State governments, through their police and High Court oversight, should be legally mandated to enforce standardized procedures for identifying and freezing mule bank accounts used in cyber fraud, rather than leaving it solely to central banking regulators.
Aaj ki debate ka motion hai: 'State Governments Must Establish Mandatory SOPs for Freezing Mule Bank Accounts Linked to Cyber Fraud' — ek aisa sawaal jo digital financial crime aur nagrik ke bank khate ki suraksha, dono ko seedha chhoota hai. Yeh ek law-awareness debate hai, court ka verdict nahi, isliye main dono pakshon ko sunne ke baad ek balanced legal suggestion dungi. Counsel Aarav, please apna case shuru karein.
My lord, main yeh opening dalil is ek thos wajah se de raha hoon: aaj cyber fraud se jitni raqam mule accounts ke zariye laundry hoti hai, uska seedha shikar aam nagrik hota hai — aur State ke paas koi structured, mandatory SOP nahi hai jo in accounts ko turant freeze kar sake. RBI KYC Directions 2025 ka Section 68 banks par yeh zimmedari daalta hai ki wo money mule accounts identify karein aur suspicious transactions FIU-IND ko report karein — lekin yeh bank-level obligation hai, State-level enforcement mechanism ka koi blueprint nahi. Isliye mandatory State SOPs absolutely zaroori hain — taaki bank-level reporting aur State Police / Cyber Cell ke beech ka yeh gap fill ho, aur victim ka paisa freeze hone se pehle hi transfer na ho jaye.
Ref: RBI (Commercial Banks – Know Your Customer) Directions, 2025 · Section 68
My lord, main Bina hoon, vipaksh ki taraf se — aur main yeh samajhti hoon ki Paksh ki poori dalil ek fundamental confusion par khadi hai: jo zimmedari already banks aur central regulators par hai, usse State Governments ke SOP ke zariye duplicate karna na sirf unconstitutional hai, balki counter-productive bhi hai. RBI (Commercial Banks – KYC) Directions, 2025 ka Section 68 bilkul saaf kehta hai ki money mule accounts ko identify karna, monitor karna aur FIU-IND ko STR file karna — yeh obligation banks ka hai, kisi State Government ka nahi; State ek parallel SOP laye toh yeh jurisdictional overreach hoga jo central regulatory framework ko undermine karega. Aur PMLA Maintenance of Records Rules, 2005 ke Rule 9(11) ke under, koi bhi reporting entity anonymous ya fictitious accounts allow nahi kar sakti — yeh duty already impose hai, toh State ka mandatory SOP sirf redundancy create karega, accountability diffuse karega.
Ref: RBI (Commercial Banks – Know Your Customer) Directions, 2025 · Section 68; Prevention of Money-laundering (Maintenance of Records) Rules, 2005 · Section 9-4
My Lord, vipaksh keh raha hai ki banks khud hi yeh kaam kar leti hain — lekin main poochta hoon, agar banks apni zimmedari nibha rahi hoti, toh aaj mule accounts ka itna bada jaaal kyun hai? RBI KYC Directions 2025 ka Section 68 saaf kehta hai ki bank ko meticulous monitoring karni chahiye aur suspicious transactions FIU-IND ko report karni chahiye — lekin yeh ek bank-level obligation hai, isme State Government ka coordinated, mandatory SOP kahaan hai? Aur PMLA Maintenance of Records Rules 2005 ka Rule 9, Sub-rule 11 explicitly kehta hai ki koi bhi reporting entity anonymous ya fictitious naam ka account nahi rakh sakti — phir bhi mule accounts operate ho rahe hain, kyunki ek unified State-level freezing SOP ke bina, bank aur police ke beech coordination ka koi structured mechanism hi nahi hai. Isliye mandatory State SOP nahi, toh yeh kanoon sirf kaagaz par rahenge — implementation ka zameen par dhanchha toh State ko hi banana hoga.
Ref: RBI (Commercial Banks – Know Your Customer) Directions, 2025 · Section 68; Prevention of Money-laundering (Maintenance of Records) Rules, 2005 · Section 9-4
My lord, paksh ne RBI Directions ka hawala diya — lekin main kehna chahti hoon ki A1 ke Section 68 mein banks par sirf monitoring aur STR filing ka dayitva hai, koi mandatory time-bound freezing protocol nahi. Yahi to gap hai jise State SOP bharna chahti hai — agar banks khud apne discretion par chhod diye jaayein, aur STR file nahi hua to merely 'deemed non-compliance' ka consequence hoga, jabki fraud victim ka paisa tab tak nikal chuka hoga. Isliye vipaksh ka stand yeh hai ki existing framework mein enforcement ki koi real-time teeth nahi hai, aur State-mandated SOP ke naam par ek aur redundant layer banana sirf federal overreach hoga, central machinery ko bypass karke confusion paida karega.
Ref: RBI (Commercial Banks – Know Your Customer) Directions, 2025 · Section 68
Aaj ki is mahatvapurna debate mein, Proposition ki taraf se yeh takrar thi ki State Governments ko cyber fraud se linked mule bank accounts freeze karne ke liye mandatory SOPs banana chahiye — kyunki abhi ek fragmented, ad-hoc system hai jo victims ko timely relief nahi de sakta. Opposition ki taraf se yeh baat rakhi gayi ki yeh vishay primarily Central regulators — RBI aur FIU-IND — ke daayare mein aata hai, aur State-level SOPs bina clear constitutional backing ke banking regulation mein unwarranted duplication create karenge. Main yahan kisi side ko jeeta ya haara nahi kehti — balki ek balanced legal suggestion deti hoon: States apni police aur cyber cells ke through ek standardized coordination protocol zaroor banayein, jo RBI KYC Directions 2025 ke Section 68 ke tahat banks ki STR-filing zimmedari aur PMLA Maintenance of Records Rules ke Rule 9 ke tahat due diligence obligations ke saath aligned ho — lekin yeh SOPs RBI aur Central Government ke regulatory framework se conflict na karein, balki ek supplementary operational bridge ka kaam karein taaki victim relief faster ho sake. Ab main citizens se request karungi ki woh is debate ko rate karein aur apni raay zaroor dein!
Ref: RBI (Commercial Banks – Know Your Customer) Directions, 2025 · Section 68; Prevention of Money-laundering (Maintenance of Records) Rules, 2005 · Section 10