Delhi court orders CBI to defreeze bank accounts of accused in Rs 330 crore US elderly cyber fraud case

The court was hearing the plea of one Joney, who was seeking the defreezing of his bank accounts, arguing that it had brought his business and financial activities to a complete standstill.

‘Negligence on part of investigation officer’

• The Delhi court pointed out that CBI has the power to freeze the bank accounts, but the same has to be done as per the law.
• It was emphasised by the court that a balance must be struck between safeguarding the alleged proceeds of crime and preserving the individual’s economic rights. 
• It is placed on record that the investigation is still pending, while the bank accounts of the accused have been frozen by the CBI.

• The seizure of bank accounts of the accused by the CBI is because the same is “proceeds of crime” and in complete violation of the relevant laws. 
• The Delhi court noted that the investigation officer sent the letters to the concerned banks for freezing accounts of Joney, his wife, and three entities on September 9, 2025. 
• However, information regarding such freezing of bank accounts was brought to the court and the accused by a bail reply submitted against the application of the accused Joney on September 19, 2025.
• There is a delay of 10 days in sending intimation to the court, and the reasons for the delay are not provided by the investigation officer.  
• The Delhi court pointed out that it is negligence on the part of the investigation officer, as if the bail application would not have been moved on behalf of the accused, there would have been no intimation received by this court regarding seizure of bank accounts. 
• The investigation officer till date has not been able to link the bank entries with the offence in question. 
• Once the investigating officer chooses to blanket freeze the accounts of the accused, he must offer some justification for the same.
• The Delhi court directed that the accounts of the accused be unfrozen, on the condition that before defreezing the accounts in question, he should furnish a personal bond for the total amount lying in his bank accounts at the time of freezing.

‘Financial fraud with US elderly’

• The CBI stated that a case has been registered against Jigar Ahmed, Himanshu Jain, Parkash Kaushal, Sourav Gill, Akshay Mahajan and unknown others, on the basis of source information under the provisions of the IT Act and BNS.
• The allegations in brief are that the accused persons in criminal conspiracy with each other and with other unknown persons have been operating a network of transnational cyber-enabled financial crime by running illegal call centres in New Delhi, Punjab and other parts of India since 2023.
• It was alleged that they are targeting US citizens online under pseudonymous identities and subjecting them to tech fraud/identity theft/impersonation fraud.
• It was submitted by CBI that the accused was arrested by the investigating agency on September 4, 2025.
• It was alleged that during the search of his premises, the CBI recovered incriminating documents relating to a large number of immovable properties worth crores of rupees acquired by him and other accused persons obtained from the US victims as part of the operation of the said illegal call centre. 
• It was alleged that the US victims were targeted online through pop-up messages blocking their computer screens and displaying a number to be contacted for resolution. 
• It is further alleged that the accused persons defrauded the US victims to the tune of USD 40 million, and out of the total number of the victims, two US victims, Andrew Lerner and Lawrence Liu, were found to be defrauded. 
• It is further stated that a search was conducted at the premises of the firm, M/s Digikaps, the Future of Digital at Global Tower, to whom the alleged IP addresses involved in the crime were assigned. 
• The CBi stated that an illegal call centre was busted, being operated by the accused persons and 34 other accused persons who were found operating targeting US nationals online under the guise of providing tech support services. 
• During searches, incriminating material was recovered and seized from the said illegal call centre. 
• During the investigation, three accused persons, Jiger Ahmed, Yash Khurana and Inderjeet Singh Bali were arrested, and they disclosed the details of other accused persons, including the accused who was found involved in the operation of the said illegal call centre. 

‘Search at premises of accused’

• During the search at the premises of the accused, documents allegedly relating to various bank accounts in the name of the accused and his wife were recovered. 
• During the investigation, the said accounts of the accused were allegedly found to contain deposits worth around Rs 10 crores. 
• The investigating agency pointed out that they had reasons to believe that the same were obtained out of the proceeds of crime, and accordingly, the said bank accounts were frozen. 
• It is stated that the accused was arrested on September 4, 2025 and was granted bail by the session court by an order of September 2025. However, he was informed by email from the Yes Bank and ICICI Bank, respectively, that the bank accounts concerned with the alleged crime in question have been frozen. 
• It is alleged by the petitioner that the CBI, before or even after freezing the account of the accused, has never informed him nor given any notice to show cause as to why the account should not be kept frozen.

‘Lost hard money to digital fraudsters’

• Appearing for CBI, public prosecutor Priya Gaur argued that the present case relates to a highly organised transnational cyber-enabled financial tech fraud scam targeting elderly US citizens for defrauding them under the pretext of providing tech support services. 
• It was contended that the accused is not entitled to enjoy the fruits of the crime.
• It was further emphasised that the rights of the accused have to be balanced against the right of the state, which is under an obligation to ensure justice is delivered to the innocent victims who have lost their hard-earned money to the digital fraudsters.

‘Right to trade affected’

• Appearing for the accused, one of the advocates, Arjun Syal, argued that his client’s legitimate business and welfare activities have come to a complete standstill, and he is unable to pay the loans and mutual funds.
• It was further submitted that the investigation authority has no power to attach or freeze an account.
• It was argued further that the continuing freezing of the bank account of the accused had affected his right to carry on his trade or profession, which is a fundamental right under the Constitution and cannot be curtailed arbitrarily.
• It was further argued that there are no proceeds of crime from the alleged victims traced to the accused and his wife.
• It was asserted that CBI had made mere bold assertions that there are reasons to believe that the bank accounts of the accused may contain proceeds of crime, without a single shred of documentary evidence. 
• It was further argued that the bank accounts of the accused have been attached merely on suspicion and by not actually identifying the trail, and the prosecution has also failed to quantify the disputed amount to date.