RismadarVoice Reporters
October 12, 2026
The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) has arraigned the Aluminium Smelter Company of Nigeria (ALSCON) Plc and its director, Zavyalov Dmitry, before the Federal High Court in Abuja over alleged violations of Nigeria’s anti-money laundering laws involving transactions totalling ₦582.43 million.
The proceedings took place on Monday, October 12, 2026, before Justice O. A. Egwuatu, following the filing of a six-count amended charge marked FHC/ABJ/CR/644/2025.
Dmitry, who was named alongside the company in the charge, was reported to be at large.
According to the EFCC, the defendants allegedly failed to report six financial transactions conducted between March and July 2024 to the Special Control Unit Against Money Laundering (SCUML), as required under the Money Laundering (Prevention and Prohibition) Act, 2022.
The prosecution identified ALSCON as a Designated Non-Financial Business and Profession (DNFBP) subject to applicable financial reporting obligations.
Court documents indicated that four of the disputed transactions involved payments to UDATSON Nigeria.
The payments comprised ₦147,515,050 in March 2024, ₦156,026,860 in April, ₦121,425,200 in May and approximately ₦127.34 million in July of the same year.
Two additional transactions involved approximately ₦15.12 million allegedly transferred to Urico Global Services in April 2024 and ₦15 million paid to Christopher Azogu in June 2024.
The six transactions amounted to approximately ₦582.43 million.
In the first count, the EFCC alleged that ALSCON and its director failed to report a transfer of ₦147,515,050 to UDATSON Nigeria in March 2024.
The second count concerned an alleged unreported payment of ₦156,026,860 to the same recipient in April, while the fourth count related to a further transfer of ₦121,425,200 in May.
The commission maintained that the alleged reporting failures contravened Section 11(1)(b) of the Money Laundering (Prevention and Prohibition) Act, 2022.
The prosecution also cited Sections 11(3), 19(2)(b) and 22 of the legislation as provisions relevant to the alleged offences and applicable penalties.
The case centres on the defendants’ alleged failure to comply with statutory transaction-reporting requirements. The existence of the transfers does not, by itself, establish that the underlying funds were proceeds of crime.
The allegations remain subject to judicial determination, and no conviction has been reported in the proceedings.
