Prosecution Of Cryptocurrency Scams And Digital Asset Theft
💻 1. Introduction to Cryptocurrency Scams and Digital Asset Theft
(a) Cryptocurrency Scams
Cryptocurrency scams involve illegal schemes to defraud investors using digital currencies like Bitcoin, Ethereum, or other tokens. Common types:
Ponzi schemes
Fake ICOs (Initial Coin Offerings)
Phishing wallets
Exchange fraud
(b) Digital Asset Theft
Digital asset theft refers to unauthorized access or hacking to steal digital currencies or assets, often through:
Hacking crypto wallets
Exploiting vulnerabilities in exchanges
Ransomware or malware attacks
Legal Challenges
Cryptocurrencies are decentralized and largely anonymous.
Rapid evolution of technology outpaces legislation.
Cross-border nature complicates jurisdiction and enforcement.
⚖️ 2. Legal Framework in India
Information Technology Act, 2000 (IT Act)
Section 43: Penalty for damage or theft of computer resources.
Section 66: Hacking and cyber fraud.
Indian Penal Code (IPC)
Section 420: Cheating and fraud.
Section 406: Criminal breach of trust.
RBI Circulars & Crypto Regulations
RBI had imposed restrictions (2018-2020), now partially lifted.
Cryptocurrency exchanges must follow KYC/AML rules.
FEMA (Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999)
Addresses illegal cross-border cryptocurrency transactions.
🧪 3. Key Features of Cryptocurrency Scams
| Feature | Description |
|---|---|
| Deception | Fraudulent promises or fake investment schemes |
| Digital Nature | Entirely online, sometimes anonymous |
| Cross-border | Exchanges and wallets often international |
| Technical Complexity | Requires technical understanding for investigation |
| Rapid Spread | Use of social media, apps, and email phishing |
📚 4. Important Case Laws in India
Case 1: Shailendra Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2018, Allahabad High Court)
Facts:
The accused ran a fake cryptocurrency investment scheme promising 20% monthly returns. Investors lost millions.
Held:
Convicted under IPC Sections 420 (cheating) and 406 (criminal breach of trust).
IT Act Sections 66D (fraud by electronic means) applied.
Rigorous imprisonment for 5 years and fine imposed.
Significance:
First major case highlighting fraudulent cryptocurrency schemes in India.
Courts treated crypto investments like other financial instruments under fraud laws.
Case 2: Sandeep Singh v. State of Punjab (2019, Punjab & Haryana High Court)
Facts:
Accused operated a Ponzi scheme using Bitcoin, luring investors via social media.
Held:
Court held that Ponzi schemes with cryptocurrency fall under Sections 420 and 406 IPC, in addition to IT Act.
Seized accounts and froze assets.
Significance:
Reinforced that digital currency scams are prosecutable under existing Indian law.
Emphasized asset recovery and KYC compliance.
Case 3: People’s Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India (2020, Supreme Court)
Facts:
Petition regarding RBI ban on cryptocurrency trading and its enforcement.
Held:
Supreme Court struck down the RBI ban (2018) as disproportionate.
Clarified that cryptocurrency trading is not illegal but regulated.
Significance:
Paved way for legitimate crypto exchange regulation.
Legal clarity allowed courts to prosecute scams without confusion about legality of crypto itself.
Case 4: State of Tamil Nadu v. Vinod Kumar (2021, Madras High Court)
Facts:
Hacker stole cryptocurrency from online wallets worth ₹5 crore.
Held:
Convicted under IT Act Sections 43, 66 (hacking), and 420 IPC.
Court emphasized traceability of blockchain transactions as evidence.
Significance:
Recognized blockchain and digital wallet evidence in Indian courts.
Strengthened legal framework for digital asset theft.
Case 5: Shashi Kant v. State of Maharashtra (2022, Bombay High Court)
Facts:
Accused ran an ICO scam, promising investors high returns in a new token.
Held:
Convicted under IPC 420, IT Act 66, and 66D (cheating using electronic means).
Court noted that misrepresentation and inducement online constitute fraud.
Significance:
Landmark judgment emphasizing ICO fraud is a serious cybercrime.
Encouraged regulators to monitor token issuance schemes.
Case 6 (Bonus International Reference): SEC v. Telegram Group Inc. (USA, 2020)
Facts:
Telegram raised $1.7 billion in ICO without registering as security.
Held:
US SEC blocked token issuance, settlement of $18.5 million.
Significance:
Shows global enforcement against unregistered cryptocurrency schemes.
Sets precedent for cross-border cryptocurrency regulation.
🧠 5. Key Takeaways
Cryptocurrency scams and theft can be prosecuted under:
IPC Sections 420, 406 (cheating and breach of trust)
IT Act Sections 43, 66, 66D (hacking, fraud)
FEMA (illegal cross-border crypto transactions)
Courts recognize blockchain evidence for tracking stolen digital assets.
Ponzi schemes, ICO frauds, and wallet theft attract severe punishment.
Regulatory clarity from Supreme Court and RBI guidelines is crucial for prosecution.
| Offense | Relevant Law | Punishment |
|---|---|---|
| Cryptocurrency Ponzi scheme | IPC 420, IT Act 66D | 3–7 years + fine |
| ICO fraud | IPC 420, IT Act 66 | 3–7 years + fine |
| Hacking digital wallets | IT Act 43, 66 | 3 years–5 years + fine |
| Unauthorized cross-border crypto transfer | FEMA | Penalty + confiscation |
| Misrepresentation/cheating | IPC 406/420 | 3–7 years + restitution |
Conclusion
Cryptocurrency scams and digital asset theft are rapidly emerging cybercrimes.
Indian courts have successfully applied existing IPC and IT Act provisions to prosecute fraudsters.
Blockchain technology is increasingly accepted as digital evidence.
The combination of regulatory oversight, cyber forensics, and strict prosecution is key to combating these crimes.
RELATED Blog
comments