The Supreme Courtās expression of shock over educated people falling prey to digital arrest scams reflects the frustration caused by a growing cybercrime menace. But the question is not merely why victims fail to recognise such frauds despite repeated warnings. It is also why criminals continue to operate with such confidence, impersonating police officers, investigating agencies and even judicial authorities. The fear of arrest, social stigma and the pressure exerted through intimidating video calls can overwhelm even well-informed individuals. A woman reportedly lost Rs 2.5 crore in a recent incident, underlining the devastating financial and emotional consequences. Calling victims careless or questioning their intelligence may make for a sharp observation, but it risks overlooking the psychological manipulation at the heart of these crimes.
Digital arrest is a fraud, not a legal process. No police officer, CBI official or court can arrest a person through a mobile phone or demand money to avoid custody. Yet, fraudsters exploit public trust in institutions, use forged documents and create an atmosphere of urgency that prevents victims from seeking help. Awareness campaigns must therefore move beyond general warnings and explain how these scams work, what genuine law-enforcement procedures involve and where suspicious claims can be verified. Equally important is the responsibility of banks. The Supreme Court’s suggestion that banks should compensate victims when fraud results from a failure of due diligence is significant. Unusual, high-value transactions, particularly those inconsistent with an account holder’s normal pattern, should trigger immediate scrutiny and verification. Prevention must take precedence over action after the money has disappeared.
The fight against digital arrest scams cannot be left to individual vigilance alone. It requires coordinated action by banks, the RBI, law-enforcement agencies, telecom operators and digital platforms. Stronger transaction-monitoring systems, quick freezing of suspicious transfers, accountability for institutional lapses and swift investigation of organised fraud networks are essential. The Attorney General has told the court that complaints have declined following its intervention and that regulatory measures are being worked out. These efforts must translate into enforceable safeguards without delay. Citizens must remain alert and refuse to obey threats made over phone or video calls, but the burden of stopping sophisticated criminal networks cannot be placed entirely on those they target. Victims need support and protection, while the institutions entrusted with their safety must be made accountable.