Episode Transcript
[00:00:00] Speaker A: This is behind the Scams, the podcast where we expose the real stories behind today's most dangerous and deceptive frauds.
I'm Miles, and in this episode, we're taking you deep into the world of international romance scams, where love is weaponized, trust is twisted, and millions of dollars vanish into the shadows of the Internet. Today we follow the shocking case of Charles Uchena Nwadavid, a Nigerian national who was arrested and indicted by the US Government for allegedly masterminding a romance scam scheme that spanned years, crossed borders, and devastated lives.
Victims were conned not just out of their hearts, but their life savings.
And worse, some were turned into unsuspecting accomplices in a criminal enterprise.
Will walk you through the full scope of the indictment. Explain how cryptocurrency was used to hide and move stolen funds and break down the psychological manipulation that makes scams like this so terrifyingly effective. Hosts Nick and Sue, with Nick's 25 years in law enforcement and fraud investigation, are ready to guide you through the facts, the fallout, and the fight for justice.
Stay with us.
[00:01:22] Speaker B: Thanks as always, Miles. Hello and welcome back to another episode of behind the Scams. I'm your host, Nick, and as always, I'm joined by my wife and co host, Sue.
[00:01:33] Speaker C: It's great to be back, Nick, and hello to all our listeners. We're really excited to dive into another fascinating, albeit sometimes shocking case today.
[00:01:43] Speaker B: Absolutely, Sue. We've got a compelling story to share that highlights just how intricate and pervasive some of these modern scams can be.
[00:01:51] Speaker C: I'm ready to learn, and I'm sure our audience is, too. Let's get right into it, shall we?
[00:01:56] Speaker B: All right, sue, today we're delving into a case that really highlights the global reach of cybercrime. The indictment of Charles Uchenna Nwadavid. He's a Nigerian national, and he's been charged with some pretty serious federal offenses in the District of Massachusetts.
[00:02:12] Speaker C: A Nigerian national, you say? And what are these charges, Nick, just to set the scene for our listeners?
[00:02:18] Speaker B: Well, according to the indictment, Mr. Nwatovid is facing three counts. The first is mail fraud, which falls under Title 18, US Code Section 1341.
Then there are two counts of money laundering, specifically violating Title 18, US Code Sections 1956.
One of those money laundering counts also includes aiding and abetting under section 2B of the same code.
[00:02:50] Speaker C: Wow, that's a mouthful of legal jargon. But mail fraud and money laundering, that sounds like a classic scam setup, right? Can you tell us more about the core of this Case. Like, what kind of scam are we talking about here? Because usually when we see these types of charges, it's connected to something very specific.
[00:03:13] Speaker B: You're absolutely right to ask, Sue. This case centers around what are notoriously known as romance scams. And for our listeners who might not be familiar, these aren't just your typical fraudulent emails.
[00:03:27] Speaker C: Oh, romance scams. They seem to be everywhere nowadays. That's why we cover these types of scams. We can certainly learn from these crimes, especially by dissecting these indictments.
[00:03:39] Speaker B: Precisely. Romance scams have certainly become more and more elaborate and destructive. And the indictment alleges that individuals involved in these romance scams would use advertisements on dating sites or social media platforms to recruit victims. They'd create these elaborate fictitious online profiles to build a sense of trust. A purported romantic relationship, sometimes for months, even years.
[00:04:07] Speaker C: That's crazy. How do people fall for that? I mean, it sounds so obvious when you hear it, but I guess when emotions are involved, things get blurry. We just need to stop asking how they fall for it and start asking, how do we prevent them? Nick, these scammers seem to be really skilled at deception. What do you think?
[00:04:30] Speaker B: They certainly are, Sue. And these scammers are incredibly patient and skilled at psychological manipulation.
Once they've gained a victim's trust, they'll start directing them to send money or. And this is crucial, to conduct financial transactions involving money from other victims, all under false pretenses. It's a complex web.
[00:04:53] Speaker C: Wait, hold on. Are you saying they actually had victims moving money from other victims? So not just their own money, but acting as unwitting accomplices. That's.
That's a whole new level of deception.
[00:05:06] Speaker B: That's where the concept of money mules comes into play, which is also a significant part of this indictment. These fraudsters, including Nwativid, would recruit individuals they called money mules to receive, withdraw, and then transfer the proceeds of their criminal activity.
[00:05:26] Speaker C: Money mules? Is that like someone who just lets their bank account be used? How did these people become mules? Did they know what they were doing was illegal?
[00:05:35] Speaker B: Good question.
The indictment states that money mules would either use their own personal bank accounts or even open new ones specifically for these transactions. And regarding their awareness, the document notes that while some of these money mules understood or were at least willfully blind to the fact that they were handling criminal proceeds, others genuinely believed there was a legitimate purpose to these financial transactions.
[00:06:03] Speaker C: Oh, wow. I didn't know that. So some were completely unaware they were part of a criminal enterprise. That's truly heartbreaking. It just shows how sophisticated these operations are, preying on people's vulnerabilities and even their good intentions. So how did Mr. Nativid fit into this whole money movement aspect?
[00:06:26] Speaker B: This is where it gets really interesting and frankly, quite modern.
The indictment alleges that Nativid specifically participated in these romance scams from at least 2016 and continued through at least September 2019.
He manipulated victims into sending money directly to Bitcoin wallets that he controlled.
[00:06:48] Speaker C: Bitcoin wallets. So cryptocurrency was involved right from the start.
That adds a whole layer of anonymity, doesn't it? As a former law enforcement officer, Nick, what's your expert opinion on how cryptocurrency complicates these investigations compared to traditional bank transfers?
[00:07:09] Speaker B: That's a great point, Sue. And from my experience, cryptocurrency introduces significant challenges for investigators.
While transactions are recorded on a public ledger, identifying the real world identities behind the wallet addresses can be incredibly difficult without cooperation from exchanges or specialized blockchain analysis tools. It's not inherently anonymous, but it provides a layer of pseudonymity that traditional banking doesn't.
Unlike a bank which has KYC know your customer regulations, many early crypto platforms, or less regulated ones, offered an easier way to for criminals to move funds without immediate identity verification.
This made it much harder to trace the money back to the perpetrator directly.
[00:08:03] Speaker C: That makes sense. So it's not just about getting the money, but also about making it disappear.
[00:08:09] Speaker B: Exactly. And in Nativid's scheme, he allegedly used a particular victim, referred to as Victim one, who was both a romance scam victim herself and and unwittingly a money mule. He tricked victim one into receiving funds from other victims, victims two through six, who we'll talk more about later, into her personal bank accounts across several banks, including Merrimack Valley Bank, TD bank, and bank of America.
[00:08:41] Speaker C: Oh, no. Really? So victim one was being scammed while simultaneously being used to scam others.
That's a terrible double blow.
[00:08:50] Speaker B: It is. And then once the funds were in Victim 1's accounts, Nwatovid allegedly tricked her into transferring her own money along with the funds from these other victims to him through cryptocurrency.
Specifically, he had her transfer at least 2 1/2 million dollars to her Bitcoin of America account.
And then he would access that account from overseas and wire those funds to Bitcoin addresses he controlled. And not just that. He also transferred around 210 bitcoin from victim one's Bitcoin of America account through intermediary accounts to two accounts he controlled at local bitcoins. One in his own name and one in victim one's name.
[00:09:40] Speaker C: Oh, wow, I didn't know that about the local bitcoins accounts. That's a very clear attempt to conceal the origin and flow of money, isn't it? Registering one in victim one's name while controlling it, that's just so devious. It really speaks to the depth of manipulation involved.
[00:09:58] Speaker B: Exactly, Sue. And in Nwatovid's scheme, he allegedly used a particular victim, referred to as victim one, who was both a romance scam victim herself and unwittingly, a money mule. He tricked victim one into receiving funds from other victims, victims two through six, who we'll talk more about later, into her personal bank accounts across several banks, including Merrimack Valley Bank, TD bank, and bank of America.
[00:10:29] Speaker C: Oh, no. Really? So victim one was being scammed? Scammed while simultaneously being used to scam others.
Yikes. That's another terrible double blow.
[00:10:38] Speaker B: It is.
And then once the funds were in Victim 1's accounts, Nwativid allegedly tricked her into transferring her own money along with the funds from these other victims to him through cryptocurrency.
Specifically, he had her transfer at least $2.5 million to her Bitcoin of America account, and then he would access that account from overseas and wire those funds to bitcoin addresses he controlled. And not just that, he also transferred around 210 bitcoin from victim one's Bitcoin of America account through intermediary accounts to two accounts he controlled at local bitcoins, one in his own name and one in victim one's name.
[00:11:30] Speaker C: Oh, wow, I didn't know that about the local bitcoins accounts. That's a very clear attempt to conceal the origin and flow of money, isn't it? Registering one in victim one's name while controlling it, that's just so devious. It really speaks to the depth of manipulation involved.
[00:11:48] Speaker B: It absolutely does. And it's important to understand these platforms.
Bitcoin of America, as the indictment states, is a cryptocurrency exchange headquartered in Chicago.
Local bitcoins, on the other hand, was a peer to peer bitcoin marketplace based in Helsinki, Finland.
[00:12:10] Speaker C: So what's the difference between an exchange and a peer to peer marketplace in this context? And why would he use both?
[00:12:18] Speaker B: Well, an exchange like Bitcoin of America acts more like a traditional broker facilitating the buying and selling of cryptocurrency. You deposit your funds, convert them, and then withdraw local bitcoins being peer to peer connected individuals directly to buy and sell Bitcoin from each other, often through various payment methods. It could offer more flexibility and potentially less stringent verification for smaller transactions. Or at least it did at the time.
Using both allowed Nwativid to add layers to the transactions, making them harder to trace back to him.
It's like moving money through multiple banks and then through a third party intermediary.
Each step makes it more obscure.
[00:13:08] Speaker C: That makes sense. It's like a financial shell game.
So victim one met someone named Williams Moore online in 2016.
Was this Moore the person who then got her involved in opening the crypto account and moving all this money?
[00:13:25] Speaker B: Exactly.
Victim one communicated with Moore extensively via email and phone. She believed she was in a genuine romantic relationship with him, even though they never met in person.
It was Moore who instructed her to open the Bitcoin of America account and later to wire funds she received from other victims. Intuit. What's even more heartbreaking is that victim one initially sent thousands of dollars of her own money to Moore before being coerced into becoming a mule for the other victims funds.
[00:14:02] Speaker C: So she was completely financially drained first and then made to facilitate the draining of others.
That's. That's truly terrible. How long did this go on with Victim 1?
[00:14:14] Speaker B: The scheme involving Nwativid and the use of Victim 1 ran for quite some time. The indictment specifies that it began in or around 2016 and continued through at least September 2019.
Over those years, she was consistently manipulated into facilitating these transactions over three years.
[00:14:39] Speaker C: I mean, from your experience in law enforcement, Nick, how do these scammers manage to keep this charade going for so long, especially with so much money involved and without ever meeting in person?
It sounds so elaborate. Now I apologize if I keep referencing your prior law enforcement experience, but I think it is crucial for helping our listeners understand these indictments and these type of financial frauds. I mean, tracking dirtbags like this is exactly what you did for years.
So we need a peek inside this type of financial fraud operation.
[00:15:19] Speaker B: That's a crucial question, sue. And it really speaks to the sophistication of these operations.
As a private investigator now, I still see these patterns. First, the scammers create extremely believable fake Personas, often using stolen photos or profiles from legitimate people. They spend months, even years building an emotional connection, isolating the victim from friends and family who might raise red flags. Second, they establish a narrative that constantly requires money for fabricated crises.
Medical emergencies, business deals gone wrong, legal troubles, travel expenses. To finally meet the victim each Crisis is urgent and designed to play on the victim's empathy and commitment to the supposed relationship.
Third, the use of technology allows them to maintain distance.
They communicate solely through digital means.
Emails, texts, online calls, which prevents any in person scrutiny.
[00:16:29] Speaker C: So no red flags about never meeting. No one got suspicious about why all the money had to be sent through crypto, or why it was victim one's account being used.
[00:16:39] Speaker B: Well, they are incredibly skilled at having an excuse for everything. They might say they're in a remote location, or that their job requires secrecy or. Or that they're in a high risk situation.
As for the money being moved through crypto, the scammers often spin a tale about it being for a safe or private investment, or that it's the only way to get funds out of a restrictive country.
They'll paint a picture of complexity that justifies the unusual financial transfers. And for victim one, they likely convinced her that her involvement was helping more Moore or his business, or that she was a crucial part of their shared future.
They prey on the victim's desire to help the person they've grown to love.
It's a deep form of psychological manipulation, turning the victim into an unwitting partner in the crime.
The trust built is so strong that the victim often rationalizes these odd requests, convincing themselves it's all for a good cause related to their romantic interest.
[00:17:49] Speaker C: That's just chilling. It makes me wonder how many other victim ones are out there right now, completely unaware they're being used.
This case really highlights the dark side of online connections and how easily trust can be exploited.
[00:18:05] Speaker B: It really is chilling. And it makes me wonder how many other victim ones are out there right now, completely unaware they're being used.
This case really highlights the dark side of online connections and how easily trust can be exploited. And while Victim 1's story is heartbreaking, it's important to understand the experiences of the other victims, Victims two through six, whose funds were also funneled through her.
These stories further illustrate the widespread nature and cunning tactics of Nwativid's alleged scheme.
[00:18:43] Speaker C: Right, I'm ready. Tell me about them. What were their stories and how did they get caught up in this?
[00:18:48] Speaker B: Let's start with victim two.
According to the indictment, between January and June of 2019, victim two, who lived in Scotch Plains, New Jersey, sent approximately 896,000 to victim one.
Victim two believed this enormous sum was for her purported boyfriend, a man she knew only as Manuel Sykes.
[00:19:14] Speaker C: Manuel Sykes? That's a new name. So this wasn't more. Again, they were using different aliases for different victims, even though the money was eventually going to the same place?
[00:19:25] Speaker B: That's right. Different Personas, same alleged recipient behind the scenes.
Victim 2 had met Sikes online around December 2018.
Their communication was entirely through emails and text messages.
Just like victim one. She never met Sykes in person.
Sykes constantly requested money from her for a variety of what he called purported emergencies.
[00:19:53] Speaker C: Wow. Nearly 900,000 for emergencies. That's an astronomical amount. What kind of emergencies are we talking about here? And how do you keep someone hooked for six months sending that much money?
[00:20:07] Speaker B: The indictment doesn't specify the exact nature of psych's emergencies for victim two, but based on typical romance scam patterns, they would have been urgent, desperate pleas that played on her emotional attachment.
Things like sudden medical crises, urgent business deals that would supposedly make them rich, legal troubles, or even travel funds to finally meet her, which, of course, never materialized.
Each new request would be presented as the final hurdle before their happy life together could begin.
[00:20:43] Speaker C: That's crazy. How do people fall for that? Especially when the stories just keep coming and the money never stops being needed. I mean, at some point, wouldn't you just say this, this is too much?
[00:20:55] Speaker B: It's a valid question, and it speaks to the deep psychological manipulation involved, which we'll dive into in a moment.
But first, let me tell you about Victims 3 and 4, because their stories connect with yet another alias. Around 2018, Victim 3, who resided in Florida, met an individual online she believed was named Edward Nowak.
Nowak told Victim 3 that he was going to Cyprus for work. He then requested that victim three send money to victim one's bank account, claiming victim one was the manager of an oil business.
[00:21:35] Speaker C: Wait, so victim one was being introduced to other victims as a legitimate business person?
Oh, no. That adds another layer of deception.
[00:21:44] Speaker B: It does.
And the scam continued. Victim 3 later received a call from someone informing her that Nowak had been injured in an oil rig fire.
Nowak himself then told victim three that bitcoin needed to be sent to the hospital to pay his medical bills.
Between Approximately May and December 2018, Victim 3 sent approximately $235,000 to Victim 1.
[00:22:14] Speaker C: An oil rig fire and Bitcoin for medical bills. That's so specific and dramatic. And then there's victim four, also with Nowak.
[00:22:23] Speaker B: Yes. Victim four, from Plymouth, Massachusetts, also met Nowak on a dating site around June 2018.
And like victim three, she believed he was her boyfriend.
Nowak told victim four he worked in Cyprus, and she, too, received a call informing her that Nowak was injured on an oil rig.
Between June 2018 and February 2019, Victim 4 sent approximately $276,000 to Victim 1, believing Victim 1 was Nowak's agent.
[00:22:57] Speaker C: So two different women in two different states, both being scammed by the same Edward Nowak character, was with the same oil rig injury story, and both sending money to the same victim one. That's incredibly coordinated. And victim one was just unknowingly playing a part in all of this.
[00:23:17] Speaker B: That's the tragic reality of it. The scammers are running multiple cons simultaneously, often using the same narratives or similar ones, and directing the funds through a central money mule or accounts like victim ones.
[00:23:32] Speaker C: And what about victims five and six?
[00:23:34] Speaker B: Victim five, from Peabody, Massachusetts, met an individual online she believed was named Moore around March 2017.
She communicated with Moore through email, but never met him. Considering him her boyfriend, Moore instructed Victim 5 to send money to Victim 1, among other recipients.
Between August 2017 and April 2018, Victim 5 sent approximately $230,000 at Moore's direction.
[00:24:09] Speaker C: So the Moore alias from Victim 1's initial scam was being used on Victim 5 as well. It's almost like a tiered system of deception.
[00:24:19] Speaker B: Precisely.
And finally, victim six.
Around April 2018, victim six from Great Bend, Kansas, met an individual online she believed was named Clarence Manning.
Manning told Victim 6 that he had inherited $2 million from his father, but needed to travel to Spain to receive the inheritance. He then claimed he was hospitalized overseas and began asking her for money. Victim six sent approximately 239,000 to victim one.
[00:24:57] Speaker C: Unbelievable. From fake oil rig injuries to $2 million inheritances that require money to claim.
Nick, during your career, did you see a lot of these cases? I mean, from your expert opinion, how do these scammers manage to create such a elaborate, consistently successful stories?
How do they hook people so deeply that they give away hundreds of thousands, even millions of dollars without ever meeting the person?
It defies logic for so many of us.
[00:25:30] Speaker B: That's the million dollar question, Sue. And it really comes down to a sophisticated understanding of human psychology rather than just simple tricks.
These scammers aren't just sending out generic emails. They are professional manipulators. First, they employ what we call love bombing very early in the online relationship. They shower the victim with intense affection, compliments, and attention.
They declare their love quickly, often within weeks, and make the victim feel incredibly special, desired, and understood.
This creates an immediate, powerful emotional bond.
[00:26:09] Speaker C: So they build this intense emotional dependency almost immediately.
[00:26:14] Speaker B: Exactly. And once that bond is established, they begin to isolate the victim. They'll subtly discourage communication with friends and family who might be skeptical or notice red flags. They become the victim's sole focus, the person they confide in and rely on for emotional support.
This makes the victim less likely to question them or seek outside opinions. Then comes the future faking. They paint a vivid picture of a shared future together. Marriage, moving in, starting a family, or achieving financial goals. These promises make the victim invest not just financially, but emotionally and mentally in the relationship.
Every request for money is framed as a temporary hurdle that, once overcome, will lead directly to that beautiful future they've co created in their minds.
[00:27:10] Speaker C: So it's not just about today's problem. It's about investing in their whole future together. That's really manipulative.
[00:27:17] Speaker B: It absolutely is. And they're masters at creating a sense of urgency and crisis.
The emergencies are always critical and time sensitive. A family member needs surgery, A business deal is about to collapse, or they're in legal trouble in a foreign country and need bail money. Now.
This pressure prevents the victim from thinking rationally or seeking advice. They're often told that if they don't act immediately, dire consequences will follow, often impacting the scheme scammer directly, which activates the victim's protective instincts.
[00:27:55] Speaker C: And I imagine because it's all online, they can control the narrative completely, right? No chance for real world checks.
[00:28:02] Speaker B: Precisely. The distance is a shield. They'll have excuses for why they can't video call or why they can't meet in person. They're in a remote military zone or their job requires strict secrecy, or they're in a country with poor or Internet. These excuses, however flimsy, are often accepted by victims desperate to believe in the reality of the relationship. Another critical factor is exploiting the victim's empathy and good nature.
These scammers often present themselves as kind, successful and honorable people who have simply fallen on hard times through no fault fault of their own.
They make the victim feel like they are the only one who can help the hero of the story.
[00:28:50] Speaker C: Oh, wow. So they make the victim feel indispensable. That's a powerful motivator.
[00:28:55] Speaker B: It really is. And once a victim has invested significant time, emotion and money, a phenomenon called cognitive dissonance kicks in. It becomes incredibly difficult for them to admit they've been fooled.
Their mind tries to resolve the conflict between their belief in the relationship and the mounting red flags.
It's easier to rationalize the scammers requests and continue to believe the fantasy than to face the devastating truth that the person they love doesn't exist and they've lost everything.
[00:29:31] Speaker C: That makes so much sense. It's like they've gone so far, it's harder to turn back than to just keep going. Hoping it will pay off.
[00:29:37] Speaker B: Exactly. And remember, these aren't isolated incidents.
The indictment shows Nativid was allegedly connected to multiple victims simultaneously using different aliases and different crisis scenarios.
This suggests a highly organized operation.
The emotional toll on these victims is immense. Not just the financial loss, but but the profound betrayal of trust. It destroys their sense of security and their ability to trust others.
[00:30:11] Speaker C: It's truly heartbreaking to hear these stories, especially knowing how much these people lost and the deep psychological scars they must carry.
It really drives home the predatory nature of these scams.
[00:30:26] Speaker B: It truly is, Sue. And it brings us to a really fascinating, almost cinematic turn of events in this case, Charles Uchenin Wadavid's eventual arrest.
You see, for someone allegedly orchestrating these elaborate international scams from Nigeria, you might expect a complex multi agency sting operation in a foreign country.
But his arrest was quite unexpected in its timing and location.
[00:30:54] Speaker C: Oh, wow. I'm intrigued. So how did they finally catch up to him? Was it a long chase? Did they track him down in Nigeria?
[00:31:01] Speaker B: Not exactly a chase, no.
The indictment against Nwatovid was filed on January 23, 2024, charging him with mail fraud and money laundering offenses. But here's the twist. He was actually arrested in April 2025, not in Nigeria, but in the Northern district of Texas.
[00:31:22] Speaker C: In Texas. Wait, hold on.
[00:31:25] Speaker A: So.
[00:31:25] Speaker C: So he was just visiting the United States with all these serious charges hanging over his head? That's surprising. I would have thought he'd be avoiding any country with an extradition treaty, let alone the US Itself.
[00:31:39] Speaker B: That's exactly why it's so remarkable. According to court documents, Mr. Nwatovid traveled on a tourist visa from the United Kingdom to Dallas, Texas for what he planned to be a three week trip.
His stated purpose was to visit his maternal aunt and other family members who reside there.
[00:32:00] Speaker C: Okay, so he just got on a plane, flew from the UK to Dallas, thinking he was on a normal tourist trip. But he had this indictment from January 2024.
How was he even allowed to board a flight to the U.S.
surely that warrant would have flagged him immediately.
[00:32:19] Speaker B: That's where it gets even more unusual, Sue. The government reported that when he arrived in the United Kingdom on a layover during his trip to Texas, they learned he was traveling to the United States.
They also knew he was subject to an arrest warrant due to the indictment. Crucially, at some point prior to his arrival in the US his tourist Visa had actually been revoked.
[00:32:43] Speaker C: Oh, no. Really?
So he didn't even have a valid visa? Then how on earth did he get into the US at all? That just doesn't make any sense. I mean, my understanding is if your visa is revoked, you're not getting past immigration.
[00:32:59] Speaker B: You're absolutely right to question that, sue, because it's a highly irregular circumstance. He was granted entry into the United States not because he had a valid tourist visa, but persistent pursuant to something called the Significant Public Benefit Parole Program.
The government explicitly stated that this parole admitted him into the US for the sole purpose of prosecution.
[00:33:23] Speaker C: Significant Public Benefit parole?
Oh, wow. I didn't know that was a thing. So essentially, he walked into a legal trap, completely unaware that his entry was facilitating his own arrest. That. That's. That's crazy.
[00:33:38] Speaker B: That's precisely what the court documents indicate.
The government confirmed that there was no evidence Mr. Nativid entered the United States with any understanding that he was coming in under anything other than what he believed was a valid tourist visa. He was simply trying to visit family in Texas, supported by what he thought was a legitimate visa, and he had obtained back in May 2023.
[00:34:08] Speaker C: As someone who spent 25 years in law enforcement, Nick, how often do you see something like this? Is it common for the US Government to use a parole program to essentially lure someone into the country for arrest and prosecution, especially if they have no criminal history and are allegedly unaware of the warrant or visa revocation?
This sounds like a very strategic, almost covert operation.
[00:34:37] Speaker B: That's a great question, Sue. From my experience, while it's not an everyday occurrence, this kind of strategic entry for prosecution utilizing specific immigration tools is certainly within the government's capabilities and part of their toolkit for bringing high value targets to justice, especially those residing abroad.
When a defendant is a foreign national with no ties to the US Other than alleged criminal activity, and they reside in a country where extradition might be complicated or lengthy, facilitating their entry under controlled circumstances for prosecution here becomes a viable option. The Significant Public Benefit parole is typically used for individuals who might not otherwise meet the criteria for entry or but whose presence in the US Would serve a significant public interest.
This can range from cooperating witnesses to individuals whose prosecution is deemed to be in the national interest.
In this case, the Significant Public benefit was deemed to be the prosecution of a major alleged romance scam perpetrator who. Who had defrauded numerous US Victims of millions of dollars.
[00:35:58] Speaker C: So essentially, they knew he was coming, revoked his visa quietly, and then used this parole as a legal mechanism to ensure he could be processed for the arrest warrant as soon as he landed without him knowing the real reason he was being allowed in. That's quite a maneuver.
[00:36:18] Speaker B: It is, and it highlights the coordination between law enforcement and immigration agencies. On April 6, 2025, just a day before his arrival, U.S. customs and Border Protection, or CBP, lodged an immigration detainer against him. This detainer essentially notifies federal law enforcement that a foreign national is subject to an outstanding warrant and ensures that their custody is transferred for legal proceedings.
So when he arrived on April 7, he was promptly arrested and detained in Texas in.
[00:36:58] Speaker C: So he steps off the plane expecting a family visit, and instead he's met by federal agents. What a shock that must have been. And since he has no criminal history, as you mentioned, and and limited ties to the US it must have been a very complex decision for the authorities to allow him to enter this way, even if it was for prosecution.
[00:37:21] Speaker B: Absolutely. The fact that he had no prior criminal record likely played into the government's assessment of how he might react to such an entry, perhaps making him less suspicious than if he had a history of evading authorities.
It also suggests that the evidence they had linking him to these scams was compelling enough to justify this unique approach to secure his presence for trial.
[00:37:47] Speaker C: And you said he had visited the US twice before, in 2018 and 2019, so he wasn't completely unfamiliar with travel to the States.
Maybe that gave him a false sense of security that his latest tourist visa would was just as valid.
[00:38:04] Speaker B: That's a very astute observation, Sue. His previous uneventful visits could have certainly contributed to his confidence.
It's a common psychological trap. If something has worked before, people tend to assume it will work again.
He likely had no reason to suspect his visa status had changed or that his entry would be for anything other than a normal family visit.
[00:38:29] Speaker C: It really paints a picture, doesn't it? From orchestrating these elaborate emotional and financial cons from afar, to then being surprised by his own arrest on what he thought was a casual trip. It's almost poetic justice in a way, although I'm sure it was a very calculated.
[00:38:49] Speaker B: Definitely calculated. This approach avoids the complexities and and often lengthy delays of formal extradition proceedings from another country.
Especially when dealing with cybercrimes, where the physical location of the perpetrator is distinct from the victims.
Bringing him into US Jurisdiction directly for prosecution streamlines the legal process considerably.
It's a testament to the commitment of law enforcement to pursue these cases, no matter how geographically dispersed the alleged criminal activity.
[00:39:27] Speaker C: That makes sense. It highlights that even if these scammers are operating from halfway across the world, law enforcement has creative and effective ways to bring them to face justice. It's a powerful message to any would be scammers listening, I suppose.
[00:39:43] Speaker B: Indeed, it underscores that distance is no longer the impenetrable shield it once was.
And this arrest set the stage for the next critical phase, the determination of whether Mr. Nwatovid would be detained pending trial or released on conditions.
That decision, as you can imagine, was also quite contentious.
[00:40:04] Speaker C: Oh, I can only imagine. Given the severity of the charges, mail fraud, money laundering, aiding and abetting, and the fact that he's a foreign national, I'd assume the government would push hard for detention.
So what were the core arguments the prosecution presented to convince the court he should be held?
[00:40:24] Speaker B: You're right, Sue. The government definitely pushed for detention, arguing there was a serious risk he would flee if released.
This type of argument falls under a specific part of the Bail Reform act, which allows for a detention hearing if there's a serious risk of flight.
Their primary points centered on his limited ties to the United States.
He's a Nigerian citizen. His immediate family, his wife, two young sons, mother and five siblings, all reside in Nigeria. His primary livelihood, his real estate business, is also based there.
The prosecution highlighted that he owns no property in the US and his previous visits here were relatively brief.
[00:41:12] Speaker C: So basically, they were saying he had every reason to go back home and very little reason to stay and face charges here. That makes sense from their perspective. Did they bring up the potential sentence he was facing as an incentive to flee?
[00:41:29] Speaker B: Absolutely. That was a significant part of their argument. They emphasized that if convicted, Mr. Nwativid faces a maximum penalty of 20 years imprisonment plus up to $500,000 in fines, or even twice the gross gain from the scheme, whichever is greater.
The government's analysis of the guideline sentencing range suggested he could face 87 to 108 months of incarceration.
These substantial potential paths, penalties, they argued, create a very strong incentive for anyone to flee, especially someone with limited US Ties.
[00:42:07] Speaker C: Wow, that's a serious amount of time. I can see why that would be a major concern for the prosecution. What about the evidence against him? Did they present that as part of their argument for detention, implying he knew he was guilty and would therefore try to escape?
[00:42:25] Speaker B: They did, indirectly, as part of the weight of the evidence factor under the Bail Reform Act.
While the court explicitly states that a detention hearing isn't about making a preliminary determination of guilt, the strength of the evidence does factor into assessing flight risk.
The Government summarized electronic evidence they asserted tied Mr. Nwatovid to the Right Romance fraud scheme. They argued that Victim One's Bitcoin of America account was accessed multiple times from the same IP address that Nwativid used to access his personal icloud account.
[00:43:06] Speaker C: Oh, that's pretty direct circumstantial evidence then.
So his personal icloud activity matched the access points for the victim's account. That's quite a digital fingerprint.
[00:43:18] Speaker B: Precisely.
They also asserted that Nwativid had Victim 1's contact information stored in his ICLOUD account. And perhaps most compellingly, the email address associated with the Bitcoin account that ultimately received a substantial portion of the $2.5 million routed through Victim 1's account was the same email address in Wadavid used in his US Visa application.
This electronic trail, they argued, constituted substantial circumstantial evidence of his involvement, further solidifying the flight risk given the severe penalties.
[00:43:59] Speaker C: That's really detailed evidence connecting him quite directly to the financial flow of the scam. But wait, did they have any evidence that he, you know, directly communicated with the victims? Like phone calls or emails where he was posing as More or Nowak?
[00:44:17] Speaker B: That's a crucial distinction, sue, and one the defense likely highlighted. The court documents confirmed that the government did not present any evidence of direct communications between Mr. Nwatovid and any of the alleged victims, nor did they present evidence that he instructed any of the victims to send money to Bitcoin accounts that he allegedly controlled. The evidence was largely focused on the digital financial trail and his association with the accounts involved, rather than direct victim interaction.
[00:44:53] Speaker C: Okay, so the prosecution's case for detention rested heavily on him being a Nigerian national with most of his ties abroad, the severe potential sentence, and strong circumstantial evidence linking him to the money flow. But what was Nuadavid's defense? How did his counsel counter these significant flight risk concerns?
[00:45:17] Speaker B: Nwadavid's defense focused on mitigating the flight risk, emphasizing his strong family ties in Texas and his lack of a criminal history. His maternal aunt, who has known him since childhood, submitted a letter of support and crucially, appeared in court via Zoom during the detention hearing. She attested to his character and agreed to serve as a third party custodian for him. Meaning he would live with her.
[00:45:44] Speaker C: That's a powerful counterargument. Having a third party custodian, especially a family member who is well established in the US Must weigh heavily in these decisions. What more do we know about his ancestors aunt and her suitability as a custodian?
[00:46:01] Speaker B: His aunt is a doctor of nursing and a healthcare executive who has worked as a registered nurse for over 20 years.
She's lived in the United States for approximately 30 years, owns her home in Texas where she lives with her husband and adult children.
She works from home most days and doesn't have work related travel related requirements, meaning she'd be home during critical supervision hours.
The defense argued that her deep community roots and professional standing provided strong assurance that Nwadavid would abide by release conditions.
[00:46:37] Speaker C: So not just a relative, but a highly respected professional. That definitely adds a lot of credibility to the defense's proposal. And you mentioned other letters of support too.
[00:46:49] Speaker B: Yes.
Numerous other letters were submitted describing Mr. Nuadavid as a dependable and mature individual, a kind and attentive husband and father, and a mentor to his younger siblings, employees and community members.
This was all meant to paint a picture of a responsible individual despite the serious charges.
Furthermore, he has a steady employment history, owning a family real estate business in Nigeria since 2016, and he has a bachelor's degree and a recent certification from Columbia University.
All these factors were presented to suggest stability and a reason to cooperate with the legal process.
[00:47:37] Speaker C: That's interesting.
So on one hand you have the government point pointing to all his ties to Nigeria as a flight risk, and on the other, his defense highlighting his strong family connections and community support in the US albeit newer ones.
Given your 25 years in law enforcement and as a private investigator, Nick, what's your expert opinion on why the court ultimately signed cited against detention?
Despite the serious nature of the charges and that compelling circumstantial evidence from the government, it seems like a tough call.
[00:48:19] Speaker B: That's a really insightful question, Sue. And it gets to the heart of how these detention hearings work. The court's decision isn't about whether the person is guilty, but whether there are conditions that can reasonably assure their appearance in court and the safety of the community.
The Bail Reform act explicitly favors non detention and the burden of proof is always on the government to show that no combination of conditions will suffice. In Mr. Nwatovid's case, the judge, Magistrate Judge Hedges, meticulously weighed all four factors.
While the nature of the offense and the weight of the evidence certainly weighed against release due to the seriousness of the romance scam, the multi million dollar fraud and the strong circumstantial electronic evidence, the other factors really tilted the scale in his favor.
[00:49:18] Speaker C: So the family ties in Texas and the lack of criminal history were that significant, even with the allegations of a multi million dollar international fraud they were sue.
[00:49:29] Speaker B: The court placed significant weight on his history and characteristics. His lack of a criminal record was a major point. He had no history of non appearance in court proceedings, no drug or alcohol abuse issues.
This suggested he wasn't someone who had a pattern of disregarding legal obligations.
And the familial support in Texas was crucial.
His maternal aunt wasn't just any relative. She's a highly established professional, a homeowner, and has lived in the US for decades.
Her willingness to act as a third party custodian with her own strong community ties was seen as a very strong mitigating factor against flight risk. The judge noted that while his alienage, being a Nigerian citizen could be considered, it alone doesn't constitute sufficient evidence for detention, nor does it mean no conditions can assure appearance.
The court specifically cited prior cases stating that alienage may be taken into account, but it is not dispositive. The law is concerned with a defendant's volitional non appearance, not the possibility of involuntary deportation.
[00:50:50] Speaker C: I see.
So they were looking for an intentional act to evade rather than just the fact that he's from another country. What about the government's arguments that he had access to substantial capital or could obtain falsified travel documents? Surely that would be a huge flight risk.
[00:51:10] Speaker B: Those were indeed arguments made by the government, but the court found them unpersuasive.
Regarding falsified travel documents, the government's claim was based on speculation due to the cyber based nature of the alleged fraud, implying he might have connections.
However, the government conceded it had no evidence that Mr. Nwatovid had ever attempted to obtain false travel documents.
Without concrete evidence of an inclination to use such means, the argument didn't hold up.
[00:51:48] Speaker C: That's a key distinction, isn't it? Speculation versus actual evidence of intent or action.
[00:51:54] Speaker B: And the capital for the access to significant capital argument, the government alleged that at some point over six years ago he he received $1 million in cryptocurrency related to the romance scam.
They also pointed to the fact that he had retained private counsel, implying financial means.
However, the court found these arguments unpersuasive on their own.
Past access to funds from six years ago wasn't enough to demonstrate current easily accessible liquid capital for flight. And simply hiring private counsel doesn't automatically mean unlimited funds for evading justice.
[00:52:36] Speaker C: So despite the potential millions involved in the scam, the court wasn't convinced he had the immediate means to just disappear.
It sounds like the government's arguments for an unmitigable flight risk were seen as somewhat speculative or insufficient to Overcome the strong counterfactors.
[00:52:56] Speaker B: Exactly, Sue. The court concluded that while Mr. Nativid faced a substantial sentence if convicted, the government failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence, that the risk of flight was so great that no conditions of release would reasonably assure his appearance.
They emphasized the reasonably assure standard, not a guarantee.
His strong familial support in Texas, his steady employment history, and especially his clean criminal record were all pivotal in the court's assessment.
[00:53:34] Speaker C: So the combination of a reputable third party custodian, his clean record, and the court's focus on reasonable assurance rather than an absolute guarantee ultimately led to the decision decision to release him. It's a complex balancing act, showing how the legal system attempts to uphold the presumption of liberty while still addressing public safety.
[00:53:59] Speaker B: It truly is a delicate balance. And the judge found that the proposed conditions, including a third party custodian, home detention with location monitoring and the surrender of his passport, would sufficiently mitigate any risk of flight. They determined that these measures would reasonably assure his appearance and the safety of the community.
It's a testament to the court's careful deliberation, emphasizing that detention is indeed the carefully limited exception, not the norm.
[00:54:36] Speaker C: So, Nick, what exactly are these strict conditions that the court imposed?
I mean, beyond the third party custodian, home detention, and passport surrender, what other measures are in place to ensure he doesn't just, you know, vanish?
[00:54:53] Speaker B: That's a great question, sue, because the conditions are quite comprehensive, designed to create a tight net around him.
First Bayo. And appointing his maternal aunt as the third party custodian. He has immediate reporting requirements to US Probation and pretrial services upon release lease. This includes reporting his travel plans to Texas, his flight information, and where he intends to stay.
This establishes immediate oversight from the get go.
[00:55:24] Speaker C: So they're tracking his initial movements right out of the gate. That makes sense. And what about his residence? Once he settles in with his aunt.
[00:55:32] Speaker B: He has to maintain that residence with his aunt and notify probation and pre trial services of any intended change of address.
They can also conduct home visits, which is standard procedure for monitoring. The passport surrender is a huge one. He had to turn over any existing passports and is explicitly forbidden from obtaining any new international travel documents during the entire pendency of the case.
That really limits his ability to leave the country legally.
[00:56:03] Speaker C: Oh, wow. I didn't know that. So. So it's not just about turning in the one he had, but preventing him from getting a new one. That's a strong preventative measure. But with him being a Nigerian citizen, and his family still there. How does the home detention with location monitoring work to keep him physically present?
[00:56:24] Speaker B: The home detention is perhaps the most restrictive condition short of actual incarceration.
He's restricted to his residence at all times, with very few exceptions.
These exceptions must be pre approved by the probation office and are typically only for court purposes. Meetings with his counsel, necessary medical or mental health treatment, and religious services. And the location monitoring? That's usually an ankle bracelet which uses GPS technology to track his movements. He's also expressly forbidden from obstructing or tampering with the monitoring equipment. And he's responsible for the costs associated with it, which can be quite substantial.
[00:57:14] Speaker C: That's crazy. How do people even try to tamper with those? I mean, it seems like a pretty high tech way to keep tabs on someone.
But as an investigator, what are the practical challenges of enforcing something like constant home detention and location monitoring, especially for someone who might be highly motivated to flee?
[00:57:37] Speaker B: Well, sue, while the technology is advanced, no system is foolproof. The primary challenge lies in the human element. A person highly motivated to flee could theoretically try to cut off the ankle bracelet, but that would immediately trigger an alarm and notify authorities, leading to a warrant for their arrest.
The real deterrence often comes from the severe penalties for violating these conditions, which would typically lead to immediate detention without bond. For someone like Mr. Nwativid, with family support here and a desire to clear his name, the risk of violating these conditions and forfeiting his temporary freedom is often too high.
The probation office also conducts unannounced visits, making sure he's at his approved location.
[00:58:32] Speaker C: That makes sense. It's a calculated risk versus reward for the defendant. Are there any conditions related to preventing him from, say, contacting victims or witnesses or even continuing any fraudulent activities?
[00:58:47] Speaker B: Absolutely. That's covered. Under condition seven, he is ordered to refrain from direct or indirect contact with any person who is or may be a victim or witness in the investigation or prosecution. This includes co defendants. Unless it's in the presence of his counsel, the government is required to provide him with a list of these individuals to ensure he knows who he cannot contact.
This is critical for protecting victims and maintaining the integrity of the investigation, so.
[00:59:19] Speaker C: The court is trying to prevent any further intimidation or manipulation from his end. And is there a general catchall for reporting any interactions with law enforcement, even minor ones?
[00:59:33] Speaker B: Yes. Condition eight specifies that he must report any contact with law enforcement within 24 hours.
This ensures transparency and keeps the probation office fully informed of any interactions that might occur. Whether it's a Traffic stop or anything else, it prevents him from hiding incidents that could indicate non compliance or further.
[00:59:58] Speaker C: So when you look at all these conditions together, the third party custodian, strict home detention, ankle monitoring, passport surrender, and the no contact orders, it really does seem like a comprehensive effort to mitigate the flight risk.
Given your background, Nick, do you think these types of conditions are generally effective in cases like this, especially when it involves international defendants with significant ties abroad?
[01:00:29] Speaker B: From my expert opinion, sue, these conditions when combined, are indeed highly effective for most defendants, even those with international ties. The key is that reasonable assurance rather than a guarantee.
No set of conditions can absolutely guarantee someone won't try to flee.
But these significantly raise the stakes and and limit the practical means of doing so. The presence of a reliable third party custodian, like Mr. Nwatovid's aunt, who is established in the community and willing to supervise, adds an extra layer of accountability that significantly strengthens the Court's confidence.
They are essentially an extension of the Court's oversight.
Without that, it would have been a much tougher argument for release.
[01:01:24] Speaker C: So in essence, the Court is leveraging strong community ties and technology to keep a close watch, rather than relying solely on incarceration while he awaits trial. It's a balance between individual liberty and ensuring justice can be served.
[01:01:43] Speaker B: Precisely.
It's the justice system's attempt to find that sweet spot adhering to the principle that liberty is the norm while still protecting the integrity of the judicial process.
[01:01:57] Speaker C: Well, that certainly sheds a lot of light on the complexities of pretrial release, especially in international fraud cases. Thank you for breaking that down so clearly, Nick.
[01:02:07] Speaker B: You're welcome.
This was an extreme, extremely interesting case, but I was helped by a well crafted indictment. Thanks to the prosecutor and the investigators for doing such an excellent job.
As with all these cases we cover here on behind the Scams, where we utilize a federal indictment, we will be posting a copy of the indictment to the podcast episode on our website.
It can be found on our podcast page at stampoutscam.
So head on over and get yourself a copy. It is fascinating reading. That's all for today's episode of behind the Scams. Thanks for listening. It's always a pleasure to dissect these complex cases and hopefully provide some clarity and awareness.
[01:02:55] Speaker C: And remember, stay safe, stay informed, stay alert, and we'll catch you next time. The more you know, the better equipped you are to spot and avoid these deceptive schemes. Now, Miles, please close out this episode of behind the Scams.
[01:03:14] Speaker A: That's a wrap on this powerful episode of Behind The Scams the indictment of Charles Uchena Nwadavid is more than just a legal case.
It's a chilling example of how romance, technology and trust can be used to defraud innocent people on a global scale. As Nick and Sue shared, these scams go far beyond flirty messages and fake profiles.
They involve psychological manipulation, identity theft, money laundering, and financial crimes that ripple through entire communities. And while this particular case is headed to trial sometime in the near future, there are still countless other scammers using the same playbook right now and new victims falling into their traps every day. If you want to read the full indictment that we referenced in this episode, you won't find it on Apple Podcasts, Spotify or all the other podcast hosting sites we are on.
It is only on our website version.
Head over to stampoutscams.org and go to our podcast page and download the PDF copy of the Indictment.
While there, please explore all our scam prevention related resources and watch related scam TV videos. And remember, if you or someone you know has been targeted by a scam, please don't stay silent.
Go to stampoutscams.org report a scam page and help us fight back. Don't forget to follow behind the Scams on your favorite podcast platform and subscribe to our YouTube channel SCAMTV for powerful visuals, victim stories and expert insights.
We're building a community of awareness and we're stronger with you in it. Until next time, stay safe, stay informed, and as always, stay one step ahead of the scam.
