For a cyber-fraud victim, getting the bank account into which the money was transferred frozen can feel like the first victory. A call to the 1930 helpline within the “golden hour” can help stop the money trail. But that is often when another problem begins.The same account may contain money from several victims, leaving them with competing claims. A victim who thought the money had been secured may then have to hire a lawyer, approach a court and establish why the amount should be returned to them sometimes recovering only a fraction of what was lost.At the other end of the trail are people who have nothing to do with the fraud but find their own bank accounts frozen because a cybercriminal used them, knowingly or unknowingly, to move or spend stolen money.The Indian Cyber Crime Coordination Centre (I4C) launched two portals in June to address these problems the Money Restoration Mechanism (MRM) for victims seeking recovery of their money and the Grievance Redressal Mechanism (GRM) for people seeking to unfreeze accounts wrongly blocked in cybercrime investigations.The MRM allows victims whose money has been traced to a bank account to raise a refund request, providing their bank details and, where applicable, a court order.DCP (Cyber) Bajrang Bansode said if the amount in a particular bank account is below Rs 50,000, an FIR or court order is not required. The money can be refunded on the basis of a police report and indemnity bond. If the amount exceeds Rs 50,000 in a single bank account, an FIR is mandatory.Mumbai Police data shows that between the launch of the portal and August 20, money was blocked in 24,860 instances involving Rs 18.27 crore. Of this, Rs 16.18 crore was classified as refundable, with no competing claim. In 6,096 instances, Rs 3.97 crore was returned to victims.Story continues below this adBut competing claims remain a problem because money can move through several accounts before investigators trace it. A victim’s money may, for instance, move into another account and later be used to buy goods or pay for a service, bringing an unsuspecting account holder into the investigation.Police said they had received complaints from people whose accounts were blocked after they unknowingly received or accepted money linked to cybercrime. An officer cited the example of a fraudster using stolen money to pay for fuel. The petrol pump operator’s account could subsequently be flagged even though the operator had no knowledge of the source of the money.Earlier, such account holders had to approach police and banks separately and establish that they had no connection with the fraud. The process could leave them without access to their own money for weeks.Under the GRM, an account holder can raise a complaint through a single platform linking the account holder, bank and police. After verification, including through video conferencing, eligible accounts can be unfrozen.Story continues below this adIn Mumbai, 2,337 grievances have been registered through the portal, of which 2,169 have been resolved with accounts unblocked, police said.Cyber expert Ritesh Bhatia said that while blocking the first few layers of an account trail was understandable, freezing accounts further down the chain over relatively small transactions could cause unnecessary hardship.“While it makes sense to block the first two layers where a large chunk is transferred from a victim’s account. But to keep going ahead and even blocking accounts where a few thousands have been transferred is just causing harassment to the common people. Between the banks and police, they should resolve the issue,” he said.Mumbai Police Commissioner Deven Bharti said the force had also begun asking investigators not to freeze an entire account where possible. Instead, a lien should be placed on the particular amount suspected to have been transferred through the account, allowing the account holder to continue using the remaining funds.Story continues below this adA case from Shirdi illustrates how complicated the money trail can become.A shopping mart owner lost access to his bank account after a cybercriminal used fraudulently obtained money to make purchases at the shop in July. The account was subsequently blocked by five agencies from different parts of the country after the same account was found linked to five separate cyber-fraud cases.The owner had to approach three police stations in Maharashtra, as well as two each in Karnataka and Tamil Nadu, besides dealing with banks, to establish that the shopping mart had no connection with the fraud.It took nearly two months for the account to be unblocked.