Please click here to download the Newsletter as PDF.
The third quarter of 2026 (July – September 2026) has seen significant enforcement actions and judicial developments in India’s cybersecurity and white-collar crime landscape. In addition to multiple arrests, attachments, and investigations undertaken by the Central Bureau of Investigation (“CBI”), the Enforcement Directorate (“ED”), and the Securities and Exchange Board of India (“SEBI”), this quarter also witnessed some key legislative and regulatory developments.
Enforcements landscape
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
CBI arrests Central Goods and Services Tax officials in bribery case
On August 27, 2026, the CBI arrested an Additional Commissioner and a Superintendent of the Central Goods and Services Tax (“CGST”) in Raigad, Maharashtra, along with a private person, in a bribery case. Reportedly, the officials demanded an undue advantage of INR 1,50,00,000 (Indian Rupees one crore fifty lakh) (subsequently negotiated down to INR 40,00,000 (Indian Rupees forty lakh)) for settling a tax and royalty matter relating to the complainant’s stone-quarrying firm. The CBI laid a trap and apprehended the private person red-handed while accepting the bribe amount on behalf of the officials. In subsequent searches, the CBI recovered cash amounting to INR 43,00,000 (Indian Rupees forty-three lakh) and jewellery worth approximately INR 90,00,000 (Indian Rupees ninety lakh).
Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002
ED attaches properties in agricultural land investment scheme fraud
On August 5, 2026, the ED’s Delhi Zonal Office provisionally attached 45 (forty-five) immovable properties worth INR 999,66,00,000 (Indian Rupees nine hundred and ninety-nine crore sixty-six lakh) belonging to 3 (three) related companies, in connection with a money laundering investigation into a large-scale collective investment scheme. The investigation, stemming from a First Information Report (“FIR”) registered by the CBI, revealed that the accused entities fraudulently mobilised over INR 48,000 crore (Indian Rupees forty-eight thousand crore) from lakhs of investors across India under the pretext of sale and development of agricultural land, without ever delivering the promised land. With this attachment, the total value of assets attached by the ED in India and abroad stands at approximately INR 29,625.63 crore (Indian Rupees twenty-nine thousand six hundred and twenty-five point sixty-three crore).
ED attaches high-value properties in cyber fraud call centre case
On August 1, 2026, the ED’s Jalandhar Zonal Office attached properties worth INR 187,13,00,000 (Indian Rupees one hundred and eighty-seven crore thirteen lakh) in a money laundering investigation against persons operating illegal call centres targeting foreign nationals. The investigation, stemming from an FIR registered by the CBI on the basis of information shared by the Federal Bureau of Investigation of the United States of America (“US”), revealed that the accused cheated US citizens under the guise of technical support services and induced them to transfer funds into crypto accounts. The proceeds were allegedly routed through shell entities and invested in immovable properties, including farmhouses and villas, across Haryana, Delhi and Goa.
SEBI (Prohibition of Fraudulent and Unfair Trade Practices relating to Securities Market) Regulations, 2003
SEBI passes interim order against entities for manipulating BSE Sensex on expiry day
On August 19, 2026, SEBI issued an ex-parte interim order against 2 (two) entities for allegedly manipulating the BSE Sensex during the closing auction session on the weekly expiry day of August 13, 2026. SEBI’s examination revealed 3 (three) abnormal spikes in the Sensex indicative equilibrium price, ranging from 132 (one hundred and thirty-two) to 405 (four hundred and five) points within a few seconds, caused by aggressive buy orders placed by one entity and large sell orders placed and subsequently cancelled by the other. The trades allegedly enabled both entities to profit from their outstanding expiry-day Sensex options positions, resulting in wrongful gains of approximately INR 2,96,16,000 (Indian Rupees two crore ninety-six lakh sixteen thousand) and INR 71,64,773 (Indian Rupees seventy-one lakh sixty-four thousand seven hundred and seventy-three), respectively. SEBI directed impounding of the wrongful gains and restrained both entities from accessing the securities market.
Legislative/regulatory developments
SEBI and Financial Intelligence Unit – India execute intelligence sharing memorandum
On April 16, 2026, SEBI and the Financial Intelligence Unit – India executed a memorandum of understanding to formalise the real-time sharing of intelligence to detect complex money laundering patterns operating through the capital markets.
The memorandum is expected to strengthen inter-agency coordination by enabling timely exchange of information relating to suspicious transactions and emerging financial crime trends.
SEBI aligns cyber incident reporting with the Financial Stability Board’s Format for Incident Reporting Exchange
On August 24, 2026, SEBI issued a circular aligning its cyber incident reporting portal with the Financial Stability Board’s Format for Incident Reporting Exchange. Regulated entities, including stock exchanges, depositories, stock brokers, mutual funds, and investment advisers, must now report cyber incidents in stages, comprising an initial report, intermediate updates, and a final closure report, using standardised definitions and incident classifications. The existing timelines under SEBI’s Cybersecurity and Cyber Resilience Framework continue to apply, requiring regulated entities to report incidents by email within 6 (six) hours and on the portal within 24 (twenty-four) hours.
E-Commerce rules are amended to strengthen consumer protection and promote transparency in the digital marketplace
On September 9, 2026, the Department of Consumer Affairs notified the Consumer Protection (E-Commerce) (Amendment) Rules, 2026, which will come into force on January 1, 2027. From a data privacy perspective, the amended rules require marketplace e-commerce entities to obtain express and affirmative consent from consumers for specific uses of their information, including for promoting goods sold under a brand common with the marketplace. This consent is distinct from the general consent framework under the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 (“DPDP Act”), and a valid consent under the DPDP Act will not by itself satisfy the narrower requirement. The amendments also incorporate the 2023 guidelines on dark patterns into the binding rules, requiring an annual self-audit, and mandate disclosure of the lowest price offered in the preceding 30 (thirty) days where a discount is advertised.
For a detailed analysis, please refer to the JSA Prism of September 9, 2026.
Strengthening India’s digital evidence analysis capacity with new examiners of electronic evidence
On July 9, 2026, the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology notified 6 (six) forensic laboratories located in Delhi, Kolkata, Mumbai, Goa, and Jaipur as examiners of electronic evidence under Section 79A of the Information Technology Act, 2000. The notified laboratories include the National Forensic Sciences University, Goa, the Central Forensic Science Laboratory, Kolkata, and the Border Security Force’s Central Drone Forensic Lab, which will handle drone forensics. The expansion is significant as the certificate for electronic evidence under Section 63 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 requires the signature of an expert, and courts have previously noted the limited number of notified examiners across the country.
For a detailed analysis, please refer to the JSA Prism of September 3, 2026.
Judicial discourse
- The Supreme Court of India (“Supreme Court”), in State of A.P. vs. Suda Suresh Veera Venkata Naga Raju[1], clarified that Section 38 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (“BNSS”) entitles an arrested person to meet an advocate of his choice during interrogation but does not confer a right to the advocate’s continuous physical presence throughout interrogation. It further held that recording the actual interrogation sessions and the discovery or recovery proceedings satisfies the requirement of audio-visual recording. The law does not require uninterrupted videography of the accused while in transit between locations. The decision will have implications on admissibility of custodial statements and discoveries, one of the primary pieces of evidence in most criminal trials.
- The Supreme Court, in Sanofi India vs. Central Bureau of Investigation[2], held that criminal proceedings against a company for an offence requiring mens rea cannot be quashed solely because the individual, employee or officer through whom the alleged offence was committed has not been identified or arraigned as an accused. The court developed a 3 (three) stage framework for determining when the conduct and mental state of a natural person may be attributed to a corporation: (a) whether the power to perform the act in question arises from the corporation’s constitutional documents or company law; (b) whether such power was expressly or impliedly delegated to the person with sufficient discretion and independence to do the act; and (c) whether the statutory purpose necessitates a special rule of attribution and, if so, whether the person falls within its scope. The decision has significant implications on corporate criminal liability and vicarious liability.
- The Supreme Court, in State of Meghalaya vs. Sonam Raghuvanshi @ Bitti @ Bittu[3], examined the consequences of non-compliance with the requirement to furnish grounds of arrest under Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India (“Constitution”) and Section 47(1) of the BNSS. It held that there is a distinction between non-service of grounds of arrest ‘entirely’ and non-furnishing of ‘adequate’ reasons for arrest. While the former may vitiate the arrest, in the latter case, the prejudice caused to the accused has to be considered. The Supreme Court further held that release on bail following non-compliance with the requirement to furnish grounds of arrest, does not prevent the investigating agency from re-arresting the accused for investigation. However, on the question of such re-arrest, the Supreme Court, in Jaskaran Jeet Singh Deol vs. State of Punjab[4], laid down additional safeguards. The police is required to seek judicial permission for re-arrest by applying to the Magistrate. The application should explain the necessity for re-arrest and the earlier failure to furnish the grounds for arrest. It must also carry the endorsement of a superior police officer. The Supreme Court clarified that the same procedure applies to violations of Article 22(2) of the Constitution, which requires production of the accused before a Magistrate within 24 (twenty-four) hours. The Supreme Court also reiterated that compensation may be granted as a public law remedy for such constitutional violations. Further, the gravity of the offence cannot dilute or override these constitutional safeguards.
In another related development, the Orissa High Court, in Bikram Panda vs. State of Odisha[5], interpreted the law laid down in Mihir Rajesh Shah[6] regarding supply of grounds of arrest to be applicable even to arrests made prior to the said decision. The correctness of this view as against the aforesaid Supreme Court decisions would remain to be tested. - The Supreme Court, in Union of India vs. Sunil Biyani[7], held that apprehension of arrest for the offence under Section 132 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (“CGST Act”) can only arise upon issuance as well as communication to the accused of the ‘reasons to believe’ on the part of the Commissioner authorising arrest under Section 69(1). The decision also mandates such communication by e-mail, mobile number and other means recognised under the BNSS.
- The Supreme Court in Pramod Kumar Shukla vs. State of U.P.[8] held that an FIR is maintainable even after dismissal of an application under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“CrPC”) (now Section 175(3) of the BNSS) on substantially similar allegations. The Supreme Court reasoned that the police has an independent statutory mandate to investigate if the police finds that cognisable offences are made out.
- The Punjab and Haryana High Court in Vivo India Private Limited vs. Serious Fraud Investigation Office[9] held that prosecution complaints filed by the Serious Fraud Investigation Office (“SFIO”) following an investigation under Section 212 of the Companies Act, 2013 (“Companies Act”) are not governed by the first proviso to Section 223 of the BNSS. The court further held that a proposed accused has no vested right to a pre-cognisance hearing before the Special Court. The court observed that a Special Court presided over by a Sessions Judge or Additional Sessions Judge under the Companies Act does not qualify as a ‘Magistrate’ for the purposes of Section 223 of the BNSS. Accordingly, the cognisance of offences under the Companies Act is governed by Section 213 of the BNSS read with Section 436(1)(d) of the Companies Act. The court also relied on Section 212(15) of the Companies Act, which deems the SFIO investigation report to be a police report. It held that the statutory scheme does not contemplate an additional pre-cognisance hearing in SFIO prosecutions.
The decision assumes importance in view of the ongoing judicial interpretation of the precise scope of the right of pre-cognisance hearing under the BNSS. In particular, it raises questions about why this right should be confined to complaint cases and excluded where prosecution follows an investigation by the police or a similar law enforcement agency. In contrast, the Supreme Court in Parvinder Singh vs. ED[10] has extended the right to a pre-cognisance hearing to proceedings before a Special Court under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (“PMLA”), even though such a court is not a ‘Magistrate’. However, the court’s interpretation was based on the specific scheme of the PMLA which permits the application of Sections 223-228 of the BNSS to prosecution complaints filed by the ED. In a related development, the Bombay High Court in Neville Hili vs. SEBI and Anr.[11], held that the first proviso to Section 223(1) of the BNSS, applies to prosecutions under the SEBI Act, 1992 (“SEBI Act”). The court held that Section 26 of the SEBI Act only prescribes that cognisance may be taken on a complaint made by SEBI and does not prescribe the manner of taking cognisance. Section 26-D applies the general criminal procedure under the BNSS to proceedings before the Special Court, except where the SEBI Act provides otherwise.
In a further related development, the Allahabad High Court in Brijkishore @ Birju vs. Assistant Director, ED and Anr.[12], relying on a Delhi High Court decision[13], held that non-compliance with Section 223(1) of BNSS may be overlooked by higher courts if it has caused no actual prejudice to the accused. This may be the case where the accused is aware of the allegations and continues to participate in the trial, despite not having been afforded the otherwise mandatory requirement of pre-cognisance hearing. - The Delhi High Court in Chitra Ramkrishna vs. Union of India[14], considered the challenge to Sections 2(b) and 2(c)(viii) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (“PC Act”), and the sanction and cognisance orders against the former Managing Director and Chief Executive Officer (“MD & CEO”) of National Stock Exchange (“NSE”). The court held that the definition of ‘public servant’ under Section 2(c)(viii) of the PC Act is not vague or unconstitutional. It further held that NSE performs functions in which the public has an interest and that its MD & CEO cannot be wholly separated from such functions. However, whether they fall within the ambit of Section 2(c)(viii) of the PC Act is a mixed question of fact and law to be determined at trial. The Supreme Court upheld the Delhi High Court’s approach, clarifying that Ramkrishna could raise the issue of whether she performed a public duty before the trial court.[15] The decision is important for the applicability of anti-bribery law to entities that are otherwise not State/public bodies but perform duties in the nature of public duties. Further, since the question of whether in a given case a corporation/business performs a ‘public duty’ has been held to be a matter of trial, it appears that such grounds may not be permitted to seek quashing, discharge or threshold dismissal of criminal proceedings.
- The Delhi High Court in Court on Its Own Motion vs. State[16] held that the amended Section 19(1) of the PC Act, effective from July 26, 2018, applies even to offences allegedly committed before that date. However, prior sanction is required only where cognisance had not been taken before July 26, 2018, e. cases in which cognisance had already been taken remain unaffected and need not be reopened for fresh sanction.
- The Karnataka High Court, in Gameskraft Technologies (P) Limited vs. ED[17], held that challenge to search/seizure/retention proceedings under Section 17 of the PMLA, arising from an Enforcement Case Information Report (“ECIR”), are maintainable under Section 482 of the CrPC (now Section 528 of the BNSS). Such challenges may also be brought through a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution read with Section 482 of the CrPC., e. it is not confined purely to the civil writ jurisdiction of a High Court. The court observed that although an ECIR is an administrative document, in the statutory scheme of the PMLA, it is an inseparable consequence of the FIR registered for the predicate or scheduled criminal offence. The decision is relevant in the ongoing judicial discourse on whether the ED and its various powers under the PMLA are akin to criminal investigation powers of the police officers, and the applicable standard of judicial review of those powers.
- The Bombay High Court in Rajendra Narpatmal Lodha vs. ED[18] held that once the ED forms and records an opinion that the accused should be questioned under Section 50(2) and 50(3) of the PMLA, and the Special Court has allowed such request, the ED cannot drop that exercise and arrest him under Section 19 of the PMLA on the same material. It can do so only if fresh incriminating material or a supervening exigency arises in between; otherwise, the arrest is a colourable exercise of power.
- The Calcutta High Court in Registrar of Companies, West Bengal vs. Ranjan Meghani[19] held that a Chartered Accountant who certifies statutory e-Forms in a professional capacity is not an ‘officer’ or ‘officer in default’ under the Companies Act, therefore the registrar of companies cannot prosecute them directly under Section 439(2) of the Companies Act (Section 621 of the Companies Act, 1956) unless active complicity is prima facie However, it held that an independent professional is not automatically immune under Section 628 of the Companies Act, 1956 as it penalises ‘any person’ who knowingly makes a materially false statement or conceals a material fact – but liability requires specific allegations of knowing participation or active connivance with management (mens rea).
International developments
Five Eyes countries endorse UK-led measures to disrupt global fraud networks
On August 27, 2026, the United Kingdom (“UK”) Home Office announced that the Five Eyes countries (the UK, the US, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand) endorsed a package of UK-led measures to strengthen the international response to fraud and online scams at the Five Country Ministerial in Sydney. The measures include faster intelligence sharing on multi-country fraud operations, including scam centres, and coordinated action with industry to shut down the accounts, services, and communication channels used by criminals to target victims and move proceeds. The partners also backed enhanced support for the INTERPOL Global Fraud Taskforce, which will map organised fraud networks and support cross-border disruption operations.
US Department of Justice launches National Fraud Detection Center
On August 24, 2026, the US Department of Justice (“DOJ”) announced the launch of the National Fraud Detection Center (“NFDC”), a prosecutor-led, multi-agency team designed to investigate the most harmful actors defrauding federal government programmes, including those operating from overseas and across multiple programmes. The NFDC aims to address the lack of cross-program visibility by breaking down institutional silos, embedding analysts from the inspector general community, and using shared technology. Its inaugural members include the Federal Bureau of Investigation, IRS Criminal Investigation, the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, and the US Treasury Department. The initiative forms part of the DOJ’s National Fraud Enforcement Division, established in April 2026.
This Newsletter has been prepared by:
Rupinder Malik | Kumar Kislay | Vibhor Jain | Archit Sehgal | Simarpreet K Matharoo
For more details, please contact km@jsalaw.com
[1] 2026 SCC OnLine SC 1389 (decided on July 27, 2026)
[2] 2026 INSC 957 (decided on September 7, 2026)
[3] 2026 SCC OnLine SC 1392 (decided on July 23, 2026)
[4] 2026 SCC OnLine SC 1939 (decided on September 21, 2026)
[5] BLAPL No. 13860 of 2025 (decided on August 31, 2026)
[6] (2026) 1 SCC 500
[7] 2026 SCC OnLine SC 1544 (decided on August 12, 2026)
[8] 2026 INSC 887 (decided on August 19, 2026)
[9] 2026 SCC OnLine P&H 20047 (decided on July 7, 2026)
[10] 2026 SCC OnLine SC 903 (decided on May 19, 2026)
[11] 2026 SCC OnLine Bom 5968 (decided on July 15, 2026)
[12] NA528 No. 4506 of 2026 (decided September 1, 2026)
[13] Rakesh Kumar Gulati vs. ED, 2025:DHC:11894
[14] 2026 SCC OnLine Del 5031 (decided on July 09, 2026)
[15] Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 16425/2026 (decided on September 15, 2026)
[16] 2026:DHC:6342-DB (decided on August 6, 2026)
[17] 2026 SCC OnLine Kar 9082 (decided on August 5, 2026)
[18] 2026:BHC-AS:38365 (decided on September 21, 2026)
[19] CRR 4267 OF 2022 (decided on August 1, 2026)
