Prosecution Of Online Financial Scams And Cryptocurrency Fraud
🌐 1. Introduction to Online Financial Scams & Cryptocurrency Fraud
📘 Definition
Online financial scams involve using the internet to defraud individuals or entities of money, often by misrepresentation, phishing, or Ponzi schemes.
Cryptocurrency fraud includes scams related to digital currencies like Bitcoin, Ethereum, or other altcoins, such as:
Fake investment schemes
Pump-and-dump schemes
Exchange or wallet fraud
ICO (Initial Coin Offering) frauds
📜 Relevant Indian Laws
Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860
Section 420: Cheating
Section 406: Criminal breach of trust
Section 468: Forgery for cheating
Section 120B: Criminal conspiracy
Information Technology Act, 2000
Section 66C: Identity theft
Section 66D: Cheating by personation using computer resource
Section 43: Damage to computer or network
Other Laws
SEBI Act, 1992 – for investment frauds
Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), 2002 – for laundering proceeds of online fraud
⚖️ 2. Landmark Case Laws
Case 1: State of Tamil Nadu v. Suhas Katti (2004)
📌 Facts:
The accused sent obscene messages to multiple women using fake email IDs, claiming to be someone else.
While this case is primarily on cyber harassment, it involved online deception and misuse of internet identity, which is a common method in financial scams.
⚖️ Judgment:
The Madras High Court held that using someone else’s identity online with fraudulent intent is punishable under Section 66D of the IT Act (cheating by personation).
🧠 Principle:
Misrepresentation online is criminally liable under both IPC and IT Act.
Case 2: Union of India v. Varsha Joshi & Ors. (2018, Delhi HC)
📌 Facts:
The accused ran an online cryptocurrency investment scheme promising high returns.
Investors transferred money, but the accused failed to deliver promised returns and allegedly diverted funds.
⚖️ Judgment:
Delhi High Court upheld FIR registration under IPC Sections 420, 406, and IT Act Sections 66C and 66D.
The court emphasized intention to defraud investors is key, even if no physical harm occurred.
🧠 Principle:
Cryptocurrency fraud is treated similarly to traditional Ponzi schemes under IPC, with IT Act enhancing liability for digital actions.
Case 3: Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) vs. GainBitcoin Pvt Ltd. (2018)
📌 Facts:
GainBitcoin sold cryptocurrency schemes promising high returns to investors.
SEBI alleged they were operating an unregistered collective investment scheme (CIS).
⚖️ Judgment:
SEBI directed the company to refund investors and barred the promoters from securities markets.
The Supreme Court acknowledged the potential for investor loss in unregulated crypto markets.
🧠 Principle:
SEBI regulates cryptocurrency schemes as investment schemes, even if blockchain-based, if there is investor pooling and profit-sharing.
Case 4: Shailesh Lakhani vs. State of Maharashtra (2019, Bombay HC)
📌 Facts:
Accused ran an online e-wallet platform promising crypto returns.
Investors deposited money, but withdrawals were blocked, leading to massive losses.
⚖️ Judgment:
Bombay High Court ruled this constituted criminal breach of trust and cheating under IPC Sections 406 & 420, and IT Act Sections 66D.
Court highlighted intent and deception via digital communication is enough to attract criminal liability.
🧠 Principle:
Digital platforms cannot escape IPC liability merely because the transaction is online.
Case 5: USA v. Irfan Ahmed (Bitcoin Ponzi Scheme, 2020)
📌 Facts:
Ahmed ran a Bitcoin investment scheme in the U.S., promising returns but diverting funds to personal accounts.
Investors lost millions; FBI investigated.
⚖️ Judgment:
He was convicted under U.S. federal law for wire fraud and money laundering.
Court emphasized virtual currency does not exempt from criminal liability.
🧠 Principle:
Cryptocurrency is treated as property for fraud and theft laws globally; intention to deceive is central.
Case 6: Shrikant S. Shewale v. State of Maharashtra (2021, Bombay HC)
📌 Facts:
Accused ran a WhatsApp-based crypto investment platform.
Promised 15% monthly returns. Investors deposited large sums, later blocked from withdrawals.
⚖️ Judgment:
Bombay HC upheld FIR under Sections 420, 406, 120B IPC, and IT Act Section 66D.
Court emphasized pattern of fraud and communications via online platform were sufficient to prosecute.
🧠 Principle:
Systematic online scams are prosecutable under combination of IPC, IT Act, and criminal conspiracy.
🧩 3. Key Legal Principles from Cases
Intention to Deceive Matters Most – mere failure to deliver is not enough; intent distinguishes fraud from legitimate loss.
Online Medium ≠ Immunity – IT Act complements IPC to cover online deception.
Cryptocurrency is Property – treated under existing fraud, theft, and money laundering laws.
Investor Protection – SEBI regulates collective crypto investment schemes.
Pattern of Conduct – repeated misrepresentation across multiple victims establishes criminal liability.
🔹 4. Challenges in Prosecution
Anonymity of Transactions – crypto wallets are often pseudonymous.
Cross-Border Nature – perpetrators may reside outside India.
Technical Complexity – courts rely heavily on forensic evidence.
Rapidly Changing Technology – legal definitions sometimes lag behind innovations.
🧠 5. Conclusion
Courts in India and abroad treat online financial scams and cryptocurrency fraud seriously.
Both IPC and IT Act provide strong tools for prosecution.
Cases show consistent principles:
Intent to deceive is central.
Online or digital medium does not shield criminals.
Regulators like SEBI enhance investor protection in crypto markets.
RELATED Blog
comments