Digital arrest: SC asks Centre to hold stakeholders' meet to look into victim compensation

New Delhi, Dec 16 (PTI) The Supreme Court asked the Centre on Tuesday to look into the suggestions put forward by the amicus in ensuring compensation to victims of digital arrests, while voicing its concern over the enormous amounts taken out from the country by cyber criminals.

Digital arrest is a growing form of cybercrime in which fraudsters pose as law-enforcement officers, court officials or personnel from government agencies to intimidate victims through audio and video calls. They hold the victims hostage and put pressure on them to pay money.

A bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi was told by Attorney General R Venkataramani that an inter-ministerial meeting will soon be held to discuss various strategies on the issue of digital arrest, including those flagged by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and the suggestions of amicus curiae N S Nappinai.

CJI Kant said, "We are surprised by the staggering amount of money taken out of the country by these fraudsters." Nappinai suggested introducing a victim compensation scheme on the lines of the United Kingdom's model for Authorised Push Payment scams, which ensures mandatory reimbursement to victims through the intervention of the banking channel.

The CJI also underlined that there is a need for automatic systems for alarming the banks when such fraudulent transactions take place.

Venkataramani submitted that the CBI has given certain inputs and suggested an inter-departmental meeting for considering the recommendations of the amicus.

The bench ordered, "We have no reason to doubt that all stakeholders will, under the guidance of the AG, shall take appropriate decisions at their end and apprise this court. The recommendations by the amicus may also be considered by the concerned quarters." On December 1, the top court asked the CBI to carry out a unified pan-India probe into digital-arrest cases and asked the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) why is it not using artificial intelligence (AI) to trace and freeze bank accounts used by cyber criminals.

It had asked the states, including opposition-ruled West Bengal, Kerala, Tamil Nadu, Karnataka and Telangana, to give consent to the CBI under the Delhi Special Police Establishment (DSPE) Act for probing digital-arrest cases in their jurisdiction.

It had issued a notice to the RBI and sought its response as to why AI or machine-learning technology was not employed to identify mule accounts and freeze those which are used in cyber-fraud cases.

The top court, which passed a slew of directions in a suo-motu (initiated on its own) case registered on a complaint from an elderly couple from Haryana, noted that mostly senior citizens are targeted and their hard-earned money is extorted by the cyber criminals.

It directed information technology (IT) intermediaries to provide details and cooperation to the CBI in probes related to digital-arrest cases.

The bench also directed the CBI to seek assistance from the Interpol to reach cyber criminals operating from offshore tax havens.

It asked the Department of Telecom to ensure that telecom service providers do not provide multiple SIM cards to one user or entity as the cards may be used in cyber crimes.

To ensure better coordination with the CBI, the bench asked all states and Union territories to set up a regional and state cybercrime coordination centre to deal with such online offences.

The court had also directed the CBI to probe bank officials who are hand in glove with the fraudsters and help them operate mule accounts in duping citizens, and register cases against them under the Prevention of Corruption Act.

A mule account is a bank account used by cybercriminals to receive and transfer illicit funds, making it harder to trace the source of the money for probe agencies.

On October 17, taking note of the rising number of online-fraud cases in the country, especially digital arrests to dupe citizens by fabricating judicial orders, the top court sought responses from the Centre and the CBI, saying such offences strike at the "very foundation" of public trust in the system.

It had said forgery of documents and criminal misuse of the name, seal and judicial orders of the apex court or a high court is a matter of grave concern, and such criminal acts cannot be treated as an ordinary or solitary offence of cheating or cybercrime. PTI MNL RC