‘Operation Chakra-V': CBI busts transnational scam that posed as tech support to cheat Japanese citizens
The six accused were apprehended following searches at 19 locations in Delhi, Haryana and Uttar Pradesh, officials in the agency said.
They said the accused have been identified as Ashu Singh (Delhi); Kapil Ghakhar (Panipat, Haryana); Rohit Maurya from Ayodhya; and Shubham Jaiswal, Vivek Raj and Adarsh Kumar from Varanasi in Uttar Pradesh.
'As part of its ongoing efforts to combat cyber-enabled financial crimes under Operation Chakra-V, the CBI on May 28 conducted coordinated searches... the operation culminated in the arrest of six key operatives and the dismantling of two illegal call centres engaged in a sophisticated transnational tech support scam targeting Japanese citizens,' the agency said in an official statement after conducting 'Operation Chakra-V'.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hindu
11 hours ago
- The Hindu
Tihar Jail, India's largest prison, under scanner for ‘extortion racket'
Long infamous for chronic overcrowding, India's largest and most high-security prison, Tihar Jail, is now under the scanner for an 'extortion racket' running within its four walls, allegedly involving officials and inmates. On August 11, the Delhi High Court, acting on a petition filed by a former inmate, directed the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to register an FIR and investigate what it described as 'very disturbing and startling' allegations. The case stems from a petition filed by businessman Mohit Kumar Goyal, who was lodged in Tihar Jail between June 4 and August 6, 2024, in connection with a cheating case before being granted bail. In his plea, Mr. Goyal alleged that during his two-month incarceration he was repeatedly coerced into paying 'protection money' by prison officials in collusion with certain inmates. The former inmate told the court about a senior official warning him that refusal to pay up would invite dire consequences. Mr. Goyal alleged that the threats included being grievously harmed or having his face disfigured with a blade. He alleged that certain officials introduced him to inmates, who acted as their operatives. In the petition, filed through advocate Sachin, the businessman said he was forced to pay nearly ₹15 lakh as extortion money. The modus operandi to extort money from the inmates is to have their family members transfer a fixed sum of money to the relatives of the other inmates who are part of the alleged racket, Mr. Goyal told the court. In return, the inmates are allowed unlimited use of videoconferencing facilities for 'eMulakat', online interviews with family members and legal representatives, as well as access to phones. An inmate who refused to pay up, the businessman claimed, exposed himself to harsh punitive measures and threats of bodily harm. Court-ordered probe Considering the seriousness of the allegations, the court on September 26 last year directed the Inspecting Judge of Tihar Jail to examine the allegations and submit a report. On May 2, the court perused the report, which was filed in a sealed cover. A Bench of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela noted that 'very disturbing and startling facts have been revealed pointing not only to certain irregularities and illegalities in the functioning of Tihar Jail but also to issues touching upon even criminal activities going on there'. The report was based on a detailed inquiry conducted by the Inspecting Judge on examining the inmates, the prison authorities, and other individuals whose names were disclosed by the petitioner. The report also analysed the call detail records to examine calls made by inmates to people outside. It purportedly also highlighted 'how the official landline number in the jail was misused by vested interests for promoting nefarious activities'. While the report also questioned the conduct of the petitioner, it confirmed the existence of an extortion network operating in connivance with jail authorities. The court directed a two-pronged action — a preliminary probe by the CBI and an administrative inquiry by the Delhi government's Principal Secretary (Home), to identify officers responsible for the lapses. Upon examining the CBI's preliminary inquiry report, the High Court noted that the findings 'reflected various malpractices prevalent in jails' and indicated collusion between inmates and officials in corrupt activities. Meanwhile, in compliance with the court's earlier orders, the Delhi government informed the Bench that disciplinary proceedings had been initiated against nine jail officials. Some of them have been suspended and others transferred, with further action being pursued under the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965, the government told the court.
Economic Times
11 hours ago
- Economic Times
Alleged Land-for-Jobs scam: CBI court slams co-accused for 'contrived' bid to delay case
Synopsis A special CBI court rebuked an accused in the land-for-jobs scandal, Ram Ashish Singh, for attempting to delay the framing of charges. Singh sought to exclude a letter he wrote to the CBI, claiming it was a confessional statement. The court dismissed his application, viewing it as a tactic to avoid arguments on the charges against him. IANS New Delhi: A special CBI court has chided a co-accused allegedly involved in the land-for-jobs scandal for moving an application in a "contrived manner" to avoid arguments on framing of charges against reported by ET, a special court here is conducting day-to-day hearing on the framing of charges against the accused involved in the alleged scandal. The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) has charge sheeted the then Union Railways Minister Lalu Prasad Yadav, his wife Rabri Devi, sons Tejashwi and Tej Pratap Yadav, daughters Misa Bharti and Hema Yadav in the said case under the Prevention of Corruption Act. Around 84 of the 99 total accused have concluded their arguments opposing the framing of charges. These include Tejashwi, Tej Pratap Yadav and others. A local court, in an order passed last week, came down heavily on Ram Ashish Singh for moving an application to "delay" the proceedings of the case. The dispute in question pertains to a letter dated June 27, 2022 relied upon by the CBI vide which the accused, a principal of a school in Bihar, had responded to CBI's query revealing that few job aspirants had procured forged mark sheets and transfer certificates to secure jobs in the Railway Department. The accused moved court seeking deletion or exclusion of the said document from CBI's charge sheet on the ground that it is in the nature of a "confessional statement". The same was strongly opposed by CBI. Refusing to entertain the plea the court, in its order dated August 8, came down heavily on the accused. The CBI court held that "the court finds the insistence of the counsel for accused upon the application being decided before he may lead other arguments to be a conscious ploy to seek a truncated and piecemeal as well as premature finding from the court on issues relating to the charge". More so, the order reads, "when the document in question is a letter from the accused to the investigating officer and is not cited as a confession or a disclosure statement by the CBI. The heightened insistence of the counsel is perceived by the court as a disguise for delay".Refusing to grant any relief, the court ruled that "the court is therefore not inclined to allow the prayer for a standalone order to be pronounced on the present application which calls upon the court to first reach a finding as to whether the said letter sent by accused to the IO, is a confessional statement and then disregard it. When the charge itself is not contemplated as a mini trial, no such exercise can be conducted for appreciating the tenor or admissibility of a document even prior to an order on charge".The court held that "being conscious that any eager, animated or inflexible assertion of the counsel ought not to prejudice the accused, the court would refrain from making further observations regarding the contrived manner in which the application has been moved so as to avoid arguments on charge on other aspects".
Time of India
12 hours ago
- Time of India
Alleged Land-for-Jobs scam: CBI court slams co-accused for 'contrived' bid to delay case
New Delhi: A special CBI court has chided a co-accused allegedly involved in the land-for-jobs scandal for moving an application in a "contrived manner" to avoid arguments on framing of charges against him. Independence Day 2025 Modi signals new push for tech independence with local chips Before Trump, British used tariffs to kill Indian textile Bank of Azad Hind: When Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose gave India its own currency As reported by ET, a special court here is conducting day-to-day hearing on the framing of charges against the accused involved in the alleged scandal. The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) has charge sheeted the then Union Railways Minister Lalu Prasad Yadav , his wife Rabri Devi, sons Tejashwi and Tej Pratap Yadav, daughters Misa Bharti and Hema Yadav in the said case under the Prevention of Corruption Act. Around 84 of the 99 total accused have concluded their arguments opposing the framing of charges. These include Tejashwi, Tej Pratap Yadav and others. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Could This NEW Collagen Blend Finally Reduce Your Cellulite? Vitauthority Learn More Undo A local court, in an order passed last week, came down heavily on Ram Ashish Singh for moving an application to "delay" the proceedings of the case. The dispute in question pertains to a letter dated June 27, 2022 relied upon by the CBI vide which the accused, a principal of a school in Bihar, had responded to CBI's query revealing that few job aspirants had procured forged mark sheets and transfer certificates to secure jobs in the Railway Department. The accused moved court seeking deletion or exclusion of the said document from CBI's charge sheet on the ground that it is in the nature of a "confessional statement". The same was strongly opposed by CBI. Live Events Refusing to entertain the plea the court, in its order dated August 8, came down heavily on the accused. The CBI court held that "the court finds the insistence of the counsel for accused upon the application being decided before he may lead other arguments to be a conscious ploy to seek a truncated and piecemeal as well as premature finding from the court on issues relating to the charge". More so, the order reads, "when the document in question is a letter from the accused to the investigating officer and is not cited as a confession or a disclosure statement by the CBI. The heightened insistence of the counsel is perceived by the court as a disguise for delay". Refusing to grant any relief, the court ruled that "the court is therefore not inclined to allow the prayer for a standalone order to be pronounced on the present application which calls upon the court to first reach a finding as to whether the said letter sent by accused to the IO, is a confessional statement and then disregard it. When the charge itself is not contemplated as a mini trial, no such exercise can be conducted for appreciating the tenor or admissibility of a document even prior to an order on charge". The court held that "being conscious that any eager, animated or inflexible assertion of the counsel ought not to prejudice the accused, the court would refrain from making further observations regarding the contrived manner in which the application has been moved so as to avoid arguments on charge on other aspects".
