Digital curencies and e-payments, legal matters arising
Paper presentented by
JONATHAN KISH ADAMU
At the clasfon northern regional conference at Lokoja august 7, 2015
In “Do-re-mi” from the 1959 Rodgers and Hammerstein musical “The sound of Music” Fraulen Maria in teaching the Von Trapp children how to sing admonishes them that it will be better to start from the very beginning. In that same spirit I think it will be better to begin this presentation with the basics, i.e. by defining some of the terms.
While some of us may be familiar with them, others may find them strange concepts. If you are like me, the very idea of digital currency does not jell with our traditional view of currency. An understanding of the terms will give us a lead into some of the legal issues surrounding digital currencies and E-payments. Let me start off by stating that all digital currencies are forms of e-payments, but the converse is not the case.
Digital refers to numbers and signals that represent a number rather than a continuously variable signal.. This would mean something intangible, not physical. So when something is digital it simply means it has been converted into numbers in order for the computer to be able to process it. So where digital currencies are concerned therefore, it means that the currency has been converted into numbers i.e. digital form or numbers for the computer to process
Currency is a medium of exchange. Currency is a means of furnishing consideration in order to form a contract. Section 2 of the Coins Act 1928 defines Coin to include “…notes issued by a government or by a banker”
So if we combine the two words “digital currency” will mean a digital means of exchange using computers or a “method of paying for goods over the Internet…”
Wikipedia defines Digital currency as an internet based form of currency or medium of exchange (i.e., distinct from physical, such as banknotes and coins) that exhibits properties similar to physical currencies, however, allows for instantaneous transactions and borderless transfer-of-ownership. Both virtual currencies and crypto currencies are types of digital currencies, but the converse is incorrect. Like traditional money these currencies may be used to buy physical goods and services but could also be restricted to certain communities such as for example for use inside an on-line game or social network. Digital currencies such as bitcoin are known as “decentralized digital currencies,” meaning that there is no central point of control over the money supply. That is there is no banking intermediary for instance
Digital currency can be contrasted with regular currency, which is either in paper form or coins. That is physical in nature. The essential quality of digital currency is its intangible nature even if it can be processed using a physical medium.
Digital currencies may not satisfy the requirements of the Coins Act, which prescribes that currency, must be issued by “a government or a banker”
There are several synonyms for digital currency such as Digital cash, which is defined as a method of paying for goods over the Internet. “…a system that allows a person to pay for goods or services by transmitting a number from one computer to another. Like the serial numbers on real dollar bills, the digital cash numbers are unique. Each one is issued by a bank and represents a specified sum of real money. One of the key features of digital cash is that, like real cash, it is anonymous and reusable. That is, when a digital cash amount is sent from a buyer to a vendor, there is no way to obtain information about the buyer. This is one of the key differences between digital cash and credit card systems. Another key difference is that a digital cash certificate can be reused.
Digital cash transactions are expected to become commonplace by the year 2000. However, there a number of competing protocols, and it is unclear which ones will become dominant. Most digital cash systems start with a participating bank that issues cash numbers or other unique identifiers that carry a given value, such as five dollars. To obtain such a certificate, you must have an account at the bank; when you purchase digital cash certificates, the money is withdrawn from your account. You transfer the certificate to the vendor to pay for a product or service, and the vendor deposits the cash number in any participating bank or retransmits it to another vendor. For large purchases, the vendor can check the validity of a cash number by contacting the issuing bank
TYPES OF DIGITAL CURRENCIES
- Virtual currency defined in 2012 by the European Central Bank as “a type of unregulated, digital money, which is issued and usually controlled by its developers, and used and accepted among the members of a specific virtual community“. The US Department of Treasury in 2013 defined it more tersely as “a medium of exchange that operates like a currency in some environments, but does not have all the attributes of real currency”. The key attribute a virtual currency does not have according to these definitions, is the status as legal tender.
- A type of digital token that relies on cryptography for chaining together digital signatures of token transfers, peer-to-peer networking and decentralization. In some cases a proof-of-work scheme is used to create and manage the currency.
Bitcoin is a payment system invented by Satoshi Nakamoto, who published the invention in 2008 and released it as open-source software in 2009. The system is peer-to-peer; users can transact directly without needing an intermediary. Transactions are verified by network nodes and recorded in a public distributed ledger called the block chain. The ledger uses its own unit of account, also called bitcoin. The system works without a central repository or single administrator, which has led the US Treasury to categorize it as a decentralized virtual currency. Bitcoin is often called the first cryptocurrency, although prior systems existed. Bitcoin is more correctly described as the first decentralized digital currency. It is the largest of its kind in terms of total market value. Bitcoin is an instrument of alternative finance, which has emerged outside of the traditional financial system. Bitcoins are created as a reward for payment processing work in which users offer their computing power to verify and record payments into the public ledger. This activity is called mining and the miners are rewarded with transaction fees and newly created bitcoins. Besides mining, bitcoins can be obtained in exchange for different currencies, products, and services. Users can send and receive bitcoins for an optional transaction fee.
Bitcoin as a form of payment for products and services has grown, and merchants have an incentive to accept it because fees are lower than the 2–3% typically imposed by credit card processors. Unlike credit cards, any fees are paid by the purchaser, not the vendor. The European Banking Authority and other sources have warned that bitcoin users are not protected by refund rights or chargebacks. Despite a big increase in the number of merchants accepting bitcoin, the cryptocurrency doesn’t have much momentum in retail transactions. The use of bitcoin by criminals has attracted the attention of financial regulators, legislative bodies, law enforcement, and media. Criminal activities are primarily centered around black markets and theft, though officials in countries such as the United States also recognize that bitcoin can provide legitimate financial services.
Bitcoin raises a number of legal and regulatory concerns, including its potential for facilitating money laundering, its treatment under USA Federal Securities law, and its status in the regulation of foreign exchange trading. Regulators in several countries have warned against their use and some have taken concrete regulatory measures to dissuade users.
- There may be significant legal issues around security interests in Bitcoin under the Uniform Commercial Code.
- The non-cryptocurrencies are all centralized. As such, they may be shut down or seized by a government at any time.
- The more anonymous a currency is, the more attractive it is to criminals, regardless of the intentions of its creators.
- Anyone with the right skills can issue a digital currency. It can be compared to issuing bonds with zero interest rate, no real security behind them and thus no real obligation for the issuer to pay back the amount. This means that the issuer, who succeeds in selling his currency to other users, can earn a great deal of actual money at the expense of his users.
It has been suggested that that the value of bitcoin is largely derived from speculative trading. Bitcoin is not a legal tender and would not pass the test of legal tender as prescribed by Nigeria law or in any other country.
Within the purview of the law of contract, digital currencies may be considered some form of condieration upon which a legal claim may be sustained. If we consider that Consideration is defined as “the act or promise offered by the one party and accepted by the other as the price of that others promise”
Counterfeiting Criminal Statutes
In Nigeria virtual currencies like Bitcoins may be considered illegal if the Coins Act and similar statutes are considered. It may be argued an issuer of such currencies floating on the Internet may be successfully prosecuted for violation of Nigerian law. In the USA according to the Congressional Research Service in its “Bitcoin: Questions, Answers, and Analysis of Legal Issues” of 28 January 2015, “The basic governmental interest in enacting laws against counterfeiting obligations of the United States is protecting the value of the dollar and the monetary system. Under title 18 U.S.C. Sections 470-477 and 485-489 counterfeiting and forging of U.S. coins, currency, and obligations is subject to criminal sanctions, and under 18 U.S.C. Sections 478-483, criminal sanctions are prescribed for counterfeiting foreign coins, currency, and obligations. None of these statutes, however, applies expressly to a currency that exists only on the Internet and in computers in a digital form. Although the usual prosecution under these statutes involves attempts to replicate Federal Reserve notes or coins produced by the U.S. Mint, at least one case involved a conviction for issuing and circulating Liberty Dollars, designed as similar to but distinguishable from U.S. dollars and intended to “limit reliance on, and to compete with, United States currency.” Whether a digital currency, even if it is designed to attack the value of U.S. legal tender, could be prosecuted under the current language of these statutes is not clear”
The Stamp Duties Act
Section 35 of the Stamp Duties Act makes it a crime to issue any bank notes other those issued by the CBN and requires the payment of Stamp duty on bills of exchange and promissory notes.
In the USA the Stamp Payments Act makes it a crime to issue, circulate, or pay out “any note, check, memorandum, token or other obligation, for a less sum than $1, intended to circulate as money or to be received or used in lieu of lawful money of the United States.”. However, there are some arguments that could be made, particularly should a digital currency become pervasive enough to be considered a possible competitor to U.S. official currency.
The Electronic Fund Transfer Act, 15 U.S.C. Sections 1693
The Electronic Fund Transfer Act (EFTA) establishes a framework for transfers of money electronically, but its coverage is limited in such a way that it appears not to be applicable to a digital currency in transactions involving no depository institution. The EFTA specifically applies to transfers of funds initiated by electronic means from a consumer’s account held at a financial institution. It covers transfers “initiated through an electronic terminal, telephonic instrument, or computer.” Its application is limited to deposit accounts “established primarily for personal, family, or household purposes,” “held by a financial institution,” with “financial institution” limited to banks, thrifts, savings associations, and credit unions.
Digital currencies have characteristics of traditional tax haven jurisdictions: earnings are not reported to the IRS and users are provided some level of anonymity. Unlike traditional tax havens, however, digital currencies are able to operate without involving a financial institution. Income Tax regulations have not appeared to target a digital currency such as Bitcoin that is used as a medium of exchange for goods and services in the real world. On March 25, 2014, the IRS posted on its website a notice, IRS Virtual Currency Guidance: Virtual Currency is Treated as Property for U.S. Federal Tax Purposes; General Rules for Property Transactions Apply. Which will mean that wages paid to employees using virtual currency are taxable to the employee, must be reported by an employer on a Form W-2, and are subject to federal income tax withholding and payroll taxes. Payments using virtual currency made to independent contractors and other service providers are taxable and self-employment tax rules generally apply. Normally, payers must issue Form 1099.
The character of gain or loss from the sale or exchange of virtual currency depends on whether the virtual currency is a capital asset in the hands of the taxpayer. A payment made using virtual currency is subject to information reporting to the same extent as any other payment made in property.
Federal Anti-Money Laundering Laws
Under the criminal anti-money laundering laws, engaging in financial transactions that involve proceeds of illegal or terrorist activities or those that are designed to finance such activities is prohibited. Money laundering crimes generally involve transactions processed by financial institutions, which is why in the USA; the Bank Secrecy Act (BSA) imposes various recordkeeping requirements on banks and other financial institutions. Section 3 of the Money Laundering (Prohibition) Amendment Act 2012 requires that A Financial Institution and Designated Non- Financial Institution shall –
(a) identify a customer, whether permanent or occasional, natural or legal person, or any other form of legal arrangements, using identification documents as may be prescribed in any relevant regulation;
(b) verify the identity of that customer using reliable, independent source documents, data or information and
(c) identify the beneficial owner and take reasonable measures to verify the identity of the beneficial owner using relevant information or data obtained from a reliable source such that the Financial Institution or the Designated Non-Financial Institution is satisfied that it knows who the beneficial owner is␣;
On March 18, 2013, Treasury’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FINCEN) issued interpretative guidance requiring Bitcoin exchanges—individuals and businesses that change Bitcoins into U.S. or foreign currency—to register as MSBs pursuant to the BSA. Subsequently, FINCEN issued rulings indicating that (1) individuals or companies that mine Bitcoins, use them, and convert them into real currency for their own use are not exchanges and do not have to register as MSBs and (2) companies investing in Bitcoins exclusively for their own account are not exchanges and do not have to register as MSBs.
One ruling applied to a business proposing to act as an intermediary between credit card holders and hotels dealing only in Bitcoins; the other proposed to set up a trading platform to match offers to buy and sell virtual currency for legal tender. In both cases, FINCEN ruled that the companies qualified as money transmitters under the MSB regulations and did not meet the criteria for exemption as payment processors.
In the second ruling, FINCEN determined on October 27, 2014, that a company proposing to set up a virtual currency trading platform would be required to register as an MSB. Under the proposal, customers would deposit U.S. dollars and virtual currency in accounts that would be maintained separately in their names and could be used to execute orders to the company to buy or sell the currency at a given price. Orders would be executed automatically through the platform, which would attempt to match buy and sell orders from among the customers maintaining accounts with the company. If no match was found at the given price, no transaction would be executed. The company argued for an exemption from the MSB regulations on the grounds that its operations were similar to those of commodities or securities exchanges and that it was not transmitting money to counterparties. FINCEN characterized these arguments as irrelevant. Instead, FINCEN looked to the regulatory definition of money transmitter and found it to cover the company’s activities. According to FINCEN, “in each trade conducted through the Platform, two money transmission transactions occur: one between the Company and the Customer wishing to buy virtual currency, and another between the Company and the Customer wishing to sell such virtual currency at the same exchange rate.
Another issue is how to treat investments purchased with Bitcoins and investing in Bitcoins.
Investments Purchased with Bitcoins.
On the first issue the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas held in August 2013 that it had subject matter jurisdiction over possible fraud in investments purchased with Bitcoins because of its determination that investments purchased with Bitcoins are securities.
Because it found that the BTCST investments satisfied the investment contract definition, the court held that it had subject matter jurisdiction over possible fraud in investments purchased with Bitcoins.
Investing in Bitcoins
The SEC is conducting investigations into bitcoin investments. For example, in June 2014, the SEC charged the co-owner of two Bitcoin-related websites with offering publicly traded securities without registering them. An SEC investigation found that a co-owner of the websites published prospectuses on the Internet and solicited investors to buy shares in SatoshiDICE and FeedZeBirds. However, the co-owner had not registered the offerings with the SEC. Investors paid for their shares with Bitcoins. The charges were settled, with disgorgement of the profits plus a penalty.
Potential investors can be easily enticed with the promise of high returns in a new investment space and also may be less skeptical when assessing something novel, new and cutting-edge. This was precisely what I saw in Kaduna this Wednesday.
International Legal Issues
Because the issue of digital currencies is global in nature, the United States is not the only nation taking an interest in the potential impact of increased use of Bitcoin. Because digital currency knows no national boundaries, it may require an international solution and, thus, has drawn the attention of international regulators. Traditional payment systems, which involve monetary systems, are set up in statutes and regulations and overseen by central banks and transactions processed by banks and other authorized or chartered financial institutions. With virtual currencies, however, no laws and regulations define the duties and obligations of parties, provide for finality of settlement, resolution of disputes, or supervision of services provided. A study by the European Central Bank is premised on the possibility that growth of digital currencies will carry with it a need for international cooperation in developing a regulatory framework. According to the report, the current level of virtual currencies poses little risk to price stability; there are, however, risks to users and a potential for criminal schemes.
The European Union has concluded that neither the European Monetary Directive nor the European Payment Services Directive clearly applies to virtual currencies such as Bitcoin.
An electronic payment has been defined as a system which permits the user to make a certain number of transactions, such as transfer of funds, withdrawals of deposits of cash, access to an account, and recharge of a rechargeable electronic instrument of payment partially or totally by electronic means.
Electronic payments are distance payment platforms or remote access payments.
Municipal law in most jurisdictions generally regulates electronic payments. For instance in Estonia, it is regulated by the Law of obligations Act which is based on EU Commission Recommendation of 30 July 1997. This law voids any electronic payment transaction that derogates from this law to the detriment of the holder of an electronic payment device. It recognizes two types of electronic payment instruments:
- Remote access payment instruments
- Electronic money instruments
A remote access payment instrument enables its holder, without giving any written instructions, to access funds in an account opened in the name of the holder by an account manager, including for the purposes of performing transfers, and the use of a payment instrument usually requires a personal identification number or other similar proof of identity of the holder of the payment instrument. Remote access payment instruments include payment cards (both credit and debit cards) and telephone and home banking applications to access funds in an account.
An “electronic money instrument” is a reloadable electronic payment instrument other than a remote access payment instrument including a card or computer memory, on which monetary units are stored electronically, enabling its holder to transfer money, withdraw cash, and load or unload the money instrument using a cash dispensing machine or a self service payment terminal. This would include fare cards, prepaid cards etc.
Generally in lost jurisdictions users of electronic payment instruments enjoy statutory protection and would be indemnified by the service provider or the issuer of the electronic payment instrument. The holder of the instrument is also at liberty to make a claim for damages beyond statutory limits prescribed in any law. However these rights are limited by the requirement to report any loss suffered in a timely manner. Issuers and holders of electronic payment instrument most also take steps to ensure the security of the instrument.
In case of litigation in regard to an electronic payment, the burden of proof of the payment lies on the issuer. Except in case of gross negligence or willful misconduct, the user is not liable for the consequences linked to the loss or theft of the payment means after the notification date.
In some jurisdictions the account holder is not responsible for improper use of his account by other parties. An exception is made when the person performing the improper use has established his identity, according to the rules of the agreement for the account, and the improper use has been made possible, either intentionally or by gross negligence on the part of the account holder, or by others who have the right to debit the account.
Most of the legal issues that relate to electronic payment revolve around the following
- Consequences of the loss, destruction or compromise of the electronic payment instrument or platform.
- Duties/liabilities of the issuer and user/holder of the instruments
- Issues of criminal and civil liability arising from the issue and use of the electronic payment instrument.
In Nigeria the CBN issues guidelines to regulate electronic payment, which are mostly facilitated using the Nigeria Interbank Settlement System Plc (NIBSS).
Nigeria Inter-Bank Settlement System (NIBSS) Plc was incorporated in 1993 and is owned by all licensed banks including the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) and discount houses. It commenced operations in June 1994. NIBSS has put in place modern world-class infrastructures for handling inter-bank payments in order to remove potential bottlenecks associated with inter-bank funds transfer and settlement. The company also operates the Nigeria Automated Clearing System (NACS), which facilitates the electronic clearing of cheques, and other paper based instruments, electronic funds transfer, Automated Direct Credits and Automated Direct Debits. NIBSS at the instance of the Bankers’ committee has acquired cutting edge technologies for the operation of the Nigeria Central Switch (NCS). This is similar to USA Automated Clearing House (ACH) coordinated by the National Automated Clearing House Association (NACHA). As a not-for-profit trade association, NACHA develops rules and business practices for the ACH network. NACHA’s activities and initiatives facilitate the adoption of electronic payments for internet commerce, electronic bill payment and presentments, financial electronic data interchange, international payments, electronic checks, and electronic benefits transfer. NACHA also promotes the use of electronic payment products and
According to the US Federal Reserve, Electronic payment instruments include Cheaques, ACH, Credit Cards, Debit Cards and Prepaid Cards.
Based on the CBN Guidelines on electronic banking in Nigeria issued in AUGUST, 2003 several legal issues are identified.
- Banks are obliged not only to establish the identity of their Customers (KYC principle) but also enquire about their integrity and reputation. To this end, accounts should be opened only after proper introduction and physical verification of the identity of the customer. This is also complies with the Money Laundering (Prohibition) Act
- Digital signatures should not be relied on solely as evidence in e-banking transactions, as there is presently no legislation on electronic banking in Nigeria.
- There is an obligation on banks to maintain secrecy and confidentiality of customer’s accounts. In e-banking scenario, there is the risk of banks not meeting the above obligation. Banks may be exposed to enhanced risk of liability to customers on account of breach of secrecy, denial of service etc because of hacking /other technological failures. Banks should, therefore, institute adequate risk control measures to manage such risks.
- Banks should protect the privacy of the customer’s data by ensuring:
– that customer’s personal data are used for the purpose for which they are compiled.
– consent of the customer must be sought before the Data is used
– data user may request, free of cost for blocking or rectification of inaccurate data or enforce remedy against breach of confidentiality
– processing of children’s data must have the consent of the parents and there must be verification via regular mail.
– strict criminal and pecuniary sanctions are imposed in the event of default.
In e-banking, there is very little scope for the banks to act on stop payment instructions from the customers. Hence, banks should clearly notify the customers the time frame and the circumstances in which any stop-payment instructions could be accepted.
While recognizing the rights of consumers under the Nigerian Consumer Protection Council Act, which also apply to consumers in banking services generally, banks engaged in e-banking should endeavor to insure themselves against risks of unauthorized transfers from customers account’s, through hacking, denial of services on account of technological failure etc, to adequately insulate themselves from liability to the customers.
Agreements reached between providers and users of e-banking products and services should clearly state the responsibilities and liabilities of all parties involved in the transactions.
TERMS AND CONDITIONS
Digital versus traditional currency
However to process the quality of physical currency in the form of legal tender, digital currency or e-money must have the same ability or characteristics i.e. the capacity to be used for the payment of goods and services.
“Most of the traditional money supply is bank money held on computers. This is also considered digital currency. One could argue that our increasingly cashless society means that all currencies are becoming digital (sometimes referred to as “electronic money”), but they are not presented to us as such.
For currency to be acceptable it must pass the test of being legal tender in Nigeria. We find support for this view in section 12 of the Counterfeit Currency (Special Provisions Act), which says
‘ “bank note” in relation to a bank note which is legal tender in Nigeria, means a negotiable instrument payable to bearer to bearer on demand issued by the Central bank of Nigeria and intended to circulate as money; and in relation to a bank note which is not legal tender in Nigeria means a negotiable instrument payable to bearer on demand issued by lawful authority in the country in which such bank note is legal tender and intended to circulate as money.’
Currency notes issued by the CBN shall be legal tender in at their face value for the payment of any amount.
For any digital currency to be acceptable as a medium of exchange in Nigeria it must conform to Nigeria law otherwise the issuer stands the risk of contravening the provisions of Section 1 of the Counterfeit Currency (Special Provisions Act) and liable on conviction to life imprisonment.
Currency notes and coins issued by the CBN shall be;
…….’of such forms and designs and bear such devices as shall be approved by the President on the recommendation of the Board”
POWER TO MAKE LAW
Nigeria is a Federation of 36 states and a Federal Capital Territory. The 1999 sets out the legal framework on how this federation operates with the powers of the federating units clearly spelt out in the legislative lists contained in the Second Schedule to the Constitution. Part 1 of the Second schedule contains the Exclusive Legislative list and here you find that the powers to regulate Banks, banking, bills of exchange and promissory notes; currencies, coinage and legal tender; posts telegraphs and telephones; trade and commerce, wireless, broadcasting and television other than broadcasting and television provided by the government of a state, allocation of wavelengths for wireless, broadcasting and television transmission. In sum the power to make law on all issues relating to digital currencies and e-payments reside with the Federal government.
Section 16 of the Central Bank of Nigeria Act (CBN Act) gives the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) the “sole right for the issuing of currency notes and coins throughout Nigeria and neither the Federal Government nor any State Government nor any Local government nor any other person or authority shall issue currency notes, bank notes or coins or any document or tokens payable to bearer on demand being documents or tokens which are likely to pass as legal tender”.
In the same vein the CBN is empowered to
47(1) “….facilitate the clearing of cheaques and credit instruments for banks carrying on business in Nigeria and for this purpose, the bank shall at any appropriate time establish clearing houses in premises provided by the bank in such places as the bank may consider necessary…
(2) Notwithstanding sub-section (1) of this section and in furtherance of the provisions of section 2(d) of this Act, the bank shall continue to promote and facilitate the development of efficient and effective systems for the settlement of transactions (including the development of electronic payment systems)”
It can be argued, flowing from the reading of the provisions of this section that the use of digital currencies as means of payment for goods and services and authority to regulate the use of digital currencies and electronic payments is covered by the CBN Act, particularly if read in conjunction with the Evidence Act 2011 which provides that
In any proceeding a statement contained in a document produced by a computer shall be admissible as evidence of any fact stated in it of which direct oral evidence would be admissible if it is shown that the conditions in subsection (2) of this section are satisfied in relation to the statement and computer in question.
The Banks and other Financial Institutions Act gives the CBN Governor power to make regulations, published in the gazette, to give full effect to the objects and objectives of this Act and also for the Control of all institutions under the supervision of the Bank.
The CBN has applied the combined effects of these any other legal framework to issue guidelines and circulars on electronic payments in Nigeria.
 S.M.H. Colin, Dictionary of Personal Computing and the Internet. 3rd Edition pg 65
 Black’s Law Dictionary 7th Edition pg388
 S.M.H. Colin, Dictionary of Personal Computing and the Internet. 3rd Edition pg 65
 Chesire and Fifoot’s Law of Contract, tenth Edition, pg69
 Section 15 Money Laundering (Prohibition) Act as amended
 Luxemburg, Law of August 2000, arts 64-69
 The Internet: Law and Regulatory Regimes pg1/277
 The Internet Law and Regulatory Regimes, Pg 1/414
 Article 34 Financial Contracts Act Norway.
 Section 19(1) CBN Act
 Section18 (1)(b)
 Words in italics added for emphasis
 Section 47 (1) and (2) CBN Act 2007
 84. (]) Evidence Act 2011
 Section 57 banks and other Financial Institutions Act