#FactCheck: Beware of Fake Emails Distributing Fraudulent e-PAN Cards
Executive Summary:
We have identified a post addressing a scam email that falsely claims to offer a download link for an e-PAN Card. This deceptive email is designed to mislead recipients into disclosing sensitive financial information by impersonating official communication from Income Tax Department authorities. Our report aims to raise awareness about this fraudulent scheme and emphasize the importance of safeguarding personal data against such cyber threats.
Claim:
Scammers are sending fake emails, asking people to download their e-PAN cards. These emails pretend to be from government authorities like the Income Tax Department and contain harmful links that can steal personal information or infect devices with malware.
Fact Check:
Through our research, we have found that scammers are sending fake emails, posing as the Income Tax Department, to trick users into downloading e-PAN cards from unofficial links. These emails contain malicious links that can lead to phishing attacks or malware infections. Genuine e-PAN services are only available through official platforms such as the Income Tax Department's website (www.incometaxindia.gov.in) and the NSDL/UTIITSL portals. Despite repeated warnings, many individuals still fall victim to such scams. To combat this, the Income Tax Department has a dedicated page for reporting phishing attempts: Report Phishing - Income Tax India. It is crucial for users to stay cautious, verify email authenticity, and avoid clicking on suspicious links to protect their personal information.
Conclusion:
The emails currently in circulation claiming to provide e-PAN card downloads are fraudulent and should not be trusted. These deceptive messages often impersonate government authorities and contain malicious links that can result in identity theft or financial fraud. Clicking on such links may compromise sensitive personal information, putting individuals at serious risk. To ensure security, users are strongly advised to verify any such communication directly through official government websites and avoid engaging with unverified sources. Additionally, any phishing attempts should be reported to the Income Tax Department and also to the National Cyber Crime Reporting Portal to help prevent the spread of such scams. Staying vigilant and exercising caution when handling unsolicited emails is crucial in safeguarding personal and financial data.
- Claim: Fake emails claim to offer e-PAN card downloads.
- Claimed On: Social Media
- Fact Check: False and Misleading
Related Blogs
Introduction
In April 2026, there was a fascinating example of the risks of generative artificial intelligence (AI). An Indian medical student, aged 22, developed a fake AI-driven influencer "Emily Hart" and leveraged the persona to amass a substantial social media following, engagement and revenue.
It isn't just a case of online fraud. It is a turning point in the nature of influence, veracity, and profitability in the digital world. Ultimately, it poses a troubling question. If users can't tell the difference between real and fake people, then what is online trust?
The Making of a Synthetic Influencer
“Emily Hart” was a young, conservative American nurse. The identity was completely made-up, created with the help of AI programs that produced eerily realistic images, captions and engagement techniques.
The creator did not work with random content. They crafted the influencer to cater to a particular audience. With this in mind, the account was able to target conservatives in the United States who are politically active. It is reported that some of its posts have achieved millions of views, and within a few months, the influencer had thousands of followers.
Monetisation followed naturally. The account owner monetised through subscriptions and the sale of merchandise, reportedly earning thousands of dollars a month with fewer than an hour a day of "work" on the account.
The disproportionate effort and reward is what is interesting about this case. This is a unique example of how people can now use very little capital to create digital personas that attract value.
Why It Worked: Engagement, Identity, and Algorithmic Incentives
The "Emily Hart" case was no accident. It was enabled by three complementary factors.
First, identity targeting was crucial. The persona was constructed to fit a particular worldview and culture, making it more relevant and resonating with the target audience. AI platforms were even deployed to better target and position the persona, and it is suggested that micro-targeting would increase engagement.
Second, it was amplified by algorithms. Social media algorithms favour engagement, sometimes favouring emotional and divisive content. The account exploited this by producing visually appealing content with a strong political message, what the creator called "engageable" content.
Third, the authenticity of the AI content minimised distrust. Generative models have become so realistic that it is hard to tell if images are real or not. Specialists point out that AI increases the credibility and scalability of fake profiles, increasing their influence and reach.
All of this combined to make deception profitable.
The Blurring of Authenticity in Digital Spaces
The "Emily Hart" phenomenon is emblematic of a broader shift in authenticity. Historically, influence was correlated with human personalities who establish trust over time. But AI upends this paradigm by allowing the creation of entirely fabricated personalities capable of mimicking, and even surpassing, human influencers.
This has two immediate consequences.
First, the truth is harder to discern. While platforms might require that AI-generated content be disclosed, there are inconsistencies in how this is policed. Here, the account apparently didn't disclose until it was banned for fraud.
Second, authenticity may not be as important to consumers. Consumers may view content for ideological or emotional reasons, rather than for its accuracy. This indicates that the rise of synthetic influencers is not just a technical problem but also a behavioural one.
The implication is stark. The internet is evolving into a place where authenticity is more important than truth.
Economic Incentives and the Rise of Synthetic Monetisation
The key difference between this fraud and previous ones is the business model. This creator didn't break into a computer or steal personal information. He cultivated an audience and sold attention.
This is an example of how the internet economy works. Attention is a commodity and platforms aim to generate it. AI reduces the cost of creating attention-generating artefacts, enabling people to amplify their reach.
This gives rise to synthetic monetisation. Online characters can be developed, fine-tuned and leveraged as money-spinning assets. In this case, identity is a product.
This raises regulatory challenges. Current laws on fraud, advertising and consumer protection may not be sufficient to cover cases of deceptive content sourced from an identity.
Platform Responsibility and Enforcement Gaps
The role of platforms in enabling such scenarios cannot be overlooked. Although platforms have policy guidelines on disclosure of AI-generated content, these are inconsistently applied.
In the case of "Emily Hart", the account apparently existed for some time before being shut down for scamming. This implies that either the ability to detect such accounts is weak or the tools used are reactive.
The challenge is structural. Companies are rewarded for engagement, and fake accounts can help to achieve this. But they must also promote authenticity and protect against fraud.
This presents a challenge between commercial interests and user safety. Without enforcement, synthetic influencers will become more prevalent.
Policy Implications: Rethinking Trust and Verification
The "Emily Hart" incident highlights a number of policy issues.
First, disclosure policies must be improved and harmonised. Consumers need to be clear when content is generated by AI, and platforms need to police this.
Second, identity verification needs to be updated. Classic forms of verification may not hold up in an era of imaginary characters amassing legions of fans. Alternative digital verification may be needed.
Third, new regulations should apply to synthetic identities. This means clarifying distinctions between art, commerce and fraud.
Finally, digital literacy becomes critical. Consumers need to be equipped to operate in a space where virtual personas aren't always human.
Conclusion
The rise of "Emily Hart" is not just an example of one person using AI to make money. It is a glimpse of a digital revolution.
AI is redefining how influence can be generated, trust can be established and value can be monetized. As digital personas become more realistic, the distinction between human and machine will remain unclear.
The challenge will not be to stop AI being used to generate content. It is to ensure that the systems that mediate our online interactions are able to tell the difference, and that we are not left on our own to sort it all out.
When anyone can make a convincing identity for themselves, trust will no longer be a given. It will need to be engineered, policed and protected.
Introduction
In 2022, Oxfam’s India Inequality report revealed the worsening digital divide, highlighting that only 38% of households in the country are digitally literate. Further, only 31% of the rural population uses the internet, as compared to 67% of the urban population. Over time, with the increasing awareness about the importance of digital privacy globally, the definition of digital divide has translated into a digital privacy divide, whereby different levels of privacy are afforded to different sections of society. This further promotes social inequalities and impedes access to fundamental rights.
Digital Privacy Divide: A by-product of the digital divide
The digital divide has evolved into a multi-level issue from its earlier interpretations; level I implies the lack of physical access to technologies, level II refers to the lack of digital literacy and skills and recently, level III relates to the impacts of digital access. Digital Privacy Divide (DPD) refers to the various gaps in digital privacy protection provided to users based on their socio-demographic patterns. It forms a subset of the digital divide, which involves uneven distribution, access and usage of information and communication technology (ICTs). Typically, DPD exists when ICT users receive distinct levels of digital privacy protection. As such, it forms a part of the conversation on digital inequality.
Contrary to popular perceptions, DPD, which is based on notions of privacy, is not always based on ideas of individualism and collectivism and may constitute internal and external factors at the national level. A study on the impacts of DPD conducted in the U.S., India, Bangladesh and Germany highlighted that respondents in Germany and Bangladesh expressed more concerns about their privacy compared to respondents in the U.S. and India. This suggests that despite the U.S. having a strong tradition of individualistic rights, that is reflected in internal regulatory frameworks such as the Fourth Amendment, the topic of data privacy has not garnered enough interest from the population. Most individuals consider forgoing the right to privacy as a necessary evil to access many services, and schemes and to stay abreast with technological advances. Research shows that 62%- 63% of Americans believe that companies and the government collecting data have become an inescapable necessary evil in modern life. Additionally, 81% believe that they have very little control over what data companies collect and about 81% of Americans believe that the risk of data collection outweighs the benefits. Similarly, in Japan, data privacy is thought to be an adopted concept emerging from international pressure to regulate, rather than as an ascribed right, since collectivism and collective decision-making are more valued in Japan, positioning the concept of privacy as subjective, timeserving and an idea imported from the West.
Regardless, inequality in privacy preservation often reinforces social inequality. Practices like surveillance that are geared towards a specific group highlight that marginalised communities are more likely to have less data privacy. As an example, migrants, labourers, persons with a conviction history and marginalised racial groups are often subject to extremely invasive surveillance under suspicions of posing threats and are thus forced to flee their place of birth or residence. This also highlights the fact that focus on DPD is not limited to those who lack data privacy but also to those who have (either by design or by force) excess privacy. While on one end, excessive surveillance, carried out by both governments and private entities, forces immigrants to wait in deportation centres during the pendency of their case, the other end of the privacy extreme hosts a vast number of undocumented individuals who avoid government contact for fear of deportation, despite noting high rates of crime victimization.
DPD is also noted among groups with differential knowledge and skills in cyber security. For example, in India, data privacy laws mandate that information be provided on order of a court or any enforcement agency. However, individuals with knowledge of advanced encryption are adopting communication channels that have encryption protocols that the provider cannot control (and resultantly able to exercise their right to privacy more effectively), in contrast with individuals who have little knowledge of encryption, implying a security as well as an intellectual divide. While several options for secure communication exist, like Pretty Good Privacy, which enables encrypted emailing, they are complex and not easy to use in addition to having negative reputations, like the Tor Browser. Cost considerations also are a major factor in propelling DPD since users who cannot afford devices like those by Apple, which have privacy by default, are forced to opt for devices that have relatively poor in-built encryption.
Children remain the most vulnerable group. During the pandemic, it was noted that only 24% of Indian households had internet facilities to access e-education and several reported needing to access free internet outside of their homes. These public networks are known for their lack of security and privacy, as traffic can be monitored by the hotspot operator or others on the network if proper encryption measures are not in place. Elsewhere, students without access to devices for remote learning have limited alternatives and are often forced to rely on Chromebooks and associated Google services. In response to this issue, Google provided free Chromebooks and mobile hotspots to students in need during the pandemic, aiming to address the digital divide. However, in 2024, New Mexico was reported to be suing Google for allegedly collecting children’s data through its educational products provided to the state's schools, claiming that it tracks students' activities on their personal devices outside of the classroom. It signified the problems in ensuring the privacy of lower-income students while accessing basic education.
Policy Recommendations
Digital literacy is one of the critical components in bridging the DPD. It enables individuals to gain skills, which in turn effectively addresses privacy violations. Studies show that low-income users remain less confident in their ability to manage their privacy settings as compared to high-income individuals. Thus, emphasis should be placed not only on educating on technology usage but also on privacy practices since it aims to improve people’s Internet skills and take informed control of their digital identities.
In the U.S., scholars have noted the role of libraries and librarians in safeguarding intellectual privacy. The Library Freedom Project, for example, has sought to ensure that the skills and knowledge required to ensure internet freedoms are available to all. The Project channelled one of the core values of the library profession i.e. intellectual freedom, literacy, equity of access to recorded knowledge and information, privacy and democracy. As a result, the Project successfully conducted workshops on internet privacy for the public and also openly objected to the Department of Homeland Security’s attempts to shut down the use of encryption technologies in libraries. The International Federation of Library Association adopted a Statement of Privacy in the Library Environment in 2015 that specified “when libraries and information services provide access to resources, services or technologies that may compromise users’ privacy, libraries should encourage users to be aware of the implications and provide guidance in data protection and privacy.” The above should be used as an indicative case study for setting up similar protocols in inclusive public institutions like Anganwadis, local libraries, skill development centres and non-government/non-profit organisations in India, where free education is disseminated. The workshops conducted must inculcate two critical aspects; firstly, enhancing the know-how of using public digital infrastructure and popular technologies (thereby de-alienating technology) and secondly, shifting the viewpoint of privacy as a right an individual has and not something that they own.
However, digital literacy should not be wholly relied on, since it shifts the responsibility of privacy protection to the individual, who may not either be aware or cannot be controlled. Data literacy also does not address the larger issue of data brokers, consumer profiling, surveillance etc. Resultantly, an obligation on companies to provide simplified privacy summaries, in addition to creating accessible, easy-to-use technical products and privacy tools, should be necessitated. Most notable legislations address this problem by mandating notices and consent for collecting personal data of users, despite slow enforcement. However, the Digital Personal Data Protection Act 2023 in India aims to address DPD by not only mandating valid consent but also ensuring that privacy policies remain accessible in local languages, given the diversity of the population.
References
- https://idronline.org/article/inequality/indias-digital-divide-from-bad-to-worse/
- https://arxiv.org/pdf/2110.02669
- https://arxiv.org/pdf/2201.07936#:~:text=The%20DPD%20index%20is%20a,(33%20years%20and%20over).
- https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2019/11/15/americans-and-privacy-concerned-confused-and-feeling-lack-of-control-over-their-personal-information/
- https://eprints.lse.ac.uk/67203/1/Internet%20freedom%20for%20all%20Public%20libraries%20have%20to%20get%20serious%20about%20tackling%20the%20digital%20privacy%20divi.pdf
- /https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=6265&context=law_lawreview
- https://eprints.lse.ac.uk/67203/1/Internet%20freedom%20for%20all%20Public%20libraries%20have%20to%20get%20serious%20about%20tackling%20the%20digital%20privacy%20divi.pdf
- https://bosniaca.nub.ba/index.php/bosniaca/article/view/488/pdf
- https://www.hindustantimes.com/education/just-24-of-indian-households-have-internet-facility-to-access-e-education-unicef/story-a1g7DqjP6lJRSh6D6yLJjL.html
- https://www.forbes.com/councils/forbestechcouncil/2021/05/05/the-pandemic-has-unmasked-the-digital-privacy-divide/
- https://www.meity.gov.in/writereaddata/files/Digital%20Personal%20Data%20Protection%20Act%202023.pdf
- https://www.isc.meiji.ac.jp/~ethicj/Privacy%20protection%20in%20Japan.pdf
- https://socialchangenyu.com/review/the-surveillance-gap-the-harms-of-extreme-privacy-and-data-marginalization/
Executive Summary
A video circulating on social media shows Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath and Gorakhpur MP Ravi Kishan walking with a group of people. Users are claiming that the two leaders were participating in a protest against the University Grants Commission (UGC). Research by CyberPeace has found the viral claim to be misleading. Our research revealed that the video is from September 2025 and is being shared out of context with recent events. The video was recorded when Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath undertook a foot march in Gorakhpur on a Monday. Ravi Kishan, MP from Gorakhpur, was also present. During the march, the Chief Minister visited local markets, malls, and shops, interacting with traders and gathering information on the implementation of GST rate cuts.
Claim Details:
On Instagram, a user shared the viral video on 27 January 2026. The video shows the Chief Minister and the MP walking with a group of people. The text “UGC protest” appears on the video, suggesting that it is connected to a protest against the University Grants Commission.
Fact Check:
To verify the claim, we searched Google using relevant keywords, but found no credible media reports confirming it.Next, we extracted key frames from the video and searched them using Google Lens. The video was traced to NBT Uttar Pradesh’s X (formerly Twitter) account, posted on 22 September 2025.
According to NBT Uttar Pradesh, CM Yogi Adityanath undertook a foot march in Gorakhpur, visiting malls and shops to interact with traders and check the implementation of GST rate cuts.
Conclusion:
The viral video is not related to any recent UGC guidelines. It dates back to September 2025, showing CM Yogi Adityanath and MP Ravi Kishan on a foot march in Gorakhpur, interacting with traders about GST rate cuts.The claim that the video depicts a protest against the University Grants Commission is therefore false and misleading.
