Policy Update
Khushi
Background
The rapid expansion of digital technologies has created new opportunities for economic and social development, but it has also led to increasingly sophisticated forms of cybercrime. Recognising the need for a coordinated national response, the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) established the Indian Cyber Crime Coordination Centre (I4C) as a scheme in 2018 to create a framework for the prevention, detection, investigation and prosecution of cybercrime. I4C was subsequently established as an attached office of MHA with effect from 1 July 2024 (Ministry of Home Affairs, 2026).
The initiative has gained greater significance with the growing scale of cyber-enabled financial fraud, including impersonation scams, investment fraud, digital arrest scams and the use of mule accounts. The number of financial-fraud complaints reported through the National Cyber Crime Reporting Portal (NCRP) increased substantially in recent years, highlighting both the scale of the threat and the growing importance of accessible reporting and response mechanisms (Press Information Bureau, 2026).
I4C’s role has consequently expanded beyond complaint reporting to include financial-fraud mitigation, cybercrime intelligence, investigation support, capacity building and coordination with banks, telecom companies, technology platforms and State/Union Territory law-enforcement agencies. The 2026 collaboration between I4C and the Reserve Bank Innovation Hub (RBIH) for AI-driven detection of mule accounts represents a further move towards preventive intervention against cyber-enabled financial fraud (Press Information Bureau, 2026).
Functioning
The Indian Cyber Crime Coordination Centre (I4C) functions as a central coordination mechanism under the Ministry of Home Affairs. Since Police and Public Order are State subjects, the prevention, detection, investigation and prosecution of cybercrime remain primarily the responsibility of State and Union Territory law-enforcement agencies. I4C supplements these efforts by providing common platforms, intelligence, technical support, capacity building and coordination (Press Information Bureau, 2026).
The National Cyber Crime Reporting Portal (NCRP) enables citizens to report different types of cybercrime, with special focus on cybercrime against women and children. The complaints and subsequent investigation, including FIR registration, arrest and prosecution, are handled by the concerned State/UT law-enforcement agencies (Ministry of Home Affairs, 2026).
The Citizen Financial Cyber Fraud Reporting and Management System (CFCFRMS), launched in 2021, focuses specifically on financial cyber fraud. Citizens can report fraud through the 1930 helpline and the NCRP. The system facilitates rapid coordination between law-enforcement agencies and banks and financial institutions to prevent the further movement of fraudulent funds (Press Information Bureau, 2026).
The Cyber Fraud Mitigation Centre (CFMC) brings together representatives from major banks, financial intermediaries, payment aggregators, telecom service providers, IT intermediaries and State/UT law-enforcement agencies. This institutional arrangement allows stakeholders involved in a financial fraud to coordinate for immediate action (Press Information Bureau, 2026).
I4C also operates the Suspect Registry, which facilitates the sharing of suspect identifiers and Layer-1 mule-account information with participating financial entities. This helps institutions identify and take preventive action against suspicious transactions (Press Information Bureau, 2026).
The Samanvaya Platform functions as a Management Information System, data repository and coordination platform for law-enforcement agencies. It facilitates cybercrime data sharing and analytics and helps identify interstate links between crimes and criminals. Its Pratibimb module maps criminals and cybercrime infrastructure geographically, while the platform also enables agencies to seek techno-legal assistance from I4C and subject-matter experts (Press Information Bureau, 2026).
I4C’s institutional framework further includes cyber-forensic support, investigation assistance, training and capacity building. The Centre has also developed mechanisms such as State Connect and Thana Connect to improve coordination and facilitate the sharing of cyber-investigation practices with State and local police agencies (Ministry of Home Affairs, 2026).
Performance
The performance of I4C can be assessed through both its measurable interventions and its efforts to build a wider cybercrime-response ecosystem.
Between 2021 and 2025, financial-fraud complaints reported through NCRP increased from 2.62 lakh to 24.02 lakh, indicating the rapidly expanding scale of the problem as well as greater use of formal reporting channels.
Under CFCFRMS, more than ₹11,158 crore was saved across 32.80 lakh complaints by 30 June 2026. During the same period, more than 15.75 lakh SIM cards and 5.77 lakh IMEIs reported by police authorities were blocked. The Suspect Registry had shared more than 32.08 lakh Layer-1 mule accounts with participating entities, with transactions worth more than ₹25,698 crore declined.
Key Performance Indicators of I4C
| INDICATOR | PERFORMANCE |
| Financial fraud complaints on NCRP, 2021 | 2.62 lakh |
| Financial fraud complaints on NCRP, 2025 | 24.02 lakh |
| Amount saved through CFCFRMS, till 30 june 2026 | 11,158+ crore |
| Complaints covered under CFCFRMS | 32.80+ lakh |
| SIM cards blocked till 30 june 2026 | 15.75+ lakh |
| IMEIs blocked till 30 june 2026 | 5.77+ lakh |
| Layer 1 mule accounts shared through suspect registry | 32.08+ lakh |
Source: Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India; Press Information Bureau, Government of India.
The data suggests a shift in India’s cybercrime response from passive reporting towards active financial intervention. The rise in complaints, however, also shows that the scale of cyber fraud is growing rapidly. Therefore, the increase in intervention should not be interpreted as a decline in cybercrime; rather, it demonstrates the need for response mechanisms that can expand alongside the threat.
I4C’s performance also extends to capacity building and public awareness. Under the CCPWC Scheme, MHA has released ₹132.93 crore to States/UTs for cyber-forensic laboratories, consultants and training of law-enforcement personnel, prosecutors and judicial officers. Cyber forensic-cum-training laboratories have been commissioned in 33 States/UTs, while more than 24,600 personnel have received training. The CyTrain platform has also been developed to provide specialised online courses on cybercrime investigation, forensics and prosecution.
On the public-awareness side, I4C has used CyberDost campaigns, awareness sessions, quizzes, Cyber Safety Pledges, courses, workshops and community outreach activities. The 2026 Sundays on Cycle initiative, organised with Fit India, combined a cyber-awareness campaign with a 5-km cycling event, while participants also took a Cyber Safety Pledge and participated in a cybercrime awareness quiz.
These activities indicate that I4C’s performance is not limited to technological intervention. It increasingly combines prevention, reporting, investigation, capacity building and citizen awareness.
Impact
I4C has strengthened India’s institutional response to cybercrime by bringing multiple stakeholders into a more coordinated framework. The NCRP and 1930 helpline have made it easier for citizens to report cyber fraud, while CFCFRMS enables rapid coordination with financial institutions after a fraud is reported.
The financial impact is particularly significant. More than ₹11,158 crore being saved through CFCFRMS indicates that timely reporting and intervention can prevent at least part of the financial loss that might otherwise reach fraudsters. Similarly, the Suspect Registry’s identification of mule accounts and declined transactions demonstrates a shift towards disrupting fraudulent transactions before losses deepen.
I4C’s collaboration with the Reserve Bank Innovation Hub (RBIH) could strengthen this preventive approach further. Under the MoU signed on 12 May 2026, I4C and RBIH will share mule-account-related intelligence and suspect identifiers to strengthen AI-driven fraud-detection systems. RBIH will use these datasets to train and improve fraud-risk assessment models, including MuleHunter.ai.
The potential difference is important: CFCFRMS primarily helps respond after a fraud is reported, whereas AI-driven detection based on shared intelligence can help identify suspicious mule-account behaviour earlier in the transaction chain. If implemented with appropriate safeguards, this could strengthen the shift from reactive fraud response towards preventive financial-risk management.
Samanvaya also contributes to institutional impact by helping agencies identify interstate connections between crimes and criminals. Its Pratibimb module and techno-legal assistance mechanism can reduce the difficulty of investigating cases that cross police jurisdictions.
At the citizen level, awareness initiatives complement these technological mechanisms. Campaigns around digital arrest, investment scams, malware, fake loan applications and other common fraud methods can help citizens recognise suspicious behaviour before becoming victims. The overall impact of I4C therefore lies in creating a more coordinated ecosystem of prevention, reporting, financial intervention and investigation.
However, since actual investigation and prosecution remain with State/UT agencies, the long-term impact of national platforms will depend substantially on the ability of States to use these systems effectively.
Emerging Issues
Uneven State-level capacity
Cybercrime is primarily investigated by State and UT law-enforcement agencies, but their technological infrastructure and specialist capabilities do not develop uniformly. The Centre has responded through financial assistance and training: ₹132.93 crore has been released under the CCPWC Scheme, cyber forensic-cum-training laboratories have been commissioned in 33 States/UTs, and more than 24,600 personnel have received training.
The continuing need for such central assistance indicates that national digital platforms alone cannot ensure uniform cyber-investigation capacity. Differences in forensic infrastructure, specialist personnel and investigative expertise can affect the final outcome of cases.
Rapidly evolving cybercrime
The threat itself is changing rapidly. AI-generated content, deepfakes, impersonation, mule accounts, sophisticated social engineering and cross-border criminal networks make conventional investigative methods increasingly inadequate. This requires continuous updating of technology, training and investigative protocols rather than one-time capacity building.
Data privacy and accountability
Platforms such as CFCFRMS and the Suspect Registry require the sharing of financial and personal information among multiple stakeholders. While such information sharing can improve fraud prevention, it also creates concerns regarding data security, accuracy, access and accountability.
This becomes particularly important when a legitimate account is incorrectly identified as suspicious or when financial restrictions affect an innocent customer. The introduction of grievance-redressal and fund-restoration mechanisms under the updated CFCFRMS framework makes accountability an important part of the system’s continued development.
Cross-border cybercrime
Cybercrime increasingly operates across jurisdictions, making domestic enforcement alone insufficient. India has already begun strengthening international cooperation. An MoU between I4C and the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, signed on 17 January 2025, provides for cooperation and capacity building in cybercrime investigations.
The challenge now is to ensure that such cooperation translates into faster exchange and preservation of digital evidence, coordinated investigations and effective action against offenders operating across borders.
Public awareness gap
The continuing rise in reported financial-fraud complaints shows that technological capacity must be accompanied by sustained public awareness. Cyber fraud often succeeds by exploiting fear, urgency or trust rather than solely by overcoming technical security systems. This makes digital literacy and timely reporting an important part of cybercrime prevention.
Way Forward
Strengthen State-level cybercrime capacity
The existing financial-assistance framework under the CCPWC Scheme should be developed into a more sustained capacity-building mechanism for State cybercrime units. Funding can be linked to identified gaps in cyber-forensics, specialist investigators, digital-investigation tools and prosecution support, while I4C can provide common technical standards and training.
Create specialised and continuous training
Training should move beyond basic cyber awareness towards specialised areas such as digital forensics, cryptocurrency tracing, AI-enabled fraud, deepfakes, dark-web investigations and financial investigation. CyTrain and the Cyber Commando programme provide an existing institutional foundation that can be expanded through regular refresher courses and specialised modules.
Deepen I4C–RBI cooperation
The 12 May 2026 I4C–RBIH MoU should be developed into a sustained fraud-risk intelligence mechanism. Sharing suspect identifiers with AI-based systems can help banks identify mule accounts earlier and potentially prevent fraudulent transactions. At the same time, mechanisms for human review, correction of erroneous identification and grievance redressal should accompany automated risk detection.
Strengthen international cooperation
India should deepen operational cooperation through existing channels such as INTERPOL and bilateral cybercrime arrangements, while building on the I4C–U.S. Department of Homeland Security MoU. Priority should be given to rapid preservation and exchange of electronic evidence, joint capacity building and coordinated investigation of cross-border financial fraud.
Improve data governance and accountability
As more institutions exchange cybercrime-related information, clear protocols should govern data access, accuracy, retention, audit trails and grievance redressal. This would help balance the need for rapid fraud prevention with protection against wrongful identification or prolonged restrictions on legitimate accounts.
Make awareness more continuous and participatory
I4C’s existing approach of combining pledges, courses, workshops, quizzes, CyberDost campaigns and community activities such as cycling initiatives should be expanded through schools, universities, banks and workplaces. Awareness should focus not only on identifying scams but also on what citizens should do immediately after a fraud—particularly the importance of contacting 1930 without delay.
The objective should ultimately be to build a system where technology, law-enforcement agencies, financial institutions and citizens reinforce one another in preventing and responding to cyber fraud.
References
Indian Cyber Crime Coordination Centre. (n.d.). Major initiatives. Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India.
I4C — Major Initiatives
Ministry of Home Affairs. (2026, February 11). Cybercrime reporting and investigation. Government of India.
MHA — Cybercrime Reporting and Investigation
Press Information Bureau. (2025, December 17). Cyber security and financial fraud combat. Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India.
PIB — Cyber Security and Financial Fraud Combat
Press Information Bureau. (2026, February 11). Cybercrime reporting and investigation. Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India.
PIB — Cybercrime Reporting and Investigation
Press Information Bureau. (2026, March 17). Indian Cyber Coordination Centre. Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India.
PIB — Indian Cyber Coordination Centre
Press Information Bureau. (2026, March 11). The government implements various measures to strengthen a comprehensive and coordinated response mechanism to deal with cyber-crimes. Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India.
PIB — Comprehensive Cybercrime Response Mechanism
Press Information Bureau. (2026, May 12). I4C and RBIH sign MoU to strengthen AI-driven detection of mule accounts and cyber financial frauds. Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India.
PIB — I4C–RBIH MoU
Press Information Bureau. (2026, July 28). Cyber Crime Mitigation Centre. Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India.
PIB — Cyber Crime Mitigation Centre and I4C initiatives
Press Information Bureau. (2026, July 28). CFCFRMS 2.0 Platform. Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India.
PIB — CFCFRMS 2.0 Platform
Press Information Bureau. (2026, April 9). Financial Intelligence Unit-India and Indian Cyber Crime Coordination Centre sign landmark MoU to combat cyber fraud and financial crimes. Ministry of Finance, Government of India.
PIB — FIU-IND and I4C MoU
About the contributor
Khushi holds a Master’s degree in Sociology. She serves as a Research & Editorial Intern at IMPRI and has research interests in public policy, governance, digital transformation, and institutional reforms.
Acknowledgement
The author sincerely acknowledges the IMPRI team for their guidance, valuable feedback, and continuous support throughout the preparation of this Policy Update.
Reviewers
Dolly Kaushik and Madhuritha D
Disclaimer
This article is intended for academic purposes only. The views expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of IMPRI or any government.
Read more at IMPRI:
GST Appellate Tribunal 2025: Resolving India’s Tax Disputes
