Digital Arrest Meaning with Real Incident

Real Incident of digital arrest with Richa Mishra, a Senior Assistant Editor at AajTak.in

Digital arrest is a scam in which cyber criminals falsely claim to have the authority to arrest an individual through digital means, often over the phone or via online channels. It is a deceptive tactic used to intimidate and extort money from victims. There is no legal basis for digital arrests anywhere. It is a scam used by cyber criminals to exploit people’s fear and ignorance. If you receive a call or message claiming to be from a law enforcement agency and threatening to arrest you, it is likely a scam. Do not provide any personal information or money to the caller. Instead, hang up the phone and report the incident to the police.

Recently, I heard about this type of scam in various social media platform and picked up the details conversation of Richa Mishra, a Senior Assistant Editor at AajTak.in, so that you can understand the whole process in details.

On October 5th, at 12:15 p.m., Richa Mishra, a Senior Assistant Editor at AajTak.in received a phone call during a relatively quiet Saturday afternoon. Expecting few calls, they answered the incoming call. The call was an Interactive Voice Response (IVR) system offering options related to courier information. Believing it to be an update on recent orders, the individual pressed “1” without waiting for all the options to finish. Following this, a representative named Karan Verma came on the line, claiming to be from FedEx Courier Company.

Richa clarified that they did not recall ordering anything from FedEx, to which Karan responded that he would check the tracking details, as their number had come through in connection with a shipment. After a brief hold, Karan returned, stating that records indicated the individual was the sender of a courier. She insisted that they had not sent anything. Karan then mentioned that the shipment contained sensitive items and that the individual’s Aadhaar number had been verified with the shipment. When the Richa requested Karan to confirm their Aadhaar number, he provided it correctly, which led them to believe the call was legitimate. Karan continued to inform the individual that the package had been sent from Mumbai to Taiwan. Richa denied sending any courier to Taiwan and stated they did not have a residence in Mumbai. Karan maintained that the individual’s address was listed in Mumbai along with the recipient’s details in Taiwan. Frustrated, Richa raised their voice and reiterated their lack of connection to the shipment. Karan suggested that the individual’s Aadhaar card may have been misused, noting that such cases were not uncommon. The individual expressed skepticism but was interrupted by Karan’s analogy about a car accident involving an owner who was not driving. Karan explained that, similar to a vehicle’s registration being linked to its owner, the individual’s Aadhaar number was linked to the courier, which is how their phone number was obtained.

Richa, seeking clarification on their situation, asked the FedEx representative what actions they should take next. The representative, Karan Verma, reassured the individual that there was nothing to worry about and that a beep would signal a recording of their statement for future reference to cancel the purported courier order. The individual acknowledged this information, expressing approval. However, Karan then informed the individual that they would need to report the situation to the Mumbai Police due to several items being seized at Mumbai Airport, associated with the package in question. The individual inquired about the nature of these items and the necessity of contacting the police, expressing unfamiliarity with Mumbai Police’s contact details. Karan assured the individual that they would facilitate the transfer to the police. Before transferring the call, Karan insisted that the individual document specific details regarding the alleged contents of the courier, including various items such as credit cards, passports, clothing, an HP laptop, and a significant quantity of MDMA, which Karan described as an illegal drug in India. The individual was taken aback and sought clarification about MDMA. Karan explained the gravity of the situation, warning that possession of such a substance could lead to severe legal consequences, including imprisonment. He urged the individual to cooperate with the police to avoid future complications related to their Aadhaar number.

Upon being transferred to a person claiming to be Vinay Kumar Chaudhary from the Mumbai Police, the individual explained the circumstances of the call, emphasizing that they were only speaking to the police due to the transfer from FedEx. They reiterated their complete lack of involvement with the mentioned items or anyone in Taiwan. The individual’s tone shifted from confrontational to respectful, as they pleaded for assistance in light of the serious allegations. Vinay Kumar Chaudhary responded that the police would verify the individual’s Aadhaar number in their tracking system but requested the individual to hold the line. Initially, the officer’s demeanor was courteous and supportive. However, upon returning, Vinay accused Richa of being involved in a drug trafficking operation, questioning their credibility and implying that they were lying about their innocence.

Richa felt increasingly threatened by the tone of the conversation, which turned accusatory, and they were bombarded with accusations of drug dealing. They were informed that their Aadhaar number had been forwarded to various departments for further investigation, which included a review of their criminal record.

In response, she insisted that they had no criminal history and worked for a reputable organization, requesting verification of their background. Despite the individual’s reassurances, Vinay maintained a confrontational stance, demanding that they provide a statement and expressing skepticism regarding their claims of innocence. The encounter left the individual feeling distressed and cornered, fearing the potential legal ramifications of the situation they had been drawn into.

Richa , feeling the pressure of the situation, addressed Vinay Kumar Chaudhary by questioning the validity of the accusations against them. They offered to undergo tests to demonstrate their innocence and inquired whether they should come to Mumbai or contact the Noida Police to assist in the investigation. Vinay insisted that the individual’s recorded statement should be taken immediately, as the call regarding the courier was still ongoing. By this time, nearly 30 minutes had elapsed, and Richa was increasingly anxious, seeking to clarify their position as they felt as though they might become ensnared in the investigation, similar to the distress experienced when losing a wallet.

Vinay then drew a parallel, asking if she had ever lost their wallet. When Richa recounted losing their wallet two years prior on the Delhi Metro and explained that they had filed a First Information Report (FIR) for documentation, Vinay echoed that filing an FIR was necessary to prevent misuse of personal items. He suggested that the individual needed to remain cautious if they were involved in a significant drug operation. The individual countered Vinay’s assertion, questioning the nature of the investigation if they were already presumed guilty.

This response led to Vinay raising his voice and using aggressive language. Feeling overwhelmed, Richa requested to simply have their statement recorded and conclude the conversation, expressing their willingness to cooperate with any further inquiries. Vinay informed the individual that their statement would be recorded via video call, and the individual suggested using Zoom, which they were familiar with from office meetings. Vinay insisted on using Skype instead. When the individual mentioned they did not have Skype on their phone, Vinay directed them to download it, insisting that they should know how to use it given their work shifts.

Richa felt a sense of unease at how much information Vinay seemed to possess about their daily routine. After downloading Skype, she was instructed to search for “Mumbai Police 911.” They expressed confusion regarding the use of “911” in India, to which Vinay responded dismissively, urging them to follow instructions due to an extensive record they had compiled about the individual. Once on Skype, Richa found multiple profiles matching the search term. Vinay persistently questioned whether the individual understood English, to which they confirmed their comprehension while continuing to communicate in Hindi. Vinay then prepared her for the recording, instructing them to disconnect the current call.

Now, Richa expressed concern about maintaining the call if they turned off mobile data, but Vinay insisted that the call could continue via Wi-Fi. Following further instructions, Vinay directed the individual to put their phone in flight mode to prevent interruptions during the recording, emphasizing that any incoming calls would invalidate their statement and result in an investigation against them.

Agreeing to comply, the individual assured Vinay they would follow his directions and confirmed they were at home. However, Vinay demanded to see the entire room via video call to verify that the individual was alone. Richa complied, showing their surroundings, including a complete 360-degree view of the room. The interactions during this call reflect a highly coercive and manipulative dynamic, with the individual feeling increasingly trapped and vulnerable under the weight of false allegations and the pressure to comply with unreasonable demands.

She recounted how the caller had initially noticed an open door and commented on it. When she explained that the main door was closed and the other was only open for cross ventilation, he insisted that she should close it. She agreed to do so. He then requested her to close the curtains, to which she also complied. After that, he asked her to show him the entire room again. When she acknowledged his request, he instructed her to hold the call for two minutes while he consulted with his senior. He informed her that her video call would be off during this time but required her to keep saying, “I’m here, sir,” every ten seconds to ensure that she was not bringing in a third person. She confirmed that she could do this and began to count. After two minutes, he returned and another voice from the control room made an announcement about her Aadhaar card, mentioning that an arrest warrant had already been issued in her name. He inquired if she could hear what was being said, to which she replied affirmatively. The voice mentioned that she was involved in a significant racket and money laundering scheme.

Richa protested, stating that she didn’t have enough money to be involved in such activities. The caller pressed her for details, asking how much cash and gold she had at home, and what bank accounts she held.

She responded that she had an account with the Bank of Baroda, but insisted that she had never opened one.

fake passbook to threat
fake passbook to threat

He claimed they were already conducting an investigation during the call and numerous records were surfacing about her. She expressed her concern that her Aadhaar number might have been misused, revealing that she had just discovered this through FedEx that day and pleaded for help regarding which cases her Aadhaar was involved in. The caller reassured her that they were investigating.

Then, a third person from the control room introduced themselves without revealing their name. This individual stated that they needed to act against her due to a money laundering case worth 275 crores, involving a man named Punjabi Syed, a woman named Hina Khan, and two others.

fake documents produced to threat in digital arrest
fake documents produced to threat in digital arrest

They mentioned that a document containing a bank statement from Bank of Baroda had been sent via Skype, which implicated her in a racket alongside Hina Khan and Punjabi Syed. She was subjected to intense questioning, where they pressured her to confess to being involved in these activities, insisting she had voluntarily provided her Aadhaar and frequently traveled to Mumbai. She responded by asking them to check her travel records, emphasizing that if she ever traveled, it was by train or air, and reiterated that they should verify that information. The conversation escalated as they used abusive language, leaving her feeling broken. Overwhelmed with fear, she begged them not to torture her any further and insisted she was telling the truth.

When they presented her with a picture of Hina Khan and accused her of knowing the woman, she challenged them, asking how she could look like someone else. The individuals on the call insisted that this scam was vast and involved covert government investigations. By the end of the two-hour call, she felt cornered and was convinced by them to provide a statement, acknowledging that her conversation had been recorded. They claimed that a larger scam involving 2,075 crores was at play, and various police officers were implicated. She tried to clarify her innocence, insisting she had never held an account with Bank of Baroda and suggested they contact the branch manager for verification. They dismissed her claims, asserting that her name was linked to an account and that 300 copies of the passbook could easily be produced. In an attempt to escape the situation, she attempted to grasp what they meant by keeping it a “national secret,” to which they explained that she must not disclose anything about the ongoing investigation.

1*IVDu2IU8I Y7 v6OEH2INg

They warned her that sharing information could lead to a two-year sentence and a penalty.

They informed her that they were tracking her activities and that her calls would be recorded for the next seven days. She was instructed to report her activities every two hours and was shown how to send a message via Skype. They questioned her regarding a stolen wallet and her past usage of her Aadhaar, criticizing her for sharing it so easily. As the conversation progressed, they limited her account access to a specific amount for withdrawals and mandated that all transactions must be documented and sent to them. As she communicated her worries about the serious implications of the money laundering case, she felt utterly overwhelmed. After two hours of being interrogated, they reiterated her status as a suspect and warned her that her family was also under surveillance. They mentioned their knowledge of her personal life, which deepened her sense of dread. At her lowest point, she contemplated extreme measures, fearing the repercussions of being implicated in drug-related offenses. Struggling with her thoughts, she wrote down her feelings, recognizing the gravity of her situation. When she called back to report a FedEx communication regarding the incident, they reacted harshly, insisting that she was trapped and questioning her sanity. Despite her distress, she attempted to reassure them, explaining that she wasn’t kidnapped but was in a state of panic. They urged her to forget the ordeal and report the matter to cybercrime authorities for assistance, advising her to avoid the scammers. She expressed her fear that her employer would not believe her innocence, fearing her reputation was ruined. Ultimately, she felt utterly hopeless, convinced that her life would never be the same again.

He expressed disbelief at her situation, exclaiming that she was trapped in a scam. He warned her that the callers would soon involve lawyers, describing the entire interaction as an online hearing. She acknowledged that she had read about digital arrests but pleaded with him to remain quiet and not disclose his identity. She emphasized her feeling of being completely ensnared and insisted that she had never used drugs. He then remarked that she had gone crazy, which struck her as odd since such words were never used in their workplace. She responded by pointing out that she found it strange for someone to call her crazy, especially given that such language was typically reserved for home discussions with siblings rather than professional conversations with bosses. She reiterated that there was no one else in her room and that no wires were laid out, affirming her isolation. He continued to explain that she was completely ensnared in a net, making it easy to get caught in such situations. He questioned how she had even picked up the phone in the first place. She recounted how she had received a call from FedEx, during which they had explained the situation to her. He urged her to drink some water and calm down, acknowledging her fear as evident in her voice. He reassured her not to take any rash actions, stating that life was not over. He shared his familiarity with her, mentioning that he had known her for years and that she didn’t even smoke, let alone use drugs. He cautioned her against believing that she could be running a drug racket, noting that it was common for people to sometimes consume alcohol or other substances. He encouraged her to understand that even if she had ever done anything questionable, she was not involved in a racket. He conveyed that the callers could manipulate individuals to a great extent, creating strange scenarios. After their conversation ended, she felt more aware of the situation and its implications.

You can read the original article here ….

 https://www.indiatoday.in/india/story/cyber-fraud-fake-phone-call-unknown-number-digitally-trapped-for-hours-victim-account-2612768-2024-10-07

Leave a Comment