Nearly three-fourths of Indians who suffered digital financial fraud recovered none of the money they lost, while frequent online-payment users were more likely to receive scam calls, according to a new nationwide study on cybercrime and policing.
The Status of Policing in India Report 2026, released by Common Cause and Lokniti-CSDS, surveyed more than 8,306 people across 16 states. The study examined how Indians experience cybercrime, how they report it and how effectively police and banks respond.
Its findings point to a difficult gap in India’s cyber-fraud response: people may recognise scams and report them quickly, but recovering stolen money remains far harder.
Proposal for Conducting Cyber Crisis Drill, Tabletop Exercise (TTEx) & CCMP Readiness Exercise
Frequent online payment users face greater scam exposure
The report found that people who use online payments more frequently were also more likely to receive fraudulent calls.
Around one-third of respondents said they often received scam calls involving fake deliveries, investment schemes promising unusually high returns or similar fraud attempts.
This does not mean using UPI, mobile banking or other digital payments directly causes scam calls.
Instead, the finding suggests that people who are more active in the digital financial ecosystem may also have a larger online footprint, interact with more merchants and services, or have their contact information exposed through multiple channels.
Fraudsters frequently exploit information such as phone numbers, shopping activity, payment behaviour and delivery details to make calls appear more convincing.
A fake courier call, for example, becomes more believable when the victim regularly shops online.
72% of financial fraud victims got nothing back
The report’s most serious finding concerns recovery.
Around 72% of victims of digital financial fraud said they recovered none of the money they had lost. This was despite 63% saying they informed their bank within 24 hours of discovering the fraud.
That matters because rapid reporting is repeatedly promoted as one of the most important ways to stop stolen money before it moves through multiple mule accounts.
In practice, however, fraud proceeds can be split and transferred across several accounts within minutes.
By the time a complaint reaches the correct bank, police unit or payment intermediary, part of the money may already have been withdrawn, transferred onward or converted into another asset.
The report also found that 22% of victims were highly dissatisfied with their bank’s efforts to recover funds, while 20% expressed strong dissatisfaction with coordination between banks and police.
Half of victims found police complaint process difficult
Reporting itself remains another weak point.
According to the findings cited by Jagran, 51% of cybercrime victims said they lodged a complaint with police. Another 11% contacted police but did not pursue the matter further.
Among those who approached police, roughly half described the complaint-registration process as difficult.
More troublingly, 27% of victims whose complaints were registered said they had paid a bribe to police during the process, according to the survey.
These are survey responses and should not be read as findings that 27% of all cybercrime cases nationally involve bribery. They reflect the experiences reported by the study’s respondents.
The distinction matters because the research measures victim perceptions and experiences rather than auditing every police station or individual complaint.
Public still believes police can handle cybercrime
Despite those difficulties, confidence in the police was comparatively high.
About 75% of respondents said they believed police were prepared to deal with cybercrime. Of these, 29% considered police fully prepared while 44% regarded them as somewhat prepared.
The contrast is striking.
People broadly believe police have the capability to deal with cybercrime, yet victims who actually enter the complaint and recovery system often report procedural difficulty and limited financial recovery.
That difference between general confidence and personal experience is one of the important themes of the SPIR study.
Common Cause says the report examines not only victim experiences but also the modus operandi of cybercriminals, digital habits, vulnerabilities among ordinary citizens and the preparedness of both police and banks. Cause India
Cyber fraud response depends on speed across several institutions
Recovering stolen money rarely depends on police alone.
Banks, payment platforms, telecom companies, cybercrime units and financial intermediaries may all have to act quickly to trace and freeze funds.
India’s cybercrime reporting system allows victims to report financial fraud through the national 1930 helpline and the National Cyber Crime Reporting Portal.
But once money has moved through a chain of mule accounts, recovery becomes progressively harder.
The SPIR findings therefore highlight a problem beyond public awareness.
India has spent years telling users to report scams quickly. The new data suggests that improving what happens after a victim reports the fraud may now be equally important.
What this means for you: If you lose money to an online fraud, immediately contact your bank and report the incident through 1930 and the National Cyber Crime Reporting Portal. Save transaction IDs, phone numbers, screenshots and messages because quick documentation can help investigators trace the money.
Follow for daily updates on cybercrime, corporate fraud, DFIR, hacking, investigations, and digital forensics
