A 55-year-old woman from Adajan allegedly lost ₹73 lakh after cybercriminals kept her under sustained fear for nearly a month, accused her of links to terror funding and money laundering, and ultimately pushed her into taking loans against her gold after her available savings began running out.
Surat Cyber Crime Police have registered an FIR and begun investigating the accounts, phone numbers and digital communications used in the fraud.
The case shows how a digital arrest scam can move far beyond a single bank transfer. By allegedly obtaining information about the victim’s fixed deposits, property, gold and other assets, the fraudsters were able to continue demanding money even after her readily available funds had been depleted.
Terror Funding Allegation Begins Month-Long Deception
The fraud allegedly began on September 30 when the woman received a call from someone claiming to represent the Data Protection Board of India.
She was told that several suspicious mobile numbers had been obtained using her Aadhaar details. The caller then connected her to a man identifying himself as Avinash Patel, who allegedly claimed that 20 mobile numbers had been issued using her documents in Jammu and Kashmir, Bihar, Rajasthan and Nashik.
Patel subsequently connected her to another person who introduced himself as Gajendra Rajput, an officer from Panchvati police station in Nashik.
The alleged fraudsters then escalated the accusations.
The woman was reportedly told that she was connected to Popular Front of India terror funding, money laundering and hawala transactions. They claimed ₹2 crore had passed through 247 bank accounts and that ₹20 lakh had reached an account opened using her documents.
To make the allegations appear genuine, she was allegedly sent a photograph showing two people in police custody alongside several ATM cards, including one card purportedly bearing her name.
She also received what appeared to be official documents carrying the names or letterheads of agencies including Mumbai Police, the National Investigation Agency, Enforcement Directorate and Reserve Bank of India.
None of these communications represented a genuine investigation, according to the complaint.
Fraudsters Allegedly Mapped Savings, Property And Gold
The pressure did not end with the initial threat of arrest.
The woman was allegedly instructed to remain available through WhatsApp calls and messages if she wanted to avoid being arrested. She was also told to keep the matter secret because she was supposedly part of a confidential investigation.
During these conversations, the fraudsters allegedly obtained detailed information about her finances.
They learnt about her bank accounts, fixed deposits, property, gold and other assets. According to the complaint, they also discovered that her husband had died several years earlier and that her children were living abroad.
Information was allegedly obtained about a locker containing documents, cash and gold.
This allowed the scam to change from a demand for immediately available money into something resembling an inventory of the victim’s household wealth.
The woman was first persuaded to transfer money from her bank accounts and fixed deposits.
When those resources were no longer sufficient, the demands continued.
Two Gold Loans Add ₹45.13 Lakh To Financial Damage
The most striking part of the case is how the alleged coercion extended into borrowing.
The woman was allegedly persuaded to pledge gold and take two loans from Fedbank Financial Services, or Fedfina.
The loans were for ₹29.34 lakh and ₹15.79 lakh, together amounting to ₹45.13 lakh.
The proceeds were then allegedly transferred to bank accounts specified by the fraudsters.
This meant the victim was no longer only losing money she had already saved. Assets accumulated by her family were being converted into debt and then transferred to the people controlling the scam.
The distinction matters.
Many cyber-fraud cases end when a victim’s bank balance is exhausted or a bank blocks further transactions. In prolonged digital-arrest scams, however, criminals may try to discover what other resources remain available.
Fixed deposits can be broken. Investments can be redeemed. Gold can be pledged. Victims can even be persuaded to borrow money because they believe failure to comply will result in arrest or prosecution.
The result can therefore include both the immediate loss of savings and a continuing financial liability after the fraud ends.
Prolonged Coercion Keeps Victim Inside A False Investigation
The alleged fraudsters continued sending documents and acknowledgements carrying the names of government and law-enforcement institutions.
These communications appear to have been used to maintain the impression that each payment formed part of a genuine official process.
After the woman’s available funds had been exhausted, the callers allegedly demanded another ₹30 lakh under what they described as a “Security Deposit Committee Order” from the Supreme Court.
That demand eventually became a breaking point.
The woman realised that she had been deceived and contacted the national cybercrime helpline 1930 on October 21. Surat Cyber Crime Police later registered an FIR on October 26.
The reported timeline shows how digital arrest frauds can depend on sustained psychological control rather than a single convincing phone call.
For weeks, a victim can be kept inside a closed information environment in which the same criminals act as police officers, investigators and financial authorities. Fake documents then reinforce what the callers are saying.
Instructions to maintain secrecy are particularly important to the fraud.
If victims are prevented from speaking to children, relatives, bank employees or local police, there is less chance that an outsider will question the supposed investigation.
Digital Arrest Can Turn Into Asset Depletion
There is no legal procedure called a “digital arrest” in which a person is kept under investigation over WhatsApp or video calls and ordered to transfer money for verification.
The Surat case demonstrates why the term can understate the financial damage involved.
What begins as fear of arrest can develop into systematic extraction of a victim’s wealth. Criminals may first identify available cash, then deposits, investments, jewellery and access to credit.
For families, the consequences can continue long after the calls stop.
A victim who transfers savings loses accumulated wealth immediately. A victim who breaks fixed deposits may also lose future returns. Someone induced to take a gold loan can be left with repayment obligations and the possibility of losing pledged jewellery if the debt cannot be cleared.
The woman’s complaint therefore illustrates a more damaging stage of the digital-arrest model: fraudsters allegedly did not stop when the money in her accounts ran out. They converted family gold into borrowed cash and continued extracting funds.
Police are now tracing the recipient accounts and other digital evidence to identify the people behind the operation and determine where the ₹73 lakh ultimately moved.
