Cyber crime is 'digital dacoity', says Supreme Court, refusing to club 35 cases

The Supreme Court of India on Wednesday, October 28, 2026, described cyber crime as "digital dacoity" and refused to bring together more than 30 criminal cases pending in 12 states against two people accused of letting their company's bank account be used as a "mule" account for cyber fraud. A bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana said the accused's wish to have all the cases heard in one place could not override the rights of the victims and the investigating agencies. "Digital arrests and such cyber offences are digital dacoity," the bench said, adding that there was "no question of giving any judicial forum to such persons." The petitioners then withdrew their plea.

Cyber fraud in India often follows a pattern. A victim is contacted by someone pretending to be a police officer, a customs official or a bank employee. In the case of "digital arrest" scams, the victim is told on a video call that they are under investigation and must stay on camera and pay money to clear their name. The money is then passed quickly through several bank accounts, known as mule accounts, so that it becomes hard to trace. People who open or lend such accounts are a key link in the chain, even if they never speak to a victim.

Because victims are spread across the country, one set of accused can face dozens of cases in many states. Accused people sometimes ask the Supreme Court to move all the cases to one court, arguing that it is unfair to make them defend themselves in many places. Courts have granted such requests in some situations. This bench drew a clear line for cyber fraud: the burden of travel and delay should not be shifted onto victims, many of whom have already lost savings.

The court's language is also a signal. Calling cyber crime "dacoity", an old legal word for robbery by a gang, puts these offences on the same footing as violent organised theft. That tells lower courts, police and banks that the Supreme Court sees online fraud as a serious crime, not a minor technical offence.

For technology companies, banks and payment apps, the ruling adds to pressure to spot and shut mule accounts quickly. A firm line from the courts on mule account holders strengthens the case for tighter checks when accounts are opened and used.

Short-term: The two accused must face the cases in the states where they were filed. Victims in those states can pursue their complaints without travelling to another city.

Long-term: The approach may guide how courts handle similar requests from people accused in multi-state cyber fraud, and could discourage people from lending their bank accounts to fraudsters. The November 10 hearing may bring national data on digital arrest cases.

Who is affected: Victims of online fraud and digital arrest scams, people tempted to rent out bank accounts, police cyber cells in many states, banks and payment companies, and anyone using digital payments in India.

Questions and Answers