Interswitch Limited, one of Nigeria’s payment platforms, is currently battling to recoup a whooping sum of N33.792billion, allegedly ‘stolen’ from its vault after it’s server experienced glitches.
Interswitch Limited, in a bid to recover the huge loss, has instituted a suit against Access Bank Plc and 53 others before a Federal High Court sitting in Lagos.
Defendants alongside Access Bank Plc in the suit marked FHC/L/CS/2140/2023, are: Baines Credit Microfinance Bank Ltd; Bank Of Industry; Bluridge Microfinance Bank Limited; Branch International Financial Services; Credit Direct Limited; Ecobank Plc; Eartholeum Networks Limited; Fairmoney Microfinance Bank; Fewchore Finance Company Ltd; Fidelity Bank Plc; First City Monument Bank Plc; First Bank Of Nigeria Limited; Globus Bank Plc; Guaranty Trust Bank Plc; Hasal Microfinance Bank Ltd; Heritage Bank Plc; Infinity Trust Mortgage Limited; Izon Microfinance Bank Ltd and Jaiz Bank Plc.
Others include; Keystone Bank Plc; Kuda Microfinance Bank Ltd; La Fayfttee Microfinance Bank Ltd; Lapo Microfinance Bank Ltd; Links Microfinance Bank Ltd; Lotus Bank Plc; MIM Finance Company Ltd; New Edge Finance Limited 29, Nigerian Navy Microfinance Bank Limited; Nirsal Microfinance Bank Limited; Opay Digital Services Limited 32. Pagatech Limited; Palm Pay Limited; Paralex Bank Plc; Polaris Bank Plc; Providus Bank Plc; Renmoney Microfinance Bank Limited; Rolez Microfinance Bank Limited; Smartcash Payment Services Bank Limited; Sparkle Microfinance Bank Limited; Stanbic Ibtc Bank Plc; Standard Chartered Bank Plc and Sterling Bank Plc.
Also listed as defendants in the suit are: Suntrust Bank Plc; Taj Bank Limited; Tangerine Money Microfinance Bank Ltd; Touchgold Microfinance Bank Ltd; Union Bank Of Nigeria Plc; United Bank Of Africa Plc; Unity Bank PIc; Vale Finance Limited; VED Microfinance Bank Limited; Wema Bank Plc and Zenith Bank Plc.
Interswitch’s suit filed by its lawyer, Emmanuel Okorie, in a bid to recover the money is asking the court to determine the followings: “whether having regards to the Central Bank Guidelines Nos BPS/DIR/GEN/CIR/02 004 of 2015, BPS/ DIR/GEN/CIR/05/011 of 2018, any sum/monies to the extent of the sums Illegally received (following the system glitch of the Plaintiff’s server) of the respective Customer bank’s accounts of the 1,7, 8, 11-15, 20, 21, 34, 35, 41, 43, 48,49, 50, 53 and 54 defendants’ Customers Account Holder (1st level beneficiaries) listed in the document marked exhibits A1 -A20 attached herewith and domiciled with the stated defendants should not be blocked and or placed a No Debt restrictions by the aforementioned Defendants
*Whether having regard to the Central Bank guidelines Nos BPS/DIR/GEN/CIR/02.004 of 2015; BEY DIR/GEN/CIR/US/011 of 2018, a sum/monies to the extent of the sum is illegally received following the system glitch in the Plaintiff’s server) into the respective Bank accounts of the 1, 7, 8, 9, 11-15, 20, 21, 34, 35, 41, 43, 48, 49, 53 and 54 defendants’ Customers Account Holders (1st level beneficiaries) as listed in the document marked EXHIBITS A1- A30 attached herewith and domiciled with the aforementioned Defendants should aut be retumed to the Plaintiff?
*Whether having regard to the Central Bank Guidelines Nos. BPS/DIR/GEN/CIR/02.004 of 2015; BEY DIR/GEN/CIR/US/011 of 2018, any sum monies to the extent of the sums illegally received (following the system glitch in the Plaintiff’s server) into the respective customers bank accounts of the 1, 9, 12-14, 48 and 48 defendants customers’ account Holder (2nd level beneficiaries) as listed in the document marked EXHIBITS C attached herewith and domiciled with the aforementioned Defendants Respondents should not be blocked and or placed a ‘No Debit restrictions by the aforementioned defendants.
READ ALSO: Hadi Sirika, brother, firms arraigned over N5.8billion fraud
*Whether having regard with the Central Bank guidelines Nos. Bry/DIR/GEN/CIR/2 004 of 2015; BPS/DIR GEN/CIR/05/011 of 2018, any sum monies to the extent of the sums Illegally received (following the system glitch in the Plaintiff’s server) into the respective Bank accounts of the 1, 9, 12-15, 48 and 54 Defendants Customers Account Holders (2nd level beneficiaries) as listed in the document marked Exhibits C attached herewith and domiciled with the aforementioned Defendants should not be returned to the Plaintiff.
*An order of Mandatory Injunction directing the 1, 7, 8, 9, 11-15, 20, 21 34 35, 41, 43, 48, 49, 53 and 54 defendants to comply with the Central Bank guidelines Nos. BPS/DIR/GEN/CIR/12/004 of 2015, BPS/DIR/GEN CIR/08/011 of 2018 and the Central Bank of Nigeria’s Regulatory Framework for Banking Verification (BVN) Operation and Watchlist for the Nigerian Banking Industry October 2017 by blocking or placing ‘No Debit restriction on the sum monies to the extent of the sums illegally received (following the system glitch in the Plaintiff’s server) into the respective bank accounts of the aforementioned Defendants’ Customers Account Holders (1st level beneficiaries), domiciled with the aforementioned defendants, pending the complete full refund, reversal of the entire sum Unlawfully and illegally transferred to the said accounts.
*An order of Mandatory Injunction directing the 1st to 54 defendants to comply with the Central Bank guidelines numbers; BPS/DIR/GEN/CIR/02.004 of 2015; BEY DIR/GEN/CIR/US/011 of 2018 and the Central Bank of Nigeria’s Regulatory Framework for Banking Verification (BVN) Operations and Watchlist for the Nigerian Banking industry, October 2017 by blushing freezing, placing a lien and or placing Post No Debit restriction on the 1 to 54 defendants Customers Account holders, domiciled with the aforementioned Defendants Respondents, pending the complete/full refund reversal of the entire sum unlawful y and illegally transferred to the account numbers listed in the document marked EXHIBITS A1 – A20.
Interswitch Limited, in an affidavit in support of the motion on notice, deposed to by its divisional Head, Engineering Department, Abdul Hafiz Ibrahim, stated: “That following system glitch in the Plaintiff’s system, some service merchants agents of the plaintiff carrying on business as digital financial services agents with accounts domiciled with the 1, 7, 8, 11-15, 20, 21, 34, 35, 41, 43, 45, 49, 50, 53 and 54 defendants, took advantage of the said glitch and unlawfully initiated multiple refunds for successful card transaction. The said multiple refunds were erroneously settle into these respective bank accounts domiciled with the 1, 7, 8, 11-15, 20, 21, 34, 35, 41, 43, 45, 49, 50, 53 and 54 defendants.
“That the plaintiffs agents upon unlawfully received credits in excess of the successful card transactions in their accounts domiciled with the 1,7, 8, 11-15, 20, 21, 34 38, 41, 43, 45, 49, 50, 53 and 54, defendants proceeded to dissipate the monies by unlawfully transferring the monies to other customers, accounts (2nd level beneficiaries) domiciled in 1, 9, 12, 13, 14, 41 and 48 defendant.
“That the plaintiffs service’s agents took advantage of this system glitch to carry out over 200 transactions exposing the plaintiff to humongous liability to the tune of N33.792bilion received in various accounts domiciled with the 1st- 54th defendants and other financial institutions.
Meanwhile, Access Bank and other 53 defendants have filed their various responses to the suit.
