Victimprofilingresult on the basis of Gender and Area:

Table 4.3: Victim Profiling on the basis of Gender and Area

Male / Female / Area Wise- Total (%)
Urban / 39 / 6 / 45 (56%)
Rural / 33 / 3 / 36 (44%)
Gender wise – Total (%) / 72(89%) / 9(11%)

Figure 4.1: Graph depicting victim profiling on the basis of Gender and Area

Table 4.4: Victim Profiling on the basis of age group

Age Group / Age Distribution / No of Victims in group, (%)
I / less then 24 year / 2 (3%)
II / 25 to 34 / 9 (13%)
III / 35 to 44 / 14(21%)
IV / 45 to 54 / 19 (28%)
V / equal to or more then 55 year / 24(35%)

Figure 4.2: Graph depicting victim profiling on the basis of age group

The overall statistical distribution and histogram of Victim on the basis of Age is as follows:

Figure 4.3: Statistical results of victim profiling on the basis of age group

Table 4.5: Victim Profiling on the basis of education group

Education Group / Education Distribution / No. of Victims –
Total (%) / Total No. of Victim in Education Group (%)
Diploma & Degree / Postgraduate / 9 (13%) / 39 (57%)
Graduate / 27 (40%)
Diploma / 3 94%)
Up to Higher Secondary / 12th Class / 9 (13%) / 15 (22%)
10th Class / 6 (9%)
Primary Education / 8th Class / 3 (4%) / 12 (18%)
5th Class / 9 (13%)
Illiterate / Illiterate / 2 (3%) / 2(3%)

Figure 4.4: Graph depicting victim profiling on the basis of Education group

Figure 4.5: Graph depicting victim profiling on the basis of Employment

Figure 4.6: Statistical results of victim’s financial loss

Table 4.7: Typology of Victims on basis of Loss

Typology of Victim by Loss
[ 40] / Financial Loss due to fraud / Number of victims falling in particular typology, (%) / Total Financial Loss to the Victims in particular typology in Rs., (%)
Chronic Victim / More then Rs. 3,00,000/- / 10 (12%) / Rs. 4178188(47%)
Large Scale Victims / Less then Rs. 3,00,000/- but more then Rs. 1,00,000/- / 16 (20%) / Rs. 2655440 (30%)
Small Scale and Unknown Victims / Less then Rupees Rs. 1,00,000/- / 55 (68%) / Rs. 2013694
(28%)

Figure 4.7: Graph depicting victim count and their loss share

Figure 4.8: Graph depicting Status of Victim on Police complaint

Figure 4.9: Graph depicting Status of Victim’s FIR& complaint at Police side

Figure 4.10: Graph depicting Status wise & Urban Rural divide and distribution of Victims

Table 4.10: Relationship between Victims Sate and FraudstersState on basis of Mobile phones

Column1 / Column2
State to which Victim belongs / Telecom License Service Area to which Mobiles used by members of MassMobileTower Fraud Ring belongs / Total number of mobile belongs to Telecom Service Area other then VictimsStatein column1, %
DELHI / HARYANA / KARNATKA / KERALA / MAHARASHTRA / PUNJAB / RAJASTHAN / TAMILNADU / U.P. EAST / U.P. WEST
BIHAR / 22 / 1 / 2 / 25 , 100%
CHHATISHGARH / 3 / 3 / 6, 100%
DELHI / 2 / 0, 0%
GUJARAT / 6 / 6, 100%
HIMACHAL PRADESH / 1 / 1, 100%
KARNATAKA / 4 / 1 / 5, 100%
MAHARASHTRA / 14 / 1 / 5 / 8 / 27, 96%
MADHYA PRADESH / 2 / 1 / 3, 100%
ODISHA / 2 / 2 / 4, 100%
PUNJAB / 5 / 5, 100%
RAJASTHAN / 15 / 2 / 15, 88%
TAMILNADU / 12 / 1 / 1 / 3 / 1 / 15, 83%
UTTAR PRADESH / 26 / 9 / 1 / 10 / 36, 78% *
WEST BENGAL / 16 / 3 / 3 / 3 / 25, 100%
Total number of Mobile used by fraudster belongs to state in Column2 / 128 / 19 / 1 / 1 / 3 / 8 / 2 / 3 / 10 / 16 / Total =191

Figure 4.11: Graph depicting, VictimsState and share of other State on basis of Fraudster’s Mobile Numbers in Fraud