SC calls cyber crime 'digital dacoity', refuses to club mule-account cases

New Delhi: Terming cyber crime as "digital dacoity", the Supreme Court on Wednesday refused to consolidate over 30 criminal complaints pending against two persons in 12 states for allegedly allowing the use of their company's account as a mule for commission of various offences.

"Digital arrests and such cyber offences are digital dacoity. There is no question of giving any judicial forum to such persons," a bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana said.

Strongly condemning the organised cyber crime rackets targeting senior citizens through digital arrests, the CJI said those involved must face stringent action. "An 81-year-old from Ernakulam (Kerala) was defrauded of Rs 1.90 crore and his money was deposited in your mule account," the CJI said.

"You decided to use the account of your company for cyber crime like digital arrest," the bench said while refusing to entertain the plea of Gourab Kumar Saha and Nidhi Bhandari.

The bench refused to allow the accused to use such proceedings to disrupt investigations in different states. Justice Bagchi asked why victims should be forced to travel to Delhi merely for the convenience of an accused seeking consolidation.

"Your right to seek transfer of cases to a place of your convenience cannot override the right of the victims and the investigating agency... We can consider if Delhi police says so for the convenience of investigation. We do not take your weight to dilute the investigation across the country," Justice Bagchi said.

The CJI asked if a victim, whose defrauded money was deposited in Hong Kong and Bangkok, could be asked to go there for redress. The petitioner ultimately withdrew the plea. Thirty-five criminal cases pertaining to cyber crimes are pending against the accused in states including Delhi, Maharashtra, Kerala, Telangana and Gujarat.

Box: What this means if your account is used as a mule

A mule account is a bank account that fraudsters use to receive and then quickly layer away the proceeds of cyber fraud. Holders fall into two broad groups: people who rent out or sell accounts for a commission, and people who are duped into handing over account and KYC details through a job offer, a loan application or a "settlement" call.

When money from several victims lands in one account, FIRs are registered wherever each victim reports. That is why a single account holder can end up facing cases in a dozen states at once. The bench's refusal to club those complaints means each case is now contested where it was registered. In practice: the account stays frozen and any lien on it continues; the holder may need local counsel in each state; and the remedy is to seek discharge or quashing in each case, or a transfer on the ground that investigation would be more convenient for the police - a plea the court said it would consider only if the Delhi Police asked for it.

The takeaway for readers: never lend or rent out an account, and if a fraudster has used yours, report at cybercrime.gov.in immediately to build the trail that shows you were not part of the racket.

(With inputs from PTI and media reports)