Author: Gargi Koreti
To the Point
The Digital Arrest Scam (2024–2025) is a cyber-fraud model where criminals impersonate police, CBI, customs, cyber cell, and banking authorities to intimidate victims into long video-call “interrogations.” They falsely claim that the victim’s Aadhaar, PAN, bank account, or parcel is linked to crimes like money laundering, narcotics, or suspicious transactions. During this forced “digital custody,” victims are isolated, threatened with warrants, and coerced into sharing OTPs, ID proofs, bank details, or transferring money for so-called “verification.” The scam violates multiple laws, including IPC sections on cheating, extortion, impersonation, and intimidation, along with IT Act provisions on identity theft and digital impersonation. Courts have consistently held that online threats, police impersonation, and coercive surveillance amount to serious criminal offences. The scam works because of fear, urgency, legal jargon, and fake official documents. No genuine authority conducts arrests or interrogations over calls. Immediate reporting to 1930 and cybercrime.gov.in is the key defence.
Use of legal jargon
A key feature of the Digital Arrest Scam (2024–2025) is the deliberate use of legal terminology to fabricate credibility. Fraudsters mimic the language of police investigations, financial regulatory proceedings and criminal procedure to create a sense of urgency. They invoke statutory references, procedural terms and enforcement vocabulary that an ordinary person may not immediately question.
Scammers frequently cite provisions of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) such as cheating under Section 420, impersonation under Section 170, and criminal intimidation under Section 503. They also misuse the language of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) by mentioning “non-bailable warrants,” “custodial interrogation,” “case registration,” “electronic evidence assessment,” and “recorded proceedings.” To strengthen the illusion of a financial investigation, they refer to the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), claiming that the victim’s credentials are “flagged under suspicious transaction reporting” or “linked to a scheduled offence.”
The jargon extends to digital terms such as “video-conference interrogation room,” “digital custody,” “remote verification protocol,” and “electronic seizure order.” These expressions are crafted to mimic official processes even though none of these procedures are legally executed through informal calls, messaging apps, or video platforms.
The use of legal jargon is central to the scam’s success. It triggers fear, clouds judgement, and makes the victim believe they are dealing with genuine authorities. By deploying statutory language and procedural vocabulary, scammers establish a false sense of legitimacy that pressures individuals into compliance.
The Proof
The operational pattern of the Digital Arrest Scam is consistent across hundreds of reported complaints filed on cybercrime.gov.in, FIRs registered under IPC sections on cheating and impersonation, and statements recorded by state cyber cells during 2024–2025. The evidence shows a uniform structure that proves the scam is systematic, coordinated and intentionally designed to mislead victims into believing they are under criminal investigation.
1. Use of Spoofed Official Numbers
Telecom analysis and victim statements confirm that scammers use VoIP masking to display caller IDs resembling police helplines, government departments, courier services, or banking authorities. This creates the first layer of false authenticity.
2. Circulation of Forged Electronic Documents
Victims consistently receive:
• fabricated FIR copies,
• fake non-bailable warrants,
• forged RBI notices,
• screenshots of “case files,”
• and digital “summon letters.”
These documents use government logos, legal formatting, and CrPC references but fail verification under digital signature checks.
3. Forced Digital Confinement
In almost every complaint, victims report being kept on continuous video calls for several hours. Scammers claim it is a “mandatory digital interrogation” under CrPC guidelines. Screenshots and recordings submitted by victims show scammers sitting in front of plain backgrounds pretending to be officers.
4. Uniform Threat Pattern
The language used is almost identical:
• “Your Aadhaar is linked to a money laundering offence.”
• “A narcotics case is registered in your name.”
• “Your account is under forensic audit.”
This repetition across states proves the scam follows a common script circulated among fraud groups.
5. Direct Financial Extraction
The strongest proof is the financial trail. Victims transfer money to mule accounts (often opened using stolen KYC documents). Cyber police investigations in multiple states show these accounts are linked to organised fraud networks operating across India and abroad.
6. Device Access Evidence
Victims frequently install remote-access apps under pressure. Forensic reports from seized devices show:
• screen-mirroring logs,
• unauthorised access sessions,
• and copied banking credentials.
7. Social Engineering Consistency
The psychological pattern of fear, isolation, urgency and authority pressure matches well-documented case studies of cyber intimidation under Section 503 IPC and identity-based deception under Section 66D IT Act.
8. Nationwide Reporting Pattern
States such as Maharashtra, Karnataka, Tamil Nadu, Delhi, and West Bengal have issued public advisories confirming the rise of digital arrest cases. This widespread reporting provides corroborative proof that the scam is active, ongoing, and uniform.
Abstract
The Digital Arrest Scam (2024–2025) represents one of the fastest growing forms of organized cybercrime in India. It relies on impersonation of law enforcement agencies, psychological intimidation and digital confinement to coerce victims into handing over money or sensitive information. The scam exploits gaps in digital literacy, fear of legal action and the growing dependence on online communication. This article provides a comprehensive, law-focused study of the scam, covering method of operation, statutory violations, legal terminology, technical proof, relevant case laws and practical legal protections. The goal is to equip readers with clear legal understanding supported by real behavioural patterns observed in recent cyber fraud incidents.
This Digital Arrest Scam has rapidly become one of India’s most prevalent forms of organized cybercrime. Its method hinges on the impersonation of law enforcement, creating a state of psychological fear and enforcing “digital confinement” to compel victims to surrender money or sensitive data. The scam effectively exploits a trifecta of vulnerabilities: low digital literacy, the public’s fear of legal repercussions and an increasing reliance on digital communication.
This article offers a comprehensive, law-centric examination of this fraud. It details the operational methods, identifies specific statutory violations, defines critical legal terminology, outlines technical evidence, cites relevant case law, and provides practical legal safeguards. The core objective is to furnish readers with a clear legal understanding, substantiated by genuine behavioral patterns observed in recent cyber-fraud incidents.
Case Laws
These rulings help interpret how Indian courts view impersonation, cyber-intimidation, and mental coercion.
1. Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015)
While the case primarily addressed free speech, the judgment stressed that online restrictions must follow due process. Scammers exploit public confusion around online offences and due process to generate fear.
2. CBI v. Anil Sharma (1997)
The court described custodial pressure as a serious infringement of personal liberty. Digital arrest scams replicate this pressure psychologically.
3. State of Kerala v. P. Rahul (2023)
The court condemned online impersonation of police, affirming that misrepresentation of authority severely threatens public trust.
4. Dr. Soumen Sarkar v. State of West Bengal (2021)
The court clearly held that cyber-intimidation and threats delivered online can constitute criminal intimidation.
5. RBI Limited Liability of Customer Circular Cases (2022–2024)
Courts and consumer forums have upheld the RBI guidelines that protect customers who act promptly in reporting fraud.
6. Nisha Priya Bhatia v. Union of India (2023)
Although concerning surveillance, the judgment reinforces that forced surveillance and coercive monitoring violate personal liberty, which parallels forced digital confinement.
7. Om Prakash v. State of Rajasthan (2012)
Courts emphasised that impersonation of authority figures results in aggravated charges, which applies directly to digital arrest scams.
Conclusion
The Digital Arrest Scam (2024–2025) is a serious threat, fundamentally undermining personal freedom, financial stability and public confidence in law enforcement. Its success relies heavily on psychological tactics, the misuse of legal jargon and manipulating victims, rather than solely on sophisticated technology. Crucially, existing Indian legislation including the IPC, IT Act and PMLA is fully adequate for prosecuting the perpetrators of this crime.
Protecting Yourself: The Strongest Defence is Awareness
Citizens must understand that no legitimate law enforcement agency will:
Conduct arrests via a phone call.
Demand money for verification purposes.
Force individuals into video ‘custody’.
Ask for access to bank accounts.
Immediate and decisive action is vital. Reporting the incident to the national helpline 1930 or the portal cybercrime.gov.in significantly enhances the chance of freezing any fraudulent transfers.
Safeguarding against this rapidly evolving cyber threat requires a combination of proper legal knowledge, a habit of verifying official claims, and acting quickly when targeted.
FAQs
1. What exactly is a digital arrest?
It is a forced, long-duration video call where scammers pretend to interrogate victims and threaten arrest.
2. Can police ever ask for money or bank information?
No. Law-enforcement cannot demand transfers, OTPs, or remote access.
3. What should someone do the moment such a call comes?
Cut the call, block the number, and report immediately to 1930.
4. Is this scam legally punishable?
Yes. Multiple IPC sections, IT Act provisions, and PMLA clauses apply.
5. Are students and young adults more targeted?
Yes. Scammers assume they are more vulnerable due to legal inexperience.
6. Can banks reverse the stolen amount?
If reported within hours, banks can freeze the money under RBI’s limited liability rules.
7. Why do victims obey the scammers?
Because of fear, isolation, authority bias, and panic caused by legal jargon.
8. Are international scam syndicates involved?
Yes. Many call centres operate from abroad, often using mule accounts in India.
9. Are WhatsApp-based interrogation rooms valid?
No. There is no legal concept of a “digital interrogation room” in Indian law.
10. How to verify if a call is real?
Contact the nearest police station or dial official helplines. Never trust the number provided by the caller
