On November 26, 2025, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit held that an alternative business lender was not liable for aiding and abetting a borrower’s fraud where the lender undertook targeted diligence, relied on professional assurances, and lacked actual knowledge or willful blindness to the borrower’s misconduct.
The case arises from extensive allegations that between 2014 and 2016, Jean Agbodjogbe, a Baltimore restaurateur, defrauded Alia Al-Sabah, a member of the Kuwaiti royal family, out of nearly $7.8 million. Al-Sabah gave the funds to Agbodjogbe to expand a restaurant venture, but Agbodjogbe funneled the money to his entities and used them to purchase a personal residence, a New York condo for Al-Sabah’s daughter, and other commercial properties.
After suing Agbodjogbe for fraud, Al-Sabah learned that World Business Lenders, LLC funded three loans for Agbodjogbe, each secured by real property Agbodjogbe acquired using funds he obtained from Al-Sabah: (1) a $600,000 loan secured by the condo; (2) a $1.2 million loan to also secured by the condo; and (3) a $360,000 loan secured by Agbodjogbe’s home. Although the lender had initially flagged certain risk indicators—including large wire transfers and atypical borrower representations—it obtained corroborating materials from Agbodjogbe at multiple stages of funding, including CPA-prepared IRS gift tax filings, title reports and insurance, proof of ownership interests, and an attorney long-form opinion letter at closing. Indeed, prior to issuing the third loan, the lender’s closing department conducted a PACER search to identify the litigation underlying a lis pendens filed against Agbodjogbe’s home and had even identified Al-Sabah’s lawsuit against Agbodjogbe. As a result, Al-Sabah also sued World Business in a separate action in federal court in Maryland, contending the lender aided and abetted Agbodjogbe’s fraud by converting the misappropriated money from real estate equity to liquid cash, thereby preventing Al-Sabah’s recovery on a potential judgment against Agbodjogbe.
Following a bench trial, the district court found for World Business on the first two loans, but found as to the third loan that the lender had been “willfully blind to, and [had] substantially assisted” Agbodjogbe’s fraud. The district court awarded Al-Sabah $469,990 in compensatory damages and $235,000 in punitive damages.
Both Al-Sabah and World Business appealed. The Fourth Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding that World Business was not willfully blind to the borrower’s fraud as to any of the loans and instructing entry of final judgment for World Business on all claims.
Under Maryland law, aiding and abetting requires proof, among other things, of “willful blindness”—a form of knowledge requiring deliberate action to avoid confirming a high probability of wrongdoing. It is not a negligence standard and cannot be predicated solely on what further diligence might have revealed. The Fourth Circuit held that World Business was not willfully blind regarding any of the loans. Specifically, as to the third loan, the appellate court rejected the district court’s finding of willful blindness predicated on the lis pendens notation. The record showed World Business did not review the content of the notice or complaint; rather, it knew lis pendens existed but reasonably relied on the title insurer’s updated commitment omitting the lis pendens notation and a long-form attorney opinion letter given after due inquiry. It reasoned that lenders are entitled to rely on title insurance as indemnity for title defects and on attorney opinions where counsel is accountable for the representations—and this reliance negates willful blindness. The district court therefore erred by imputing knowledge to World Business that the record did not support and by discounting professional assurances that the law treats as meaningful risk mitigants.
The court further observed that any lis pendens on Agbodjogbe’s home terminated as a matter of law when the district court in the fraud action declined to impose a constructive trust and entered a final judgment incorporating that ruling, which Al‑Sabah did not appeal—eliminating any equitable lien arising from lis pendens.
The case is Al-Sabah v. World Bus. Lenders, LLC, No. 24-1345 (4th Cir. Nov. 21, 2025). Al-Sabah is represented by Venable LLP. World Business is represented by McDonald Hopkins LLC. The opinion is available here.
