Author: Ifrah Fatima, Aligarh Muslim University
To the point
Sextortion, when I first heard it sounded so general yet unfamiliar, that’s so because we never tend to care enough to understand in depth the value that any term holds. Sextortion involves coercive manipulation, where an offender uses the threat of exposing someone’s private or sensitive material to pressure them into fulfilling certain demands, often of a sexual or financial nature. To understand the term, it’s relevant to say that any act done by an individual in which once the perpetrator retrieves sensitive details from your device, they may coerce you by threatening harm to those close to you if their demands aren’t fulfilled. This article is going to focus on a very recent scam that includes AI sextortion, fake loans; called “the telecaller trap” that targeted the elderly and vulnerable.
The scam’s news revolves around the state of New Delhi, where the scammers appeared to lead ordinary, uneventful lives, blending into the fabric of society. Yet behind this carefully maintained facade lay a complex web of deception, digital manipulation, and criminal intent. The 2025 sextortion scandal is an outcome of a decade long practice of this not so mainstream crime that unfolded its severity with the recent scam. The telecaller scam isn’t limited to sextortion it included money laundering, and attracted people by offering fake bank loans to trap the victims.
Use of legal jargon
Since the offence of sextortion is not explicitly defined under Indian law, it is governed by provisions under the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and the Information Technology Act, 2000.
Section 308 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, refers to the crime of extortion, where a person intentionally causes fear of injury to another with the aim of unlawfully obtaining property, a valuable security, or anything else of value from them. Sextortion, therefore, falls under the broader ambit of extortion, where the threat typically involves the use of private or intimate content.
In addition to Section 308, the following provisions may also apply:
Section 351(2) – Criminal Intimidation: Threatening injury to a person, their reputation, or property.
Section 354 – Obscene Acts and Materials: Distribution or publication of obscene content.
Section 74 – Voyeurism: This section punishes anyone who records, observes, or shares images or videos of a woman during private moments, such as when she expects privacy, without her permission.
Section 302 – Criminal Breach of Trust: Applies when private data or digital assets are misused or exploited.
Under the Information Technology Act, 2000, the relevant sections include:
Section 66C – Identity Theft: Fraudulent or dishonest use of another person’s electronic signature, password, or other unique identification feature.
Section 66D – Cheating by Personation Using Computer Resources: Impersonating someone else using digital platforms to deceive or commit fraud.
Together, these provisions provide the legal framework for addressing the multifaceted crime of sextortion in India, despite the absence of a dedicated statutory definition.
The Proof-
This recent scam is dated for June 2025 itself that is been called as the tele caller scam. It not only includes sextortion but also the fraudulent calls offering fake loans and many more. As per the recent reports of times of India .
Akshita, Jayshree, Pinki, and Dimple were viewed by those around them as leading regular lives. However, hidden behind this appearance were alleged activities that would leave their loved ones stunned.
Their professional roles as tele callers served as a front, behind which they reportedly preyed on the elderly and emotionally vulnerable, using AI tools to manipulate and entrap them. A cycle of blackmail was then set into motion, from which many found no easy escape.
Outside their working hours, entirely different lives were said to have been lived by them—carefully balancing routine responsibilities while allegedly engaging in organized deception.
According to Joint Commissioner Surender Kumar, a structured racket had been operated. Social media profiles were being analysed, extortion calls were being made, and victims were being intimidated by individuals pretending to be police officers. False legal threats were used, and victims were reportedly coerced into paying money under pressure.
A deceptive scheme was allegedly employed by the individuals involved to lure and exploit unsuspecting victims. Social media platforms were used as the initial point of contact, where the profiles of potential targets were carefully examined. Once a suitable victim was identified, a connection was established through casual chats. Soon after, video calls were initiated using AI-generated models accompanied by pre-recorded female voices to add authenticity.
During interrogation, it was revealed to ACP Anil Sharma that friend requests were first sent via Facebook and Instagram. Through continued conversation on Facebook Messenger, the victim’s mobile number was obtained. WhatsApp was then used to place video calls during which explicit content was streamed. Unbeknownst to the victim, screen recording tools were being used to secretly capture their reactions.
The recorded footage was then turned into a weapon. Victims were reportedly blackmailed with threats that the content would be circulated on social media unless money was transferred. According to the police, the sextortion racket was allegedly led by 20-year-old Jahid, with 24-year-old Jayshree formerly employed at an SBI BPO tasked with calling and drawing victims into compromising situations. Others named in the operation include Raheesh (21), Sohil (18), and Jaiveer (24).
Another method used by the gang involved fraudulent bank loan offers. Victims were contacted by tele callers acting under the instructions of Dilshad Ali. Fake loan schemes were pitched, and once the victim’s trust had been gained, they were asked to share identity proofs and personal documents through WhatsApp.
Following that, payments were requested via QR code scanners, supposedly as processing fees. Once the payment was made, victims were ignored, and communication lines were severed. Phones were switched off, numbers were changed, and the victims were left defrauded.
At the core of this operation were Ujjawal Pandey (30), the owner of a cyber café in Krishna Nagar, and Gaurav Barua (24), a graduate from IGNOU. Pandey allegedly handled the sale of fake SIM cards and account kits, while Barua facilitated transactions involving pre-activated accounts. Their coordination enabled the racket to run smoothly. They were allegedly supported by Yug Sharma (18), who supplied forged SIMs and kits.
Several tele callers were employed by Ali to pose as loan service executives. These included Saurav (27), Pravesh (28), Akshita (18), Raunak (24), Dimple (20), and Pinki (24). Their role was to deceive customers into revealing confidential information under the guise of processing loans.
Another figure, identified as Amit, who is believed to be the owner of the call centres, remains absconding. He is said to have overseen operations directly, according to police officials.
Abstract-
This article brings attention to a shocking cybercrime case that surfaced in June 2025, revealing how everyday technology is being used to exploit trust and ruin lives. Called the “Telecaller Trap,” the case involves a group of individuals who posed as telecallers but were actually part of a well-organised network targeting the elderly and emotionally vulnerable. Victims were first contacted through friendly chats on social media, then trapped using fake video calls and manipulated into shame and silence.
What seems most alarming is how easily the scam blended into ordinary life. Social media platforms became tools of deceit, and video calls turned into a means of blackmail. Personal details were extracted under the false promise of bank loans, and victims were pressured to pay through threats and emotional fear.
Though sextortion has no direct definition in Indian law, sections from the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and the Information Technology Act, 2000 were applied to address the crimes. This case is not just about one racket it serves as a serious reminder of how vulnerable we can become in the digital age. With growing dependence on online spaces, the need for legal clarity, stronger safeguards, and public awareness is more urgent than ever.
FAQS
Why are fake loan offers increasingly being used as a front for sextortion and cyber fraud?
Loan offers provide a sense of urgency and trust, making victims more likely to share sensitive documents or engage further—creating an entry point for blackmail.
How did the perpetrators in the telecaller trap manage to avoid early detection despite a decade of similar scams?
By mimicking legitimate telemarketing operations and rotating SIM cards, digital identities, and payment methods, the racket stayed one step ahead of conventional cyber surveillance.
What made the 2025 telecaller sextortion case stand out from earlier digital frauds?
The integration of AI-generated video content, impersonation of law enforcement, and use of women as frontline actors made the scam more believable, layered, and emotionally coercive.
Why is it difficult to legally separate financial fraud from sexual exploitation in these hybrid scams?
Because the crimes overlap—victims may be lured with fake services (like loans), then blackmailed using intimate recordings. Legal sections apply piecemeal, making prosecution complex.
How did social media algorithms and public profiles play a role in selecting victims?
Perpetrators scanned publicly available data to identify emotionally or financially vulnerable targets—like widows, retirees, or recently unemployed individuals—based on posts, likes, or photos.
