Policing report: one in eight faced cybercrime, poor victims paid more bribes for redress
If the rich are scammed more often, why do the poor end up paying bribes to get their money back?
Published 30 September 2026. Written by Pratidin from the reports linked at the end; every fact checked by a separate review before publishing. How we work
The Hindu on 30 September 2026 analysed the Status of Policing in India Report (SPIR) 2026, released in New Delhi on 24 September by the NGO Common Cause and the Lokniti programme of the Centre for the Study of Developing Societies (CSDS). This edition is devoted to cybercrime from the victim's point of view. It is based on a survey of 8,306 people across 16 States. About one in eight respondents (13%) said they had been a victim of cybercrime in the past two to three years; of these, 54% had suffered financial fraud and 23% lost more than ₹20,000. About a third said they frequently received scam calls, such as fake delivery calls (33%), high-return investment offers (31%) and callers posing as bank officials (27%).
The report finds that exposure rises with digital use, education and wealth. Among victims, 57% of the affluent reported financial fraud against 47% of the poor, and 59% of college graduates against 40% of non-literate respondents. Redress is the bigger problem. Only 49% of victims lodged a formal complaint. Of those who did, 27% said they had to pay a bribe to get the case handled: 35% of women against 22% of men, and 51% of poor victims against 12% of affluent ones. Bribery and influence appeared to work: 41% of bribe-payers recovered their full loss compared with 12% of those who did not pay, and 32% of those who used personal connections recovered in full compared with 13% who did not.
The findings sit against official data. The National Crime Records Bureau's Crime in India 2024 recorded 1,01,928 cybercrime cases, up 17.9% from 86,420 in 2023, even as total cognisable crime fell about 6%; fraud was the motive in 72.6% of cyber cases. 'Police' and 'public order' are State subjects, but the Centre runs the Indian Cyber Crime Coordination Centre (I4C) under the Home Ministry, the National Cyber Crime Reporting Portal (cybercrime.gov.in) and the 1930 helpline. The Hindu's analysis reads the findings as a case for making FIR registration and bank-police coordination on freezing fraudulent accounts enforceable procedures. The Hindu's reading is that informal channels, money and connections, have become the route to justice.
Prelims facts
- SPIR 2026, by Common Cause and Lokniti-CSDS, surveyed 8,306 people in 16 States and focused on cybercrime victims.
- 13% of respondents had faced cybercrime in the past two to three years; 54% of these victims suffered financial fraud.
- 27% of victims who complained to police paid a bribe; 51% of poor victims did so against 12% of affluent victims.
- NCRB's Crime in India 2024 recorded 1,01,928 cybercrime cases, a 17.9% rise over 2023, with fraud as the motive in 72.6%.
- Police and public order are State subjects; the Centre supports States through I4C, the cybercrime.gov.in portal and the 1930 helpline.
Quick recall
- Who publishes the Status of Policing in India Report?
- The NGO Common Cause and Lokniti, a programme of the Centre for the Study of Developing Societies (CSDS).
- Sample of SPIR 2026?
- 8,306 respondents across 16 States.
- Share of respondents who faced cybercrime in the past two to three years (SPIR 2026)?
- About 13%, roughly one in eight.
- Share of complainants who paid a bribe (SPIR 2026)?
- 27%; 51% among poor victims and 12% among affluent victims.
- Cybercrime cases in NCRB's Crime in India 2024?
- 1,01,928, up 17.9% from 86,420 in 2023.
- Share of 2024 cybercrime cases with fraud as motive?
- 72.6%.
- National helpline for reporting cyber financial fraud?
- 1930.
- Which Section of the IT Act, 2000 punishes cheating by personation using a computer resource?
- Section 66D.
Prelims practice question
The 'Status of Policing in India Report 2026', which focused on cybercrime victims, was brought out by:
- National Crime Records Bureau and Bureau of Police Research and Development
- Common Cause and Lokniti-CSDS
- NITI Aayog and the Indian Cyber Crime Coordination Centre
- Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative and the Law Commission of India
Show answer
Answer: (b) Common Cause and Lokniti-CSDS. SPIR is a civil society report by the NGO Common Cause and the Lokniti programme of CSDS. NCRB publishes Crime in India; BPR&D publishes Data on Police Organisations; I4C is a Home Ministry body.
Use this in UPSC Mains: previous-year questions
Recurring theme: Cybercrime, internal security and police accountability
- How to use this
Use the latest official and survey data to establish the scale of cybercrime, the premise of the question, before evaluating data protection frameworks.
- NCRB's Crime in India 2024 recorded 1,01,928 cybercrime cases, up 17.9% from 86,420 in 2023, even as total cognisable crime fell about 6%; fraud was the motive in 72.6%.
- SPIR 2026 (Common Cause and Lokniti-CSDS, 8,306 respondents in 16 States) found 13% had faced cybercrime in two to three years, and 27% frequently got calls from people posing as bank officials.
- How to use this
Use it to show how digital fraud generates illicit proceeds that move fast through the banking system, and the national coordination needed to freeze and trace them.
- NCRB recorded 1,01,928 cybercrime cases in 2024 (up 17.9%), with fraud the motive in 72.6%; SPIR 2026 found 54% of cybercrime victims suffered financial fraud.
- Slow freezing of mule accounts lets money vanish; The Hindu's analysis argues bank-police coordination on freezing fraudulent accounts should be an enforceable procedure.
- National institutions: the Home Ministry's Indian Cyber Crime Coordination Centre (I4C), the cybercrime.gov.in portal and the 1930 helpline support State police, since police is a State subject.
Scam calls and impersonation frauds are part of the digital threats to public order this question covers; the report's findings on redress add a governance angle.
Mains practice question
Cyber fraud is rising even as overall registered crime falls. Discuss the gaps in India's system of cybercrime redress highlighted by recent surveys and suggest reforms. (150 words)
Model answer
NCRB recorded 1,01,928 cybercrime cases in 2024, up 17.9%, while total crime fell about 6%. The Status of Policing in India Report 2026 shows the redress system is failing victims.
Gaps in redress
- Under-reporting: only 49% of victims filed a formal complaint.
- Corruption: 27% of complainants paid bribes; poor victims (51%) far more than the affluent (12%).
- Unequal recovery: 41% of bribe-payers recovered their full loss against 12% of others; connections also helped.
- Capacity: State police lack trained cyber investigators, while frauds cross State and national borders.
- Bank coordination: slow freezing of mule accounts lets money vanish.
Reforms
- Automatic FIR registration for 1930 and cybercrime.gov.in complaints.
- Binding bank-police protocols for quick account freezing.
- Dedicated cyber cells and forensic labs in every district.
- Anti-corruption oversight of how police handle cyber complaints.
- Cyber literacy for high-exposure groups.
Fair, fast and formal redress is essential for trust in digital India.
The basics
Why this matters
India's payments revolution has a shadow: cyber fraud. Official data show cybercrime cases rose 17.9% in 2024 even as total crime fell, and a new survey shows that getting justice depends too much on money and connections. The topic cuts across GS2 (police, governance, access to justice) and GS3 (cyber security, internal security).
The scale in official data
Registered cases are only the cases that reach an FIR. The Status of Policing in India Report asks people directly, which captures what never gets registered.
What the survey found
The survey found about 13% had been victims in the past two to three years. Wealthier and better-educated people were more exposed to financial fraud because they transact more online. But the poor, women and people without connections found the formal system hardest to use.
How a victim is supposed to get help
- 1Report fastCall the 1930 helpline or file on cybercrime.gov.in, run under the Home Ministry's I4C.
- 2Freeze the moneyThe Citizen Financial Cyber Fraud Reporting and Management System alerts banks to hold the funds.
- 3Register an FIRState police register the case under the IT Act and the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.
- 4Investigate and recoverPolice trace accounts and seek court orders to return frozen money.
Each step has gaps: complaints that never become FIRs, slow bank responses and police stations without trained staff. The division of powers explains part of this: see Police as a State subject and Indian Cyber Crime Coordination Centre (I4C). The legal tools are in Cyber fraud offences under the IT Act.
The reform agenda
The Hindu's analysis argues that FIR registration and bank-police coordination should become enforceable procedures. Such ideas echo older police reform debates about accountability and capacity.
Go deeper
In one line: A survey of 8,306 people in 16 States found that about one in eight had faced cybercrime, and that poor victims were far more likely than affluent ones to pay bribes to get police help.
Why it matters for UPSC
Cybercrime is a GS3 internal security topic, while police accountability and access to justice are GS2 governance topics. Data from NCRB and civil society reports make good Mains evidence.
The core idea
The Status of Policing in India Report 2026 measures cybercrime from the victim's side. Because Police as a State subject leaves investigation to States, and the Centre coordinates through the Indian Cyber Crime Coordination Centre (I4C), victims can fall through the gaps. The main legal tools are in Cyber fraud offences under the IT Act.
Numbers and dates to remember
- SPIR 2026 released 24 September 2026; 8,306 respondents, 16 States.
- 13% faced cybercrime; 54% of victims suffered financial fraud; 23% lost over ₹20,000.
- 49% filed a formal complaint; 27% of complainants paid bribes (poor 51%, affluent 12%; women 35%, men 22%).
- NCRB 2024: 1,01,928 cybercrime cases, up 17.9%; fraud motive 72.6%.
Where to go next
- Status of Policing in India Report: who makes it and how it differs from NCRB data.
- Police as a State subject: why cybercrime policing is State-led.
- Indian Cyber Crime Coordination Centre (I4C): the Centre's coordinating body.
- Cyber fraud offences under the IT Act: the law used against cyber fraud.
Go deeper: why redress fails
Reporting gap. Registered cases are a fraction of victimisation. Only 49% of SPIR victims made a formal complaint. Official figures from NCRB rise partly because more people report, and partly because fraud is growing.
Unequal access. The Status of Policing in India Report finds that the formal system works worse for women, the poor and those without connections. Bribe-payers recovered their full loss far more often (41%) than others (12%). This is a governance failure that affects trust in digital payments.
Federal design. Under Police as a State subject, each State runs its own cyber cells, while frauds are often run from call centres in other States or abroad. The Indian Cyber Crime Coordination Centre (I4C) tries to bridge this with a common portal, the 1930 helpline and the fraud reporting system that alerts banks.
Law and capacity. Cyber fraud offences under the IT Act give police the tools, but investigating digital money trails needs trained staff and forensic labs. The Hindu's analysis argues for making FIR registration and bank-police coordination enforceable procedures. Older police reform debates, such as the Supreme Court's Prakash Singh (2006) directions for police accountability bodies, point to the same issue: without independent oversight, discretion turns into rent-seeking.
Status of Policing in India Report
A civil society survey that measures policing from the citizen's side.
In one line: SPIR is a report series by the NGO Common Cause and Lokniti-CSDS that surveys citizens and police to assess how policing works on the ground.
How it differs from official data
The National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) counts registered cases in its annual Crime in India report. A survey like SPIR asks people directly about what happened to them, including crimes they never reported and how the police treated them. This makes it useful for studying under-reporting and corruption.
The 2026 edition
SPIR 2026, released on 24 September 2026, focused on cybercrime, surveying 8,306 respondents in 16 States. It found that 13% had faced cybercrime in two to three years, that exposure rose with wealth and education, and that 27% of complainants paid bribes.
Where to go next
Police as a State subject
Why States, not the Centre, investigate most cybercrime.
In one line: Under the Seventh Schedule, 'Public order' and 'Police' are in the State List, so States are responsible for preventing, registering and investigating crime.
What this means for cybercrime
A victim in one State may be defrauded by a caller in another State or abroad, yet the complaint is handled by the local police station. The Centre's role is to support States with advice, funds, training and shared platforms.
Accountability debates
Police reform has long been debated. In Prakash Singh v. Union of India (2006), the Supreme Court directed States to set up bodies such as State Security Commissions and Police Complaints Authorities. Compliance has been uneven.
Why it is in the news
SPIR 2026 found that many cybercrime victims face bribe demands at police stations.
Where to go next
Indian Cyber Crime Coordination Centre (I4C)
The Home Ministry's hub for coordinating action on cybercrime.
In one line: I4C is a body under the Ministry of Home Affairs that coordinates the fight against cybercrime across States and agencies.
What it runs
- The National Cyber Crime Reporting Portal (cybercrime.gov.in), where citizens can report all types of cybercrime.
- The toll-free helpline 1930 for help in filing complaints.
- The Citizen Financial Cyber Fraud Reporting and Management System, which alerts banks and payment firms so that defrauded money can be held before it disappears.
Results and limits
In a Lok Sabha reply of 6 February 2024, the government said the fraud reporting system had saved more than ₹1,200 crore across more than 4.7 lakh complaints, and that over 3.2 lakh SIM cards and 49,000 IMEIs had been blocked. But registering FIRs and investigating remain with State police, which is where SPIR 2026 found the biggest gaps.
Where to go next
Cyber fraud offences under the IT Act
The legal provisions police use against online fraud.
In one line: The Information Technology Act, 2000 creates specific offences for online identity theft and cheating, used alongside the general criminal law.
Key sections
- Section 66: computer-related offences such as hacking done dishonestly or fraudulently.
- Section 66C: identity theft, meaning fraudulent use of another person's electronic signature, password or other unique identification.
- Section 66D: cheating by personation using a computer resource, which covers many fake bank official and fake customer care scams.
With the general law
Police also use the cheating provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, which replaced the Indian Penal Code.
Why it is in the news
Fraud was the motive in 72.6% of the 1,01,928 cybercrime cases in 2024, and SPIR 2026 found that most victims struggled to get these laws applied.
Where to go next
Prelims-style quiz
Consider the following statements about the Status of Policing in India Report 2026:
1. It was prepared by the National Crime Records Bureau.
2. It surveyed 8,306 people across 16 States.
3. It found that poor victims were more likely than affluent victims to pay bribes to get their complaints handled.
How many of the statements given above are correct?- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Show answer
Answer: (b) Only two. Statement 1 is wrong: SPIR is by Common Cause and Lokniti-CSDS, not NCRB. Statements 2 and 3 are correct: 51% of poor victims who complained paid bribes against 12% of affluent victims.
Consider the following statements:
1. 'Police' and 'Public order' are subjects in the State List.
2. The Indian Cyber Crime Coordination Centre functions under the Ministry of Home Affairs.
3. The National Cyber Crime Reporting Portal allows citizens to report all types of cybercrime online.
4. NCRB data show that total cognisable crime and cybercrime both fell in 2024.
How many of the statements given above are correct?- Only one
- Only two
- Only three
- All four
Show answer
Answer: (c) Only three. Statements 1, 2 and 3 are correct. Statement 4 is wrong: total cognisable crime fell about 6% in 2024 but cybercrime rose 17.9%.
Consider the following statements:
Statement-I: SPIR 2026 found that a higher share of affluent and college-educated victims reported financial fraud than poor and non-literate victims.
Statement-II: People who transact more online have greater exposure to cyber fraud.
Which one of the following is correct in respect of the above statements?- Both Statement-I and Statement-II are correct and Statement-II explains Statement-I
- Both Statement-I and Statement-II are correct and Statement-II does not explain Statement-I
- Statement-I is correct but Statement-II is incorrect
- Statement-I is incorrect but Statement-II is correct
Show answer
Answer: (a) Both Statement-I and Statement-II are correct and Statement-II explains Statement-I. Both are correct and Statement-II explains Statement-I: the report links exposure to digital use, and among victims 57% of the affluent and 59% of graduates reported financial fraud against 47% of the poor and 40% of the non-literate.
Which of the following is the toll-free national helpline number for reporting cyber financial fraud in India?
- 112
- 1098
- 1930
- 14567
Show answer
Answer: (c) 1930. 1930 is the cyber fraud helpline linked to the National Cyber Crime Reporting Portal. 112 is the emergency response number, 1098 is Childline and 14567 is the elder helpline.
Consider the following statements about the Information Technology Act, 2000:
1. Section 66C deals with identity theft.
2. Section 66D deals with cheating by personation using a computer resource.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?- 1 only
- 2 only
- Both 1 and 2
- Neither 1 nor 2
Show answer
Answer: (c) Both 1 and 2. Both are correct: Section 66C punishes fraudulent use of another person's electronic signature, password or unique identification (identity theft), and Section 66D punishes cheating by personation using a computer resource.