By Idowu Ephraim Faleye +2348132100608
There is a point at which internet fraud stops being the problem of a young man behind a computer and becomes a problem for the entire family that eats from the money he brings home. When a son suddenly buys a car, builds a house, pays his mother’s bills and changes the family’s standard of living, the family may begin to see the money before it sees the crime. That is where Nigeria’s fight against internet fraud faces a serious weakness.
For years, the emphasis has been on arresting the Yahoo boys. The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, police and other agencies pursue suspects, seize assets and prosecute cases. But what happens when the family knows where the money is coming from, enjoys the benefits and then mobilises to protect the young man when law enforcement comes for him?
This is where the phenomenon popularly described as “Iya-omo-ologo” deserves serious attention. It refers to the parent who knows or strongly suspects that her child’s sudden wealth comes from internet fraud but accepts it because the money is improving the family’s life. When the child is arrested, the same parent may become the first person to protest, petition authorities or mobilise relatives and community leaders for his release.
That creates a dangerous cycle. The young man makes money through fraud, the family enjoys the money, and when the law intervenes, the family protects the young man. The offender therefore does not see himself as standing alone against the law. He knows that the people benefiting from his activities may become his strongest shield when the consequences arrive.
This is why Nigeria needs to think seriously about social deterrence. Legal deterrence tells the young person that he may be arrested, prosecuted and imprisoned. Social deterrence adds another question: what if knowingly supporting or facilitating the activity also brings consequences upon the family and damages the reputation that the family values?
I am not arguing that the mother of every alleged Yahoo boy should automatically be arrested. That would be collective punishment and would be wrong. A person should be investigated and held accountable for his or her own conduct, not merely because of a family relationship. But where evidence shows that a parent knowingly participates in, conceals, receives, launders or facilitates criminal proceeds, the parent should face the law on the basis of that conduct.
The significance of such action goes beyond the individual case. If a parent who knowingly supports the criminal activities of a child is lawfully arrested and prosecuted, it can send a powerful message through the family and the community. The shame and disruption that follow may force other families to reconsider their attitude towards unexplained wealth. Suddenly, the money that once brought excitement can begin to look like a source of danger.
That is the real power of social deterrence. The objective is not simply to punish the parent. It is to change the calculation taking place inside the home. If the family currently sees only the benefit of the money, but begins to see the possibility of legal, financial and social consequences associated with knowingly supporting its source, the value of that money changes.
Imagine a young man returning home with a new car worth millions of naira. Under the current culture, the first reaction in some families may be celebration. His mother may be proud, his siblings may admire him and relatives may begin to benefit from his generosity. But if families understand that knowingly participating in or concealing criminal proceeds can expose them to investigation and prosecution, the conversation may become very different: “Where did you get this money?”
That question is important because social acceptance can make criminal wealth attractive. A young man may be encouraged by the respect that his money brings. If the family builds a new house with the proceeds, relatives may celebrate him. If he pays school fees, he becomes the generous son. If he buys a car for his mother, he becomes a responsible child. The criminal source of the wealth can disappear behind the benefits it provides.
Social deterrence seeks to reverse that reward system. The objective is to make unexplained wealth a reason for questions rather than celebration. It should make parents think twice before accepting suspicious money and make young people understand that bringing questionable wealth home may create problems for the very people they want to impress.
There is also the issue of family reputation. In many Nigerian communities, a person’s conduct is connected to the name of the family. Parents care about what relatives, neighbours, traditional institutions and the wider community think about them. When the activities of one child begin to expose the family to public embarrassment, that social pressure can become a powerful force for change.
This is where the “Iya-omo-ologo” idea becomes significant. If a mother who knowingly protects her son’s criminal activities is herself lawfully held accountable for her own role, the message will travel beyond that particular family. Other parents may begin to realise that accepting the proceeds of internet fraud is not without consequences. The extended family may also begin to ask whether the money being celebrated today is worth the disgrace it could bring tomorrow.
The effect could be even stronger within the extended family. An uncle may not care much about what a young man does when the money is flowing into the family. But if the situation begins to affect the reputation of the entire family, the uncle may become the first person to tell him to stop. Siblings may also begin to distance themselves from suspicious money because they do not want their own names associated with the consequences.
This is not about creating fear through arbitrary arrests. It is about creating a legitimate cost for knowingly protecting criminal behaviour. If the law can establish that a parent or relative deliberately helped to conceal, receive or move criminal proceeds, that person should not be protected from accountability simply because the offender is a son, daughter, brother or nephew.
What makes the “Iya-omo-ologo” phenomenon even more troubling is the camaraderie that can develop among some mothers of internet fraudsters, where the activities of their children are no longer treated as something to discourage but as a source of pride, income and social status. In some cases, this goes beyond accepting the proceeds of fraud to allegedly enrolling or financing their children to learn the methods of internet fraud from more experienced practitioners, effectively turning what should be parental guidance into sponsorship of criminal apprenticeship. When a mother pays for a young person’s training, provides money for equipment or accommodation, or knowingly supports the process through which the child learns how to defraud people online, the issue is no longer simply one of parental tolerance; it becomes a question of active facilitation. Such a culture is particularly dangerous because it can make internet fraud appear to the younger generation as a legitimate career path, passed from one generation to another through family encouragement. It is precisely this kind of social acceptance that makes deterrence necessary—not through punishment of innocent parents, but through firm, evidence-based action against anyone who knowingly facilitates or finances criminal activity.
Law enforcement should therefore look beyond the person holding the phone or computer. It should follow the money. Who receives it? Who buys the property? Who establishes businesses with it? Who helps move it? Who knows where it comes from? These questions can expose the wider financial network around internet crime and separate innocent relatives from people who deliberately participate.
The greatest mistake would be to turn this idea into a campaign for indiscriminate arrest of parents. That would undermine the very justice the policy is supposed to protect. The principle must remain clear: relationship is not evidence; conduct is evidence. A parent who knows nothing about the child’s activities should not be punished, while a parent who knowingly facilitates criminal proceeds should not escape scrutiny because of the family relationship.
There is also a need to confront the culture that celebrates sudden wealth. A young person who becomes rich overnight should not automatically become a community hero. Wealth should be respected when the source is legitimate. When society stops asking questions about the source of wealth, it creates an environment in which criminal proceeds can be converted into social status.
The argument for social deterrence is therefore simple. If internet fraud produces money, status and family admiration while the risk of arrest is perceived as a problem that the family can help the offender overcome, the incentive to stop is weak. But if the consequences extend, through lawful and evidence-based accountability, to those who knowingly facilitate or conceal the crime, the calculation changes.
The young person will begin to ask a different question. “Is the money worth it if my activities can bring investigation, prosecution, financial loss and disgrace upon my family?” The parent will also ask, “Is the improvement in our standard of living worth the possibility that my own conduct in supporting this activity could bring legal consequences?” Once those questions become real, the attractiveness of the money begins to fall.
That is the heart of social deterrence: make the consequences greater than the attraction. If ₦20 million brings a young man temporary prestige but eventually brings arrest, asset recovery, family disgrace and the rejection of the very people who once celebrated him, the calculation becomes different. The objective is to make legitimate success more rewarding and criminal wealth more burdensome.
Nigeria cannot arrest its way out of internet fraud alone. But it can weaken the social environment that allows the proceeds of internet crime to become family wealth and community status. Law enforcement must pursue offenders, trace their money and hold proven facilitators accountable, while families and communities must stop treating unexplained wealth as automatic evidence of success.
The most important change, therefore, is not simply to make the Yahoo boy afraid of the law. It is to make the family understand that knowingly protecting the behaviour can have consequences of its own. When the family becomes uncomfortable with the source of the money, when relatives stop celebrating unexplained wealth and when the possibility of legitimate accountability creates real social pressure, the protection around the offender begins to disappear.
The question Nigeria should therefore ask is no longer only, “How do we arrest more Yahoo boys?” It should also ask, “How do we make the family and community stop rewarding the wealth that comes from internet crime?” If the answer is through lawful accountability, financial investigation and social deterrence, then the fight moves from chasing the offender alone to changing the environment that makes the crime attractive.
When the money is weighed against the consequences, the calculation must change. The car, house, clothes and social status should no longer be seen only as rewards. They should also carry the question: What if the wealth that brought happiness to the family today becomes the source of its disgrace tomorrow? That is the social deterrence Nigeria should begin to build.
*Idowu Ephraim Faleye is a freelance political writer based in Ado-Ekiti, Nigeria. +2348132100608*
