“Ingenious:” Karnataka High Court on ploy to con Amazon of ₹69 lakh

Calling it an “ingenious modus operandi,” the Karnataka High Court on Friday reserved orders on a petition filed by two persons who allegedly conned e-commerce company Amazon of over ₹69 lakh.

The two accused allegedly made numerous purchases and initiated returns, thus getting refunds, but returned fake products in place of genuine ones purchased through the platform.

Justice M Nagaprasanna said that the case was one containing a “maze of facts,” and needed due consideration before closing all arguments in the case.

The Court was hearing a petition filed by one Sourish Bose and his co-accused Deepanvita Ghosh seeking quashing of the first information report (FIR) registered against them and setting aside of a magistrate court’s order taking cognisance of the case. They have been charged for offences punishable under Section 420 (cheating) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 66D of the IT Act.

The duo was booked in 2017 after an Amazon employee figured out their modus operandi and realised they had been conning the company for years.

As per the complaint, Bose would place orders with Amazon for high-end products, make payments through his bank account, and get them delivered at Ghosh’s address.

Within 24 hours, he would initiate a return for the products, secure a refund, and then replace the genuine products with cheap copies, place them in their original boxes and packaging, and return them to Amazon.

The return addresses, the State told the Court on Friday, would sometimes be those registered as Ghosh’s residence. At other times, they would be different addresses from across Bengaluru.

Senior Advocate Hasmath Pasha, who appeared for both the accused persons, told the Court that his clients had been falsely implicated in the case and that the real culprit perhaps was an employee of Amazon itself.

Pasha, however, accepted that a total of ₹69 lakh had been credited to Bose’s Federal Bank account by Amazon in lieu of the alleged returns.

Justice Nagaprasanna then asked him why the accused received the money from Amazon. To this, Pasha said,

“I have not placed any orders nor have I returned any items from Amazon. An employee of Amazon is at fault."

“Then let him return the money,” the judge replied.

Pasha urged the Court to direct the police to conduct a re-investigation into the case.

Justice Nagaprasanna, however, orally said that the Court will not order a re-investigation and the accused should face trial.

“Let them face trial at least,” the judge said before reserving the orders in the case.