Friday, August 28, 2015



While the primary responsibility of preventing frauds lies with banks, RBI has been advising them about the fraud prone areas and the necessary safeguards. RBI also circulates the details of frauds and unscrupulous persons who have perpetrated frauds on other banks. Therefore it is essential that banks report the complete information about frauds and the follow-up action taken thereon to RBI.

The MD/CEOs of banks must provide focus on the "Fraud Prevention and Management Function".

The fraud risk management, fraud monitoring and fraud investigation function must be owned by the bank's CEO, Audit Committee of the Board and the Special Committee of the Board.

Banks may frame internal policy for fraud risk management and fraud investigation function.

Banks are required to send the Fraud Monitoring Returns (FMR) and data to RBI. Banks should nominate an official of the rank of General Manager who will be responsible for submitting all the returns.


Frauds have been classified as under, based mainly on the provisions of the IPC:

a)       Misappropriation and criminal breach of trust.
b)      Fraudulent encashment through forged instruments, manipulation of books of account or through fictitious accounts and conversion of property.
c)       Unauthorised credit facilities extended for reward or for illegal gratification.
d)      Negligence and cash shortages.
e)       Cheating and forgery.
f)       Irregularities in foreign exchange transactions.
g)       Any other type of fraud not coming under the specific heads as above.

Cases of 'negligence and cash shortages' and ‘irregularities in foreign exchange transactions’ are to be reported as fraud if the intention to defraud is suspected.

However, the following cases will be treated as fraud and reported accordingly even where fraudulent intention is not suspected:

(b)               cases of cash shortage more than 10,000/- and
(c)                cases of cash shortage more than 5,000/- if detected by management / auditor/ inspecting officer and not reported on the day of occurrence.


Banks need not furnish FMR 1 return for cases below 1 lac. However, in such cases banks should enter data through the FRMS package individually in FMR 1 format which will get captured in FMR 2 return and will form a part of the consolidated database for the respective bank. In respect of frauds above 1 lac the following procedure may be adopted.

Name of the return
Amount involved in the fraud
Medium in which to be reported
To whom it should
be reported
Timeline for reporting
Report on actual or suspected Frauds
1 lac and above
Soft copy
CFMC, Bengaluru.
Within  3 weeks of detection

1 lac and above - 50 lac
Hard copy
1.To the RO of RBI, Department of Banking Supervision under whose jurisdiction the branch  is located.
2.  To the RO, DBS / SBMD under whose jurisdiction the Head Office of the bank is located.
List of banks under the Supervisory purview of Senior Supervisory Mangers and Small  Bank Monitoring Division given in Annex I. of master circular

Where the fraud has taken place is located or to the SSM of the Bank.

50  lac and above.
Hard copy
1. CFMC Bengaluru
2. RO of RBI (DBS) / SBMD under whose jurisdiction the head office of the bank falls or the  SSM  of  the bank.
Flash report-
in  addition to
1 Cr  and above
Hard copy
1.Through  a DO Letter addressed to
the  PCGM/  CGM-in-Charge, DBS RBI, Central Office, Mumbai.
2. Copy to the RO of RBI under whose jurisdiction the bank's branch, is functioning and RO of RBI (DBS) / SBMD under whose jurisdiction The head office of the bank falls or the SSM  of  the bank.
Within a week of such frauds coming to the notice of the bank’s head office
Should include  amount involved, nature of fraud, modus operandi in brief, name of the  branch, names of parties involved, their constitution names of proprietors/ partners and directors, names of officials involved and lodging of complaint with police/CBI.

Quarterly report on frauds outstanding
Soft copy only
CFMC Bengaluru
Within 15 days of the end of the quarter to which it relates
Nil  report to be submitted if no fraud is outstanding.

Case-wise quarterly progress reports on Frauds  involving 1 lac and above
Soft copy only
CFMC Bengaluru
Within 15 days of the end of the quarter to which they relate.
Nil report to be submitted if there are no frauds above 1 lac outstanding.

In respect of frauds in borrowal accounts, additional information under Part B of FMR 1 should also be furnished. Banks should ensure that the data furnished is complete and up-to-date. In case sufficient data is not available at the time of reporting in FMR-1, bank may indicate as “no particulars to be reported” or “details not available at present” etc. Subsequently, banks must collect the data and report it through FMR 3 on quarterly basis.

Fraud reports should be submitted where central investigating agencies have initiated criminal proceedings suo moto or where RBI has directed the reporting of such cases as frauds.

Banks should report frauds perpetrated in their subsidiaries and affiliates in FMR-1 format in hard copy only. Such frauds should, however, not be included in the report on outstanding frauds and the quarterly progress reports. Such frauds will also not be entered in the FRMS package. In case the subsidiary/ affiliate is an entity which is regulated by RBI and is required to report independently, the parent bank need not furnish the hard copy of the FMR 1 statement.

Banks having overseas branches should report all frauds perpetrated at such branches to RBI.

Central Fraud Monitoring Cell (CFMC), located at Bengaluru will publish a directory of officers responsible for reporting of Frauds etc. All banks/FIs should furnish to the CFMC any changes in the names of such officials.


Report on Frauds Outstanding - FMR 2
The total number and amount of fraud cases reported during the quarter as shown in Parts B and C of the return should tally with the totals of columns 4 and 5 in Part - A of the report.

Banks should furnish a certificate, that all individual fraud cases of 1lac and above, reported to RBI in FMR 1, have also been put up to the bank’s Board and have been incorporated in FMR 2. A ‘Nil’ report should be submitted if there are no frauds outstanding.

Progress Report on Frauds - FMR 3
Frauds where there are no developments during a quarter with a brief description including name of branch and date of reporting may be furnished in Part-B of FMR 3. A ‘Nil’ report should be submitted if there are no outstanding frauds above Rs.1 lac.


Delays in reporting of frauds and submission of incomplete reports are to be avoided. Banks must fix staff accountability in respect of such delays.

Delay in reporting of frauds and the consequent delay in alerting other banks about the modus operandi and issue of caution advices could result in similar frauds elsewhere. Banks should, therefore, adhere to the fixed timeframe, failing which they would be liable for penal action u/s 47(A) of the BR Act, 1949.


Banks should ensure that all frauds of 1 lac and above are reported to their Boards immediately on detection. Such reports should take note of the failure on the part of the branch officials and controlling authorities, and give details of action initiated against them.

Quarterly Review of Frauds
Information relating to frauds for the quarters ending June, Sep and Dec may be placed before the Audit Committee of the Board during the month following the quarter to which it pertains.

These should be accompanied by supplementary material analysing statistical information and details of each fraud so that the Committee may contribute effectively in regard to the punitive or preventive aspects of frauds.

A separate review for the quarter ending March is not required in view of the prescribed Annual Review for the year-ending March.

Annual Review of Frauds
Banks should conduct an annual review and place a note to the Board for information before the end of the next quarter.. Such reviews may be preserved for verification by the RBI’s inspecting officers.

            The main aspects to be taken into account while making such a review may include:

(a)       Whether the systems are adequate to detect frauds within the shortest possible time.
(b)      Whether frauds are examined from staff angle and reported to the Vigilance Cell for further action in the case of public sector banks.
(c)       Whether deterrent punishment is meted out to the persons found responsible.
(d)      Whether frauds have taken place because of laxity in following the systems and procedures and, if so, whether effective action has been taken to ensure that the systems and procedures are scrupulously followed.
(e)       Whether frauds are reported to local Police or CBI for investigation.

The annual reviews should also include:

(b)         No. and amt of frauds detected during the year as compared to the previous 2 yrs.
(c)          Analysis of frauds and also the different business areas indicated.
(d)         Modus operandi of frauds reported during the year along with their present position.
(e)          Detailed analysis of frauds of Rs. 1 lac and above.
(e)          Estimated loss during the year due to frauds, amount recovered and provisions made.
(f)          No. of cases & amount where staff are involved and the action taken against them.
(g)          Region-wise/Zone-wise/State-wise break-up of frauds and amount involved.
(h)         Time taken to detect frauds.
(i)           Position with regard to frauds reported to CBI/Police.
(j)           Number of frauds where final action has been taken and cases disposed of.
(k)         Preventive/punitive steps taken by the bank during the year to minimise frauds.

Banks may ensure to place the copy of the circular on modus-operandi issued by them for alerting their branches on specific frauds before the ACB in its periodical meetings.

Special committee of the Board
Banks are required to constitute a Special Committee of the Board for monitoring and follow up of cases of frauds (SCBF) involving amounts of 1 Crore and above. This Committee may be constituted with five members of the Board of Directors, consisting of MD & CEO in case of PSBs and MD in case of SBI, its Associates and private sector banks, two members from ACB and two members from the Board excluding RBI nominee. The periodicity of the meetings may be decided according to the number of cases involved. In addition, the Committee should meet and review as and when a fraud involving an amount of 1 Crore and above comes to light.

The major functions of the Special Committee would be to monitor and review all the frauds of 1 Crore and above so as to:

       Identify the systemic lacunae and put in place measures to plug the same.
       Identify the reasons for delay in detection & reporting to top management and RBI.
       Monitor progress of CBI/Police investigation and recovery position.
       Ensure that staff accountability is examined and action is completed quickly.
       Review the efficacy of the remedial action taken to prevent recurrence of frauds, such as strengthening of internal controls.

The banks may define the processes for implementation of the Committee's directions in a policy document which may enable a dedicated outfit of the bank to implement the directions in this regard.

The detailed guidelines for private sector and foreign banks were issued on May 26, 2011 to address all issues arising out of lapses in the functioning, especially relating to corruption, malpractices, frauds etc. These guidelines are aimed at bringing uniformity and rationalization in the function of internal vigilance.


Banks need not report cases of attempted frauds of ₹1 crore and above to RBI. However, banks should report on individual cases of ₹1 crore and above before the ACB. The report should cover :

          The modus operandi of the attempted fraud.

          How the attempt did not materialize into fraud or how the attempt failed.
          The measures taken by the bank to strengthen the existing systems and controls.
          New systems and controls put in place in the area where fraud was attempted.

Further, a consolidated review of such cases detected during the year containing information such as area of operations where such attempts were made, effectiveness of new processes and procedures put in place during the year, trend of such cases during the last three years, need for further change in processes and procedures, if any, etc. as on March 31 every year may be put up to the ACB within three months of the end of the relative year.


Banks will report to CFMC, RBI and the respective Regional offices of the DBS/SBMD/SSM, the details of fraud cases of ₹1 lac and above closed along with reasons for the closure after completing the process as given below.

Fraud cases closed during the quarter are required to be reported quarterly through FMR 3 return and cross checked with relevant column in FMR 2 return before sending to RBI.

Banks should report only such cases as closed where the actions as stated below are complete and prior approval is obtained from the respective Regional Offices of DBS/SSM/SBMD.
i.      The fraud cases pending with CBI/Police/Court are finally disposed of.
ii.      The examination of staff accountability has been completed.
iii.      The amount of fraud has been recovered or written off.
iv.      Insurance claim wherever applicable has been settled.
v.      The bank has reviewed the systems and procedures, identified as the causative factors and plugged the lacunae and the fact of which has been certified by the appropriate authority.

Banks should also pursue CBI for final disposal of pending cases especially where the banks have completed staff side action. Similarly, banks may follow up with the police authorities and/or court for final disposal of fraud cases.

             Banks are allowed to close fraud cases involving amounts up to 25 lac, where:
a)      The investigation is on or charge sheet has not been filed in the Court for more than three years from the date of filing of FIR or
b)      The trial in the courts has not started or is in progress.

The banks should follow the guidelines relating to seeking prior approval for closure from the RO of DBS under whose jurisdiction the Head Office of the bank is located or the SSM/SBMD and follow up of such cases after closure


In dealing with cases of fraud, banks should not merely be concerned about recovering the amount, but should be motivated by public interest and the need for ensuring that the guilty persons are punished. Therefore the following cases should be referred to the State Police or to the CBI as detailed below:

Category of bank
Amount involved in the fraud
Agency to whom complaint should be lodged
Private Sector/ Foreign Banks
10000 and above
State Police
If committed by staff
₹1 lac and above
State Police
If committed by outsiders on their  own  and/or  with  the connivance of bank staff/officers.
10  million and above
In addition   to State Police,
SFIO, Ministry of Corporate Affairs, Government of India. Second Floor, Paryavaran Bhavan, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi 110 003.
Details of the fraud are to be reported to SFIO in FMR 1Format
Public Sector Banks

Below ₹30 million
1. Above `10,000/- but below 0.1 million
State Police To the local police station
To be lodged by the bank branch concerned
2. `0.1 million and above involving outsiders and bank staff
To the State CID/Economic Offences Wing of the State concerned
To be lodged by the Regional Head of the bank concerned
₹30 million and above and up to ₹250 million

To be lodged with Anti Corruption Branch of CBI (where staff involvement is prima facie evident)
Economic Offences Wing of CBI (where staff involvement is prima facie not evident)

More than ₹250 million and up to ₹500 million

To be lodged with Banking Security and Fraud Cell (BSFC) of CBI (irrespective of the involvement of a public servant)

More than `500 million

To be lodged with the Joint Director (Policy) CBI, HQ New Delhi

All fraud cases below 10,000/- involving bank officials, should be referred to the Regional Head, who would scrutinize each case and direct the branch on whether it should be reported to the local police station for further legal action.


Banks were advised to review and strengthen the controls in the cheque presenting/passing and account monitoring processes and to ensure that all guidelines are followed. Banks were also given an illustrative list of some of the measures they may follow in this regard viz.
I.                    Ensuring the use of 100% CTS - 2010 compliant cheques.
II.                 Strengthening the infrastructure at the cheque handling Service Branches and bestowing special attention on the quality of equipment and personnel posted for CTS based clearing.
III.               Ensuring that the beneficiary is KYC compliant.
IV.       Examination under UV lamp for all cheques beyond a threshold of say, Rs.2 lac.
V.                 Checking at multiple levels, of cheques above a threshold of say, Rs.5 lac.
VI.       Close monitoring of credits and debits in newly opened transaction accounts based on risk categorization.
VII.      Sending an SMS alert to drawer when cheques are received in clearing.

Banks may also consider the following preventive measures for dealing with suspicious or large value cheques:

a)                  Alerting the customer by a phone call and getting the confirmation.
b)                  Contacting base branch in case of non-home cheques.

The above may be resorted to selectively if not found feasible to be implemented systematically.

Banks are advised to take measures to ensure that the confidential information viz., customer name / account number / signature, cheque serial numbers etc. are neither compromised nor misused. Due care and secure handling is to be exercised in the movement of cheques from the time they are tendered.

Reporting of frauds involving forged instruments including truncated instruments will be done by the paying banker. In such cases the presenting bank will be required to immediately hand over the instrument to paying bank as and when demanded to enable it to file an FIR and report the fraud to RBI.

However, in the case of collection of an instrument which is genuine but the amount is collected fraudulently, the collecting bank, which is defrauded will have to file both the fraud report with the RBI and complaint with the police.

In case of collection of fake cheque involving two or more branches of the same bank, the branch where the cheque has been encashed, should report the fraud to its Head Office. Similarly where such a cheque is encashed involving two or more branches under CBS, the branch which has released the payment should report the fraud to the Head Office. Thereafter, Head Office of the bank will file the fraud report with RBI and also file the Police complaint.


Based on the recommendations of an Internal Working Group, a framework for dealing with loan frauds was put in place

Objective of the framework
The objective is to direct the focus of banks regarding prevention, early detection, prompt reporting and timely initiation of the staff accountability proceedings. It ensures that the normal conduct of business and the risk taking ability of the bank is not adversely impacted and no new and onerous responsibilities are placed on the banks.
In order to achieve this objective, the framework has stipulated time lines with the action incumbent on a bank. The time lines / stage wise actions in the loan life-cycle are expected to compress the total time taken by a bank to identify a fraud and aid more effective action by the law enforcement agencies.

Early Warning Signals (EWS) and Red Flagged Accounts (RFA)
A Red Flagged Account (RFA) is one where a suspicion of fraud is indicated by Early Warning Signals (EWS). A bank cannot afford to ignore such EWS but must instead use them as a trigger to launch a detailed investigation into a RFA.

Banks may adopt relevant signals based on their experience, client profile and business models. The EWS so compiled would form the basis for classifying an account as a RFA.

The threshold for EWS and RFA is an exposure of Rs.50 Cr or more at bank level. All accounts beyond Rs.50 Cr classified as RFA or ‘Frauds’ must also be reported on the CRILC data platform together with the date of classification. This requirement is in addition to the reporting to RBI.

The modalities for monitoring loan frauds below Rs.50 Cr, is left to the discretion of banks. However, banks may report all identified accounts to CFMC, RBI as per the existing cut-offs.

The tracking of EWS in loan accounts must be integrated with the monitoring process. In large accounts it is necessary to undertake a detailed study of the Annual Report as a whole, particularly the Board Report, Managements’ Discussion, Analysis Statement and the details of related party transactions in the notes to accounts. The officer responsible for the operations in the account, should observe and report manifestations of EWS to the Fraud Monitoring Group (FMG) or any other group constituted by the bank immediately. Such officers may be held responsible for non-reporting or delays in reporting.

FMG should report loan accounts of Rs.50 Cr and above where EWS are observed, together with the decision to classify them as RFAs or otherwise to the CMD/CEO every month.

A report on the RFA accounts may be put up to the SCBF providing a synopsis of the remedial action taken and its current status.

Early Detection and reporting

Banks tend to report a fraud only when they exhaust the chances of further recovery. Delays in reporting may result in similar frauds being perpetrated elsewhere. It also delays action against the unscrupulous borrowers which increases the loss arising out of the fraud.

Frauds in loan accounts can be prevented by having a robust appraisal and an effective monitoring mechanism. In order to strengthen the monitoring processes, inclusion of the following checks during the different stages of the loan life-cycle may be carried out:

a)      Pre-sanction: The information collected on the potential borrowers by the Risk Management Group (RMG) from the public domain could be made a part of the pre sanction checks and used as an input by the sanctioning authority. Banks may keep the record of such pre-sanction checks as part of the sanction documentation.

b)      Disbursement: Checks by RMG during the disbursement stage may focus on the adherence to the terms and conditions of sanction, rationale for allowing dilution of these terms and conditions, level at which such dilutions were allowed, etc. The sanctioning authority may specify certain conditions as ‘core’ which should not be diluted. The RMG may immediately flag the non-adherence of core stipulations to the sanctioning authority.

c)      Annual review: The aspects of diversion of funds in an account, adequacy of stock vis-a-vis stock statements, stress in group accounts, etc., must be commented upon at the time of review. Besides, the RMG should track market developments relating to the major clients and provide inputs to the credit officers.

Staff empowerment: Employees should be encouraged to report fraudulent activity under the Whistle Blower Policy of the bank. The FMG may ‘hear’ the concerned employee in order to obtain necessary clarifications. Protection should be available to such employees under the policy so that the fear of victimisation does not act as a deterrent.

Role of Auditors: Auditors may come across transactions or documents that indicate the possibility of fraud. In such a situation, the auditor may immediately bring it to the notice of the top management and if necessary to the ACB.

Incentive for Prompt Reporting: When an account is classified as fraud, banks should make 100% provisions immediately, irrespective of the value of security. However, in case a bank is unable to make the entire provision in one go, it may do so over four quarters provided there is no delay in reporting. In case of delays, the banks under Multiple Banking Arrangements (MBA) or consortium are required to make the provision in one go. Delay, for the purpose, would mean that the fraud was not flashed to CFMC, RBI or reported on the CRILC platform, within a period of one week from its (i) classification as a fraud through the RFA route which has a maximum time line of six months or (ii) detection/declaration as a fraud ab initio by the bank.

Bank as a sole lender
Where the bank is the sole lender, the FMG will decide whether an account in which EWS are observed should be classified as a RFA or not. This exercise should be completed within a month of the EWS being noticed. In case the account is classified as a RFA, the FMG will stipulate the nature and level of further investigations or remedial measures necessary to protect the bank’s interest within six months.

The bank may use external auditors, including forensic experts or an internal team for investigations before taking a final view on the RFA. Within a period of six months, banks would either lift the RFA status or classify the account as a fraud.

A report on the RFA accounts may be put up to the SCBF with the observations/decision of the FMG. The report may list the irregularities observed and provide a synopsis of the investigations and remedial action proposed by the FMG together with the current status.

Lending under Consortium or Multiple Banking Arrangements
Due to lack of a formal arrangement for exchange of information among various lending banks/FIs, unscrupulous borrowers enjoying credit facilities under "multiple banking arrangement” after defrauding one bank, continue to enjoy the facilities with other financing banks. They also use accounts maintained at other banks to siphon off funds from the bank on which the fraud is being perpetrated. In some cases, the securities offered by the borrowers to different banks are the same.

In view of this, all the banks under 'multiple banking' arrangement should take co-ordinated action for legal actions, recovery follow up, exchange of details on modus operandi, achieving consistency in data / information on frauds reported to RBI. Therefore, bank which detects a fraud should immediately share the details with all other banks.

In case of consortium arrangements, individual banks must conduct their own due diligence and also monitor the end use of funds independently. Regarding monitoring of Escrow Accounts, the details may be worked out by the consortium and duly documented. Any major concerns from the fraud perspective should be shared with other lenders immediately.

The initial decision to classify any account as RFA or Fraud will be at the individual bank level and it would report the RFA or Fraud status on the CRILC platform. Thereafter, within 15 days, the bank which has detected the fraud would ask the consortium leader or the largest lender to convene a meeting of the JLF. The meeting of the JLF must be convened within 15 days of the receipt of request. In case there is a broad agreement, the account would be classified as a fraud; or else it will be done based on the majority with at least 60% share in the total lending. The account would be red flagged by all the banks and subjected to a forensic audit initiated by the consortium leader or the largest lender under MBA. All banks, as part of the consortium or multiple banking arrangement, would share the costs and provide the necessary support for such an investigation.

The forensic audit must be completed within a period of three months from the date of authorizing the audit. Within 15 days of completion, the JLF will reconvene and decide on the status of the account, either by consensus or majority rule as specified above. If the account is to be classified as fraud, the RFA status would change to Fraud in all banks and reported to RBI and on the CRILC platform within a week of the said decision.
Besides, within 15 days of the RBI reporting, the bank initiating the forensic audit would lodge a complaint with the CBI on behalf of all banks in the consortium/MBA.

The overall time allowed for the entire exercise is six months from the date when the first member bank reported the account as RFA or Fraud on the CRILC platform.

 Staff Accountability
In case of NPAs, banks must initiate and complete a staff accountability exercise within six months from the date of classification as a Fraud. The role of sanctioning official may also be covered under this exercise. The report on completion of this exercise and action taken may be placed before the SCBF and intimated to the RBI at quarterly intervals.

All fraud cases are to be segregated into vigilance and non-vigilance. Only vigilance cases should be referred to the investigative authorities. Non-vigilance cases may be investigated and dealt with at the bank level within a period of six months.

Where very senior executives of the bank are involved, the Board / ACB/ SCBF may initiate the process of fixing staff accountability.

Both the criminal and domestic enquiry should be conducted simultaneously.

Filing Complaints with Law Enforcement Agencies
Banks are required to lodge the complaint with the law enforcement agencies immediately on detection of fraud. Delays may result in the loss of relevant documents, non-availability of witnesses, borrowers absconding and the money trail getting cold in addition to asset stripping by the fraudulent borrower.

Banks should establish a nodal point and nodal officer for filing all complaints with the CBI on behalf of the bank and serve as the single point for coordination and redressal of infirmities in the complaints.

The complaint should be drafted properly and be vetted by a legal officer. Banks sometimes file complaints with CBI / Police on the grounds of cheating, misappropriation of funds, diversion of funds etc., without classifying the accounts as fraud. Since such grounds constitute the basis for classifying an account as fraud, banks may classify such accounts as frauds and report the same to RBI.

Penal measures for fraudulent borrowers
            In general, the penal provisions as applicable to wilful defaulters would apply to the fraudulent borrower with respect to raising funds from the banking system or from the capital markets. In particular, borrowers who have defaulted and also committed a fraud would be debarred from availing bank finance for a period of five years from the date of full payment of the defrauded amount. After this period, it is for individual institutions to take a call on whether to lend to such a borrower. The penal provisions would apply to non-whole time directors only in rarest of cases based on conclusive proof of their complicity.

No restructuring or grant of additional facilities may be made in the case of RFA or fraud accounts.

No compromise settlement involving a fraudulent borrower is allowed unless the conditions stipulate that the criminal complaint will be continued.

In addition to above borrower- fraudsters, third parties such as builders, warehouse/cold storage owners, motor vehicle/tractor dealers, travel agents, etc. and professionals such as architects, valuers, chartered accountants, advocates, etc. are also to be held accountable if they have played a vital role in credit sanction/disbursement or facilitated the perpetration of frauds. Banks are advised to report to IBA the details of such third parties.

Before reporting to IBA, banks have to satisfy themselves of the involvement of concerned third parties and also provide them with an opportunity of being heard.. On the basis of such information, IBA would prepare caution lists of such parties for circulation among the banks.    


Banks should report instances of bank robberies, dacoities, thefts and burglaries to the following authorities immediately on their occurrence.

a)         CFMC, Bengaluru
b)         RO of DBS/SSM/SBMD under whose jurisdiction the Head Office of the bank falls.
c)         RO of DBS under whose jurisdiction the affected bank branch is located to enable them to take up the issues regarding security arrangements in the affected branch during the State Level Security Meetings.
d)         The Security Adviser, Central Security Cell, RBI, Mumbai - 400 001.
e)         Ministry of Finance, Department of Financial Services, New Delhi-110 001.

The report should include details of modus operandi and other information.

Banks should also submit to CFMC, Bengaluru a quarterly consolidated statement- FMR 4 covering all cases pertaining to the quarter within 15 days of the end of the quarter to which it relates.

Banks, which do not have any instances of theft, burglary, dacoity and / or robbery to report during the quarter, may submit a nil report.

Based on the Master Circular of 1/7/15.

Please visit  for any further clarification if required…………….. Poppy