The Supreme Court on Monday declined to entertain a plea seeking centralised directions in relation to alleged cyber fraud investigations and freezing of bank accounts across multiple states.
Senior Advocate Rajiv Shakdher submitted that several cases has been registered in different states in connection with what authorities described as a “Ponzi scheme.” He contended that small-value transactions, sometimes as low as ₹21,000, had resulted in accounts being frozen and multiple investigations being initiated, allegedly without a uniform mechanism.
Arguing that victims and account holders were being subjected to action in multiple jurisdictions, the petitioner sought consolidation of proceedings under a single nodal agency. He referred to the role of the Indian Cyber Crime Coordination Centre (I4C) under the Ministry of Home Affairs and urged the Court to lay down guidelines to prevent hardship arising from what he described as “mule account” situations.
The Bench of Chief Justice of India, Justice Surya Kant,Justice Joymalya Bagchi, however, expressed reservations about issuing broad guidelines in such matters. It noted the scale of cyber fraud complaints across the country, observing that thousands of such complaints are registered daily. Addressing the request for centralisation, the Court remarked:
“The enormity of the crime in number of cases is phenomenal… It is not possible to bring everything under the CBI. So what CBI has said, whenever the fraud, in respect of a particular entity, crosses 100 crores, we are going to take cognizance of it. Otherwise, it would be the state agency. And that has to follow the uniform SOP. This is how we are going about this. Ponzi scheme, more than 100 crores. I can assure you. Ponzi scheme, it has to be under the SEBI guidelines.”
The Bench further observed that investigative responsibility would ordinarily lie with state agencies unless the scale of fraud warranted intervention by a central agency under existing norms. The Bench observed:
“We are not the authority for everything. What can we do? We will not say anything. You can approach any authority you want.”
The Bench indicated that affected persons may approach appropriate authorities in accordance with law. The matter was dismissed as withdrawn, leaving it open to the petitioner to pursue remedies before the competent forums.