27
26
CIPTF REPORT
Cross-border tech scams are very easily conducted on unsuspecting victims using anonymity and
advancements that the internet has to offer. Lately, there has been an increase in the number of such scam
cases where the victims get unsolicited calls by fraudsters with the intention of getting access to the customers’
information.
Why Is Cross-Border Prosecution Difficult?
Fraudsters make calls to victims from
other countries, posing as legitimate
callers from reputed companies
Unsuspecting victims
purchase fake products
from these sellers
Victim realizes the mistake
and blames the actual product
company, leading to reputational
loss of the company OR
Victim approaches local
authorities to lodge a
complaint OR
Authorities refuse to lodge complaints
because of an absence of a
mechanism to deal with cross-border
frauds OR
Authorities initiate
investigation and local
governing bodies
are involved
Many cases remain unresolved due to cross-border difficulties in sharing information
In a lot of cases, the fraudsters are located in one country while committing the crime in another country. In such cross-border cases,
the prosecution becomes procedurally complex, time-consuming and expensive. The victims usually blame the company instead of the
fraudsters, putting the company’s reputation at risk. The complexities involved in cross-border regulations and laws makes it doubly
harder to sustain these investigations as well.
Reluctance from the
victims to file a
complaint in India
Shadowing legitimate
businesses
Lack of capacity / skills
Cross-border
difficulties in
information sharing
Limitations of private
enterprises to
support the case
The aggrieved party is not
available to file the complaint
in India. Instead, they lodge
the complaint to the legitimate
service provider that has been
misrepresented and expects the
organization to take action.
Unscrupulous elements running tech
support scams do not comply with any
standards and operate out of rented
premises with internet connections,
which make them agile enough to
relocate immediately at the first sign
of investigation. A delay in the sharing
of critical information between law
enforcement agencies or procedural
delays in the investigations, often allow
such entities to halt operations at one
location and resurface at a
different location.
The law enforcement authorities in India
are mostly not equipped with the means
to conduct a technology intensive inves-
tigation. NASSCOM has been working
with law enforcement agencies to aug-
ment their capabilities. In the absence of
a prescribed standard code of practice to
safeguard client data, these fraudsters are
also considered to be representatives of
the industry. This issue is not localized to
consumers in the United States but is also
being felt by consumers in other countries
such as the United Kingdom, Germany
as well and these fraudsters are operating
across the world.
The process and structure followed
under the Multi Legal Assistance Treaty
(MLAT) for sharing ofinformation
between law enforcement authorities
of two countries is complex and does
not allow for an optimal exchange of
information and evidence that hampers
prompt and effective investigation and
prosecution.
Lack of institutional legal mechanism in
India empowering legitimate companies
to initiate preliminary investigations
on third parties, and law enforcement
agencies to register complaints and
conduct preliminary investigations based
on employee statements/ clues against
unscrupulous operators.
