EFCC Docks Man for Alleged Investment Fraud in Calabar

The Uyo Zonal Office of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) on Wednesday December 2, 2020, arraigned one Joseph Stanley Okputu before Justice Imelda Etape of the State High Court, Calabar, Cross River State for ponzi scheme.
He was arraigned on a two-count charge, bordering on obtaining by false pretence and stealing to the tune of N600,000.00 (Six Hundred Thousand Naira) only.
One of the charges read, "That you, Okputu Joseph Stanley ("M") on or about 6th of August 2018 in Calabar within the jurisdiction of this honourable court, fraudulently converted to your own use the sum of N600,000.00 (Six hundred thousand naira), belonging to Anietie Ekong...
...meant to be invested in bitcoin/forex trading package and to be returned to him with 80% interest on the fortieth (40th) day of the investment,"...
...thereby committed an offence contrary to the provisions of Section 383 (1) of Criminal Code, Vol.3 Cap C16, Laws of Cross River State and punishable under Section 390 of the same Law.”
He pleaded “not guilty,” to the charge, upon which prosecution counsel, Joshua Abolarin, prayed the court to fix a trial date and for the defendant to be remanded in the custody of the Nigeria Correctional Service...
...while defence counsel, Imeh Umanah informed the court of the defendant’s bail application and prayed for his release on bail.
Prosecution counsel’s objection to the bail application, led to the judge’s adjournment of the case till December 8, 2020 for ruling on the bail application and an order for the defendant to be remanded in the custody of Cross River State Correctional Service, Calabar.
The defendant courted trouble when he allegedly lured the petitioner, Anietie Ekong to invest in a currency trade, promoted by Micheno Cooperative on the promise that the petitioner will be paid 80 per cent interest on his invested sum after 40 days.
However, upon receiving the money from the petitioner on August 6, 2018, Okputu became incommunicado by disabling the line of communication between him and the petitioner.

More from EFCC Nigeria

More from Crime

My students @maxzks and Tushar Jois spent most of the summer going through every piece of public documentation, forensics report, and legal document we could find to figure out how police were “breaking phone encryption”. 1/


This was prompted by a claim from someone knowledgeable, who claimed that forensics companies no longer had the ability to break the Apple Secure Enclave Processor, which would make it very hard to crack the password of a locked, recent iPhone. 2/

We wrote an enormous report about what we found, which we’ll release after the holidays. The TL;DR is kind of depressing:

Authorities don’t need to break phone encryption in most cases, because modern phone encryption sort of sucks. 3/

I’ll focus on Apple here but Android is very similar. The top-level is that, to break encryption on an Apple phone you need to get the encryption keys. Since these are derived from the user’s passcode, you either need to guess that — or you need the user to have entered it. 4/

Guessing the password is hard on recent iPhones because there’s (at most) a 10-guess limit enforced by the Secure Enclave Processor (SEP). There’s good evidence that at one point in 2018 a company called GrayKey had a SEP exploit that did this for the X. See photo. 5/

You May Also Like

12 TRADING SETUPS which experts are using.

These setups I found from the following 4 accounts:

1. @Pathik_Trader
2. @sourabhsiso19
3. @ITRADE191
4. @DillikiBiili

Share for the benefit of everyone.

Here are the setups from @Pathik_Trader Sir first.

1. Open Drive (Intraday Setup explained)


Bactesting results of Open Drive


2. Two Price Action setups to get good long side trade for intraday.

1. PDC Acts as Support
2. PDH Acts as


Example of PDC/PDH Setup given
I just finished Eric Adler's The Battle of the Classics, and wanted to say something about Joel Christiansen's review linked below. I am not sure what motivates the review (I speculate a bit below), but it gives a very misleading impression of the book. 1/x


The meat of the criticism is that the history Adler gives is insufficiently critical. Adler describes a few figures who had a great influence on how the modern US university was formed. It's certainly critical: it focuses on the social Darwinism of these figures. 2/x

Other insinuations and suggestions in the review seem wildly off the mark, distorted, or inappropriate-- for example, that the book is clickbaity (it is scholarly) or conservative (hardly) or connected to the events at the Capitol (give me a break). 3/x

The core question: in what sense is classics inherently racist? Classics is old. On Adler's account, it begins in ancient Rome and is revived in the Renaissance. Slavery (Christiansen's primary concern) is also very old. Let's say classics is an education for slaveowners. 4/x

It's worth remembering that literacy itself is elite throughout most of this history. Literacy is, then, also the education of slaveowners. We can honor oral and musical traditions without denying that literacy is, generally, good. 5/x