It’s true a bank cannot be held responsible for every fraudulent transaction passing through its systems. Cybercriminals are constantly evolving their methods and financial institutions process millions of transactions every day. But repeated use of the same accounts for suspected criminal activity, particularly where there are obvious inconsistencies in account activity, should invite scrutiny.
Delhi Police has specialised units dealing with cybercrime and financial fraud. These units have undoubtedly achieved successes in tracing digital footprints and apprehending members of organised fraud networks. Yet the scale of the problem suggests that the current strategy needs to evolve.
Breaking the bridges used by fraudsters cannot mean merely arresting the people standing at the end of the bridge. The financial bridges themselves have to be dismantled. If a particular bank account repeatedly appears in cyber fraud investigations, as in the Dwarka case, investigators should be asking not only who operated the account but also how it was opened, who conducted the KYC verification, what transaction alerts were generated, whether those alerts were acted upon and whether the account had previously been associated with suspicious activity.
These initiatives do not mean banks should be treated as accomplices by default. It means that banks must become an integral part of the investigative architecture against cybercrime rather than merely the custodians of accounts through which the crime occurs.
The fight against cyber fraud cannot be won by issuing repeated public advisories asking citizens not to share OTPs or transfer money to strangers. Prevention requires disrupting the financial infrastructure of fraud. The Delhi Police now needs to answer a fundamental as to why are the financial bridges that enable these frauds still standing?
Sidharth Mishra
Author and president, Centre for Reforms, Development & Justice
Click Here For The Original Source.
