A magistrate court has ruled that the mere crediting of money into a bank account does not amount to a criminal offence unless there is clear evidence linking the recipient to a conspiracy or fraudulent intent. The court made the observation while acquitting a 25-year-old man from Jharkhand who had been accused in a cyber fraud case involving a police officer.
The judgment came in a case where the complainant, a police officer, had alleged that she received an SMS in 2022 requesting her PAN card details to update her HDFC Bank account. Following the alleged phishing attempt, a sum of ₹99,986 was transferred from her account into the bank account of the accused, identified as Manoj Kisku.
FCRF’s Flagship Cyber Law Certification Returns With a New Four-Week Cohort
However, the court noted that while the transaction was established through bank records, there was no material evidence proving that the accused had any knowledge of the fraud or that he was part of any criminal conspiracy with the primary accused responsible for the cyber fraud scheme.
Judicial Magistrate S. G. Chimankar, in an order passed on May 20, observed that simply receiving money in a bank account cannot automatically be treated as criminal conduct. The court emphasized that banking transactions alone, without supporting evidence of intent or involvement, are insufficient to establish guilt in cybercrime cases.
The court further stated that money could be credited into an account by any person, and unless investigators are able to show a direct link between the accused and the fraudulent operation, criminal liability cannot be imposed. It added that the prosecution must prove active participation or knowledge of wrongdoing beyond reasonable doubt.
The accused had consistently maintained during the trial that he had no awareness of the amount being credited to his account and was not involved in any fraudulent activity. The court found no evidence contradicting this claim, nor any proof showing coordination with the main perpetrators of the cyber fraud.
The case highlights a recurring challenge in cybercrime investigations, where money trails often lead to individuals whose accounts are used as temporary “mule accounts” without their direct involvement in the larger fraud network. Experts say such cases require deeper forensic investigation to establish intent and linkage rather than relying solely on transaction data.
Legal observers note that cyber fraud cases frequently involve layered transactions, where funds move through multiple accounts within minutes, making it difficult for investigators to determine who is the actual beneficiary and who is merely a pass-through account holder.
The court’s ruling also underscores the principle that criminal conviction cannot be based on suspicion or circumstantial financial movement alone. There must be concrete evidence of conspiracy, communication, or participation in the execution of the offence.
Authorities have increasingly warned about the use of unsuspecting individuals’ bank accounts in cyber fraud networks, where account holders may unknowingly become part of a larger chain of transactions. In many cases, fraudsters allegedly exploit gaps in awareness or use third-party accounts to obscure the money trail.
In this case, the court concluded that the prosecution failed to establish any direct or indirect connection between the accused and the main perpetrators of the cyber fraud. As a result, the accused was acquitted of all charges.
The judgment is being seen as a significant reminder for investigating agencies to strengthen digital evidence collection, including IP tracing, device logs, communication records, and financial linkage analysis, rather than relying solely on bank transaction entries.
With cybercrime cases rising across the country, legal experts say the ruling reinforces the need for a balanced approach that targets actual perpetrators while ensuring that innocent account holders are not wrongly implicated without evidence of intent or involvement.
