E-Paper
Supreme Court seeks states’ data on all ‘digital arrest’ cases, states and UTs given 1 week
The Supreme Court sought details on pending cybercrime investigations across the country, aiming for a CBI-led probe into "digital arrest" scams.
The Supreme Court on Monday sought details of cyber crimes involving digital arrest pending investigation before all states and union territories as it considered a larger investigation by one agency, preferably the Central Bureau of Investigation, to examine all cases.
Giving a week’s time for the information to be furnished , a bench of justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi said, “Let notice be issued to all states and union territories . The states and UTs are directed to file details of cyber arrest pending investigation in their jurisdictions.” The matter will be taken up on November 3.
The court was hearing a suo motu petition on the growing menace of “digital arrest” scams -- a sophisticated form of cyber fraud in which criminals impersonate law enforcement officers, intelligence officials, or even judges to coerce and extort money from victims, particularly senior citizens, using forged court orders and fake proceedings. The fraud requires the victims to stay connected through a video call or webcam to the perpetrators, hence the name.
On October 17, the court issued notice to the Centre, the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and the Haryana government expressing grave concern over the issue after it received a letter from a senior citizen couple in Ambala, Haryana who were defrauded of a sum of over ₹1 crore on the basis of forged judicial orders.
On Monday, the court read a note supplied by CBI which was produced by solicitor general Tushar Mehta. The Centre informed the court that the issue has three dimensions, financial, technical and human. Mehta said that in his discussion with the head of Cyber Crime Coordination Centre and senior officials of CBI it came to light that some of the perpetrators are themselves victims, young people lured abroad on the promise of jobs, only to be employed by the fraudsters. Such fraud factories are sometimes called pig butcheries and they are prevalent across South East Asia.
The court noted the international linkages of such frauds and said: “We expect CBI to take up the investigation. Only they can do it. Pan-India, these digital arrests have happened and nothing is going to happen unless there is some uniform investigation.”
It further suggested that similar to the case where it directed CBI probe the subvention scam involving a nexus between builders and banks in defrauding homebuyers, it can direct the states to provide manpower to CBI for carrying out investigations.
“In due course, the CBI can inform us what challenges they may face. They may need help from the Interpol or the local police of the country involved. They may even suggest names of technocrats or cyber experts who can be involved at an appropriate stage,” it added.
The bench informed Mehta that recently the US had signed a treaty on Mutual Legal Assistance on Cyber Crime and referred to reports from Myanmar or people being made “cyber slaves” . “This case would have cross-border links too,” the bench observed.
The court was responding to a letter written by a 73-year old couple in Ambala who lost a total amount of ₹1.05 crore in transactions that took place between September 3 -16. Persons impersonating CBI officers contacted the couple through WhatsApp video call and showed them a forged Supreme Court order threatening seizure of their property. The couple was directed to transfer the sum of over ₹1.05 crore to the fraudsters, which they did, although they subsequently registered two criminal cases at Ambala police station.
The court observed that there is a clear pattern of these criminals targeting senior citizens.
The Haryana government though its additional advocate general Lokesh Singhal informed the court on Monday that the state has received several other complaints of digital arrest and is pursuing investigation in those cases.
On October 17, the top court had said, “The forgery of documents and brazen criminal misuse of name, seal and judicial authority of this court is a matter of grave concern which strikes at the very foundation of public trust in the judicial system, besides the rule of law.”
