They Carried Our Money Away’ — Church Member Reveals How PXES Allegedly Swallowed Harvest Funds

A victim of the alleged PXES Ponzi scheme has recounted how money he had set aside for a church harvest programme was invested in the platform and subsequently became inaccessible.

According to Ireporter Online, the young man made the disclosure in a video circulating on social media, explaining that he was introduced to PXES by his sister, who reportedly assured him that the platform was legitimate.

The victim said he was a member of his church choir and had been saving the money to purchase clothes for an upcoming harvest programme.

According to him, the harvest was only about two weeks away when he decided to invest the funds, hoping the platform would generate additional money before the church event.

He explained that he initially did not have enough money but eventually decided to put the funds into the scheme after being persuaded that it was genuine.

The victim said he expected the investment to yield returns that would increase the amount available for the harvest.

However, he alleged that the situation changed when he attempted to withdraw his money. According to him, those behind the platform demanded an additional payment before his funds could be released.

He claimed the operators told investors that the Central Bank of Nigeria had directed them to pay tax because of the volume of money being transferred outside the country.

The victim said the demand for additional payment left him unable to access the money he had invested, which was originally intended for his church’s harvest programme.

His account has generated reactions on social media, with some users questioning the decision to invest money earmarked for a church programme in a scheme promising substantial returns.

Other commenters used the incident to warn Nigerians against platforms that promise unusually high returns and urged people to exercise caution before investing their money.

The allegations surrounding PXES and the circumstances of the victim’s reported loss could not be independently verified from the information provided.