Author: Vrinda, National Law School of India University, Bangalore
To the point
The cases of digital arrest scams have surged in India, defrauding victims of about Rs 2,000 crore in 2024, as reported by the Indian Cybercrime Coordination Centre (I4C). In this kind of scam, the perpetrators impersonate a law enforcement official and coerce the victims to transfer funds into their accounts through digital platforms. These scams violate the provisions of the Information Technology Act, 2000 and the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. It highlights the urgent need for legal reform to tackle these scams.
Abstract
In 2024, digital arrest scams emerged as a serious form of cybercrime in India. It results in financial losses of almost Rs 2,000 crore across 92,323 reported cases. The fraudsters, often operating from Southeast Asia, act as officials from enforcement agencies such as the CBI or ED. They use phone or video calls to threaten the victim to pay for some fictitious legal violations. These kinds of scams exploit the legislative gaps in the Indian Legal framework, such as “digital arrest”, which is not explicitly defined in the Indian law. This article examines the legal framework, judicial precedents and empirical challenges related to the “digital arrest” scams. It will further advocate for specialised legislation and increased international cooperation to combat this growing threat. There is also a need for greater public awareness because all of these efforts will be fruitless without the collective efforts of the people.
The proof
Digital arrest scams present a new and insidious form of cyberfraud that relies on psychological manipulation and technological sophistication. The Indian Cybercrime Coordination Centre (I4C), working under the Ministry of Home Affairs, reports about 92,323 complaints filed alone in 2024. These complaints amount to the financial loss of about Rs 2,000 crore. The National Cybercrime Reporting Portal (NCRP) also recorded a total of 740,000 cybercrime complaints in a time period of 4 months, from January 2024 to April 2024. The digital assets scam contributes to Rs 120.3 crore in losses during this time period alone.
The modus operandi involves the fraudsters contacting the victims using the spoofed phone numbers or the video calls while acting as officials from agencies like the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), the Enforcement Directorate (ED) or the Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB). The victims are often falsely accused of offences like money laundering or drug trafficking. After the accusation, they are forced to transfer funds to their accounts to avoid “digital arrests” – it is a fictitious concept which is not even recognised under the Indian Law. In a high-profile case of “digital arrest” that happened in Gurugram, a CEO was defrauded of Rs 2.3 crore in September 2024 after he received a video call from the scammers posing as Delhi Police. A similar case happened in Surat, where a senior citizen lost about Rs 16.5 lakhs in June 2024. This case led to the arrest of eight perpetrators by the local Cyber Crime Cell in Delhi. In Bangalore, a 59-year-old Japanese citizen was duped of Rs 35.49 lakh. These cases show the broad victim base of this scam.
The investigation by I4C reveals that 46% of these scams originate from countries like Myanmar, Laos and Cambodia, where the organised crime syndicates operate the call centres. The fraudsters use some fake websites which mimic government portals and forged documents which help them lend credibility to their schemes. They are also equipped with scripted intimidation tactics to pressurise the victims. The Citizen Financial Cyber Fraud Reporting System has mitigated the losses by freezing Rs 3,431 crore in suspicious transactions. But the large scale of these scams highlights the systemic enforcement challenges. By November 2024, the authorities blocked 6,69,000 SIM cards and 1,32,000 IMEIs (International Mobile Equipment Identity) linked to spoofed calls. However, the cross-border nature of these scams further complicates the prosecution.
The “digital arrest” scams fall under multiple offences under the Indian Law, such as the BNS and IT Act. The absence of a specific statutory provision for the “digital arrest” as an offence requires the reliance on the existing frameworks. The Information Technology Act, 2000, serves as the cornerstone for the prevention of these scams:
Section 66C of the Act penalises identity theft, such as impersonating law enforcement, with up to three years of imprisonment and a fine of Rs 1 lakh.
Section 66D of the act addresses cheating by the way of personation using computer resources, which carries identical penalties as the above section.
Section 43(a) of the Act imposes liabilities for the unauthorised access to systems with compensation of up to Rs 1 crore for the victims.
The Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, which replaced the earlier Indian Penal Code of 186,0, also applies several provisions:
Section 318 (formerly section 420 of IPC): This section punishes cheating and any dishonest inducement of property delivery with upto imprisonment of seven years and a fine.
Section 336 (formerly section 468 of IPC): This section targets forgery for the purpose of cheating with similar penalties.
Section 351: This section covers criminal intimidation, which applies to threats used to coerce payments.
The elements of mens rea (intent to deceive) and actus reus (impersonation and the fund transfer) are clearly established in these cases that meet the criminal liability criteria. However, the lack of a specific offence for the “digital arrest” scams necessitates the reliance on the broad interpretation of the existing laws. Due to the wider interpretation, the severity of sentencing in these cases may weaken. For example, section 66D of the IT Act addresses digital impersonation but does not consider the psychological coercion central to these scams.
The Jurisdictional challenges further complicate the enforcement because fraudsters mostly operate from foreign nations. India’s Mutual Legal Assistance Treaties (MLATS) with countries like Myanmar are hindered by the slow response times and different legal standards. The Indian Evidence Act, 1872, governs the admissibility of electronic evidence (e.g. call logs, IP addresses), but the forensic capabilities in most of the Indian police departments are lacking, which hampers the process of investigation.
The countermeasures adopted by the government include the I4C‘s collaboration with the Reserve Bank of India (RBI), telecom providers and fintech platforms to dismantle the fraudulent infrastructure, such as spoofed numbers or mule accounts. The Ministry of Home Affairs also launched an awareness-based campaign which includes advisories in the National Cyber Crime Reporting Portal (NCRP). It includes urging the citizens to verify the caller’s identity and report the incidents promptly to the authorities. Despite all these efforts by the government, the lack of specialised cybercrime training for law enforcement and outdated legislative provisions continue to undermine effective deterrence.
Case Laws
The judicial precedents provide guidance for prosecuting the “digital arrest” scams, although none of them directly address this specific issue:
Shreya Singhgal v Union of India (2015): The Supreme Court invalidated Section 66A of the IT Act for violating Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution, but upheld Sections 66C and 66D of the Act. The court affirms these section’s applicability to cyber impersonation and fraud. This ruling helps to lay down the legal foundation for punishing the perpetrators of “digital arrest” scams.
Cognizant Technology Solutions v A.M. Shah (2018): The Bombay High Court in this case convicted employees for identity theft under Section 66C of the IT Act for misusing the stolen credentials. This precedent supports the conviction for impersonating officials in “digital arrest” scams.
State v. Navjot Sandhu (2005): The Supreme Court clarified the admissibility of electronic evidence under section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act. This is essential for proving digital transactions and communication in fraud cases.
K. Ramakrishna v. State of Bihar (2018): This case was decided by the Patna High Court. The court emphasises the need for international cooperation in cybercrime investigations. This case is relevant to address cross-border “digital arrest” scams.
All these cases establish a framework for the prosecution while highlighting a need for legislative updates to address the unique characteristics of “digital arrest” fraud, such as real-time digital coercion and psychological manipulation.
Conclusion
Digital arrest scams, which result in financial losses of Rs 2,000 crore in 2024, pose a significant threat to India’s digital ecosystem and public trust. The Information Technology Act, 2000 and the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, provide a foundation for the prosecution of fraudsters. However, the absence of a specific “digital arrest” offence limits the effectiveness of the judiciary. Legislative reforms should introduce a separate offence with enhanced penalties while recognising the psychological and technological dimensions of these scams. There is also a need to strengthen the forensic capabilities, train the law enforcement personnel and strengthen Mutual Legal Assistance Treaties (MLATs) with the Southeast Asian nations to combat cross-border operation of this scam. The public awareness campaigns, such as those conducted by I4C, must also expand to educate the vulnerable people, especially the elderly and professionals. A multi-pronged strategy that involves legal, technological and societal intervention will be essential to curb this escalating issue and safeguard India’s digital future.
FAQS
Which laws apply to the digital arrest scams?
The scams are currently prosecuted under Section 66C and 66D of the IT Act, 2000 and sections 318, 336 and 351 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023.
What remedies are available to the victims?
The victims can file complaints at www.cybercrime.gov.in or seek compensation under section 43 of the IT Act. They can pursue criminal action by registering a police FIR.
How can individuals protect themselves?
To protect themselves against these scams, individuals should verify the identity of the callers and avoid sharing any financial information with them. They should also report the incidents to the NCRP immediately.
What is the role of I4C?
The Indian Cybercrime Coordination Centre (I4C) coordinates the investigation, blocks the fraudulent activities. They analyse the cybercrime trends and also promote public awareness to combat digital fraud.
Can victims recover their lost funds?
Recovery of the money is possible but challenging. Victims can report incidents on the cybercrime portal, which will prompt the police to freeze suspicious accounts. Under Section 43 of the IT Act, 2000, the victim may claim compensation for the unauthorised transaction. However, the recovery depends on the swift reporting, cooperation by the bank and availability of funds in the seized accounts. The cross-border cases reduce the success rates of recovery of the funds.
What role does the electronic evidence play in prosecuting digital arrest scams?
The electronic evidence, such as call logs, bank transaction records, IP addresses and screenshots of fraudulent communication, is important under section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The courts rely on the certified digital evidence to establish the identity and intent of the perpetrators. However, inadequate forensic infrastructure in some police departments delays the collection and analysis of the evidence.
Reference:
Indians lose over Rs 120 cr in digital arrest frauds; PM Modi cautions risk | India News – Business Standard
THE INCREASING TREND OF DIGITAL ARRESTS IN INDIA: LEGAL CHALLENGES AND MEASURES – Jus Corpus
Cybersecurity Laws and Regulations Report 2025 India
Govt blocks 669K SIM cards, 132K IMEIs to curb cybercrimes, Centre tells RS | India News – Business Standard
Law Journal