EFCC Recovers, Returns N84 Million to Edo Businessman After Alleged Land Fraud.
The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) has recovered and returned N84 million to an Edo State businessman, Ekhahon Abraham, following an investigation into an alleged fraudulent land transaction involving Anita Eborome.
The EFCC’s Benin Zonal Directorate handed over a draft valued at N84 million to Abraham on Friday, September 25, 2026, after the commission traced and recovered the funds during its investigation. The development was also reported by The PUNCH and New Telegraph.
According to the EFCC’s account, Abraham paid the money to Eborome for an expanse of land measuring 115 feet by 135 feet in a community in Edo State. After completing the payment, Abraham reportedly proceeded to erect a perimeter fence on the property. However, the fence was later pulled down by a man who claimed to be the rightful owner of the land.
Following the dispute, Abraham reportedly sought a refund from Eborome but was unable to recover his money. He was subsequently advised to petition the EFCC. The commission said its investigation established that Abraham had transferred the funds to Eborome and that the money was allegedly diverted for personal use.
Presenting the recovered funds, the Acting Zonal Director of the EFCC’s Benin Directorate, Deputy Commander of the EFCC Sa’ad Hanafi Sa’ad, said the commission would continue to carry out its responsibilities professionally and pursue the recovery of funds linked to fraudulent transactions.
The case highlights the financial and legal risks associated with property transactions where ownership and title documentation have not been adequately verified. Land disputes remain a recurring challenge in Nigeria’s property sector, making proper due diligence, confirmation of ownership and verification of relevant land documents important steps for prospective buyers.
The EFCC’s intervention in the case resulted in the recovery and return of the N84 million to Abraham. The publicly reported accounts reviewed for this report do not indicate that the disputed property itself was transferred to him or provide further details on its ownership status.







