ED: Attaches Rs 2.12 crore in digital-arrest fraud case

The Enforcement Directorate (ED) said in a press release dated 7 October 2026 that its Guwahati Zonal Office-I had provisionally attached approximately Rs 2.12 crore across 43 bank accounts in a digital-arrest fraud case. The agency alleged that a senior citizen in Guwahati was coerced into transferring approximately Rs 2.13 crore after callers impersonated government officials and threatened him with detention.^[1]

The attachment was made under Section 5(1) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), 2002. ED said it identified accounts through which the alleged proceeds had passed and attached the remaining balances to prevent the money from being moved or spent. Its announcement concerns an enforcement action following alleged fraud between September and December 2025, not a fraud newly committed in October 2026.^[1]

Attachment is a restriction on dealing with property. Section 2(1)(d) of the PMLA defines it as an order prohibiting the transfer, conversion, disposal or movement of property. The action announced by ED therefore concerns preserving bank balances; it does not establish that the senior citizen has received his money back.^[2][1]

Fabricated proceedings and demands for money

ED said its investigation began with a First Information Report (FIR), the police record initiating the case, registered against unidentified cyber fraudsters by the Cyber Police Station, CID, Assam, Guwahati. The police case invoked provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and the Information Technology Act, 2000. The release did not identify the specific sections invoked in that FIR.^[1]

According to the agency, the callers posed as officials of TRAI, the Mumbai Crime Branch and the CBI. They allegedly told the senior citizen that a bank account opened using his Aadhaar details had been involved in money laundering. That accusation was part of the deception described by ED, not an allegation by the agency against the senior citizen.^[1]

The callers allegedly used WhatsApp video calls to impose a so-called “digital arrest”. ED said they showed fabricated court proceedings and a fake warrant, required the man to report his presence every two hours, and threatened detention under the National Security Act if he told anyone about the matter.^[1]

The demands for money were presented first as an “RBI inspection” of his family’s funds and later as a fake “bail bond”, the agency said. Neither description represented a genuine official process in ED’s account: both were alleged pretexts for directing payments into accounts chosen by the fraudsters.^[1]

ED alleged that the senior citizen made 19 transfers totalling approximately Rs 2.13 crore. To arrange the payments, he liquidated fixed deposits, mutual funds and shares, and borrowed against his pension account and insurance policies. The agency’s account thus describes both the disposal of investments and additional borrowing to meet the callers’ demands.^[1]

How ED says the funds were moved

The agency said the payments first entered “mule” accounts – accounts allegedly used to receive and pass on the fraud proceeds. The money was then quickly divided and routed through further accounts belonging to individuals, firms and companies across the country.^[1]

According to ED, subsequent transactions included cash withdrawals, conversion into digital currency, transfers to payment gateways and onward transfers to other accounts. It alleged that these movements were intended to obscure the money trail. The release did not give a breakdown of the amounts moved through each route or identify the digital currencies involved.^[1]

Investigators also found that transactions were inconsistent with the account holders’ declared profiles, ED said. The agency treated that mismatch as an indication of an organised mule-account network operated by the alleged fraud syndicate. This is the agency’s investigative assessment, rather than a court finding about the account holders.^[1]

ED described the attached balances as alleged proceeds of crime or property representing their value. The approximately Rs 2.12 crore attached and the approximately Rs 2.13 crore allegedly transferred are separate figures: one measures the balances restrained by the agency, while the other describes the payments attributed to the victim.^[1]

Official advisory distinguishes the scam from arrest

The Indian Cyber Crime Coordination Centre (I4C), in an advisory dated 6 March 2025, stated that Indian law recognises no concept of digital arrest. It described scams in which people impersonate police or other authorities, make false accusations and keep victims on video calls while demanding money.^[3]

The advisory identified allegations involving misuse of Aadhaar details and money laundering among the intimidation tactics. It also described fake police-station settings intended to make callers appear credible. These are general patterns documented by I4C; they do not establish additional facts about the Guwahati case beyond those reported by ED.^[3]

I4C’s advisory urged people receiving such demands to verify the caller’s identity directly with police and speak with relatives or friends before transferring funds. It identified the National Cyber Crime Reporting Portal and helpline 1930 as channels for reporting cyber fraud.^[3]

In the Guwahati case, ED’s 7 October release did not name suspects or account holders, report arrests, or announce any repayment to the senior citizen. The agency said further investigation was in progress.^[1]

References

1. Enforcement Directorate. Press Release. 7 October 2026.
2. India Code. The Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002.
3. Indian Cyber Crime Coordination Centre. “Digital Arrest” Scam. Advisory TAU/ADV/003. 6 March 2025.