Telecom companies seem to be headed for trouble. The issue of ghost mobile users could haunt the telcos in the case of fraudulently obtained SIM cards owing to faulty verification practices.
PANAJI
The Telecom Enforcement, Resource and Monitoring (TERM) Cell of the telecom department of the Government of India can impose a fine of Rs 50,000 on the telecom company concerned for each fraudulently obtained SIM card, including the 15 instances unearthed by Goa Police in the last week of May.
Goa Police disclosed that out of the offenders arrested since 2016, 15 cases involved the use of fraudulently obtained SIM cards. Offences booked in these 15 cases included online financial frauds and drug trade. Interestingly, the list also included the three undertrial inmates of Sada sub-jail, Vasco who were arrested by the crime branch for the murder of gangster Vinayak Karbotkar in January this year, while in custody.
Speaking to The Goan, Director General of Police Dr Muktesh Chander stated, “In these 15 cases, the identity proofs submitted by some persons were misused, and signatures were forged.
Documents submitted by some persons were copied and reused. So much so, that the photos on the application form did not match the face of the person using it. Goa falls within the jurisdiction of the TERM Cell based in Pune. So, we have forwarded the details of these 15 cases to that office for further action.”
In all these cases, the persons in whose name the SIM card has been obtained denied having applied for it or having given it to the offenders.
Under the Indian Penal Code, the user of the SIM card and the agent or the sub-agent of the company can be booked for impersonation, cheating and forgery for misuse of documents in this manner.
“The agent or sub-agent is liable because the applicant is supposed to sign the application in his presence. But, SIMs were handed over even when the photo didn’t match the person,” DGP Chander pointed out.
It was informed that the permanent and temporary addresses provided in these 15 cases were vague. There was either no alternative number nor the agent had provided his personal number. “In one case, the wife of the agent was signing the company forms for approval. We have arrested him and his wife,” the DGP disclosed.
But the top cop insists that it is the telecom companies that are ultimately responsible in such cases in failing to follow strict verification process.
“The companies are bound by contractual obligations and licensing conditions as they are signatories to the licence document. Telcos can’t shy away from this,” DGP Chander argued.
Unfortunately, the fines levied by TERM Cell are rarely recovered from the companies, which choose to spend ten times the fine amount on litigation for the order to be expunged.
Referring to this trend, DGP Chander stated, “Even if the companies approach the courts, they cannot alter the truth. Police usually track the IMEI number of the phone handset along with the SIM, and these hard facts don’t lie.”
