The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) has arrested the Managing Director of Debasilio Construction and Estate Development Limited, Basil Iwoba Ochili, over an alleged N128 million land fraud involving five plots of land in Awka, Anambra State.
Ochili was arrested by operatives of the EFCC’s Enugu Zonal Directorate following a petition alleging that he falsely presented himself as the owner of the properties and offered them for sale.
The EFCC disclosed the arrest in a statement issued by its Head of Media and Publicity, Dele Oyewale, today, September 17, 2026.
According to the commission, the disputed properties are located beside the Anambra State Secretariat, by Stamford Hotel, around Aroma Junction in Awka.
The case highlights a recurring risk in Nigeria’s property market, where buyers can lose substantial sums when ownership, development rights or the authority of a seller are not properly established before payment.
How the alleged N128m property transaction happened
The EFCC said the petitioner alleged that the transaction began in September 2022.
According to the petition, Ochili represented himself as the owner of the five plots and offered them for sale.
The buyer reportedly relied on this representation and proceeded with the transaction.
A total of N128 million was subsequently paid into the account of Ochili’s company, Debasilio Construction and Estate Development Limited.
The payment was reportedly made on the understanding that Ochili had the legal authority to sell the five plots.
However, the transaction allegedly took a different turn after the buyer completed payment.
The petitioner was reportedly unable to take possession of the property despite having paid the agreed purchase price.
This is a critical point in the allegation because payment for land does not, by itself, establish ownership or guarantee that a purchaser can legally take possession.
The circumstances surrounding the transaction are now part of the EFCC’s investigation.
The commission said its preliminary findings indicated that Ochili allegedly knew the property encroached on land belonging to the Anambra State Government Secretariat when he offered it for sale.
If established in court, that allegation would raise questions about how the property was marketed, the basis on which the seller claimed ownership and whether the buyer was given accurate information before committing N128 million.
However, the EFCC has not said that the allegations have been proven in court.
Alleged refund attempt involved two dud cheques
The dispute reportedly continued after the buyer was unable to take possession of the property.
According to the EFCC, rather than refunding the N128 million, Ochili allegedly issued two dud cheques to the petitioner.
The commission described the cheques as dud cheques, meaning they allegedly could not be successfully honoured when presented for payment.
“Instead of refunding the petitioner’s money, the suspect offered him two dud cheques,” the EFCC stated.
The alleged use of the cheques adds another dimension to the property dispute.
For a buyer who has already paid for land that cannot be possessed, the inability to recover the money can significantly increase the financial impact of the transaction.
In this case, the amount involved is N128 million, making the alleged loss substantial.
The EFCC also said preliminary investigations revealed that Ochili allegedly used part of the money to settle his debts.
This allegation is also subject to the ongoing investigation and would have to be established through evidence and, ultimately, judicial proceedings.
EFCC raises tax compliance concerns
The commission said its preliminary investigations also revealed that Debasilio Construction and Estate Development Limited had never been tax compliant.
The EFCC did not provide further details in the statement about the nature or extent of the alleged tax non-compliance.
Nevertheless, the development introduces another area of concern for property buyers dealing with companies.
A property transaction can involve more than the physical land. Buyers also need to consider the identity of the seller, the company behind the transaction, the seller’s authority over the property and the documents supporting the transaction.
Where a company is marketing property, these checks become particularly important because the buyer may be dealing with a corporate entity rather than the registered owner of the land.
The Awka case therefore demonstrates why prospective buyers should avoid treating payment instructions, company registration or marketing materials as proof of land ownership.
What the case means for property buyers
The alleged N128 million fraud should serve as a reminder that property due diligence must take place before substantial funds change hands.
In land transactions, buyers should establish who actually owns the property and whether the person or company offering it for sale has the legal authority to do so.
This requires verification of the title and relevant land records with the appropriate government authority.
Buyers should also investigate whether the land is affected by government acquisition, existing encumbrances, disputes, planning restrictions or other claims.
The location of the five plots in this case makes that issue particularly important.
The EFCC alleged that the property encroached on land belonging to the Anambra State Government Secretariat. A proper investigation into the property’s status could therefore be critical before completing a transaction.
A buyer should also independently verify the survey plan, title documents, property description and boundaries.
Where a company is selling the property, the buyer should establish the company’s legal status and confirm that the individuals negotiating the transaction are authorised to act for it.
Legal professionals and qualified property professionals can also help examine documents and identify potential problems before the buyer commits funds.
Payment should not replace verification
One of the important lessons from the allegations is the distinction between paying for property and establishing a valid property interest.
A buyer may transfer the full purchase price and still face difficulty taking possession if the seller does not have valid title or authority to transfer the property.
That is why property transactions should not be driven solely by urgency, attractive prices or the reputation presented by a seller.
Large payments should follow, rather than precede, appropriate verification.
For buyers, particularly those purchasing land for development, the cost of due diligence is generally a smaller exposure than committing millions of naira to a property whose ownership is uncertain.
The case also shows why buyers should be cautious when a seller is unable to provide clear documentation or discourages independent verification.
Ochili to face court after investigation
The EFCC said investigations into the matter are continuing.
The commission stated that Ochili would be charged to court after the conclusion of investigations.
At this stage, the allegations against him remain unproven.
An arrest and an investigation do not amount to a conviction, and Ochili is entitled to due process and the presumption of innocence unless a court determines otherwise.
The final outcome will depend on the evidence gathered by investigators and the proceedings that may follow.
For the wider Nigerian property market, however, the case underscores the financial and legal consequences that can arise from inadequate property verification.
With N128 million allegedly paid for five plots that the buyer was reportedly unable to possess, the dispute demonstrates the scale of losses that can occur when ownership and development rights are not properly established.
It also reinforces the need for prospective land buyers to verify title, confirm ownership, check government acquisition records and obtain independent legal advice before completing high-value transactions.
For property investors, the central lesson is straightforward: a land offer is not proof of ownership, and payment is not proof of a valid title. Proper verification remains one of the most important safeguards against property fraud in Nigeria.