Who is the most vulnerable to cyber frauds?

As daily life is becoming more centred on digital transactions, concerns around online safety and privacy have grown exponentially, with digital scams proliferating at an unprecedented rate. The data from the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) highlights this the best. Cybercrime cases rose 17.9 per cent nationally, from 86,420 in 2023 to 1,01,928 in 2024, even as overall registered crime declined by 6 per cent in the same period. Cybercrime as crime category is moving sharply against the national trend.

Although registered cases capture only what was formally reported, and fraud as such is chronically under-reported. A recent study by Lokniti-Centre for the Study of Developing Societies (CSDS) and Common Cause of 8,306 citizens across 16 States captures the much larger, invisible layer on the scale and magnitude of this problem, examining how frequently citizens encounter fraud calls/messages, who is targeted, and the social profile of those most exposed.

Scale of the scams

The scale of scams is striking. Nearly a third of the citizens reported frequently (‘many times’ and ‘sometimes’) receiving calls about deliveries they never ordered (33%), and regularly encountered high-return investment scam calls (31%). More than a fourth (27%) frequently received calls from bank officials asking for personal account details, and about a fourth received calls about their phones being linked to illegal activities (23%) or an unknown number claiming to be their friend urgently in need of money (23%). A fifth of the respondents frequently received calls from police or someone in authority claiming that their friend or relative is in danger or has committed some type of crime (Table 1). However, it important to note that that a majority, roughly half to six in ten respondents have never received these calls.

Respondents who spend more time online were more likely to be targeted by fraudsters

Moreover, respondents who spend more time online were more likely to be targeted by fraudsters. Among respondents with high online usage, 18 per cent fall in the high scam-exposure category and 28 per cent in the moderate category; together, over 46 percent report scam exposure. In contrast, among those who do not use the internet, only 5 per cent report high exposure and 14 per cent report moderate exposure (Table 2).

Exploiting the digital footprint

The common thread is deeper integration into the digital ecosystem creating a larger footprint for fraudsters to exploit. Instead of relying solely on technical expertise, fraudsters target social relationships and institutional credibility. Investment scams appeal to the aspiration of getting rich quickly, delivery scams draw on trust in e-commerce, bank impersonation uses institutional credibility, and fake police calls exploit fear of authority.

By manipulating familiar relationships and situations, fraudsters are able to effectively make deception appear legitimate.

But the important question is: how many of these encounters convert into actual harm? Data shows that 13 per cent of the people were a direct victim of cybercrime in last two to three years. Among them, more than half (54%) of the people have experienced financial fraud, 13 per cent said their devices were hacked, 11 per cent reported personal data theft, seven per cent reported cyberbullying or abuse on social media and four per cent reported online sexual harassment (Table 3).

Targets of financial fraud

Financial frauds are more layered around social and economic position. The wealthiest people (57%) are most vulnerable to financial frauds, though nearly half of economically disadvantaged respondents (47%) are victims of digital fraud too.

Similarly, the more educated a respondent is, the more likely they are to be a victim of cybercrime. Forty per cent of those without any formal education are victims of financial fraud, as compared to nearly three in five (59%) college graduates (Table 4).

The losses incurred due to frauds are substantial. Over eight in ten victims of cybercrime reported some financial loss. A quarter (23%) lost upwards of ₹20,000. While eight per cent of respondents have lost up to ₹1,000, another 25 per cent have lost between ₹1,001- ₹5,000. Cumulatively, about 29 per cent have lost between ₹5,000 and ₹20,000 (Table 5).

In essence, fraudsters in India, all the while exploiting ignorance and vulnerability, are also systematically tracking digital participation aiming to catch those with resources. Fraud in this sense, has less become a tax on carelessness than a tax on connectivity itself.

(Devesh Kumar is a researcher at Lokniti-CSDS. Views expressed are personal. This analysis is based on data collected during a comprehensive study on ‘The Status of Policing in India Report 2026’ jointly conducted by Lokniti-CSDS and Common Cause.)