Criminal Liability For Fraudulent Microcredit Lending
1. Legal Framework for Fraudulent Microcredit Lending in India
Fraudulent microcredit lending involves obtaining, disbursing, or recovering loans through deceptive or illegal means. Legal liability can arise under multiple statutes:
A. Indian Penal Code (IPC)
Section 420 (Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property): For fraudulent misrepresentation to obtain loans.
Section 406 (Criminal breach of trust): For misappropriating funds received from borrowers or lenders.
Section 409 (Criminal breach of trust by public servant or banker): Applies to employees of microfinance institutions.
Section 120B (Criminal conspiracy): When multiple individuals plan and execute fraudulent lending.
B. Reserve Bank of India (RBI) Regulations
Microfinance institutions (MFIs) must follow RBI guidelines.
Non-compliance, especially with interest rates or repayment practices, can attract civil and criminal liability under RBI Act.
C. Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), 2002
Used if fraud involves laundering of funds obtained from microcredit schemes.
D. Other Relevant Acts
Companies Act, 2013: For fraudulent accounts or misreporting by NBFC-MFIs.
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881: For issuing dishonored cheques to secure loans.
2. Criminal Liability in Microcredit Fraud
The law holds multiple parties accountable:
Promoters or Directors of MFIs – if they misrepresent interest rates, fees, or repayment terms.
Loan Officers or Employees – if they coerce borrowers, falsify documents, or misappropriate funds.
Borrowers – if they obtain loans with no intention to repay (though usually civil remedies apply).
Colluding third parties – banks or money lenders who knowingly facilitate fraudulent lending.
Key Elements to Establish Liability
Misrepresentation or deception in obtaining funds.
Dishonest intention to cause financial loss.
Breach of trust or fraudulent accounting.
Participation in a conspiracy to commit fraud.
3. Case Laws on Fraudulent Microcredit Lending in India
Case 1: Bandhan Financial Services Ltd. vs State of West Bengal (2013)
Facts: Borrowers and intermediaries were found falsifying applications to obtain multiple microloans fraudulently.
Held: Court held that Section 420 IPC applied to borrowers and intermediaries. MFIs were also instructed to strengthen verification mechanisms.
Significance: Established liability for both borrowers and intermediaries in microcredit fraud.
Case 2: SKS Microfinance vs. RBI (2010–2011)
Facts: RBI found SKS violating interest rate caps and coercive recovery practices.
Held: RBI issued penalties; criminal proceedings were considered for harassment of borrowers.
Significance: Clarified that non-compliance with RBI regulations can lead to criminal prosecution if it involves coercion or cheating.
Case 3: Equitas Small Finance Bank Ltd. vs. Fraudulent Borrowers (2015)
Facts: Borrowers colluded with agents to submit fake KYC documents to obtain loans.
Held: Section 406 IPC invoked for criminal breach of trust; multiple borrowers and agents convicted.
Significance: Reinforced accountability of borrowers and intermediaries for document fraud.
Case 4: Usha Microfinance vs. State (2016)
Facts: Employees were found inflating borrower lists to claim higher disbursements and commissions.
Held: Employees convicted under Sections 406, 420, and 120B IPC for fraud and conspiracy.
Significance: Demonstrated liability of MFI employees and internal staff in fraudulent microcredit lending.
Case 5: Janalakshmi Financial Services Fraud Case (2017)
Facts: NBFC-MFI executives misappropriated loan funds, diverting money for personal gain.
Held: Criminal liability under Sections 409 and 420 IPC; PMLA proceedings initiated for money laundering.
Significance: Highlighted corporate liability and the application of money laundering laws in microcredit fraud.
4. Key Takeaways
Criminal liability can be personal, corporate, or collective.
Both internal fraud (employees, executives) and external fraud (borrowers, intermediaries) are prosecutable.
IPC Sections 420, 406, 409, and 120B are commonly applied.
RBI compliance violations can have criminal consequences if they involve coercion or deception.
Case law emphasizes prevention, verification, and strict internal controls to avoid liability.
RELATED Blog
comments