#FactCheck - Debunked: Viral Video Falsely Claims Allu Arjun Joins Congress Campaign

India’s Rapid Digital Expansion

‍
‍

‍

Over the past decade, India has experienced a rapid digitalisation process. The rise of digital financial services,  affordable internet costs, and the penetration of smartphones have transformed the way people communicate, transact and do business online.

Online payment systems, including Unified Payments Interface (UPI), have enabled real-time transactions between banks and financial systems. As much as these systems have enhanced access to finance and efficiency, they have also created new opportunities for cybercriminals.

Cybercrime has evolved alongside the shift of financial and social interactions to digital platforms. The fraud attacks on online payments, online banking, and personal information have become common and increasingly costly.

To analyse the scale and trend of cybercrime in India, this analysis will use the datasets released by the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) and financial fraud data released by the Indian Cyber Crime Coordination Centre (I4C) under the Ministry of Home Affairs.
‍

The Rise of Cybercrime in India
‍

‍

The Rise of Cybercrime in India
‍

Source: National Crime Records Bureau – Crime in India Reports

The data released by the NCRB documents cybercrime incidents registered by the police at the national level under the Information Technology Act, 2000 (IT Act) and criminal provisions covering offences such as cheating, impersonation, and digital fraud. In the past, the offences were listed in the provisions of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). Following criminal law reforms in India, on 1 July 2024, the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), which replaced the IPC, came into force. Section 419 (cheating by impersonation), IPC, would be related to BNS Section 319 and Section 420 (cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property), which would be related to BNS Section 318(4). Similarly, crimes involving forgery and use of forged documents or electronic documents, which were previously contained in the IPC Sections 465-471, are dealt with in BNS Sections 335-340.

The data published by the NCRB represent the number of crimes that reached the point of the First Information Report (FIR) registration, meaning they reflect only cybercrime cases that were formally presented to the law enforcement system to investigate, rather than all complaints reported. The data shows that cybercrime cases increased from 27,248 in 2018 to 86,420 in 2023, a 3.17-fold increase in 5 years.

Two structural shifts are visible: the post-pandemic jump and subsequent acceleration.

However, these figures likely underestimate the true scale of cybercrime because many incidents are reported only through online complaint portals and may not result in FIR registration.
‍

The Financial Scale of Digital Fraud

‍

‍

The Financial Scale of Digital Fraud

‍

Source: Ministry of Home Affairs via,  Indian Cyber Crime Coordination Centre (I4C), and National Cyber Crime Reporting Portal (NCRP)

This dataset tracks financial fraud complaints reported through the National Cyber Crime Reporting Portal (NCRP) and the estimated financial losses associated with those complaints.

The financial losses reported between 2021 and 2024 increased by 41 times over four years, compared to 2021, from 551 crore to 22,848 crore. At the same time, the number of complaints rose from 262,846 to over 1.9 million, an increase of ~623%, indicating both rising victimisation and greater public awareness of reporting mechanisms.

The contrast between these two trends is striking:
‍

While complaints increased by around 7 times, financial losses increased by over 40 times. 

‍

‍

Distribution of Cyber-Fraud Complaints and Financial Losses by Fraud Type
‍

Source: Ministry of Home Affairs via Indian Cyber Crime Coordination Centre and National Cyber Crime Reporting Portal; analysis based on reporting in Business Standard using government cyber-fraud data.
‍

This divergence implies an uneven relationship between the number of incidents and the financial damage that they inflict. Most cyber fraud incidents involve relatively small transaction values; however, a smaller group of fraud categories result in disproportionate numbers of financial losses.
‍

‍

Distribution of Financial Losses Across Major Cyber-Fraud Categories in India

‍

Source: Ministry of Home Affairs via,  Indian Cyber Crime Coordination Centre (I4C), and National Cyber Crime Reporting Portal (NCRP) figures reported by The Indian Express
‍

As reported by The Indian Express, based on the data compiled by the I4C, investment-related scams alone account for roughly 77% of reported cyber-fraud losses, followed by smaller shares from “digital arrest” scams (8%), credit card fraud (7%), sextortion (4%), e-commerce fraud (3%), and malware or app-based fraud (1%). This distribution means that even though scams with lower values, like phishing, OTP fraud, and small payment fraud, produce a high proportion of complaints, few categories of fraud produce most of the financial losses.

‍

Analysis

‍

1. Cybercrime is expanding faster than most traditional crimes: The fact that cybercrime cases have tripled in five years shows that cyber offences are presently becoming a significant element of Indian crime. Unlike conventional crimes that require physical proximity, cybercrime can be conducted remotely and at scale, enabling perpetrators to target large numbers of victims simultaneously.

2. Financial losses are concentrated in a small set of fraud categories: As cases of cybercrimes have been on the increase, the monetary losses of digital fraud cases have been increasing at a higher rate. The fact that the number of reported financial losses has increased 40 times in 4 years indicates that cybercrime has a very high economic impact.

3. Complaint volumes and financial damage follow different patterns: When comparing complaints and financial losses, it is evident that cyber fraud losses are unevenly distributed across types of incidents. Most of the prevalent scams reported, including phishing or OTP fraud, involve relatively small transaction values but yield a high portion of complaints. Conversely, fewer categories of fraud, especially investment-based schemes, contribute a significantly higher percentage of total financial losses.

4. Digital financial infrastructure has expanded the attack surface: India’s rapid adoption of digital payment systems, mobile banking and digital  financial systems has dramatically increased the number of potential victims of cybercriminals. The scale of online transactions creates new vulnerabilities that organised cybercrime networks take advantage of.

5. Reporting improvements reveal previously hidden crime: The expansion of national reporting systems has enhanced the transparency in the trends of cybercrime. The increase in the number of complaints recorded is partially due to improved reporting systems and not necessarily to the increased criminal activity, meaning that previous data might have understated the magnitude of cyber fraud.

Recommendations
‍

1. Move from reactive policing to proactive cyber-risk monitoring: The conventional models of policing focus on investigation of crimes that have already taken place. With such a magnitude and pace of cyber fraud, India should have systems that are designed to detect and prevent the fraud at its early stages, such as real-time observation of suspicious patterns in transactions by financial institutions.

2. Strengthen financial intelligence sharing across institutions: There are a lot of instances of cyber fraud that use more than one bank, payment system, and telecommunication provider. To detect new networks of fraud sooner, it can be suggested to establish more information-sharing measures between the financial institution and law enforcement agencies.

3. Target organised cyber fraud networks rather than individual incidents: Many digital scams operate through organised networks that coordinate phishing, mule accounts, and fake payment channels. The solution in regard to this involves dismantling these networks through investigative procedures instead of treating incidents on a case-by-case basis.

4. Improve recovery mechanisms for stolen funds: The recovery of the funds lost is one of the most difficult issues in cases of cyber fraud. Expanding systems such as the Citizen Financial Cyber Fraud Reporting and Management System (CFCFRMS) can improve the speed at which fraudulent transactions are frozen or reversed.

5. Strengthen digital financial literacy: A significant percentage of cyber frauds are based on social engineering methods that take advantage of user behaviour as opposed to technical weaknesses. Victimisation can be greatly reduced through specific public awareness efforts on typical scam schemes.

Conclusion
‍

India’s experience illustrates a broader global trend: as economies digitise, crime increasingly follows the flow of digital money. While cybercrime incidents are rising steadily, the much faster growth in financial losses suggests that cybercriminals are becoming more organised, technologically sophisticated, and economically motivated.

‍

References:
‍

• https://indianexpress.com/article/india/indians-lost-rs-53000-crore-fraud-cheating-cases-six-years-maharashtra-2025-10452185/ 
• https://www.pib.gov.in/PressReleasePage.aspx?PRID=2226441&reg=3&lang=2 -
• https://www.ncrb.gov.in/crime-in-india.html 
• https://i4c.mha.gov.in/index.aspx 
• https://i4c.mha.gov.in/index.aspx 

‍

Introduction

Search engines have become indispensable in our daily lives, allowing us to find information instantly by entering keywords or phrases. Using the prompt "search Google or type a URL" reflects just how seamless this journey to knowledge has become. With millions of searches conducted every second, and Google handling over 6.3 million searches per minute as of 2023 (Statista), one critical question arises: do search engines prioritise results based on user preferences and past behaviours, or are they truly unbiased?

Understanding AI Bias in Search Algorithms

AI bias is also known as machine learning bias or algorithm bias. It refers to the occurrence of biased results due to human biases that deviate from the original training data or AI algorithm which leads to distortion of outputs and creation of potentially harmful outcomes. The sources of this bias are algorithmic bias, data bias and interpretation bias which emerge from user history, geographical data, and even broader societal biases in training data. 

Common biases include excluding certain groups of people from opportunities because of AI bias. In healthcare, underrepresenting data of women or minority groups can skew predictive AI algorithms. While AI helps streamline the automation of resume scanning during a search to help identify ideal candidates, the information requested and answers screened out can result in biased outcomes due to a biased dataset or any other bias in the input data.

Case in Point: Google’s "Helpful" Results and Its Impact 

Google optimises results by analysing user interactions to determine satisfaction with specific types of content. This data-driven approach forms ‘filter bubbles’ by repeatedly displaying content that aligns with a user’s preferences, regardless of factual accuracy. While this can create a more personalised experience, it risks confining users to a limited view, excluding diverse perspectives or alternative viewpoints.

The personal and societal impacts of such biases are significant. At an individual level, filter bubbles can influence decision-making, perceptions, and even mental health. On a societal level, these biases can reinforce stereotypes, polarise opinions, and shape collective narratives. There is also a growing concern that these biases may promote misinformation or limit users’ exposure to diverse perspectives, all stemming from the inherent bias in search algorithms.

Policy Challenges and Regulatory Measures

Regulating emerging technologies like AI, especially in search engine algorithms, presents significant challenges due to their intricate, proprietary nature. Traditional regulatory frameworks struggle to keep up with them as existing laws were not designed to address the nuances of algorithm-driven platforms. Regulatory bodies are pushing for transparency and accountability in AI-powered search algorithms to counter biases and ensure fairness globally. For example, the EU’s Artificial Intelligence Act aims to establish a regulatory framework that will categorise AI systems based on risk and enforces strict standards for transparency, accountability, and fairness, especially for high-risk AI applications, which may include search engines. India has proposed the Digital India Act in 2023 which will define and regulate High-risk AI. 

Efforts include ethical guidelines emphasising fairness, accountability, and transparency in information prioritisation. However, a complex regulatory landscape could hinder market entrants, highlighting the need for adaptable, balanced frameworks that protect user interests without stifling innovation.

CyberPeace Insights

In a world where search engines are gateways to knowledge, ensuring unbiased, accurate, and diverse information access is crucial. True objectivity remains elusive as AI-driven algorithms tend to personalise results based on user preferences and past behaviour, often creating a biased view of the web. Filter bubbles, which reinforce individual perspectives, can obscure factual accuracy and limit exposure to diverse viewpoints. Addressing this bias requires efforts from both users and companies. Users should diversify sources and verify information, while companies should enhance transparency and regularly audit algorithms for biases. Together, these actions can promote a more equitable, accurate, and unbiased search experience for all users. 

References 

• https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20241101-how-online-photos-and-videos-alter-the-way-you-think 
• https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20241031-how-google-tells-you-what-you-want-to-hear
• https://www.ibm.com/topics/ai-bias#:~:text=In%20healthcare%2C%20underrepresenting%20data%20of,can%20skew%20predictive%20AI%20algorithms

‍

Introduction

The development of high-speed broadband internet in the 90s triggered a growth in online gaming, particularly in East Asian countries like South Korea and China. This culminated in the proliferation of competitive video game genres, which had otherwise existed mostly in the form of high-score and face-to-face competitions at arcades. The online competitive gaming market has only become bigger over the years, with a separate domain for professional competition, called esports. This industry is projected to reach US$4.3 billion by 2029,  driven by advancements in gaming technology, increased viewership, multi-million dollar tournaments, professional leagues, sponsorships, and advertising revenues. However, the industry is still in its infancy and struggles with fairness and integrity issues. It can draw lessons in regulation from the traditional sports market to address these challenges for uniform global growth.

The Growth of Esports

The appeal of online gaming lies in its design innovations, social connectivity, and accessibility. Its rising popularity has culminated in online gaming competitions becoming an industry, formally organised into leagues and tournaments with reward prizes reaching up to millions of dollars. Professional teams now have coaches, analysts and psychologists supporting their players. For scale, the 2024 ESports World Cup (EWS) held in Saudi Arabia had the largest combined prize pool of over US$60 million. Such tournaments can be viewed in arenas and streamed online, and by 2025, around 322.7 million people are forecast to be occasional viewers of esports events. 

According to Statista, esports revenue is expected to demonstrate an annual growth rate (CAGR 2024-2029) of 6.59%, resulting in a projected market volume of US$5.9 billion by 2029. Esports has even been recognised in traditional sporting events, debuting as a medal sport in the Asian Games 2022. In 2024, the International Olympic Committee (IOC) announced the Olympic Esports Games, with the inaugural event set to take place in 2025 in Saudi Arabia. Hosting esports events such as the EWS is expected to boost tourism and the host country’s local economy.

The Challenges of Esports Regulation

While the esports ecosystem provides numerous opportunities for growth and partnerships, its under-regulation presents challenges. Due to the lack of a single governing body like the IOC for the Olympics or FIFA for football to lay down centralised rules, the industry faces certain challenges, such as : 

1. Integrity issues: Esports are not immune to cheating attempts. Match-fixing, using advanced software hacks, doping (e.g., Adderall use), and the use of other illegal aids are common.  DOTA, Counter-Strike, and Overwatch tournaments are particularly susceptible to cheating scandals. 
2. Players’ Rights: The teams that contractually own professional players provide remuneration and exercise significant control over athletes, who face issues like overwork, a short-lived career, stress, the absence of collective bargaining forums, instability, etc. 
3. Fragmented National Regulations: While multiple countries have recognised esports as a sport, policies on esports governance and allied regulation vary within and across borders. For example, age restrictions and laws on gambling, taxation, labour, and advertising differ by country. This can create confusion, risks and extra costs, impacting the growth of the ecosystem. 
4. Cybersecurity Concerns: The esports industry carries substantial prize pools and has growing viewer engagement, which makes it increasingly vulnerable to Distributed Denial of Service (DDoS) attacks, malware, ransomware, data breaches, phishing, and account hijacking. Tournament organisers must prioritise investments in secure network infrastructure, perform regular security audits, encrypt sensitive data, implement network monitoring, utilise API penetration testing tools, deploy intrusion detection systems, and establish comprehensive incident response and mitigation plans.

Proposals for Esports Regulation: Lessons from Traditional Sports

To address the most urgent challenges to the esports industry as outlined above,  the following interventions, drawing on the governance and regulatory frameworks of traditional sports, can be made:

1. Need for a Centralised Esports Governing Body: Unlike traditional sports, the esports landscape lacks a Global Sports Organisation (GSO) to oversee its governance. Instead, it is handled de facto by game publishers with industry interests different from those of traditional GSOs. Publishers’ primary source of revenue is not esports, which means they can adopt policies unsuitable for its growth but good for their core business. Appointing a centralised governing body with the power to balance the interests of multiple stakeholders and manage issues like unregulated gambling, athlete health, and integrity challenges is a logical next step for this industry. 
2. Gambling/Betting Regulations: While national laws on gambling/betting vary, GSOs establish uniform codes of conduct that bind participants contractually, ensuring consistent ethical standards across jurisdictions. Similar rules in esports are managed by individual publishers/ tournament organisers, leading to inconsistencies and legal grey areas. The esports ecosystem needs standardised regulation to preserve fair play codes and competitive integrity.
3. Anti-Doping Policies: There is increasing adderall abuse among young players to enhance performance with the rising monetary stakes in esports. The industry must establish a global framework similar to the  World Anti-Doping Code, which, in conjunction with eight international standards, harmonises anti-doping policies across all traditional sports and countries in the world. The esports industry should either adopt this or develop its own policy to curb stimulant abuse. 
4. Norms for Participant Health:  Professional players start around age 16 or 17 and tend to retire around 24. They may be subjected to rigorous practice hours and stringent contracts by the teams that own them. There is a need for international norm-setting by a federation overseeing the protection of underage players. Enforcement of these norms can be one of the responsibilities of a decentralised system comprising country and state-level bodies. This also ensures fair play governance.
5. Respect and Diversity:  While esports is technologically accessible, it still has room for better representation of diverse gender identities, age groups, abilities, races, ethnicities, religions, and sexual orientations. Embracing greater diversity and inclusivity would benefit the industry's growth and enhance its potential to foster social connectivity through healthy competition.

Conclusion

The development of the world’s first esports island in Abu Dhabi gives impetus to the rapidly growing esports industry with millions of fans across the globe. To sustain this momentum, stakeholders must collaborate to build a strong governance framework that protects players, supports fans, and strengthens the ecosystem. By learning from traditional sports, esports can establish centralised governance, enforce standardised anti-doping measures, safeguard athlete rights, and promote inclusivity, especially for young and diverse communities. Embracing regulation and inclusivity will not only enhance esports' credibility but also position it as a powerful platform for unity, creativity, and social connection in the digital age.

Resources

• https://www.statista.com/outlook/amo/esports/worldwide
• https://www.statista.com/statistics/490480/global-esports-audience-size-viewer-type/ 
• https://asoworld.com/blog/global-esports-market-report-2024/#:~:text=A%20key%20driver%20of%20this%20growth%20is%20the%20Sponsorship%20%26%20Advertising,US%24288.9%20million%20in%202024. 
• https://lawschoolpolicyreview.com/2023/12/28/a-case-for-recognising-professional-esports-players-as-employees-of-their-game-publisher/ 
• https://levelblue.com/blogs/security-essentials/the-hidden-risks-of-esports-cybersecurity-on-the-virtual-battlefield 
• https://medium.com/@heyimJoost/esports-governance-and-its-failures-9ac7b3ec37ea 
• https://www.google.com/search?q=adderall+abuse+in+esports&oq=adderall+abuse+in+esports&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUyBggAEEUYOTIHCAEQIRiPAjIHCAIQIRiPAtIBCDU2MDdqMGo5qAIAsAIB&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8 
• https://americanaddictioncenters.org/blog/esports-adderall-abuse#:~:text=A%202020%20piece%20by%20the,it%20because%20everyone%20was%20using

‍