THE BIG STORY- ALSCON’S N582.43m Compliance Test: Six Transactions, Four Statutory Provisions and a Boardroom Question

Six transactions. N582.43 million. Four statutory provisions. As the EFCC takes ALSCON to court over alleged failures to report major financial transfers, a critical question confronts corporate Nigeria: are compliance controls working, or are regulatory obligations slipping through the cracks? The trial could put boardroom accountability and anti-money laundering enforcement under intense scrutiny. Adedayo Adejobi writes…

The EFCC’s prosecution of the aluminium producer puts Nigeria’s transaction-reporting regime, corporate oversight and the accountability of company directors under scrutiny.

The prosecution of Aluminium Smelter Company of Nigeria Plc (ALSCON) over alleged failures to report transactions totalling N582.43 million presents a significant compliance question for corporate Nigeria: what happens when the financial reporting obligations imposed by law become the subject of criminal proceedings?

On October 12, 2026, the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) reportedly arraigned ALSCON before the Federal High Court in Abuja on a six-count amended charge, marked FHC/ABJ/CR/644/2025. The case, before Justice O. A. Egwuatu, also names company director Zavyalov Dmitry, whom the EFCC reportedly described as being at large.

According to concurrent reports, the commission alleges that ALSCON, classified in the charge as a designated non-financial business and profession (DNFBP), and its director failed to report six transfers made between March and July 2024 to the Special Control Unit Against Money Laundering (SCUML).

ALSCON’s Acting Managing Director, Ime Monday Inyang, pleaded not guilty on the company’s behalf. The court reportedly adjourned the matter until January 27, 2027, for commencement of trial.

The allegations have not been proved. But the statutory obligations at the centre of the case warrant close examination by compliance officers, company directors, finance executives and internal auditors.

The reporting obligation at the heart of the case…

Section 11(1)(b) of Nigeria’s Money Laundering (Prevention and Prohibition) Act, 2022, requires covered financial institutions and designated non-financial businesses and professions to report qualifying single transactions, lodgments or transfers exceeding N10 million for a body corporate to the appropriate authority in writing within seven days.

The six transactions identified in the reported charge total N582,430,250. They comprise four payments to Udatson Nigeria, one to Urico Global Services and another to Christopher Azogu.

The exact amounts reported are N147,515,050 in March 2024, N156,026,860 in April, N121,425,200 in May and N127,338,190 in July, all paid to Udatson Nigeria. The other payments were N15,124,950 to Urico Global Services in April and N15 million to Christopher Azogu in June.

Each amount exceeds the statutory N10 million threshold for a corporate body. However, the central issue is whether the applicable reporting obligations arose and whether the required reports were submitted as prescribed.

A transaction’s value alone does not establish a reporting breach. Nor does an alleged reporting failure, by itself, prove that the funds were criminal proceeds. Those questions must be determined through evidence and the judicial process.

Four provisions, distinct legal functions…

The EFCC’s reported charge cites Sections 11(1)(b), 11(3), 19(2)(b) and 22 of the 2022 Act.

These provisions perform different functions. Section 11(1)(b) establishes the reporting duty. Section 11(3) prescribes a fine of between N250,000 and N1 million for each day a contravention continues.

Section 19(2)(b) sets penalties for specified offences under Section 19(1)(b)–(f), including a N25 million fine for a body corporate and, for an individual, a N10 million fine or imprisonment for at least three years, or both.

Section 22 addresses circumstances in which an offence by a corporate body may also give rise to liability for a director, manager or similar officer where the offence is proved to have resulted from instigation, connivance or neglect.

The distinction matters. These provisions should not be collapsed into a general assertion that the company or its director has committed money laundering. The prosecution  are duty-bound to establish the elements of the offences charged.

The boardroom test: are reporting controls working?

For companies subject to the Act, compliance cannot be confined to written policies or the appointment of a compliance officer. Reporting obligations must be integrated into payment processes, finance operations, internal audit and management oversight.

Section 10 of the Act requires covered businesses to develop anti-money laundering programmes that include management-level compliance officers, regular employee training, centralised information and internal audit arrangements.

The practical question for boards is whether these controls function effectively. Can the organisation identify transactions requiring reports? Are responsibilities clearly assigned? Are submissions documented and retained? Can internal audit independently test whether reporting deadlines are being met?

These are appropriate questions for corporate Nigeria to consider in light of the case. They are not findings that ALSCON’s internal systems failed in any particular way; the available reports do not establish why the transactions were allegedly unreported.

ALSCON’s earlier response requires careful treatment

ALSCON issued a public statement on May 20, 2025, concerning the broader EFCC investigation. In that statement, the company said the inquiry began in 2021, included an inspection in 2022 and resumed in October 2024.

It argued that the investigation concerned RUSAL’s investments in the company and funds allocated to salaries, maintenance and protection of the facility. ALSCON described those activities as legitimate and said it remained committed to transparency and cooperation with regulators.

That statement predates the October 2026 arraignment. It, however, should not be presented as a response to the specific six-count charge concerning alleged failures to report the N582.43 million in transfers.

Although ALSCON reportedly pleaded not guilty and its counsel asked the court to quash the charges, a subsequent public explanation specifically addressing the six alleged reporting failures could not be verified from the material reviewed for this analysis.

COMPLIANCETODAY however sought a fresh response from ALSCON on whether the reports were filed, what statutory obligations the company considers applicable and what records support its position, but ALSCON’s Nigeria office and its international headquarters have failed to respond to our enquiries as off press time.

Enforcement must be matched by prevention…

The case also raises questions about the effectiveness of regulatory supervision. Enforcement is necessary, but the broader objective of anti-money laundering controls is to make compliance routine, verifiable and effective.

That requires clear guidance, competent compliance personnel, sound recordkeeping, effective internal controls and supervisory processes that identify deficiencies. Businesses must be able to demonstrate compliance through evidence rather than rely on the existence of policies alone.

For compliance professionals, the proceedings provide a reason to review reporting procedures and escalation channels. For boards, they underline the importance of ensuring that statutory duties have clear owners and that management receives reliable information about compliance performance.

Due process remains the decisive safeguard

ALSCON has denied the charges by pleading not guilty. The allegations remain for the court to determine, and the company is entitled to the presumption of innocence.

The wider lesson is not that ALSCON has been found guilty, but that transaction-reporting obligations can carry significant legal consequences when regulators allege non-compliance.

As proceedings continue, the decisive issues will be the exact duties applicable to the transactions, whether the required reports were submitted and whether the prosecution can establish the alleged offences.

For corporate Nigeria, the message is clear: effective compliance depends on clear accountability, functioning controls and verifiable records. The ALSCON case places those principles under scrutiny, but the court, not the allegation, will determine whether the law was breached.