Mangaluru: Woman duped of Rs 3.16 cr in 'digital arrest' fraud
Mangaluru (PTI): A woman from Mangaluru lost over Rs 3.16 crore after fraudsters posing as police manipulated her into transferring the money under the pretext of a "digital arrest", police said.
The woman (40), who has requested anonymity, lodged a complaint with the Cyber Economic and Narcotics Crime (CEN) police station.
According to the complaint, she received a call on June 6 from a person claiming to be an officer from the National Crime Reporting Portal (NCRP).
The caller alleged that a SIM card registered in her husband's name was being "misused". The call was transferred multiple times, eventually to someone posing as a public prosecutor, they said.
Over the following weeks, the fraudsters collected her personal and banking details and instructed her to make several fund transfers, assuring her that the money would be returned after verification.
It started with one person posing as police, but eventually, several people became involved in the scam. Between June 10 and 27, she transferred Rs 3.16 crore to various bank accounts provided by the accused.
Police said the woman approached them only after confiding in her children and realising she had been duped.
A case has been registered, and an investigation is underway.
A similar fraud was recently reported in Hyderabad, the police said and urged the public to be cautious when responding to unknown callers posing as "law enforcement authorities".
A ‘digital arrest’ is a tactic where scammers exploit fear to take control of a person's digital presence and extort money or personal data.
Masquerading as law enforcement or government officials, they keep victims under constant video surveillance on platforms like Skype until they extract the demanded payments or data.
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
K’taka HC declines stay on menstrual leave order, says issue of public importance
Bengaluru: The State Government has strongly defended its decision to grant one day of paid menstrual leave every month to women employees, telling the Karnataka High Court that the notification was issued in the larger interest of women and is legally sound. The Court, treating the matter as one of significant public importance, refused to stay the implementation of the order and adjourned the hearing to January 20.
The Labour Department’s November 20, 2025 notification was challenged by the Bangalore Hotels Association, Avirat Defence System, Facile Aerospace Technologies Ltd and Samos Technologies Ltd. Justice Jyoti Mulimani heard the petitions on Wednesday.
At the start of the hearing, the bench asked whether the State had filed its objections. Advocate General K. Shashikiran Shetty informed the Court that objections had been submitted and that copies would be provided to the petitioners.
Defending the notification, the Advocate General said the government had introduced a progressive measure aimed at women’s welfare, one that no other state in India had implemented so far. He told the Court that 72 objections were received and considered before finalising the notification. He argued that the government was empowered to frame such policy under Article 42 of the Constitution and noted that the Supreme Court and the Law Commission had earlier made recommendations in this direction.
ALSO READ: MP Brijesh Chowta urges centre to grant point of call status to Mangaluru airport
When the Court asked whether the notification applied to all sectors, the Advocate General replied in the affirmative. The bench observed that the matter required detailed hearing because of its wider public impact and decided to take it up in January. The Court added that petitioners may file their responses to the State’s objections before the next hearing.
Petitioners’ counsel B.K. Prashanth requested that the State be restrained from enforcing the order until the case is decided. The Advocate General responded that the government had already begun implementing the notification across all sectors.
Justice Mulimani noted that nothing would change between now and the next hearing and emphasised that the Court would consider all arguments thoroughly before issuing any direction. The bench then adjourned the matter to January 20 and asked petitioners to file any additional applications with copies to the State’s counsel.
