Court lays down stringent norms to curb visa fraud

The Punjab and Haryana High Court said it was essential to save the nation’s prestige, the people’s reputation and “to sensitise the system”, while asking Punjab, Haryana and Chandigarh Directors-General of Police to issue “general instructions” for protecting legitimate victims of visa fraud and preventing the misuse of the justice system for settling financial disputes under false pretences.

Justice Anoop Chitkara also made it clear that the law enforcement agencies was required to undertake crucial steps whenever an FIR was registered on allegations of visa fraud or allurement to send individuals abroad, including verification of the complainant’s credentials, their passport, visa status, educational qualifications and claimed professional skills.

The agencies were also directed to catalogue and attach photocopies or digital scans of all relevant documentation to the investigation file while returning original materials, such as passports, to the complainant. Directions were also issued to freeze the bank accounts into which money was received to the extent of the amount credited as a trail of allurement. “False accusations must also be put to trial,” the court asserted.

Referring to “alarming escalation” of visa fraud cases, Justice Chitkara noticed that individuals were lured into parting with substantial sums of money under the pretence of securing visas or job permits through alleged connections with embassy officials. “These visa-thugs, often masquerading as legitimate agents or portraying closeness and connections with embassy officials, must be subjected to meticulous investigation.”

Justice Chitkara also observed the victims often became complicit in their exploitation. “The victims themselves, complicit in their own exploitation, resort to unethical and dubious means to secure travel or employment opportunities, only to later cry foul when they fall prey to fraudulent schemes. This situation is not unlike the proverbial ‘kettle calling the pot black,’ where those who themselves engage in questionable conduct seek to shift the blame onto others when they become victims.”

Justice Chitkara, at the same time, added individuals might indeed be guilty of their “own lapses in judgement”, but such behaviour did not absolve fraudsters of liability: “The perpetrators must be held accountable under the law and brought to justice, irrespective of the victim’s participation in their own victimisation.”