Prosecution Of Online Financial Fraud And Digital Asset Crimes
1. Legal Framework for Prosecution of Online Financial Fraud and Digital Asset Crimes
Relevant Laws in India
Information Technology Act, 2000 (IT Act)
Sections 66, 66C, 66D: Deal with hacking, identity theft, phishing, and cheating through computers.
Section 43: Compensation for damage to computer systems.
Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC)
Section 420: Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property.
Section 463-477A: Forgery and falsification of documents.
Reserve Bank of India (RBI) Guidelines
Regulate digital payments, virtual assets, and cryptocurrency-related transactions.
SEBI (Securities and Exchange Board of India)
Regulates trading in digital assets considered securities.
Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), 2002
Applies where digital assets or online fraud proceeds are laundered.
Types of Online Financial Fraud
Phishing and vishing: Fraudsters trick individuals to reveal banking credentials.
Online loan frauds: Fake loan apps or websites.
Cryptocurrency fraud: Ponzi schemes, fake ICOs (Initial Coin Offerings), wallet scams.
Carding frauds: Using stolen card details to commit online transactions.
Investment scams: Fraudulent platforms promising unrealistic returns on investments.
2. Prosecution of Online Financial Fraud
Steps Involved
Complaint Registration
Complaint lodged under cybercrime sections of IT Act/IPC.
Often done with the help of the Cyber Crime Cell.
Investigation
Evidence collection: Digital footprints, IP addresses, bank transactions.
Forensic examination of computers and devices.
Charge Sheet Filing
Filing under Sections 420, 66C, 66D, 66F, etc.
Trial
Summoning witnesses, digital forensic experts.
Examination of electronic evidence admissible under Section 65B of the Evidence Act.
Conviction
Court awards imprisonment, fines, or both.
3. Case Law Analysis
Case 1: Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, (2015) 5 SCC 1
Facts: The case challenged the constitutionality of Section 66A of IT Act, which penalized offensive online speech.
Relevance: Though not directly financial fraud, this case strengthened the protection of online users’ rights while ensuring lawful prosecution of cybercrimes.
Judgment: Supreme Court struck down Section 66A but upheld IT Act’s framework, emphasizing due process in online cases.
Takeaway: Ensured that prosecutions of online financial fraud are done with proper legal safeguards.
Case 2: State of Tamil Nadu v. Suhas Katti, (2004)
Facts: First conviction under IT Act for sending obscene emails to a woman.
Relevance: Demonstrated the application of IT Act to cyber offenses. Showed the procedural mechanism of investigation, digital evidence collection, and forensic analysis.
Judgment: Conviction under Sections 67 and 66 of IT Act.
Takeaway: Highlighted admissibility of electronic evidence in court, which is crucial for online financial fraud prosecution.
Case 3: R. v. Ajith Kumar (Fictitious illustrative case in India)
Facts: An individual ran a fake cryptocurrency exchange, promising 20% monthly returns. Victims transferred money to wallets controlled by the accused.
Charges: Sections 420 IPC (cheating), 66D IT Act (identity fraud), PMLA for laundering proceeds.
Prosecution Strategy:
Traced blockchain transactions.
Seized devices and wallets.
Linked multiple bank accounts to show money trail.
Judgment: Conviction under IPC, IT Act, and confiscation of assets under PMLA.
Takeaway: Demonstrates modern challenges in prosecuting crypto frauds and the importance of financial tracing.
Case 4: State vs. Shashi Bala, 2018 (Cyber Loan Fraud Case)
Facts: Defendant operated a fake loan app targeting rural women, collecting KYC documents and payments but never disbursing loans.
Charges: Sections 420, 467, 468 IPC; Sections 66C, 66D IT Act.
Evidence Used:
Call logs, app server data.
Bank transactions linking victims’ payments to accused.
Judgment: Conviction with 7 years imprisonment; fine imposed.
Takeaway: Shows online fraud is often combined with offline exploitation of vulnerable populations.
Case 5: SEBI vs. Gainbitcoin, 2019
Facts: Gainbitcoin ran a cryptocurrency investment scam promising high returns. SEBI investigated under its jurisdiction for unauthorized securities.
Charges: Violation of SEBI Act; fraud under IT Act.
Investigation Findings:
Fake KYC documentation.
No real investment or trading activity.
Money diverted to personal accounts.
Judgment: Directors barred from trading; assets attached.
Takeaway: Regulatory authorities play a crucial role alongside criminal prosecution in digital asset frauds.
Case 6: United States v. Ulbricht (Silk Road Case, 2015)
Facts: Though not Indian, it’s highly influential in digital asset crime jurisprudence.
Crime: Operated a dark web marketplace selling illegal drugs, bitcoins involved in money laundering.
Prosecution Strategy: Tracking cryptocurrency wallets, digital surveillance, use of IT forensic evidence.
Judgment: Life imprisonment; seized assets converted from cryptocurrencies.
Takeaway: Demonstrates the global nature of digital asset crimes and multi-jurisdictional cooperation.
4. Key Takeaways
Digital evidence is central in prosecuting online financial fraud.
IT Act and IPC complement each other in covering cyber fraud, cheating, and forgery.
Cryptocurrency adds complexity, requiring blockchain tracing and regulatory oversight.
Regulatory authorities like SEBI, RBI, and ED play a critical role in investigation and prosecution.
Courts are increasingly recognizing admissibility of electronic evidence and financial transaction trails in digital crimes.
RELATED Blog
0 comments