Equity Bank Wins Court Order to Freeze Assets in KSh1.5 Billion Heist Case

The High Court has frozen seven defendants’ bank accounts and ordered cryptocurrency holdings converted into cash, citing evidence linking disputed transfers to Equity’s internal ledger and a former employee’s credentials.

A trail of electronic transfers, corporate accounts and cryptocurrency transactions has exposed the scale of an alleged KSh 1.5 billion banking fraud.

Now, Equity Bank has secured a major victory in its recovery efforts. The High Court has frozen accounts belonging to seven defendants and ordered cryptocurrency holdings converted into cash.

The orders target assets linked to Equity’s former salary-processing manager, David Machiri Kimani, and eight other defendants.

In a ruling delivered on October 30, 2026, Justice Wananda John Anuro granted the bank significant interim protection.

The judge found that Equity had established a strong arguable case. He also identified a genuine risk that the disputed money could disappear.

However, the court stopped short of declaring the defendants liable. That question will be determined during the substantive hearing.

The Money Trail

Equity filed the suit on September 18, 2025, seeking recovery of KSh 1,499,465,831.29.

The bank accused David Machiri Kimani, its former Manager-Salary Processing, of exploiting privileged access to divert the money.

It alleged that he transferred the funds between November 2023 and June 2024. The money allegedly moved through several third-party accounts before reaching cryptocurrency platforms.

Equity’s case rests heavily on electronic records linking the transactions to its internal systems.

Its Legal Director, Waweru Mathenge, highlighted SWIFT messages identifying Equity as the originating bank.

The messages reportedly identified the same general ledger account across the disputed transfers.

They also allegedly linked the transactions to Kimani’s assigned computer and user identification.

Equity argued that these records contradicted claims that independent corporate clients supplied the money.

The judge considered this evidence sufficiently compelling to warrant intervention. He found that the bank had demonstrated a case requiring serious explanation.

“I am not saying that the Plaintiff will obviously succeed at the full trial,” Justice Anuro cautioned.

Nevertheless, he found the bank’s case “more than barely capable of serious argument”.

Disputed Defence

The defendants offered a different explanation for the money entering their accounts.

Owen Karanja Kuguru, the fifth defendant, denied participating in any fraudulent scheme.

He said his companies provided legitimate importation, shipping and trade-finance support services.

According to Kuguru, corporate clients deposited money to facilitate machinery and vehicle imports.

His companies also allegedly arranged currency conversions for international commercial transactions.

He described himself as a facilitator, with some companies charging five-percent commissions.

Equity challenged that explanation, questioning whether the companies made corresponding dollar payments.

The bank also questioned whether the companies possessed appropriate foreign-exchange authorisations.

It cited Section 33A of the Central Bank of Kenya Act. The bank argued that the defendants had not demonstrated the necessary regulatory authorisations.

Justice Anuro found that their affidavits failed to adequately address the transaction evidence.

He particularly criticised the response filed for Kimani. His father, Joseph Kimani Machiri, had sworn the replying affidavit.

Although describing himself as his son’s guardian, he demonstrated no personal knowledge of the disputed transactions.

The judge consequently characterised the affidavit as a general denial. He concluded that allegations against Kimani “generally remain uncontroverted”.

The eighth defendant’s response encountered a separate evidentiary problem. Her advocate, Paul Mucai Gitau, had sworn her supporting affidavit.

The judge questioned an advocate, assuming both evidentiary and representative roles. He found the affidavit largely hearsay and lacking sufficient probative value.

Crypto Frozen

The judge found that the circumstances demonstrated a genuine risk of asset dissipation.

He pointed to suspicious conduct indicating a propensity to move funds beyond judicial reach.

Cryptocurrency presented particular challenges because of its volatility and transferability.

The judge said the bank had demonstrated “suspicious acts” indicating deliberate movement of the funds.

Consequently, he ordered cryptocurrency holdings belonging to three defendants frozen.

They include Kimani, Kuguru and Ruth Muthoni Kamau, the eighth defendant.

The order covers Binance and other cryptocurrency platforms, exchanges, wallets and custodial accounts.

More significantly, the judge ordered the targeted cryptocurrency converted into ordinary currency within 10 days.

If the defendants fail to comply, platform operators can identify and convert the holdings.

The proceeds must be deposited with a tier-one bank licensed by the Central Bank.

The Central Bank of Kenya will serve as escrow agent holding the converted funds.

The judge also froze specified accounts belonging to seven defendants.

These included accounts held at UBA, Absa, NCBA, Stanbic and Co-operative Bank.

The individual freezing limits range from KSh 8.74 million to KSh 156.28 million.

The restrictions remain effective pending determination of the substantive suit.

The Legal Limits

Despite granting substantial relief, Justice Anuro rejected several additional requests.

He declined to authorise further tracing into other accounts, investments and depositories.

He also refused to compel defendants to provide transaction accounts before trial.

Such orders, he reasoned, would prematurely presume liability before the evidence was fully tested.

The judge also dismissed Kamau’s application seeking to expunge Equity’s pleadings.

She had argued that the bank relied on illegally obtained confidential information.

However, the judge said Article 50(4) does not automatically exclude illegally obtained evidence.

Such evidence becomes inadmissible where admission would render proceedings unfair or harm administration of justice.

He also declined her request to cross-examine Equity’s Legal Director, finding insufficient justification.

Importantly, he preserved her right to revive constitutional objections during the substantive trial.

The judge further concluded that Equity’s potential losses outweighed the hardship caused by restricted accounts.

READ ALSO: Patrick Analo Scores Court Win in KSh170 Million Graft Probe as EACC Ordered to Disclose Records

He noted that the bank had requested specific monetary limits rather than blanket account freezes.

The ruling, therefore, gives Equity an important preservation victory, not a final judgement.

The defendants remain entitled to challenge the allegations and contest the evidence.

Ultimately, the trial must determine who bears responsibility for the disputed KSh 1.499 billion.

For now, the court has ensured that identifiable assets remain beyond the defendants’ immediate control.

PAY ATTENTION: Reach us at info@gotta.news.