“There is no concept of digital or online arrest under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.” Though it sounds as a well-intended means to alert the gullible public, this affirmation by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) as regards the nature of arrests it makes, the same appears like an ill-timed wake-up call. It is good that ED per se never makes any digital or online arrest but it is quite baffling that the federal probe agency has only restricted itself to the scope of the anti-money laundering law, while it would have done a world of good for itself and all potential victims of frauds being played out in the name of digital or online arrest if there was an element of genuine attempt to thwart such crimes in the first place.

‘Ignorance of law is no exception’ goes the adage but to what extent will a person who knows law be assured of its protective shield that can safeguard one from falling prey to devious schemes. All said and done, framing laws and coming up with the most stringent regulations are easier said than done. The problem is with the continued failure and the absence of a steely resolve to implement them in right earnest.

Taking advantage of such lacunae, street-smart scammers get away with murder even as innocent victims, who lose their hard-earned money, are driven to suicide. The authorities should realise that like all types of online frauds, even digital arrests are cybercrimes, albeit with a more potent modus operandi.

Either way, it is the innocent people who pay a heavy price. A sad irony is that there has been an alarming increase in digital arrests, whereupon the fraudster traps people by calling them over an online messaging platform as ED or narcotics wing officials and demand money in return for securing the release of their loved ones. One wonders the need for ED to come up with such clarifications when the fact is that victims of digital arrests rarely, if ever, approach ED for getting the money back from the

cheats. Most take their complaints to the police or the cybercrime wing. Ironically, many police stations do not take complaints on the pretext of jurisdiction when there is a Zero FIR provision in place.

The ED has earlier also issued such advisories against digital arrests and fake summons earlier. Wednesday’s statement is apparently because they have noticed “multiple instances wherein unscrupulous persons have sent summons to individuals with the motive of cheating or extortion”. A welcome development has been the mechanism to generate summons through a QR code and a unique passcode so that conmen are unable to extort money using fake summons. The question is what does one do when the ‘official’ comes ‘live’ on the screen in a police uniform or sports an I-T, ED or any other government department’s badge.

The ED has played it safe, rather it is washing its hands off while stating that “These summons are often similar to the genuine summons issued by ED. It is difficult for individuals to distinguish between the fake and genuine summons.” But then, will the frantic victim think of the QR code or calling the helpline number to verify their credentials at that juncture. Rather than awakening the people, the authorities must come up with measures to check the menace of fraudsters impersonating enforcement officials. This is a near improbable task.