The Supreme Court has refused to consolidate 35 cybercrime cases pending against two people across 12 states, taking a strong view of allegations that their company’s bank accounts were allowed to receive money linked to digital-arrest and other online frauds.
The Bench, comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana, said the convenience of an accused seeking consolidation could not override the interests of victims or investigators handling cases in different parts of the country.
Calling digital-arrest scams and similar cyber offences “digital dacoity”, the court declined to entertain the plea filed by Gourab Kumar Saha and Nidhi Bhandari. The petitioners subsequently withdrew their request.
The proceedings add another important dimension to India’s fight against cyber fraud: people and businesses whose bank accounts allegedly receive or route stolen money can face scrutiny across every jurisdiction where victims and transactions are connected to the alleged fraud.
Company Account At Centre Of Cybercrime Allegations
The cases concern allegations that bank accounts belonging to a company associated with the petitioners were used as mule accounts for cybercrime proceeds.
A mule account is an account used to receive, transfer or withdraw money obtained through fraud. Cybercrime networks commonly move stolen funds through several such accounts to make the original trail harder for investigators to follow.
During the hearing, the Chief Justice referred to the case of an 81-year-old victim from Ernakulam, Kerala, who was allegedly cheated of ₹1.90 crore. The court was told that money from the fraud had reached an account linked to the petitioners.
The Bench questioned the alleged use of a company account for transactions connected with digital-arrest fraud and indicated that allegations involving such accounts could not be treated merely as a procedural inconvenience for the people facing investigations.
The 35 cases are spread across 12 states, including Delhi, Maharashtra, Kerala, Telangana and Gujarat.
Court Puts Victims And Investigations Before Accused’s Convenience
The petitioners wanted the cases consolidated instead of facing separate proceedings across multiple states.
The Supreme Court, however, questioned why victims and investigating agencies should have to bear the consequences of such an arrangement simply because it would be more convenient for the accused.
Justice Bagchi observed that an accused’s request for transfer could not override the rights of victims or interfere with investigations being conducted across the country.
The Bench indicated that a request for consolidation could stand on a different footing if an investigating agency such as Delhi Police sought it for genuine investigative reasons.
The Chief Justice also raised the wider problem of jurisdiction in cybercrime cases, where stolen money can rapidly move across states and even overseas. He questioned whether victims could reasonably be expected to pursue their money in places such as Hong Kong or Bangkok merely because fraud proceeds had eventually been transferred there.
The petitioners withdrew their plea after the court declined to entertain it.
Why Company Bank Accounts Matter In Cyber Fraud Cases
The case highlights the growing importance of the financial infrastructure that allows cybercrime networks to receive and move money.
Digital-arrest scams typically begin with fraudsters impersonating police officers, CBI personnel, telecom officials or other government authorities. Victims are frightened with fabricated allegations and pressured into transferring money to accounts described as “safe”, “verification” or “supervision” accounts.
Those accounts are often the point at which investigators can begin reconstructing the wider criminal network.
A company account can attract particular attention because corporate accounts may be capable of handling substantial transaction volumes without appearing unusual at first glance. If investigators believe such an account was knowingly made available for receiving or moving criminal proceeds, the person controlling it can become part of the investigation even without directly speaking to the victim.
Courts have increasingly examined the role of account holders and intermediaries in the cybercrime chain rather than focusing only on the callers who make threats or deceive victims.
The legal question in each case will still depend on evidence showing what an account holder knew, how the account was operated and whether there was intentional participation in the alleged fraud.
Multiple Victims Can Mean Multiple Investigations
Cybercrime differs from many conventional offences because one financial infrastructure can potentially be linked to victims scattered across several states.
A single mule account may receive transfers originating from unrelated complaints in Kerala, Telangana, Gujarat or Delhi. Each victim may lodge an FIR in their own jurisdiction, creating separate investigations even when investigators eventually discover a common account or network.
The Supreme Court’s refusal to consolidate the present cases means those investigations can continue in their respective jurisdictions rather than being brought together solely at the request of the accused.
For companies and account holders, the proceedings also underline a growing compliance risk. Allowing another person to control, borrow or route unexplained transactions through a business bank account can have consequences extending far beyond the original transaction.
As investigators increasingly follow financial trails to dismantle digital-arrest and other cyberfraud networks, the bank account receiving the money is becoming as important to an investigation as the phone number or online account used to contact the victim.
