Outseer’s research has found that 34.4% of surveyed Indian consumers have been tricked into sending money to a fraudster.
Fraud prevention provider Outseer released the findings on 8 October 2026, based on a survey of 1,002 Indian respondents. The data forms part of a wider study of 7,029 consumers across India, the UK, the US, Sweden, Australia, Brazil, and Singapore. India's figure of 34.4% for consumers personally tricked into sending money from their own bank account is the highest among the markets surveyed, compared with an average of 20.9% across all seven. When respondents who have seen this happen to someone close to them are included, the share rises to 59.8%, indicating that many scams in India rely on manipulating genuine customers into authorising payments themselves.
Social engineering drives payment fraud
The survey found that fraudsters are using several forms of manipulation to persuade consumers to make payments. Some 30.8% of Indian respondents said they had personally been targeted by someone impersonating the police, government, a court or another authority and threatening action unless money was transferred. Such tactics include scams commonly referred to as digital arrest fraud. A further 34.0% have been asked to install an app that allows a fraudster to control their device. Exposure is concentrated among working-age consumers: 41.0% of those aged 25 to 34 have been tricked into sending money, and the figure remains above one in three in every age group up to 54, before falling to 19.6% among those aged 55 and over. Overall, 70.8% of respondents are very or extremely concerned about being tricked into sending money.
Ajit Pillai, Country Manager for India and South Asia at Outseer, stated that the findings show scams are not simply a problem of stolen credentials or compromised accounts. According to Pillai, fraudsters are increasingly manipulating genuine customers into making transactions themselves, often through pressure, impersonation, or control of the customer's device. He added that the scale of these experiences in India underscores the need for banks to look beyond whether a customer is authenticated and assess whether the transaction itself is consistent with genuine customer intent.
Implications for banks and liability
The research also points to consequences for financial institutions. Among those personally tricked into sending money, 64.6% say a fraud or scam experience reduced their trust in the provider involved, and 54.5% would report the matter to a regulator or authority if their bank failed to protect them. On liability, the most common answer, given by 32.8% of respondents, is that both the sending and receiving bank should cover such losses, while 26.6% say the customer should bear them. Participants were asked about their concern and experience across 14 fraud and scam types, as well as their attitudes to authentication and liability.
Consumers appear receptive to less visible forms of protection, with 83.5% reacting positively to their bank using background technology to confirm that they are the person making a payment. Pillai stated that fraud prevention must distinguish between a genuine customer and a genuine transaction, noting that behavioural biometrics, device intelligence, transaction signals, and broader risk context can give banks additional evidence when an authenticated customer is being manipulated. He added that consumer acceptance of background checks allows banks to strengthen detection without automatically adding friction to every payment.
