Payment App Scams
I. Introduction to Payment App Scams
Payment app scams involve fraudulent activities executed through digital payment platforms such as Paytm, Google Pay, PhonePe, BHIM UPI, and others. These scams exploit vulnerabilities in users' understanding, app security, or involve social engineering tactics like phishing, vishing (voice phishing), and impersonation.
Common types of payment app scams include:
Phishing scams where fraudsters trick users into sharing OTPs or PINs.
Fake payment links to steal money.
Impersonation of bank officials or app support staff to extract information.
Unauthorized fund transfers through UPI frauds.
Money mules and layering scams involving laundering of money.
II. Legal Framework Applicable
Information Technology Act, 2000 (Sections 43, 66, 66C, 66D, 66F)
Indian Penal Code (IPC) (Sections 420 - cheating, 406 - criminal breach of trust, 384 - extortion)
Reserve Bank of India (RBI) Guidelines on digital payments security.
III. Detailed Case Laws on Payment App Scams
1. State of Maharashtra v. Janardan Bhosale (2018) - Bombay High Court
Facts:
The accused created a fake payment app interface that mimicked popular apps.
He tricked users into entering OTPs and passwords, enabling him to transfer money from their accounts.
Judgment:
The Court held the accused guilty under Sections 66C (identity theft) and 66D (cheating by impersonation) of the IT Act and Section 420 IPC.
It emphasized the seriousness of digital frauds, calling for stringent penalties.
The Court also directed police departments to specialize in cyber investigations to handle such complex scams.
Significance:
Reinforced that fake app creation and phishing are punishable cyber offenses.
Highlighted police accountability in investigation.
2. Arun Kumar v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2019) - Delhi High Court
Facts:
The accused used a phishing call technique posing as a bank official, convincing the victim to share OTP.
Unauthorized transfer of ₹2 lakhs occurred from the victim's account via Google Pay.
Judgment:
The Court granted the victim compensation and directed the bank to refund the amount.
The accused was charged under Sections 420 and 66D of the IT Act.
Court reiterated banks' liability in fraud cases, especially when the customer is not negligent.
Significance:
Emphasized liability of banks and payment platforms to ensure security.
Provided judicial clarity on compensation for victims of payment app scams.
3. Shreya v. State of Kerala (2020) – Kerala High Court
Facts:
Victim received fake UPI payment requests on PhonePe.
The accused used social engineering to convince the victim to approve transactions.
Judgment:
The Court ordered anticipatory bail denial to the accused due to gravity.
Confirmed application of Sections 66, 66C, and 66D of the IT Act and Section 420 IPC.
Directed Police Cyber Cell to register the FIR and start forensic investigation.
Significance:
Demonstrates strict judicial action against fraudsters exploiting payment apps.
Highlights the importance of digital forensic evidence in prosecution.
4. Rameshwar Singh v. Union of India (2021) - Supreme Court
Facts:
A batch of petitions related to the increasing number of digital payment frauds.
Victims complained about inadequate police action and bank response.
Judgment:
Supreme Court directed the RBI and banks to implement stronger two-factor authentication and user education.
Ordered police training on cyber laws and digital fraud.
Encouraged quick registration of FIRs and proactive investigation in payment app scams.
Significance:
Landmark directive improving systemic accountability.
Strengthened institutional response to payment app scams.
5. Anil Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2019) – Allahabad High Court
Facts:
The accused hacked victim’s mobile and installed a spyware app.
He stole OTPs and passwords, transferring money via Paytm wallet repeatedly.
Judgment:
The Court upheld conviction under IT Act Sections 43, 66C (identity theft), and Section 420 IPC.
The judgment underlined the need for awareness among users about app security and permissions.
It also stressed police departments to improve digital evidence collection.
Significance:
Highlights spyware and hacking as serious cybercrimes related to payment apps.
Calls for police modernization in cybercrime investigation.
IV. Important Observations
Courts consistently hold perpetrators of payment app scams criminally liable.
Victims are entitled to compensation especially when the victim is not negligent.
Banks and payment app providers have a duty of care to safeguard users and implement robust security measures.
Police accountability and technical expertise are critical to investigating and prosecuting such scams.
Awareness and user education are emphasized as preventive tools.
V. Conclusion
Payment app scams are rapidly increasing with the digital economy's growth. The Indian judiciary has responded by:
Imposing stringent penalties on scammers.
Demanding accountability from banks and payment app operators.
Calling for enhanced police training and forensic capabilities.
Emphasizing compensation for victims and user education.
Together, these measures aim to create a safer digital payment ecosystem.
RELATED Blog
0 comments