OFFENCES OF CORRUPTION

Offences of/against corruption serve many purposes apart from the general criminal law aims of
punishment and deterrence. These offences do not just serve the purpose of being marks of
disapproval of acts of corruption, they also protect the society against corruption. As pervasive as
corruption is, it poses profound threats to the political stability and security of societies, undermining
democratic institutions, socio-economic development, ethical values and justice, and jeopardising
sustainable development and the rule of law. Penal provisions on offences of/against corruption are
generally aimed at ensuring accountability and transparency.

1) OFFICIAL CORRUPTION
Official corruption may be analysed under two broad headings: bribery and extortion. The
distinction between them was described as follows by Hurley CJ in OSIDOLA V. COP [1958]
N.R.N.L.R. 42:
While extortion injures the individual who is made to yield to it, bribery injures
the common weal, not the giver of the bribe. It is made an offence for the
protection of the community, not for the protection of persons who pay bribes.

In offences of extortion, the public officer is using his office as a lever to extract the money,
and the payer of the money can usually, if not always, be regarded as a victim. In offences of
bribery on the other hand, the payer will usually be a party and an accomplice.

(A) BRIBERY
Sections 98, 98A, and 98B of the Criminal Code prohibit bribery involving public officials,
and stipulate a penalty of seven years imprisonment. Section 494 of the Criminal Code equally
prohibits corrupt acceptance of gifts by agents. The Penal Code does not stricto sensu provide
for the offence of bribery; it however prohibits gratification in sections 115, 116, and 118,
which has similar elements with the Criminal Code offence of bribery. In the said sections, the
Penal Code criminalises the following: (a) public servants taking gratification in respect of
official acts; (b) taking gratification in order to influence a public servant; and (c) offering or
giving gratification to a public servant. Convicts under the Penal Code are to be punished with
imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years or with fine or with both, and in
some specific situations, the term of imprisonment is three years and may extend to 14 years in
some other situations. In addition, the Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Act,
2000 in section 18 prohibits the offence of bribery with a stipulation in section 19 of
imprisonment for five (5) years without an option of fine, as penalty.
Under the Criminal Code, sections 98 and 98B both deal with soliciting and receiving of bribe.
Section 98(1) (a-b) provides:
Any public official (as defined in section 98D) who-
(a) corruptly asks for, receives or obtains any property or benefit of any kind for
himself or any other person; or
(b) corruptly agrees or attempts to receive or obtain any property or benefit of any
kind for himself or any other person,
on account of-
(i) anything already done or omitted, or any favour or disfavour already shown to
any person, by himself in the discharge of his official duties or in relation to any
matter connected with the functions, affairs or business of a Government
department, public body or other organisation or institution in which he is serving
as a public official; or
(ii) anything to be afterwards done or omitted, or any favour or disfavour to be
afterwards shown to any person, by himself in the discharge of his official duties
or in relation to any such matter as aforesaid,
is guilty of the felony of official corruption and is liable to imprisonment for seven
years.

The section clearly creates three situations that can crystallise into the offence of bribery. The
first is a situation where the public officer corruptly asks for a bribe. The second situation will
crystallise where a public officer corruptly receives or obtains a bribe. The third situation will
occur where a public officer agrees or attempts to receive a bribe. A careful examination of
section 98B of the Code reveals that the section criminalises bribery offences by any person
who asks for, receives, or agrees or attempts to receive bribes in respect of actions or inactions
of any public official. Thus, while the provisions of sections 98 and 98B deal essentially with
receiving of bribe, section 98A deals with offer of bribe. Here, the law targets persons,
particularly, persons other than public officers, who compromise public officials in the conduct
of their official duties.
In BIOBAKU V. POLICE [1951] 20 N.L.R. 30, the Court per Bairamian J. held:
The notion behind section 98 is this in my view: an officer in the public service is
expected to carry out his duties honestly and impartially, and this he cannot do if
he is affected by considerations of benefit for himself or another person; and the
mischief aimed at in s. 98 is the receiving or the offering of some benefits as a
reward or inducement to sway or deflect the officer from the honest and impartial
discharge of his duties- in other words as a bribe for corruption or its price.
From the provisions of the Criminal Code, it is deducible that the ingredients which the
prosecution must prove in order to secure a conviction in any of the three crystallising situations
above are as follows: (a) that the accused person is at the material time in the public service;
(b) that there was a duty to be performed by the accused person; and (c) that the accused person
corruptly asked for, received, obtained, agreed, or attempted to receive or obtain, any property
or benefit of any kind for himself or any other person. These three situations constitute the
physical elements (or actus reus) of the offence of bribery, in line with the decision of the
Supreme Court in IDAGU V. STATE [2018] LPELR-44343(SC) that “the act itself is the
physical element.” In addition to the actus reus, it must be established that the defendant
committed the offence with a culpable state of mind. Thus, the mens rea of the offence of
bribery is that the “asking for or receiving a benefit” or “giving or promising a benefit” was
done “corruptly.” In BIOBAKU V. POLICE (SUPRA), it is deducible that the giving or
receiving of the benefit, reward, or inducement must have been done with intent to sway the
person taking the bribe from a dispassionate performance of his duty.
In MUYIDEEN V. STATE [2019] LPELR-47743(CA), the Appellant and the second accused
were charged with the offence of official corruption contrary to section 98(1) of the Criminal
Code Law of Ogun State. The Appellant was said to have corruptly asked for and received the
sum of One Million, Nine Hundred Thousand Naira (N1,900,000) from one Eze Emeka without
authorisation. In the Appeal, the Court of Appeal per Tsammani, JCA held that the essential
ingredients to be proved in order to secure the conviction of the Appellant under the charge are:
(a) that the Appellant was employed in the public service; (b) that he was charged with the
performance of a duty by virtue of such employment (the duty to be performed should not touch
on the administration of justice); (c) that he corruptly asked and received property or benefit of
any kind for himself or any other person; and (d) that he received the property or benefit on
account of anything already done or omitted to be done by him in the discharge of the duties of
his office. See also: OLUGBEMI V. STATE [2020] LPELR-49650(CA); FRN V. SAIDU &
ANOR [2023] LPELR-60778(CA); AZIE V. STATE [1973] LPELR-687(SC); ONYEANI
V. FRN [2021] LPELR-55475(CA).
In proving the case of bribery, it is important to note that there is a supply side, as well as a
demand side of the offence of bribery. While section 98 of the Criminal Code covers the demand
side of the offence of bribery involving a public official, section 98A covers the supply side
which prohibits offering of a bribe to a public official by any person. Section 98B covers any
person soliciting or demanding for a bribe on account of any action of public officers. The actus
reus of the demand side of bribery is constituted when a public officer asks for, receives, or
obtains any property or benefit of any kind for himself or any other person (section 98(1)(a) of
the Criminal Code); or agrees or attempts to receive or obtain any property or benefit of any
kind for himself or any other person (section 98(1)(b) of the Criminal Code). The actus reus
of the supply side of bribery is constituted when any person gives, confers, or procures any
property or benefit of any kind to, on or for a public official or to, on or for another person
(section 98A(1)(a) of the Criminal Code); or promises or offers to give or confer or to procure
or attempt to procure any property or benefit of any kind to, on or for a public official or to, on
or for any person (section 98A(2)(b) of the Criminal Code). In any of these scenarios, once
the requirement of “corruptly” is met, the act is deemed complete, and it is immaterial that the
accused did not perform his own side of the bargain (section 98(3)(a) of the Criminal Code),
or that the accused never intended to do, make or show the favour (section 98(3)(b) of the
Criminal Code), or the bribe was never given or that the public officer having asked for the
gratification later changed his mind and proceeded to perform his duty (NWEKE V. R. [1995]
15 W.A.C.A. 29). In SOGBAMI V. C.O.P. [1948] 12 W.A.C.A. 356, the Court held that it is
unnecessary to prove that the accused person in fact carried out his promise, provided his
demand for bribe was corrupt. This means that a mere request or a mere promise to give a bribe,
even without receipt, is all that is needed to create criminal liability of the offence of bribery.

(B) EXTORTION
Although section 99 of the Criminal Code is titled “Extortion by Officers,” the offence
provided for therein may more properly be called an offence of bribery since there is no question
of a demand or threat having to be proved. The offence is committed by any public servant who
takes or accepts from anyone for the performance of his duty (which could be past or future
performance– YEKU V. IGP [1959] L.L.R. 138), any reward beyond his proper pay (although
there is no need to prove the actual amount of the pay– IZEDOMWEN V. I.G.P. [1957]
W.R.L.R. 57) and emoluments or any promise of such reward. The offence attracts
imprisonment for three years. Section 99 may thus be said to be the complement of section 98
because there is no question of the public officer having to be deflected from his duty; the
payment is made to induce him to perform his duty. Thus, there is no need for the acceptance
to be “corrupt” (BIOBAKU V. POLICE (SUPRA)), and it is wrong for a charge to include the
word “corruptly” (AMEH V. IGP [1957] N.R.L.R. 28(CA)).
The duty which it is alleged that the accused person has to perform for the reward must be
proved on the evidence. In R. V. MINIMAH [1940] 6 W.A.C.A. 192, a Native Court clerk was
charged with “taking or accepting £4 for the performance of his duties as a clerk of the Native
Court.” The conviction was quashed because the particular duty was not specified in the charge
and did not appear clearly on the evidence. See: EZEBUIRO V. C.O.P. [1958] NRNLR 84
(C.A.); AKINLEMIBOLA V. C.O.P. [1976] NSCC 345; GARBA V. POLICE [1956]
NRNLR 32. In the offences outlined in sections 98, 98A, 98B, and 99 of the Criminal Code, it
 is observable that payment of a reward or bribe in return for a favour to be shown or benefit to
be conferred is made willingly. That is why section 99, as earlier stated, appears to be the
complement of sections 98, 98A, and 98B.
The offence of extortion by public servants appears prominently in section 404(1) of the
Criminal Code. Particularly relevant to the offence are paragraphs (a) and (d) of the subsection.
Under section 404(1)(a) of the Criminal Code, it is an offence for any person in the public
service of Nigeria, or in that of any other government to “corruptly and under the colour of his
employment” demand or take property from any person. The most important element in this
paragraph is that the demand must be “under the colour of his employment.” Under English
law, this phrase was interpreted to mean that there must be an element of pretence by the
accused that he is entitled or has a duty to receive the money. This interpretation was rejected
by the Court in POTTS JOHNSON V. C.O.P. [1947] 12 W.A.C.A. 198. In the said case, the
accused who was employed as a Lady Welfare Officer in Lagos threatened three female street
walkers that if they did not pay her, she would have them repatriated. Based on this threat, the
three women paid the money. It was held that the accused was guilty under section 404 of the
Criminal Code. The Court therefore approved the view of the Magistrate that it is enough if the
accused uses the power or interest of his position to demand money.
The POTTS case followed the decision in WALLACE JOHNSON V. R. [1938] 5 W.A.C.A.
56, and the decision in POTTS was subsequently followed in AZUBOGU V. C.O.P. [1948] 12
W.A.C.A. 358. The decision in POTTS was thereafter disputed in OGBEBOR V. C.O.P.
[1950] 13 W.A.C.A. 22, and subsequently reversed in MOTAYO V. C.O.P. [1950] 13
W.A.C.A. 114 where the Court quashed the conviction of an accused person under section
404(1)(a) of the Criminal Code and held that the English law meaning of “an act under colour
of” should apply. The Court in MOTAYO’S CASE quoted the judgment of Bairamian J in the
unreported case of NWACHUKWU V. C.O.P. thus:
It should seem that section 404(1) relates to a public officer extorting money or its
worth under the guise of legality; his claim is not genuine, though such ostensibly
under his employment, but this is really a pretext for making the claim and a veil to
give it the appearance of legality… The language though archaic, plainly means
disguise, dissemblance and dissimulation in contrast to an openly corrupt and
unlawful claim.

The Court added that, provided the pretence of being entitled 2 to the money is made, it does not
matter whether the accused pretends that the money is to be paid into public authority funds or

2The pretence must be that the accused is entitled to the money; it is not enough merely that the pretence is connected
with or based on the employment– ELUMELU V. I.G.P. [1957] NRLR 17.
 whether it is a perquisite for himself: “it is sufficient if he conveys the impression to his victim,
whether directly or by implication, that by virtue of his employment he is entitled to demand
(the money)”. See: CHUCKWUDEBELU V. STATE [2018] LPELR-46721(CA); OKERE
V. STATE [2000] LPELR-5926(CA).
Under section 404(1)(b) of the Criminal Code, it is equally an offence where any person who,
being employed in the public service of Nigeria, or in that of any other government, corruptly
and under the colour of his employment, compels, whether partially or wholly for his own
profit, any person to work without payment or for inadequate payment. This mainly applies to
job racketeering which happens in many parts of the country, particularly in situations where
public officers, for their own profit or benefit, illegally or unlawfully sell employment slots to
job seekers on the condition that for a period of time (months or years), the job seekers shall
directly remit all (or a certain percentage) of their salaries to the public officers (or third parties)
as consideration for the employment slot.
Convicts under paragraphs (a) and (d) of section 404 are liable to imprisonment for five
years.

2) ABUSE OF OFFICE
According to section 104 of the Criminal Code:
• Any person who, being employed in the public service, does or directs to be done, in
abuse of the authority of his office, any arbitrary act prejudicial to the rights of another
is guilty of a misdemeanour, and is liable to imprisonment for two years.
• If the act is done or directed to be done for purposes of gain, he is guilty of a felony, and
is liable to imprisonment for three years.
• The offender cannot be arrested without warrant.
• Prosecution for the offence shall not be instituted except by or with the consent of a law
officer. By section 1 of the Criminal Code, “law officer” means the Attorney-General
of the Federation and the Solicitor-General of the Federation, and includes the Director
of Public Prosecutions and such other qualified officers, by whatever names designated,
to whom any of the powers of a law officer are delegated by law or necessary
intendment.
See: APAMPA V. STATE [1982] N.S.C.C. 156.
In GEORGE V. FRN [2011] 10 NWLR (PT. 1254) 1, it was held that for the prosecution to
succeed in a charge of abuse of office, it has to prove that:
a) the offender must be employed in the public service;
b) the offender does or directs to be done, any arbitrary act;
 c) the offender’s act must be in abuse of the authority of his office by so doing or
directing to be done;
d) the offender’s arbitrary act must be prejudicial to the rights of another; and
e) the Attorney-General or a law officer consented to the institution of the charge.

3) PERJURY
Perjury is a grievous offence against the administration of justice that could lead to a
miscarriage of justice, wrongful convictions, and generally, injustice. Under the Criminal Code,
the offence is committed when a person, in any judicial proceeding, or for the purpose of
instituting same, knowingly gives false testimony touching on any matter which is material to
any question pending at the time in that proceeding, or intended to be raised in that proceeding.
See generally, sections 117 to 119 of the Criminal Code. “Judicial proceeding” includes any
proceeding had or taken in or before any court, tribunal, commission of inquiry, or person, in
which evidence may or may not be taken on oath (section 113 of the Criminal Code). In
ODUKOYA V. FRN [2023] LPELR-59732(CA) where the Appellant was alleged to have
made a false statement in an affidavit, the Court of Appeal (per Sirajo, JCA) disagreeing with
the lower court, held that although the statement in the affidavit may be false, since it was not
made in a pending judicial proceeding or for the purpose of instituting one, an essential
ingredient of the offence of perjury had not been established against the Appellant.
As far as the offence under the Criminal Code is concerned, the following are immaterial:
a) Whether the testimony is given on oath or under any other sanction authorised by law;
b) The forms and ceremonies used in administering the oath or in otherwise binding the
person giving the testimony to speak the truth (if he assents to the forms and ceremonies
actually used);
c) Whether the false testimony is given orally or in writing;
d) Whether the court or tribunal is properly constituted, or is held in the proper place, or
not, if it actually acts as a court or tribunal in the proceeding in which the testimony is
given; and
e) Whether the person who gives the testimony is a competent witness or not, or whether
the testimony is admissible in the proceeding or not.
The following are noteworthy about the offence of perjury under the Criminal Code:
a) An offender cannot be arrested without warrant;
b) An offender is liable to imprisonment for 14 years;
c) If the offender commits the offence in order to procure the conviction of another person
for an offence punishable with death or with imprisonment for life, he is liable to
imprisonment for life;
 d) A person cannot be convicted of committing perjury or for counselling or procuring the
commission of perjury, upon the uncorroborated testimony of one witness, contradicting
the oath on which perjury is assigned, unless circumstances are proved which
corroborated such witness (see section 202 of the Evidence Act 2011 (as amended));
e) The offence is committed whether the false testimony is given in criminal or civil
proceedings;
f) Section 347 of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act 2015 outlines a summary
procedure for trying perjury cases;
g) Proper procedure must be followed in trying a person for perjury and seeking their
committal to prison (TIJJANI & ORS V. FBN LTD & ANOR [2014] LPELR-
22978(CA); TERYTEX (NIG) LTD V. NPA [1988] LPELR-20265(CA)).

In OMOREGIE V. D.P.P. [1962] N.S.C.C. 107 S.C., the Court held that “on a charge of
perjury, the prosecution must prove that the accused gave testimony knowing it to be false. It is
wrong for the Court to base an assignment of perjury on evidence which is not clear in itself or
which can be said to be equivocal.” The false testimony of the accused must be given
“knowingly.” This means that the accused must give it knowing it to be false. To establish falsity
on a charge of perjury, it must be proved that the statement is false and not merely contradictory
or inconsistent. It would thus be necessary to prove the record (i.e. the charge, writ, pleading or
action) in which the accused made the false statement, a Certified True Copy of which will
suffice. See generally: A-G EKITI STATE V. C.O.P. EKITI STATE [2018] LPELR-
4421(CA); MEDVIN PHARMACEUTICALS NIG LTD & ORS V. FIDSON
HEALTHCARE PLC [2020] LPELR-51395(CA); R. V. BAKER [1895] 1 Q.B. 797; R. V.
ONWARD [1955] W.N.L.R. 28.

4) MONEY LAUNDERING
Money laundering is the process of illegally concealing the origin of money obtained from illicit
activities such as drug trafficking, sex work, terrorism, corruption, and embezzlement, and
converting the funds into a seemingly legitimate source, usually through an organisation used
as a front for that purpose. In simple terms, it is an illegal activity that involves disguising
illegally obtained money or assets to make them appear lawful. See: ORJI UZOR KALU V.
FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA [2014] 1 NWLR (PT 1389) 526. The money from the
criminal activity is considered dirty and the process “launders” it to make it appear clean.
Money laundering typically involves three steps, to wit: (a) placement (injection of the “dirty
money” into the legitimate financial system); (b) layering (concealment of the source of the
money through a series of transactions and bookkeeping tricks); and (c) integration (laundered
money is disbursed from the legitimate account).
In Nigeria, money laundering is prohibited by the Money Laundering (Prevention and
Prohibition) Act, 2022 (which repealed the Money Laundering (Prohibition) Act, No. 11,
2011). Among others, the 2022 Act has the following as its objectives: (a) to provide for an
effective and comprehensive legal and institutional framework for the prevention, prohibition,
detection, prosecution, and punishment of money laundering and other related offences in
Nigeria; (b) to strengthen the existing system for combating money laundering and related
offences; and (c) to make adequate provisions to prohibit money laundering.
In section 2, the Act prohibits the making or accepting of cash payments exceeding N5,000,000
or its equivalent (for individuals) or N10,000,000 or its equivalent (for corporate bodies), except
in a transaction through a financial institution (see section 30 of the Act for the meaning of
“financial institution” and other terms used in the Act). Any single transaction, lodgement,
or transfer of funds in excess of the above amounts is to be reported to the Nigerian Financial
Intelligence Unit (NFIU) in the case of a financial institution, and to the Special Control Unit
against Money Laundering (SCUML) in the case of a designated non-financial business and
profession, in writing within seven days. Any financial institution or designated non-financial
business and profession that contravenes this directive commits an offence and is liable on
conviction to a fine of at least N250,000 and not more than N1,000,000 for each day the
contravention continues (section 11 of the Act).
The Act also stipulates the following:
• A transfer to or from a foreign country of funds or securities by a person or body
corporate including a money service business of a sum exceeding US$10,000 or its
equivalent shall be reported to the NFIU, Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) and Securities
and Exchange Commission (SEC) in writing within one day from the date of the
transaction (section 3 of the Act).
• Where a transaction: (a) involves a frequency which is unjustifiable or unreasonable;
(b) is surrounded by conditions of unusual or unjustified complexity; (c) appears to have
no economic justification or lawful objective; (d) is inconsistent with the known
transaction pattern of the account or business relationship; or (e) in the opinion of the
financial institution or non-financial business and profession involves the proceeds of a
criminal activity, unlawful act, money laundering or terrorist financing, that transaction
shall be deemed to be suspicious and the financial institution and designated non-
financial business and profession involved in the transaction shall report to the NFIU as
the case may be, immediately. A financial institution or designated non-financial
business and profession that fails to comply with this requirement and forward a report
on same commits an offence and is liable on conviction to a fine of N1,000,000 for each
day during which the offence continues (section 7 of the Act). A director or employee
 of a financial institution who warns or divulges information on the report to the owner
of the funds commits an offence and is liable on conviction to a fine of at least
N10,000,000 or imprisonment for a term of at least two years, and may also be banned
indefinitely or for a period of five years, from practicing the profession which provided
the opportunity for the offence to be committed (see section 19(1)(a), (2)(a), (3) of the
Act).
• The opening or maintaining of numbered or anonymous accounts by any person,
financial institution, or body corporate is prohibited. As well, the establishment or
operation of shell banks in Nigeria is prohibited, and financial institutions are forbidden
from entering into or continuing correspondent banking relationships with shell banks.
Contravention of these prohibited acts is an offence that attracts the following on
conviction: (a) in the case of an individual, a term of imprisonment of at least two years
but not more than five years; and (b) in the case of a financial institution or body
corporate, a fine of at least N10,000,000 but not more than N50,000,000, in addition to–
(i) the prosecution of the principal officers of the body corporate, and (ii) the winding
up and prohibition of its constitution or incorporation under any form or guise (section
12 of the Act).

The Act also makes provision for some specific offences and their penalties thus:
• Any person or body corporate, in or outside Nigeria, who directly or indirectly: (a)
conceals or disguises the origin of; (b) converts or transfers; (c) removes from the
jurisdiction; or (d) acquires, uses, retains or takes possession or control of any fund or
property, intentionally, knowingly or reasonably ought to have known that such fund or
property is, or forms part of the proceeds of an unlawful act;3 commits an offence of
money laundering under the Act and is liable on conviction to imprisonment for a term
of not less than four years but not more than fourteen years or a fine not less than five
times the value of the proceeds of the crime or both. A body corporate in the above
circumstance is liable on conviction to a fine of not less than five times the value of the
funds or the properties acquired as a result of the offence committed. Where the body
corporate persists in the commission of the offence for which it was convicted in the

3 Under the Act, “unlawful act” includes: (a) participation in an organised criminal group; (b) racketeering, terrorism,
terrorist financing; (c) trafficking in persons, smuggling of migrants, sexual exploitation, sexual exploitation of children;
(d) illicit trafficking in narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances; (e) illicit arms trafficking, illicit trafficking in stolen
goods; (f) corruption, bribery, fraud, currency counterfeiting; (g) counterfeiting and piracy of products, environmental
crimes; (h) murder, grievous bodily injury; (i) kidnapping, hostage taking, robbery or theft; (j) smuggling (including in
relation to customs and excise duties and taxes), tax crimes (related to direct taxes and indirect taxes); (k) extortion,
forgery, piracy; (l) insider trading and market manipulation ; and (m) any other criminal act specified in the Act or any
other law in Nigeria including any act, wherever committed in so far as such act would be an unlawful act if committed
in Nigeria. See section 18(6) of the Act.
 first instance, the regulators may withdraw or revoke the certificate or license of the
body corporate. A person who commits the offence shall be subject to the penalties
specified above notwithstanding that the various acts constituting the offence were
committed in different countries or places. For the purpose of proving the offence, it is
unnecessary to establish a specific unlawful act, or that a person was charged or
convicted for an unlawful act. Knowledge, intent, purpose, belief, or suspicion required
as an element of money laundering under the Act may be inferred from objective factual
circumstances. See section 18 of the Act.
• A person who does any of the following commits an offence under the Act: (a) destroys
or removes a register or record required to be kept under the Act; (b) carries out or
attempts under a false identity to carry out any of the transactions specified in sections
2 - 6 of the Act; (c) makes or accepts cash payments exceeding the amount authorised
under the Act; (d) fails to report an international transfer of funds or securities required
to be reported under the Act; or (e) being a director or an employee of a financial
institution or designated non-financial business and profession, contravenes the
provisions of sections 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 13, 14, 15 of the Act. Such an offender is
liable on conviction to a fine of N10,000,000 or imprisonment for a term of at least three
years or both (in the case of individual), and N25,000,000 in the case of a body
corporate. The offender may also be banned indefinitely or for a period of five years
from practicing the profession which provided the opportunity for the offence to be
committed. See section 19 of the Act.
• Any person who: (a) conceals, removes from jurisdiction, transfers to nominees or
otherwise retains the proceeds of an unlawful act on behalf of another person, where he
knows or reasonably ought to have known or suspected that other person to be engaged
in an unlawful act or has benefited from an unlawful act, or (b) knows or reasonably
ought to have known or suspected that any property either in whole or in part directly
or indirectly represents another person’s proceeds of an unlawful act, acquires or uses
that property or takes possession of it, commits an offence under the Act and is liable on
conviction to a fine of at least five times the value of the proceeds of the unlawful act or
imprisonment for a term of at least four years but not more than 14 years or both. See
section 20 of the Act.
• A person who: (a) conspires with, aids, abets or counsels any other person to commit
an offence; (b) attempts to commit or is an accessory to an act or offence; or (c) incites,
procures, or induces any other person by any means whatsoever to commit an offence
under the Act, commits an offence and is liable on conviction to the same punishment
as is prescribed for that offence under the Act. See section 21 of the Act.
 • Where an offence under the Act which has been committed by a body corporate is
proved to have been committed on the instigation or with the connivance of or
attributable to any neglect on the part of a director, manager, secretary or other similar
officer of the body corporate, or any person purporting to act in any such capacity, he,
as well as the body corporate where applicable, commits an offence and is liable to be
proceeded against and punished accordingly. Upon conviction of a body corporate under
the Act, the court may order that the body corporate be wound up and all its assets and
properties forfeited to the Federal Government. See section 22 of the Act.
• A person who wilfully obstructs officers of a competent authority 4 in the exercise of the
powers conferred on the competent authority by the Act commits an offence and is liable
on conviction: (a) in the case of an individual, to imprisonment for a term of at least two
years and not more than three years; and (b) in the case of a financial institution or other
body corporate, to a fine of N1,000,000. See section 25 of the Act.

With respect to offences under the Act, the Federal High Court, irrespective of the Division,
and regardless of the location where the offence is committed shall have jurisdiction to: (a) try
offences under the Act or any other related enactment, and hear and determine proceedings
arising under the Act whether or not the offence was commenced or completed in Nigeria, or
committed by a citizen or non-citizen; and (b) impose any penalty provided for an offence under
the Act or any other related law. In a trial for an offence under the Act, the fact that a
defendant/accused person is in possession of pecuniary resources or property for which he
cannot satisfactorily account and which is disproportionate to his known sources of income, or
that he had at or about the time of the alleged offence obtained an increase to his pecuniary
resources or property for which he cannot satisfactorily account, may be proved and taken into
consideration by the Court as corroborating the testimony of any witness in the trial.

5) OFFENCES UNDER THE CORRUPT PRACTICES AND OTHER RELATED

OFFENCES ACT 2000 (THE “ICPC ACT”)
The Corrupt Practices and other Related Offences Act, 2000 stands out as arguably the most
specialised penal law regulating official corruption. The Act seeks to penalise corruption among
public officers and defines corruption to “include bribery, fraud, and other related offences”
(section 2 of the Act). The Act presents a public officer as “a person employed or engaged in
any capacity in the public service of the Federation, State or local government, public
corporations, or private company wholly or jointly floated by any government or its agency

4 Under the Act, “competent authority” means any agency or institution concerned with combating money laundering and
terrorist financing under the Act or under any other law or regulation. See section 30 of the Act.
including the subsidiary of any such company whether located within or outside Nigeria, and
includes judicial officers serving in Magistrate, Area, or Customary courts or Tribunal” (section
2 of the Act). The jurisdiction of the ICPC Act to regulate criminal conduct of public officers
in Nigeria is therefore applicable to public officers in the three tiers of government and three
arms of government. Offences provided for under the Act are briefly examined below.

• Gratification by an official
The Act prohibits a public official from corruptly asking, receiving, or obtaining any property
or benefit of any kind for himself or any other person or even merely entering into an agreement
to do so on account of discharge of his official duties (section 8(1)(a)(b) of the Act). The
elements of an offence under section 8(1)(a) of the Act are that the offender is any person who
corruptly asks for, corruptly receives, or corruptly obtains a property or benefit. The elements
of an offence under section 8(1)(b) of the Act are that the offender is any person who corruptly
agrees to receive, attempts to receive, or agrees to obtain any property or benefit for himself or
another person.
For both subsections, it must be any property or benefit of any kind, for himself or for any other
person on account of any of the following: (i) anything already done; (ii) anything omitted to
be done; (iii) for any favour already shown; (iv) disfavour already shown to any person by
himself; (v) anything to be afterwards done or anything omitted to be done; or (vi) favour or
disfavour to be afterwards shown. It is noteworthy that the above actions or inactions must have
been done in the discharge of the offender’s official duty in relation to any matter connected
with the functions, affairs, or business of government departments, ministries, agencies, or
corporate body or other organisations or institutions in which an offender is serving as an
official. The penalty for violation of section 8 of the Act is seven years imprisonment. See:
section 8(1)(b)(ii) of the Act; FRN V. AKINGBOLA JOHNSON [2013] VOL. 1, ICPCLR;
FRN V. UGWU SIMON & ANOR [2013] VOL. 1, ICPCLR; FRN V. MARIUS AMEH
[2013] VOL. 1, ICPCLR; JIBRIN V. FRN [2024] LPELR-62446(CA).

• Corrupt offers to public officers

The Act prohibits any person from corruptly giving, conferring, or procuring any property or
benefit of any kind on a public officer. This extends to corruptly promising or offering to give,
confer, or procure or attempting to procure any property or benefit on a public officer on account
of the discharge of his official duties. The Act penalises this offence with seven years in prison
(see section 9 of the Act). To establish the offence, it must be shown that the offender is any
person who corruptly gives, confers, or procures any property or benefit of any kind to a public
officer or any other person – which must be on account of any such act, omission, favour,
disfavour to be done or shown by the public officer, or corruptly promises to give, offers to give
or attempts to procure any property or benefit of any kind to a public officer or any other person
– which must be on account of any such act, omission, favour, disfavour to be done or shown
by the public officer. See FRN V. NNANAEMERE [2013] VOL. 1, ICPCLR. In ISMAIL
V. FRN [2024] LPELR-62445(CA), it was held that the purport of section 9 of the Act is that
the receiving or offering of some benefit, reward, or inducement is to sway or deflect a person
employed in the public service from the honest and impartial discharge of his duties.

• Corrupt demand by persons

Similar to the offence under section 8 of the Act, section 10 of the ICPC Act frowns at holders
of public offices or employees of government in ministries, departments, and agencies making
corrupt demands from the general public in the discharge of official duties. The difference in
this scenario here is that the offender may be putting the giver under duress to give bribe or
gratification. See Section 10 of the ICPC Act. The offence was given judicial scrutiny in the
case of FRN V. BITRUS BAKKAT [2013] VOL. 1, ICPCLR where the defendant was
charged with two counts of receiving sums of money from certain individuals to facilitate
employment into the Nigerian Security and Civil Defence Corps using one Jonathan Ebewie
and his acclaimed connections. The trial Judge found the defendant guilty and imposed the
maximum sentence of seven years. Similarly, in the case of FRN V. TEMPLE
NWANKWOLA [2013] VOL. 2, ICPCLR AT 239, the ICPC investigated the accused, a
Deputy Superintendent of Police, for violating section 10 of the ICPC Act by corruptly
demanding the sum of One Million Naira from a suspect sometime in November 2006. The trial
Judge found the accused guilty and sentenced him to seven years imprisonment with hard
labour. See: FRN V. AKOGU [2024] LPELR-61835(CA); NWANKWOALA V. FRN [2015]
LPELR-24392(CA); FRN V. BENSON [2024] LPELR-61678(CA).

• Gratification by and through agents

The ICPC Act envisages a situation where a prospective bribe giver or receiver may opt for
doing so through an agent to minimise the risk of getting caught. In this regard, section 17 of
the Act provides as follows:
(1) Any person who corruptly-
(a) accepts, obtains or agrees to accept or obtain or attempts to obtain from any
person for himself or for any other person, any gift or consideration as an
inducement or reward for doing, forbearing to do, or for having done, or forborne
to do, any act or thing;
 (b) gives or agrees to give or offers any gift or consideration to any agent as an
inducement or reward for doing or forbearing to do, or for having done, or
forborne to do, any act or thing in relation to his principal's affairs or business;
(c) knowingly gives to any agent, or being an agent knowingly uses with intent to
deceive his principal, any receipt, account or other document in respect of which
the principal is interested and which contains any statement which is false or
erroneous or defective in any material particular, and which, to his knowledge, is
intended to mislead his principal or any other person, is guilty of an offence and
shall on conviction be liable to five (5) years imprisonment.

The expression ‘consideration’ as used in the above section includes valuable consideration of
any kind while the expression ‘agent’ includes any person employed by or acting for another
and the expression ‘principal’ includes an employer. See: FRN V. JOHN FAGBEMI [2016]
VOL. 3, ICPCLR 1.

• Bribery of public officer in relation to official duties

Section 18 of the ICPC Act sets out and criminalises four instances where a person may offer a
public officer, or a public officer may solicit, counsel or accept any gratification as an
inducement or a reward for influencing official decisions. The first instance is where an
offender is any person who offers to any public officer, or the offender himself being a public
officer, solicits or counsels or accepts any gratification as an inducement or reward for voting,
or abstaining from voting at any meeting of the public body in favour or against any measure,
resolution, or question submitted to the public body. The second instance is where an offender
is a person who offers to any public officer, or himself being a public officer, solicits or counsels
or accepts any gratification as an inducement or reward for performing or abstaining from
performing or aiding in procuring, expediting, delaying, hindering, or preventing the
performance of any official act.
The third instance is where an offender is any person, who offers to any public officer, or
himself being a public officer, solicits or counsels or accepts any gratification as an inducement
or reward for aiding in procuring or preventing the passing of any vote or the granting of any
contract, award, recognition, or advantage in favour of any person. The fourth instance is where
the offender is any person who offers to any public officer, or himself being a public officer ,
solicits or counsels or accepts any gratification as an inducement or reward for showing or
forbearing to show any favour or disfavour in his capacity as such officer. The Act criminalises
the above quartet offences with five years’ imprisonment with hard labour. See: FRN V. JOHN
FAGBEMI (SUPRA).
• Using office or position to confer corrupt advantage
Envisaging the possibility of public officers abusing their offices and using same to confer
corrupt advantages on themselves or others, the ICPC Act criminalises this act in section 19
and provides as follows:
Any public officer who uses his office or position to gratify or confer any corrupt or
unfair advantage upon himself or any relation or associate of the public officer or any
other public officer shall be guilty of an offence and shall on conviction be liable to
imprisonment for five (5) years without option of fine.

In FRN V. UMAR [2013] VOL. 1, ICPCLR AT 49, the defendant was convicted of the
offence of conferring corrupt and unfair advantages on himself. In FRN V. CHUKWULOZIE
& ORS [2014] VOL. 2 ICPCLR AT 113, the first defendant was charged for using his office
as Commissioner for Insurance to confer corrupt advantage upon himself by receiving various
sums of money in the discharge of his duties as receiver/liquidator of Gateway Insurance Co.
Ltd contrary to and punishable under section 19 of the Act. The first defendant was convicted
and sentenced. On the ingredients of the offence of conferring corrupt or unfair advantage, the
court held that in order to establish the guilt of the accused, the prosecution must prove that the
accused as a public officer used his office or position to gratify or confer any corrupt advantage
or confer any unfair advantage upon himself or any relation or associate of the public officer or
any other public officer. See also: FRN V. OBEGOLU & ORS [2014] VOL. 2, ICPCLR AT
351; FRN V. BAKRE & ANOR [2014] VOL. 2, ICPCLR AT 409; EHINDERO V. FRN
[2014] VOL. 2, ICPCLR AT 39; FRN V. AKOGU (SUPRA).

• Bribery in relation to auctions

The ICPC Act prohibits in section 21, bribery during public sales in which goods or properties
are sold to bidders. Bribery and gratification are common features of auctioneering processes
in Nigeria. An offender of this section is any person who, without lawful authority or reasonable
excuse, offers any advantage to any other person as an inducement to or reward for or otherwise
on account of that other person’s refraining or having refrained from bidding at any auction
conducted by or on behalf of any public body. Punishment for violation is three years’
imprisonment and a fine of the current price of the property (section 21(3) of the Act).

• Failure to report bribery transaction

It is not enough for a public officer to reject offers of bribe and gratification; such a public
officer is duty bound to report bribery transactions such as promised bribe, offered bribe, or
attempted bribe offers to the nearest officer of the Independent Corrupt Practices Commission
(ICPC) or a police officer (section 23(1) of the Act). Any person from whom gratification has
been obtained, or whom an attempt has been made to obtain from, is duty bound to report such
transaction to an officer of the Commission or a police officer (section 23(2) of the Act).
Contravention of section 23(1) and (2) of the Act is punishable with a maximum of two years’
imprisonment or an option of One Hundred Thousand Naira fine (section 23(3) of the Act).

• Dealing with, using, holding, receiving or concealing gratification

In section 24, the Act forbids any person from holding, receiving, or concealing gratification ,
and punishes the contravention with a maximum of five years’ imprisonment. See: FRN V.
JOHN FAGBEMI (SUPRA).

• Holding private interest in contracts, agreements and investments

The Act makes it a criminal offence punishable on conviction with imprisonment of seven years
for any person employed in the public service to knowingly acquire directly or indirectly, or
knowingly hold directly or indirectly, a private interest in any contract, agreement, or
investment emanating from or connected with the department or office in which he is employed.
It is however noteworthy that where a company is involved, the public official shall not be
liable if he acquires an interest in a registered joint stock company consisting of more than
twenty persons (see section 12 of the Act). The implication of the provision of this section is
that a public officer cannot bid for a contract and execute same in any government ministry,
department, or agency in Nigeria.

• Offering bribes to public servants in regards to contracts

The offender in section 22(1) is any person who offers an advantage to a public servant as an
inducement or reward on account of such public servant giving assistance or using influence to
favour the person to win a contract with a public body. Penalty for violation is seven years’
imprisonment or a fine of One Million Naira.

• Public servants soliciting bribes to influence contract outcomes

The offender must be a public servant who, without lawful authority or reasonable excuse,
solicits or accepts any advantage as an inducement to influence the outcome of a contract bid
or reward for influencing the outcome of a contract bid for a favoured person (section 22(2) of
the Act). Penalty for violation is seven years’ imprisonment or a fine of One Million Naira.

• Inflation of price of goods and services

The offender must be a public officer who, in the course of his official duty, inflates the price
of any goods or services above the prevailing market price or professional standards. Penalty
for violation is seven years’ imprisonment and a fine of One Million Naira (section 22(3) of
the Act).

• Awarding contract without budgetary provisions, approval, and cash backing

The offender must be a public officer who, in the discharge of his official duties awards any
contract or signs any contract without budget provision, approval, and cash backing. Penalty is
three years’ imprisonment and a fine of One Million Naira (section 22(4) of the Act).

• Virement
The offender must be a public officer who transfers or spends any sum allocated for a particular
project or service, on another project or service (section 22(5) of the Act). In FRN V.
AJISEGIRI [2013] VOL. 1 ICPCLR 927, the accused persons, Alhaji Morouf Omolaja
Ajisegiri and Niyi Osoba, were arraigned on a two count charge of conspiracy to commit an
offence contrary to section 20(1)(c) and punishable under section 22(5) of the Act, and spending
money allocated for printing of books on “Ileya” gift contrary to and punishable under section
22(5) of the Act. While the second defendant was discharged and acquitted on both counts, the
first defendant was found guilty of violating the provisions of section 22(5) and convicted
accordingly and sentenced to a fine of Fifty Thousand Naira. In FRN V. OLAYE & ANOR
[2013] VOL. 1 ICPCLR 151, the accused persons faced a 15 count charge of conspiracy and
spending of funds meant for a particular project, on another project. They were convicted of the
entire 15 counts and sentenced to one month imprisonment with an option of fine of Ten
Thousand Naira on each of the counts.

• Deliberate frustration of investigation by the Commission

In the course of investigation of any case of corruption under the Act, or under any other law
prohibiting corruption, any person who intends to defraud or conceal a crime, or frustrate the
ICPC in its investigation of any suspected crime of corruption, and thereby destroys, alters,
mutilates, or falsifies any book, document, valuable security, account, computer system,
diskette, computer printout, or other electronic devices useful in the investigation, is guilty of
an offence and the penalty is seven years’ imprisonment (section 15 of the Act).

• Making false statements or return

Where a public officer charged with the management of public revenue or property knowingly
furnishes false statements or return in respect of any money or property received by him or
property entrusted to his care or any balance of money in his possession or under his control,
he is guilty of making false statements or return and, shall on conviction, be liable to seven
years’ imprisonment (section 16 of the Act).
 • Making of statement which is false or intended to mislead
The Act makes it a criminal offence punishable on conviction with a fine not exceeding One
Hundred Thousand Naira or to a prison term not exceeding two years or to both such fine and
prison term, for a person to make a false statement verbally or in writing to an officer of the
ICPC with the dishonest motive of misleading the officer of the ICPC (section 25(1) of the
Act).

• Attempts, preparations, abetments and criminal conspiracies

An offender under section 26 of the Act is any person who may have attempted to commit any
offence under the Act or done any act preparatory to or in furtherance of the commission of any
offence under the Act, or abetted or engaged in a criminal conspiracy to commit any offence
under the Act. The convict shall be liable to the punishment provided for such offence. See:
FRN V. AJISEGIRI (SUPRA).

6) OFFENCES UNDER THE ECONOMIC AND FINANCIAL CRIMES COMMISSION

(ESTABLISHMENT) ACT 2004 (THE “EFCC ACT”)
The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) was established to address the
challenges posed by the activities of corrupt people in the private and public sectors in Nigeria.
In NYAME V. FRN [2010] 7 NWLR (PT. 1193) 394, the Supreme Court of Nigeria affirmed
the EFCC as the coordinating agency for enforcement of the provisions of any other law or
regulation of economic and financial crimes, including the Penal and Criminal Codes. So long
as any offence is related to financial and economic crimes, the agency has the unfettered powers
of investigation and prosecution. The EFCC has both enforcement and preventive powers under
its enabling Act. Under the enforcement mandate, the EFCC is charged with the responsibilit y
of enforcing the provisions of the following laws enacted to curb economic and financial
crimes:
a) the Money Laundering Act;
b) the Advance Fee Fraud and other Fraud Related Offence Act;
c) the Failed Banks (Recovery of Debts) and Financial Malpractices in Banks Act;
d) the Banks and other Financial Institutions Act;
e) the Miscellaneous Offences Act; and
f) any other law or regulations relating to economic and financial crimes including the
Criminal and Penal Codes.
 The EFCC also has the proactive enforcement powers to cause investigation activities to be
conducted to ascertain whether any person, corporate body, or organisation has committed any
offence under its enabling Act or any other law prohibiting economic or financial crimes.
Furthermore, the EFCC can initiate investigation without any formal petition into the properties
of any person if it appears to the Commission that the person’s lifestyle and extent of the
properties are not justified by his source of income. The preventive mandate of the EFCC
centres on blocking loopholes that allow easy perpetration of economic and financial crimes.
See sections 6(a)-(q), 7(1)(a), and 7(2) of the Act. Offences under the Act are briefly examined
below.

• Offences related to financial malpractices

This category of offence targets persons in banks, financial institutions, or designated non-
financial institutions who engage in financial malpractices by failing or neglecting to secure
compliance with the provisions of the Act, or failing or neglecting to secure the authenticity of
any statement submitted pursuant to the provisions of the Act. Offenders are liable on
conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 5 years or to a fine of Five Hundred
Thousand Naira (N500,000) or to both such imprisonment and fine. See section 14(1) of the
Act.

• Offences related to terrorism

Although the EFCC Act does not concern itself with the investigation and prosecution of acts
of terrorism, it however concerns itself with terrorism financing. Terrorism financing is the
process (whether by a person or entity) of making funds, assets, or other material support
available to terrorists and terrorist organisations, for the financing of terrorist activities or
terrorism.5 In this regard, the EFCC Act provides in section 15 as follows:
(1) Any person who wilfully provides or collects by any means, directly or
indirectly, any money by any other person with intent that the money shall be
used for any act of terrorism commits an offence under this Act and is liable on
conviction to imprisonment for life.
(2) Any person who commits or attempts to commit a terrorist act or participates
in or facilitates the commission of a terrorist act, commits an offence under this
Act and is liable on conviction to imprisonment for life.
(3) Any person who makes funds, financial assets or economic resources or
financial or other related services available for use of any other person to

5 Section 99 of the Terrorism (Prevention and Prohibition) Act, 2022

 commit or attempt to commit, facilitate or participate in the commission of a
terrorist act is liable on conviction to imprisonment for life.

• Offences relating to false information

It is an offence for a public or non-public official to give false information when discharging a
duty under the EFCC Act. In section 16(1), the EFCC Act provides as follows:
Any person who, in the discharge of his duty under this Act, gives information
which is false in any material particular to a public officer or any person who
is to take decision or do any other act in relation thereto commits an offence
under this Act and the onus shall lie on him to prove that he exercised such
due such diligence to prevent the commission of the offence having regards
to the nature of his function and circumstances.

The penalty for giving false information is imprisonment for a term of not less than two years
and not exceeding three years. However, where the offender is a public officer, the punishment
is imprisonment for a term not less than three years and not more than five years imprisonment
(section 16(2) of the Act).

• Offences relating to retention of proceeds of a criminal conduct

It is an offence punishable with imprisonment for a person to conceal or remove from
jurisdiction, or retain and control, a property that is a proceed of crime. Generally, taking
possession or control of a proceed of crime for whatever motive is prohibited. The Act provides
in section 17 as follows:
A person who-
(a) whether by concealment, removal from jurisdiction, transfer to nominees or
otherwise, or otherwise retains the control of the proceeds of an economic or
financial crime on behalf of another person knowing that the proceeds are as a
result of criminal conduct by the principal; or
(b) knowing that any property is in whole or in part directly or indirectly
represents another person’s proceeds of an economic or financial crime,
acquires or uses that property or has possession of it, commits an offence and is
liable on conviction to imprisonment for a term not less than three years or to
fine equivalent to one hundred per cent of the value of the proceed of the
economic or financial crime or to both such imprisonment and fine.
• Offences in relation to forfeiture orders
It is an offence under the EFCC Act for anybody to tamper with or sell any property that is the
subject of an attachment, seizure, interim or final forfeiture order. The penalty for violating this
section of the Act (section 32(1)) is five years’ imprisonment without an option of fine. It is
also an offence for a bank branch manager or head of a financial institution to refuse to pay
over to the EFCC, a monetary order from court upon the production of a final order from court.
The punishment is imprisonment for a term of not less than one year and not more than three
years without option of fine (section 32(2) of the Act).

• Offences related to obstruction of duties

The EFCC has unfettered powers to seek and receive information from any person, authority,
corporation, or company without hindrance in respect of offences within its purview (section
38(1) of the Act). It is therefore an offence for a person to wilfully obstruct the EFCC or its
authorised officers in the exercise of their duties under the Act. Any person who fails to comply
with any lawful enquiry or request made by the EFCC or its authorised officers commits an
offence and is liable on conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years or to a
fine of Twenty Thousand Naira or to both (section 38(2) of the Act).

With regard to the court that has jurisdiction to hear offences under the EFCC Act, the Act vests
powers on the Federal High Court or High Court of a state, or High Court of the Federal Capital
Territory with the powers to hear EFCC cases (section 19(1)). The presiding courts are enjoined
to treat EFCC cases with dispatch and give them accelerated hearings (section 19(2)(b)). The
courts are also enjoined to adopt all legal measures necessary to avoid unnecessary delays and
abuse in the conduct of matters brought by the EFCC (section 19(2)(c)). The Head of courts
are enjoined to appoint designated courts to hear EFCC cases, and designated courts are
enjoined to give priority to EFCC cases pending before them (section 19(3)(4)).

MANAGEMENT OF PROCEEDS OF CRIME

Although the ICPC and EFCC Acts provide platforms for the confiscation and forfeiture of
proceeds of crime, the recently enacted Proceeds of Crime (Recovery and Management) Act,
2022 provides a more legally balanced framework. The Act was enacted to comprehensively
provide for the seizure, confiscation, forfeiture, and management of properties suspected to
have been obtained from unlawful activities. Illegally acquired properties and cash are the major
targets of the Act, and its ultimate goal is to ensure that such properties obtained by unlawful
means are confiscated and forfeited to the Federal Government of Nigeria through legal
channels.

The core objectives of the Act are to:

a) provide an effective legal and institutional framework for the recovery and management
of the proceeds of crime, benefits derived from the proceed of crime, instrumentality of
unlawful activities, and unclaimed properties suspected to be proceeds of crime;
b) provide for the restraint, seizure, confiscation and forfeiture of property derived from
unlawful activities and any instrumentalities used or intended to be used in committing
unlawful activities;
c) make provision for non-conviction based procedure for recovery of proceeds of crime;
d) strengthen the criminal confiscation procedure by ensuring that the total benefit from a
person’s criminal activity is calculated and an equivalent amount, where recoverable, is
confiscated on behalf of the Federal Government;
e) ensure that the relevant organisations establish the Proceeds of Crime (Management)
Directorate to carry out the functions conferred on it under the Act;
f) strengthen collaboration among the relevant organisations in tracing and forfeiting
properties suspected to be proceeds of unlawful activity through non-conviction based
forfeiture;
g) make provisions for the handover, management and disposal of properties forfeited to
the Federal Republic of Nigeria.