A Gurugram court has ruled that supplying mule bank accounts for routing defrauded money can amount to active participation in a cyberfraud even when the accused had no direct contact with the victim or was not part of the WhatsApp group used in the alleged fraud.
The observation came while the court denied bail to an accused in a ₹57.4 lakh online investment fraud case. The court said cyberfrauds often involve several people performing different roles and that arranging or supplying bank accounts through which victims’ money is routed can show active participation in the criminal conspiracy.
What Was the ₹57.4 Lakh Fraud Case?
The complainant, Hirotaj Bordoloi, had transferred money to multiple bank accounts after being added to a WhatsApp group called “5 Paisa V624 Traders Hub” last year.
When he later sought to withdraw the purported profit, he was allegedly asked to pay ₹16 lakh as a “service fee” and another ₹15 lakh as a “security deposit”. He then realised that he had allegedly been duped.
The FIR was registered at Cyber Manesar police station on August 29, 2025, under Sections 318(4), 61(2) and 241 of the BNS and Section 66-D of the IT Act.
Proposal for Conducting Cyber Crisis Drill, Tabletop Exercise (TTEx) & CCMP Readiness Exercise
What Role Was the Accused Alleged to Have Played?
According to the prosecution, Vivek was added to the group in May 2025. Administrators of the group allegedly encouraged him to invest in share trading by promising high and assured returns and provided a mobile application for the investments.
The application allegedly displayed fictitious profits of around ₹1.1 crore.
The investigation indicated that the WhatsApp group and application were part of an organised online investment fraud racket. The money was allegedly routed through several beneficiary or mule accounts to conceal its trail before being withdrawn or layered further.
Why Did the Court Reject the No-Contact Argument?
Appearing for Vivek, advocate Payal Khatana argued that he had been falsely implicated on the basis of a disclosure statement by a co-accused. The defence said no custody since January 10 was required, he was not a beneficiary account holder and had not contacted the complainant or his wife
The defence also submitted that the investigation was complete and ₹13.2 lakh had been restored to the complainant.
The court, however, rejected the second regular bail plea. Additional Sessions Judge Varsha Jain observed that cyberfrauds are often carried out through people performing different roles.
The court said that arranging and supplying bank accounts through which a victim’s money was routed could, on its face, indicate active participation in the criminal conspiracy.
What Is a Mule Bank Account?
A mule account is a bank account used to receive, transfer or conceal illegally obtained money. The account holder may knowingly participate in the activity or may be unaware that the account is being misused.
In this case, investigators alleged that multiple beneficiary or mule accounts were used to move the defrauded money, conceal its trail and subsequently withdraw or further layer the funds.
What Did Prosecutors Allege About the Accounts?
Public prosecutor Neeraj Arti opposed bail, alleging that Vivek had acted as an “aggregator” and provided the account to a co-accused as part of the conspiracy.
The prosecution also pointed out that a similar offence had been registered against him and that his earlier bail plea had been dismissed by the same court on May 29.
The court noted that bank accounts used in the case had surfaced in other cyberfraud cases registered by Cyber East Gurugram police and the Special Cell, New Delhi. It said this prima facie indicated the organised and habitual nature of the activities.
Why Did the Court Deny Bail?
Referring to a Punjab and Haryana High Court ruling in Suhail vs State of Haryana, the court said cyberfrauds can affect multiple victims and erode public confidence in digital financial transactions.
The court ultimately held that, given the structured nature of the alleged fraud, Vivek’s alleged role in facilitating accounts on commission and the continuing investigation to apprehend other accused, the case was not fit for bail at this stage.
The420 Takeaway: “In a Cyberfraud Chain, the Bank Account Can Be Part of the Crime”
The court’s observations underline that an alleged participant does not necessarily need to speak directly with a victim to come under scrutiny in an organised cyberfraud case.
Where bank accounts are allegedly arranged to receive or move defrauded money, that role itself can become a significant part of the investigation.
About the author — Ayesha Aayat writes on cybercrime, digital safety, and emerging online threats. Her work focuses on public awareness, legal clarity, and technology-driven risks.
Follow for daily updates on cybercrime, corporate fraud, DFIR, hacking, investigations, and digital forensics
