Banks should bear strict statutory liability for failing to detect and prevent mule accounts used in cyber fraud, rather than placing the burden solely on defrauded account holders.
Aaj ka motion yeh hai: 'Banks Must Be Held Strictly Liable for Facilitating Mule Accounts Linked to Cyber Fraud' — yani kya banks ki zimmedari honi chahiye jab unke through khule khate cyber fraud ke liye istemaal hote hain? Yeh ek bahut zaroori sawaal hai jo lakho common citizens ke financial suraksha se seedha juda hua hai. Main Counsel Aarav se request karungi ki woh apna paksh rakhein.
My lord, aaj ka motion ek atyant gambhir sawal uthata hai — jab ek bank apne Know Your Customer aur due diligence processes mein itni badi chook karta hai ki uske khule accounts cyber-fraud ke liye 'mule' ban jaate hain, toh us bank ko strict liability ke daayare mein lana nyayasangat hai. Mera paksh yeh hai ki banking institutions ko sirf regulatory slap-on-the-wrist se kaam nahi chalega — jab unki negligence directly pidit nagarikon ka paisa doobne ka zariya banti hai, tab unhe usi nuksaan ke liye seedha zimmedaar thehrana zaroori hai. Yeh motion iss waqt isliye bhi critical hai kyunki cyber fraud mein mule accounts ek organised machinery ki tarah kaam karte hain, aur banks ke gatekeeping failure ke bina yeh machinery chalti hi nahi.
My lord, main is motion ka poora vipaksh karti hoon — strict liability ka yeh blanket formula banks par thopna na toh legally tenable hai, na practically just. RBI KYC Directions 2025 ka Section 68 khud yeh kehta hai ki bank ko 'diligence measures aur meticulous monitoring' karni hai — yeh ek due-diligence standard hai, strict liability ka imposition nahi; dono mein fundamental fark hai. Aur PMLA 2002 ka Section 14 seedha protect karta hai banking companies aur unke officers ko civil proceedings se, jab woh apni reporting obligations fulfill kar rahe hon — toh jab ek bank ne STR file kiya, usse strict liability mein ghaseeta jaana is statutory protection ko sidha undermine karta hai.
Ref: RBI (Commercial Banks – Know Your Customer) Directions, 2025 · Section 68; PREVENTION OF MONEY-LAUNDERING ACT, 2002 · Section 14
My lord, vipaksh kehta hai ki banks ko strict liability kyun ho jab fraud bahar se hota hai — lekin main kehna chahta hoon ki mule account ka exist karna hi bank ki KYC failure hai. RBI ke Master Directions on KYC, 2016 ke under banks ka yeh dayitva hai ki woh suspicious account activity ko detect aur report karein, aur agar woh yeh nahi karte, toh IT Act, 2000 ke Section 66 ke under 'dishonestly ya fraudulently' kisi act ko facilitate karna — chahe directly ya indirectly — punishable hai. Strict liability ka matlab yeh hai ki jab bank apni monitoring duty mein chook kare, toh victim ka nuksaan bank ki zimmedari hai — yeh principle accountability ensure karta hai, impunity nahi.
Ref: INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ACT, 2000 · Section 66F
My lord, paksh ne jo kehne ki koshish ki hai — ki bank pehle se hi directions follow kar raha hai — woh ek procedural compliance ka argument hai, na ki accountability ka. RBI KYC Directions 2025, Section 68 explicitly kehta hai ki agar bank ne mule account identify kiya aur STR file nahi ki, to yeh deemed non-compliance hai — aur is deemed non-compliance ko strict liability ka base banana hi motions ki core demand hai. Main yeh maanti hoon ki banks ke paas tools hain — lekin tools hona aur unhe use karna do alag baatein hain, aur jab tools ka use nahi hota aur fraud hota hai, tab liability se bachna bilkul galat hai.
Ref: RBI (Commercial Banks – Know Your Customer) Directions, 2025 · Section 68
Prosecution side ka kehna hai ki banks ne RBI KYC Directions 2025 ke Section 68 ke tahat apne diligence aur monitoring ke dayitva mein chook ki, isliye unhe mule accounts se hone wale cyber fraud ke liye strictly liable thehraaya jaaye — jabki defence side ka kehna hai ki PMLA 2002 ke Section 14 ke tahat banks ko civil proceedings se protection milti hai jab tak wo prescribed reporting karte rahein. Meri balanced legal suggestion yeh hai ki courts aur regulators dono ko milkar ek tiered liability framework banana chahiye — jahan wo bank jo Section 68 ka spashtata ullanghan karte hain aur STR file nahi karte unpar regulatory penalty lage, lekin us bank par full civil liability na thopi jaaye jo good faith mein prescribed process follow karta raha ho. Ab main citizens se nivedan karti hoon ki is debate ko rate karen aur apni raay den ki kya yeh legal framework aaj ke cyber fraud crisis ke liye kaafi hai.
Ref: RBI (Commercial Banks – Know Your Customer) Directions, 2025 · Section 68; PREVENTION OF MONEY-LAUNDERING ACT, 2002 · Section 14