#FactCheck - AI Artwork Misattributed: Mahendra Singh Dhoni Sand Sculptures Exposed as AI-Generated

Introduction 

In a major policy shift aimed at synchronizing India's fight against cyber-enabled financial crimes, the government has taken a landmark step by bringing the Indian Cyber Crime Coordination Centre (I4C) under the ambit of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA). In the notification released in the official gazette on 25th April, 2025, the Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, included the Indian Cyber Crime Coordination Centre (I4C) under Section 66 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as “PMLA”). The step comes as a significant attempt to resolve the asynchronous approach of different agencies (Enforcement Directorate (ED), State Police, CBI, CERT-In, RBI) set up under the government responsible for preventing and often possessing key information regarding cyber crimes and financial crimes. As it is correctly put, "When criminals sprint and the administration strolls, the finish line is lost.” 

The gazetted notification dated 25th April, 2025, read as follows:

“In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (ii) of sub-section (1) of section 66 of the Prevention of Money-laundering Act, 2002 (15 of 2003), the Central Government, on being satisfied that it is necessary in the public interest to do so, hereby makes the following further amendment in the notification of the Government of India, in the Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, published in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Part II, section 3, sub-section (i) vide number G.S.R. 381(E), dated the 27th June, 2006, namely:- In the said notification, after serial number (26) and the entry relating thereto, the following serial number and entry shall be inserted, namely:— “(27) Indian Cyber Crime Coordination Centre (I4C).”.

Outrunning Crime: Strengthening Enforcement through Rapid Coordination 

The usage of cyberspace to commit sophisticated financial crimes and white-collar crimes is a one criminal parallel passover that no one was looking forward to. The disenchanted reality of today’s world is that the internet is used for as much bad as it is for good. The internet has now entered the financial domain, facilitating various financial crimes. Money laundering is a financial crime that includes all processes or activities that are in connection with the concealment, possession, acquisition, or use of proceeds of crime and projecting it as untainted money. In the offence of money laundering, there is an intricate web and trail of financial transactions that are hard to track, as they are, and with the advent of the internet, the transactions are often digital, and the absence of crucial information hampers the evidentiary chain. With this new step, the Enforcement Directorate (ED) will now make headway into the investigation with the information exchange under PMLA from and to I4C, removing the obstacles that existed before this notification.

Impact

The decision of the finance ministry has to be seen in terms of all that is happening around the globe, with the rapid increase in sophisticated financial crimes. By formally empowering the I4C to share and receive information with the Enforcement Directorate under PMLA, the government acknowledges the blurred lines between conventional financial crime and cybercrime. It strengthens India’s financial surveillance, where money laundering and cyber fraud are increasingly two sides of the same coin. The assessment of the impact can be made from the following facilitations enabled by the decision: 

• Quicker internet detection of money laundering
• Money trail tracking in real time across online platforms
• Rapid freeze of cryptocurrency wallets or assets obtained fraudulently

Another important aspect of this decision is that it serves as a signal that India is finally equipping itself and treating cyber-enabled financial crimes with the gravitas that is the need of the hour. This decision creates a two-way intelligence flow between cybercrime detection units and financial enforcement agencies. 

Conclusion

To counter the fragmented approach in handling cyber-enabled white-collar crimes and money laundering, the Indian government has fortified its legal and enforcement framework by extending PMLA’s reach to the Indian Cyber Crime Coordination Centre (I4C). All the decisions and the brainstorming that led up to this notification are crucial at this point in time for the cybercrime framework that India needs to be on par with other countries. Although India has come a long way in designing a robust cybercrime intelligence structure, as long as it excludes and works in isolation, it will be ineffective. So, the current decision in discussion should only be the beginning of a more comprehensive policy evolution. The government must further integrate and devise a separate mechanism to track “digital footprints” and incorporate a real-time red flag mechanism in digital transactions suspected to be linked to laundering or fraud. 

‍

Introduction

In September 2024, the Australian government announced the  Communications Legislation Amendment (Combatting Misinformation and Disinformation) Bill 2024 ( CLA Bill 2024 hereon), to provide new powers to the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA), the statutory regulatory body for Australia's communications and media infrastructure, to combat online misinformation and disinformation. It proposed allowing the ACMA to hold digital platforms accountable for the “seriously harmful mis- and disinformation” being spread on their platforms and their response to it, while also balancing freedom of expression. However, the Bill was subsequently withdrawn, primarily over concerns regarding the possibility of censorship by the government. This development is reflective of the global contention on the balance between misinformation regulation and freedom of speech. 

Background and Key Features of the Bill

According to the BBC’s Global Minds Survey of 2023, nearly 73% of Australians struggled to identify fake news and AI-generated misinformation. There has been a substantial rise in misinformation on platforms like Facebook, Twitter, and TikTok since the COVID-19 pandemic, especially during major events like the bushfires of 2020 and the 2022 federal elections. The government’s campaign against misinformation was launched against this background, with the launch of The Australian Code of Practice on Disinformation and Misinformation in 2021. The main provisions of the CLA Bill, 2024 were: 

1. Core Transparency Obligations of Digital Media Platforms: Publishing current media literacy plans,  risk assessment reports, and policies or information on their approach to addressing mis- and disinformation. The ACMA would also be allowed to make additional rules regarding complaints and dispute-handling processes.
2. Information Gathering and Record-Keeping Powers: The ACMA would form rules allowing it to gather consistent information across platforms and publish it. However, it would not have been empowered to gather and publish user information except in limited circumstances.
3. Approving Codes and Making Standards: The ACMA would have powers to approve codes developed by the industry and make standards regarding reporting tools, links to authoritative information, support for fact-checking, and demonetisation of disinformation. This would make compliance mandatory for relevant sections of the industry. 
4. Parliamentary Oversight: The transparency obligations, codes approved and standards set by ACMA under the Bill would be subject to parliamentary scrutiny and disallowance. ACMA would be required to report to the Parliament annually. 
5. Freedom of Speech Protections: End-users would not be required to produce information for ACMA unless they are a person providing services to the platform, such as its employees or fact-checkers. Further,  it would not be allowed to call for removing content from platforms unless it involved inauthentic behavior such as bots. 
6. Penalties for Non-Compliance: ACMA would be required to employ a “graduated, proportionate and risk-based approach” to non-compliance and enforcement in the form of formal warnings, remedial directions, injunctions, or significant civil penalties as decided by the courts, subject to review by the Administrative Review Tribunal (ART). No criminal penalties would be imposed.

Key Concerns

• Inadequacy of Freedom of Speech Protections: The biggest contention on this Bill has been regarding the issue of possible censorship, particularly of alternative opinions that are crucial to the health of a democratic system. To protect the freedom of speech, the Bill defined mis- and disinformation, what constitutes “serious harm” (election interference, harming public health, etc.), and what would be excluded from its scope. However, reservations among the Opposition persisted due to the lack of a clear mechanism to protect divergent opinions from the purview of this Bill. 
• Efficacy of Regulatory Measures: Many argue that by allowing the digital platform industry to make its codes, this law lets it self-police. Big Tech companies have no incentive to curb misinformation effectively since their business models allow them to reap financial benefits from the rampant spread of misinformation. Unless there are financial non- or dis- incentives to curb misinformation, Big Tech is not likely to address the situation at war footing.  Thus, this law would run the risk of being toothless. Secondly, the Bill did not require platforms to report on the “prevalence of” false content which, along with other metrics,  is crucial for researchers and legislators to track the efficacy of the current misinformation-curbing practices employed by platforms.  
• Threat of Government Overreach:  The Bill sought to expand the ACMA’s compliance and enforcement powers concerning misinformation and disinformation on online communication platforms by giving it powers to form rules on information gathering, code registration, standard-making powers, and core transparency obligations. However, even though the ACMA as a regulatory authority is answerable to the Parliament, the Bill was unclear in defining limits to these powers. This raised concerns from civil society about potential government overreach in a domain filled with contextual ambiguities regarding information.

Conclusion

While the Communications Legislation Amendment (Combatting Misinformation and Disinformation) Bill sought to equip the ACMA with tools to hold digital platforms accountable and mitigate the harm caused by false information, its critique highlights the complexities of regulating such content without infringing on freedom of speech. Legislations and proposals regarding the matter all over the world are having to contend with this challenge. Globally, legislation and proposals addressing this issue face similar challenges, emphasizing the need for a continuous discourse at the intersection of platform accountability, regulatory restraint, and the protection of diverse viewpoints.

To regulate Big Tech effectively, governments can benefit from adopting a consultative, incremental, and cooperative approach, as exemplified by the European Union’s Digital Services Act 2023. Such a framework provides for a balanced response, fostering accountability while safeguarding democratic freedoms.

Resources

• https://www.infrastructure.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/factsheet-misinformation-disinformation-bill.pdf 
• https://www.infrastructure.gov.au/have-your-say/new-acma-powers-combat-misinformation-and-disinformation 
• https://www.mi-3.com.au/07-02-2024/over-80-australians-feel-they-may-have-fallen-fake-news-says-bbc 
• https://www.hrlc.org.au/news/misinformation-inquiry 
• https://humanrights.gov.au/our-work/legal/submission/combatting-misinformation-and-disinformation-bill-2024 
• https://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/what-is-the-misinformation-bill-and-why-has-it-triggered-worries-about-freedom-of-speech/4n3ijebde 
• https://www.hrw.org/report/2023/06/14/no-internet-means-no-work-no-pay-no-food/internet-shutdowns-deny-access-basic#:~:text=The%20Telegraph%20Act%20allows%20authorities,preventing%20incitement%20to%20the%20commission 
• https://www.hrlc.org.au/submissions/2024/11/8/submission-combatting-misinformation?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Media%20Release%20Senate%20Committee%20to%20hear%20evidence%20calling%20for%20Albanese%20Government%20to%20regulate%20and%20hold%20big%20tech%20accountable%20for%20misinformation&utm_content=Media%20Release%20Senate%20Committee%20to%20hear%20evidence%20calling%20for%20Albanese%20Government%20to%20regulate%20and%20hold%20big%20tech%20accountable%20for%20misinformation+Preview+CID_31c6d7200ed9bd2f7f6f596ba2a8b1fb&utm_source=Email%20campaign&utm_term=Read%20the%20Human%20Rights%20Law%20Centres%20submission%20to%20the%20inquiry

‍

About Global Commission on Internet Governance 

The Global Commission on Internet Governance was established in January 2014 with the goal of formulating and advancing a strategic vision for Internet governance going forward. Independent research on Internet-related issues of international public policy is carried out and supported over the two-year initiative. An official commission report with particular policy recommendations for the future of Internet governance will be made available as a result of this initiative.

There are two goals for the Global Commission on Internet Governance. First, it will encourage a broad and inclusive public discussion on how Internet governance will develop globally. Second, through its comprehensive policy-oriented report and the subsequent marketing of this final report, the Global Commission on Internet Governance will present its findings to key stakeholders at major Internet governance events.‍

‍The Internet: exploring the world wide web and the deep web

The Internet can be thought of as a vast networking infrastructure, or network of networks. By linking millions of computers worldwide, it creates a network that allows any two computers, provided they are both online, to speak with one another.

The Hypertext Transfer Protocol is the only language spoken over the Internet and is used by the Web to transfer data. Email, which depends on File Transfer Protocol, Usenet newsgroups, Simple Mail Transfer Protocol, and instant messaging, is also used on the Internet—not the Web. Thus, even though it's a sizable chunk, the Web is only a part of the Internet [1]. In summary, the deep Web is the portion of the Internet that is not visible to the naked eye. It is stuff from the World Wide Web that isn't available on the main Web. Standard search engines cannot reach it. More than 500 times larger than the visible Web is this enormous subset of the Internet [1-2].

The Global Commission on Internet Governance will concentrate on four principal themes:

• Improving the legitimacy of government, including standards and methods for regulation;

• Promoting economic innovation and expansion, including the development of infrastructure, competition laws, and vital Internet resources; 

• Safeguarding online human rights, including establishing the idea of technological neutrality for rights to privacy, human rights, and freedom of expression;

• Preventing systemic risk includes setting standards for state behaviour, cooperating with law enforcement to combat cybercrime, preventing its spread, fostering confidence, and addressing disarmament-related issues.

Dark Web 

The part of the deep Web that has been purposefully concealed and is unreachable using conventional Web browsers is known as the "dark Web." Dark Web sites are a platform for Internet users who value their anonymity since they shield users from prying eyes and typically utilize encryption to thwart monitoring. The Tor network is a well-known source for content that may be discovered on the dark web. Only a unique Web browser known as the Tor browser is required to access the anonymous Tor network (Tor 2014). It was a technique for anonymous online communication that the US Naval Research Laboratory first introduced as The Onion Routing (Tor) project in 2002. Many of the functionality offered by Tor are also available on I2P, another network. On the other hand, I2P was intended to function as a network inside the Internet, with traffic contained within its boundaries. Better anonymous access to the open Internet is offered by Tor, while a more dependable and stable "network within the network" is provided by I2P [3].

Cybersecurity in the dark web

Cyber crime is not any different than crime in the real world — it is just executed in a new medium: “Virtual criminality’ is basically the same as the terrestrial crime with which we are familiar. To be sure, some of the manifestations are new. But a great deal of crime committed with or against computers differs only in terms of the medium. While the technology of implementation, and particularly its efficiency, may be without precedent, the crime is fundamentally familiar. It is less a question of something completely different than a recognizable crime committed in a completely different way [4].”

Dark web monitoring

The dark Web, in general, and the Tor network, in particular, offer a secure platform for cybercriminals to support a vast amount of illegal activities — from anonymous marketplaces to secure means of communication, to an untraceable and difficult to shut down infrastructure for deploying malware and botnets.

As such, it has become increasingly important for security agencies to track and monitor the activities in the dark Web, focusing today on Tor networks, but possibly extending to other technologies in the near future. Due to its intricate webbing and design, monitoring the dark Web will continue to pose significant challenges. Efforts to address it should be focused on the areas discussed below [5].

Hidden service directory of dark web

A domain database used by both Tor and I2P is based on a distributed system called a "distributed hash table," or DHT. In order for a DHT to function, its nodes must cooperate to store and manage a portion of the database, which takes the shape of a key-value store. Owing to the distributed character of the domain resolution process for hidden services, nodes inside the DHT can be positioned to track requests originating from a certain domain [6].

Conclusion

The deep Web, and especially dark Web networks like Tor (2004), offer bad actors a practical means of transacting in products anonymously and lawfully.

The absence of discernible activity in non-traditional dark web networks is not evidence of their nonexistence. As per the guiding philosophy of the dark web, the actions are actually harder to identify and monitor. Critical mass is one of the market's driving forces. It seems unlikely that operators on the black Web will require a great degree of stealth until the repercussions are severe enough, should they be caught. It is possible that certain websites might go down, have a short trading window, and then reappear, which would make it harder to look into them.

References

1. Ciancaglini, Vincenzo, Marco Balduzzi, Max Goncharov and Robert McArdle. 2013. “Deepweb and Cybercrime: It’s Not All About TOR.” Trend Micro Research Paper. October. 
2. Coughlin, Con. 2014. “How Social Media Is Helping Islamic State to Spread Its Poison.” The Telegraph, November 5. 
3. Dahl, Julia. 2014. “Identity Theft Ensnares Millions while the Law Plays Catch Up.” CBS News, July 14. 
4. Dean, Matt. 2014. “Digital Currencies Fueling Crime on the Dark Side of the Internet.” Fox Business, December 18.
5. Falconer, Joel. 2012. “A Journey into the Dark Corners of the Deep Web.” The Next Web, October 8. 
6. Gehl, Robert W. 2014. “Power/Freedom on the Dark Web: A Digital Ethnography of the Dark Web Social Network.” New Media & Society, October 15. http://nms.sagepub.com/content/early/2014/ 10/16/1461444814554900.full#ref-38.

‍