Matrimonial Fraud - 3 Nigerians convicted for 3 years and Rs 5 Lakhs in Pune

3 Nigerian are convicted for 3 years with ₹ 5 Lakhs fine in Matrimony fraud in chatursingi police station from Pune, Maharashtra 

The Case Facts:

One lady from Pune had opened a profile for marriage on www.bharatmaitrimony.com site. Dr Rajesh Kumar from the U.K accepted her profile, they both share their details and started chatting on Facebook, WhatsApp, and email in Aug 2015.

After one month of chatting Dr. Rajesh told the lady that he has received a secret fund of ₹1.5cr and he can't keep that amount with him, so he wishes to send it to her. And as a pretext of receiving that courier, she was compelled to deposit amount of ₹38.22 Lakhs in 16 different bank accounts of 6 different banks and as per the facts, an FIR was registered at Chatursingi Police Station in Pune.

After technical analysis and chase for 15days at Delhi police from Cyber Cell Pune, nabbed the accused Nigerian citizens.

1) Ogeuri Emmanual Chinaso 

2) Osaramense Smart 

3) Tope Oluwoly 

Seizure of 3 Laptops, 10 mobiles,20 sim cards,8 dongles used for Crime from their house searched was done.

The trial matter was conducted and judgment was given by the Honorable Jmfc Shri M.M.Raut, Shivajinagar Pune.

10 witnesses were examined and the forensics report was admitted. 

All the three accused are convicted and given punishment as 

- u/s 419 rigorous imprisonment of 1 year, 

- u/s 420 rigorous imprisonment of 3 years 

and 

- under sections 66C & 66D of The IT Act,2000 1-year rigorous imprisonment and penalty of Rs. 5 lacs to each accused and in default of payment, 6 months of extra imprisonment.

I feel such convictions in cybercrime matters will lead to deterrence. This is a welcome conviction in the series of other Nigerians getting convicted for online frauds across the country. 
Order Copy For Downloading Below
State of Maharashtra Versus Ogeuri Emmanual Chinaso & ors

Pen drive or memory card is a document- case law

Memory card is a Document and Pen drive is a document 

Gopalkrishnan @ Dileep v. State of Kerala, Crl.A. No. 1794 of 2019 SC November 29, 2019

Held:- The contents of the memory card/pen drive being electronic record must be regarded as a document. If the prosecution is relying on the same, ordinarily, the accused must be given a cloned copy thereof to enable him/her to present an effective defence during the trial. However, in cases involving issues such as of privacy of the complainant/witness or his/her identity, the Court may be justified in providing only inspection thereof to the accused and his/her lawyer or expert for presenting effective defence during the trial. The court may issue suitable directions to balance the interests of both sides. [Para 44]

The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 3 – The Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 29 – The Information and Technology Act, 2000 – Section 2(1)(t) – Whether the contents of a memory card / pen drive being electronic record as predicated in the 2000 Act would, thereby qualify as a “document” ? 

The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 207 – If so, whether it is obligatory to furnish a cloned copy of the contents of such memory card / pen drive to the accused facing prosecution for an alleged offence of rape and related offences since the same is appended to the police report submitted to the Magistrate and the prosecution proposes to rely upon it against the accused ? 

The Information and Technology Act, 2000 – The Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Whether it is open to the Court to decline the request of the accused to furnish a cloned copy of the contents of the subject memory card / Pendrive in the form of video footage / clipping concerning the alleged incident / occurrence of rape on the ground that it would impinge upon the privacy, dignity, and identity of the victim involved in the stated offence(s) and more so because of the possibility of misuse of such cloned copy by the accused (which may attract other independent offences under the 2000 Act and the 1860 Code) ?

The Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 342, 366, 376, 506(1), 120B and 34 – The Information and Technology Act, 2000 – Sections 66E and 67A.

Gopalkrishnan @ Dileep v. State of Kerala, Crl.A. No. 1794 of 2019 SC November 29, 2019

Balkanisation of Internet Begins with Russia enacting a Law

1st November 2019 the legal seed of Balkanisation of Internet is sowed, a controversial new law took effect in Russia: The so-called "sovereign internet" law, which mandates the creation of an independent internet for Russia, thus creating an island in the cyber space. Is it for availability of Internet during the times of cyber threats or is it for exerting sovereignty at the cost of censoring the Internet remains to be seen. . It was hardly a surprise when the Iranian government  also had announced in May that it has installed a cyberdefense shield and wants to construct “halal Internet”. This germ is in the heads of France and Canada too and China has the infamous great firewall doing its fencing already.

Moscow has just given itself the power to erect a digital or cyber fence  around its internal network. How effective is the fence and isolation only time will tell us, but the point is made and it is made legally now.

President Putin signed into law, new rules that would enable the creation of a national network that can operate independently from the rest of the world. Among other things, the law allows Roskomnadzor, Russia's telecoms agency, to shut the country off from external traffic exchange, creating a purely Russian web.

The government has said the regulations are part of an effort to protect Russia by creating the ability to sustain a fenced-off national network, in the event that a foreign state interferes with Russian cyberspace. The official newspaper Rossiiskaya Gazeta said the law coming into force should not affect internet users, but it "will ensure the availability of communication services in Russia in case of threats."

Yes, this could make it easier for the Russian government to censor, reroute or switch off internet traffic to block access to politically sensitive content and online extremism. To control internet traffic, and to detect content, the law requires all internet providers in Russia to install special hardware provided by Roskomnadzor.

That would enable the use of Deep Packet Inspection (DPI) technology, which involves data processing that looks in detail at the contents of the data being sent. DPI, for instance, is used in by China for its Great Firewall to filter content it deems harmful to Chinese citizens.

The Telegram ban, however, showed the limits of Russian efforts to regulate cyberspace. A court in Moscow banned Telegram after the company refused to provide encryption keys to the FSB, but founder Pavel Durov said Telegram would use "built-in methods" to bypass the ban. Telegram, as of date is still widely available in Russia.

Russia has also circulated  a draft treaty in UN that would allow countries to solidify their hold over information and communications technology within their borders, enabling some countries to further restrict activities and speech on the internet, while also stressing governments’ sovereignty in cybercrime investigations. 

Just as the Ottoman Empire and Yugoslavia fractured (balkanised) into a series of smaller states, the same thing is happening to so called,  the “world wide web.” Instead of a global cyber space, the cyber boundaries have started to mirror the political and commercial boundaries of the sovereign states and Russia is leading the scene. 

Author Is Ph.D. (International Cyber Law and Cyber Warfare) and a Renowned practicing Cyber Lawyer . His PhD Research results has predicted that the Internet would be balkanised .

Email: prashant.mali@cyberlawconsulting.com