Two individuals allegedly devised a scheme to defraud Amazon by making multiple purchases, initiating returns, and receiving refunds. However, instead of returning the original items, they reportedly sent fake products back to the company. The Karnataka High Court described the elaborate plot as “ingenious” as it reviewed details of the case involving fraudulent returns worth Rs. 69 lakh.
Bangalore: Calling it an “ingenious modus operandi,” the Karnataka High Court on Friday reserved its decision on a petition by two individuals accused of defrauding Amazon of over Rs. 69 lakh.
The two reportedly made multiple purchases, initiated returns to receive refunds, but allegedly sent fake products in place of the originals.
Justice M. Nagaprasanna noted that the case involved a “maze of facts,” warranting careful consideration before concluding all arguments.
The Karnataka High Court heard a petition from Sourish Bose and his co-accused, Deepanvita Ghosh, seeking to quash an FIR and set-aside a magistrate court’s order that took cognizance of their alleged scheme to defraud Amazon.
They face charges under Section 420 of the IPC (cheating) and Section 66D of the IT Act.
The two booked in 2017 after an Amazon employee uncovered their alleged strategy. According to the complaint, Bose would order high-end items through Amazon, pay with his bank account, and have the products delivered to Ghosh’s address. Within 24 hours, he would initiate a return, obtain a refund, and return cheap substitutes in the original packaging.
The returns were often sent from Ghosh’s registered address, though other Bengaluru locations were also used, according to the State’s statement to the Court.
Their lawyer, Senior Advocate Hasmath Pasha, argued they falsely implicated and suggested an Amazon employee might be the real culprit. He acknowledged, however, that Amazon had credited Rs. 69 lakh to Bose’s account for these returns.
When Justice M. Nagaprasanna asked,
“Why did the accused receive the money from Amazon?”
Pasha responded,
“I have not placed any orders nor returned items from Amazon. An employee of Amazon is at fault.”
The judge replied,
“Then let him return the money,” ,
Later denying Pasha’s request for a re-investigation and adding,
“Let them face trial at least.”
The Court then reserved its orders in the case.
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
