Gujarat cyber fraud: ₹54.25 lakh ROSCTL e-scrips diverted via forged digital signature
Synopsis
A Mumbai businessman allegedly helped siphon ₹54.25 lakh in government export incentives by forging digital signatures and hijacking a Surat firm's Icegate portal credentials — exposing how India's ROSCTL scheme, designed to benefit exporters, is being targeted by organised cyber fraud networks.
Key Takeaways
Aamir Patel , 34 , was arrested by the Surat City Police Cyber Crime Branch in Mumbai for allegedly diverting ₹54.25 lakh in ROSCTL e-scrips.
The accused allegedly used forged documents and digital signatures to register on the Icegate portal and seize control of the complainant's IEC .
Out of seven e-scrips worth ₹95.42 lakh , four e-scrips valued at ₹54.25 lakh were allegedly transferred without the firm owner's knowledge.
The accused paid ₹50,000 commission to obtain a fake company's IEC and allegedly received a 5% commission on transactions.
Two other accused — Takshal Lungiwala and Mohammad Sahib — were arrested earlier; one suspect remains at large.
The FIR invokes multiple IPC sections and provisions of the IT Amendment Act, 2008 .
The Surat City Police Cyber Crime Branch has arrested a 34-year-old Mumbai-based businessman for allegedly diverting ₹54.25 lakh worth of government e-scrips issued to a Surat-based export firm under the Centre's Rebate of State and Central Taxes and Levies (ROSCTL) scheme. The accused, identified as Aamir Patel, was apprehended in Mumbai following a technical investigation by Surat cyber police, according to officials.
How the Fraud Was Executed
According to police, Patel and his associates allegedly registered the victim firm on the 'Icegate' portal using forged documents, created a fake email ID in the complainant's name, and registered an unauthorised mobile number to gain control of the account. The network then allegedly used the firm's Import-Export Code (IEC) to export goods and claim benefits under the ROSCTL scheme.
The complainant's firm had legitimately received seven e-scrips totalling ₹95.42 lakh. Of these, four e-scrips worth ₹54.25 lakh were allegedly transferred — without the complainant's knowledge — to holders of other IECs, who subsequently utilised them.
Network and Commission Trail
Police said Patel, described as a businessman originally from Ahmedabad, along with an absconding accused, had earlier approached an already-arrested accused, Mohammad Sahib Mohammad Sadiq Tambuwala, 38, of Surat, to arrange for a fake company to be set up. A forged digital signature was created in the company's name.
According to the police, the accused paid ₹50,000 as commission to obtain a company's IEC and its login credentials. Through this route, e-scrips worth ₹39.78 lakh belonging to the complainant were allegedly transferred and utilised. Patel allegedly received a five per cent commission for facilitating the transactions.
Case Background and Earlier Arrests
The case dates to 2023, when the Cyber Crime Police Station registered an FIR after the complainant reported that his firm's documents and digital signature had been forged. Police had previously arrested two other accused — Takshal Lungiwala, 26, of Surat, and Mohammad Sahib — in connection with the same case.
The FIR invokes Sections 419, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 474 and 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code, along with Sections 66(C), 66(D), 85 and 71 of the Information Technology Amendment Act, 2008.
Police Advisory on Cyber Fraud
Alongside the arrest, Surat police issued a public advisory urging citizens not to lend their bank accounts to others in exchange for commissions. Officials warned that such accounts are frequently exploited in cyber fraud schemes, and that account holders themselves can face legal consequences for transactions conducted through their accounts. This is the third accused to be arrested in the ROSCTL e-scrip fraud case, with one suspect still at large.
Point of View
The absence of multi-factor verification and beneficiary-confirmation protocols will continue to invite exploitation. The police advisory on bank account lending also signals a broader problem — a shadow ecosystem of commission-based identity brokers enabling white-collar cyber crime at scale.
NationPress
2 Oct 2026
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the ROSCTL scheme and how was it exploited in this case?
The Rebate of State and Central Taxes and Levies (ROSCTL) scheme is a Centre-run initiative that refunds embedded taxes to exporters through tradeable e-scrips. In this case, accused persons allegedly forged digital signatures and used a Surat firm's Import-Export Code to access the Icegate portal and transfer ₹54.25 lakh worth of the firm's e-scrips to third parties without the owner's knowledge.
Who has been arrested in the Surat ROSCTL e-scrip fraud case?
Three people have been arrested so far: Aamir Patel, 34, a businessman from Ahmedabad arrested in Mumbai; Takshal Lungiwala, 26, of Surat; and Mohammad Sahib Mohammad Sadiq Tambuwala, 38, of Surat. A fourth accused remains at large.
How did the accused allegedly carry out the fraud?
According to police, the accused registered the victim firm on the Icegate portal using forged documents, created a fake email ID and an unauthorised mobile number in the complainant's name, and used the firm's IEC to claim ROSCTL benefits. They allegedly paid ₹50,000 to obtain a fake company's IEC and login credentials, then transferred and utilised e-scrips worth ₹39.78 lakh.
What charges have been filed in the case?
The FIR invokes Sections 419, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 474 and 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code, covering cheating, forgery and criminal conspiracy. It also invokes Sections 66(C), 66(D), 85 and 71 of the Information Technology Amendment Act, 2008, which deal with identity theft and cheating by personation using computer resources.
What advisory has Surat police issued to the public?
Surat police have urged citizens not to lend their bank accounts to others in exchange for commissions, warning that such accounts are routinely used in cyber fraud operations. Officials cautioned that account holders can face legal action for transactions conducted through their accounts, even if they were not directly involved in the fraud.
