Why this Kolaveri

During the last 10 days, Naavi.org has been discussing the implications of the discussion paper released by RBI for public comments on “Disincentivisation of the use and issuance of cheques”. We have pointed out several dimensions of the discussion paper and strongly opposed even the mention of “Disincentivisation of cheques by RBI” as a thought. Many readers and also some of my friends in RBI may wonder why this Kolaveri? I therefore owe an explanation even if it is a repetition of the thoughts already expressed.

To start with, I have stated many times in the context of G.Gopalakrishna Working group report and the Damodaran Committee report that senior executives in RBI including Deputy Governor Dr K.C.Chakravarthy are known for their sympathies to Customer service in Banks. RBI demonstrated it by making substantial changes to the original recommendation which the GGWG had put up and removing the anti consumer recommendations before the final notification was done. By upholding the earlier recommendations of the S.R.Mittal Group on Internet Banking in 2001, GGWG final notification preserved the legal position of consumer interests in Indian banking intact.

This was quickly followed by the Damodaran Committee report on Customer Service which was rightly consumer centric and was therefore a welcome measure.

However, since then the forces that are dictating terms to RBI have taken over and are having a field day once again. First of all the Damodaran Committee report never saw the light of the day as RBI failed to notify it in the form of a circular. Now the discussion paper on disincentivisation of the use of cheques is being used as a tool to soften the legal system that protects the Banking customers by making E Banking a “TINA” option (There is no alternative). Only those persons who are watching the moves of RBI closely will understand how the hidden agenda of some of the vested interests are working in getting the Banking policies in India changed to the disadvantage of the Bank customers.

Who are these vested interests which are forcing RBI to take anti consumer decisions? is a matter that we need to investigate.

According to my assessment, a lobby of prominent Bankers are continuously working towards protecting their interests against the customer’s interests regarding Banker-Customer disputes. It may consist of Banks who have a large number of Cyber Frauds in their system and are facing legal cases already in different forums. If these cases are decided on merits with reference to Banking Law and Practice, they will all end up facing a situation where they have to absorb the risks of Cyber Fraud losses not only for the cases which they are now facing but also those arising in the future.

These Banks are aware that technology is profitable in terms of transaction cost and therefore good for their profits. They also know that E-Banking is not safe and the risks are on the increase. But true to the current business trend, they want to preserve their profits even if it means killing the customers.

The intention of such vested interests will be best served by destroying the traditional system of Banking and creating an entirely new system of Banking where the E Banking risks are transferred to the customers.

Unfortunately, way back in 1998, RBI determined that in India we shall have E Banking only as an extended delivery channel for the traditional Banking activities and not as a separate E Commerce activity. The Banks therefore had the advantage of being touted as “Safe Investment options” and mobilize public savings during the last 2 decades. Now at a time when risks are glaring in their face, they want to retain the best of both worlds namely the “Safety” tag for resource mobilization and the profitable option of E Banking. Since the traditional banking laws and practice are coming in their way, they are out to destroy the current system.

I have tried to explain this concept in some of my earlier articles to which links are available at the end of this article but would like to briefly reiterate the same.

The biggest Cyber Fraud risks both in Internet banking and Credit cards is the risk of a customer’s signature being forged for authentication of the transaction. This may happen in the form of stolen passwords being used for access to the banking account or the signature on a credit card charge slip.

Since as per Banking laws in India, “Signature” is the essence of authorization of any debit and “Forgery” is a nullity, Banks cannot debit the customer for any forged instructions even when a certain amount of negligence can be ascribed to the customer which was incidental to the commission of the fraud. This subtle legal position makes Banks liable in every case of Phishing and Stolen Credit card encashment.

Further, the concept of “Banker-Customer” relationship being considered as “Debtor-Creditor” relationship where a depositor is deemed to have lent his money to the Bank and the Bank uses it in its business with an obligation to return as per the terms of the account such as payable on demand or otherwise by cheque or otherwise. When therefore a fraud occurs and the balance in the account of a customer vanishes, the legal position is that money in the custody of the Bank has been stolen and the so called “Balance in the account” is only an entry in a book of account. The responsibiltiy of the bank to restore the balance is therefore absolute.

For the current day Bankers for whom debit or credit has little meaning beyond the key board strokes, the banking law may be alien. But for RBI as well as the legal system of the country, the Banking law is paramount. Any organization that has received the license as a “Bank” is only entitled to that privilege as long as they are doing “Banking business” as defined in Banking Regulation Act which defines Banking Business as “Acceptance of deposits for the purpose of lending and repayable on demand or otherwise, by cheque, draft or otherwise”.

“Cheque Facility” is therefore an integral part of Banking and RBI as the licensing authority cannot therefore take any policy stance that shows that it is not in favour of the use of cheques. It is for this reason I consider the discussion paper as ultra-vires the basic charter of RBI.

Many would argue that what has been released is only a discussion paper, its main intention is to find ways and means of promoting E Banking and it does not indicate any policy decision. However I would urge public not to be fooled by such arguments. This reminds me of the way British entered our country under a false pretense and ended up making all of us their slaves, looted the wealth of the country, permanently divided the country, making us suffer all through.

It is clear to me that the discussion paper indicates an undercurrent of a policy shift according to which over the next few years, cheques will be eliminated and all Banking will be E Banking only. When that happens, it would be easy to convince the Courts that traditional Banking laws are not relevant and hence customer liabilities for frauds cannot be decided on the existing principles. It is for this reason that I consider that preservation of the Cheque based banking system is good even for the Netizens who today are going behind convenience and embracing E Banking unmindful of the risks.

The reason why I suspect that RBI is misleading the public is that they have released this discussion paper only in the Internet media and not through open news paper advertisements as they should have done. The matter is of concern to those who donot access Internet and therefore expecting them to send a response by email to a document on the RBI website is unthinkable. In fact most of the Netizens also find it extremely difficult even now to locate the paper on the RBI website and ask me for the link. If RBI wants to claim that they are fulfilling a formality by releasing the discussion paper to public, they should admit that they are actually trying to cheat the public by deception.

I have already indicated that there are some senior executives in RBI who are well aware of the RBI’s traditional role and would not support this move. I however consider that they have been reduced to a minority and pushed to a corner forcing me to say that RBI is impotent and incapable of implementing its own stated policies. Presently it is the the industry which is dictating terms to RBI. Even when RBI issues circulars to Banks, Banks ignore them and carry on as if RBI does not exist. It is high time that RBI regains its designated role as a Central bank of the country and the banking regulator in the interests of the citizens of the country and not the business interests.

In pushing the agenda for promotion of E Banking, RBI has ignored the impact on Senior Citizens, semi literate and illiterate persons, SMEs, Charity organisations, Cooperative and Rural banks and several other category of bank users. RBI has ignored why the UK banking system had to change its decision to phase out cheques and give a public commitment that cheques will continue as long as people want and based its recommendations on such insignificant countries such as Ireland, Nigeria etc.

I suppose that through the many articles which have appeared here, I have strengthened the hands of those fringe elements in RBI who still consider that RBI is for the people of India and not a commercial promoter of the interests of individual commercial Banks.

I would however appeal Consumer Organizations in the country, Media, SME associations and all right thinking individuals to participate in this debate and support the view point that the proposal for disincentivisation of cheques should be abandoned for ever.

Please send an email today to RBI chequeusage@rbi.org.in giving your views. You can refer to the discussion paper and my detailed views in the following articles.

I regret if If  I have hurt any RBI officials in the process of putting through my points. I hope the essence of my view would ultimately be appreciated by all.

Naavi

Links to earlier Articles:

1. Cooperative banks need to gear up to Internet Banking
2. Dear RBI Governor, Can you do what you are suggesting others?
3. Dear Senior Citizens, You are unwelcome at Banks..implies RBI
4. RBI Move will encourage Private Cash Management Services
5. Why Cheque System is also important for Netizens
6. RBI is impotent.
7. RBI’s conspiracy by silence
8. RBI set to rob Rs 10000 crores from Bank customers!
9.  A Note for the attention of SMEs- on Cheque Disincentivisation
10. Executive Director RBI calls for Round Table for discussion on Cyber Fraud liability
11. Naavi.org Response to RBI Discussion Paper on Disincentivisation of Cheques
12. Message sent to RBI through the website of RBI
13. “Banking is a Fundamental Right” says Dr Chakravarthy, Dy.Governor of RBI
14. UK dropped Cheque stoppage proposal after public outcry..Why India should not?
15. Message sent to Payment and Settlement Department RBI through the website
16. Digital Divide threatens Indian Banking
17. RBI has been taken over by hawks
18. Why RBI is wrong
19. RBI is recommending unreasonable and Usurious charges for customers
20. RBI out to openly violate laws of banking
21. Phishing Frauds and Customer Liability
22. Usage of Cheques are being disincentivised

Copy of the discussion paper on Naavi.org: 

Copy of the discussion paper on RBI website:

Response to be sent to : chequeusage@rbi.org.in

Posted in ITA 2008, Netizen's Forum, RBI | Leave a comment

Cooperative banks need to gear up to Internet Banking

The discussion paper on Disincentivisation of cheques issued by RBI has indicated a hard policy push towards use of E Banking in the form of Internet Banking and ATM.

Many of the Cooperative Banks and Regional Rural Banks may not have Internet Banking facility at present. With what RBI implies, these Banks have to quickly introduce internet banking since the customers of the Bank will find it difficult to issue or receive cheques from their own clients since this will introduce a higher cost element to the transactions.

This will be a serious challenge not only to the IT departments but also the manpower training departments of these Banks to ensure that the Banks are adequately prepared for the change. If they delay the transition, their business may suffer.

Naavi

Posted in Cyber Crime, Privacy, RBI | 1 Comment

Jurisdiction aspects in IIPM issue

According to the IIPM blocking report, the order to block 78 websites was based on a court order in Gwalior.

The actual order of DIT however does not mention any Court order. It simply says “It has been decided to immediately block the following URLs”

It is not clear why IIPM decided to contact a court in Gwalior instead of a Court in Delhi where IIPM has its main activity. In fact there must be some interesting reason what benefit IIPM foresaw in approaching a Gwalior Court. Perhaps it was aware that DIT had a special respect for this court.

The second aspect is that should an order of a Court in Gwalior  have be considered to have jurisdiction only for the region to which the Court’s has jurisdiction. By virtue of this order, the constitutional rights of millions of Indians in places outside the normal jurisdiction of the Gwalior court has been infringed without any body being given an opportunity to defend. This also means that the dispute resolution clauses of website disclosures and terms and agreement where the choice of a forum has been indicated is rendered meaningless.

If we recognize that the blocking order was issued by the DIT in regions to which the Gwalior Court order may not apply, it means that the action of DIT was illegal. Under Section 69A of ITA 2008 and the rules there under blocking of any website outside the provisions of law is equivalent to an offence under Section 66 of ITA 2008 and hence punishable with imprisonment for who so ever caused the same.

Visitors can provide their views on the issue.

Copy of the DIT order

See CIS view

Naavi

Posted in ITA 2008, Netizen's Forum, Uncategorized | Leave a comment

GOI blocks 78 URLs on IIPM issue

In a matter of grave concern to the activists of freedom of expression, CERT IN has ordered blocking of 78 URLs allegedly inimical to the interests of IIPM. Surprisingly the blocked URLs include a notification from UGC stating that IIPM is not a “University” under the UGC act.

The report in Medianama also states “What is worrying is that the blocks include URLs of news portals like Outlook Magazine, Careers360, The Times of India, FirstPost, Rediff, The Indian Express, The Economic Times, MensXP, The Wall Street Journal, The Caravan Magazine, whose reports related to IIPM have been blocked. Apart from this, spoof news site Faking News has 8 URLs in the list (some repeated), while a URL from The Unreal Times has also been asked to be blocked. Also blocked are blog posts from 2005 and 2006 critical of IIPM, including those from Gaurav Sabnis and Rashmi Bansal. Apart from this, URL on consumer complaints portals Akosha and consumercourtforum.in related to IIPM has also been ordered to be blocked, as well as a compilation of links on Bitly by Mahesh Murthy. The Wall Street Journal and Caravan Magazine have their Arindam Chaudhuri specific tags in the list for blocking as well”

Does it mean that IIPM should be allowed to continue its misleading advertisements? What is the ground on which news about blocking has also been blocked? Is it not a matter of fact that the news papers were reporting? ..are issues which need debate.

Though CERT IN has taken shelter under a “Court Order”, it is surprising that CERT IN did not consider countering the Court with information that UGC was actually doing its statutory duty in publicising the notice and many other sites were only carrying the news relevant at that point of time.

The matter requires an immediate reconsideration.

I also reproduce here a post made in naavi.org in October 2005 about IIPM which indicates that the controversy with IIPM has been in existence since a long time.

IIPM Issues e-Legal Notice to Bloggers

In what could be a fight for “Freedom of Speech over the Internet” and  “Journalsitic rights”  Vs Commercial interests, IIPM has challenged Bloggers who wrote articles on the alleged false and fraudulent statements made by IIPM for marketing its programmes. This follows certain allegations that IIPM has made false claims in a Mumbai based web journal published a few articles on IIPM which the latter finds defamatory.

IIPM does not appear to have issued any rejoinders but has issued a legal notice threatening arrest of the blogger within one day and demanding withdrawal of his article and holding him responsible for links in other websites/blogs etc. At this point of time the action contemplated by IIPM on the magazine is not known.

An interesting academic aside to the controversy is the validity of the e-legal notice issued by IIPM to an e-mail address. If accepted, this could begin a new trend in the use of IT in litigation. Additionally if the case is pursued against a Blogger and not the original publisher of the article, the differential status of a “Blog” and “Website” may also come to be discussed.  Copy of iipm notice: Related info. : Bloggers Beware (article from naavi.org)

Judgement in Uttarakhand High Court dt 20.10.2010 regarding Buckingham business school degrees on defamation

Naavi

Posted in Cyber Law, Netizen's Forum, Uncategorized | 1 Comment

Dear RBI Governor, Can you do what you are suggesting others?

I would like to draw the attention of RBI to the following paragraph in the discussion paper on Disincentivisation of Cheques issued by them.

“companies, schools and educational institutions, etc which receive payment and (should) provide an immediate documentary evidence to the payer in the form of printable receipts “

I would like RBI to first introduce a printable acknowledgement for any complaints filed with RBI through their website under the “Contact us” link. Presently we only get a note on the web “Mail sent”. This is insufficient. RBI should send an acknowledgement through email along with a copy of the message posted with the digital signature of a responsible officer of RBI.

Will the Governor and ED of RBI make suitable arrangements for such an acknowledgement say by tomorrow?

Naavi

 

Posted in RBI | Leave a comment

Dear Senior Citizens, You are unwelcome at Banks..implies RBI

The RBI discussion paper on “Disincentivisation of issuance and use of cheques”  wants to impose penalties for using cheques in banking transactions as also for cash withdrawals and deposits. Instead it urges people to shift to Internet banking and ATMs.

As an ex-banker I am aware that many senior citizens take pride in visiting banks and doing their transactions in person. Some times they write a cheque and send it with somebody to draw money. Now as per the RBI’s intentions, senior citizens will not be welcome at the branches. If they withdraw or deposit cash, they may have to be prepared to pay charges. If they take a cheque book, issue a cheque or gve a cheque for collection, they need to pay charges for each such transaction.

If this means that the Senior Citizens need to change their banking habits, RBI has a convenient suggestion. Change over to Internet banking and use ATMs. If you want to pay your utility bills, use NEFT. Where you want to issue cheques, send it through Internet Banking.

Is this a practical suggestion for Senior Citizens?

I request associations of Senior Citizens to ponder over this suggestion of RBI and send their responses to RBI. Since the discussion paper is available only on the Internet and response can be sent only through e-mail, if you are not on the Internet bandwagon now, then you may not know that such a discussion paper actually exists. In fact those who are likely to be adversely affected by the RBI’s proposed changes may not even be reading this website and this message.

I therefore request all of you who are reading this message reach out to Non Netizens you know of and inform them of the impending danger to their financial life.

-Tell them that E-Banking in India is a risky affair where every year more than Rs 8000 crores are lost due to cyber frauds.
-Tell them that Banks in conspiracy with RBI are trying to introduce E Banking and simultaneously trying to shift cyber fraud liabilities to the customers because laws of banking in the cheque environment are too well established to be manipulated where as laws of E Banking is considered amenable for manipulation because there is still “lawlessness by administrative and judicial inaction” in the E Banking arena.
-Tell them to go their banks and demand a copy of the “Discussion Paper on Disincentivisation of issuance and usage of cheques” issued by RBI on 31st January 2013 and on which you can submit your views before 28th February 2013.
-Talk to your friends and take a collective action
-Take a class on Internet, Internet Banking, Cyber Crimes and Cyber Security to protect your hard earned savings in the Bank
-Tell them to address a letter to Governor, Reserve Bank of India, D.N.Road, Mumbai 400001 and inform

” We strongly oppose any move of RBI to disincentivise the issue and use of cheques and limit the number of cash transactions as proposed in the discussion paper issued on January 31, 2013. We want a commitment from RBI that there will be no tampering with the basic legal structure of banking in India to reduce the protection available to Bank customers in the form of frauds in the use of E Banking. We want immediate implementation of all recommendations made by the Damodaran Committee on Customer Service with immediate effect”

Naavi

Posted in Bank, Cyber Crime, Cyber Law, RBI | 2 Comments