Fintech / Fraud Support

Unauthorised Transaction Workflow

CA Nikhil Gupta·June 2026·3 min readFintech / Fraud Support

Customer support can protect funds or lose critical hours depending on the first response.

Quick View

Decision

Use a scripted evidence-first workflow that never asks for OTP, PIN or remote access.

First action

Block affected instruments.

Core evidence

Transaction statement.

Main warning

Asking for OTP.

Why It Matters

RBI’s customer-protection framework links liability to the type of breach and speed of customer reporting, subject to the applicable account and facts.

Financial cyberfraud should also be reported promptly through the bank and helpline 1930 or the cybercrime portal.

Control Framework

AreaWhat to establishOperating rule
StopCard, UPI, account and device access.Act immediately.
RecordTransaction ID, time and channel.Open case.
NotifyBank, issuer, 1930 and police where relevant.Preserve references.
ResolveLiability, provisional credit and Ombudsman.Track deadlines.

Action Checklist

  1. Block affected instruments.
  2. Record discovery time.
  3. Notify bank through official channel.
  4. Call 1930 for financial fraud.
  5. Preserve device and messages.
  6. Escalate unresolved complaint.

Practical Example

A customer calls support within ten minutes, but the agent asks the customer to wait for settlement before raising a fraud case.

Evidence to Keep

  • Transaction statement.
  • Bank complaint ID.
  • Call and chat records.
  • Device and phishing evidence.
  • 1930 or portal acknowledgement.
  • Final bank decision.

Warning Signs

  • Asking for OTP.
  • Waiting for transaction settlement.
  • Telling customer to contact merchant only.
  • No complaint timestamp.
  • Paying a fraud-recovery fee.

Detailed Review

Privacy governance should connect the personal data, individual, purpose, collection point, system, owner, recipient, access role, retention trigger and incident dependency. A policy that cannot be traced to this chain is difficult to operate.

Create a dated legal matrix rather than one status label. Record the DPDP provision, commencement date, present readiness action, current IT or sectoral obligation and the evidence owner.

Design controls in the product and system. A written rule cannot stop an SDK from firing, a shared folder from exposing payroll, or a vendor from retaining deleted users unless technology and operations enforce it.

Evidence should be generated during normal work: versioned notices, event logs, access approvals, request tickets, deletion reports, vendor registers, incident chronologies and management decisions.

Use proportionate identity and security checks. Excess verification creates more personal data, while weak verification can expose another person’s records or permit account takeover.

Synchronised clocks and durable logs are essential because incident reporting, transaction tracing and forensic conclusions depend on exact chronology.

The incident team should distinguish containment, evidence preservation, reporting, customer communication and recovery. Each has a different owner and deadline.

Control Test

Test the control using a real user journey from collection to deletion. Capture the notice shown, data stored, vendors called, employees with access, retention period and response if the user withdraws or complains.

Run a negative scenario: the vendor is breached, the user is a child, the employee exits, the phone is stolen, the data was inaccurate or the regulator asks for proof. Record which control fails.

Check that system records and public wording agree. Product forms, privacy notice, CRM fields, SDK behaviour, vendor contracts and support scripts should describe the same processing.

Assign a named owner and internal deadline for every gap. A risk register without funded action and closure evidence becomes an archive of known failures.

Retain the rejected alternatives and decision basis. This is especially important where the law is in phased commencement or a proportionate technical method is selected.

Escalation Route

Start with the system owner, privacy or security owner and the documented data flow. Preserve records before making changes, and separate current statutory reporting from future DPDP readiness.

For a breach, financial fraud, rights dispute, children’s-data issue or regulated-sector event, involve qualified legal, cyber, forensic and sector specialists and use the applicable official reporting or grievance channel.

Management Review

Management should record the risk owner, affected data population, financial or operational impact, current legal duty, future DPDP milestone and funded remediation date. A privacy register without accountable closure is only a list of known gaps.

The control should be tested with evidence rather than self-certification. Use screen recordings, exported logs, access reports, deletion output, vendor responses, tabletop minutes or complaint acknowledgements to prove that the workflow operates as designed.

Where several laws apply, maintain one incident or request chronology but separate each legal trigger and deadline. CERT-In, RBI, UIDAI, IRDAI, police, contractual and DPDP processes should not be collapsed into one generic notification decision.

Frequently Asked Questions

Why does reporting speed matter?
RBI liability treatment can depend on the facts and reporting delay.
Should the customer share OTP?
Never.
What is 1930?
India’s helpline for reporting financial cyber fraud.
What if the bank rejects the claim?
Use the bank grievance process and RBI Ombudsman route where applicable.