Between late 2025 and October 2026, U.S. Attorney’s Office releases announced federal prison terms for nine people with Nigerian ties in online fraud, computer-access and money-laundering cases. Sentences ranged from two years to 96 months. The releases describe a set of individual cases, not a measured increase in sentencing, so the word “surge” in the headline overstates what the official announcements establish. A tenth defendant pleaded guilty and is still awaiting sentence.
What the releases establish, and what they do not
Each case below comes from a U.S. Attorney’s Office press release from the district named. The release dates are the dates DOJ announced the outcome, not the dates the conduct began, and several cases involved years of activity before a judgment. Federal judges set each sentence case by case, so these outcomes cannot be read as a nationality-based pattern.
The announcements also do not provide a comparable count of cases or sentences over time. Without a consistent series of sentences from one source, the releases cannot show whether such sentences are becoming more frequent. What they do show is a run of significant federal outcomes in 2025 and 2026, several involving sentences of four years or more.
The cases at a glance
| Defendant | Court and release date | Outcome | Offense and scheme | Money measure in the release |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Olusegun Adejorin | District of Maryland; August 28, 2026 | 96 months in prison and three years of supervised release; Judge Theodore Chuang. Federal jury conviction in December 2025. | Wire fraud, aggravated identity theft and unauthorized access to a protected computer; business email compromise against two charitable organizations | More than $7.5 million sent to incorrect accounts |
| Franklin Ikechukwu Nwadialo | Western District of Washington; June 23, 2026 | Five years | Romance scam using false online identities and fabricated stories | About $3.5 million, affecting eight victims |
| Joseph James Nantomah | Eastern District of Wisconsin; September 21, 2026 | 48 months | Investment fraud run through a false online persona; victims were asked to pay for conferences or classes | More than $2.7 million in reported losses |
| James Junior Aliyu | District of Maryland; March 23, 2026 | 90 months | Wire fraud and money-laundering conspiracy | At least $10.4 million attempted; at least $2,389,130 actual victim loss |
| Ridwan Adeleke Adepoju | Northern District of Illinois; June 18, 2025 | 43 months, after a guilty plea | Wire fraud and aggravated identity theft; phishing, romance scams, fraudulent tax returns, spoofed email addresses, fictional social media personas and money mules | Not stated in the release |
| Charles Uchenna Nwadavid | District of Massachusetts; September 24, 2025 | Two years in prison and one year of supervised release; subject to deportation after the sentence | Mail fraud and money laundering connected to romance scams; funds moved through cryptocurrency accounts he controlled | Restitution of $2,724,810.41 |
| Olumide Olorunfunmi and Emmanuel Unuigbe | Western District of North Carolina; November 18, 2025 | 30 months each | Money laundering of proceeds from romance scams and business email compromise schemes | Restitution of more than $4.6 million ordered for the two men; more than 125 victims transferred over $4.5 million in illegal-activity proceeds |
| Nosa Edokpaigbe | District of Colorado; December 4, 2025 | 60 months; stipulated judicial removal order | Wire fraud tied to fraudulent COVID-19 relief applications and tax returns. Financial fraud, not labeled a cybercrime conviction in the release. | Restitution of $1,408,897.16; forfeiture of $681,694 |
| Olamide Shanu | District of Idaho; September 22, 2026 | Guilty plea to money laundering; sentencing set for December 15, 2026. Not yet sentenced. | Laundering proceeds of sextortion and romance scams | More than $2.5 million in proceeds; approximately 150 American victims |
Describe each person using the release’s own wording. The Olorunfunmi and Unuigbe release calls the two men Nigerian-born, while the Nantomah release states that he entered the United States from Nigeria on a visitor visa in 2016. The other releases should be quoted, not paraphrased into a single nationality label.
#1 Best Overall
How the schemes differ
The offenses are not one category. Treating every case as “cybercrime” blurs three different kinds of conduct: intrusion into accounts, deception of individuals, and the movement of money after the fact.
Business email compromise and computer access
Adejorin is the only case in this set where DOJ describes unauthorized access to a protected computer as a conviction. According to the release, he used compromised employee email accounts and spoofed domains to redirect payments meant for two charitable organizations. This is the clearest example of a computer-intrusion offense among the cases, and its sentence is the longest in the set.
Romance and investment fraud
These cases rely on trust built through online identities. In the Nwadialo case, DOJ said the defendant used false online identities and fabricated stories, and that the victims included widowed and divorced older people. In the Nantomah case, the scheme ran through a false online persona and asked victims to pay for conferences or classes. Adepoju’s scheme combined romance scams with fictional social media personas, fraudulent tax returns and money mules, and Nwadavid moved funds through cryptocurrency accounts he controlled.
Money laundering of scam proceeds
Several defendants were convicted or pleaded guilty to moving money that came from other people’s schemes. The Aliyu release describes a conspiracy to defraud victims, with the laundering charge linked to that conduct. The Olorunfunmi and Unuigbe release describes laundering of romance-scam and business email compromise proceeds. Shanu pleaded guilty to laundering proceeds from sextortion and romance scams. For these defendants, the money measure is the amount that passed through their hands, which is not the same as what victims lost.
Do these 3 things before closing this tab:
1Fix the driver behind crashes, sound loss and screen glitches2Repair Windows errors before they cause bigger problems3Scan for outdated or missing drivers - takes under a minuteRank #3
Financial fraud that is not labeled cybercrime
The Edokpaigbe case is included for context. DOJ described wire fraud tied to fraudulent COVID-19 relief applications and tax returns. The release does not describe it as a cybercrime conviction, so it should not be counted in a list of online-fraud sentences without that label.
Why the money figures cannot be added together
The releases report different kinds of money, and several of them are not losses at all. Combining them produces a total that no source states.
- Attempted versus actual loss: In the Aliyu case, DOJ reported at least $10.4 million attempted against victims and at least $2,389,130 in actual loss. Those are separate measures.
- Diverted funds: The more than $7.5 million in the Adejorin case is the amount sent to incorrect accounts, not a confirmed loss figure.
- Restitution and forfeiture: The Nwadavid and Edokpaigbe figures are court-ordered restitution and, in Edokpaigbe’s case, forfeiture. They describe what the court ordered, not what each victim recovered.
- Proceeds handled: The laundering cases report the proceeds that moved through the defendants’ conduct, which may include money already counted as loss in another defendant’s case.
Sentence lengths also resist comparison. The shortest term in this set is two years and the longest is 96 months. Each sentence reflects the specific charges, plea or verdict, and facts that each release describes. A short term in one case says nothing about another, and the releases do not supply a basis for averaging them.
Independent reader supportYour contribution helps us test, update, and keep practical guides available for everyone.How the cases reached U.S. custody
International investigation appears in several releases, but the route varied:
Recommended Free Tools
Best Value
- Adejorin: The FBI extradited him from Ghana in August 2024. A federal jury convicted him in December 2025.
- Aliyu: He resided in South Africa during the conduct and was extradited from there.
- Adepoju: He was arrested in the United Kingdom and extradited to the United States.
- Nwadavid: The release states he is subject to deportation after serving his sentence.
- Edokpaigbe: The sentence included a stipulated judicial removal order.
Removal and deportation are separate from prison terms, and the releases describe them as such. Readers should not assume that every defendant in this set was brought to the United States by extradition.
The harm described in court
At Franklin Nwadialo’s sentencing, U.S. District Judge Tiffany M. Cartwright called the crime “devastating,” stating that “it is not an exaggeration to say it ruined lives—not only financial lives.” The U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Western District of Washington reported those remarks. The same release describes harms beyond money, including shame, depression and isolation from family. Those effects are part of how the cases are being presented, and they are not captured by any of the loss figures above.
Quick Recap
Procedural status to check before citing a case
- Shanu is not sentenced. He pleaded guilty to money laundering, and his sentencing was set for December 15, 2026. Describing him as sentenced would misstate the record as of October 8, 2026.
- Pleas and verdicts differ. Adepoju pleaded guilty, while Adejorin was convicted by a federal jury. Use the correct term in each sentence.
- Release dates are not conduct dates. Several schemes ran for years before the announced outcome.
- Cyber-enabled is not the same as computer-intrusion. Online romance scams and laundering cases are cyber-enabled, but only the Adejorin release describes a computer-access conviction.
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
