A magistrate court has ruled that the mere receipt of money in a bank account is not sufficient to establish criminal liability in a cyber fraud case unless there is clear evidence linking the account holder to fraudulent intent or a criminal conspiracy.
The observation came while acquitting a 25-year-old man from Jharkhand, Manoj Kisku, who was accused in a cyber fraud case involving a police officer.
According to the case, the complainant alleged that she received an SMS in 2022 requesting her PAN card details for an HDFC Bank account update. Following the alleged phishing incident, Rs 99,986 was transferred from her account to Kisku’s bank account.
While bank records confirmed that the transaction had taken place, the court found no evidence showing that the accused was aware of the fraud or had any involvement with the individuals allegedly responsible for the cybercrime.
Judicial Magistrate S. G. Chimankar, in an order passed on May 20, observed that banking transactions alone cannot be treated as proof of criminal conduct. The court stated that money can be credited into an account by any person, and criminal liability cannot be imposed unless investigators establish a direct connection between the account holder and the fraudulent operation.
The court further emphasized that the prosecution must prove active participation, knowledge or involvement in the offence beyond reasonable doubt. During the trial, the accused consistently maintained that he had no knowledge of the funds being credited to his account and was not involved in any fraudulent activity. The court found no evidence contradicting his claim or indicating coordination with the primary accused.
The case highlights a common challenge in cybercrime investigations, where stolen funds often pass through multiple accounts, including so-called “mule accounts,” making it difficult to identify the actual beneficiaries of fraud schemes.
Legal experts note that cyber fraud networks frequently use layered transactions that move money through several accounts within minutes, complicating efforts to determine whether an account holder is an active participant or merely a pass-through recipient.
The court also reiterated that criminal convictions cannot be based solely on suspicion or financial transactions. Investigators must present concrete evidence of conspiracy, communication or participation in the execution of the crime.
The judgment is being viewed as an important reminder for investigating agencies to strengthen digital evidence collection through IP tracking, device analysis, communication records and financial linkage investigations rather than relying only on bank transaction records.
With cybercrime cases continuing to rise, legal experts believe the ruling reinforces the need to identify actual perpetrators while protecting innocent account holders from being implicated without evidence of intent or involvement.
Also read: Viksit Workforce for a Viksit Bharat
Do Follow: The Mainstream LinkedIn | The Mainstream Facebook | The Mainstream Youtube | The Mainstream Twitter
About us:
The Mainstream is a premier platform delivering the latest updates and informed perspectives across the technology business and cyber landscape. Built on research-driven, thought leadership and original intellectual property, The Mainstream also curates summits & conferences that convene decision makers to explore how technology reshapes industries and leadership. With a growing presence in India and globally across the Middle East, Africa, ASEAN, the USA, the UK and Australia, The Mainstream carries a vision to bring the latest happenings and insights to 8.2 billion people and to place technology at the centre of conversation for leaders navigating the future.