$12 Million Money Laundering Case: Absence of SunTrust Bank MD Stalls Arraignment

The arraignment of Halima Buba, Managing Director/CEO of SunTrust Bank Ltd, and Innocent Mbagwu, the bank’s Executive Director/Chief Compliance Officer, was stalled on Tuesday, May 27, 2025, due to their absence in court.

The case, before Justice Emeka Nwite of the Federal High Court, Abuja, involves a $12 million fraud allegation brought by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC). The commission is prosecuting Buba and Mbagwu for allegedly conspiring to facilitate and approve cash payments exceeding legal thresholds without routing them through financial institutions—an offense under Sections 21(a), 2(1), and 9(1)(d) of the Money Laundering (Prevention and Prohibition) Act, 2022, and punishable under Section 19(2)(b).

At the resumed hearing, EFCC counsel Ekele Iheanacho, SAN, informed the court that the arraignment could not proceed as the defendants had yet to be served with the charges.

“My lord, the prosecution has not been able to serve the defendants. Ironically, they appear aware of today’s proceedings, as their legal representatives are present in court,” Iheanacho said. “Defence counsel indicated willingness to accept service on behalf of their clients, which we do not oppose. However, to comply with Section 382(5) of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA), we will bring an application for substituted service via an ex parte motion. We respectfully request an adjournment to June 4, 2025, for arraignment.”

Defence counsel, J.J. Usman, SAN, confirmed that his clients had not been served and only became aware of the case through social media.

“Our clients instructed us to appear in court after learning about the case online. They have not been formally served,” Usman told the court. “We approached the prosecution and offered to accept service on their behalf, but they declined. We now urge the court to direct that service be effected through us. We are ready to present our clients in court on the next adjourned date.”

Usman also expressed concern that without the court’s intervention, the prosecution might resort to arresting and parading the defendants publicly.

In response, Iheanacho dismissed the concern as speculative.

“My lord, without a formal application, the court cannot make that order,” he said. “The defence’s fears are speculative. The court must avoid setting a precedent that could later be used to challenge its jurisdiction. Until substituted service is granted, the prosecution retains the right to arrest the defendants if found.”

Justice Nwite, after considering submissions from both parties, adjourned the matter to June 4, 2025, for arraignment. He also directed the prosecution to file and serve its application for substituted service by Thursday, May 29, 2025.