<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>Juris Eagle insights: White-collar and cyber defence</title><description>Notes on Indian law filed under White-collar and cyber defence, published by Juris Eagle.</description><link>https://juriseagle.com/insights/practice/white-collar-and-cyber-defence</link><language>en-in</language><lastBuildDate>Mon, 09 Nov 2026 12:40:42 GMT</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://juriseagle.com/insights/practice/white-collar-and-cyber-defence/rss.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/><docs>https://juriseagle.com/disclaimer</docs><item><title>A deepfake of your chief executive runs on a seven day clock, unless you hold a court order</title><link>https://juriseagle.com/insights/a-deepfake-of-your-chief-executive</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://juriseagle.com/insights/a-deepfake-of-your-chief-executive</guid><description>The February 2026 amendment to the Information Technology Rules is reported as a three hour takedown rule. For a company whose chief executive has been deepfaked into endorsing a fake investment scheme, that is the wrong number. The three hour clock in rule 3(1)(d) starts only on actual knowledge, and since November 2025 actual knowledge arises in two ways alone: a court order, or a reasoned written intimation from an officer not below the rank of Joint Secretary. The two hour clock belongs to an individual complaining about his own impersonation or intimate imagery, not to a company complaining about its brand. What a company gets by right is the ordinary grievance route: acknowledgement in twenty four hours and resolution in seven days, with no remedy against the mirror copies. Which is why every order in this space in 2025 and 2026 is an injunction.</description><pubDate>Thu, 08 Oct 2026 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate><dc:creator>Adv. Harsha Swaroop P</dc:creator><category>Technology and data</category><category>technology-data-and-product</category><category>white-collar-and-cyber-defence</category><category>civil-disputes</category></item><item><title>Online money games are prohibited in India from 1 May 2026, and the tax on the years before that survives the prohibition</title><link>https://juriseagle.com/insights/online-money-games-after-the-prohibition</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://juriseagle.com/insights/online-money-games-after-the-prohibition</guid><description>The Promotion and Regulation of Online Gaming Act, 2025 came into force on 1 May 2026, and it does not regulate online money games. It prohibits them, together with their advertising and the banking that pays for them, and it reaches a service operated from outside India for players inside it. The definition that carries the prohibition is drafted to make the old skill and chance argument irrelevant, so a rummy or fantasy platform is in the same position as a casino product. What the Act promotes is a narrower set: e-sports recognised under the National Sports Governance Act, 2025, and online social games played without stakes, both of which register with an authority rather than being left alone. The liability a closed platform leaves behind is the tax, and on 27 May 2026 the Supreme Court held the stake, not the commission, to be the measure of it.</description><pubDate>Wed, 03 Jun 2026 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate><dc:creator>Dr. Vijay Mishra</dc:creator><category>Gaming and online platforms</category><category>technology-data-and-product</category><category>taxation-and-fiscal</category><category>white-collar-and-cyber-defence</category></item><item><title>The Money Laundering Act Has Become an Asset Statute, Not Just a Criminal One</title><link>https://juriseagle.com/insights/pmla-asset-statute</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://juriseagle.com/insights/pmla-asset-statute</guid><description>For an ordinary operating company, the Prevention of Money-laundering Act, 2002 now does its real work long before anyone is convicted of anything. A provisional attachment of an unencumbered asset worth INR 10 crore carries an illustrative cost of about INR 50 lakh over the first year, five per cent of the value of the asset, made up of lost borrowing capacity, counterparty reaction and the cost of producing records.</description><pubDate>Mon, 23 Feb 2026 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate><dc:creator>Adv. Adithya Karthik K</dc:creator><category>PMLA &amp; Corporate Exposure</category><category>pmla</category><category>white-collar-and-cyber-defence</category></item><copyright>2024 Juris Eagle. This website is intended solely for informational purposes and does not constitute solicitation or advertisement under applicable Bar Council regulations. The transmission or receipt of information through this platform does not create an advocate-client relationship. Legal advice is rendered only upon formal written engagement with the firm.</copyright></channel></rss>