Case Studies On Cyber Extortion And Ransomware
1. State of Maharashtra v. Unknown (Ransomware Attack on Hospital, 2019)
Facts:
A prominent hospital in Mumbai fell victim to a ransomware attack that encrypted its patient records. The attackers demanded a ransom of ₹50 lakh in cryptocurrency to release access. The hospital reported the matter to the cybercrime cell.
Legal Proceedings:
Investigations invoked provisions under Section 66C (identity theft), 66D (cheating by computer), and 43 (unauthorized access) of the IT Act.
Cyber forensic experts traced the attack to a group operating from outside India. Mutual legal assistance requests were sent to foreign authorities.
Court/Outcome:
The court upheld the cybercell’s preventive measures and sanctioned monitoring of all cryptocurrency wallets involved in the transaction.
Though the attackers were not apprehended immediately, the case set precedent for cross-border ransomware response and cyber forensic intervention.
Significance:
Highlighted the importance of proactive cyber forensics and international cooperation.
Reinforced that ransomware attacks fall under criminal liability in India, even if executed remotely.
2. ICICI Bank Cyber Extortion Case (2018)
Facts:
Hackers attempted to breach ICICI Bank’s internal servers and demanded ₹2 crore in Bitcoin, threatening to leak sensitive customer data.
Legal Proceedings:
The investigation was conducted under Section 66E (violation of privacy) and Section 66F (cyberterrorism) of the IT Act, given the potential threat to public financial security.
The bank’s cybersecurity team collaborated with the Mumbai Police Cyber Cell.
Court/Outcome:
Suspects were traced to multiple locations in India and abroad using IP tracking and blockchain transaction analysis.
The court allowed seizure of assets and accounts linked to the suspects and reinforced penalties under Sections 406 and 420 IPC for criminal breach of trust and cheating.
Significance:
Established that financial institutions are prime targets for cyber extortion.
Emphasized the role of banks’ cybersecurity measures combined with legal recourse in curbing such attacks.
3. State of Karnataka v. Anil Kumar (Cryptocurrency Ransom, 2020)
Facts:
Anil Kumar executed a ransomware attack on a software company, locking its critical systems and demanding payment in cryptocurrency to decrypt the files.
Legal Proceedings:
The cybercrime cell invoked Sections 66C, 66D, 66F of IT Act, along with Sections 406 and 420 IPC.
Blockchain analysis helped trace part of the ransom to wallets controlled by the accused.
Court/Outcome:
The Karnataka High Court rejected the accused’s bail plea, emphasizing the seriousness of ransomware attacks on businesses.
The accused was convicted, and the court highlighted the growing threat of digital extortion in India.
Significance:
Reinforced that cyber extortion is treated on par with traditional extortion.
Highlighted the use of cryptocurrency tracking as admissible evidence in Indian courts.
4. WannaCry Ransomware Awareness and Indian Investigations (2017)
Facts:
Though primarily a global attack, WannaCry affected multiple organizations in India, including hospitals and manufacturing units. Systems were encrypted, and ransoms were demanded in Bitcoin.
Legal Proceedings:
The National Cyber Crime Reporting Portal registered multiple complaints.
Investigations under Sections 43, 66C, and 66F of IT Act focused on tracing the source and preventing further spread.
Court/Outcome:
While the global perpetrators were not apprehended, Indian authorities issued advisories to secure critical infrastructure.
The case led to the establishment of specialized ransomware investigation units in several states.
Significance:
Demonstrated the threat of mass ransomware attacks to critical infrastructure.
Led to policy-level responses and mandatory reporting mechanisms for ransomware incidents.
5. Delhi Police v. John Doe (2019, Online Extortion)
Facts:
A private citizen received threatening emails claiming that their personal photos and financial data would be leaked online unless a ransom was paid via cryptocurrency.
Legal Proceedings:
Filed under Sections 66C, 66D, 66F IT Act, and Section 507 IPC (criminal intimidation by electronic means).
Cyber forensic analysis helped identify the anonymous sender through email headers and cryptocurrency transaction tracing.
Court/Outcome:
The court issued a non-bailable warrant against the accused and sanctioned seizure of linked cryptocurrency wallets.
The case reinforced criminal liability for cyber extortion even when direct physical harm is not involved.
Significance:
Highlighted the legal recognition of digital threats as extortion.
Set precedent for prosecuting personal-level ransomware and cyber blackmail in India.
✅ Key Takeaways from These Cases
Ransomware and cyber extortion are punishable under IT Act (Sections 66C, 66D, 66F, 66E) and IPC (Sections 420, 406, 507).
Cryptocurrency payments are now traceable and admissible as evidence in Indian courts.
Courts treat cyber extortion as serious criminal offense, on par with traditional extortion.
Investigations often require cyber forensic expertise and cross-border cooperation.
The cases have influenced policy development, institutional cyber preparedness, and mandatory reporting mechanisms.
RELATED Blog
0 comments