A fresh controversy has erupted over the ownership and control of a PalmPay account operated in the name of Kudiwave Technologies Ltd., after police investigators traced about ₦750.37 million into the account from transactions allegedly linked to digital-banking fraud.
The dispute has now triggered protests at PalmPay’s Lagos office, multiple court applications and a fierce legal battle over a fundamental question: who actually opened, controlled and had authority to operate the Kudiwave account into which the disputed funds were paid?
Investigators attached to the Police Special Fraud Unit (SFU), according to sources familiar with the matter, traced the allegedly fraudulent funds through a chain of bank accounts before the money eventually landed in the PalmPay account bearing Kudiwave Technologies’ name.
The disputed sum reportedly entered the account in three separate transfers of approximately ₦250 million each, all made on the same day and within a closely timed period.
Banking sources said such a pattern of unusually large and rapidly executed credits would ordinarily attract scrutiny under financial institutions’ fraud-monitoring, anti-money-laundering and suspicious-transaction controls.
But questions surrounding the account have gone beyond the movement of the money.
Investigators reportedly visited the address supplied as Kudiwave’s business premises in its Know-Your-Customer documentation but were unable to locate the stated premises.
Sources also said that during the SFU investigation, a man who identified himself as the company secretary appeared before the police and allegedly told investigators that the person responsible for opening or signing for the account had travelled.
According to the sources, the purported account opener has not subsequently appeared before the SFU.
That development has become a critical part of the ownership dispute, as investigators seek to establish who provided the KYC documents, who opened the account, who operated it and whether the transactions were authorised by Kudiwave.
The controversy escalated after the SFU obtained a Federal High Court order directing PalmPay to disclose the account balance and transfer the disputed funds into a designated Nigeria Police Force Microfinance Bank account for investigative and recovery purposes.
People familiar with the process described the account as an SFU exhibit/recovery account, rather than a private beneficiary account or an ordinary commercial account.
The stated purpose was to preserve the disputed funds while investigators traced their origin, identified the parties involved and determined the lawful ownership of the money.
PalmPay subsequently became the public face of the controversy because it held the disputed account and implemented the restriction and transfer of the funds.
However, the available account of events does not establish that PalmPay independently or arbitrarily removed Kudiwave’s money.
Rather, the central issue is whether PalmPay acted in accordance with the SFU investigation and the judicial directives issued in connection with it.
Kudiwave has challenged the transfer of the approximately ₦750.37 million, demanding reconciliation of the account and details surrounding the disputed transactions and beneficiary account.
The legal battle has produced several procedural twists.
The SFU initially secured an order permitting the disputed funds to be recovered into its exhibit account.
Kudiwave subsequently challenged the order, arguing, among other things, that it had not been served with the underlying application.
A Federal High Court later vacated the recovery order on grounds relating to service.
The Police appealed the decision and also sought a stay of execution.
Separately, Kudiwave pursued a fundamental-rights action in Abuja.
The Police have also filed criminal charges against persons they consider connected with the alleged fraud.
Despite the escalating legal battle, no final judicial determination has been cited establishing that Kudiwave owned the disputed funds or that Kudiwave, PalmPay, the Police or the Police Microfinance Bank was liable in relation to the money.
That distinction is crucial.
At the heart of the controversy is the identity of the person who actually opened and controlled the account.
Investigators are expected to rely on account-opening records, KYC documents, transaction logs, device and access records, signatory information and the trail of funds to establish what happened.
The courts will ultimately have to determine whether the disputed money belonged lawfully to Kudiwave, whether the account was genuinely opened and operated on behalf of the company, and whether the institutions involved acted within the scope of their legal powers.
Legal experts say protests and public campaigns cannot resolve those questions.
The evidence will have to come from the banking records, corporate documentation, testimony of the relevant account operators and signatories, and the complete transaction trail.
The Kudiwave controversy comes against the backdrop of growing concerns over electronic-payment fraud in Nigeria.
Data attributed to the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) and Nigeria Inter-Bank Settlement System (NIBSS) indicate that Nigerian financial institutions lost an estimated ₦25.85 billion to e-payment fraud in 2025, taking cumulative losses between 2020 and 2025 to about ₦134.48 billion.
The figures underscore the dilemma facing banks and payment-service providers.
Financial institutions must move swiftly when suspected criminal proceeds are identified, but they must equally preserve an auditable trail, comply strictly with court orders and ensure that affected customers have a lawful avenue to challenge restrictions.
For Kudiwave, PalmPay and the Police, therefore, the decisive issue is unlikely to be settled by who protests louder or who makes the strongest public claim.
It will turn on a much simpler but consequential question:
Who opened the account, who controlled it, where did the ₦750.37 million come from—and who was legally entitled to it?
Until those questions are answered through verifiable evidence and ultimately determined by the courts, the ownership of the disputed funds remains contested.
