Written By: Deepika Sethia
Raghav had been seeking employment in Lucknow for several months. When the email ultimately arrived, it contained all the elements he had been anticipating. The company’s name was recognisable, the offer letter’s format appeared professional, and the details were meticulously outlined. It specified his role, salary, reporting structure, and the proposed commencementdate. Shortly thereafter, a representative contacted him, articulating confidently about the position and guiding him through the onboarding procedures.
At the conclusion of that conversation, a single requirement was presented: he was instructed to deposit ₹12,500 towards a process described as mandatory documentation and clearance. The amount was assured to be refunded upon his joining. The explanation was procedural, and nothing about the interaction appeared hurried or suspicious. The sequence of emails, the tone of communication, and the structure of the process instilled confidence that this was genuine.
He transferred the amount.By the following morning, the contact number had been switched off, and the email correspondence had ceased. When he contacted the company directly using official contact details from their website, he was informed that no such recruitment process had occurred.
In Kochi, Ananya’s experience unfolded differently, but with more severe consequences. She was approached via a professional networking platform by an individual claiming to represent a consulting firm. The conversation commenced formally, with scheduled video interviews, relevant questions regarding her background, and detailed follow-up emails. The process did not seem rushed; it appeared deliberate and credible.
Upon receiving an offer, she was asked to submit various onboarding documents, including her Aadhaar card, PAN details, bank account information, and academic records. These documents are commonly submitted by candidates upon confirmationof employment. Believing the process to be legitimate, she shares the documents.
However, the job never materialised.Weeks later, she received inquiries from banks regarding accounts and transactions she had not initiated. Her documents had been exploited for unrelated purposes, transforming what initially appeared to be a genuine opportunity into a case of identity theft.
Both instances stem from the same underlying scheme. The fraud operates subtly, developing gradually through a semblance of familiarity. The communications imitate authentic hiring practices, the documentation appears credible, and the structured process minimises doubt at each stage.
Such conduct is regarded as a grave offence under the law. The law regards such conduct as a serious criminal offence. Pursuant to Section 318 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, [1]an individual commits the offence of cheating when, through deception, they dishonestly induce another person to transfer money, property, or any valuable security. In the context of counterfeit job offers, this often occurs when candidates are persuaded to transfer money based on the false promise of employment, training, verification, or onboarding formalities. When the perpetrator assumes a false identity, such as masquerading as a recruiter, company representative, consultant, or hiring manager, Section 319 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023[2], which pertains to cheating by personation, becomes applicable. The offence is further aggravated because the deception extends beyond a mere false promise and is reinforced through a fabricated identity intended to engender trust and legitimacy.
When these acts are executed via emails, counterfeit websites, messaging applications, or online platforms, Section 66D of the Information Technology Act, 2000, [3]also becomes pertinent, as it explicitly sanctions cheating through personation utilising computer resources and electronic communication.
The gravity of these legal provisions reflects the serious nature of the conduct. The deception is carefully constructed, with each step designed to appear legitimate, thereby preventing victims from questioning until it is too late.
A common characteristic across such cases is the point at which the fraud is uncovered, typically when money is requested, or sensitive information is obtained without proper verification. Legitimate employers do not require candidates to pay money to secure employment, nor should sensitive personal documents be shared without independently verifying the employer’s authenticity through official channels.
Following any transaction or dissemination of information, prompt action is imperative. A complaint should be submitted through the official Government platform, i.e., the National Cyber Crime Reporting Portal. [4]
Early reporting improves the chances of tracing financial transactions and initiating timely action on the involved accounts. Additionally, all communication related to the incident, including emails, payment records, contact numbers, digital links, and received documents, must be preserved, as they form the foundation of any effective legal response.
Uncertainty often prevents prompt action. Individuals may hesitate to accept that they have been deceived or to determine the appropriate course of action. This delay can permit the fraud to escalate, especially if personal data has been compromised.
Parchai addresses this uncertainty by examining the situation from a legal perspective. When an offer appears suspicious, it helps assess the process’s factual and legal credibility before any steps are taken. If the fraud has already occurred, the focus shifts to structuring an appropriate response aligned with legal provisions. This involves identifying the relevant offences, ensuring proper framing of the complaint, preserving critical evidence, and advising on immediate steps to mitigate further risks. In cases of misuse of personal documents, the response also involves safeguarding identity information and preventing further exposure.
The key difference in such cases is seldom in the method of fraud but in the timeliness and clarity of the response.
These scams do not depend on negligence but on their appearance of credibility, which is designed to make them sufficiently trustworthy.
The most convincing offers are often the ones that demand a transaction before any benefit is received.
[1]https://www.mha.gov.in/sites/default/files/250883_english_01042024.pdf
[2]Section 319 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023
[3]https://www.indiacode.nic.in/show-data?actid=AC_CEN_45_76_00001_200021_1517807324077&orderno=80
[4]https://www.cybercrime.gov.in/Webform/Accept.aspx