A dispute between a customer of RBL Bank and the lender over nearly ₹10 lakh of alleged unauthorised international debit card transactions has raised broader questions about the Bank’s transaction alerts and how customers are expected to interpret them. Even as RBL Bank has begun reversing part of the disputed amount, its explanation for dozens of ‘account credited’ email alerts that were not reflected in the customer’s account statement remains contested.
Prof Sanjay Bakshi, founder of ValueQuest Capital LLP, has approached the Reserve Bank of India's (RBI) integrated ombudsman after alleging that 210 unauthorised card-not-present international transactions, amounting to ₹998,059.73, were debited from his savings account between 3rd March and 17 April 2026. Prof Bakshi says he discovered the alleged fraud on 17 April 2026 after receiving an SMS alert from the Bank and reported it in writing the following day to RBL Bank's fraud control desk, the principal nodal officer, and the relationship manager. He also lodged a complaint through the national cybercrime reporting portal (NCRP) and subsequently submitted a detailed dispute schedule at the Bank's Janpath branch before approaching the RBI ombudsman.
While the reimbursement dispute remains pending, another aspect of the case has raised broader questions.
According to documents reviewed by
Moneylife, Prof Bakshi received 54 email alerts from
[email protected] between 3rd March and 24 April 2026 with the subject line ‘E-alert from RBL Bank Account Credited’. Of these, seven corresponded to genuine credits reflected in his account statement, while the remaining 47 did not appear in the account statement downloaded from the Bank’s customer portal on 24 June 2026.
These disputed email alerts were sent throughout the same period during which the debit card was repeatedly blocked and later unblocked through the mobile application.
Each of the disputed emails stated that his account had been credited with a specified amount, provided a transaction reference number and displayed the available account balance after the purported credit. According to Prof Bakshi, the emails carry valid DKIM (DomainKeys Identified Mail) signatures issued under the Bank's domain, enabling their authenticity to be independently verified.
Among the examples are alerts dated 3rd March, 6th March and 7 March 2026 informing him that his account had been credited with ₹23,956.14, ₹27,695.99 and ₹23,356.08, respectively. However, according to the account statement submitted to the ombudsman, these credits do not appear on it. The only disputed credit that subsequently appeared in the account was ₹21,905.23 on 24 April 2026.
Responding to queries from Moneylife, RBL Bank said the customer reported the loss of his debit card on 18 April 2026, whereas the disputed transactions had occurred between 3rd March and 17 April 2026. The Bank said its fraud monitoring systems had flagged certain transactions during this period and that the debit card had been temporarily blocked on multiple occasions but was subsequently unblocked by the customer through the mobile application. It also said it had attempted to contact the customer several times, sent email and SMS alerts regarding the transactions and that the account continued to be actively operated during the relevant period.
Prof Bakshi disputes the Bank’s account. He says he received no SMS alerts or one-time passwords (OTPs) for the disputed transactions between 3 March and 17 April 2026. He says the only SMS received during that period was on the evening of 17 April informing him that a Papa John's transaction had been declined due to insufficient funds. He says this prompted him to check his account and discover the alleged fraud. Prof Bakshi has asked the RBI ombudsman to direct RBL Bank to produce SMS gateway logs and OTP delivery records for the disputed transactions.
Responding specifically to the 47 ‘account credited’ email alerts, RBL Bank said these related to declined transactions and that the apparent discrepancy arose because debit and reversal entries generated by its systems are not reflected in customer-facing account statements. The Bank said: “With respect to the 47 email alerts referenced, these pertain to declined transactions. In such cases, both debit and reversal entries are system-generated but are not reflected in the customer-facing statement, which may explain the perceived discrepancy.”
Prof Bakshi, however, disputes this explanation. In documents submitted to the RBI ombudsman, he contends that the emails expressly informed him that his account had been credited with specific sums and displayed revised available balances. He argues that these customer-facing alerts did not indicate that they represented internal system reversals or declined transactions. Prof Bakshi also says he unblocked the debit card through the mobile application because he believed, based on the repeated ‘Account Credited’ emails, that the disputed amounts had been restored to his account.
Moneylife subsequently sought further clarification from the Bank, including why customer alerts explicitly stating that an account had been credited were generated if, as the Bank now says, they represented internal system reversals that were not intended to appear in customers' account statements. At the time of publication, no further response had been received.
Separately, RBL Bank said it has initiated chargeback proceedings with the relevant merchants and acquiring Banks and that the matter is being examined 'at the highest levels' of its grievance redressal framework.
On 29 June 2026, RBL Bank began reversing some of the disputed transactions. According to the latest reconciliation shared by Prof Bakshi, the Bank has since credited back ₹302,491.62 through 32 reversal entries, leaving ₹695,520.91 still under dispute. The reversals came after more than two months of correspondence between the customer and the Bank, and several days after Moneylife sought detailed responses from RBL Bank regarding the case.
Prof Bakshi has also argued before the RBI ombudsman that RBL Bank failed to provide the provisional or ‘shadow’ credit required under paragraph 72 of the RBI’s Commercial Banks – Responsible Business Conduct Directions, 2025. According to him, the RBI framework requires banks to provide provisional credit within 10 working days of a customer’s report, irrespective of chargeback proceedings or internal investigations. He contends that this deadline expired on 5 May 2026, whereas the first substantial reversal was credited only on 29 June 2026. RBL Bank contests his interpretation and the matter remain before the ombudsman.
While RBL Bank has begun reversing some of the disputed transactions, the ombudsman proceedings remain pending and the reimbursement dispute remains unresolved. The case, nevertheless, raises broader questions about how banks generate and communicate customer transaction alerts, particularly where alerts informing customers that an account has been credited are later described as internal system-generated entries that do not appear in customer-facing account statements.
Moneylife has also sought comments from RBI and will update this report if and when a response is received.
a. I would setup two or more accounts in different banks.
b. Then I would cancel the debit card for an account which has a large sum of money - let us call this the main account.
c. Only use the debit card from bank where you keep a small balance (say Rs 10,000) for meeting your expenses. You can keep replenishing this from you main account.
d. Immediately block a debit card if any suspcious activity is seen.
I was surprised about the ability to "Unblock" a debit card - once you block - it should never be unblocked - it might be an inconvenience but worth it - which is why you might need a third account - if there is an issue with the 2nd one! Hopefully there should NEVER be an issue with the main account.
Hope this is useful.