Study Finds Fear and Stress, Not Illiteracy, Drive Cyber Fraud

India's shift to digital payments has expanded far faster than the institutions built to police fraud on that system. When a citizen loses money, the standard route is to report it on the National Cybercrime Reporting Portal (NCRP) or call helpline 1930. The complaint then moves to the Indian Cybercrime Coordination Centre (I4C), which works under the Ministry of Home Affairs. Banks are expected to freeze the receiving account, police must trace the money across a chain of mule accounts, and courts decide the case later. Money sent through UPI can move across several bank accounts and states within minutes, well before any agency can act.

Capacity across this chain is very uneven. Kerala Police's CyberDome is one example of a specialised, technology-driven cyber unit that works with ethical hackers and data analysts to respond quickly. Many other cybercrime cells lack similar tools or coordination with banks. This gap connects to a wider unresolved question in India's data protection framework. The Justice B.N. Srikrishna Committee examined how personal data should be secured in digital transactions. Its recommendations shaped the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023. The committee's report was praised for proposing a rights-based framework and a Data Protection Authority, but it was also criticised for weak provisions on state surveillance and for leaving enforcement details vague. Because so much personal and financial data now sits inside apps and payment platforms, gaps in how that data is secured directly feed fraud tactics such as Aadhaar-based threats and fake investment platforms.