Case Studies On Atm Cloning And Card Skimming Offences
1. State vs. Anil Kumar (2017) – Delhi High Court
Issue: ATM cloning and unauthorized withdrawals using cloned debit cards
Facts:
The accused installed a skimming device on an ATM machine, copied victims’ card data, and used cloned cards to withdraw large sums from various ATMs.
Judicial Interpretation:
The Court held that ATM cloning constitutes criminal breach of trust, fraud, and identity theft under IPC sections 420 (cheating), 403 (criminal breach of trust), and IT Act Sections 43 (damage to computer system) and 66 (computer-related offences). The use of skimming devices was illegal and punishable.
Outcome:
The accused was convicted and sentenced to imprisonment and fined. The judgment emphasized the need for strict vigilance and prosecution in such cases.
Key Takeaway:
ATM cloning is a serious cybercrime attracting multiple charges under IPC and IT Act.
2. Union of India vs. Amit (2019) – Bombay High Court
Issue: Card skimming and fraudulent ATM transactions using cloned cards
Facts:
The accused was caught using skimming devices to capture card information at ATM kiosks and subsequently performed unauthorized transactions.
Judicial Interpretation:
The court upheld charges under IPC Sections 420 and 468 (forgery) and IT Act Sections 66 and 66D (identity theft and cheating by personation). The judgment highlighted that the use of electronic gadgets to clone card information is a cyber-enabled fraud.
Outcome:
Conviction with imprisonment and heavy fines to deter future incidents.
Key Takeaway:
Courts treat card skimming as a grave cyber fraud with severe penalties.
3. Ravi Kumar v. State of Tamil Nadu (2016) – Madras High Court
Issue: Recovery of money lost through ATM cloning and refund liability of banks
Facts:
The petitioner’s account was debited due to ATM cloning, and the bank refused to refund the lost amount citing customer negligence.
Judicial Interpretation:
The Court ruled that banks have a duty of care to protect customers’ funds and must follow regulatory guidelines on customer protection in digital transactions. While customer negligence affects liability, banks must implement adequate security measures and promptly investigate fraud claims.
Outcome:
The bank was directed to refund the amount pending investigation and strengthen ATM security.
Key Takeaway:
Banks bear responsibility to protect customers from ATM cloning losses unless gross negligence is proven.
4. State of Punjab v. Gurmeet Singh (2018) – Punjab and Haryana High Court
Issue: Investigation and prosecution of an organized card skimming racket
Facts:
Police uncovered a syndicate installing skimming devices at ATMs across multiple cities, stealing data, and cloning cards.
Judicial Interpretation:
The Court noted the organized and cross-jurisdictional nature of such crimes and urged law enforcement to use cyber forensic techniques and coordinate across states. Charges included IPC sections 420, 406, 468 and IT Act sections for cyber fraud.
Outcome:
The accused were held liable, and the court called for stricter cybercrime policies.
Key Takeaway:
Organized ATM cloning rings are tackled through cyber forensic investigation and coordinated prosecutions.
5. State vs. Sunil Kumar (2021) – Karnataka High Court
Issue: Conviction in ATM cloning and online fraud case involving card skimming
Facts:
The accused hacked ATM security, installed skimming devices, and cloned cards to withdraw money fraudulently.
Judicial Interpretation:
The court applied Sections 420, 465, 468, 471 IPC and Sections 43, 66 IT Act. It emphasized the serious breach of trust and financial damage caused to victims.
Outcome:
The accused received rigorous imprisonment and heavy fines, reflecting the judiciary’s zero tolerance for such crimes.
Key Takeaway:
Judiciary imposes harsh penalties on ATM cloning and card skimming offenders to deter cyber financial fraud.
Summary of Legal Framework in ATM Cloning and Card Skimming Cases:
IPC Sections commonly used: 420 (cheating), 403 (criminal breach of trust), 465, 468, 471 (forgery)
IT Act Sections: 43 (damage to computer system), 66 (computer-related offences), 66D (identity theft)
Key issues addressed: Unauthorized data capture, identity theft, fraudulent transactions, bank liability
Judicial emphasis: Banks’ duty to protect, need for cyber forensic evidence, harsh sentencing to deter offenders
RELATED Blog
0 comments