Maharashtra cyber police have arrested a Kandivli garment trader after investigators linked about ₹1 crore received by his company to the suspected ₹14 crore Central Bank of India settlement-account fraud. The police investigation into 187 disputed RTGS transfers and subsequent fund movements is continuing; no court finding of guilt or final recovery has been reported.
What has changed in the Central Bank of India case
Maharashtra’s nodal cyber police have arrested a garment trader from Kandivli, Mumbai, while investigating an alleged loss of nearly ₹14 crore from Central Bank of India’s settlement account maintained with the Reserve Bank of India. The Times of India reported the arrest in an article updated on 1 November 2026, and Mirror Now reported the development on 2 November. This is an investigative step, not a conviction or a final finding about the cyberattack.
According to the police account reported by The Times of India, approximately ₹1 crore of the disputed funds was traced to the account of a company operated by the arrested trader. Police are examining the subsequent movement of funds and the possibility that some money was converted into cryptocurrency or transferred abroad. Those possibilities remain suspicions under examination, not established outcomes.
Background: 187 disputed settlement transfers
The underlying complaint concerns 187 allegedly unauthorised Real Time Gross Settlement (RTGS) transactions made between 15 and 17 October 2026. The disputed transactions, worth approximately ₹14 crore in total, were reportedly routed from the bank’s RBI settlement account to 36 bank accounts. Investigators say the money was subsequently moved into another 105 accounts. The original transactions are distinct from the later arrest and efforts to trace individual beneficiaries.
Police reports have raised questions about the financial-messaging infrastructure associated with Indian Financial Technology and Allied Services (IFTAS), a subsidiary of the RBI. The precise intrusion mechanism and the allocation of technical responsibility have not been established by a publicly examined forensic or judicial finding in the sources reviewed. Describing the entire RBI or RTGS network as conclusively compromised would go beyond the evidence.
What the bank has said about customer accounts
The Times of India reports that Central Bank of India clarified that no customer account was affected and that its core banking system remained intact and secure. This distinction matters: the reported disputed transfers arose in the bank’s settlement environment, not as a confirmed debit from individual depositors’ accounts. The bank’s account of customer impact and the police investigation into alleged missing funds must be considered together, rather than assuming that every retail customer faced a direct loss.
Why the development matters for banking professionals
- Treasury and payments teams: Settlement-account reconciliation should be distinguished from the record of instructions generated in customer-facing channels. A mismatch calls for prompt investigation and escalation through prescribed procedures.
- Technology and information-security teams: The case raises questions about privileged access, message authentication, logging and coordination with financial infrastructure providers. No particular technical vulnerability should be asserted as proven before official findings.
- Fraud-monitoring and compliance teams: The reported movement from the initial beneficiary accounts to many other accounts shows why timely transaction tracing and legally authorised coordination between institutions matter.
- Branch staff: Do not tell customers that their accounts were debited in this case; the bank’s reported clarification says the opposite. Direct any incident-specific queries through authorised bank communications.
What remains unverified
The inspected reports do not provide an independently examined FIR, forensic report, charge sheet, judicial order, final recovery statement or confirmation of the suspected cryptocurrency trail. Police questioning, the tracing of funds to a company account and an arrest are not proof of criminal guilt. The date of arrest itself is not asserted more precisely than the available reports support. Any later charges, bail order, findings, recoveries or corrections require fresh source verification.
Sources and References
Please consult the cited sources and check the exact applicability of any legal or employment change. Corrections are welcomed.
Join the discussion