Overview of the Case
A Mumbai woman has fallen victim to a sophisticated digital arrest scam that used the name of a prominent judge and a familiar law enforcement persona. The complainant, Dhanalakshmi Satyanarayana Rao Naidu, reported that she was deceived into transferring ₹3.71 crore after receiving a sequence of threatening and convincing phone calls and messages. The incident, which has now been documented in an FIR, illustrates how criminal networks adapt to digital communication channels and exploit public trust in the judiciary.
How the Scam Unfolded
According to the FIR, the scheme began with a caller presenting himself as a connection to Colaba Police Station, and later using the name of Judge Chandrachud to lend credibility to the arrest narrative. The complainant was told that there were imminent legal actions and that cooperation with the “Officer-in-Charge” would prevent a harsher outcome. Over a period of days, the fraudsters maintained a steady stream of reassurance, often citing specific procedural steps and “corrective” instructions to extract money from the victim.
In many digital arrest scams, the ruse involves convincing the target that a warrant, or an emergency legal action, is imminent. The caller may request the victim to stay on the line, provide details, and then ask for payment to “avoid arrest” or to “move matters to a peaceful resolution.” In this case, the insistence on urgent compliance and the use of a high-profile judge’s name likely amplified the victim’s fear and diminished skepticism.
Why This Scam Works
Criminals exploit several psychological triggers: fear of legal trouble, trust in the judiciary, and the perceived authority of law enforcement. They also leverage fear of arrest as a powerful motivator. In the age of instant messaging and voice calls, scammers can fornicate a sense of legitimacy by echoing official jargon, providing partial case details, or redirecting victims to supposedly secure channels for payment. The use of a recognizable figure—here, “Judge Chandrachud”—can significantly lower the guard of even cautious individuals.
The Financial and Emotional Toll
₹3.71 crore represents a substantial loss, likely spanning multiple transactions and payment methods. Beyond the financial impact, the emotional strain of facing potential legal action, embarrassment, and the difficulty of reversing digital transfers compounds the victim’s distress. Authorities note that refunds are not always guaranteed and that early reporting increases the odds of tracing and recovering funds, though recoveries depend on the criminal network’s disposition and the speed of action.
What Authorities and Investigators Advise
Experts recommend several practical steps to prevent falling prey to digital arrest scams and similar frauds:
- Always verify through official channels. If a caller claims to be a police officer or a judge, end the call and contact the relevant police hotline or a local station directly to confirm the authenticity of the request.
- Avoid sharing sensitive information. Do not disclose personal data, bank details, or OTPs to unsolicited callers or messages, regardless of how official they may sound.
- Beware of urgency. Scammers create a false sense of immediacy. Take your time to verify all statements before taking any action, especially financial transactions.
- Use secure payment methods and documented channels. If a payment is requested, insist on formal, traceable channels and obtain a receipt or reference number.
- Report suspicious activity promptly. Contact local police, cybercrime units, or your bank to flag fraud attempts and seek guidance on halting or reversing transactions.
What This Means for the Public
The Mumbai incident is a reminder that digital fraud is evolving. Criminals are increasingly using the veneer of authority, legal language, and familiar names to press victims into compliance. Public awareness campaigns and routine verification steps are key defenses. Consumers should treat any unexpected legal demand with skepticism and verify through official, independent sources rather than relying on information supplied in an unsolicited call or message.
Preventive Measures for Everyone
To strengthen personal protection against digital arrest scams and related frauds, individuals can adopt a few routine safeguards: maintaining updated contact lists for official numbers, enabling two-factor authentication on financial apps, reviewing bank transaction alerts, and educating family members—especially elderly relatives—about common fraud patterns. Financial institutions and law enforcement agencies continue to warn that scammers are persistent and inventive, but vigilance combined with prompt reporting can limit losses and help bring perpetrators to justice.
Conclusion
The Mumbai case underscores the necessity of critical scrutiny of any arrest-related alert, especially when it arrives via phone, text, or social media. While the judiciary remains a symbol of trust, the authenticity of such calls must be independently verified. Victims should seek help from official channels, and communities must stay informed about the latest fraud tactics to protect themselves and their finances.
