Prosecution Of Corruption In Disaster Relief Operations
1. State of Maharashtra v. Rahul Deshmukh (Bombay High Court, 2020)
Facts:
Rahul Deshmukh operated a cryptocurrency investment app promising high returns.
Investors deposited money, but the app suddenly became inaccessible, and funds were diverted to personal accounts.
FIR lodged under IPC Sections 420 (cheating), 406 (criminal breach of trust), 465 (forgery), 467 (forgery of valuable security), and IT Act Sections 66C (identity fraud) and 66D (fraud by electronic communication).
Legal Issues:
Whether operating a fake investment platform with intent to defraud constitutes criminal liability.
Extent of liability under cyber laws in addition to IPC.
Decision:
Court held that deliberately defrauding investors through a fake app constitutes cheating and criminal breach of trust.
Conviction confirmed; sentence included imprisonment and restitution of misappropriated funds.
Significance:
Establishes criminal liability for digital investment fraud.
Combines traditional IPC provisions with cybercrime statutes.
2. State of Karnataka v. Anil Kumar (Karnataka High Court, 2019)
Facts:
Anil Kumar launched a mobile app claiming to invest users’ money in stock markets and gold schemes.
Investors were promised 15–20% returns per month. The app used fake dashboards to show “profits” while real money was transferred to personal accounts.
Legal Issues:
Liability for cheating under IPC Sections 420, 406, and 120B (criminal conspiracy).
Whether manipulation of app data constitutes forgery under IPC 465.
Decision:
Court held that misrepresentation of returns and diversion of funds is clear criminal fraud.
App developers and promoters jointly convicted; penalty included jail and fines.
Significance:
Shows that technical manipulation to create false financial records constitutes forgery and fraud.
Confirms joint liability for promoters and technical staff involved in extortion.
3. State of Uttar Pradesh v. Priya Sharma (Allahabad High Court, 2021)
Facts:
Priya Sharma created a fake mutual fund investment app, promising government-backed returns.
Victims transferred funds thinking it was secure; app redirected funds to overseas accounts.
Legal Issues:
Applicability of IPC Sections 420, 406, and IT Act Sections 66C, 66D.
Whether promising government-backed schemes falsely constitutes aggravating factor for cheating.
Decision:
Court ruled that false representation of government affiliation increases criminal liability.
Conviction upheld; sentencing included both imprisonment and confiscation of assets.
Significance:
Affirms that claiming false government backing is a serious aggravation in investment fraud cases.
Protects public trust in government-backed schemes.
4. State of Tamil Nadu v. Vijay Rajan (Madras High Court, 2020)
Facts:
Vijay Rajan ran a forex trading app promising extraordinary returns.
Victims deposited money, but withdrawals were denied, and app data was manipulated to show “losses.”
Legal Issues:
Liability for extortion via deception under IPC 420, 406.
Applicability of IT Act Section 66D for cheating by electronic means.
Decision:
Court confirmed criminal liability for extortion using fraudulent investment apps.
Emphasized that digital evidence (transaction logs, server data) was admissible.
Ordered restitution to victims.
Significance:
Demonstrates how cybercrime statutes strengthen prosecution of app-based fraud.
Highlights importance of preserving digital evidence.
5. State of Delhi v. Ankit Verma (Delhi High Court, 2019)
Facts:
Ankit Verma operated a “crypto mining” app promising passive income.
App used referral schemes to bring in more investors; promised returns were fictitious.
Legal Issues:
Liability for pyramid scheme operations and cheating under IPC Sections 420, 406.
Applicability of IT Act Sections 66C, 66D.
Decision:
Court held that running a Ponzi-style app constitutes criminal cheating and criminal conspiracy.
Conviction upheld; multiple promoters sentenced.
Significance:
Clarifies that fraudulent investment apps using referral schemes are criminally liable.
Confirms that pyramid-style operations are prosecutable under IPC and cyber laws.
6. State of Gujarat v. Rohan Mehta (Gujarat High Court, 2021)
Facts:
Rohan Mehta operated a gold investment app promising monthly payouts higher than market rates.
Investors’ funds were used to pay earlier investors (Ponzi scheme) and diverted to personal accounts.
Legal Issues:
Whether misappropriation under guise of investment constitutes extortion and fraud.
Applicability of Sections 420, 406, 120B of IPC and IT Act provisions.
Decision:
Court held that misrepresentation and misappropriation of funds through an app is criminal cheating.
Ordered imprisonment, fines, and asset attachment to compensate victims.
Significance:
Highlights that Ponzi or pyramid-style investment apps are fully prosecutable under Indian criminal law.
7. State of Maharashtra v. Shruti Joshi (Bombay High Court, 2022)
Facts:
Shruti Joshi launched a “stock options” app targeting senior citizens.
Victims were promised guaranteed returns; deposits were siphoned off to offshore accounts.
Multiple complaints lodged; investigation involved tracing cryptocurrency wallets.
Legal Issues:
Extent of liability for targeting vulnerable populations using fraudulent apps.
Whether digital transfers to overseas wallets aggravates charges.
Decision:
Court confirmed criminal liability; emphasized exploitation of vulnerable groups increases sentencing severity.
Conviction under IPC Sections 420, 406, IT Act Sections 66C, 66D.
Significance:
Establishes aggravated punishment when fraud targets vulnerable groups.
Highlights cross-border implications and enforcement challenges in digital fraud.
Key Observations from These Cases
Intent is central: Promising fake returns, misrepresenting schemes, and diverting funds constitute cheating.
Applicable statutes: IPC Sections 420 (cheating), 406 (criminal breach of trust), 465–467 (forgery), 120B (criminal conspiracy), IT Act Sections 66C, 66D.
Forms of extortion: Includes misrepresentation, Ponzi schemes, pyramid referrals, and fake government-backed claims.
Digital evidence matters: Server logs, app data, transaction records, and emails are admissible.
Aggravating factors: Targeting vulnerable populations, promising government-backed returns, or diverting funds abroad increases punishment.
Joint liability: Promoters, app developers, and accomplices can be jointly prosecuted.
RELATED Blog
comments