#Kudiwave Petitions IGP To Probe #PalmPay Over Alleged N750m Unauthorized Transfer
Kudiwave Technologies Limited has petitioned Inspector-General of Police Olatunji Disu to demand an independent investigation into how the Special Fraud Unit in Ikoyi, Lagos, handled N750 million allegedly withheld and transferred from its PalmPay account. The company is raising concerns over the management of the funds and seeking a thorough review of the unit’s actions.
In the petition dated September 14, 2026, the company also challenged the police allegation that the funds were part of a “round-tripping” scheme involving Master Solution Concept Limited, Kredilink Technologies Limited, Nexall Technologies Limited and other entities.
Kudiwave, through its solicitor, Tony Eseigbe & Co., alleged that the SFU had linked the N750m in its account to funds allegedly originating from United Bank for Africa Plc and moved through the other companies.
The company firmly maintains that its transaction records disprove the allegations, insisting the funds received from Nexall Technologies Limited stem from a legitimate commercial transaction for which corresponding digital-asset value was supplied. Consequently, they argue there is no factual basis to support claims of wrongdoing regarding the movement of the money.
In a related development, Kredilink’s founder, Opeyemi Dairo, stated he was introduced to Master Solution on March 5, 2026 . He claimed the introduction occurred after Master Solution represented itself as a merchant operating with Nomba Bank that required fiat-to-digital-asset settlement services.
According to the petition, a thorough Know-Your-Business process was completed and a successful test transaction of $3,556.18 was conducted before any major transfers began. The document also highlights a statement from Nexall’s Operations Lead and co-founder, Ayandoye Pelumi Olawale, who confirmed that Kudiwave formally requested liquidity from Nexall in exchange for USDT on March 28, 2026 .
To fulfill this request, Nexall sourced naira from multiple independent counterparties, including a N200 million transfer provided by Kredilink from a Nom Bank MFB account. The petition emphasizes that this N200 million from Kredilink was just one of several large inflows that entered Nexall’s account on that specific day.
The other identified inflows included N199.8 million from Fintrix Technologies Limited, N282.4 million from Sturdi-Steel Nigeria Limited, and N101,697,888 from GreatRex Global Concepts. Together with Kredilink’s contribution, these transactions brought the total identified inflows to N783,897,888 .
The firm claimed Nexall subsequently transferred N250m in three separate transactions, totalling N750m, to Kudiwave’s PalmPay account.
It questioned the basis for treating the entire N750m as proceeds of an alleged transaction involving UBA, particularly when only N100m of Kredilink’s N200m transaction was allegedly flagged.
It also drew attention to a separate Federal High Court suit, United Bank for Africa Plc v Master Solution Concept Limited & 21 Ors, marked FHC/L/CS/680/2026, in which an order dated April 1, 2026, concerned an alleged erroneous transfer of N713,913,076.32.
The company noted that neither Nexall nor Kudiwave was joined as a defendant in the UBA suit and stressed that the N713.9m referred to in that case was different from the N750m transferred to its PalmPay account.
Kudiwave further alleged that its funds were transferred to a Police Recovery Account despite a subsequent Federal High Court order setting aside the earlier directive and ordering the removal of restrictions on the account.
The petition said PalmPay, in a letter dated July 28, 2026, notified the SFU that Justice Kala of the Federal High Court had, on July 22, set aside the June 29 orders directing the reversal of funds from Kudiwave’s account and ordered the removal of all restrictions.
PalmPay subsequently requested the return of N750,369,439.04 from the Police Recovery Account to Kudiwave’s PalmPay account, according to the petition.
Kudiwave urged the IGP to order a forensic tracing of the funds, obtain the bank statements of all the companies involved, investigate the circumstances surrounding the arrest and detention of its representatives and establish the legal basis for the continued withholding of the money.
Counsel to Kudiwave, Prince Kalu, said the company had reduced its complaints to writing and formally petitioned the IGP because of what he described as inconsistencies in the accounts given by the parties.
Kalu said an earlier petition to the police had been referred to the other side for a response but alleged that the response presented the money as funds recycled from Master Solution to Kredilink, then to Nexall and eventually to Kudiwave.
He added that the transaction records available to Kudiwave did not support that account.
“If you say N100m went to A, you cannot jump to C and say because the money is now in C, take the whole money in C. That is not how tracing of funds works,” Kalu said.
He also alleged that a former Commissioner of Police attached to the SFU collected the dollar equivalent of N5m from him and promised to lift the post-no-debit restriction on Kudiwave’s account.
The allegation has not been independently established.
Kalu said Kudiwave expected the restriction to be lifted but was subsequently informed by PalmPay that an order had been obtained directing the movement of the funds to a police account.
According to him, the June 29 order was served on the parties on July 1, after which Kudiwave filed an application on July 3 seeking a stay of execution and an order setting aside the directive.
He said the application was argued on July 13 and that the court fixed July 22 for its ruling.
Kalu alleged that the N750m was nevertheless moved on July 15, before the court delivered its ruling.
He further alleged that the money was not transferred to the Police Exhibit Account specified in the June 29 order but to a PalmPay business account with Access Bank.
“The order of June 29 said, ‘Move this money from the account of Kudiwave to Police Exhibit Account,’ with their account number. And what they did on July 15 was to move the money to their own business account in Access Bank,” he said.
Kalu said Kudiwave discovered that the money was no longer in its account after the July 22 ruling, when the company attempted to access the account following the court’s directive removing the restrictions.
“Only for us to serve them and say, let us even try the account. We saw nothing again in the account. The money is gone,” he said.
He maintained that the July 22 decision required the funds to be returned to Kudiwave and rejected the argument that an appeal or application for a stay could justify retaining the money.
Kalu also called for an independent investigation into the transaction, saying the police should establish the source and movement of each payment rather than treat the entire N750m as proceeds of fraud.
“We are asking for an independent investigation because you cannot investigate without charging anybody and then become more interested in collecting the whole money in a company’s account,” he said.
Meanwhile, PalmPay Limited has approached the Lagos State High Court seeking to restrain Kudiwave from making or circulating statements concerning the transfer of the funds.
In a Motion on Notice dated September 4, 2026, PalmPay asked the court to restrain Kudiwave, its servants, agents, privies and persons acting on its behalf from issuing, publishing, sponsoring or circulating any statement relating to its transfer of N750,369,439.04 from Kudiwave’s account to the designated Police Recovery Account.
The application was filed pursuant to Order 42 Rule 8 and Order 43 Rule 1 of the Lagos State High Court Civil Procedure Rules 2019 and the inherent jurisdiction of the court.
PalmPay is represented by Dr Babatunde Ajibade, SAN, leading Dr Kolawole Mayomi, Emmanuel Bassey; Ahmad Dasuki; and Ayanfeoluwa Aina of S.P.A. Ajibade & Co.
The company had earlier disputed Kudiwave’s claim that the June 29 order had been set aside before the funds were moved, maintaining that the order was still subsisting when the transfer was made.
Source: Punch
