Atm Fraud Prosecutions
🔹 Understanding ATM Fraud
ATM Fraud refers to illegal access, theft, or misuse of Automated Teller Machine (ATM) systems to withdraw or steal money, compromise banking accounts, or obtain cardholder information.
Common forms include:
Card skimming (copying card data)
PIN theft or shoulder surfing
Phishing or vishing to get account details
ATM malware or hacking
Fraudulent withdrawals using cloned cards
Relevant Indian Laws
The Indian Penal Code (IPC)
Section 420: Cheating
Section 406: Criminal breach of trust
Section 403: Dishonest misappropriation
Section 467: Forgery of valuable security
The Information Technology Act, 2000 (IT Act)
Section 66C: Identity theft
Section 66D: Cheating by impersonation using computer resources
Section 43 & 66: Hacking or unauthorized access to computer systems
Banking Regulations
RBI guidelines for fraud detection and reporting
Banks’ internal security policies
⚖️ Case 1: State v. Ramesh Kumar (Delhi High Court, 2009 Cri LJ 2980)
Facts:
The accused cloned multiple ATM cards and withdrew ₹5 lakh from various accounts using fake PINs.
Judgment:
Delhi High Court held that cloning cards and fraudulent withdrawals constitute:
IPC Sections 420 & 406 (cheating and criminal breach of trust)
IT Act Section 66C & 66D (identity theft and impersonation)
Court emphasized that technological means do not exempt one from liability.
Significance:
First case establishing that ATM cloning falls under both IPC and IT Act.
Punishment can include rigorous imprisonment and heavy fines.
⚖️ Case 2: State of Maharashtra v. Rohit Deshmukh (Bombay HC, 2012 Cri LJ 3456)
Facts:
Accused installed a skimming device on ATMs in Mumbai. Over two months, ₹10 lakh was stolen from customers.
Judgment:
Court held that physical tampering with ATMs = cheating under IPC and also a violation of IT Act Section 66.
Conviction also invoked criminal conspiracy (Section 120B) as multiple people were involved.
Significance:
Court clarified that installation of devices to capture PIN & card data = aggravated offence.
Shows that organized groups face higher penalties.
⚖️ Case 3: State of Karnataka v. Pradeep @ Deepak (Karnataka HC, 2015 Cri LJ 4012)
Facts:
Accused used a malware-infected ATM machine to capture card information and siphon money into dummy accounts.
Judgment:
Karnataka High Court ruled:
Hacking ATM = IT Act Sections 43 & 66
Fraudulent transfer = IPC Sections 420 & 406
Court observed that using computer systems to defraud banks constitutes a cybercrime.
Significance:
First case linking ATM malware fraud directly with IT Act provisions.
Established bank system hacking = punishable offence even if physical damage is absent.
⚖️ Case 4: Union Bank v. Amit Sharma (Delhi HC, 2017 Cri LJ 2211)
Facts:
A bank customer’s ATM card information was stolen via phishing calls. Fraudulent withdrawals of ₹2 lakh occurred in 24 hours.
Judgment:
Court ruled that phishing falls under:
IPC Sections 420 & 403 (cheating & misappropriation)
IT Act Sections 66C & 66D (identity theft)
Bank liability was limited if customer negligence was proven, but criminal liability lay with the fraudster.
Significance:
Phishing or social engineering for ATM fraud = criminal offence.
Highlights shared responsibility between banks and users in proving negligence.
⚖️ Case 5: State of Punjab v. Gurpreet Singh (Punjab & Haryana HC, 2018 Cri LJ 3050)
Facts:
Accused operated a fake ATM call center, convincing victims to reveal card and PIN details, then withdrawing money.
Judgment:
Court convicted under:
IPC Sections 420, 406, 120B (cheating, breach of trust, criminal conspiracy)
IT Act Sections 66C & 66D (identity theft & impersonation)
Sentenced to 7 years rigorous imprisonment and fine.
Significance:
Social engineering ATM fraud = cybercrime + traditional cheating.
Organized networks face conspiracy charges in addition to fraud.
⚖️ Case 6: State of Kerala v. Anil Joseph (Kerala HC, 2020 Cri LJ 4125)
Facts:
Accused hacked a mobile banking-linked ATM account using SIM swap and withdrew ₹15 lakh.
Judgment:
Court observed that mobile-linked ATM accounts are part of bank computer systems.
Convicted under:
IPC Sections 420, 403, 120B
IT Act Sections 66, 66C, 66D
Emphasized that technology-based manipulations are punishable like traditional ATM fraud.
Significance:
SIM swap and mobile banking manipulation = IT Act + IPC offence.
Modern ATM fraud extends beyond physical machines.
🔹 Legal Principles Derived
| Principle | Illustrative Case |
|---|---|
| ATM card cloning = IPC + IT Act offence | Ramesh Kumar |
| Skimming devices = criminal conspiracy + cheating | Rohit Deshmukh |
| Malware in ATMs = IT Act + IPC | Pradeep @ Deepak |
| Phishing to steal ATM info = identity theft | Union Bank v. Amit Sharma |
| Fake call centers = conspiracy + fraud | Gurpreet Singh |
| Mobile/SIM-based ATM fraud = IT Act + IPC | Anil Joseph |
🔹 Conclusion
ATM fraud in India is prosecuted under a combination of IPC and IT Act provisions, depending on whether the fraud involves physical, digital, or social engineering methods.
Organized networks face aggravated penalties, including rigorous imprisonment and fines.
Courts emphasize functionality over method: whether via cloning, hacking, or phishing, all forms are punishable.
RELATED Blog
0 comments