EFCC Arraigns CEO for Alleged N200 Million Fraud in Enugu
The Enugu Zonal directorate of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, EFCC has arraigned one Ameh Kelechi Wilfred, the Chief Executive Officer of Panchovilla Enterprises Nigeria Limited and Panchovilla Group of Companies Limited, before Justice H. O. Eya of the Enugu State High Court, sitting in Independence Layout, for alleged N200, 000, 000. 00 (Two Hundred Million Naira) fraud.
Wilfred was arraigned alongside his two companies (Panchovilla Enterprises Nigeria Limited and Panchovilla Group of Companies Limited) on a three-count charge bordering on obtaining by false pretence and stealing to the tune of N200, 000, 000. 00 (Two Hundred Million Naira).
Count one of the charges reads: “That you, Ameh Kelechi Wilfred (while being the Director of Panchovilla Enterprises Nigeria Limited and Panchovilla Group of Companies Limited between 7th September to 13th October 2025 in Enugu, Enugu State, within the jurisdiction of of this Honourable Court, with intent to defraud, obtained the total sum of One Hundred and Fifteen Million Naira (N115, 000, 000. 00) from Classic Supermarket Limited, when you held out yourself under pretence as Mandate Holder of Office Space and its Appurtenances at shop 18, Palms Shopping Mall (former Games Section) Enugu and capable of renting the office space for two years tenancy, a pretence you knew to be false and thereby committed an offence”.
Count two of the charges reads: “That you, Ameh Kelechi Wilfred (while being the Director of Panchovilla Enterprises Nigeria Limited and Panchovilla Group of Companies Limited between 7th September to 13th October 2025 in Enugu, Enugu State, within the jurisdiction of this Honourable Court, with intent to defraud, obtained the total sum of Eighty-five Million Naira (N85, 000, 000. 00) from Classic Supermarket Limited, when you held out yourself under pretence as Mandate Holder of Office Space and its Appurtenances at shop 18, Palms Shopping Mall (former Games Section) Enugu and capable of renting the office space for two years tenancy, a pretence you knew to be false and thereby committed an offence”.
The offence is contrary to Section 1 (1) (a) of the Advance Fee Fraud and Other Related Offences Act, 2006 and punishable under Section 1 (3) of the same Act.
The defendant pleaded “not guilty” to the charges when they were read to him. In view of his plea, counsel to the EFCC, Chief Superintendent of the EFCC, CSE Blessing Ngozi Obasi prayed the court for a trial date and for the defendant to be remanded at the facility of the Nigerian Correctional Service, NCoS.
The defence counsel, Chidiebere Lucky Obodo informed the court about his client’s bail application before it, moved the said application and prayed the court to grant Wilfred bail.
Justice Eya thereafter granted the defendant bail in the sum of N1m with one surety in like sum. The surety must be resident of Enugu State and must have a property within the jurisdiction of the court. The property must have a title registered at the Ministry of Lands.
The court also ruled that the surety must deposit the original and photocopy of the registered title document of the said property with the court and that the surety and the defendant must deposit two full -sized photographs each and they must appear in court on the next adjourned date.
The defendant was remanded at NCoS, pending the fulfilment of the bail conditions. The matter was adjourned to October 27, 2026 for commencement of trial.
The defendant allegedly presented his company (Panchovilla Enterprises Limited as a mandate holder, over a building (the Palms Shopping Mall, Enugu) and offered a section that was formerly occupied by Game Nigeria to one Asogwa Thaddeus Ibe of Classic Supermarket (the petitioner), for a lease of two years term and allegedly obtained the said sum.
According to the petitioner, after making payment to the defendant, he attempted to take possession of the rented space but was denied access by the management of Palms Shopping Mall, Enugu, as he later discovered that the defendant has no title to the rented space and had no authority to deal or transact on the property.
