Alleged $968,000 Fraud: How Fake US Engineer Duped Me-Witness

The trial of Wawe Eseoghene Nelson, a.k.a James Andrew Shmit and Philip Bradley before Justice Aliyu Halilu of the Federal Capital Territory High Court, Abuja commenced on Thursday, March 14, 2025 with the presentation of the First Prosecution Witness, PW1, Kathleen Sharp by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, EFCC.

Nelson, arraigned on February 11, 2025 is facing prosecution by the EFCC on 11 count-charges bordering on advance fee fraud, impersonation, conspiracy and obtaining under false pretence to the tune of $968,000 (Nine Hundred and Sixty-eight Thousand Dollars), allegedly obtained from two US victims, Sharp and Holly Stamm.

Count one of his charge reads: “That you, Wawe Esoghene Nelson (a.k.a James Andrew Smith) sometime in 2023 at Abuja within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court with intent to defraud, obtained the sum of One Hundred and Fifty-Five Thousand Dollars ($155,000) from one Kathleen Sharp, living in the United States of America with Telephone Number +13025983826 through Chase Bank with account name Pearl and Allison Llc, account number 952177670, Routing 021000021, account address 35 Knollwood Dr Aptos CA 95003 with bank address at 1990 41st Avenue, Capitola, CA 95010 under the false pretence that you are James Andrew Smith, a Petroleum Engineer from United States of America that is into engineering project, relating to petroleum project which pretence you knew was false and thereby committed an offence contrary to Section 1(1) (a) of the Advance Fee Fraud and other Fraud Offences Act, 2006 and punishable under Section 1(3) of the same Act.”

Count 11 reads: “That you Wawe Esoghene Nelson (a.k.a Philip Bradley) sometime in 2022 at Abuja within the jurisdiction of this Honourable court with intent to defraud, obtained the sum of One Hundred and Twenty Thousand Dollars ($120,000.00) from one Holly Stamm, a Citizen of United States of America with email address stammus2012@gmail.com through Bitcoin and under the false pretence that you are James Andrew Shmit a Petroleum Engineer from United States of America that is into engineering project relating to petroleum exploration and that the said sum will be used to secure a petroleum project which pretence you knew was false and thereby committed an offence contrary to Section 1(1) (a)of the Advance Fee Fraud and other Fraud Related Offences Act, 2006 and punishable under Section 1(3) of the same Act.”

He pleaded not guilty to all the charges when they were read to him, prompting his trial.

Led in evidence by prosecuting counsel, Maryam Aminu Ahmed, the witness narrated how the defendant lured her via the social media into sending him money in the guise of financing a project and would repay her when the project yielded dividends upon completion.

“I was contacted by the Commission that they discovered that I was defrauded by one James Andrew Shmit via social media platform. We communicated over social media where he presented himself as an engineer working at BP Oil in the Gulf of Mexico. He started by asking for funds because he did not have access to his personal funds and the credit situation in connection with the project required a large amount of funds with the promise that it will be returned and he will avail the funds to me. The total funds are $183,000 (One Hundred and Eighty-three Thousand Dollars) through three instalments, one by wired certificate cheque, two instalments by wired transfer. The first one was for $45,500, (Forty-five Thousand Dollars), the second one was $131,000 (One Hundred and Thirty-one Dollars) and the third was $7000 (Seven Thousand Dollars) I wired. I have not been paid my money. After the third instalment, he pushed me to pay another $10,000 (Ten Thousand Dollars), but I did not pay. There was a picture on his profile, he has brown hair and white. I will like the refund of the investment and funds and he should be persecuted for his actions,” she said.

Justice Halilu adjourned to April 16, 2025 for cross examination of the witness.
Visit efcc.gov.ng for more stories.

THURSDAY

I pray for you and myself this morning that God Almighty will give us and every member of our family VICTORY over UNPLEASANT CHALLENGES in Jesus Mighty Name, Good morning & have a victorious Thursday

MONDAY PROMO


1) ALL FIRST TIMERS WILL GO HOME WITH 10,000 PIECES OF GADA TOKEN FOR FREE.

2) STARTING FROM TOMORROW TO FRIDAY ANYBODY THAT NEEDS BRC WILL ONLY GET IT FOR ₦10 EACH.

3) PROMO ON GADA TOKEN.
MONDAY. IS 30%
TUESDAY IS 30%
WEDNESDAY IS 20%
FROM THURSDAY TO SUNDAY IS 10%


REMEMBER THE PRICE NOW IS 0.000011 IS GOING TO CANCEL ONE ZERO VERY SOON

NSCDC Arrests 25-Year-Old Suspect for Vandalizing Public Utilities

The Anambra State Command of the Nigeria Security and Civil Defence Corps (NSCDC) has arrested a 25-year-old suspected scavenger for allegedly vandalizing public infrastructure in Onitsha.

State Commandant Olatunde Maku confirmed the arrest on Thursday in Awka, stating that the suspect was apprehended on Tuesday at Silas Street, Fegge, in collaboration with the AVG security network in Onitsha South Local Government Area.

According to Maku, the suspect was caught demolishing parts of a drainage system to extract iron rods for resale as scrap.

He added, “On March 4, a 25-year-old man from Misau town in Bauchi State was caught destroying a drainage wall and removing iron rods with the intent to sell them as scrap. The suspect has confessed to the crime, admitting to vandalizing multiple metal objects and selling them in separate transactions to a scrap dealer.”

Maku further stated that the NSCDC’s investigation unit is still gathering evidence, and the suspect will be charged in court once investigations are complete.

The commandant also issued a stern warning to iron scavengers, commonly known as Ndi Akpakara, urging them to desist from vandalizing public and private property or face legal consequences.

Nigerian Senate to investigate sexual harassment claims as Natasha resubmits petition

Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan, representing Kogi Central, has resubmitted her petition against Senate President Godswill Akpabio, alleging sexual harassment.

The initial petition was rejected on Wednesday due to being signed by the senator herself instead of her constituents. However, the revised version, now bearing their signatures, was accepted.

During Thursday’s plenary, Natasha confirmed that the case was not before any court. She was then directed to formally submit the petition, which was referred to the Senate Committee on Ethics, Privileges, and Code of Conduct for investigation.

The committee has been given four weeks to complete its probe and present its findings to the Senate.

UPDATE: Lagos Police Restore Speaker Meranda’s Security Amid Assembly Crisis

The Nigeria Police Force (NPF), Lagos State Command, has reinstated the security details of the Speaker of the Lagos State House of Assembly, Hon. Mojisola Meranda, following an earlier withdrawal that fueled political tension.

Lagos State Commissioner of Police, Moshood Jimoh, confirmed the restoration of security personnel during a press briefing on Thursday evening.

Earlier in the day, the removal of security escorts attached to the Speaker’s office and residence had raised concerns, particularly as security details of impeached Speaker Hon. Mudashiru Obasa were restored. Obasa later stormed the assembly complex and declared himself Speaker, even presiding over a controversial plenary session attended by only a handful of lawmakers.

Addressing journalists, Commissioner Jimoh clarified that four security personnel assigned to Speaker Meranda, who had been withdrawn, were reinstated to ensure her safety and stability within the Assembly.

The leadership tussle continues to generate debate, with Lagosians closely monitoring developments as the state legislature grapples with uncertainty over its leadership structure.

GOOD MORNING GADA FAMILY
#goodmorning #thursday #bible #wordofGod

Breaking: Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan Sues Senate President Akpabio

Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan has taken legal action against Senate President Godswill Akpabio over alleged defamation. The lawsuit, filed on February 25, 2025, at the Federal Capital Territory High Court, also names the Federal Republic of Nigeria and Akpabio’s aide, Mfon Patrick, as defendants.

What Happened?
During last Thursday’s plenary session, Akpoti-Uduaghan refused to accept a newly assigned seat, openly defying Akpabio’s ruling by reading a point of order. The tension escalated when the Senate President ordered security to escort her out, but fellow lawmakers intervened, preventing the situation from worsening.

Why the Lawsuit?
The lawsuit claims that defamatory statements about Akpoti-Uduaghan were made by Akpabio and published by his aide on Facebook. The post allegedly included a derogatory remark suggesting she believed being a lawmaker was only about "pancaking her face and wearing transparent outfits to the chambers."

Her lawyer, Victor Giwa, argues that these statements tarnished her reputation and caused public disaffection toward her.

What She’s Demanding:
A court declaration that the statements were defamatory.
A perpetual injunction stopping the defendants from making further defamatory remarks.
N100 billion in damages.
N300 million to cover litigation costs.

Senate’s Response
Following the incident, the Senate has referred Akpoti-Uduaghan to the Committee on Ethics, Privileges, and Public Petitions for disciplinary review. Senate spokesperson Yemi Adaramodu stated that the event had tarnished the chamber’s image and must be addressed.

The committee will investigate the matter and report back to the Senate.

What are your thoughts on this unfolding drama in the Nigerian Senate? Drop your opinions in the comments!

#waka9jaNews
#SenateDrama #NatashaAkpotiUduaghan #GodswillAkpabio
#NigeriaPolitics..

FACTS ON THE SENATE SEATING CONTROVERSY

In light of the events that transpired during the Senate plenary session on Thursday, it is imperative to clarify the procedural and constitutional basis for the Senate President’s decision regarding the seating arrangement. The actions taken were in full compliance with the Senate Standing Orders 2023 (as amended) and established parliamentary conventions governing the upper legislative chamber.

1. The Senate President’s Authority Over Seating Arrangements
Section 2(2) of the Senate Standing Orders unequivocally vests the Senate President with the authority to regulate seating arrangements within the chamber. The power to assign or reassign seats falls under the presiding officer’s discretion to ensure order, decorum, and proper representation of the Senate's composition.
Section 11(3) reinforces the Senate President’s prerogative to manage the chamber's affairs in a manner that reflects the political composition, including adjustments necessitated by the defection or reassignment of members.
In this case, Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan’s reassignment was a necessary consequence of the seating adjustments caused by opposition lawmakers defecting to the majority wing, an occurrence that has precedent in parliamentary practice.

2. The Seating Adjustment Was Not Singularly Targeted at Senator Natasha
The reassignment of seats was not an isolated action targeting a single senator but a general restructuring affecting multiple senators to reflect the realignment of party compositions in the chamber.
In accordance with Senate protocol, newer members traditionally begin their tenure from the back rows, progressing forward over time. Senator Natasha’s reassignment was, in fact, a positive elevation, moving her further into the front of the chamber, a placement typically seen as a mark of growing stature.

3. Senator Natasha’s Non-Compliance Was a Clear Breach of Senate Rules
Section 10(2) of the Senate Standing Orders states that senators must sit in their designated seats to be recognized for contributions to debates or discussions.
By refusing to occupy her reassigned seat and attempting to contribute from a seat no longer allocated to her, Senator Natasha was in clear breach of this provision.
Section 56(1) stipulates that the Senate President has the authority to rule any senator out of order if they violate established procedural guidelines. Senator Natasha’s refusal to comply warranted her loss of recognition on the floor, as was duly enforced by the Senate President.

4. The Senate President’s Decision to Enforce Order Was Justified
Section 56(3) of the Senate Standing Orders provides that any senator who refuses to adhere to the directives of the Senate President regarding conduct and procedure may be directed to leave the chamber.
In extreme cases, Section 56(5) permits the Senate President to call upon the Sergeant-at-Arms to restore decorum and ensure compliance with parliamentary rules.
Senator Natasha’s vocal defiance—raising her voice in protest rather than following due process—further warranted this action.

Conclusion: Upholding Parliamentary Order and Decorum
The Senate operates on a foundation of structure, discipline, and adherence to rules that ensure its smooth functioning. The Senate President’s decision to enforce the seat reassignment was within his constitutional authority and in line with parliamentary best practices.

Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan’s refusal to comply was a deliberate violation of Senate rules, and the subsequent enforcement action taken against her was not only lawful but necessary to maintain order and the integrity of Senate proceedings.

In parliamentary democracy, rules exist to ensure fairness, not individual preference. The ability of the Senate President to regulate seating arrangements is a long-standing norm that transcends personal interests and serves the broader objective of maintaining an orderly and functional legislative body.

Thus, any assertion that Senator Natasha was unfairly treated lacks merit, as her actions were in direct contravention of the Senate Standing Orders, which all lawmakers are bound to uphold.

*The United States Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) Approves Yield-Bearing STABLECOIN as Crypto Regulations Evolves*

Updated: Thursday, 20/02/202
https://tinyurl.com/2dbwcq3r?tg=1740086563

The newly approved stablecoin, YLDs, is issued by Figure Markets and will reportedly invest in US treasuries and commercial paper.
Trump administration’s executive order on digital assets supports THE GROWTH OF DOLLAR-BACKED STABLECOINS.

......the SEC approved securities from Figure Certificate Co., allowing the company to offer a yield-bearing stablecoin known as YLDs. Unlike traditional stablecoins, which earn issuers revenue but provide no direct returns to holders, YLDs will generate yield by investing reserves in securities such as U.S. Treasuries and commercial paper.

The SEC has classified YLDs stablecoins as “certificates,” making them subject to securities regulations. This sets them apart from other major stablecoins like Tether’s USDT, which does not offer yield to users despite earning billions in reserve income.

Drama as Akpabio orders Natasha out of chamber

A dramatic confrontation unfolded in the Senate on Thursday when Senate President Godswill Akpabio instructed the Sergeant-at-Arms to escort Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan of Kogi Central out of the chamber.

The incident was sparked by a report from Senate Chief Whip, Mohammed Monguno, who informed the chamber that Uduaghan, had refused to move to a newly assigned seat.

Monguno explained that the seat reassignment was necessary to fill gaps left by two opposition senators who recently defected to the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC).

Referencing Senate Order 24, Monguno emphasised his role as Chief Whip, while also citing Order 6, which grants the Senate President authority to assign and reassign seats as needed.

He further pointed out that senators are expected to speak only from their designated seats, giving Akpabio the power to deny recognition to anyone speaking from an unassigned position.

In protest, Senator Uduaghan stood up from her original seat, invoking Order 10, claiming her privileges had been violated.

However, Akpabio swiftly ruled her out of order, affirming that she could not be recognised while speaking from an unauthorised location.

When Senator Natasha raised her hand to speak, she was denied recognition by the Senate President for not addressing the chamber from her newly assigned seat.

Unwilling to relent, Senator Natasha vocalised her objection, openly challenging the Senate President’s decision.

She said: “I don’t care if I am silenced. I am not afraid of you. You have denied me my privilege.

“I'm not afraid of further being silenced. I will not be shoved into the corner. As the Senator duly elected by my people, I choose to remain in this seat, come what may. The worst you will do Mr. Senate president is to suspend me."

Source: X | AIT_Online
----
Follow us for more breaking news and video content

For more stories: http://thenationonlineng.net