The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) has publicly described its ongoing investigation into the collapse of the Crypto Bridge Exchange (CBEX) as both “complex” and “multinational”, signalling one of Nigeria’s most intricate digital investment-fraud probes in recent years. As the details emerge, this case reveals major red flags for investors, regulators and law-enforcement alike. In this blog post, we unpack the latest verified developments, the structure of the alleged scam, and the implications for Nigeria’s crypto-investment landscape.
What the EFCC is saying: Complexity and international reach
In a statement that underscores the seriousness of the matter, the EFCC labelled the CBEX probe as a matter that stretches far beyond Nigeria’s borders. The agency reported that the scheme involved foreign nationals, offshore wallets, non-custodial crypto platforms, and the conversion of digital assets into fiat currency via multiple jurisdictions.
Key highlights from the EFCC’s remarks include:
The use of non-custodial wallets and crypto-asset transfers that bypass typical “Know Your Customer” (KYC) safeguards, which makes traceability difficult.
A web of local collaborators and foreign operators allegedly recruiting Nigerians to funnel funds into CBEX.
Funds reportedly moved to jurisdictions outside Nigeria, and in some cases, converted from crypto to fiat money via complex pathways.
The EFCC’s caution that merely holding a certificate from the Special Control Unit Against Money Laundering (SCUML) does not mean legal clearance to operate as an investment or trading platform.
In short: this is not your typical “local scam”. The EFCC’s language suggests a high-stakes, cross-border operation with sophisticated financial techniques and multiple layers of actors.
What we know about CBEX: The alleged mechanics of the scheme
According to multiple verified sources, here’s a breakdown of how CBEX is alleged to have operated:
1. The promise and build-up
CBEX marketed itself as a crypto-investment / trading platform promising unrealistic returns: some reports cite up to 100% return within 30 days.
It was reportedly promoted through seminars and local Nigerian “ambassadors/influencers” to build trust and recruit large numbers of investors.
The platform required deposits in stablecoins (such as USDT) rather than direct fiat currency, making regulatory oversight more challenging.
2. The collapse and investor losses
Withdrawals were initially permitted but later suspended in April 2025, after which many investors found their balances wiped out or blocked.
Losses have been estimated at approximately ₦1.3 trillion (roughly USD 1 billion+ depending on exchange rate/time) for Nigerian investors.
The platform’s promoters are alleged to have asked for “additional deposits” to regain access—typical of Ponzi scheme behaviour.
3. Regulatory/operational irregularities
While the corporate entity associated with CBEX (ST Technologies International Ltd) was registered with the Corporate Affairs Commission (CAC), it was not licensed by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to act as an investment business.
A SCUML certificate alone was emphasised by the EFCC as insufficient to legitimise an investment platform.
The involvement of multiple jurisdictions, offshore wallets, and “non-custodial” crypto services meant that tracing, freezing or converting assets was deeply challenging for regulators.
4. Investigative and enforcement actions
A Federal High Court in Abuja authorised the EFCC to issue arrest warrants for six promoters of CBEX in April 2025.
Two additional individuals were declared wanted in June 2025 in connection to the case.
The EFCC has begun recovering some of the misappropriated funds and tracing crypto wallets, though it has refrained from disclosing exact amounts to avoid jeopardising ongoing operations.
The EFCC has invited victims to report to its regional zonal offices (Lagos, Ibadan) to assist in investigations.
Why this matters: Implications for investors & regulation
Investor risk
The CBEX incident highlights the vulnerability of retail investors to high-return crypto investment schemes lacking proper regulatory oversight.
The case underlines how “too good to be true” promises (100% returns in 30 days) remain one of the most persistent red flags for fraudulent operations.
Investors may find recourse difficult when platforms operate offshore, use non-custodial wallets, or convert assets to jurisdictions beyond local regulatory reach.
Regulatory and enforcement challenges
The EFCC’s description of the probe as “complex and multinational” emphasises the trans-national nature of modern financial crime: money moves through digital assets, offshore entities, and global wallets.
Traditional regulatory frameworks (e.g., investment licensing, securities regulation) are being tested by new digital-asset models and cross-border flows.
The role of certificates (like SCUML registration) as sometimes misleading indicators of legitimacy has been flagged. Regulatory bodies must continue explaining to the public that registration ≠ licence to operate.
The case also highlights that public awareness and early warning (via the EFCC, SEC, or other agencies) are essential in mitigating losses before schemes collapse.
Broader systemic implications
The CBEX episode may have a chilling effect on legitimate crypto-investing and fintech innovation if investors become overly risk-averse or regulatory responses become overly restrictive.
Conversely, the case may catalyse regulatory reforms: tighter control of crypto-investment platforms, greater cross-border collaboration, and enhanced prosecution capacity.
For Nigeria, it reflects on how the country’s regulatory, law enforcement and financial systems must keep pace with the digital evolution of fraud and illicit finance.
What to watch next
1. Asset recovery updates – The EFCC is expected to continue publicising the amounts it recovers, and the jurisdictions from which assets are recovered will be telling in terms of international cooperation.
2. Prosecutions and convictions – How many of the identified suspects will be arrested, tried and convicted? The legal outcomes will set precedents for future digital-asset fraud cases.
3. Regulatory responses – Will the SEC, CAC, and other regulatory bodies issue stronger frameworks for crypto-investment platforms? Will new laws emerge?
4. Public awareness campaigns – How will the EFCC and other agencies ramp up education efforts to warn potential investors about high-risk digital schemes?
5. Global collaboration – Given the multinational dimension, will we see formal cooperation via entities like INTERPOL, or regulatory memoranda with foreign jurisdictions to trace and clamp down on such schemes?
The CBEX saga is more than just another investment-fraud story—it’s a microcosm of the challenges posed by digital assets, cross-border financial crime, and retail investor vulnerability in the 21st century. When the EFCC describes the investigation as complex and multinational, it signals the depth of the challenge and the need for systemic responses. For Nigerian investors, the message is clear: when promised returns sound absurdly generous, and regulatory backing is murky at best, caution is not optional—it’s essential.
0 Comments