Fidelity Bank Accused Of Withholding Customer’s Funds, Manager Allegedly Demands Bribe For Release

A man identified as Patrick Majekodunmi Benjamin has accused Fidelity Bank of unlawfully withholding his wife’s funds and insinuating bribery before releasing them.

Patrick, who spoke on behalf of his wife, Ubrure Jite, stated that an Operations Manager at the bank, Nosa, demanded a bribe from them despite their full compliance with all required documentation.

Patrick told the media that on Friday, March 14, he and Jite visited the Fidelity Bank branch at the University of Benin (UNIBEN) to receive funds sent to her via Remitly.

At the counter, bank officials informed them that there was a discrepancy in her middle name and that the sender needed to correct it. Once the correction was made and confirmed by the bank, they expected to receive the funds without further delay.

“After the correction, Nosa, the Operations Manager, only gave me a part of the funds and instructed me to return on Monday, March 17, to collect the remaining balance,” Patrick said.

However, when he returned on March 17, Nosa refused to release the remaining money.

“I returned as instructed, but Nosa flatly refused to release the rest of the money. When I pressed for a reason, he said he wouldn’t release the money because the sender’s name was foreign, and he wasn’t comfortable with the transfers. That response wasn’t legitimate to me,” he said.

Sensing that the issue was no longer an ordinary banking delay, Patrick escalated the matter to Fidelity Bank’s headquarters.

“They asked for reference numbers of the transactions and other information like National Identification Number (NIN), which we provided. Their response? They referred us back to the same UNIBEN branch, effectively putting the decision back in Nosa’s hands.”

Patrick said that upon their return to the UNIBEN branch, Nosa claimed he had received fresh instructions not to release the funds.

However, he reportedly failed to provide any formal documentation to support this claim, further raising suspicions of foul play.

He said, “By this time, we had already submitted all necessary documents, including the required Bank Verification Number (BVN), NIN, home address, phone number, email address, telex copies, reference numbers of the transactions, the name of the sender, relationship with the sender, and the purpose of the funds.

“There was no petition against the account, no complaint from the sender, and no regulatory restriction on the funds. Yet, the money was still withheld.”

Patrick explained that on March 20, a regional staff member from Fidelity Bank intervened by forwarding his written complaint to the UNIBEN Branch Manager (BM).

The BM reviewed the case and requested that he come to the bank in person to resolve the matter.

On March 21, Patrck met with the BM, who listened to his complaints and questioned Nosa about the issue.

“After hearing both sides, the BM faulted Nosa and instructed him to apologise to me. Shockingly, Nosa refused to apologise outright, openly disrespecting his superior,” he said.

He said rather than enforcing her authority, the BM ignored his insubordination and simply instructed him to release the funds.

However, before the process could be completed, she had to leave for a meeting at the University of Benin Teaching Hospital (UBTH).

Patrick alleged that once the BM left, Nosa resumed his old tactics.

“Once again, it was just Nosa and me in the office. He reverted to claiming he had emailed Fidelity’s Remittance Unit and that they had instructed him not to release the money.”

That same day, Patrick said Nosa made unsettling remarks implying that a bribe was expected before the funds would be released.

“He said, ‘Do the needful.’ ‘You know how these things are done.’ ‘The sender’s name is a foreign name.’ This made it clear that the refusal to release my funds was not due to any procedural issue but rather a deliberate act of extortion,” he said.

For over a week, Fidelity Bank, through Nosa’s actions, allegedly withheld the money despite his full compliance with all their requirements.

He said even after receiving direct instruction from the bank’s management, Nosa refused to comply, raising questions about the bank’s management’s accountability.

“At this point, the only logical conclusion is that this was never about banking regulations—it was about extortion,” Patrick said.

He said, “There is a transaction trail proving that the sender transferred it in seven parts. There were seven transactions, all sent to a single Fidelity Bank account, not multiple accounts.”

He told SaharaReporters that the reason the sender transferred the money in seven parts was that the app did not allow a single transaction of that amount.

He said, “The total sum in question is approximately $921, equivalent to ₦1,400,000, which is less than ₦1.5 million. Since the app restricted a single transfer, the sender had to split it.

“The transactions took place on Wednesday and Thursday. On Wednesday, the sender completed four transactions before receiving a notification that they had reached their transfer limit. The remaining transactions were completed on Thursday. I visited the bank on Friday, the 14th. At no point was the money sent to multiple accounts—every transaction was directed to the same Fidelity Bank account.

“The sender informed me about the app’s transfer restrictions, and I relayed this information to the bank official.”

He questioned why, if this were a case of financial fraud or an Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) investigation, the bank had initially released part of the money to them.

He said, “On Friday, the bank handed me ₦123,000, leaving a balance of approximately ₦1,100,000. The bank official then instructed me to return on Monday for the remaining amount. However, when I returned on Monday, he refused to release the rest, stating that he was ‘not comfortable’ with the transaction. At no point did he express any concerns about fraud.

“It was only after I escalated the issue to Fidelity Bank headquarters that the bank official began corresponding with higher authorities. On Friday and Monday, there was no such communication, which likely only started after my escalation. If the banker truly suspected fraudulent activity, would he have released part of the money to me? And what proper steps did he take regarding the alleged suspicion?

“When I refused to accept his decision, he suddenly cited ‘bank suspicion’ as a reason. If fraud were genuinely suspected, what measures had he taken since Friday? I escalated the issue on Monday, and it was only on Tuesday or Wednesday that he began corresponding with the relevant department.

Regarding allegations that the banker did not request a bribe, I challenge anyone to provide clarification. It is my money being withheld, and I have been the one dealing with the bank. On Friday, after the branch manager left, the banker informed me that the sender’s name was foreign, implying that additional scrutiny would be required.

“To me, this suggested an attempt to solicit an unofficial payment to facilitate a legitimate transaction.”

Patrick questioned why the money has been withheld since the 14th if there are no ulterior motives.

He said, “I have submitted all necessary documents, and the amount involved is well below CBN’s transaction threshold.

“Additionally, the bank’s resolution unit stated that an email from the banker, Nosa, to the headquarters contained errors. The regional chief security officer confirmed this. The headquarters informed me that they received a report stating I could not identify the sender, which is false.

“In reality, I had spoken to the sender, who was even guided by the banker on how to edit the middle name in the transaction records to match the provided ID.”

Patrick told SaharaReporters that the sender had also inquired about opening a corporate account with Fidelity Bank.

“Nosa himself instructed us first to obtain the Corporate Affairs Commission (CAC) registration documents, which would be used for the account setup.

“The purpose of the funds was to register a private company in Nigeria,” Patrick added.

When SaharaReporters contacted the bank, it provided a statement of caution from Remitly, advising Fidelity to reject the transactions because the beneficiary does not know the sender.

The statement read, “Please, find below snapshot of correspondence from the IMTO Remitly, advising the bank not to disburse funds.

“We were not able to get in contact with the sender to validate the information.

“Please, reject the transactions since the beneficiary does not know the sender.”