Kerala High Court Cautions Young Lawyers Taking Up Pleas To Unfreeze Bank Accounts Linked To Cyber Fraud

The Kerala High Court has sounded a note of caution for young lawyers frequently appearing in bank account-unfreezing cases. [2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 375]

Justice M.A. Abdul Hakhim observed that while such litigation appears to offer “effortless practice and assured orders”, many such cases are linked to cyber fraud.

“Junior Lawyers have found it a lucrative field for their practice on account of effortless practice and assured orders... Of course, there are several junior lawyers who have been fairly conducting these types of cases of genuine Account Holders. Some junior lawyers get trapped in this field only because of their carelessness alone,” the Court observed.

The Court further noted that several advocates with only two to three years of standing at the Bar have set up independent offices and are exclusively practising in this field.

"Some of the lawyers who have been regularly filing Writ Petitions for unfreezing Bank Accounts have not appeared before this Court even on a single occasion. In most cases, the matters are conducted through their inexperienced juniors."

It also remarked that some of the petitions filed for unfreezing bank accounts contain identical pleadings and reliefs, with some apparently generated using artificial intelligence.

At the same time, the Court emphasised that young advocates possess immense potential and require proper guidance from senior lawyers and judges.

“Today's young law graduates are brilliant and capable, owing to their rigorous law school curriculum, moot court experiences, and legal internships. They enter the profession with astute theoretical knowledge and possess the practical skills to deal with legal issues. Their tech-savviness and passion for justice make them a valuable addition to the Bar. The future of our legal system is in safe hands, provided these sharp minds are nurtured with the proper guidance from the Senior Bar and Bench,” the Court observed.

The Court also expressed concern over the increasing use of “mule accounts” to facilitate financial cyber fraud, observing that youngsters are often lured into maintaining such accounts for easy money.

“The growing menace of financial cyber fraud is jeopardizing our society, especially the younger generation. Its impact is also reflected among young legal professionals,” it remarked.

The observations were made while dismissing the plea filed by a 21-year-old woman seeking unfreezing of her bank account.

Petitioner's account had been frozen pursuant to police requisitions involving a lien amount of ₹3.5 lakh. The petitioner claimed that the amount had come from legitimate share-market and cryptocurrency trading, but failed to produce any supporting material. She later informed the police that she was unaware of the source of the funds.

The Court noted that the petitioner, who was only 21 years old, had no job or independent source of income and prima facie appeared to have opened the account solely to facilitate cyber fraud.

“It appears that the Petitioner, who is only 21 years old, has no job or source of income… The facts prima facie reveal that the Petitioner has opened the Bank Account solely for the purpose of facilitating cyber fraud,” the Court observed.

It refused the petitioner's request to withdraw the writ petition and went on to suo motu implead the SHO of the police station within whose limits the petitioner was residing and ordered investigation against her under Section 111 of the BNS, which deals with organised crime.

“The rise in the number of financial cyber frauds and the consequent freezing of Bank Accounts has resulted in the filing of a large number of Writ Petitions before the High Courts...A large number of Writ Petitions happened to be filed...at the instance of persons involved in financial cyber fraud...for obtaining orders to ensure the smooth functioning of Mule Accounts, even without the knowledge of the Account Holders… While dismissing such Writ Petitions, it is for this Court to consider whether a direction is to be issued to the Police to register an FIR and investigate the involvement of the Petitioner," the Court concluded.