A farmer from Telangana, a central government employee posted in Calcutta and a woman rider for a ride-sharing app in Calcutta have nothing in common, except that they have all been victims of cyber fraud – not because money has been defrauded from them, but because money defrauded from others has landed in their accounts.
In the 50-plus months between April 2021 and November 2025, cyber criminals emptied Rs 52,969 crore from bank accounts across India. On average 7,000 to 7,700 complaints of cyber-enabled financial crimes are reported daily with the National Cybercrime Reporting Portal in India.
The actual number of victims stretches beyond those whose accounts have been cleared via UPI fraud, “digital arrests” and sextortion.
The money never stopped rolling and trickled into the accounts of unsuspecting people like the three mentioned in the beginning.
In all the three cases, a portion of the money embezzled ended up in their accounts, which the banks froze, acting on standard operating procedure laid down by the Indian Cyber Crime Coordination Centre (ICCCC) under the Union Ministry of Home Affairs this January.
The actual number of such victims is unknown.
“I am still not certain what happened and why my salary account was blocked by the bank,” the central government employee stationed in Calcutta, who did not want to be identified, told The Telegraph Online.
In March this year, he took a loan of Rs 5,000 from an app-based lender on the condition that he would repay the amount in a week’s time. He had downloaded the app from the Google Play Store. Last month, he found his salary account had been blocked.
“When I went to the bank I was told a complaint of cybercrime was filed against me somewhere in Gujarat. I have been using this account for the last 15 years,” he said.
Cyber-fraudsters use “mule accounts” to park their earnings from crime, accounts “hired” for the purpose of depositing part of the booty.
But some portion of the money, usually through the online payment route, also reaches common people who are not involved directly or indirectly with any cyber-enabled financial crime.
Sodepur, Bengal resident Pampa Das, who earns her living ferrying passengers on a bike across the city, received an offer on the messaging app Telegram to write reviews on Google in July last year.
“For each review I was paid Rs 40. Some days later I was asked to deposit Rs 800 with the promise of receiving Rs 2,800 and getting to do more reviews. The rate was also hiked to Rs 80 per review,” Das told The Telegraph Online.
“I paid the money and got the promised amount some days later. Then they asked for Rs 5,000 and finally Rs 8,000. Without paying this amount I could no longer do the reviews. That kind of money was beyond my means. Some days later I realised my sole account was no longer working,” she said.
She later found that in over a year Rs 10,900 had been credited into her account, which is now under hold.
“I went to the bank’s branch in Howrah’s Liluah, then the main branch in Salt Lake. They could only say that a cyber case has been filed against me in Secunderabad and suggested I speak with the police,” she said.
Her trip to Secunderabad last August to sort the issue turned futile.
The SOP issued by the ICCCC states the banks can “hold” the “amount” if a fraudulent transaction is detected. In case of multiple instances digital banking facilities like NEFT, RTGS, IMPS and UPI are suspended.
The SOP states account holders affected by action of accounts put-on-hold, suspension of digital banking services and seizure of bank accounts or any property may raise grievances through their respective banks or financial institutions.
“Anybody can lodge a cybercrime complaint by calling the helpline,” Chinmayee Sahoo, a Bangalore-based advocate working on cyber-enabled crime cases, told The Telegraph Online.
“Once the details are given, the account is frozen. Though the verbal complaints are to be backed by a physical FIR, in many cases there are no written complaints, no verification. When we approach the police they are unable to help.
“These people whose accounts have been put on hold are also victims. The only option left is to move the court and that is a time-consuming process and expensive,” Sahoo said.
The Telangana farmer, Kanakati Naresh, had received a payment of Rs 1,50,228 as the price of cotton sold to the Cotton Corporation of India. The amount was deposited in an account he held at the local post office on January 23, 2024.
On February 13, 2024, when he went to withdraw a portion of the money, he was informed about a debit freeze on the account. There were three complaints against his account filed in Gujarat’s Surat, Keralam’s Mallapuram and Mumbai’s Bandra-Kurla Complex.
“A citizen’s bank account cannot be frozen indefinitely merely on internal correspondence, portal alerts or informal electronic communications unless such action is traceable to authority of law,” Telangana High Court Justice Nagesh Bheemapaka observed on May 6.
“Money lying in a bank account is property of the account holder. Restriction upon operation of such account affects right to livelihood, right to property in accordance with the law, and access to one’s legitimate funds. Even where investigative agencies seek protective measures, the action must satisfy minimum legal safeguards. There must be authority of law, communication of reasons where permissible, and a fair procedure,” the judge wrote in his order.
Justice Bheemapaka observed the bank relied upon three complaints against the cultivator.
“However, mere existence of complaints does not automatically justify continued denial of access to the entire account balance without examination of the nature of transactions, source of funds or whether the credited amount represented agricultural sale proceeds from Cotton Corporation of India through Thirumalagiri market yard,” the order read.
The court observed: “Continuation of debit freeze without furnishing material particulars, without production of a competent freezing order, and without periodic review is arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice.”
Calcutta-based lawyer Rajarshi Rai Choudhury said a similar order was issued by the Madras High Court earlier as well.
“The cops do not follow either the SOP or court orders,” Rai Choudhury told The Telegraph Online. “After the account is blocked there is little room for being heard. Even for petty amounts the only option is to go to the courts. There have been instances of bribes being demanded.”
Meanwhile, Pampa Das is waiting for the hold on her account to be removed.
“I have checked thoroughly; Rs 728 is the amount that got into my account from some fraud. If the bank could seize just that money and allow me to use the rest of it, which I have earned, it would be a great help,” she said.