Kudiwave Technologies Ltd. is facing questions over the ownership and control of a PalmPay account that police investigators allege received ₦750.37 million traced to a suspected digital-banking fraud.
The dispute has led to protests at PalmPay’s Lagos office and multiple court applications.
At the center is a basic question investigators and the company are contesting: who opened, controlled and was authorized to operate the Kudiwave account into which the funds were transferred.
According to sources familiar with the investigation, the Nigeria Inter-Bank Settlement System Plc (NIBSS) and the Police Special Fraud Unit (SFU) traced allegedly fraudulent funds through a series of bank accounts before they reached a PalmPay account held in Kudiwave Technologies’ name.
The money reportedly moved into the account in three transfers of approximately ₦250 million each, occurring on the same day and at nearly the same time.
Banking sources say that pattern of large, rapid and closely timed credits is the type of transaction sequence that typically draws scrutiny under anti-money-laundering, fraud-monitoring and suspicious-transaction frameworks.
Investigators also said officers visited the address supplied in the KYC documentation and could not locate the stated premises.
People familiar with the probe said a man who presented himself as Kudiwave’s company secretary at the SFU told police that the person who opened or signed for the account had travelled. The purported account owner has not subsequently appeared before the SFU, according to those sources.
Reports indicate the Police Special Fraud Unit obtained a Federal High Court order requiring PalmPay to disclose the account balance and transfer the disputed money into a Nigeria Police Force Microfinance Bank exhibit or recovery account.
Experts familiar with the process said the account was identified as an SFU exhibit account — a controlled account used to hold disputed money pending investigation and court processes. That is different from a private beneficiary account or a commercial account used for ordinary transactions.
The Lagos Police Command and Police Microfinance Bank appear to have been involved in the recovery process in response to an SFU investigation and court directives.
Their stated role, according to the reports, was to preserve the funds while investigators work to identify the original source, trace the transaction chain and determine the lawful owner.
Kudiwave has challenged the transfer of about ₦750.37 million from its PalmPay account into the designated recovery account and is seeking a reconciliation, including account activity and details of the beneficiary account.
PalmPay has become the visible target of the dispute because it held the Kudiwave account and implemented the restriction and reported transfer.
Sources said PalmPay was directed to freeze, disclose and transfer funds under a court order linked to the SFU investigation.
Financial institutions are expected to show they acted within the terms of a valid order, maintained proper records, and responded correctly if a ruling was later varied or stayed.
The evidence currently described does not support a characterization of PalmPay as having unilaterally removed a customer’s money. The key question remains whether the payment service provider acted in compliance with an SFU-led process and judicial orders.
The case has seen several procedural developments including: The SFU obtained an initial order allowing funds to be recovered into its exhibit account.
Kudiwave challenged the order, arguing it had not been served with the underlying application. A Federal High Court later vacated the recovery order on service-related grounds.
The Police appealed the decision and sought a stay of execution.
Kudiwave separately pursued a fundamental-rights action in Abuja.
The Police have filed criminal charges against persons they consider connected to the alleged fraud.
No final judicial ruling has been cited establishing ownership of the funds or liability on the part of Kudiwave, police investigators, PalmPay or Police Microfinance Bank.
Legal experts say the correct forum for resolving the issues is the courts, supported by transaction data, KYC evidence, testimony from account signatories and the trace of the funds.
Nigeria’s financial system faces significant pressure to respond to electronic-payment fraud.
Data from the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) and NIBSS show Nigerian financial institutions lost an estimated ₦25.85 billion to e-payment fraud in 2025, with cumulative losses between 2020 and 2025 reaching ₦134.48 billion.
The Kudiwave case highlights the balance regulators and institutions must strike: acting quickly to freeze and trace suspected criminal proceeds, while observing court procedures, retaining an audit trail, and giving affected account holders a lawful route to challenge restrictions.
Legal experts note that until the named account opener, signatory and beneficial owner are identified and provide verifiable documentation, the ownership question will remain central to the case.
The final determination will depend on evidence presented in court, not on protests, social media campaigns or public statements.
