Justice M.A. Abdul Hakhim remarked that increasing financial cybercrimes have impacted youngsters, even young lawyers.

The judge added that mule accounts are being held by young people for making easy money and at times, these are operated with the knowledge of bank officials also:

“The growing menace of financial cyber fraud is jeopardizing our society, especially the younger generation. Its impact is also reflected among young legal professionals… Certain individuals, especially those from the younger generation, consider maintaining Mule Accounts to be an easy and effortless way to make money. When financial cyber fraud is committed, the proceeds are split into multiple smaller amounts and channelled through a series of Bank Accounts to render the funds untraceable and irrecoverable. These Mule Accounts are maintained to facilitate illegal money trail.”

The Court made the observation while considering a plea for unfreezing of a bank account held by a 21-year-old woman.

It also commented about the rising number of unfreezing pleas preferred at the instance of fraudsters and suggested that the Court can order probe in appropriate cases while dismissing such pleas:

“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 seeking the unfreezing of the Accounts and consequential reliefs. A large number of Writ Petitions happened to be filed before this Court at the instance of persons involved in financial cyber fraud and their associates 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 and his/her associates in the commission of financial cybercrime. 'Cybercrimes' fall within the definition of 'organised” crime' under Section 111 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and constitute a cognizable offence. It is for the Police to investigate the commission of the said offence by the Petitioner and to ascertain the involvement of any other persons acting in concert with, or operating through, the Petitioner.”

The Court criticised the practice of a few young lawyers, who have been exclusively practicing in this field of law, filing almost identical pleas with identical reliefs that are sometimes generated by AI.

“Junior Lawyers have found it a lucrative field for their practice on account of effortless practice and assured orders. There are several lawyers who started independent practice immediately after their enrolment. 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… At present, several young lawyers with two to three years' standing at the Bar have been exclusively practising in this field with independent offices and many juniors. 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,” the Court observed.

In the judgment, the Court lauded the young lawyers for their knowledge and skills but reminded that they need proper guidance from the 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 also made detailed observations regarding the efforts taken by the central government to prevent financial cybercrimes, including the introduction of the National Cybercrime Reporting Portal (NCRP), Citizen Financial Cyber Fraud Reporting and Management System (CFCFRMS) and an SOP for afore two portals.

Examining the facts of the case at hand, the Court noted that the bank had received requisitions from the police with respect to the petitioner's account for a lien amount of Rs. 3.5 lakhs and for a debit freezing. It was further noted that as per the plea, the petitioner has been trading in the share market for the last few years and her bank account was credited with the afore Rs. 3.5 lakhs from a legitimate source.

The Court also took note of the fact that the petitioner had not produced any evidence to substantiate that the amount was received legitimately and that she later filed a statement before the police that she is unaware of the source of the amount.

The Court then remarked that the prima facie, the petitioner appears to have opened the accounts solely for facilitating cyber fraud and that the same is liable to investigated.

“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. In such a case, this Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed; at the same time, the Police are liable to be directed to register an FIR against the Petitioner and investigate.”

The Court disallowed the petitioner's counsel's request to withdraw the plea and dismissed the same. It then 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.

Case No: WP(C) No. 43188 of 2025

Case Title: Sinana Farvin v. Kerala Gramin Bank and Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 375

Counsel for the petitioner: Viswanath Salish, Akash Jitthu T., Nidha Sherin, Sandra Paul

Counsel for the respondents: V.K. Rafeek - Sr. Government Pleader, Jawahar Jose – Standing Counsel

Click to Read/Download Judgment