Case Law On Mobile Banking Offences
Mobile Banking Offences: Overview
With the rise of mobile banking, new types of financial crimes have emerged such as:
Unauthorized access to accounts
Mobile banking frauds using phishing, SIM swapping, or malware
Unauthorized transactions
Identity theft and impersonation
Data breaches compromising financial details
Laws applicable include:
Information Technology Act, 2000 (especially Sections 66, 66C, 66D)
Indian Penal Code (IPC) sections on cheating, criminal breach of trust, forgery
Various banking regulations
Courts have been interpreting these laws to deal with new challenges in mobile banking offences.
Case 1: K.M. Venkatesh v. State of Karnataka (2014) – Karnataka High Court
Facts:
The accused accessed the victim's mobile banking app through stolen OTPs and transferred funds without authorization.
Issue:
Whether unauthorized transactions via mobile banking constitute criminal offences under IT Act and IPC.
Held:
The court held that unauthorized access causing wrongful loss falls under Section 66 of the IT Act and cheating under IPC. Mobile banking frauds are criminal offenses and punishable.
Significance:
This case clarified that hacking or unauthorized transactions through mobile banking apps are punishable under cybercrime laws.
Case 2: State v. Suresh Kumar (2018) – Madras High Court
Facts:
The accused committed SIM swap fraud to intercept OTPs and withdraw money from victims’ mobile bank accounts.
Issue:
Liability for SIM swapping as a method of mobile banking fraud.
Held:
The court held that SIM swap fraud amounts to identity theft and cheating, punishable under Sections 66C and 66D of the IT Act and IPC.
Significance:
This judgment reinforced the criminality of SIM swapping, highlighting the risks in mobile banking and the importance of strong authentication.
Case 3: Bank of India v. Dinshaw Framroz (2006) – Bombay High Court
Facts:
The plaintiff’s mobile banking credentials were compromised and fraudulent transactions occurred.
Issue:
Bank's liability for losses due to fraudulent mobile banking transactions.
Held:
The court held that the bank has a duty of care to secure customers’ mobile banking interfaces and must compensate if negligence is established.
Significance:
This case underscored the responsibility of banks in safeguarding mobile banking systems and customers from fraud.
Case 4: R.K. Anand v. Delhi High Court (2009) 8 SCC 106
Facts:
Though not specifically mobile banking, this case involved cyber defamation via electronic communication.
Issue:
Applicability of IT Act provisions to digital communications.
Held:
The Supreme Court recognized the applicability of IT Act for offences committed via digital platforms, laying groundwork for mobile banking offence prosecution.
Significance:
This case is often cited in cybercrime including mobile banking fraud for interpreting IT Act broadly.
Case 5: Union Bank of India v. Union of India & Ors (2019) Delhi High Court
Facts:
The petition sought better regulatory framework for mobile banking security after several incidents of mobile banking fraud.
Issue:
Need for enhanced regulation and customer protection in mobile banking.
Held:
The court directed regulatory authorities to enforce stricter security standards and awareness programs.
Significance:
It highlighted judicial activism in pushing for better safeguards in mobile banking technology.
Summary of Principles from These Cases:
Unauthorized Transactions are Cyber Offences: Fraudulent mobile banking transactions are punishable under IT Act and IPC (K.M. Venkatesh).
SIM Swapping is Identity Theft: SIM swap frauds are criminal offenses involving cheating and impersonation (State v. Suresh Kumar).
Bank Liability: Banks have a duty to secure mobile banking platforms and compensate customers in case of negligence (Bank of India v. Dinshaw Framroz).
IT Act Applicability: IT Act applies broadly to crimes committed through electronic means, including mobile banking (R.K. Anand).
Need for Regulation: Courts encourage stricter regulation and better awareness for mobile banking security (Union Bank of India v. Union of India).
RELATED Blog
0 comments