Full
Guide on Cyber Crimes in India
Continued......
Online
gambling
There
are millions of websites; all hosted on servers abroad, that offer
online gambling. In fact, it is believed that many of these websites
are actually fronts for money laundering. Cases of hawala
transactions and money laundering over the Internet have been
reported. Whether these sites have any relationship with drug
trafficking is yet to be explored. Recent Indian case about cyber
lotto was very interesting. A man called Kola Mohan invented the
story of winning the Euro Lottery. He himself created a website and
an email address on the Internet with the address 'eurolottery@usa.net.'
Whenever accessed, the site would name him as the beneficiary of the
12.5 million pound.After confirmation a telgu newspaper published
this as a news. He collected huge sums from the public as well as
from some banks for mobilization of the deposits in foreign
currency. However, the fraud came to light when a cheque discounted
by him with the Andhra Bank for Rs 1.73 million bounced. Mohan had
pledged with Andhra Bank the copy of a bond certificate purportedly
issued by Midland Bank, Sheffields, London stating that a term
deposit of 12.5 million was held in his name.
Intellectual
Property crimes
These
include software piracy, copyright infringement, trademarks
violations, theft of computer source code etc. In other words this
is also referred to as cybersquatting. Satyam Vs. Siffy is the most
widely known case. Bharti Cellular Ltd. filed a case in the Delhi
High Court that some cyber squatters had registered domain names
such as barticellular.com and bhartimobile.com with Network
solutions under different fictitious names. The court directed
Network Solutions not to transfer the domain names in question to
any third party and the matter is sub-judice. Similar issues had
risen before various High Courts earlier. Yahoo had sued one Akash
Arora for use of the domain name Yahooindia.Com deceptively
similar to its Yahoo.com. As this case was governed by the
Trade Marks Act, 1958, the additional defence taken against
Yahoos legal action for the interim order was that the Trade
Marks Act was applicable only to goods.
|