Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 46009
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
M.A. Abdul Hakhim, J
ASIF ALI – Appellant
Versus
THE IDBI BANK LTD – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 43964 OF 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Hamzath Ali V.K., Ayisha Afrin A.V.K., Muhammad Shameel K., Abdulla Fuhad K., Helan Paul
For the Respondents: M.S. Kiran, Anish Jain, Remesh Kartha E.K., Mundancheri Sreelakshmi Sreekumar, Bijulal K.R.
A petitioner seeking to unfreeze a bank account linked to cyber fraud must provide specific, evidence-backed explanations for disputed transactions; vague claims of P2P trading in Virtual Digital Assets (VDA) without proof are insufficient to justify the unfreezing of the account.
Headnote:The petitioner sought a direction to unfreeze a bank account maintained with the respondent bank. The respondent bank identified seven disputed transactions totaling Rs. 56,798/- linked to cyber fraud. The court found that the petitioner failed to provide specific explanations or proof for these transactions, despite claiming engagement in Virtual Digital Assets (VDA) and peer-to-peer (P2P) trading. The primary issue was whether the petitioner could sufficiently explain the disputed transactions to prove the account was not used for facilitating cyber fraud. The court reasoned that the affidavit provided by the petitioner contained only vague statements without supporting evidence, and therefore, the transactions involved in the cyber fraud remained unexplained. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. request for unfreezing of bank account and identification of disputed transactions linked to fraud. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. insufficiency of vague claims regarding vda and p2p trading without evidence to explain fraudulent transactions. (Para 4) |
| 3. dismissal of petition due to failure to explain disputed transactions. (Para 5) |
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ORDERS ON 07.07.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
1. The Petitioner has filed this Writ Petition seeking direction to unfreeze the Account maintained by the Petitioner with the Respondent/Bank.
2. The Respondent/Bank was directed to file a Statement showing the details of the disputed transactions in order to enable the Petitioner to explain the transactions, to confirm that the Petitioner has not been using his account for facilitating cyber fraud.
3. The Respondent/Bank has filed a Statement on 06.05.2026 showing the details of seven disputed transactions for a total amount of Rs.56,798/-.
4. The Petitioner has filed an Affidavit dated 23.06.2026, in which it is stated that during the relevant period, the Petitioner was engaged in transactions involving Virtual Digital Assets (VDA), including the purchase and sale of USDT (Tether), through online peer-to-peer (P2P) trading platforms and digital asset marketplaces. In the affidavit, the Petitioner has not explained the transactions undertaken by him, which are involved in the cyber fraud. Since the transactions are not explained in the Affidavit and the Affidavit contains only vague statements without any proof, it could not be said that the transactions are explained by the Petitioner.
5. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed.
