“Restitution is statutorily recognised as a valid part and parcel of the administration of criminal justice in Nigeria and as a tool of social justice, it plays a dual role of restoration for the victim of financial crime and denial of unjust benefits to the convict – see Ajiboye v FRN (2018) 13 NWLR (Pt.1637) 430, wherein this Court, per Peter-Odili, JSC, made this point unqualifiedly clear, as follows- In directing the property to be forfeited to the Federal Government of Nigeria, it was intended to debar the Appellant from deriving benefit from the proceeds of crime for which he was convicted and it cannot be treated as double jeopardy, as it is geared towards deterring others, who are so minded, to know that no benefit would properly inure to the person, who brazenly acquires what belongs to another or the Government. It is a no brainer that in financial crimes, custodial sentences do not deter criminals, and many will not mind serving custodial sentences if they are given the opportunity to retain proceeds of their criminal act, therefore, the need to deny a convict both his freedom to perpetrate further crimes together with the proceeds of his criminal activities, cannot be faulted as oppressive or excessive punishment under the law against double jeopardy. In this case, the Appellant was charged with financial offences under the Advance Fee Fraud and other Fraud Related Offences Act. Section 11 (1)(a) of the Act provides as follows: (1) ln addition to any other penalty prescribed under this Act, the High Court shall order a person convicted of an offence under this Act to make restitution to the victim of the false pretence or fraud by directing that person. (a)Where the property involved is money, to pay to the victim an amount equivalent to the loss sustained by the victim. By the above provision, the restitution order made by the trial Court that the Appellant returns the sum of N400,000.00 to his victim, is well founded in statutory law, and it is thus valid, and not unconstitutional.” Per AMINA ADAMU AUGIE, JSC in PATRICK EZERIKE V. THE STATE (2022-LCER-46643-SC) at Pp. 36 – 37; Paras. A-A.