#FactCheck - Viral Video Falsely Linked to India; Actually from Bangladesh

Introduction

‍

The courts in India have repeatedly emphasised the importance of “enhanced customer protection” and “limited liability” on their part. The rationale behind such imperatives is to extend security against exploitation by institutions that are equipped with all the means to manipulate customers. India, with its looming financial literacy gaps that have to be addressed, needs to curb any manipulation on the part of banking institutions. Various studies have highlighted this gap in recent times; for example, according to the National Centre for Financial Education, only 27% of Indian people are financially literate, which is much less than the 42% global average. With only 19% of millennials exhibiting sufficient financial awareness yet expressing high trust in their financial skills, the issue is very worrisome. Thus, the increasing number of financial frauds intensifies the issue. 

Zero Liability in Cyber Frauds: Regulatory Safeguards for Digital Banking Customers

‍

In light of the growing emphasis on financial inclusion and consumer protection, and in response to the recent rise in complaints regarding unauthorised debits from customer accounts and cards, the framework for assessing customer liability in such cases has been re-evaluated. The RBI’s circular dated July 6, 2017 titled “Customer Protection-Limited Liability of Customers in Unauthorised Electronic Banking Transactions”  serves as the foundation for regulatory protections for Indian customers of digital banking. A clear and organised framework for determining customer accountability is outlined in the circular, which acknowledges the exponential increase in electronic transactions and related scams. It assigns proportional obligations for unauthorised transactions resulting from system-level breaches, client carelessness, and bank contributory negligence. Most importantly it establishes the zero responsibility concept, which protects clients from monetary losses in cases when the bank or another system component is at fault and the client promptly reports the breach. 

This directive’s sophisticated approach to consumer protection is what makes it unique. It requires banks to set up strong fraud prevention systems, proactive alerting systems, and round-the-clock reporting systems. Furthermore, it significantly alters the power dynamics between financial institutions and customers by placing the onus of demonstrating customer negligence completely on the bank. The circular emphasises prompt reversal of funds to impacted customers and requires banks to implement Board-approved policies on liability to redress. As a result, it is a consumer rights charter rather than just a compliance document, promoting confidence and financial accountability in India’s digital banking sector. 

Judicial Endorsement in Reinforcing the Zero Liability Principle

‍

 In the case of Suresh Chandra Negi & Anr. v. Bank of Baroda & Ors. (Writ (C) No. 24192 of 2022) The Allahabad High Court reaffirmed that the burden of proving consumer accountability rests firmly on the banking institution, hence reaffirming the zero liability concept in circumstances of unapproved electronic banking transactions. The Division bench emphasised the regulatory requirement that banks provide adequate proof before assigning blame to customers, citing Clause 12 of the RBI’s circular dated June 6, 2017, Customer Protection—Limited Liability of Customers in Unauthorised Electronic Banking Transactions. In a similar scenario, the Bombay HC held that a customer is entitled to zero liability when an authorized transaction occurs due to a third-party breach, where the deficiency lies neither with the bank nor the customer, provided the fraud is promptly reported. 

The zero liability principle, as envisaged under Clause 8 of the RBI circular, has emerged as a cornerstone of consumer protection in India’s digital banking ecosystem.  

Another landmark judgment that has given this principle the front stage in addressing banking frauds is Hare Ram Singh vs RBI &Ors. (W.P. (C) 13497/2022) laid down by Delhi HC which is an important legal turning point in the development of the zero liability principle under the RBI’s 2017 framework. The court reiterated the need to evaluate customer diligence in light of new fraud tactics like phishing and vishing by holding the State Bank of India (SBI) liable for a cyber fraud incident even though the transactions were authenticated by OTP. The ruling made it clear that when complex social engineering or technical manipulation is used, banks are nonetheless accountable even if they only rely on OTP validation. The legal protection provided to victims of unauthorised electronic banking transactions is strengthened by the court’s emphasis on the bank having the burden of evidence in accordance with RBI standards. 

Importantly, this ruling lays the full burden of securing digital banking systems on financial organisations and supports the judiciary’s increasing acknowledgement of the digital asymmetry between banks and consumers. It emphasises that prompt consumer reporting, banks’ failure to disclose important credentials, and their own operational errors must all be taken into consideration when determining culpability. As a result, this decision establishes a strong precedent that will increase consumer confidence, promote systemic advancements in digital risk management, and better integrate the zero liability standard into Indian digital banking law. In a time when cyber vulnerabilities are growing, it acts as a beacon for financial accountability. 

Conclusion

‍

The Zero Liability Principle serves as a vital safety net for customers navigating an increasingly intricate and precarious financial environment in a time when digital transactions are the foundation of contemporary banking. In addition to codifying strong safeguards against unauthorized electronic transactions, the RBI’s 2017 framework rebalanced  the fiduciary relationship by putting financial institutions squarely in charge. Through significant rulings, the courts have upheld this protective culture and emphasised that banks, not the victims of cybercrime, bear the burden of proof. 

It would be crucial to execute these principles consistently, review them frequently, and raise public awareness as India transitions to a more digital economy. In order to ensure that consumers are not only protected but also empowered must become more than just a policy on paper. 

‍

References

• https://www.business-standard.com/content/specials/making-money-vs-managing-money-india-s-critical-financial-literacy-gap-125021900786_1.html 
• https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/allahabad-high-court/allahabad-high-court-ruling-bank-liability-unauthorized-electronic-transaction-and-customer-fault-297962 
• https://www.mondaq.com/india/white-collar-crime-anti-corruption-fraud/1635616/cyber-law-series-2-issue-10-the-zero-liability-principle-in-cyber-fraud-hare-ram-singh-v-reserve-bank-of-india-ors-case 

‍

In the past decade, India’s gaming sector has seen a surprising but swift advancement, which brought along millions of players and over billions in investments and has even been estimated to be at $23 billion. Whether it's fantasy cricket and Ludo apps, high-stakes poker, or rummy platforms, investing real money in online gaming and gambling has become a beloved hobby for many. Moreover, it not only gave a boost to the economy but also contributed to creative innovation and the generation of employment.

The real concern lies behind the glossy numbers, tales of addiction, financial detriment, and the never-ending game of cat and mouse with legal loopholes. The sector’s meteoric rise has raised various concerns relating to national financial integrity, regulatory clarity and consumer safety. 

In light of this, the Promotion and Regulation of Online Gaming Act, 2025, which was passed by Parliament and signed into law on August 22, stands out as a significant development. The Act, which is positioned as a consumer protection and sector-defining law, aims to distinguish between innovation and exploitation by acknowledging e-sport as a legitimate activity and establishing unambiguous boundaries around the larger gaming industry. 

‍

Key Highlights of the Act

‍

• Complete Ban on all games involving Real-Money: All e-games, whether based on skill or luck, that involve monetary stakes have been banned.
• Prohibition of Ads: Promotion of such e-games has also been disallowed across all platforms.
• Legal Ramifications: Operation of such games may lead to up to 3 years in prison with a 1 cr fine; Advertisement for the same may lead to up to 2 years in prison with a 50 lakh fine. However, in case of repeat offences, this may go up to 3-5 years in prison and 2 cr in fines.
• Creation of Online Gaming Authority: The creation of a national-level regulatory body to classify and monitor games, register platforms and enforce the dedicated rules.
• Support for eSports and Social & Educational games: All kinds of games that are non-monetary, promote social and educational growth, will not only be recognised but encouraged. Meanwhile, eSports will also gain official recognition under the Ministry of Sports.

‍

Positive Impacts

‍

• Addressal & Tackling of Addiction and Financial Ruin: The major reason behind the ban is to reduce the cases of players, mainly youth, getting into gambling and losing huge amounts of money to betting apps and games, and to protect vulnerable users 
• Boost to eSports & Regulatory Clarity: The law not only legitimises the eSport sector but also provides opportunities for scholarship and other financial benefits, along with windows for professional tournaments and platforms on global stages. Along with this aims to bring about an order around e-games of skill versus luck.
• Fraud Monitoring & Control: The law makes sure to block off avenues for money laundering, gambling and illegal betting networks.
• Promotion of Safe Digital Ecosystem: Encouraging social, developmental and educational games to focus on skill, learning and fun.

Challenges

The fact that the Promotion and Regulation of Online Gaming Act, 2025 is still in its early stages, which must be recognised. In the end, its effectiveness will rely not only on the letter of the law but on the strength of its enforcement and the wisdom of its application. The Act has the potential to safeguard the interests of at-risk youth from the dangers of gambling and its addiction, if it is applied carefully and clearly, all the while maintaining the digital ecosystem as a place of innovation, equity, and trust.

• Blanket Ban: By imposing a blanket ban on games that have long been justified as skill-based like rummy or fantasy cricket, the Act runs the risk of suppressing respectable enterprises and centres of innovation. Many startups that were once hailed for being at the forefront of India’s digital innovation may now find it difficult to thrive in an unpredictable regulatory environment.
• Rise of Illegal Platforms: History offers a sobering lesson, prohibition does not eliminate demand, it simply drives it underground. The prohibition of money games may encourage the growth of unregulated, offshore sites, where players are more vulnerable to fraud, data theft, and abuse and have no way to seek consumer protection.
  
  

Conclusion

The Act is definitely a tough and bold stand to check and regulate India’s digital gaming industry, but it is also a double-edged sword. It brings in much-needed consumer protection regulations in place and legitimises e-Sports. However, it also casts a long shadow over a successful economy and runs the risk of fostering a black market that is more harmful than the issue it was intended to address. 

Therefore, striking a balance between innovation and protection, between law and liberty, will be considered more important in the coming years than the success of regulations alone. India’s legitimacy as a digital economy ready for global leadership, as well as the future of its gaming industry, will depend on how it handles this delicate balance. 

‍

References: 

1. https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/tech/technology/gaming-bodies-write-to-amit-shah-urge-to-block-blanket-ban-warn-of-rs-20000-crore-tax-loss/articleshow/123392342.cms
2. https://m.economictimes.com/news/india/govt-estimates-45-cr-people-lose-about-rs-20000-cr-annually-from-real-money-gaming/articleshow/123408237.cms
3. https://www.cyberpeace.org/resources/blogs/promotion-and-regulation-of-online-gaming-bill-2025-gets-green-flag-from-both-houses-of-parliament
4. https://www.thehindu.com/business/Industry/real-money-gaming-firms-wind-down-operations/article69965196.ece

‍

Executive Summary:

‍

A video is rapidly circulating on social media following claims that Iran’s national security chief Ali Larijani was killed in an Israeli airstrike. The viral clip is being shared with the assertion that it shows the moment Israel launched a powerful attack on Iran to eliminate Larijani, allegedly shaking the ground due to the intensity of the strike However, research by CyberPeace has found the claim to be misleading. The viral video is AI-generated and has no connection to real-world events.

‍

Claim:

‍

Social media users have shared the video with alarming captions. One such post by Deepak Sharma reads:

‍

“WAR UPDATE… Iran is in its final phase… Israel is striking selectively… This attack will leave you shocked… Iran’s national security chief Ali Larijani has been killed in this attack… The intensity of the strike shook the Iranian الأرض.

‍

Post links:

‍

• https://x.com/SonOfBharat7/status/2038814061186748760 
• https://archive.ph/CkWrK
  ‍

‍

‍

Similar videos were also shared by other users:

‍

• urabh_raj3026/status/2038834832869032026
  
• https://x.com/ibmindia20/status/2038938020154597447 
  
• https://x.com/Saurabh_raj3026/status/2038834832869032026 

‍

Fact Check

‍

To verify the claim, we extracted keyframes from the viral video and conducted a reverse image search. During this process, we found the same video on Instagram, uploaded on March 9, 2026, by the account “_iranwar_2026” without any descriptive caption.

‍

• https://www.instagram.com/p/DVrBEiGEiUY/ 

‍

‍

According to a BBC report, Ali Larijani died on March 17 in an Israeli strike. This establishes that the viral video predates the reported incident, making the claim factually inconsistent. Further examination of the Instagram account revealed that it frequently shares pro-Iran content, including gaming visuals and AI-generated clips, raising doubts about the authenticity of the video.

‍

‍

To strengthen the verification, we analyzed the viral clip using the AI detection tool “Zhuque AI Detection Assistant.” The results indicated a 91.71% probability that the video is AI-generated, confirming that it is not real footage.

‍

‍

Conclusion 

‍

The viral claim linking the video to an Israeli airstrike that allegedly killed Ali Larijani is misleading and factually incorrect. Multiple layers of verification show that the video existed online before the reported incident, ruling out any direct connection. Additionally, AI detection analysis strongly suggests that the video is artificially generated. The source account’s pattern of sharing AI and gaming-related content further weakens the credibility of the claim. There is no verified evidence to support that the viral clip depicts a real attack or any event related to Larijani’s death. Instead, the video appears to be a digitally created visual circulated without context to amplify misinformation.

‍