Police bust mule bank network linked to 54 cybercrime cases worth ₹10 crore, four arrested; Chinese national under scanner

Hyderabad Cyber Crime Police investigated a woman’s complaint after she lost ₹37.40 lakh in an online investment scam. The investigation focused on how fraudulent proceeds moved through bank accounts opened in other people’s names. These accounts were described as mule accounts because they helped conceal and transfer stolen money.

Police identified 20 such accounts and arrested four alleged facilitators. They were Panduraju Abhishek, Maroju Subrahmanya Chari alias Bannu, Gedela Nani and Alamanda Manikanta. Their occupations were listed as interior designer, drivers and helper. Police said Abhishek worked with a Chinese national through WhatsApp and recruited the others.

The investigation connected the transactions to about 54 cybercrime cases across India, involving nearly ₹10 crore. Police seized phones, cards, passbooks and cheque books from Abhishek. They are continuing to examine the wider mule-account network and the Chinese national’s alleged role.

A mule bank account is a bank account used as a transfer point for money obtained by fraud or another crime. The account holder may be recruited, paid, deceived or otherwise involved. Criminal networks use such accounts to make stolen funds harder to trace back to the original scammer.

In this case, investigators identified 20 accounts allegedly used to receive and transfer cyber-fraud proceeds. Police said Abhishek arranged accounts and SIM cards after contacting a Chinese national on WhatsApp. He allegedly placed the SIM cards in his phones, then transferred money from those accounts to other mule accounts controlled by the foreign national.

The arrangement helped move money across several accounts rather than keeping it in one place. Abhishek allegedly received four per cent of the transferred amount and withdrew his commission from nearby ATMs. Police linked the transactions to about 54 cases across India.

The investigation expanded far beyond the original complaint. Police initially examined the transfer of ₹37.40 lakh lost by a woman in an online investment scam. By tracing the destination and movement of the money, they identified a network of 20 mule bank accounts.

Further examination found links to approximately 54 cybercrime cases registered across India. The suspected fraudulent transactions in those cases amounted to nearly ₹10 crore. The article describes this as the value associated with the wider network, not as money lost by the single complainant.

The figures show why tracing account-to-account movement matters. A fraud may begin with one victim and one payment, while connected accounts reveal many complaints and transactions. Police are still investigating the wider network and the alleged Chinese coordinator, so the reported links describe the current investigation rather than a final court finding.

The woman was drawn into an online investment scam through WhatsApp. The fraudsters promised substantial returns from investments and directed her toward online trading platforms. The promise of high returns made the opportunity appear genuine to her.

Believing the offers, she transferred money to bank accounts supplied by the fraudsters. The article does not state how many payments she made or identify the platforms. It records the total loss as ₹37.40 lakh. She realised she had been cheated after sending the money and lodged a complaint on April 4.

That complaint led police to trace the financial transactions. Investigators found that the receiving accounts were among 20 alleged mule accounts used to collect and move cyber-fraud proceeds. The tracing later connected the transactions to about 54 cybercrime cases and suspected fraudulent transfers of nearly ₹10 crore across India.

Police said Abhishek came into contact with a Chinese national through WhatsApp while facing financial difficulties. The foreign national allegedly offered commissions for arranging mule bank accounts and SIM cards. These accounts and phone numbers were intended to receive and move cybercrime proceeds.

Abhishek allegedly approached Subrahmanya Chari, Nani and Manikanta, offering ₹10,000 for every bank account they arranged. After obtaining the account credentials and SIM cards, he inserted the SIM cards into his mobile phones. Money arriving in those accounts was then allegedly transferred to other mule accounts controlled by the Chinese national.

Police said Abhishek received four per cent of the total amount transferred and withdrew his earnings through nearby ATMs. The arrests and seized phones, cards, passbooks and cheque books gave investigators material for examining the account network. The article does not explain how the original account holders were approached or verified.

When stolen money passes through mule accounts, victims may lose savings and face uncertainty about recovering them. The receiving bank must respond to complaints, trace payments and determine where the funds went. The article directly shows this process beginning with a woman’s ₹37.40 lakh loss and a police investigation.

Banks can face account reviews, payment disputes, legal requests and possible losses if funds cannot be recovered. Multiple transfers make the trail more complicated because money moves through several accounts before reaching the network’s controllers. In this case, police traced 20 accounts and later found links to approximately 54 cases.

At a wider level, repeated abuse can weaken confidence in digital payments and increase the cost of fraud controls. The article does not quantify those effects. It states that police are investigating the wider network and the Chinese national’s alleged coordination, which may clarify the full reach and movement of funds.

Banks normally verify a customer through know-your-customer checks. These commonly include identity and address documents, a photograph, basic personal details and, where required, verification of the customer or beneficial owner. The exact documents and procedures depend on local law and the account type. The article does not describe the banks’ checks in this case.

After opening an account, banks use transaction monitoring to look for unusual activity. Examples include sudden high-value transfers, rapid movement through several accounts, repeated cash withdrawals, many new beneficiaries or activity unlike the customer’s usual pattern. Banks may ask for explanations, restrict activity, close accounts or file required suspicious-transaction reports.

These controls can help identify accounts being used as money-transfer points, but they do not guarantee prevention. Banks also need timely alerts, accurate customer information and cooperation with investigators. Here, police traced 20 accounts after a complaint and are examining their links to wider cybercrime cases.