Rights Of Bank Customers & Liability For Ponzi Scheme In Nigeria By Balogun Sofiyullahi

INTRODUCTION

In every economy, a customer is an indispensable tool in its development. In the same light, the Banking business cannot thrive without the customers. This accounts for the words of the great Mahatma Gandhi of India when he remarked:

A customer is the most important visitor on our premises. He is not dependent on us. We are dependent on him. He is not an interruption on our work. He is the purpose of it. He is not an outsider on our business. He is part of it. We are not doing him a favour by serving him. He is doing us a favour by giving us an opportunity to do so.[i]

[T]he need to protect the consumer is fast becoming fluid and indeterminate as the society deviates from one social value to the other. Thus, inequality of bargaining power, protection of consumers against fraudulent, dangerous and negligent practices as well as the level of economic efficiency of a system have severally or jointly justified the judicial, institutional and legislative intervention in consumer transactions.[ii] On this basis, the imperative to guarantee the basic rights of financial service consumers and customers becomes necessary through an established legal framework like consumer protection.

Meanwhile, the principal enactments regulating the banking business in Nigeria are:

• Central Bank of Nigeria Act, 2007 CAP C4, LFN 2004 (CBN Act)
• Banking and other Financial Institutions Act, CAP B3, LFN 2004 (BOFIA)

The object of these laws is to create a safe and sound banking and financial market in which public confidence and protection will inhere[iii] Therefore, this paper seeks to bring to light the Rights of Bank Customers in Nigeria on the one hand and to examine the  liability of a Bank to an innocent (customer) investor in a Ponzi scheme operation.

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN BANK AND CUSTOMER

The Law is fairly settled that the relationship that exists between a bank(er) and a customer is that of a debtor and creditor. This is restated by the Court in the case of DIAMOND BANK LTD. v. UGOCHUKWU(2007) LPELR-8093(CA) where it was held that:

“The relation in law between a banker and his customer is that of debtor and creditor, and so when a bank credits the current account of its customer with a certain sum, the bank becomes a debtor to the customer in that sum and conversely when a bank debits the current account of its customers with a certain sum, the customer becomes a debtor to the bank in that sum since the relationship between a banker and his customer is that of debtor and creditor, whichever party is the creditor is entitled to sue, if demand for payment was not complied with.”[iv]

THE RIGHTS OF BANK CUSTOMERS

It is to be noted that the CBN Act and BOFIA do not expressly provide for these rights. However, the CBN pursuant to its enabling power under the CBN Act issued the BANK CUSTOMERS BILL OF RIGHTS & DUTIES (to be referred to as B of R).

In the Preamble to be B of R, it was declared:

The Customer is the most important person in the economy and every business succeeds only when the customer is happy. This explains why the customer is regarded as King. As a King, the customer has many rights. But a King also has duties which he owes himself and the economy. 

In Nigeria, customers of banks have certain rights and duties guaranteed by law, regulation and conventions. This pamphlet articulates some of these rights and duties. 

Meanwhile, we shall be taking the rights itemized in the B of R, with our individual analysis.

1. THE RIGHT TO PRIVACY AND CONFIDENTIALITY

This is otherwise known as bank secrecy.  As a bank customer, you have the right to freedom from disclosure of your account details by the bank as well as intrusion into your account by third party.

In other words, your bank must not divulge your account information to a third party; the bank must also protect your information from unauthorised access by a third party.

There are, however, exceptions to this right as follows:

1. Where the bank is required by law to make disclosure; and

For example there are Laws that make it obligatory, for Banks to disclose information about customers to some authorities, even without his consent.

For example, there is an obligation imposed on your bank by Sections 2(1) & 10(1) of MONEY LAUNDERING (PROHIBITION) ACT, 2011

Section 2(1) is to the effect that when a customer makes 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 , the Bank shall report to the Central Bank of Nigeria, Securities Exchange Commission or the Commission in writing within 7 days from the date of the transaction. 

Section 10(1) is also to the effect that  a Financial Institution or Designated Non-Financial Institution shall report to the Commission in writing within 7 and 30 days respectively any single transaction, lodgment or transfer of funds in excess of –  

(a) N5,000,000.00 or its equivalent, in the case of an individual; or 

(b) N10,000,000.00 or its equivalent in the case of a body corporate. 

The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission Act, 2004 equally gives EFCC power to investigate customers account and even, freeze such account without his consent. See section 7 and 34 of the EFCC Act.

Similarly, an exceptional circumstance when this disclosure without your consent  can be made is in the course of garnishee proceedings.

What is garnishee proceedings ?

For example, Mr. A borrowed Mr. B the sum of #1 Million and he has refused to pay back. Mr. A now sued Mr. B to Court. The Court now resolved that Mr. B should refund the money immediately.

If Mr. A now discovers that Mr. B maintains an account with GTBank, that contains money. Mr. A can apply to the Court that the Bank should be ordered to release Mr. B’s money (not exceeding the money owed) in its possession to satisfy the judgement debt.

To do this, the Bank is expected to disclose relevant information concerning Mr. B’s account and what have you to the Court after an order has been made.

These procedures are known as garnishee proceedings.

See Section 83(1) of SHERIFFS AND CIVIL PROCESS ACT, LFN 2004

2. Where the customer consents to the disclosure.
3. Where the Court orders for such a disclosure.

2. THE RIGHT TO BE INFORMED:

As a bank customer, you have a right to disclosure of information from your bank on goods and services the bank offers. The information provided must be complete, relevant and truthful. Your bank must explain to your understanding all contractual terms and charges prior to the consummation of any agreement or contract. This right enables customers to have relevant information in order to make rational choices. It amounts to a breach of your right if your bank fails to provide this information or deliberately misleads you in any way.

3. THE RIGHT TO CHOOSE:

You have a right to select from the range of products and services made available by your bank at competitive prices. This means that as a customer, you can, at all times, decide on the product or service to accept/purchase and the ones to decline. It is wrong for a bank to restrict your choices or compel you to accept/purchase products or services that are ill suited for your needs. Where you are not satisfied with your bank’s service delivery on any product or service, you have the right to end the contract or even the banking relationship provided all outstanding commitments are settled by the customer.

4. THE RIGHT TO SAFETY:

This right requires a bank to guarantee all its customers a secure and conducive banking environment devoid of threats to their safety and health. You have the right to be reasonably protected from accidents while on the premises of your bank. You also have the right to be protected from the negative effects of pollution of any kind whether arising from your bank’s operations or from other sources. It is necessary to stress that your bank is obligated to adhere strictly to applicable safety laws and directives to ensure that your safety and wellbeing are adequately guaranteed while you are on the premises of your bank.

5. THE RIGHT TO REDRESS:

A bank must provide its customers a redress mechanism to express their displeasure or grievance. The mechanism must be free, accessible, transparent, timely and convenient. You have a right to efficient complaints management system through which you can lodge complaints against your bank. You also have the right to be kept abreast of resolution process (acknowledgement, feedback, updates, explanation) and ultimately, basis of decision. Where you are not satisfied with the decision of your bank, you have the right of review either by your bank, the CBN or the court.

6. THE RIGHT TO GOOD SERVICE:

All customers have a right to value for their money which involves the right to be treated with respect and dignity by banks and their representatives. The hallmark of banking is customer satisfaction and as such your bank would have failed if it was unable to offer quality and value-adding banking services to you as a customer. Part of this right is that your bank must provide appropriate response to your needs and complaints.

7. THE RIGHT TO EQUALITY:

This right requires that a customer is treated equally as other customers regardless of differences in financial standing/deposit balance, physical ability, age, gender, ethnicity, or creed. It is wrong for a bank to offer preferential treatment to some customers at the expense of other similar kind of customers. However, banks may decide to differentiate customers on account of the nature of products customers purchase or subscribe to. In this case, some customers may benefit from certain privileges which are features of specific products or services.

8. THE RIGHT TO FREE MONTHLY STATEMENT OF ACCOUNT:

The provision of the Revised Guide to Bank Charges is that banks are required to provide their customers free statement of account on a monthly basis. This means that you have a right to get your monthly statement of account from your bank at no cost. It should be noted, however, that the Guide provides that any special request attracts a fee of N50 per page.

The foregoing are the rights contained in the B of R.

Furthermore, the CBN has issued CONSUMER PROTECTION FRAMEWORK FOR BANKS AND OTHER FINANCIAL INSTOITUTIONS, 2016. As stated in its Preamble, the Framework shall guide the effective regulation of consumer protection practices of Financial Institutions (FIs) under the regulatory purview of the CBN to ensure that consumers of financial services are adequately protected and treated fairly. It documents the roles and responsibilities of the regulator, the FIs and the consumers in ensuring that the standards set, are met.

Relevantly for our analysis, Regulations 2.3 & 2.6.2 provide:

2.3 Disclosure and Transparency

Financial institutions shall provide accurate information on financial products and services to consumers at all times to enable them make informed decisions. Such information must be timely, detailed and clear

To cover: contract terms, notice of variations, advertisement,

2.6.2 Data Protection 

1. All personal information of customers (including those with closed accounts) shall be kept in confidence by FIs. As a duty of care, financial institutions are obliged to safeguard the privacy of
2. Financial institutions shall not reveal consumers/customers information to a third party except in the following cases:
3. a) With the express permission of the customer,
4. b) As required by the CBN and other regulatory bodies;
5. c) Where there is a court order;
6. d) In pursuance of public duty/interest;

In another development, there are other rights of bank customers that have been enunciated through decided cases like:

9. RIGHT TO BE CONSULTED BEFORE TRANSACTION ON CUSTOMERS ACCOUNT

This right implies that since you are the owner of your account, transactions to be conducted thereon must be with your express or implied permission. Illustrative on this point is the fact in the case of OKOBIEMEN v. UBN (JALINGO BRANCH, TARABA STATE((2017) LPELR-43633(CA) .

In this case, Unity Supermarket(a third party) had requested the appellant to supply them with assorted drinks and towards that end the Supermarket lodged the sum of N2,000,000.00 into the account held by the Appellant with the Union Bank to defray the cost of the items or goods to be supplied.

The Appellant in turn hired a truck to convey the consignment of those items for onward delivery to the Unity Supermarket in Jalingo but the Supermarket refused to take delivery of the merchandise on arrival.

In the meantime, the Supermarket through the proprietor, returned to the Bank and request the Bank reverse the transaction in which the sum of N2,000, 000.00 was lodged into the Appellant’s account, without his consent or authorization, the Bank granted it and the sum of money was withdrawn from the said account at the Union Bank of Nigeria Plc. (Jalingo Branch).

Hence, the Appellant sued.

The Court held:

Unity Supermarket thus, not being a party in the customer/banker relationship between the appellant and the respondent, the latter should not have acceded to the request by the third party in this case Unity Bank Supermarket to withdraw from that account or reverse any transaction concluded in relation to that account without the approval of the owner of that account, the Appellant in this case. If it does that, as it is in the current case, the transaction becomes irregular by the payment made direct to the Unity Bank Supermarket by the respondent from the account held by the appellant. Respondent, clearly did not deploy its professional expertise when it made such payment to the Unity Supermarket.

Unless and until a cheque is drawn on the banker by the customer directing or requesting the bank to pay out of the money held in his account for payment to the payee whose name is endorsed on a cheque, the bank as an agent to the customer, would have been careless, if it did otherwise

Unfortunately however, the Court went further to dismiss the Appellant’s case on the basis that:

It is condemnable as an unorthodox practice. It is procedurally wrong…the procedure the Respondent employed to reverse the payment was only irregular but not unlawful for the depositor to have his/her money back…The appeal on the whole fails and same is dismissed.

The above pronouncement of the Court leaves us with much more to desire. In any case, it will be much more prudent for the customer to be invited by the Bank before a reversal should be made.

10. RIGHT TO CLOSE AN ACCOUNT

It is significant to note that there are two points to be noted thus:

1. A customer has absolute right to make an oral request that his account be closed to the Bank once all existing obligations are fulfilled
2. A Bank that desires to close a customers account must give him a reasonable notice.

In the case of D. STEPHENS IND. LTD. V. BCCI (1999) 11 NWLR (PT. 625) 29,  the Supreme Court through per Uwaifo, JSC, explained the right of the customer to close his account thus-

“Since the customer is entitled to withdraw his balance on demand, it would appear that he is under no obligation to give any advance notice of his decision to close his account – – the closing of the account does necessarily bring mutual obligations to an end. The customer clearly remains liable for any overdraft and the banker for properly conducting any operation needed in connection with the closure”.

His Lordship elucidated  the difference in the procedures between a Bank closing a customers account or the customer closing his account thus:

It is therefore open to the customer to give an oral instruction to have his account closed at once although he would not be able to take out whatever remains as credit therein until a proper settlement of obligations on both sides is carried out. But the banker is entitled to act on the notice without delay. It is when it is the banker who decided to have the account of the customer closed that he must give the customer reasonable notice in case there are outstanding cheques to he cleared or some business the customer intends to conclude through the bank account –

The scenario in the case of CITIBANK NIGERIA LIMITED v. GRATIS PROPERTIES LIMITED(2015) LPELR-24817(CA)  is illustrative on this point.

In this case, the customer maintained a current account at the Allen Avenue Branch of the CitiBank, Ikeja, Lagos. On 16/4/2003, the customer issued a cheque in favour of “Integrated Environmental Control and Safety System” for N12,000.00. But this was not honoured and  was returned to the beneficiary with the inscription “Account Closed”.

It was the bank that decided to close the customer’s account, because it “noticed the low level of activity in [the] account for some time”, which the customer was not aware of, and even, the customer still paid in a cheque for N220,000.00 into the Account on 2/4/2003, after the closure date of 21/3/2003. The Bank claimed it gave the customer reasonable notice of the closure but failed to establish that he received the notice.

The customer sued and the Court of Appeal held:

Definitely, the Appellant (Bank) cannot escape liability for its action in so doing. The position of the law is that a cause of action will accrue where the bank refuses to pay a customer’s cheque, when in fact he has to his credit at least an equivalent to that endorsed on the cheque he has issued on his account. The act of dishonouring a cheque in such circumstances, as I said earlier, constitutes a breach of contract for which the bank is liable in damages –
See Citibank v. Ikediashi (supra) and Balogun v. National Bank, (supra).

11. RIGHT TO HONOUR CHEQUES

It is significant to note that the customer has a right for all issued cheques of his to be honoured by his bank. This is evident from the pronouncement of the Court in the case of   ALLIED BANK OF NIG. LTD. V. AKUBUEZE (1997) LPELR-429 (SC) where the Supreme Court observed –

“The first basic point that must be made is that a bank is bound to honour a cheque issued by its customer if the customer has enough funds to satisfy the amount payable on the cheque in respect of the relevant account. Refusal to honour the cheque will amount to a breach of contract which would render the banker liable in damages. So too, when the banker credits the current account of its customer with some money, the banker becomes a debtor to the customer in that sum – – Conversely, when a banker debits the current account of its customer with a certain sum, the customer becomes a debtor to the bank in that sum. Whichever party is the creditor is entitled to sue the other if demand for payment was made but not honoured”.

NB: These are not the exhaustive rights of Bank customers only but a few of them.

 PONZI SCHEME INVESTMENT & LIABILITY OF BANKS

1. ORIGIN OF PONZI SCHEME

Ponzi schemes are named after an early twentieth century scam orchestrated by Charles Ponzi.” Between 1919 and 1921, Ponzi pretended to buy and sell international postal reply coupons in different markets and solicited thousands of Bostonians to invest in his fraudulent operation. He accumulated 40,000 investors by promising fifty-percent returns in forty-five days.[v]

But rather than paying the investors from actual profits, Ponzi paid them from new investors’ investments. Eventually the well of new investors ran dry and the scam failed, but not before Ponzi made millions of dollars. Today, Charles Ponzi’s legacy lives on, and the label “Ponzi” attaches to any scheme that involves a fraudster who uses money from later investors to repay earlier investors in whole or in part.[vi]

1. WHO HAS THE RIGHT TO CONDUCT BANKING BUSINESS OR RUN A FINANCIAL INSTITUTION?

As stated earlier, the legislations regulating Banking business in Nigeria are the CBN Act, BOFIA and by extension, Companies and Allied Matters Act. However, when it comes to investment- the enabling Laws for compliance are Investment & Securities Act, 2007 (ISA), BOFIA & CBN Act.

In order to operate a Banking Business, Section 2(1) & 3(1) of BOFIA provide:

2. Banking business

(I)  No person shall carry on any banking business in Nigeria except it is a company duly incorporated in Nigeria and holds a valid banking licence issued under this Act.

3. Application for grant of licence

(1)  Any person desiring to undertake banking business in Nigeria shall apply in writing to the Governor for the grant of a licence….

Meanwhile, to operate as a Financial Institution, Sections 58 & 59 of BOFIA make it mandatory to apply for license while Section 1(5)(a) of the same Act  says, once you begin to accept deposit from the public, it becomes a feature of a financial institution under BOFIA. More so, the institution must be incorporated as a company in Nigeria.

1. IS PONZI SCHEME A LAWFUL BUSINESS & HOW DOES IT OPERATE ?

A Ponzi scheme is generally a fraudulent investment scheme whereby an operator makes payments to early investors with money received from new investors. Ponzi scheme operators  promise original investors abnormally high or fast returns, often by suggesting that they use a unique strategy or investment mechanism.[vii]

The Ponzi scheme operators repay the original  investors with later investments creating the illusion that they have fulfilled their promise of rapid success.’° This attracts new investors.” Inevitably, the Ponzi scheme operator is unable to recruit new investors to fund the original investors’ payment returns, and the Ponzi scheme collapses leaving all current investors’ investments mired in the Ponzi scheme.[viii]

By a community reading of Sections 67(1) & 68(1) of ISA, before anyone can call or invite the public to invest in any monetary scheme,  in order to acquire or dispose of any securities of a body corporate or to deposit money with any body corporate for a fixed period or payable at call, whether bearing or not bearing interest, such a person must be  a Public company or Bank and it must be with the written consent of the Securities & Exchange Commission (SEC).

Ponzi scheme by its effect is now rife and usually disseminated through social media platforms. Obviously,  they are not duly registered with SEC and this accounts for the recent warnings of the Acting DG of SEC for Nigerians to be wary.[ix]

Is it then lawful?

A learned friend, O.G Chukkol submits:

The combined effect of section 67(1) of ISA and sections 1(5)(a), 58, and 59 of BOFIA is that ponzi scheme is not only prohibited by law, it is in fact a criminal offense. It is a financial business that is exclusively meant for banks or statutory bodies established for that purpose. Anyone who wishes to carry out such business must seek and obtain license from CBN before performing the business.

Under ISA, punishment for engaging in ponzi scheme is a fine of N100, 000 and if it is a company that engages in the ponzi scheme, the company shall be liable to pay N500, 000. But under BOFIA, the punishment is 5 years imprisonment or fine of N1 Million or both.[x]

1. IS MONEY INVESTEMT IN PONZI SCHEME RECOVERABLE ?

The facts in  OCHEDI & ORS v. CBN & ORS (2018) LPELR-45316(CA), are illustrative on the point.

The Applicants invested in a scheme with Wealth Zone Ltd . However, Wealth Zone Ltd was  proclaimed by the Securities & Exchange Tribunal, as an illegal Wonder Bank/Fund Manager operating in Nigeria.  Hence, by a joint operation of  CBN, SEC, Nigeria Deposit Insurance Corporation, Corporate Affairs Commission, Police and EFCC, CBN took over the funds of  Wealth Zone Ltd.

The Applicants then sued to recover their money with the CBN. The trial court declined jurisdiction to entertain the suit on the ground that the claims were based on contract prohibited by statute and so illegal. It struck out the suit. They further appealed to the Court of Appeal.

Dismissing the appeal, Per GARBA, J.C.A. held:

“The monies the Appellants seek to recover from the 1st – 6th Respondents… are in respect of transactions; i.e. financial business of soliciting for and accepting money from the general public as deposits for profit, by a company that did not have a valid license carry on such business, prohibited by the above provisions of BOFIA and so illegal…. For the purpose of and in the eyes of the law, the transaction between the Appellants and Wealth Zone Limited from the beginning, was clearly not only prohibited, but also punished by the law and so illegal, whether the Appellants knew or not as ignorance of the law is no defence or excuse.Being illegal from the beginning, the transaction between the Appellants and Wealth Zone Limited could not have vested the Appellants any legal right that is cognizable and enforceable by a Court of law.”

Concurring with the above views, Per OBASEKI-ADEJUMO, J.C.A. said:

The case of the Appellants was for recovery of money invested in a financial transaction operated in clear violation of the statutory provision of Sections 58 and 59 of BOFIA which stipulated that no one shall carry on financial business in Nigeria other than insurance and stock broking except the company is duly incorporated in Nigeria with a valid licence obtained.
It is settled law that an illegal contract is void and cannot be the foundation of any legal right. The money the Appellants sought to recover from the Respondents by the depositions in the affidavit evidence of the parties shows that it was in respect of deposits made to Wealth Zone Ltd a company which promised return on investments without a valid licence from the Central Bank of Nigeria and as the law stands, the ignorance of the law is not a defence.

The implication therefore is that such a money is not recoverable.

1. DOES A BANK HAVE ANY LIABILITY?

It should be firmly established at this point that in Nigeria, Ponzi scheme is an illegal contract between the investor & operator and therefore, cannot be a basis of course of action. This was restated in the case of  EKWUNIFE v WAYNE (WEST AFRICA) LTD [1989] 5 NWIR (PT. 122) 422 where the supreme court held that:

“No Court of law or Judge has the Jurisdiction to enforce an illegal contract. The duty of a Court of law or Judge is to administer Justice according to law. Therefore, it will be a breach of that duty and the oath of office to enforce an illegal contract. None of the parties to an illegal contract is entitled to any remedy or relief from a Court of law and once a Court or Judge becomes aware of the illegality, it is the duty of the Court or Judge to stop the case and dismiss the claim for being void and unenforceable.”

However, apart from OCHEDI & ORS v. CBN above relating to CBN and the case of  DR. CHARLES D. MEKWUNYE v. LOTUS CAPITAL LIMITED & ORS (2018) LPELR-45546(CA) relating to whether fraud is arbitrable, to the best of the writer’s knowledge, as at the time of writing this paper, no other authority has been found on Ponzi scheme in Nigeria.

Besides, what if a Bank deliberately acts in furtherance of a Ponzi scheme against a customer ?

[C]ourts generally hold that financial institutions owe no duty to protect third parties from the unlawful acts of bank customers. This notion is grounded in both legal and practical concerns. As a general legal principle, a duty arises where the nature and scope of harm to another is readily foreseeable. Without some identifiable evidence demonstrating foreseeability in a given scenario, most courts have declined to conclude that it is foreseeable to the institution that a particular bank customer will defraud a noncustomer. [xi]

In United States, there have  been reported cases of investors suing financial institution for their complacency in Ponzi scheme, this is usually grounded on a negligence claim. Limitations on bank liability narrow, but do not foreclose entirely, the risk of suits by Ponzi scheme victims. Those defrauded will frequently explore the possibility of recovering at least some of their money, and very often the bank where the schemer held the funds is the only viable source.[xii]

Most claims are founded on breach of common law principles, such as breach of fiduciary duty, negligence, aiding and abetting fraud, or aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty. It is always sought to be proved that the financial institution or Bank had actual knowledge of the Ponzi scheme, to the detriment of the customer.

In the case of Ontario Ltd. v. Zurich Capital Markets, Inc., 249 F. Supp. 2d 974, 990(N.D. I11. 2003), it was held that a simple allegation that a financial institution held funds from a Ponzi scheme in a customer’s deposit account is insufficient, without more, to constitute an affirmative act that would subject a bank to liability.  

The United States District Court for the Western District of New York recently dismissed class action claims against two banks alleging that the banks were liable for a decade-long Ponzi scheme that utilized the banks’ account in Heinert v. Bank of Am., N.A., 2019 WL 5287950 (W.D.N.Y. Oct. 18, 2019).[xiii]

The above analysis shows that it is still difficult to hold Banks liable for money loss to Ponzi scheme United States, even in Nigeria because of the “illegal contract rule” but it is advised that when a Bank notices a suspicious incessant transactions in the account of a person, the appropriate authorities should be notified.

CONCLUSION

Today, there exists the rights of Bank customers but yet, many are ignorant of their rights for different reasons. It is our view that the policy of the CBN on consumer rights education be strengthened, by mandating the Banks to put in place a means through which customers’ rights are known. Finally, the Law still stands in Nigeria that an illegal contract like a Ponzi scheme operation is not enforceable. But I am of the view that if a Bank voluntarily aids or can be proved to have actual knowledge of a Ponzi scheme operation to the extent of defrauding another customer, such a Bank should not be allowed to hide under the shield of the Law to escape liability or sanction from the CBN.

Balogun Sofiyullahi is a final year Law Student of Ahmadu Bello University Zaria. 07032676039 or balogunsofiyullahi@gmail.com.

ENDNOTES

[i] Available at:  https://stupidgyan.com/a-customer-is-the-most-important-visitor-on-our-premises-mahatma-gandhi-quote/ 

[ii] Joseph Nwobike, Legal Regime For The Protection Of Consumers Of Financial Services In Nigeria, available at:https://www.jnclawfirm.com/articles/LEGAL%20REGIME%20FOR%20THE%20PROTECTION%20OF%20CONSUMERS%20OF%20FINANACIAL%20SERVICES%20IN%20NIGERIA..pdf

[iii] Ibid

[iv] See also Osawaye v. National Bank of Nigeria Ltd(1974) NCCR 474S

[v] Kenneth C. Johnston, Kellie M. Johnson & Joseph A. Hummel, Ponzi Schemes and Litigation Risks: What Every Financial Services Company Should Know, 14N.C. Banking Inst.29 (2010).available at: https://scholarship.law.unc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://www.google.com/&httpsredir=1&article=1277&context=ncbi 

[vi]Ibid.

[vii] Ibid

[viii] Ibid.

[ix] See https://www.nigeriacommunicationsweek.com.ng/sec-lists-ponzi-schemes-warns-nigerians/

[x] See https://www.barristerng.com/beware-engaging-in-ponzi-scheme-attracts-5-years-jail-term-or-1-million-naira-fine-or-both-by-o-g-chukkol/

[xi] William C. Athanas , Michael Harmon and E. Marlee Mitchell , United States: “Bank Liability For Ponzi Schemes: Defending Negligence Suits By Non-Customer Victims”. Available at: https://www.mondaq.com/unitedstates/Finance-and-Banking/178558/Bank-Liability-For-Ponzi-Schemes-Defending-Negligence-Suits-By-Non-Customer-Victims

[xii] Ibid.

[xiii] https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=c4d38b68-994a-4793-a621-bdc4b99de9b7