether to enter into a plea bargain, the prosecutor must have regard to the interest of justice, the public interest, public policy, the need to prevent abuse of legal process, the nature and circumstances of the offence, the defendant’s willingness to make restitution or compensate victims where appropriate, and the strength of the available evidence. These considerations are reflected in section 270(2) of the ACJA.

A plea agreement does not become effective merely because the parties have executed it. It must be presented to the court for approval. Pursuant to sections 270 to 277 of the ACJA, particularly sections 270, 274, 275 and 276, the court must satisfy itself that the defendant entered the agreement voluntarily, understands its terms and consequences, and admits the facts constituting the offence. If satisfied, the court may convict the defendant on the agreed plea and impose the appropriate sentence in accordance with the agreement and the law.

Civil Recovery and Non-Conviction-Based Asset Forfeiture

Nigeria also permits the recovery of proceeds of crime through civil proceedings without necessarily securing a criminal conviction. This mechanism is principally governed by the Proceeds of Crime (Recovery and Management) Act 2022, which authorises the preservation, forfeiture and management of assets reasonably suspected to constitute proceeds or instrumentalities of unlawful conduct.

The relevant consideration is whether there is sufficient evidence establishing that the property represents the proceeds of crime or was used in the commission of an offence. Since these are civil proceedings, the applicable standard is generally the balance of probabilities rather than proof beyond reasonable doubt.

Court approval is mandatory. Interim preservation orders and final forfeiture orders may only be granted by the competent court in accordance with the provisions of the Proceeds of Crime (Recovery and Management) Act 2022.

Conviction-Based Forfeiture

Where a conviction is secured for a financial crime, Nigerian courts may order the forfeiture or confiscation of assets derived from or used in the commission of the offence. Such orders are made pursuant to the relevant provisions of the enabling legislation, including the Proceeds of Crime (Recovery and Management) Act 2022, ACJA and other applicable statutes such as the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (Establishment) Act 2004.

Court approval is inherent in this process, as the forfeiture order forms part of the sentence imposed by the trial court following conviction.

Yes. Nigeria recognises plea bargaining as a statutory mechanism for resolving criminal proceedings, including financial crime cases. The regime is governed by sections 270–277 of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act, 2015 (ACJA) and is similarly provided for under the procedural laws of states within the Federation.

Yes. Nigerian law imposes statutory reporting obligations in certain circumstances, although there is no general obligation requiring companies or individuals to voluntarily disclose internally discovered financial misconduct to prosecuting authorities solely because it has been identified during an internal investigation. In light of the Federal Whistleblower Policy, individuals are encouraged to make voluntary disclosures of possible misconduct or violations relating to public interest, with incentives offered where such disclosures lead directly to recovery of stolen or concealed public funds or assets.

The principal reporting regime is contained in the Money Laundering (Prevention and Prohibition) Act 2022 (“MLPPA”). Pursuant to section 7(1) of the MLPPA, every financial institution and designated non-financial business and profession (“DNFBP”) is required to scrutinise transactions and report to the Nigerian Financial Intelligence Unit (NFIU) any transaction which appears unusual, lacks an apparent economic or lawful purpose, is inconsistent with the customer’s known business or transaction profile, or is reasonably suspected to involve the proceeds of crime, money laundering or terrorist financing. Section 7(2) further requires such reporting entities to submit a written report to the NFIU within 24 hours of forming the requisite suspicion.

Additionally, Section 11(1) of the MLPPA requires financial institutions and DNFBPs to report transactions exceeding the prescribed statutory thresholds to the NFIU (or the Special Control Unit Against Money Laundering (SCUML), where applicable) within seven days. Furthermore, Section 11(2) permits persons who are not otherwise subject to the statutory reporting obligation to voluntarily disclose transactions exceeding the prescribed thresholds.

Outside these statutory reporting regimes, Nigerian law does not establish a general corporate self-reporting framework comparable to the Deferred Prosecution Agreement (DPA) or voluntary disclosure regimes operating in jurisdictions such as the United Kingdom or the United States. Nevertheless, cooperation with investigating authorities, including the voluntary provision of relevant information, restitution and assistance during investigations, may be relevant in the exercise of prosecutorial discretion and may facilitate the negotiation of a plea bargain pursuant to Sections 270–277 of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act 2015.

There is no single statutory procedure or official prosecutorial guidance governing voluntary self-disclosure. In practice, reports are made to the competent authority depending on the nature of the misconduct, including the NFIU, Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission (ICPC), the Nigeria Police Force, or the relevant sectoral regulator, where applicable.

Sentencing in Nigeria is primarily governed by the punishment prescribed under the statute creating the offence. Unlike some common law jurisdictions, Nigeria does not operate formal sentencing guidelines or a structured sentencing discount regime.

The Administration of Criminal Justice Act 2015 (ACJA) sets out the objectives that should guide sentencing. Pursuant to Section 401(2) of the ACJA, the court is required to impose a sentence that promotes the prevention of crime, restraint of offenders, rehabilitation, deterrence, public education, retribution and restitution.

In exercising its sentencing discretion, the court must impose a sentence authorised by the statute creating the offence. Where the legislation prescribes a mandatory or minimum sentence, the court has no discretion to impose a lesser punishment. Conversely, where the statute prescribes a maximum sentence or confers discretion, the court may take into account the circumstances of the offence and the offender in determining an appropriate sentence. Before sentence is passed, a convicted person is ordinarily afforded the right of allocutus, enabling the offender to present matters in mitigation. However, allocutus cannot reduce a mandatory or minimum sentence prescribed by law.

Nigeria does not have a formal statutory leniency or sentencing discount policy comparable to the Sentencing Council’s Guideline on Reduction in Sentence for a Guilty Plea in England and Wales or the United States Sentencing Guidelines. Nevertheless, mitigating factors including an early guilty plea, remorse, cooperation with investigating authorities, restitution or compensation to victims, and other personal circumstances may be taken into account by the court where the applicable legislation permits the exercise of sentencing discretion.

In addition, where criminal proceedings are resolved through plea bargaining under sections 270–277 of the ACJA, the parties may agree on an appropriate sentence. Upon conviction, the court is required to consider the agreed sentence. If the court considers the proposed sentence appropriate, it may impose that sentence. Where the court considers that a heavier sentence is warranted, it must inform the defendant, who may either maintain the guilty plea and make further submissions on sentence or withdraw from the plea agreement, in which case the matter proceeds to trial before a different judge.

Nigeria does not have a formal statutory framework or prosecutorial guidance prescribing how compliance programmes are evaluated by prosecuting authorities in the context of financial crime investigations. There is therefore no equivalent to the U.S. Department of Justice’s Evaluation of Corporate Compliance Programs or the United Kingdom’s guidance on “adequate procedures” under the Bribery Act 2010.

Nevertheless, the existence and effectiveness of a company’s compliance framework may be relevant in practice during investigations and the exercise of prosecutorial discretion. Agencies such as the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) and the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission (ICPC) may consider the extent to which a company has implemented internal controls, anti-money laundering procedures, risk management systems, whistleblowing mechanisms, employee training programmes, and prompt remedial measures in assessing the company’s level of cooperation and determining the appropriate enforcement response. An effective compliance programme may also facilitate internal investigations, voluntary disclosure where appropriate, restitution, and the negotiation of a plea bargain under sections 270–277 of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act 2015.

Businesses operating in regulated sectors are also expected to comply with statutory compliance obligations imposed by applicable legislation. For example, the Money Laundering (Prevention and Prohibition) Act 2022 requires financial institutions and designated non-financial businesses and professions to establish internal anti-money laundering and counter-terrorist financing controls, including customer due diligence measures, record-keeping procedures, employee training, internal compliance functions, and mechanisms for reporting suspicious transactions to the Nigerian Financial Intelligence Unit (NFIU). See, in particular, Sections 3–6, 7, 8 and 11 of the Act.

Accordingly, businesses can best protect themselves by implementing and maintaining robust, risk-based compliance programmes tailored to their operations. Such programmes should include comprehensive anti-bribery and anti-corruption policies, anti-money laundering and counter-terrorist financing procedures, effective internal controls, periodic risk assessments, whistleblowing and reporting mechanisms, regular employee training, thorough due diligence on third parties, accurate record-keeping, and prompt investigation and remediation of suspected misconduct. In the event of an investigation, early engagement with legal counsel, preservation of relevant evidence, full compliance with applicable statutory reporting obligations, and constructive cooperation with competent authorities will generally place the business in the strongest position to manage its legal and regulatory exposure.

This reflects the current position under Nigerian law, where the effectiveness of a compliance programme is not itself a statutory defence to corporate criminal liability, but it may be a significant practical consideration in demonstrating good corporate governance, regulatory compliance, and cooperation with enforcement authorities.

The penalties imposed by Nigerian courts for financial crime offences vary according to the nature of the offence and the governing legislation. The principal sanctions include imprisonment, fines, restitution, compensation, forfeiture of the proceeds and instrumentalities of crime, disgorgement of illicit gains, and, where applicable, the winding-up or regulatory sanctioning of corporate entities.

For individuals, offences such as fraud, obtaining by false pretences, money laundering, bribery and corruption, tax offences, market abuse and other economic crimes generally attract terms of imprisonment and/or substantial fines prescribed by the relevant statute. In appropriate cases, the court may also order the forfeiture of assets derived from or used in the commission of the offence pursuant to the Proceeds of Crime (Recovery and Management) Act 2022, the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (Establishment) Act 2004, and other applicable legislation. The court may further order restitution or compensation to victims under section 321 of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act 2015 (“ACJA”), in addition to any custodial or pecuniary sentence imposed.

Corporate entities are likewise liable for a broad range of financial crime offences under Nigerian law. Where a company is convicted, the courts commonly impose substantial monetary fines, forfeiture and confiscation orders, restitution, compensation, and other statutory sanctions. Depending on the governing legislation, additional regulatory consequences may include the suspension or revocation of licences, disqualification from regulated activities, debarment from public procurement, compliance directives, or, in exceptional cases, winding-up proceedings. Since a company cannot be imprisoned, custodial sentences apply only to its directors, officers or other individuals who are found personally liable for the commission of the offence.

The principal legislation governing these offences prescribes different penalties depending on the misconduct. For example, the Money Laundering (Prevention and Prohibition) Act 2022, the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (Establishment) Act 2004, the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Act 2000, the Companies and Allied Matters Act 2020, the Investments and Securities Act 2025, the Nigeria Tax Act 2025, the Nigeria Tax Administration Act 2025, and the Proceeds of Crime (Recovery and Management) Act 2022 each prescribe offence-specific sanctions, including imprisonment, fines, forfeiture and other ancillary orders.

Accordingly, there is no uniform sentencing tariff for financial crimes in Nigeria. The sentence imposed in any particular case depends on the statutory offence, the facts of the case, the offender’s culpability, any applicable mandatory or minimum sentence, and the court’s sentencing discretion. In exercising that discretion, the court is guided by the objectives of sentencing set out in section 401(2) of the ACJA, including deterrence, rehabilitation, retribution, restitution and the prevention of crime.

Persons convicted of financial crime offences in Nigeria have a constitutional and statutory right of appeal against both conviction and sentence. Likewise, the prosecution may, in appropriate circumstances, appeal against an acquittal, an order dismissing a charge, or a sentence considered to be inadequate or otherwise contrary to law.

Appeals from the Magistrates’ Courts lie to the High Court of the relevant State or the Federal Capital Territory. Appeals from the Federal High Court and the High Courts of the States and the Federal Capital Territory lie to the Court of Appeal pursuant to sections 240 and 241 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended). Further appeals lie from the Court of Appeal to the Supreme Court of Nigeria in accordance with sections 233 and 234 of the Constitution.

A defendant may appeal on questions of law, fact, or mixed law and fact. Appeals as of right are provided under sections 241 and 233(2) of the Constitution, while appeals in other circumstances may only be brought with the leave of the Court of Appeal or the Supreme Court, as the case may be, pursuant to sections 242 and 233(3) of the Constitution. The appellate court has broad powers to affirm, vary or set aside a conviction or sentence, order a retrial, substitute a conviction for another offence disclosed by the evidence, or make such other orders as the interests of justice require.

The prosecution also enjoys statutory rights of appeal under the Administration of Criminal Justice Act 2015 and other applicable procedural legislation. In appropriate cases, the prosecution may appeal against an acquittal, the dismissal of a charge, or challenge the legality or adequacy of a sentence.

The Nigerian authorities have become increasingly active in investigating and prosecuting financial crime. The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission (ICPC), Nigeria Police Force, Nigeria Financial Intelligence Unit (NFIU) and sectoral regulators such as the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and the Nigeria Revenue Service regularly investigate and prosecute offences including fraud, money laundering, corruption, tax offences and market abuse. Asset recovery and forfeiture proceedings also remain key enforcement priorities.

There is no prescribed timeframe for the determination of financial crime proceedings. The duration of proceedings depends on factors such as the complexity of the case, the number of defendants and witnesses, interlocutory applications, appeals, and the court’s caseload.

Over the past five years, Nigerian enforcement authorities have increasingly focused on money laundering, cyber-enabled fraud, corruption, asset recovery and forfeiture, terrorist financing, tax compliance, and market integrity. There has also been heightened scrutiny of cryptocurrency-related fraud, Ponzi and investment schemes, and the use of shell companies and other legal arrangements to conceal the proceeds of crime. These enforcement priorities have been driven in part by Nigeria’s efforts to strengthen its anti-money laundering and counter-terrorist financing regime in line with international standards.

From a sectoral perspective, enforcement activity has been particularly pronounced in the financial services, fintech, cryptocurrency and virtual asset, public sector, oil and gas, real estate, and capital markets sectors. Regulators have also increased their focus on designated non-financial businesses and professions (DNFBPs), including real estate businesses, accountants, dealers in precious metals and stones, and trust and company service providers, reflecting their perceived money laundering risks.

During the past year, Nigerian enforcement authorities have maintained a strong focus on high-value corruption, money laundering, cyber-enabled fraud, asset recovery and tax enforcement, with the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) continuing to prioritise complex investigations involving politically exposed persons, public procurement, financial institutions and digital assets.

One of the most significant developments was the continued prosecution of Godwin Emefiele, the former Governor of the Central Bank of Nigeria. The various proceedings instituted by the EFCC and other agencies, involving allegations of procurement fraud, abuse of office and unlawful acquisition of property, have remained among the country’s most closely watched financial crime cases. They underscore the authorities’ continued willingness to pursue enforcement action against senior public officials and reinforce the increasing emphasis on public-sector accountability.

Another notable development was the continued prosecution of Yahaya Bello, the former Governor of Kogi State, on allegations of money laundering and criminal breach of trust involving approximately ₦80.2 billion. The proceedings have generated significant judicial consideration of issues relating to service of process, arrest, bail and the conduct of high-profile financial crime prosecutions, and remain one of Nigeria’s most prominent corruption cases.

At the institutional level, a landmark development was Nigeria’s removal from the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) grey list in October 2025 following the implementation of extensive anti-money laundering and counter-terrorist financing reforms. The FATF recognised Nigeria’s progress in strengthening beneficial ownership transparency, financial intelligence, AML/CFT supervision, money laundering investigations and prosecutions, and asset confiscation. The delisting is expected to enhance investor confidence and reflects the increasing maturity of Nigeria’s financial crime enforcement framework.

Collectively, these developments demonstrate that Nigerian enforcement policy continues to prioritise complex corruption cases, money laundering, asset recovery and compliance with international AML/CFT standards, while placing increasing emphasis on the prosecution of senior public officials and the confiscation of the proceeds of crime.

Yes. Nigeria continues to refine its financial crime framework to strengthen compliance with international anti-money laundering and counter-terrorist financing (AML/CFT) standards. The current reform agenda is focused less on creating new offences and more on improving institutional effectiveness, asset recovery, corporate transparency and enforcement coordination.

Legislative proposals under consideration include amendments to the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (Establishment) Act to strengthen the operational independence of the EFCC, as well as the proposed Whistle-Blower Protection Bill and Witness Protection Bill, which are intended to enhance the reporting and prosecution of financial crime.

From a regulatory perspective, enforcement authorities are expected to continue strengthening AML/CFT supervision, beneficial ownership transparency, suspicious transaction reporting and risk-based supervision of financial institutions and designated non-financial businesses and professions (DNFBPs). These reforms are intended to consolidate Nigeria’s compliance with international standards following recent improvements to its AML/CFT regime.

While Nigeria has significantly strengthened its financial crime framework through the enactment of the Money Laundering (Prevention and Prohibition) Act 2022, the Proceeds of Crime (Recovery and Management) Act 2022, and amendments to sector-specific legislation, a number of practical and institutional challenges remain.

First, although the legislative framework broadly aligns with international standards, the absence of a comprehensive corporate criminal liability regime means that corporate prosecutions continue to depend on offence-specific statutory provisions rather than a unified framework. Similarly, unlike jurisdictions such as the United Kingdom, Nigerian law does not recognise a statutory ‘failure to prevent’ offence or an ‘adequate procedures’ defence in relation to bribery or other economic crimes.

Secondly, the absence of a formal deferred prosecution agreement (DPA) or non-prosecution agreement (NPA) regime limits the range of negotiated enforcement mechanisms available to prosecutors. Although plea bargaining under sections 270–277 of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act 2015 is widely utilised, it is designed primarily for criminal proceedings and does not provide the broader compliance and remediation framework available under DPA regimes in some other jurisdictions.

A further challenge is the length of financial crime investigations and prosecutions. Complex cases frequently involve multiple agencies, extensive documentary evidence, digital forensic analysis and cross-border asset tracing, which can result in protracted proceedings notwithstanding the case management provisions of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act 2015.

Cross-border cooperation also presents practical challenges. Although Nigeria is a party to several international and regional mutual legal assistance instruments and has established frameworks for international cooperation, obtaining evidence, tracing assets and enforcing foreign confiscation orders across multiple jurisdictions may still be time-consuming.

Finally, regulators continue to place greater emphasis on beneficial ownership transparency, supervision of virtual asset service providers (VASPs), and the effective implementation of risk-based AML/CFT compliance programmes. As financial crime becomes increasingly technology-driven, maintaining effective regulatory oversight of digital assets, fintech businesses and other emerging financial services remains an important area for continued legislative and supervisory development.

Overall, the principal opportunities for improvement lie not in the creation of new offences, but in enhancing institutional capacity, expediting investigations and trials, strengthening corporate accountability mechanisms, expanding negotiated enforcement options, and improving inter-agency and cross-border cooperation. These measures would further enhance the effectiveness of Nigeria’s financial crime enforcement regime while aligning it more closely with evolving international best practices.