I Already Lost Money in a Cyber Fraud and Now Someone Promises Recovery for an Advance Fee: Is This Another Scam?

India 2026 guide to recovery-room fraud, fake lawyers, police impersonation, forged court papers, secondary payments and repeat victimisation

By Advocate Ankit Kumar Singh

Last verified: 13 August 2026

Direct Answer: If Someone Suddenly Offers to Recover Your Earlier Cyber-Fraud Loss for an Advance Fee, Verify Everything Before Paying

A second scam directed at an earlier fraud victim is a recognised fraud pattern commonly described as a recovery scam, refund scam, repeat-victimisation scam or recovery-room scam.

The new caller may already know:

• your name;
• telephone number;
• the amount you previously lost;
• the type of fraud;
• the fake investment platform;
• the recipient bank account;
• your cryptocurrency transaction;
• your earlier complaint history; or
• other information connected with the first incident.

That knowledge does not establish that the caller is genuine.

Your first question should therefore not be:

“How does this person know so much about my case?”

It should be:

“Can I independently verify who this person is, what authority or professional capacity he actually has, whether any money has genuinely been frozen or restored, and why this new payment is supposedly required?”

Do not make another payment merely because the caller says:

• “your money is already frozen”;
• “Cyber Police traced your funds”;
• “the court has approved refund”;
• “RBI has released the amount”;
• “tax must be paid before release”;
• “a court processing charge is pending”;
• “legal department requires refundable security”; or
• “we are government-approved recovery agents”.

1. What Is a Recovery-Room Scam?

A recovery-room scam targets someone who has already suffered financial loss.

The offender approaches that victim with a new promise:

“We can recover the money you lost.”

The recovery promise is then used to obtain:

• advance payment;
• retainer;
• supposed court fee;
• release charge;
• government tax;
• bank processing amount;
• tracing fee;
• cryptocurrency network or gas fee;
• identity documents;
• bank information; or
• remote access to the victim's device.

The second scam can be particularly effective because the victim is not being offered a new investment or prize.

The victim is instead being offered something psychologically more compelling:

a chance to undo the first loss.

2. Why Are Earlier Fraud Victims Targeted Again?

After a cyber fraud, substantial information concerning the victim may remain within the fraud ecosystem.

The original offenders may know:

• which victims paid;
• which victims paid repeatedly;
• who borrowed money to make payments;
• who continued communicating after becoming suspicious;
• who desperately wanted recovery;
• the payment method used;
• the exact loss;
• occupation and approximate financial capacity;
• bank or crypto platform used;
• identity documents supplied.

Such data may be retained, shared, leaked or traded.

The second caller can therefore approach with a powerful credibility device:

“We know exactly what happened to you.”

But that knowledge may originate from the fraud network rather than from a genuine investigating authority.

3. Why Does the Second Caller Know the Exact Amount I Lost?

Repeat-victimisation networks may possess information concerning persons who previously paid fraudsters.

That information may include:

• name;
• address;
• phone number;
• scam category;
• loss amount;
• payment history.

A second scammer may therefore say:

“You lost ₹14,75,000 on the ABC trading platform. We have now recovered ₹11 lakh.”

The accuracy of the first statement can psychologically cause the victim to accept the second statement.

Legally and evidentially, however, those are two separate propositions.

Knowledge of the earlier loss does not prove recovery of that loss.

4. Can the Original Scam Gang Operate the Recovery Company Too?

Yes, that is one possible model, but it should not be assumed without evidence.

The second recovery operation may involve:

• the original fraud group using another identity;
• another division of the same criminal network;
• a connected associate;
• a person who obtained or purchased victim information;
• an unrelated fraudster who located the victim through public complaints, social media or recovery forums.

The investigation should therefore examine whether the two frauds are technically or financially connected.

5. What Evidence Can Link Scam 2 to Scam 1?

Potential linkage indicators include:

• knowledge of non-public information disclosed only during Scam 1;
• same or connected telephone numbers;
• same WhatsApp infrastructure;
• related email/domain patterns;
• same beneficiary bank account;
• same UPI VPA;
• connected cryptocurrency wallets;
• same merchant account;
• similar fake-document templates;
• same spelling or drafting peculiarities;
• screenshots from the first fraudulent platform;
• same device/IP infrastructure obtained through lawful investigation;
• same mule-account network;
• same referral identities;
• recovery contact beginning immediately after the original scheme collapses.

These are investigative leads, not automatic proof of common control.

6. Fake Lawyer Recovery Scam: What Does It Look Like?

The caller may claim:

• “I am an advocate practising before the High Court.”
• “Our law firm has recovered your money.”
• “We represent all victims of this platform.”
• “A recovery proceeding has already been filed.”
• “The court has approved your refund.”
• “Only the legal clearance amount remains.”
• “We have direct Cyber Police contacts.”

Professional-looking branding is not independent verification.

A fraudulent law-firm identity may use:

• a sophisticated website;
• legal logo;
• fake advocate profiles;
• false testimonials;
• fabricated enrolment details;
• virtual office address;
• forged legal documents.

How to verify a purported advocate

1. Ask for the advocate's complete professional name.
2. Ask for State Bar Council enrolment details.
3. Ask for office/chamber address.
4. Ask precisely what proceeding is proposed or already filed.
5. Ask for written terms of engagement.
6. Independently locate and contact the advocate instead of relying solely on the links/numbers supplied by the caller.
7. Where necessary, verify professional status through the concerned Bar Council or appropriate source.
8. If a case supposedly exists, verify the actual court case independently.

Absence of an internet profile does not by itself establish that an advocate is fake.

7. A Genuine Lawyer Can Charge a Professional Fee

It is important not to confuse genuine professional billing with recovery fraud.

An advocate may legitimately charge:

• consultation fee;
• drafting fee;
• filing-related professional charges;
• appearance fee;
• agreed retainer.

The warning sign is therefore not simply:

“The advocate requested an advance fee.”

The more serious warning pattern is:

“Your ₹25 lakh is already recovered. Pay ₹1.5 lakh today into this UPI account as a refundable court release fee and the entire amount will be transferred within thirty minutes.”

A proper professional engagement should explain:

• what work is being performed;
• who the professional is;
• which forum or authority is involved;
• what amount is professional fee;
• what amount, if any, is an actual statutory/court expense;
• what documents will be filed;
• that the final legal outcome cannot be guaranteed.

8. Fake Police / Cyber Police / Government Recovery Calls

Another version relies on the authority of law enforcement.

The caller may claim to be:

• Cyber Police;
• Crime Branch;
• CBI;
• Economic Offences Wing;
• NCRP officer;
• I4C investigator;
• bank-fraud officer.

The scammer may display:

• fake police ID;
• official-style imagery;
• government-looking WhatsApp profile;
• police letterhead;
• fabricated FIR;
• fake seizure/freeze report.

Falsely pretending to hold a public office and acting under colour of that office may attract Section 204 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 where the statutory ingredients are established.

Electronic cheating by personation may separately require examination under the Information Technology Act.

9. Fake Court Orders and “Judicial Release Fees”

Recovery fraudsters may send a PDF showing:

• court name;
• case number;
• judge name;
• stamp;
• signature;
• order-sheet formatting;
• “asset freezing order”;
• direction for release or refund.

Do not authenticate a court document merely because it looks professional.

Independent verification

Depending upon the court/forum, check through the relevant official eCourts, High Court or registry system:

• CNR;
• case number;
• filing number;
• party names;
• court;
• order date;
• actual uploaded order;
• advocate details;
• next listing.

If a supposed recovery lawyer refuses to provide any independently verifiable case details but demands an urgent “court release payment”, exercise extreme caution.

10. Fake Court / Police Documents Can Raise Forgery Issues

The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 recognises false documents and false electronic records.

Depending upon the facts, fabricated:

• court orders;
• police notices;
• refund certificates;
• freeze orders;
• bank release letters;
• government approvals;
• settlement documents

may require analysis under provisions concerning forgery and use of forged documents/electronic records.

Preserve the original electronic file received from the caller whenever safely possible, not merely a screenshot.

11. “Your Money Has Been Frozen” — What Should You Ask?

A genuine recovery process should generate independently verifiable information.

Ask:

• Which NCRP complaint?
• Which police station / Cyber Police unit?
• Which bank?
• Which beneficiary account was frozen?
• What amount is presently under lien/freeze?
• Which FIR or complaint proceeding?
• What court proceeding exists?
• Who is the Investigating Officer?
• What document establishes the restoration claim?

Then independently verify those facts.

Do not “verify” the Investigating Officer merely by calling another number supplied by the same recovery agent.

12. India Has an Official Money Restoration Module

India’s cyber-financial-fraud response architecture includes the Money Restoration Module (MRM) linked to the NCRP/CFCFRMS system.

A restoration claim should therefore be checked through the genuine official infrastructure rather than through an unsolicited caller.

If someone says:

“We are authorised NCRP recovery agents.”

do not open the link supplied by that person.

Independently access the official Ministry of Home Affairs / NCRP infrastructure and verify your complaint/restoration information.

Official Money Restoration portal:

mrm-ncrp.mha.gov.in

National Cybercrime Reporting Portal:

cybercrime.gov.in

13. NCRP “Check Suspect” Can Help — But Understand Its Limits

The National Cybercrime Reporting Portal provides a complaint-based Suspect Repository for certain identifiers.

Depending upon the current facility, searchable categories can include:

• mobile number;
• email;
• bank account number;
• social-media identifier;
• UPI ID.

If a supposed recovery agent is demanding payment, checking the identifier through the genuine NCRP facility may provide another warning signal.

However:

• the database is complaint-based;
• it is not exhaustive;
• fraudsters change identifiers quickly;
• appearance is not a conviction or final determination of guilt;
• absence does not prove legitimacy.

14. Investigate the Second Payment Separately

If money has already been paid to the recovery agent, create a separate payment schedule.

Scam 1

• original amount lost;
• original beneficiary;
• original UPI/account/wallet;
• original UTR or blockchain transaction hash.

Scam 2

• recovery fee;
• new beneficiary;
• new VPA/account/wallet;
• new UTR/hash;
• description used for the payment;
• caller/WhatsApp/email identity.

Then compare both trails.

The second payment may reveal:

• shared beneficiary infrastructure;
• same mule network;
• connected crypto wallets;
• same merchant account;
• same payment aggregator;
• same telephone/device ecosystem.

15. If You Paid the Recovery Scammer, Treat It as a Fresh Financial Cyber Fraud

Do not assume that the second payment is automatically covered merely because you already filed a complaint concerning the first fraud.

Preserve and report the new incident.

1. Notify the bank/payment provider promptly.
2. Call 1930 regarding the new financial loss.
3. Complete or appropriately update NCRP reporting.
4. Preserve the second UTR/RRN/transaction hash.
5. Preserve the new caller numbers and communications.
6. Preserve fake legal/police/court documents.
7. Explain how Scam 2 relates to Scam 1.

Prompt action may improve opportunities for financial intervention, but recovery cannot be guaranteed.

16. Do Not Pay Someone to “Unlock” an NCRP Freeze

A typical recovery-room pressure statement is:

“Your funds are already frozen. If you do not pay the release charge today, the amount will be forfeited.”

The victim fears losing the same money again.

Do not pay simply because:

• a screenshot shows “Lien”;
• the caller claims to know a Cyber Police officer;
• a PDF uses the I4C/NCRP name;
• the caller knows the original complaint amount;
• a screenshot imitates a bank dashboard.

Verify the alleged restoration through the genuine bank, investigating agency and official NCRP/MRM process.

17. “Government Tax” Before Refund — A Major Advance-Fee Warning

Recovery fraud often becomes a chain of additional payments:

1. tracing fee;
2. lawyer fee;
3. court clearance;
4. tax;
5. RBI release fee;
6. final verification amount.

After every payment:

“One final issue remains.”

This escalating sequence is a significant warning sign.

A genuine professional can charge for genuine services, but payment of professional fees does not automatically “unlock” money supposedly held by a bank, police authority or court.

18. Cryptocurrency Recovery Scams

Victims of cryptocurrency investment fraud can be especially vulnerable because recovery scammers use technical language that appears sophisticated.

The caller may claim:

• “blockchain traced”;
• “wallet blacklisted”;
• “USDT frozen”;
• “smart contract reversal”;
• “gas fee required”;
• “foreign exchange release”;
• “international law firm recovered the wallet”.

Legitimate blockchain-forensic tracing exists.

But tracing and legally recovering funds are different processes.

Ask:

• Which blockchain?
• Which transaction hash?
• Which destination wallet?
• Which custodian/exchange allegedly controls the destination?
• What lawful authority can compel the freeze?
• What police/court process actually exists?

A sophisticated blockchain diagram is not proof that money has been recovered.

19. Fake “Fund Tracing Reports”

A purported tracing report should be examined for:

• author identity;
• company identity;
• methodology;
• source data;
• transaction identifiers;
• blockchain/network;
• dates;
• addresses;
• limitations;
• basis of attribution;
• whether an exchange/wallet owner is proven or assumed;
• whether the report makes unrealistic recovery guarantees.

A document can contain technically genuine blockchain transactions and still be used as part of a fraudulent recovery pitch.

20. Recovery Fraud Can Escalate Into Threats or Extortion

Some recovery fraud begins with hope and later changes into fear.

Example:

“You transferred money to an illegal platform. Your name is now in a money-laundering case. Pay ₹2 lakh immediately or you will be arrested.”

Depending upon the evidence, the legal analysis may then extend beyond ordinary cheating/personation.

Potential issues may include:

• criminal intimidation;
• extortion where fear is used to dishonestly induce delivery of property;
• public-servant impersonation;
• electronic personation.

21. Criminal-Law Matrix

Conduct	Potential Provision	Qualification
False recovery promise induces payment	BNS Section 318	Cheating ingredients must be established
False professional or other personal identity used to cheat	BNS Section 319	Cheating by personation depends upon proved facts
Fraudster pretends to be Police/CBI/public official	BNS Section 204	Public office and act under colour of office must be examined
Threat/fear induces delivery of money	BNS Section 308	Extortion ingredients must be established
Fake court/police/refund electronic document created	BNS Section 336	False record and fraudulent intent must be proved
Forged document/electronic record used as genuine	BNS Section 340	Knowledge/reason to believe and fraudulent/dishonest use matter
Threat intended to cause alarm or compel conduct	BNS Section 351	Criminal-intimidation ingredients apply
Electronic cheating by personation	IT Act Section 66D	Applicable where communication device/computer resource is used
Password/unique electronic identification feature misused	IT Act Section 66C	Separate statutory ingredients must be proved

A complaint should narrate what actually happened rather than mechanically inserting every section.

22. Someone Falsely Claims to Be an Advocate — What Is the Legal Position?

False professional representation can support cheating/personation analysis depending upon the facts.

The Advocates Act, 1961 separately addresses unauthorised practice before a court or authority in circumstances covered by that statute.

It should not be mechanically applied merely because a scammer verbally says:

“I am a lawyer.”

Simple false representation and actual unauthorised practice before a court/authority are not necessarily identical factual situations.

23. Preserve Scam 1 and Scam 2 Separately

FOLDER A — ORIGINAL FRAUD

• original scam communications;
• bank/UPI/crypto transfers;
• NCRP complaint;
• 1930 acknowledgement;
• police complaint/FIR;
• fake investment/trading platform;
• identity documents shared.

FOLDER B — RECOVERY FRAUD

• new caller numbers;
• WhatsApp profile;
• emails;
• law-firm/recovery website;
• purported IDs;
• court/police/bank documents;
• voice recordings where lawfully available;
• payment instructions;
• UPI/account/wallet;
• second payment;
• UTR / blockchain hash;
• evidence showing what information from Scam 1 was already known.

FOLDER C — LINKAGE MATRIX

Compare identifiers appearing in both fraud stages.

24. Electronic Evidence Under the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam

Relevant electronic evidence may include:

• WhatsApp chats;
• emails;
• voice notes;
• websites;
• PDFs;
• purported court orders;
• bank records;
• UPI transactions;
• cryptocurrency transaction hashes;
• screenshots;
• call records;
• domain information.

Sections 61 to 63 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 provide the framework concerning electronic/digital records and their proof.

Where substantial litigation is expected:

• retain original files;
• retain the source device where material;
• avoid repeatedly editing evidence;
• preserve metadata where possible;
• use working copies for annotation;
• document hashes where appropriate;
• maintain chain of custody.

25. Do Not Publicly Post Your Entire NCRP Complaint While Seeking Recovery Help

A victim may understandably post online:

“I lost ₹28 lakh. Here is my NCRP complaint, UTR and account statement. Can anyone recover it?”

That can create a second targeting opportunity.

Avoid unnecessarily publishing:

• complete NCRP acknowledgement;
• Aadhaar/PAN;
• bank-account information;
• full contact details;
• transaction records containing sensitive information;
• complaint documents;
• identity documents.

Such information can help a fraudster construct an extremely convincing recovery approach.

26. Re-Victimisation Protection Protocol

1. No unsolicited recovery payment without independent verification.
2. Never authenticate a police/government caller through another number supplied by that caller.
3. Verify a purported lawyer independently.
4. Verify court proceedings through genuine court/eCourts systems.
5. Verify bank freeze/restoration with the genuine bank/investigating agency.
6. Use official NCRP/MRM infrastructure independently.
7. Do not publicly expose sensitive complaint details.
8. Have a trusted second person examine any proposed recovery payment.
9. Do not grant remote device access to a recovery caller.
10. Never provide OTP/PIN/password merely to “receive a refund”.
11. Record new scam identifiers immediately.
12. If a second payment occurs, treat it as a fresh cyber-financial fraud.

27. Recovery Verification Checklist

Claim	Independent Verification
“I am Cyber Police.”	Verify actual police unit/officer through official contact
“I am your recovery lawyer.”	Verify identity, enrolment, office and written engagement
“Court ordered refund.”	Verify case number, parties and actual order independently
“Bank has frozen ₹X.”	Verify with actual bank/investigating agency
“NCRP authorised us.”	Check actual NCRP/MRM complaint/restoration status
“Pay government tax.”	Verify legal basis and genuine official payment route
“Crypto wallet traced.”	Verify transaction hash, chain, wallet and legal recovery mechanism
“Pay immediately or lose refund.”	Do not act under pressure; verify first

28. Recovery-Room Scam Decision Tree

FIRST CYBER FRAUD LOSS
        ↓
NEW PERSON OFFERS RECOVERY
        ↓
PERSON KNOWS DETAILS OF FIRST LOSS
        ↓
DO NOT ASSUME AUTHENTICITY
        ↓
VERIFY:
IDENTITY
+ PROFESSIONAL STATUS
+ POLICE / COURT CASE
+ BANK FREEZE
+ NCRP / MRM STATUS
        ↓
   ┌──────────────────────┐
   ↓                      ↓
GENUINE / VERIFIED     FALSE / UNVERIFIED
   ↓                      ↓
DOCUMENTED            DO NOT PAY
PROFESSIONAL /           ↓
OFFICIAL PROCESS      PRESERVE EVIDENCE
                          ↓
                  PAID ALREADY?
                          ↓
                  BANK + 1930 + NCRP
                          ↓
                 PRESERVE SCAM 2
                          ↓
                LINK SCAM 1 + SCAM 2

29. Sample Recovery-Fraud Complaint Narrative

I had previously suffered a cyber financial fraud on [DATE] in which I lost
approximately ₹[AMOUNT].

The earlier incident was reported under:

NCRP acknowledgement:
1930 reference:
Police/FIR details, if any:

On [DATE] at approximately [TIME], I was contacted by [NUMBER / EMAIL /
WHATSAPP ACCOUNT].

The person represented himself/herself as:
[ADVOCATE / POLICE OFFICER / CYBER INVESTIGATOR / RECOVERY COMPANY /
GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL].

The person demonstrated knowledge of my earlier fraud, including:
[DETAILS].

The person claimed:
[“MONEY HAS BEEN RECOVERED / FROZEN / COURT ORDER PASSED / ETC.”]

I was asked to pay:
₹[AMOUNT]

The payment was described as:
[RETAINER / PROCESSING FEE / COURT FEE / TAX / RELEASE CHARGE /
VERIFICATION FEE].

Payment details:

Date/time:
Amount:
UPI/account/wallet:
Beneficiary:
UTR/RRN/transaction hash:

I subsequently suspected that the recovery representation itself was fraudulent.

I have preserved:

• calls/messages;
• identities used;
• purported IDs;
• purported court/police/bank papers;
• URLs/websites;
• transaction records;
• details showing what information from the original fraud was known to the
  second caller.

I request investigation of:

1. the secondary recovery fraud;
2. payment beneficiary;
3. telecom/digital infrastructure;
4. whether the first and second frauds are connected;
5. creation/use of false legal or official documents; and
6. any other offence disclosed by the evidence.

Bank complaint:
1930 reference for second payment:
NCRP reference:

30. Frequently Asked Questions

Q1. Someone knows the exact amount I lost. Does that prove they are genuine?

No. Victim information can be retained, reused, leaked, shared or traded. Knowledge of your earlier fraud does not prove authority to recover it.

Q2. Is every recovery company asking for an advance fee fraudulent?

No. Genuine advocates and forensic professionals may charge legitimate professional fees. The warning is an unverified or guaranteed recovery claim combined with supposed tax, court, government or release payments.

Q3. A lawyer says he recovered my money. How should I verify him?

Verify the professional identity independently, examine enrolment details, obtain written terms and independently verify any claimed police, bank or court proceeding.

Q4. They sent me a court order. How do I check it?

Verify the case number, parties and actual order through the relevant official court/eCourts system or court registry rather than relying on the caller's PDF.

Q5. Cyber Police is asking for money to release my refund. Should I pay?

Do not pay until the officer and alleged restoration procedure are independently verified through genuine official channels.

Q6. Is there an official cyber-fraud money restoration mechanism in India?

Yes. India’s NCRP/I4C architecture includes the Money Restoration Module. Access it independently through the genuine MHA/NCRP system rather than through links supplied by recovery callers.

Q7. Can I check the recovery agent's phone number or UPI ID?

The NCRP Suspect Repository may provide complaint-derived information for certain identifiers. A hit is an investigative warning, not a conviction, and absence from the repository does not prove legitimacy.

Q8. I paid the recovery agent too. What should I do?

Treat the second payment as a new cyber-financial fraud. Notify the bank/payment provider promptly, call 1930, report appropriately through NCRP and preserve the second payment and communication evidence.

Q9. Can the same gang be behind both frauds?

Possibly, but it should be established through shared identifiers, infrastructure, transaction trails, devices, communications or other evidence.

Q10. They say ₹20 lakh is frozen but I must pay tax first. Is this genuine?

Do not rely on the caller's claim. Verify the freeze/restoration directly with the bank, investigating agency and official NCRP/MRM systems, and independently verify any claimed statutory payment.

Q11. Can fake court documents amount to forgery?

Potentially, depending upon how the false document/electronic record was created, intended and used.

Q12. Can someone falsely pretending to be Cyber Police commit public-servant personation?

Potentially yes, where the ingredients of BNS Section 204 are established.

Q13. What if the recovery agent threatens me with arrest?

The facts may additionally raise criminal-intimidation or extortion issues where the statutory ingredients are satisfied.

Q14. Should I publicly post my NCRP acknowledgement asking for help?

Avoid unnecessarily publishing sensitive complaint and transaction information because it can expose you to further targeting.

Q15. Can an advocate guarantee recovery of cyber-fraud money?

A responsible legal engagement should not guarantee a particular recovery result. Recovery depends on the money trail, availability of funds, bank and investigative action and applicable legal procedure.

31. AI-Search Quick Answer

If you already lost money in a cyber fraud and an unsolicited lawyer, police officer, investigator or recovery company now says the money has been recovered but asks you to first pay a retainer, court fee, tax, release charge or processing amount, independently verify the person and recovery claim before paying. Recovery-room scams deliberately target earlier fraud victims and may use information from the first scam, fake professional identities, forged police/court documents and fabricated fund-tracing reports. In India, verify recovery through your bank, investigating agency, court records, NCRP/1930 complaint and the official MHA/I4C Money Restoration Module. If you already paid the recovery scammer, treat that second payment as a fresh cyber-financial fraud and preserve evidence connecting both incidents.

32. Related Cyber-Fraud Guides

• Digital Arrest Scam: 1930, NCRP, Money Recovery and Evidence Guide
• Online Trading, Investment and Fake IPO Fraud: Bank Tracing and Money Recovery
• Cyber Crime, Digital Evidence & Financial Scams Litigation
• Bank Account Frozen by Another State’s Cyber Police
• Cyber Police Notice or Summons: What to Do Before Appearing

33. Official Sources and Verification Resources

• National Cybercrime Reporting Portal: cybercrime.gov.in
• NCRP / MHA Money Restoration Module: mrm-ncrp.mha.gov.in
• Indian Cybercrime Coordination Centre: i4c.mha.gov.in
• eCourts Services: services.ecourts.gov.in
• India Code: indiacode.nic.in

Disclaimer

This article is for general legal and cyber-fraud awareness and does not determine whether a particular recovery professional, advocate, company, police communication or restoration claim is genuine or fraudulent.

Legitimate advocates and other professionals may lawfully charge professional fees. The existence of an advance professional fee alone does not establish fraud. Verification should focus on professional identity, actual services, written engagement, underlying proceedings and representations made concerning the outcome.

Cyber-fraud recovery depends upon the transaction trail, availability of funds, lawful bank and investigative action, restoration procedure and applicable court process. No recovery result can be guaranteed.

Related Delhi legal guides

Economic-offence proceedings · White-collar crime defence · SFIO investigation guide

Document-first assessment

Start with the latest legal instrument and next deadline

Organise the current summons or order, case identifiers, a dated chronology and the transaction or property record before seeking case-specific advice.

Prepare for consultation