CBI Court Transfers Rs 3.8 Crore Cyberfraud Case After Bank Denies Sanction
In a significant legal development, a special CBI court in Mumbai has transferred a high-profile transnational cyberfraud racket involving Rs 3.8 crore to the magistrate's court. This decision came after the prosecution failed to secure the necessary permission to charge bank officials, fundamentally altering the jurisdictional framework of the case.
Legal Hurdle Forces Transfer
Special Judge B Y Phad explicitly stated that since permission to proceed against public servants has been denied, cognisance cannot be taken against any public servant or under the Prevention of Corruption Act against the present accused. "Consequently, the jurisdictional fact necessary for this court to proceed does not exist," declared Judge Phad. The investigating officer from CBI's economic offences bureau informed the court that IndusInd Bank had categorically denied sanction to investigate or prosecute the public servants involved.
This denial created a legal impasse. In the absence of such sanction, the special court, which was specifically constituted for trials involving corruption and related offences, found itself without the legal authority to proceed against the remaining accused. This highlights a critical procedural boundary in India's judicial system where special courts require explicit permissions to handle cases involving public servants.
Details of the Cyberfraud Racket
According to the CBI's charges, the main accused, Sudhir Palande, along with five others, allegedly cheated victims of Rs 3.8 crore in eleven separate incidents on July 2, 2025. The cyberfraud methods employed were sophisticated and included digital arrests, customs fraud, and various forms of online financial deception. The accused were described as part of a large-scale, transnational cybercrime syndicate operating across borders.
Palande was specifically accused of knowingly and actively providing the bank account of his company, SP Cargo and Courier Services, as a "mule account". On that fateful day in July 2025, a staggering Rs 3.7 crore was fraudulently credited to this account before being swiftly diverted to other mule accounts to obscure the money trail.
Intricate Operation and Commission
The prosecution detailed an elaborate operation where Palande travelled from Mumbai to Nagpur, staying in hotels booked by co-accused individuals. He then handed over the complete bank kit—including ATM cards, cheque books, SIM cards, and passwords—to a porter service. This service subsequently delivered the kit to co-accused Shaurya Singh, who operated the account for fraudulent purposes.
For his role in facilitating this scheme, Palande allegedly received a commission exceeding Rs 4.3 lakh. Notably, this payment was routed through cryptocurrency wallets, adding a layer of complexity to the financial investigation and demonstrating the modern methods employed by cybercriminals to launder money.
Judicial Reasoning and Future Proceedings
The judge's decision to transfer the case rested squarely on the legal boundary between special corruption courts and regular magistrate courts. Judge Phad noted that while the court had originally taken cognisance of offences against the six accused under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and the Information Technology Act, the absence of public servants in the case changed the legal mandate.
Under Section 361 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, the judge directed that the entire record and proceedings be forwarded to the chief judicial magistrate for trial. The accused, currently held in judicial custody at Mumbai Central and Taloja jails, were remanded further to ensure their production before the new court.
Importantly, the judge clarified that this order does not prevent the CBI from pursuing the matter regarding the denial of permission under the Prevention of Corruption Act or from conducting further investigations. This leaves the door open for potential future legal actions if circumstances change or new evidence emerges.
This case underscores the challenges faced by investigative agencies in tackling complex cybercrimes, especially when institutional permissions become procedural roadblocks. It also highlights the evolving nature of financial fraud in the digital age, where traditional banking systems intersect with cryptocurrency and transnational criminal networks.
