#FactCheck -Viral Claim of Alcohol Ban in West Bengal by Amit Shah Is Fake, No Such Announcement Made

Introduction

Imagine an ordinary workday: a finance manager receives a WhatsApp message that appears to come from the company director. A regulatory document must be checked before a payment is released. The file is named “Statement of Account.zip”. The sender is familiar, and the deadline leaves little time to question it. But the archive may contain more than a statement. If a user extracts and runs the malicious Windows file inside, an attacker may compromise the computer and an active WhatsApp Web session. The account can then spread the file or be used for fraudulent payment instructions.

This is an illustrative reconstruction, not the story of one publicly identified victim. It is based on a 7 August 2026 alert from India’s Indian Cyber Crime Coordination Centre (I4C), describing reported WhatsApp takeovers across multiple states. It shows how a visible payment scam may be the final step in a longer technical and social chain. [1]

The real incident: an official warning, not a rumour

On 7 August 2026, I4C, under the Ministry of Home Affairs, warned of a rise in complaints involving professionals and businesses whose WhatsApp accounts were taken over after malicious files were sent as account statements or urgent regulatory notices. Reported filenames included “Statement of Account.zip”, “RBI.zip” and “MCA.zip”, delivered through WhatsApp, SMS or email. I4C said an archive could contain a Windows executable (.exe) and a Dynamic Link Library (.dll); opening the extracted file on a Windows computer could install a Trojan and compromise an active WhatsApp Web session. [1]

The compromised account could then spread the file to contacts and groups. Fraudsters might use an executive’s genuine account - or an attacker-controlled number saved under the executive’s name - to request urgent transfers to mule accounts. I4C identified reports from Delhi, Gujarat, Maharashtra and Rajasthan. It also said over 58,000 potential victims had been alerted by SMS in the preceding 30 days and more than 10,000 people protected through interventions. These are figures reported by I4C at that time, not a count of all victims or losses. [1]

The logical theory: how the attack chain may work

‍

A useful working theory has five stages. It explains the mechanism described by I4C, but it should not be treated as proof that every reported case followed an identical path.

1. Authority creates urgency. I notice that a message borrows the language of compliance, banking or regulation. The aim is to make the recipient act quickly and treat the attachment as business paperwork.

2. A file crosses the boundary. I see that the risky step is not simply receiving a message; the risky step is. Executing the malicious Windows file. The I4C advisory describes an executable paired with a DLL. In DLL sideloading a program loads a library that's malicious or has been placed where it can be loaded unexpectedly. The precise behaviour must be confirmed by examining the sample and system evidence not guessed from a filename. [1][2]

3. The computer becomes the bridge. I read that the public advisory says the malware can compromise the Windows device and hijack a WhatsApp Web session. This means the incident is more than a stolen password: the attacker may be able to act through a session that already appears trusted.

4. Trust helps the file spread. I notice that a file or request arriving from a known colleague is more persuasive than one, from an account. If contacts receive the attachment from a compromised account they may forward it. Open it on a work computer potentially extending the incident.

5. The technical intrusion becomes a payment scam. I see that the attacker uses the authority of the executive’s account to request a transfer. The beneficiary account, transfer timing and messages may become financial evidence alongside the endpoint and messaging records.

How an investigator tests the theory

Start with a timeline, not a suspect. Record when the message arrived, when the archive was downloaded and possibly executed, when unusual messages began, which linked devices appeared, and when a transfer was requested. Note each timestamp’s source and time zone. A message in a chat proves it was present there; it does not, by itself, prove who typed it.

Evidence can contain the archive and its hash; message details or email headers; conversation exports and screenshots; Windows security and antivirus logs; available process and network artefacts; linked-device information; and payment instructions, transaction IDs and beneficiary details. Evidence authors should keep originals record each collection and transfer and analyse copies where possible. Evidence responders must not open a file, on a normal work computer to test it. Evidence NIST guidance explains the care needed to preserve evidence. [3]

Test alternatives as well. Proof of file execution before a new session or unusual outgoing messages may support the theory. Matching hashes across affected systems may link samples, and bank records may help trace payments. But a filename does not prove two files are identical, an IP address does not identify a person, and receiving an archive does not prove it ran. If evidence contradicts the theory, revise it.

What organizations should do now

I4C says that any urgent transfers or changes to bank information should be checked using another way like a phone call or meeting in person. They also say to be careful about opening files or programs that are not confirmed check the devices linked to WhatsApp and make sure Windows computers are safe and up to date. [1] Don't approve any payment just because a message seems to be from a up person.

If you think something is wrong, tell the IT or security team stop using the computer that might be affected follow the steps, for an incident tell people who use the account not to open files from it remove any sessions that are not known and keep any proof before cleaning up. In India you can tell about financial cyber-crime by using the National Cyber Crime Reporting Portal or call 1930 right away. [4]

Conclusion

The I4C warning says that a WhatsApp takeover can happen through a series of events not just because someone stole a password. A convincing message that looks like it comes from a regulator can trick a user into opening a file. Once the file runs the computer might reveal a messaging session. Then the trusted account can spread the threat. Make a fake payment request seem real. Every step, in this process can leave clues: file traces, system logs, session data, messages and money trail evidence.

The I4C warning is not proof of what happened on any device. Investigators should use the I4C warning to build a theory test that theory, against saved records think about possibilities and mark what is unknown. For organisations a quick independent check of payment instructions can prevent the final loss. For investigators careful timelines and proper handling of evidence can produce results that can be explained and defended.

References: -

[1] Press Information Bureau, Ministry of Home Affairs / Indian Cyber Crime Coordination Centre (I4C), “I4C cautions corporates and finance professionals against ‘Boss Scam’: WhatsApp account takeover through malicious ‘Statement of Account’, ‘MCA’ and ‘RBI’ files aimed at high-value financial fraud,” 7 August 2026. Source

[2] Press Information Bureau, Ministry of Home Affairs / I4C, “Regulatory and Executive Impersonation for WhatsApp Account Takeover using Malicious Windows Executables and High value financial fraud,” 22 June 2026. Source

[3] Barbara Guttman, Douglas R. White, Shannan Williams and Tracy Walraven, Digital Evidence Preservation: Considerations for Evidence Handlers, NISTIR 8387, National Institute of Standards and Technology, 2022. Source

[4] Government of India, National Cyber Crime Reporting Portal; the portal advises immediate reporting of financial cyber fraud through helpline 1930. Source

‍

A Foray into the Digital Labyrinth

In our digital age, the silhouette of truth is often obfuscated by a fog of technological prowess and cunning deception. With each passing moment, the digital expanse sprawls wider, and within it, synthetic media, known most infamously as 'deepfakes', emerge like phantoms from the machine. These adept forgeries, melding authenticity with fabrication, represent a new frontier in the malleable narrative of understood reality. Grappling with the specter of such virtual deceit, social media behemoths Facebook and YouTube have embarked on a prodigious quest. Their mission? To formulate robust bulwarks around the sanctity of fact and fiction, all the while fostering seamless communication across channels that billions consider an inextricable part of their daily lives.

In an exploration of this digital fortress besieged by illusion, we unpeel the layers of strategy that Facebook and YouTube have unfurled in their bid to stymie the proliferation of these insidious technical marvels. Though each platform approaches the issue through markedly different prisms, a shared undercurrent of necessity and urgency harmonizes their efforts.

The Detailing of Facebook's Strategic

Facebook's encampment against these modern-day chimaeras teems with algorithmic sentinels and human overseers alike—a union of steel and soul. The company’s layer upon layer of sophisticated artificial intelligence is designed to scrupulously survey, identify, and flag potential deepfake content with a precision that borders on the prophetic. Employing advanced AI systems, Facebook endeavours to preempt the chaos sown by manipulated media by detecting even the slightest signs of digital tampering.  

However, in an expression of profound acumen, Facebook also serves reminder of AI's fallibility by entwining human discernment into its fabric. Each flagged video wages its battle for existence within the realm of these custodians of reality—individuals entrusted with the hefty responsibility of parsing truth from technologically enabled fiction.

Facebook does not rest on the laurels of established defense mechanisms. The platform is in a perpetual state of flux, with policies and AI models adapting to the serpentine nature of the digital threat landscape. By fostering its cyclical metamorphosis, Facebook not only sharpens its detection tools but also weaves a more resilient protective web, one capable of absorbing the shockwaves of an evolving battlefield.

YouTube’s Overture of Transparency and the Exposition of AI

Turning to the amphitheatre of YouTube, the stage is set for an overt commitment to candour. Against the stark backdrop of deepfake dilemmas, YouTube demands the unveiling of the strings that guide the puppets, insisting on full disclosure whenever AI's invisible hands sculpt the content that engages its diverse viewership.

YouTube's doctrine is straightforward: creators must lift the curtains and reveal any artificial manipulation's role behind the scenes. With clarity as its vanguard, this requirement is not just procedural but an ethical invocation to showcase veracity—a beacon to guide viewers through the murky waters of potential deceit.

The iron fist within the velvet glove of YouTube's policy manifests through a graded punitive protocol. Should a creator falter in disclosing the machine's influence, repercussions follow, ensuring that the ecosystem remains vigilant against hidden manipulation.

But YouTube's policy is one that distinguishes between malevolence and benign use. Artistic endeavours, satirical commentary, and other legitimate expositions are spared the policy's wrath, provided they adhere to the overarching principle of transparency.

The Symbiosis of Technology and Policy in a Morphing Domain

YouTube's commitment to refining its coordination between human insight and computerized examination is unwavering. As AI's role in both the generation and moderation of content deepens, YouTube—which, like a skilled cartographer, must redraw its policies increasingly—traverses this ever-mutating landscape with a proactive stance.

In a Comparative Light: Tracing the Convergence of Giants

Although Facebook and YouTube choreograph their steps to different rhythms, together they compose an intricate dance aimed at nurturing trust and authenticity. Facebook leans into the proactive might of their AI algorithms, reinforced by updates and human interjection, while YouTube wields the virtue of transparency as its sword, cutting through masquerades and empowering its users to partake in storylines that are continually rewritten.

Together on the Stage of Our Digital Epoch

The sum of Facebook and YouTube's policies is integral to the pastiche of our digital experience, a multifarious quilt shielding the sanctum of factuality from the interloping specters of deception. As humanity treads the line between the veracious and the fantastic, these platforms stand as vigilant sentinels, guiding us in our pursuit of an old-age treasure within our novel digital bazaar—the treasure of truth. In this labyrinthine quest, it is not merely about unmasking deceivers but nurturing a wisdom that appreciates the shimmering possibilities—and inherent risks—of our evolving connection with the machine. 

Conclusion 

The struggle against deepfakes is a complex, many-headed challenge that will necessitate a united front spanning technologists, lawmakers, and the public. In this digital epoch, where the veneer of authenticity is perilously thin, the valiant endeavours of these tech goliaths serve as a lighthouse in a storm-tossed sea. These efforts echo the importance of evergreen vigilance in discerning truth from artfully crafted deception. 

References 

• https://about.fb.com/news/2020/01/enforcing-against-manipulated-media/
• https://indianexpress.com/article/technology/artificial-intelligence/google-sheds-light-on-how-its-fighting-deep-fakes-and-ai-generated-misinformation-in-india-9047211/
• https://techcrunch.com/2023/11/14/youtube-adapts-its-policies-for-the-coming-surge-of-ai-videos/
• https://www.trendmicro.com/vinfo/us/security/news/cybercrime-and-digital-threats/youtube-twitter-hunt-down-deepfakes
  

Executive Summary:

An alleged video is making the rounds on the internet featuring Ranveer Singh criticizing the Prime Minister Narendra Modi and his Government. But after examining the video closely it revealed that it has been tampered with to change the audio. In fact, the original videos posted by different media outlets actually show Ranveer Singh praising Varanasi, professing his love for Lord Shiva, and acknowledging Modiji’s role in enhancing the cultural charms and infrastructural development of the city. Differences in lip synchronization and the fact that the original video has no sign of criticizing PM Modi show that the video has been potentially manipulated in order to spread misinformation.

Claims:

The Viral Video of Bollywood actor Ranveer Singh criticizing Prime Minister Narendra Modi.

Fact Check:

Upon receiving the Video we divided the video into keyframes and reverse-searched one of the images, we landed on another video of Ranveer Singh with lookalike appearance,  posted by an Instagram account named, “The Indian Opinion News''. In the video Ranveer Singh talks about his experience of visiting Kashi Vishwanath Temple with Bollywood actress Kriti Sanon. When we watched the Full video we found no indication of criticizing PM Modi.

Taking a cue from this we did some keyword search to find the full video of the interview. We found many videos uploaded by media outlets but none of the videos indicates criticizing PM Modi as claimed in the viral video.

Ranveer Singh shared his thoughts about how he feels about Lord Shiva, his opinions on the city and the efforts undertaken by the Prime Minister Modi to keep history and heritage of Varanasi alive as well as the city's ongoing development projects. The discrepancy in the viral video clip is clearly seen when we look at it closely. The lips are not in synchronization with the words which we can hear. It is clearly seen in the original video that the lips are in perfect synchronization with the words of audio. Upon lack of evidence to the claim made and discrepancies in the video prove that the video was edited to misrepresent the original interview of Bollywood Actor Ranveer Singh. Hence, the claim made is misleading and false.

Conclusion:

The video that claims Ranveer Singh criticizing PM Narendra Modi is not genuine. Further investigation shows that it has been edited by changing the audio. The original footage actually shows Singh speaking positively about Varanasi and Modi's work. Differences in lip-syncing and upon lack of evidence highlight the danger of misinformation created by simple editing. Ultimately, the claim made is false and misleading.

• Claim: A viral featuring Ranveer Singh criticizing the Prime Minister Narendra Modi and his Government. 
• Claimed on: X (formerly known as Twitter)
• Fact Check: Fake & Misleading

‍