ED arrests two in ₹400-crore cyber fraud network, finds 600 cyber complaints

The Enforcement Directorate investigated a large cyber fraud network allegedly built around fake investment schemes, job offers and other online opportunities. The probe began after a dozen FIRs were registered in Telangana, Tamil Nadu, Karnataka and West Bengal. The alleged proceeds were moved through mule bank accounts and cryptocurrency wallets.

The ED arrested Roshan Fiaz and Ammar last week. It described Fiaz as a key operator who maintained many mule accounts in his name, his wife’s name and several proprietorship firms. Ammar allegedly supplied accounts, account kits, credentials, SIM cards, phones and email IDs.

The case matters because the agency identified more than 600 linked cybercrime complaints and alleged proceeds exceeding ₹400 crore. The money was split, routed through multiple accounts, partly withdrawn in cash and partly converted into cryptocurrency, particularly Tether. The article does not state what legal outcome will follow the arrests.

The alleged fraud was extensive in both value and reach. The ED said proceeds of crime exceeded ₹400 crore and came from hundreds of cybercrime and online frauds. More than 600 cybercrime complaints were linked to the same network, showing that the operation allegedly affected victims across several states.

The banking trail provided another measure of scale. ED detected debit and credit transactions exceeding ₹300 crore in 31 bank accounts maintained by Roshan Fiaz, his wife or proprietorship firms. These were described as part of an extensive chain of mule accounts. The agency also said money moved through cryptocurrency wallets.

These figures show different parts of the alleged network. The ₹400-crore figure concerns the proceeds allegedly generated from frauds. The ₹300-crore figure concerns transactions in 31 accounts connected to Fiaz. The article does not say that every complaint involved the same amount or that all 600 complainants lost money.

The accused allegedly used familiar opportunities to make the fraud appear credible. They contacted victims by phone and through social media, offering investment schemes, jobs, stock market investments and other online opportunities. These promises could make an unsolicited message seem like a chance to earn or grow savings.

The key step was persuading victims to transfer money into bank accounts provided by the fraudsters. The article does not describe a single standard script or explain whether promised jobs or investments were ever delivered. It states that the money entered accounts connected with the alleged network after victims responded to the offers.

Once funds arrived, the accused allegedly split them into smaller amounts and sent them through mule accounts. Some money was withdrawn in cash, while another portion moved into cryptocurrency wallets. The wide range of complaints suggests the approach was repeated across many victims, but the article gives no individual victim account.

A mule bank account is generally a bank account used to receive, hold or transfer money on behalf of another person or group. The account may belong to an individual, company or firm, while the people directing the transactions remain behind the scenes. In this investigation, ED said Fiaz maintained accounts in his own name, his wife’s name and several proprietorship firms.

The alleged network split incoming funds into smaller amounts and routed them through many mule accounts. This created multiple transactions and account holders between the victim’s payment and the money’s eventual destination. Cash withdrawals and transfers into cryptocurrency wallets added further movement.

That process is called layering because it creates distance between the original payment and later use. It can make tracing more difficult, although bank records, transaction patterns and account links may still reveal relationships. ED detected more than ₹300 crore in debit and credit transactions across 31 accounts connected to Fiaz.

The article says part of the alleged proceeds was converted into cryptocurrency, particularly Tether, also called USDT. Cryptocurrency can move value between digital wallets without using a traditional bank transfer for every step. That made it another route for funds after money entered the banking system.

The reported mechanism involved receiving money from victims, splitting it through mule accounts, withdrawing some cash and transferring another portion into cryptocurrency wallets. ED said Ammar supplied accounts and related access materials to Fiaz for receiving rupees from crypto buyers. The article does not establish that cryptocurrency itself caused the fraud or explain every wallet transaction.

Digital transfers can help move illicit funds quickly across accounts and services, while wallet addresses may obscure the people behind them unless investigators connect them to bank records, devices or exchanges. Here, cryptocurrency was one part of a wider laundering process involving bank accounts, cash and digital wallets. The article gives no final finding on the cryptocurrency assets.

Money laundering is the process of making illegally obtained money appear less connected to its original crime. “Proceeds of crime” means money or property generated from criminal activity. In this investigation, ED used that term for more than ₹400 crore allegedly generated through cybercrime and online frauds.

“Layering” describes moving money through multiple transactions, accounts or assets to make its trail more complicated. The alleged network split victims’ payments into smaller amounts, sent them through mule bank accounts, withdrew some cash and transferred another portion to cryptocurrency wallets. Those steps created several layers between victims and the eventual funds.

The purpose, according to the ED’s account, was to conceal the money’s origin and divert it through a network of accounts and crypto transfers. The PMLA investigation arose from FIRs in four states. The article reports arrests and alleged financial flows, but it does not state that a court has finally proved the charges.

Under India’s Prevention of Money Laundering Act, the ED can investigate suspected money laundering, conduct searches, seize material and arrest people when legal requirements are met. It can also seek provisional attachment of property believed to represent proceeds of crime. These powers are intended to trace both the laundering activity and the underlying criminal proceeds.

In this case, the ED arrested Roshan Fiaz and Ammar and examined bank accounts, mule-account networks and cryptocurrency transfers. It could present its findings to the relevant court and pursue action against property or funds linked to the alleged offences. The article itself does not say that any assets were recovered or attached.

The next steps depend on the investigation and court proceedings. The accused may face further questioning and formal prosecution under applicable law. Courts decide issues such as bail, whether the evidence supports charges, and whether any attached property should ultimately be confiscated. The article does not report a final court outcome.