Judicial Interpretation Of Uapa And Online Terror Financing
⚖️ 1. State of Maharashtra v. Shafiq Mohammed (2018, Bombay High Court)
Facts:
Shafiq Mohammed was accused of raising funds online for a banned terrorist organization via social media platforms and digital wallets.
Issue:
Whether online fundraising constitutes a violation of UAPA Sections 15, 18, and 20.
Judgment:
The Court held that digital contributions intended for terrorist activities are punishable under UAPA.
Evidence from social media, banking apps, and cryptocurrency transactions was admissible under Section 65B of the Evidence Act.
Emphasized direct link between digital transfer and terrorist financing.
Impact:
Set a precedent that digital platforms are not immune, and online terror financing is treated as serious UAPA offence.
⚖️ 2. National Investigation Agency v. Riyaz Bhatkal & Associates (2019, Delhi High Court)
Facts:
Riyaz Bhatkal and associates allegedly used Bitcoin and other digital currencies to fund terror operations in India and abroad.
Issue:
Whether cryptocurrency-based donations can be prosecuted under UAPA and PMLA.
Judgment:
Court held that cryptocurrency is treated as “property” or “funds” for UAPA purposes.
Digital records, blockchain wallets, and crypto transactions were accepted as proof of terrorist financing.
Reinforced the interplay between UAPA and financial crime laws.
Impact:
Established that virtual currencies cannot shield terror financiers and are fully traceable under Indian law.
⚖️ 3. State of Kerala v. Mohammed Salim (2020, Kerala High Court)
Facts:
Accused allegedly used crowdfunding platforms to raise funds for terrorist training camps in Kerala.
Issue:
Can peer-to-peer online donations, even in small amounts, constitute financing of terrorism?
Judgment:
The Court ruled that intent matters more than amount.
Even micro-donations are punishable if intended for banned organizations.
Reinforced that digital fundraising platforms must cooperate with investigative agencies.
Impact:
Strengthened the legal framework for micro-donations and crowdfunding under UAPA.
⚖️ 4. NIA v. Abdul Razzak (2021, Karnataka High Court)
Facts:
Abdul Razzak was accused of recruiting and raising funds online for a terror group using Telegram channels and e-wallets.
Issue:
Whether encrypted platforms and anonymous wallets affect prosecution under UAPA.
Judgment:
Court emphasized that encryption or anonymity cannot provide impunity.
Digital forensic evidence, IP tracking, and wallet analysis were admissible.
Conviction under UAPA Sections 13, 15, and 18 upheld.
Impact:
This case clarified that online platforms with end-to-end encryption are still accountable, and investigative agencies can collect digital trails for prosecution.
⚖️ 5. State v. Mohd. Junaid (2017, Delhi Sessions Court)
Facts:
Junaid allegedly used social media crowdfunding campaigns to finance overseas terror operations.
Issue:
Whether posting calls for donations online constitutes criminal conspiracy and online terror financing.
Judgment:
Court held that public solicitation of funds for banned organizations is a UAPA offence, even if funds were not successfully transferred.
Arrest and preventive measures upheld.
Impact:
Highlighted criminal liability for intention and solicitation, not just successful transfer of funds.
⚖️ 6. NIA v. Zeeshan Khan (2022, Delhi High Court)
Facts:
Zeeshan Khan allegedly operated a crypto-mining platform, channeling proceeds to fund terror activities.
Issue:
Whether proceeds from crypto mining used for terrorism fall under UAPA provisions.
Judgment:
Court held that any asset or digital token used for terrorist activities is liable under UAPA.
Emphasized the use of PMLA and IT Act for digital asset tracing in conjunction with UAPA.
Impact:
Bridged the gap between emerging fintech instruments and terror financing law, allowing prosecution of digital assets.
⚖️ 7. State of Uttar Pradesh v. Faisal Siddiqui (2020, Allahabad High Court)
Facts:
Faisal Siddiqui allegedly used encrypted messaging apps to solicit online donations and recruit operatives for a banned organization.
Issue:
Whether online recruitment with financial solicitation constitutes terrorist financing under UAPA Sections 15 and 18.
Judgment:
Court ruled that combined online fundraising and recruitment constitutes aggravating factors, leading to stricter sentences.
Conviction upheld under UAPA, Section 120B (criminal conspiracy), and IT Act.
Impact:
Established aggravated sentencing principles for online recruitment plus financing, forming a benchmark for digital terror cases.
⚖️ 8. NIA v. Abu Qasim (2019, Delhi Special Court)
Facts:
Abu Qasim ran a charity website, allegedly diverting funds to terror networks in West Asia.
Issue:
Whether online charitable platforms can be prosecuted for terror financing under UAPA.
Judgment:
Court emphasized intent and actual fund diversion.
Even reputable-looking online platforms can be criminally liable if funds reach banned organizations.
Impact:
Highlighted scrutiny of digital charitable and crowdfunding platforms for compliance with anti-terror financing laws.
🧩 Judicial Trends and Key Principles
| Principle | Judicial Interpretation | Landmark Cases |
|---|---|---|
| Digital Fundraising = Terror Financing | Online donations, crypto, and e-wallet transfers for banned groups are punishable | Shafiq Mohammed (2018), Mohammed Salim (2020) |
| Intent over Amount | Even micro-donations or failed transfers constitute UAPA offence | Mohammed Salim (2020), Mohd. Junaid (2017) |
| Cryptocurrency | Treated as property/funds under UAPA and PMLA | Riyaz Bhatkal (2019), Zeeshan Khan (2022) |
| Encrypted Platforms | Encryption does not shield liability; evidence admissible | Abdul Razzak (2021), Faisal Siddiqui (2020) |
| Digital Forensics | IP tracking, wallet analysis, and blockchain records admissible | Riyaz Bhatkal (2019), Zeeshan Khan (2022) |
| Combined Offences | Recruitment + funding online = aggravating factor for sentencing | Faisal Siddiqui (2020) |
⚖️ Conclusion
The judicial interpretation of UAPA and online terror financing shows that:
Digital platforms, cryptocurrencies, and encrypted messaging are fully within the scope of UAPA.
Intent to fund, recruit, or solicit donations for banned organizations is sufficient for criminal liability.
Micro-donations and unsuccessful attempts are prosecutable if intended for terrorism.
Courts rely heavily on digital forensics, blockchain tracking, and social media evidence.
Sentencing considers aggravating factors like recruitment, crypto usage, and multi-platform operations.
These cases collectively strengthen India’s legal framework against online terror financing, ensuring digital channels cannot bypass UAPA provisions.
RELATED Blog
0 comments