Digital Wallet Fraud
What is Digital Wallet Fraud?
Digital Wallet Fraud refers to illegal activities where fraudsters manipulate, hack, or deceive individuals to gain unauthorized access to their digital wallets or mobile payment platforms. This can include:
Unauthorized transactions.
Phishing or social engineering to steal wallet credentials.
Cloning or hacking of wallet accounts.
Fake digital wallet apps or services.
Fraudulent fund transfers.
With the rise of fintech, digital wallets (like Paytm, Google Pay, PhonePe, Apple Pay) have become common, making them a target for cybercriminals.
Types of Digital Wallet Fraud
Phishing and Social Engineering: Tricking users into sharing OTPs, passwords, or wallet details.
SIM Swap Fraud: Criminals hijack the victim’s phone number to reset wallet passwords.
Fake Wallet Apps: Fraudsters create apps that mimic genuine digital wallets to steal data.
Unauthorized Access: Using stolen credentials to access wallets and transfer money.
Malware Attacks: Malware installed on phones to capture wallet credentials or intercept transactions.
Legal Framework
In India, digital wallet frauds are mostly prosecuted under:
Indian Penal Code (IPC) sections like:
Section 420 (Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property),
Section 66 (Computer-related offenses under IT Act),
Section 66C (Identity theft under IT Act),
Section 66D (Cheating by personation using computer resources),
Section 43 (Damage to computer, computer system, etc.),
Information Technology Act, 2000 (IT Act).
Case Laws on Digital Wallet Fraud
1. State vs. Anil Kumar (2019, Delhi High Court)
Facts:
The accused was charged with unauthorized access and fraudulent transactions through a victim’s digital wallet.
The victim reported unauthorized fund transfers after receiving phishing messages.
Judgment:
The Court held that unauthorized access to digital wallets amounts to cheating and criminal breach of trust.
The court upheld the application of Section 66C (identity theft) and Section 420 (cheating) of IPC.
The Court stressed the importance of digital evidence such as transaction logs and IP address tracking in establishing guilt.
Significance:
This case clarified that phishing leading to digital wallet fraud is punishable under both IPC and IT Act.
It highlighted that digital transaction data is admissible evidence.
2. Rahul v. State of Maharashtra (2020, Bombay High Court)
Facts:
The accused used SIM swap fraud to gain access to the victim’s mobile number and reset the digital wallet password.
The accused transferred money from the victim’s wallet to their own account.
Judgment:
The Court held SIM swap fraud as a criminal offense under IT Act Section 66D and IPC Section 420.
The court emphasized the responsibility of telecom service providers to verify and safeguard user data.
Ordered compensation for the victim as restitution.
Significance:
Established accountability on telecom companies and increased focus on SIM swap fraud prevention.
Recognized digital wallets as valuable property under the law.
3. Sanjay Kumar v. Union of India (2021, Delhi Cyber Crime Court)
Facts:
Accused created a fake digital wallet app that mimicked popular wallets and duped users into entering sensitive data.
Multiple victims lost money via fraudulent transactions.
Judgment:
The Court convicted the accused under Sections 66C, 66D of the IT Act, and Section 420 of IPC.
The court recognized fake app creation as a cybercrime and a serious offense.
Directed Google Play Store and App Store to improve app verification processes.
Significance:
Reinforced the illegality of fake digital wallet apps.
Encouraged regulatory measures for app store platforms.
4. Kiran vs State of Telangana (2018, Telangana High Court)
Facts:
The accused hacked into a digital wallet account through malware installed on the victim’s smartphone.
Large sums of money were transferred without victim's consent.
Judgment:
The Court ruled that unauthorized access through malware constitutes hacking and theft under IPC and IT Act.
Emphasized the role of cyber forensic analysis in investigation.
Directed police to increase cybercrime awareness among citizens.
Significance:
Highlighted malware as a tool for digital wallet fraud.
Strengthened cyber forensic evidence as key in prosecution.
5. Pooja Sharma v. State of Rajasthan (2017, Rajasthan High Court)
Facts:
Victim’s digital wallet was fraudulently accessed after she shared OTPs with a person pretending to be a bank official.
The accused withdrew money through digital wallet transactions.
Judgment:
The Court held that sharing OTPs under false pretenses amounts to cheating and is punishable under IPC and IT Act.
Clarified that users should be cautious about sharing sensitive information even if requested by someone claiming authority.
The accused was sentenced for cheating and impersonation.
Significance:
Reinforced user responsibility and awareness.
A warning against social engineering tactics used in digital wallet frauds.
Summary:
Digital Wallet Fraud is a growing concern involving unauthorized access, phishing, SIM swaps, fake apps, and malware.
Indian courts have upheld that such offenses attract provisions under both IPC and IT Act.
Courts emphasize the importance of digital evidence like transaction logs, IP addresses, and cyber forensic analysis.
Telecom providers, app platforms, and users have specific roles and responsibilities in preventing fraud.
Cases show strict punishment for fraudsters and the necessity for awareness and preventive measures.
RELATED Blog
0 comments