When Lien Amount Will Be Credited to My Bank Account in Cyber Crime Cases

In the unfortunate event of a cybercrime, understanding the intricacies of financial recovery can be crucial for affected individuals. One such aspect is the lien amount — funds that are temporarily frozen or withheld from your bank account due to suspicion of fraudulent activity. The process of crediting these funds back into your account is often mired in legal and procedural complexities, leading to delays and, in some cases, permanent loss.

Investigation Period

Typically, once a lien is placed on your account, the amount in question is held until the conclusion of the investigation. Law enforcement agencies, often in collaboration with financial institutions, undertake thorough investigations to ascertain the legitimacy of the transactions flagged. This period can vary significantly depending on the complexity of the case, the responsiveness of the involved parties, and the jurisdiction under which the crime falls. Generally, it could range from a few weeks to several months.

Below is one of the court order in which the applicants account got frozen by cyber police station, Gurgaon and I personally went to court against the police officers action to remove hold on his bank account.

and court ordered bank manager to unfreeze the bank account immediately, here below is the copy of the order

How to Remove Lien From Bank Account - Cyber Crime

Picture this:

you’re a seller, and a buyer approaches you on a P2P marketplace. The buyer transfers money to your bank account, and in return, you release your crypto. Seems straightforward, right?

But here’s the twist—the buyer is a stranger, an enigma lurking in the digital shadows. You have no inkling of their intentions or background. Now, let’s delve into the cryptic underbelly of P2P transactions:

The Innocent Exchange

1. Scenario: You decide to sell $800 worth of USDT and connect with a seller named Suraj.
2. The Deal: Suraj transfers $800 to your bank account, and you release your crypto.
3. The Catch: You don’t know Suraj. Is he a regular trader or a digital outlaw?

Behind the Scenes: The Scammer’s Web

Suraj's Ruse:

• Suraj is a lottery ticket scammer.
• He dupes Radhika, claiming she won $200K.
• To claim her winnings, Radhika must transfer $800 to a bank account.

The Impersonation Game:

• Suraj has access to your bank details via P2P.
• He impersonates you, providing your bank information to Radhika.

The Unwitting Facilitator:

• Radhika transfers money to your bank account.
• You, innocently unaware, receive the funds.
• Following protocol, you transfer the $800 USDT to Suraj.

The Cyber Cell’s Intervention

The Freeze:

• Days later, your bank account is frozen.
• The cyber cell suspects your involvement in illegal activities.
• Panic sets in—what’s your recourse?

The Reality Check:

• You’re not part of any gang; you’re an unwitting pawn.
• The P2P transaction led you into a web of deception.

Decentralized Exchanges and Vigilance

Common Occurrence:

• Decentralized exchanges like KuCoin witness such scenarios.
• Scammers exploit P2P channels for financial crimes.

Protective Measures:

• Educate yourself.
• Verify counterparties.
• Report suspicious activity.

What is the Final situation

• You got the money.
• Suraj got the crypto.

What did Radhika get?

• She got cheated.
• She files an online fraud complaint to the cyber cell, and boom!
• Your bank A/C is now frozen.
• Now you have to prove your innocence; but the reality is that Suraj scammed you and Radhika.

There have been a lot of such cases recently.

How to Remove Lien From Bank Account - Cyber Crime

First of All if your Account is Frozen by police due to any cyber crime complaint, then their is no need to panic if you haven't done anything wrong.

If your bank account has been frozen due to suspected cyber crime, here are some steps you can take:

1. Contact your bank: Reach out to your bank’s customer service department or visit your local branch to understand the exact reason for the account freeze. This will help you in understanding in which state/city FIR is registered.
2. Consult with Lawyer: The very basic and important step to start is talk to Cyber Crime Lawyer / advocate. You should not hesitate in paying his consultation fee i.e. might be in range of Rs. 3,000 to 5,000. He is helping you in this situation of come out. He is expert in the domain and can help you explain which documents to give to Police and which not. A Good lawyer can get your account unhold amount or bank account in 7-10 Days.
3. Cooperate with the Investigation: This is the most crucial step. Respond promptly to requests from law enforcement and provide all requested information. Demonstrating cooperation shows your willingness to assist the investigation. But i highly suggest to talk to lawyer before talking to Police, because police officer will call you to their police station to give some document and give statement, But later when you will reach police station will threaten to arrest you, Which will be complex situation to handle.
4. Contact the Investigating Officer (IO): The IO assigned to your case is your primary point of contact. Schedule a meeting or phone call to discuss the details and clarify any misunderstandings. Explain the inconvenience caused by the freeze and your desire for a swift resolution. But i highly suggest to talk to lawyer before talking to Police, reason already explain earlier
5. Gather Evidence of Legitimate Activity (if applicable): If you believe your account activity was legitimate, gather evidence like receipts, transaction details, or emails to support your claim. This can help convince authorities that your account shouldn't remain frozen.
6. File a petition or representation: Depending on your situation and legal advice, you may need to file a petition or representation with the appropriate court or authority to challenge the account freeze and seek relief.
7. Before the Investigating Authority: Section 102 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) has been amended to allow the investigating authority to make a decision about whether to return seized property, including frozen bank accounts, during an investigation.
8. Before the Magistrate: If the Investigating Authority does not provide relief, parties can approach the relevant Magistrate under either Section 451 or Section 457 of the CrPC.

Factors Influencing the Investigation Duration

1. Complexity of the Case: Cybercrime cases can be intricate, involving multiple layers of transactions, cross-border elements, and sophisticated hacking techniques. The more complex the case, the longer the investigation.

2. Cooperation Between Agencies: The speed at which different law enforcement and financial institutions share information can impact the investigation timeline. International cases, in particular, may face delays due to differing legal frameworks and cooperation levels.

3. Volume of Incidents: The sheer volume of cybercrime incidents can overwhelm investigating agencies, causing delays in processing individual cases.

4. Availability of Evidence: Gathering sufficient evidence to substantiate claims of fraud can be time-consuming. Digital footprints, transaction logs, and other forensic evidence need meticulous examination.

Crediting the Lien Amount

After the investigation concludes, if it's determined that the transactions were indeed fraudulent, the lien amount should be credited back to your account. Financial institutions typically follow a standard protocol to ensure that rightful owners recover their funds. However, the timeline for this process can still be extended due to internal procedural checks and administrative processes.

Risks of Losing Lien Amount

Despite the procedures in place, there are instances where individuals end up losing their lien amount. Several factors contribute to this unfortunate outcome:

1. Inconclusive Investigations: Sometimes, investigations do not yield conclusive evidence of fraud, leading to prolonged holds or even the release of funds back to perpetrators.

2. Legal Complications: Disputes over jurisdiction, legal interpretations, and procedural errors can delay or prevent the recovery of funds.

3. Inadequate Follow-up: Victims failing to follow up diligently with both financial institutions and law enforcement agencies may result in their cases falling through the cracks.

4. Lack of Awareness: Many victims are unaware of their rights and the procedures for appealing decisions, leading to a passive acceptance of adverse outcomes.

Mitigating the Risks

1. Prompt Reporting: Report the incident to both your bank and local law enforcement as soon as you notice any suspicious activity.

2. Regular Follow-ups: Stay in regular contact with both your bank and the investigating agencies to remain updated on the status of your case.

3. Document Everything: Keep meticulous records of all communications, transactions, and steps taken during the investigation process.

4. Legal Assistance: Consider seeking legal advice to navigate complex procedural and jurisdictional issues effectively.

While the process of crediting the lien amount in cybercrime cases can be fraught with delays and uncertainties, being proactive and informed can significantly improve your chances of recovering your funds. Understanding the factors at play and actively participating in the investigative process are key to mitigating the risks of permanent loss.

Ambit of Power of Investigating Authorities

To understand the scope of powers that the investigating authorities possess to freeze a bank account, one needs to dive into the source of the power itself. This source can be traced to Section 102 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

The purpose of Section 102 of the CrPC is to secure the property which has been or suspected to be stolen or which has a direct nexus with the commission of a crime from being ‘disposed of’ or ‘destroyed’. Such a measure of seizing property ensures that the court is able to get back the property concerned. Section 102 of the CrPC falls under Chapter VII which deals with the ‘Processes to Compel the Production of Things’. The provision states:

Power of police officer to seize certain property.

1. Any police officer may seize any property which may be alleged or suspected to have been stolen, or which may be found under circumstances which create suspicion of the commission of any offence.
2. Such police officer, if subordinate to the officer in charge of a police station, shall forthwith report the seizure to that officer.
3. Every police officer acting under sub-section (1) shall forthwith report the seizure to the Magistrate having jurisdiction and where the property seized is such that it cannot be conveniently transported to the Court, or where there is difficulty in securing proper accommodation for the custody of such property, or where the continued retention of the property in police custody may not be considered necessary for the purpose of investigation, he may give custody thereof to any person on his executing a bond undertaking to produce the property before the Court as and when required and to give effect to the further orders of the Court as to the disposal of the same:

Provided that where the property seized under sub-section (1) is subject to speedy and natural decay and if the person entitled to the possession of such property is unknown or absent and the value of such property is less than five hundred rupees, it may forthwith be sold by auction under the orders of the Superintendent of Police and the provisions of sections 457 and 458 shall, as nearly as may be practicable, apply to the net proceeds of such sale.

analysis of Section 102 of the CrPC and its related judicial pronouncements:

The phrase ‘any property’ referred in Section 102 of the CrPC will only cover moveable property and excludes immovable property. The use of the terms such as ‘seize’ and ‘produce’ as included in the provision indicate that the phrase ‘any property’ as used under?Section 102 of the CrPC will apply only to moveable property.

The property must have a connection with the commission of a crime.

For the purpose of Section 102 of the CrPC, the property must be either:

a.???? Alleged or suspected to have been stolen; or

b.???? Have a nexus between the property and the commission of the crime.

Bank Accounts Fall Within the Phrase ‘any property’.

When considering the issue of whether ‘bank accounts’ fall within the scope of Section 102 of the CrPC, it was held by the Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra vs. Tapas D. Neogy [2 (1999) 7 SCC 685] that even bank accounts fall within the phrase ‘any property’ under Section 102 of the CrPC and could therefore be frozen by the investigating authorities, if found to have direct links with the commission of an offence.

Therefore, investigating authorities can freeze bank accounts if the deposit in the account is stolen money or the account is connected with an alleged offence which is under investigation.

Further, to invoke Section 102 of the CrPC, particularly to freeze a bank account, there must be a reasonable suspicion of the involvement of the bank account with the commission of a crime. It will be upon the investigating authority to satisfy that there exists sufficient material to show that the amount in the bank account is connected with the alleged offence. The property must not only have a close link to the alleged crime but the officer must have reasonable grounds to believe such a nexus exists.

Freezing of the bank account must be ‘forthwith’ reported to the concerned Magistrate.

The most often contravened condition under Section 102 of the CrPC is the requirement to apprise the Magistrate of the seizure of the property. Section 102(3) of the CrPC clearly mandates that “[e]very police officer acting under sub-section (1) shall forthwith report the seizure to the Magistrate having jurisdiction”. The violation of this mandatory condition is what often allows the courts to direct the de-freezing of bank accounts.

Remedies

Before the Investigating Authority

By way of an amendment,31 Section 102(3) of the CrPC allows the investigating authority to decide whether to return custody of the seized property if it finds that the continued retention of the property is not necessary for the purpose of investigation but conditioned on the person executing a bond undertaking to produce the property before the Court when required.

The Supreme Court in Teesta Atul Setalvad and Ors. vs. The State of Gujarat and Ors., [(2018) 2 SCC 372] clarified that:

“at an appropriate stage or upon completion of the investigation, if the Investigating Officer is satisfied with the explanation offered by the Appellants and is of the opinion that continuance of the seizure of the stated bank accounts or any one of them is not necessary, he will be well advised to issue instruction in that behalf.”

I Personally Don't recommend this way because if you Visit the police station to Join the Investigation or to help police officer by Explaining your Version, First he will not listen to you, he will not be interested to understanding your version, He will treat your as a suspect/ accused. And to get bribe amount he will threaten you to arrest. Their has been many case where my client call and said they have given so and so amount as bribe to Investigation officer but their account is still freeze. So better to choose the right and official way i.e. via Court.

Before the Magistrate

Though such a means as mentioned above exist, parties are often forced to approach the court. In this regard, a remedy available to the parties is to approach the concerned Magistrate under Section 451 or Section 457 of the CrPC. Courts have allowed for de freezing of bank accounts on the direction that the party execute a bond for the concerned amount before the Magistrate and produce such amount if so directed by the Magistrate. Section 457 of the CrPC empowers the Magistrate to deliver the seized property to the entitled person. Even for de-freezing of a bank account an application under Section 457 of the CrPC is maintainable.

Via Court you account can be unfreeze in 10 -15 Days Maximum (Depends upon court to court)

Before the High Court

Another remedy invoked by the parties is the writ jurisdiction of the High Courts on the basis of violation of right to livelihood under Article 21 of the Constitution and/ or the seizure is arbitrary and hence violative of Article 14. Since writ jurisdiction is an extraordinary remedy, the Court may reject such a writ petition on the ground that an effective alternative remedy in the form of a statutory remedy is available under Section 451 and 457 of CrPC and decline interference for non-exhaustion of such remedy.High Courts may find it appropriate to direct the Petitioner to approach the Magistrate under Section 451 or 457 of the CrPC, rather than to hear the matter on merits under a writ jurisdiction.

The provision of Section 102 has a wide compass and is not limited to recoveries during the search alone, nor is it restricted minutely to the cases in regard to cognizable offenses. The bank accounts like any other property is freezable as freezing the account is an act of investigation and this act surely commands and behooves secrecy to preserve the evidence and it does not deprive any person of his liberty. The bank account must be protected from dissemination, depletion or destruction by any mode and it would be absurd if the accused is allowed to operate his bank account or to close or to withdraw or transferred the money from the same bank account which is suspected of having been used for the commission of the offence. For meeting the ends of justice, the discharging of such powers by police on suspicion is necessary but seizure of bank account by police under Section 102 must be backed by suspicion and necessary evidence pointing towards the suspicion during the pendency of investigation.

JUDGEMENTS

1. Superintedent of Police vs Devaki Muthiah on 15 arpil, 2019 (https://indiankanoon.org/doc/156912578/)
2. Superintendent of police vs shera f Irani (https://indiankanoon.org/doc/68939703/)
3. Tmt.T.Subbulakshmi vs The Commissioner Of Police on 30 August, 2013 (https://indiankanoon.org/doc/14883031/)
4. J. Alice Mary vs The Inspector Of Police on 3 July, 2007 (https://indiankanoon.org/doc/28042/)
5. Uma Maheswari vs The State Rep. By on 20 December, 2013 (https://indiankanoon.org/doc/195505126/)

Remember, each case is unique and the resolution will depend on the specific circumstances of your case. It’s always recommended to consult with a legal professional for advice on specific cases.

if your Bank account is frozen then please visit your bank and ask branch manager about reason of Freeze on your account, if it is because of cyber cell then ask him to provide you below mention details

1. Name of the investigation officer
2. Official designation of investigation officer
3. Mobile number of investigation officer
4. Email id of investigation officer
5. Police station address
6. Disputed transaction Id
7. Disputed transaction date
8. Disputed transaction amount
9. And ask them to share notice 91/102 CrPC which they received from police

And if their are multiple agencies who requested to freeze the account information of all such agencies

if he deny any of the information to be given then you can contact me, our team has successfully unfrozen more than 1,50,34,752 /- Rs. from more than 200+ accounts across India with the help of Courts as on date 29th April 2024.

You can also ask for copy of NOTICE U/S 91/102 CRPC INDIA from Bank as sample shown below

Top Cyber Crime Advocate in Delhi