7-Year Imprisonment for Former Bank of India(BOI) Branch Manager in CBI Fraud Case

In a bank fraud case, the CBI Court in Bhopal convicted former Bank of India Senior Branch Manager Piyush Chaturvedi and private individual Mohan Singh Solanki to seven years of harsh imprisonment. Additionally, the court fined both defendants ₹60,000 in total. On May 14, 2026, the verdict was rendered.

The case was filed on January 25, 2016, according to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), based on a written complaint submitted by the Deputy Zonal Manager of Bank of India, Zonal Office, Bhopal, at the time.

The CBI claimed that on November 26, 2013, Piyush Chaturvedi, a Senior Branch Manager of the Bank of India's Misrod Branch in Bhopal, illegally approved a term loan and cash credit limit of ₹30 lakh in the name of M/s R.J. Enterprises.

The same day, it is alleged that ₹25 lakh was fraudulently transferred from M/s R.J. Enterprises' account via an RTGS transaction using falsified vouchers and RTGS forms. The money was moved to the account of M/s Sanwariya Machine, which belonged to accused Mohan Singh Solanki.

Both of the suspects stole the money as part of a criminal conspiracy, according to the inquiry. The bank suffered an unjust loss as a result of the fraud, while the accused individuals gained an unfair advantage.

Following the inquiry, the CBI presented a chargesheet to the appropriate court against both defendants.

Read More

CBI Action: Bank of India(BOI) General Manager(GM) Under Scanner in Fraud Case

According to reports, the General Manager (GM) of Bank of India is the target of a case filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). Ten entities/firms with cash credit (CC) and overdraft (OD) accounts with Bank of India allegedly gave him an unfair advantage totaling Rs 43.42 lakh.

He was employed by Bank of India as Chief Manager at the time. According to the CBI, a complaint was filed claiming that A. Kumar, while employed as Chief Manager of the Bank of India, Itwari Branch, Nagpur, between February 2024 and March 2025, had obtained an unfair advantage from the entities/firms involved in a transaction or business he conducted.

"It is observed that Kumar permitted Temporary Overdraft (TOD) or Temporary Loan (TOL) transactions without reporting under prudential supervisory reporting system and in violation of the Bank's guidelines," the bank's Chief Vigilance Officer wrote in a February letter to the CBI. It was discovered that money that had been moved to Kumar's savings account had been embezzled.

Kumar abused his official position as the Chief Manager and sanctioning authority at the time by transferring funds to his personal account, allowing unauthorized TOD/TOL without customer applications, and debiting cash credit/loan accounts with insufficient funds.

Additionally, he deceived some borrowers into sending money out of compassion. He has permitted the transfer of money for personal benefit without the consent of the client in situations where no formal directive was received.

It has been reported that these funds were used for stock market investments. Considering the aforementioned, it was determined that he had prima facie criminal intent. Therefore, I believe that a Prevention of Corruption Act investigation is necessary.

In accordance with Section 11 of the Prevention of Corruption Act (obtaining undue advantage by a public servant without consideration from a person concerned in a proceeding or business transacted by such public servant), the CBI has filed a case against Kumar.

Read More

Big Scam in Bank :"Ghost" FDs Totaling Rs 116.84 Crore Found in Government Accounts

 

Another theft of Rs. 116.84 crore has been reported at IDFC First Bank, following the loss of Rs. 590 crore in Haryana government accounts kept there. Following the finding of "ghost" fixed deposits and financial irregularities totaling ₹116.84 crore, Chandigarh Police's Economic Offenses Wing (EOW) filed a formal complaint on Monday. 

The money is connected to the accounts of Chandigarh Smart City Limited (CSCL), which is no longer in operation. These accounts were kept at IDFC First Bank's Sector-32 branch.Amit Kumar, Commissioner of the Municipal Corporation (MC), Chandigarh, reported unusual financial activities and potential fraud involving a significant sum of public funds, according to the FIR. 

Based on the complaint, the EOW filed a case under a number of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) sections, including criminal conspiracy, criminal breach of trust, fraudulent use of counterfeit papers, cheating, and forgery.According to police records, the alleged offense occurred over an extended period of time between March 28, 2025, and March 7, 2026. 

Financial transactions made through the IDFC First Bank branch in Sector-32 were connected to the suspected fraudulent activity. Anubhav Mishra, a resident of Adarsh Nagar in Naya Gaon, Mohali, is named as one of the suspects in the FIR. Ribhav Rishi is another individual included in the complaint. The potential involvement of other associates is also being looked into by the police.

The case is being handled as a major economic offense, according to police sources. Investigators are looking into the involvement of other people and any financial ties to the scheme.The investigating team will meticulously review financial papers, digital transaction trails, and bank records, according to a police officer. 

The goal is to determine how the money was misappropriated and whether insider assistance, account manipulation, or falsified documents were used in the scam. The accused and other relevant parties may soon be called in for interrogation by the EOW, which has begun gathering evidence. In order to monitor the flow of the money, police are also working with bank representatives and financial specialists.

More information is anticipated to surface during the probe, according to officials. Depending on the results, more charges and accused individuals may be added. Saurabh Joshi, the mayor of Chandigarh, has taken media claims regarding the purported ₹116.84 crore "ghost" fixed deposits very seriously. He has requested a thorough Action Taken Report (ATR) from the Municipal Commissioner and ordered an immediate investigation. 

Every rupee of public funds belongs to the people of Chandigarh, the mayor declared in a statement released on Tuesday, and any financial irregularity will not be accepted. According to reports, during March and April of 2025, fixed deposits totaling around ₹116.84 crore were not recorded in the official bank records. This sparked questions about accountability and financial oversight.

Mayor Joshi expressed worry about the matter and stated that Chandigarh is renowned for its clean administration and transparent governance. According to him, any issue involving that much public money ought to be looked into as quickly and transparently as possible. Additionally, he mentioned that the EOW has initiated an inquiry and filed a FIR. 

Officials were instructed by the mayor to fully assist the investigating agencies.Joshi has requested that the Municipal Commissioner name the officials and personnel in charge of overseeing and administering CSCL's bank accounts during the pertinent time frame. Additionally, he has suggested a thorough forensic examination of every financial transaction made by CSCL since its founding. An impartial third-party auditing firm should carry out the audit.

The Municipal Commissioner has been asked to submit a detailed report within five working days. The report should include the status of the financial discrepancies and the progress of the ongoing investigation.

Read More

Banks will provide compensation to Customers for Digital Frauds

The Reserve Bank of India (RBI) has introduced a new compensation framework to help customers who suffer losses due to small value fraudulent electronic banking transactions. The rule aims to provide financial relief to genuine victims of online fraud.

The compensation scheme applies to individual customers who lose up to ₹50,000 due to fraudulent electronic transactions such as unauthorized online transfers or digital banking fraud.

Below are the key details of the new compensation rules.

If an individual customer becomes a victim of fraudulent electronic banking transactions and files a complaint, the person will receive compensation based on the following rule:

* The customer will receive 85% of the net loss amount, or ₹25,000, whichever is lower.

The compensation will be given only once in the customer’s lifetime. The net loss means the total loss after deducting any amount that has already been recovered or returned to the customer.

* If a customer loses ₹40,000 but ₹15,000 is recovered before compensation, the net loss becomes ₹25,000.

* In this case, compensation will be 85% of ₹25,000, which equals ₹21,250.

The compensation will be provided only if certain conditions are met.

The bank must confirm that the loss is genuine and bona fide, according to its internal policies.

The customer must report the fraud:

* On the National Cyber Crime Reporting Portal, or

* By calling the National Cyber Crime Helpline (1930).

* The fraud must also be reported to the bank within five calendar days of the transaction.

How the Compensation Amount Is Shared

The compensation amount paid to the customer is shared among three parties:

• Reserve Bank of India
• Customer’s bank
• Beneficiary bank (the bank where the fraud amount was transferred)

The contribution depends on the size of the loss.

Case 1: Loss Less Than ₹29,412

If the loss amount is less than ₹29,412 and compensation of 85% of the loss is paid:

• 65% of the compensation will be paid by the RBI
• 10% by the customer’s bank
• 10% by the beneficiary bank

Case 2: Loss Between ₹29,412 and ₹50,000

If the loss is ₹29,412 or more but not more than ₹50,000, the compensation will be ₹25,000. In this case, the contribution will be fixed as follows:

• RBI: ₹19,118
• Customer’s bank: ₹2,941
• Beneficiary bank: ₹2,941

What Happens if Money Is Recovered Later

Sometimes banks may recover part of the fraud amount after compensation has already been paid. In such cases, the bank will recalculate the compensation based on the final net loss and adjust the amount accordingly.

Examples to Understand the Rule

Example 1: Recovery Before Compensation

• Total fraud loss: ₹40,000
• Recovery before compensation: ₹15,000
• Net loss: ₹25,000

Compensation paid (85% of ₹25,000): ₹21,250

Contribution:

• RBI: ₹16,250
• Customer’s bank: ₹2,500
• Beneficiary bank: ₹2,500

Example 2: Full Recovery After Compensation

• Reported loss: ₹40,000
• Compensation paid: ₹25,000

Contribution:

• RBI: ₹19,118
• Customer’s bank: ₹2,941
• Beneficiary bank: ₹2,941

Later, the entire ₹40,000 is recovered. The recovered amount will be distributed as:

• Customer: ₹15,000
• RBI: ₹19,118
• Customer’s bank: ₹2,941
• Beneficiary bank: ₹2,941

Example 3: Partial Recovery After Compensation

• Reported loss: ₹40,000
• Compensation paid: ₹25,000

Contribution:

• RBI: ₹19,118
• Customer’s bank: ₹2,941
• Beneficiary bank: ₹2,941

Later recovery: ₹15,000

Net loss becomes ₹25,000, so the correct compensation should be ₹21,250.

Additional payment calculation:

₹15,000 + ₹21,250 − ₹25,000 = ₹11,250

Distribution of recovery:

• Customer: ₹11,250
• RBI: ₹2,868
• Customer’s bank: ₹441
• Beneficiary bank: ₹441

Application Process for Compensation

After reviewing the complaint, if the bank believes that the fraud case is genuine, it will provide the customer with an application form.

Once the customer submits the application, the bank must pay the compensation within five calendar days.

Banks will later seek reimbursement of the applicable amount from the RBI on a quarterly basis.

Validity of the Compensation Scheme

The compensation will be available only for fraudulent electronic banking transactions that occur within one year from the effective date of these directions.

Read More

Bank Managers arrested in Rs.182 crore Fraud in Gujarat

In Gujarat's Kutch, a significant cyber fraud case has been detected. In a false account scam involving a cyber fraud of Rs 182,36,68,862 through 81 bank accounts, bank administrators of HDFC and Jana bank branches in Kutch have been taken into custody. 

Yasin Sayecha (27), agency manager, HDFC Bank Kandla zone branch; Hitesh Kapta (38), manager, Jana Bank Gandhidham branch; and Chandan Kapadia (41), manager, HDFC Bank Kandla zone branch, have been named as the individuals detained. Dipak Sharma, an elderly man who was one of the accused, is still at large.

These people allegedly helped open third-party savings accounts and current accounts under false names. They were compensated by fraudsters with commissions and by banks with incentives to register new accounts. 

Additionally, they assisted scammers in unfreezing accounts that had been frozen in response to complaints made to the cybercrime helpline (1930). The cybercrime police station in East Kutch, Gandhidham, discovered a large-scale cyberfraud scheme two weeks ago that used a network of fictitious bank accounts and shell companies. Bhuj IG Chirag Koradiya and SP Sagar Bagmar oversaw the operation.

The racket functioned as a commission-based network, where associates earned varying commissions for each bank account used to transfer or route fraudulently obtained funds. This structure enabled scammers across the country to deposit and move money through accounts controlled from Kutch.

The police also found that there were 74 complaints registered against the bank accounts illegally operated by the accused persons across five banks. These complaints were from victims across West Bengal, Maharashtra, Tamil Nadu, Haryana, Uttar Pradesh, Karnataka, Rajasthan, Punjab, Uttarakhand, Bihar and Telangana.

Read More

What is the IDFC First Bank Rs 590 crore fraud case?

A significant scam involving Rs. 590 crore has been revealed at the IDFC First Bank branch in Chandigarh. 

According to allegations, several bank workers at the Chandigarh branch engaged in fraudulent operations involving Rs 590 crore from accounts connected to the government of Haryana. 

An inquiry is still underway, and four bank employees have been suspended. In compliance with existing legislation, the bank said that it will take severe disciplinary, civil, and criminal action against the employees and other external parties involved. 

According to the statement, "the Bank has sent recall requests to specific beneficiary banks to lien mark balance in suspicious accounts held in these banks." The bank is currently hiring a third-party, independent organization to carry out a forensic audit.

After the bank was asked by the Haryana government to close its account and move the money to another bank, the fraud was discovered. During the process, certain differences between the amount stated and the account balance were noticed. 

Starting on February 18, 2026, some government agencies in Haryana contacted the bank about their individual accounts. Disparities between the account balances reported by the government agencies and those held with the bank were discovered during this process. 

The bank has highlighted, however, that the fraudulent actions were limited to a particular set of government-linked accounts inside the Haryana Government that were handled through the aforementioned Chandigarh branch and did not affect other Chandigarh Branch customers.

Actions taken by IDFC First Bank in Chandigarh Fraud

• Four suspected officials have been placed under suspension pending investigation. The Bank will pursue strict disciplinary, civil and criminal action against the employees and other external individuals responsible, in accordance with applicable law.
• A meeting of the Special Committee of the Board for Monitoring and Follow-up of Cases of Frauds (SCBMF) was convened on February 20, 2026 and the matter was placed before the Committee.
• The meeting of the Audit Committee and the Board of Directors were convened on February 21, 2026 to apprise on the matter.
• The Bank is in the process of appointing an independent external agency to conduct an independent Forensic Audit.
• The statutory auditors have been informed.
• The Bank has filed a complaint with the Police authorities and will extend full cooperation to the investigating agencies.
• The Bank has sent recall request to certain beneficiary banks to lien mark balance in suspicious accounts held in these banks.

Read More

Bank not responsible for customer’s negligence in Digital Fraud

Regarding internet fraud, the Uttarakhand State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has rendered a significant ruling. 

According to the commission, the bank or digital payment platform cannot be held accountable if the customer's own carelessness results in fraud in an online transaction. 

The decision was made in a case involving Haridwar resident Sachin Kumar. According to Sachin, he tried to move Rs 25,000 from his Google Pay account on November 26 but the transaction was unsuccessful. 

But he said the money was taken out of his bank account. Sachin claimed that after receiving some dubious communications, money was taken out of his account several times over the course of the following two days.

This resulted in a total of Rs 1,06,500 being debited from his bank account. Sachin said he filed a complaint with his bank (Punjab National Bank), but when he didn’t receive a satisfactory response, he filed a case with the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission.

The Commission held that the bank was at fault and ordered it to refund the amount to Sachin. However, the bank appealed the decision with the State Consumer Commission. During the hearing at the State Consumer Commission, it emerged that all the transactions were made using the customer’s own mobile phone.

The Commission stated in its order that “the security of the mobile phone, OTP, password, and UPI PIN is entirely the consumer’s responsibility. If someone fails to protect these details, the bank or digital app cannot be held responsible.”

The Commission also clarified that no transaction is possible on digital platforms like Google Pay without entering the correct UPI PIN. In such a case, the transaction will be deemed to have been made with the customer’s knowledge. The Commission, while setting aside the District Consumer Commission’s order, stated that the evidence and facts were not properly evaluated in the case.

Recently, the Reserve Bank of India has released a new guideline for digital frauds. RBI plans to provide compensation to victims upto Rs.25,000. This may prove to be a big relief for victims of Digital Frauds.

Read More

ED has arrested a Bank of India(BoI) officer in a fraud case for Rs 16.10 crore

In accordance with the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA), Hitesh Kumar Singla, an officer of Bank of India, was taken into custody by the Directorate of Enforcement (ED), Mumbai, from Ahmedabad Junction Railway Station. Bank of India had previously suspended the officer. 

 After his appearance before the Greater Bombay Special PMLA Court, he was given seven days of ED detention. Under Sections 13(1)(a) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code, and Section 316(5) of the BNS, the CBI had brought a case against Singla and Others.

As the case involved money laundering, it was transferred to ED and ED started its investigation.

Investigations revealed that between May 2023 and July 2025, Singla fraudulently closed multiple accounts—including Term Deposits (TDs), Public Provident Fund (PPF), Senior Citizen Savings Scheme (SCSS), Savings Bank (SB), and Current Accounts (CA)—without authorization. The funds were then diverted to his personal SBI savings accounts.

According to the ED, Singla deliberately targeted 127 account holders, mostly vulnerable customers such as senior citizens, minors, deceased persons, and dormant account holders, to avoid detection.

The diverted funds were layered and transferred in small, concealed transactions, causing a total loss of ₹16.10 crore to Bank of India and its customers, while severely damaging the bank’s reputation and public trust.

Singla had been evading the bank and not reporting since the crime was discovered. At Ahmedabad Junction, ED apprehended him based on technical surveillance and intelligence inputs. He was detained despite his repeated attempts to avoid detection by switching carriages and seats on Train No. 19320 Mahamana Express (Ujjain–Veraval).

Read More