Indian woman, considering millions in “digital arrest” looking for answers from banks

Anjali nightmare began with a phone call, which would cost her 58.5 million rupees ($ 663 390).

The subscriber claimed that he came from the courier company, claiming that Mumbai’s customs officer had seized the addiction she had sent to Beijing.

Angely, a resident of Gurramu, the suburb of the Indian capital Delhi, became prey to Affer “digital arrest” – The fraudsters who act as law enforcement officers and threaten her life in prison and hurt her son if she did not obey.

For five painful days in September last year, they retained her under 24/7 Skype observation, scared her threats and made her eliminate her savings and transfer money.

“After that, my brain stopped working. My mind closed,” she says.

As long as the calls stopped, Angel was broken – her confidence collapsed, her happiness disappeared.

Her business is far from unique.

Government data Shows that the Indians lost millions of dollars for “digital arrests”, reporting cases that are almost three times up to 123,000 between 2022 and 2024.

The scam became so confused that the government turned to the full -page advertising, radio and television companies and even a pre -warning. Officials say they have blocked almost 4,000 Skype IDs and over 83,000 WhatsApp records related to fraud.

Angely spent the last year, changing between the police and the courts, tracing the mark of his missing money and the petitions – including the Prime Minister – for help.

Victims say stunning scams, weak bank guarantees and poor recovery are subject to normative gaps in the country where digital banking has exceeded cybercrime checks that are included in the classes.

Anjali says that tracing their cash paths, which failed at all levels of the best banks of India.

She told the BBC that rushed to the HDFC Bank department – the largest private lender in India – September 4, 2024, under the video surveillance of the fraudsters, transferring 28 million rupees that day and another 30 m.

She claims that the bank did not find red flags or announced anomalous operations, although the amounts that it transferred is 200 times more than its usual removal scheme.

She wonders why her premium record did not attract any call from the head of the relationship and why the bank could not indicate such large -scale debit.

“Should the translation size I have made for three days are not enough to increase suspicion and even prevent a crime?” Angely asks, noting that if a credit card spends 50,000 rupees, starting a call for checking why not multimillion -dollar removal from savings accounts.

In Angel’s e-mail, the BBC saw HDFC called its allegations “groundless” and said the fraud incident was reported to the bank after a two or three delay. It adds that the transactions were allowed by the bank on its instructions so that its officials are not guilty.

Ambudsman in India closed a complaint against HDFC, citing a 2017 rule, which causes customers like anjali, carries complete loss when fraud is considered a mistake.

HDFC Bank did not answer BBC questions.

When we met Anjali, she showed us a huge schedule she raised from how her money traveled from one shore to another.

He showed that the funds for the first time moved from HDFC to the account “Mr. Piush” in ICICI Bank, also one of India’s largest private creditors.

The police investigation of the monetary trail showed that the account of Mr. Nan Piyush barely had a balance for several thousand rupees before transfer.

Anjali asks why ICICI allowed a few fund translations to account “if such sudden large deposits should ideally cause automated transaction monitoring systems in accordance with banks’ commitments against money laundering.”

She also wonders how the bank allowed the rapid outflow of the money from the Mr. Piyush’s account without temporarily freezing it or not knowing your customer check (KYC).

While ICICI filed a complaint against Mr. Piyush, who was briefly arrested, and then fired on his own recognizance – Angel said that the delay of freezing his account was very expensive for her.

The BBC statement, ICICI said that when opening an account, they performed all the “prescribed customer”, and yet controversial operations did not show suspicious activity. It states that “any insinuitation that the bank has failed in proper intelligence is completely unreasonable.”

The bank said he froze the account immediately after the complaint of Anjali and helped her file the police case and trace the owner of the mule.

The Ombudsman also closed the complaint against the ICICI, saying that the bank complied with KYC rules when opening the Mr. Piyush, and that he could not predict what he would be used for what was described, were false actions.

Police found that within four minutes after reaching the ICICI, most of its money was sent to 11 accounts in Sree Padmavathi Cooperative Bank, a branch of the Federal Bank in Hyderabad.

They found that eight of the 11 addresses were fictitious, and accounts’ owners could not be traced.

Their KYC documents were also unavailable in the bank. The other three accounts were the driver of Ricks, a widow engaged in expanding work in a small city city and a carpenter.

Police found that apart from one, the owners of the accounts did not know about the large sums passing through their accounts.

In May, police detained the former director of the Cooperative Bank Samuraza Venkoteswar – he remains in jail, and the court rejected the petition three times.

The police report claims that many of these accounts were opened at the will of Venkateswar and were essentially mules – open in other people’s names, but are sold to criminals who manage them for money laundering.

Neither federal bank nor Sree Padmavathi Bank responded to a detailed BBC questionnaire.

More than a year after the loss of money in January, Anjali and others appealed to the Supreme Consumer Court of India, which acknowledged his complaint against the “deficit” by banks. Banks must respond with a hearing that should be in November.

As such scams become more complex, there grows discussion Throughout the world who ultimately pay for financial fraud – and what liability banks, financial institutions and regulators carry.

Last October Britain tightened rules Around the responsibility of payment service providers, requiring them to cover customers, banning exceptions that fall victim to some types of financial fraud.

“Banks are obliged to take care of customers. If the bank is watching any activity on an account that contradicts its general transaction sample, it must stop this transaction,” said Mahendra Limay, a lawyer who is fighting a dozen victims of digital arrest, including Angel, BBC.

He accuses banks of the indirect “lifting of financial suicide” complainers, opening money that does not fulfill the responsibilities of constant care of customers and the duty to retain and defend their money.

But so far, Anjali turned out to be elusive – she managed to cure only 10 m 58 million rupee, which she lost from fraud. And Mr -n Limaye says there will probably be a protracted fight.

To add salt to her wounds, says Anjali, it is forced to pay taxes on the money stolen from it.

Investments are redeemed by capital gains, even if they are lost by fraudsters. She now asks for release from such taxation.

“To date, there is no recognition of such crimes in the income tax, it connects the financial misfortune of the victims,” ​​she says.

*The real name of the victim was changed to protect her identity.

Keep up the BBC News India Instagram. YouTube, X and Facebook is Facebook at Facebook..