Section 102 of the Code of Criminal Procedure gives police the power to seize property — including bank accounts — that they suspect was 'used in the commission of an offence'. P2P traders increasingly find themselves frozen under this provision, often through no fault of their own.
How a freeze typically arrives
Victim of an online fraud files a complaint with the cybercrime cell. Police trace the funds through the banking system: Victim → fraudster's account → second account → third account → your account. Section 102 lets them freeze every account in the chain.
You're often a 4th- or 5th-hop recipient through legitimate P2P trades. The flagging is automated; humans review later.
What you'll see
Bank app shows 'debit hold' or 'lien marked' on a specific amount, sometimes the entire balance. You may receive an email or SMS from the bank, or you may discover it only when a UPI transaction fails.
Branch staff often won't have details. 'There's a police hold' is the most you'll get from them.
Lifting the freeze
Step 1: Identify the police station that ordered the freeze. Bank's nodal officer can tell you, or you can RTI the bank.
Step 2: Hire a local lawyer who handles cybercrime. They'll file under Section 451/457 CrPC for release, with your evidence (trade history, ITR, KYC, UPI receipts proving legitimate origin of funds).
Step 3: Magistrate hearing — typically 30-90 days. Documented traders with clean ITRs usually win release.
How to reduce future risk
Trade with high-completion-rate, high-volume merchants. Spread your trades across multiple counterparties. Use different bank accounts for different exchanges so a single freeze doesn't lock everything.
Key takeaways
- Section 102 CrPC freeze cascades from victim through P2P chain.
- Lifting requires 451/457 CrPC application — court process, 30-90 days.
- Documentation (trade history, ITR, KYC) is the defence.
- Mitigate via merchant diversity and bank-account separation.
