Corporate fraud has surged alongside rapid digitalisation, with economic offences rising sharply and a majority of companies reporting exposure to fraud. These offences, often classified as white-collar crimes, rely heavily on complex digital trails rather than physical evidence, making proof beyond reasonable doubt challenging. The Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA) modernises evidentiary standards by recognising electronic and digital records as primary evidence andIntroduction
We can see a significant surge in both economic and corporate frauds in recent years. Data says it all: economic offenses, including fraud, forgery, and cybercrimes, have recorded a spike of about 18% in 2023 as compared to 2021. Whereas when we talk about corporate frauds, which are driven by rapid digitalization, complex business, and weak governance, we see that 59% of companies have faced all these crimes in recent years. The massive increase in the number of economic frauds is because of the technological advancements; new AI features and the individual are grasping these opportunities for personal benefit. Corporate fraud can be encircled within the realm of white-collar crimes. These are basically done by eminent and famous personalities, which has a very cascading effect on the society. Due to this, the individuals stop believing in the field of investment, which leads to financial loss to companies as well as the society as a whole.
Evidence forms the mainstay in these crimes because these crimes are very sophisticated, carefully handled, and safely executed. As they are technologically evolved and very arduous to detect. It is basically very difficult to detect corporate fraud due to the presence of mens rea, when the employees get caught, they start arguing that it was honest negligence. On the other side, economic fraud rarely involves physical violence and is very complex. Basically, it is to be proved beyond “reasonable doubt.”
Nature of evidence in case of corporate frauds
The nature of evidence in corporate frauds under Bhartiya Nyaya Adhiniyam (BSA) has relied mostly on documents, digital records, and forensics and has considered these as primary evidence instead of secondary evidence. The BSA has basically widened the definition of “documentary evidence” when compared with the Indian Evidence Act; now the definition includes information from smartphones, laptops, and cloud storage. The BSA now stands as a more modern, refined, and progressive framework compared to its predecessor, the IEA.
Admissibility of electronic records is given in section 63 of BSA, under which various electronic emails or computer files would be made admissible. Further, this particular section also asks for a certificate to confirm the credibility and integrity of the electronic evidence that is submitted. In the BSA document, is described under section 2(1)(d) of the BSA, which includes electronic and digital records like emails, voice call messages, or web logs.
Whereas in the Information Technology Act, 2000, the definition of “document” is expanded to align the Indian law with global realities and is not particularly defined anywhere in the IT Act, to know what constitutes a document to include an electronic record through various key sections like 2(1)(t) and 2(1)(o) of the IT Act.
In the case of Gopalkrishnan vs. State of Kerala, the Hon’ble Supreme Court acknowledged that the video clipping stored in a hard device like a pen drive or CD comes under the realm of electronic accord as per section 2(1)(t) of the IT Act as electric evidence and cannot be simply considered a material object. Moreover, in the landmark case of State of Maharashtra Vs. Dr. Praful B. Desai, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India said that computer-generated records should be considered as documentary evidence under Section 2 of BSA.
Digital and Electronic Evidence: Admissibility Issues
In BSA we are provided with the definition of “document” that is anything that is recorded, written, or expressed in section 2(1)(d) of BSA. This includes both digital and electronic records. Digital information is that which includes any image or document that is stored in the computer. The main difference between digital and electronic records is how they are accessed and how they are created. Digital records can be created by directly converting the physical document into a computer or from the very start all data is computerized. Electronic records are created with a computer system either by the user or by the system itself.
The admissibility of evidence is a very critical point in BSA. To understand the concept of admissibility of evidence, it is necessary to examine a chain of judicial decisions, where each case builds upon the principles laid down in earlier rulings.
In the landmark judgement of State of Maharashtra vs. Dr. Praful B. Desai, the supreme court said that electronic evidence, which can also be computer generated, can be submitted as evidence to prove a fact under section 5 of BSA. In another case, State (NCT of Delhi) vs. Navjot Sandhu, reported in the Hon’ble Supreme Court, it was said that the courts could admit printouts or compact disks as prima facie evidence without evidence. But the prosecution failed to submit the certificate, which is a necessary requirement under section 63 of BSA. This certificate is to be submitted for the authenticity and integrity of the electronic evidence submitted.
In Anvar P. V. Vs. P.K. Basheer & Ors., the Supreme Court overruled the judgment of Navjot Sandhu in this case. The court redefined the admissibility of electronic evidence by reinterpreting the words of sections 58, 60, and 63 of the BSA. The court adjudged that section 63 is in itself a complete code, and all the requirements given under this section should always be fulfilled while you are relying on electronic evidence; otherwise, the evidence would not be admissible in the court of law.
In the case of Sonu vs. State of Haryana, the court re-evaluated the requirement of a certificate under section 63. It is considered that a certificate is only a mode of proof. Therefore, non-production of a certificate on a prior occasion leads to a curable defect that later on cannot be rectified. The same point is supported by another judgment of the supreme court in the case of Shafhi Mohammad vs. State of H.P., where the court acknowledged that the production of a certificate is only a requirement and not mandatory. Moreover, this requirement can also be relaxed in certain cases where the party does not have access to the original device.
From the above analogy, it is clear that in various cases like the Navjot Sandhu, P.V. Anvar, and Shafhi Mohammad, the court has tried to remove the ambiguity revolving around these provisions. However, due to differing opinions in various cases, the legal landscape was very confused and was searching for a clear interpretation of the provisions. Which finally came in the case Arjun Panditrao vs. Kailash Kishanrao. This judgment stands in line with the provisions, and the judgment was consistent with the legislative intent. The court held that sections 62 and 63 of the BSA are in themselves a complete code. Further, the court made it clear that no certificate is needed if the electronic evidence produced is per se the original record.
Investigative Agency Challenges
This is nothing new because corporate fraud is very cunningly done, which leaves no evidence behind. Unlike the conventional crimes, the corporate frauds are done in a way that the agencies like the Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO), Enforcement Directorate (ED), and Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) face difficulty in tracing the evidence. Though, due to the coming of the Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA), the evidentiary challenge recognized digital and electronic evidence, making the search operations and investigations more evidence-driven. But there is a twist: due to rising complex financial transactions, technological advancements, and international dimensions of corporate crime, these agencies face difficulty because of the existing legal landscape and the legal infrastructure.
In corporate frauds they leave no evidence behind, so it is very difficult to probe because in the BSA electric and digital evidence form the backbone of this act. More often, the agencies encounter manipulated records, documents, and more. But the fraudsters easily alter or erase this critical information. Thereby, forming integrity and authenticity of this evidence is very difficult under the provision of BSA and is a challenge.
Another issue is that corporate investigation involves the analysis and reading of thousands of documents and emails. Which most of the time leads to delay; the evidence collected may become outdated, and the witnesses become unavailable, which reduces the evidentiary value of the evidence.
Also, many corporate frauds require offshore access, as the international or foreign organization may have done fraud together with the parent company. In order to investigate this, it requires international cooperation, which is often slow and gets delayed. The difference in legal standards of Indian and foreign laws further escalates the situation.
These are the issues that are being faced by the investigating agencies like SFIO, CBI, and ED. Many more problems still exist, but the legislature, by providing a better version of BSA, tries to solve some of them, and also the judiciary from time to time helps in giving a proper interpretation of the statutes.
Way Forward: Strengthening Evidentiary Framework
Basically, the corporate fraud involves crypto assets, cross-border transfer, accounting, digital transfer, etc. To keep a check on these frauds, Indian agencies should be well equipped with the latest technology and should have well-trained professionals equipped with proper skills. Also, SFIO, ED, or CBI could expand their recruitment process and form their own financial intelligence team for collecting evidence and not plainly rely on the police.
The agencies should be doing regular training programs and bringing in the new technologies to keep a check on the evolving corporate fraud that seems to be difficult to detect. There should be faster cross-border cooperation. This can be done by improving international cooperation and making the laws that are flexible in nature so that the evidence is timely submitted.
All these investigating agencies should work together for better cooperation and coordination. There exists an overlap between the agencies’ jurisdictions, which can give rise to disputes among the agencies. To prevent this, there should be a centralized mechanism or shared intelligence system for smoother evidence sharing.
Conclusion
So, from the above text it is clear that corporate and economic frauds are difficult to check, as they are carefully handled crimes as compared to traditional ones. In these frauds the prosecution depends on the authenticity, integrity, and admissibility of evidence, which is in the form of electronic and digital records.
Though due to the introduction of the new Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA), which is much more modernized and a better version of the earlier one, the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (IEA), the new one recognizes digital and electronic records as primary evidence. Various judicial pronouncements have brought clarification provided in the case of Arjun Panditrao regarding the admissibility of evidence, particularly in cases of electronic evidence certification. However, despite statute modernization and judiciary clarification, there still exist challenges in evidence collection, admission, and production.
Investigating agencies like SFIO, CBI, and ED continue to face operational hurdles, including data manipulation, cross-border evidence collection delays, and the company as a whole facing liability instead of individual liability. Further, improvement can be done by recruitment of more professionals, modernization of technology, and continuously adopting the evolving technologies to keep a check on corporate frauds.
Ultimately, combating corporate fraud is not merely about punishments but about gaining public trust in financial and economic institutions. This can be done by equipping strong, coordinated, and multi-dimensional financial agencies to safeguard the corporate world and ensure accountability.
***
Author Bio
