Follow us on Google News
A special court in Mumbai has rejected the bail plea of a real estate agent accused of facilitating a ₹7.72 crore cyber fraud that targeted a senior citizen through a ‘digital arrest’ scam, underlining that individuals who allow their bank accounts to be used for such crimes cannot escape criminal liability.
The order was passed by a special CBI court while hearing the bail application of Kamleshkumar Mali (33), who was arrested for allegedly aiding cyber fraudsters by allowing his bank accounts and company accounts to be used for routing illicit funds. The court observed that Mali had played an active role in the commission of the offence and could not claim ignorance of how his accounts were being used.
https://the420.in/fcrf-certified-grc-professional-program-governance-risk-compliance-training-india/
How the fraud was executed
According to the prosecution, the case stems from a complaint filed by an elderly woman who received a phone call on July 4, 2025, from a person posing as an official of the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI). The caller falsely claimed that bank accounts had been opened in her name with Canara Bank and were being used in a money laundering case linked to Naresh Goyal, founder of Jet Airways.
Soon after, the complainant received a WhatsApp call from a man identifying himself as Ajay Basariya, who impersonated a senior police inspector. He threatened the woman with arrest and freezing of her accounts if she did not cooperate with the “investigation”, later placing her under what he described as “digital arrest”.
Under sustained psychological pressure, the victim was coerced into selling her shares and transferring money to multiple bank accounts provided by the fraudsters. Over time, she transferred more than ₹7.72 crore, draining her life savings. Communication ceased once the money was exhausted, prompting her to approach the cyber police.
Money trail leads to accused
During the investigation, officers discovered that ₹65 lakh of the defrauded amount had been credited to a bank account belonging to Captown Realties Pvt Ltd, a company owned by Mali. The prosecution told the court that ₹2.72 crore was deposited into Mali’s personal bank account between July 1 and August 27, 2025, and that the money was subsequently withdrawn.
Investigators further stated that Mali’s bank account had been used in at least three separate cyber fraud cases, indicating a pattern rather than a one-off lapse.
Defence claims ‘good faith’, court unconvinced
Appearing for Mali, advocate Tauqeer Siddiqee argued that his client was falsely implicated. He submitted that Mali, who worked as a real estate agent, had allowed his friend Kunal Athiya—an absconding accused—to use his bank account in good faith, without knowledge of any criminal activity. The defence also stated that Mali was willing to return the money credited to his accounts.
However, public prosecutor Ramesh Siroya strongly opposed the bail plea, contending that Mali had failed to provide any satisfactory explanation for the large sums credited to his account. He added that a substantial portion of the crime proceeds was yet to be recovered and that several co-accused were still absconding, necessitating further custodial investigation.
Court’s observations
Special Judge A V Gujarathi, while rejecting the bail application, said it was “crystal clear” that Mali had facilitated the crime. The court noted that Mali had not filed any complaint against Athiya for allegedly cheating him or misusing his bank account, weakening his claim of innocence.
“The repeated use of the applicant’s bank account in cyber fraud cases makes it evident that he was aware of the malafide intentions of the co-accused,” the court observed, adding that permitting one’s bank account to be used for criminal transactions attracts direct liability under law.
Wider concern over ‘digital arrest’ scams
The case highlights the growing menace of ‘digital arrest’ cyber frauds, where scammers impersonate law enforcement or regulatory officials to intimidate victims into transferring funds. Investigators say such scams increasingly rely on mule accounts, shell firms and willing intermediaries to move money quickly and evade detection.
With the court taking a firm stand against facilitators of cyber fraud, the order sends a clear message that passive cooperation or wilful blindness in financial crimes will not be tolerated. As cyber scams become more sophisticated, enforcement agencies say accountability must extend beyond the callers to those who enable the money trail—a principle the court has now reinforced decisively.
