#FactCheck - Viral Video Claiming Snowfall Near Ambience Mall in Gurugram Is Misleading

Introduction

For most of us, UPI is part of daily routine: scan a QR code for chai, send money to family, split a bill, or pay a shopkeeper in seconds. That convenience is exactly why a message saying “UPI charges are coming” can cause confusion. Scammers can use that uncertainty through fake calls, WhatsApp messages, payment links, or edited screenshots. This blog keeps the topic simple: what MDR means, which UPI payments remain free, how scammers misuse the word “fee”, and what a reader should do when a payment request does not look right.

News in Focus: Why the “UPI Charge” Headline Needs Context

‍

‍

On 15 September 2026, the Ministry of Finance clarified the revised UPI framework. From 15 October 2026, a 0.4% MDR will apply to specified P2M transactions above ₹2,000, subject to the published conditions and caps. P2P transfers remain free, payments to merchants up to ₹2,000 remain free, and the government states that MDR is an ecosystem charge, not a customer fee. Banks are to ensure it is not passed on to customers. [1]

‍

So, What Does This Mean for an Everyday User?

‍

‍

The important distinction is between a legitimate MDR rule and a scammer’s request for money. A message saying “pay ₹99 to release your UPI transaction” is not made genuine by mentioning NPCI, a bank, a government notice, or a news report.

‍

A Related Cyber-Fraud Headline: Do Not Mix Two Different Issues

‍

‍

The supplied newspaper clipping discusses a separate cyber-fraud issue involving suspicious transactions and bank accounts linked to cybercrime. It is useful context, but it should not be read as proof that ordinary UPI users must pay a special “verification” or “release” fee. Separating the two issues helps prevent panic and misinformation.

‍

Where Scammers Use the Confusion

‍

“Pay a small fee to receive money”

A simple red flag is the demand for an upfront fee: “Your refund is ready, pay a processing fee first.” NPCI warns that scanning a QR code and entering a UPI PIN is for making a payment, not for receiving money or cashback. [2]

Fake payment success screens

Another common trick targets merchants: a fraudster shows a convincing “Payment Successful” screenshot and collects goods before the seller checks the account. In August 2026, Delhi Police reported a case involving allegedly fake or manipulated Paytm/UPI screenshots, followed by an attempt to gain access to victims’ mobile phones. [3] In September, police in Jharsuguda and Basti reported similar fake-confirmation cases; the Basti case involved a fabricated SBI YONO screenshot. [4][5]

“Your UPI is blocked because of new charges”

Scammers also borrow the language of genuine policy announcements. The caller creates urgency, claims your account is restricted, and asks you to install an app, share an OTP, approve a collect request, or transfer a small amount “for verification”. A real headline does not make an unexpected payment request genuine.

‍

The Five-Second UPI Safety Check

‍

Puse Before You Pay

‍

WHO is asking? WHAT exactly are they asking you to do? WHERE did the payment request appear? WHEN did the request arrive? WHY would you need to pay to receive money? Verify the transaction in your own bank or UPI app. Merchants should not rely on a screenshot shown by a customer. Customers should not treat a QR code, collect request, or incoming message as proof that they are “receiving” money. Read the final authorisation screen before entering the UPI PIN. NPCI says users should never share the PIN and that bank customer support will not ask for it. [6]

‍

If You Think You Have Been Scammed

‍

• Stop engaging with the suspected caller, account, or chat. Do not send another payment to “fix” the first one.
• Contact your bank or the relevant payment app using an official support channel and report the transaction.
• For financial cyber fraud in India, call 1930 as soon as possible and report the incident through the National Cyber Crime Reporting Portal. The official portal identifies 1930 as the helpline for immediate reporting of financial cyber fraud. [7]
• Keep the transaction ID, screenshots, phone numbers, messages, and dates. Do not delete useful evidence.

‍

Conclusion

‍

The safest way to understand the UPI charge discussion is to slow the headline down. Yes, a revised MDR framework has been announced for certain merchant transactions above ₹2,000 from 15 October 2026. But that does not make a P2P transfer subject to a “release fee”, and it does not make an unsolicited ₹49, ₹99, or ₹199 demand legitimate. Check the transaction type, confirm where the charge sits, verify the payment in your own app or bank account, and never disclose your UPI PIN. Digital safety is not about fearing every payment; it is about recognising when someone asks you to leave the normal payment process.

‍

Remember

‍

UPI convenience should never require blind trust. Verify the sender, verify the screen, verify the transaction.

‍

References

‍

[1] Press Information Bureau, Ministry of Finance, “UPI Continues to Remain Free for Peer to Peer Transactions and 96% of Merchant Transactions,” 15 September 2026. https://www.pib.gov.in/PressReleseDetailm.aspx?PRID=2310586

[2] National Payments Corporation of India (NPCI), “Fraud Awareness,” current guidance on fake cashback links, QR codes and UPI PIN safety. https://www.npci.org.in/fraud-awareness

[3] Hindustan Times / PTI, “Delhi Police arrest man in ₹30.81 lakh cyber fraud involving fake UPI payments,” 26 August 2026. https://www.hindustantimes.com/cities/delhi-news/delhi-police-arrest-man-in-rs-30-81-lakh-cyber-fraud-involving-fake-upi-payments-101787734051785.html

[4] The Times of India, “Two held for fake UPI payment fraud in Jharsuguda,” 11 September 2026. https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/bhubaneswar/two-held-for-fake-upi-payment-fraud-in-jharsuguda/articleshow/134072823.cms

[5] The Times of India, “Basti: 2 held for fake UPI payment scam,” 13 September 2026. https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/134154561.cms

[6] NPCI, “UPI - Frequently Asked Questions,” UPI PIN and transaction-confirmation guidance. https://www.npci.org.in/what-we-do/upi/faqs

[7] Government of India, National Cyber Crime Reporting Portal, financial cyber fraud reporting guidance and helpline 1930. https://www.cybercrime.gov.in/

[8] Moneycontrol, “Don't trust the screenshot: How to spot a fake UPI payment,” 6 August 2026. https://www.moneycontrol.com/news/business/personal-finance/don-t-trust-the-screenshot-how-to-spot-a-fake-upi-payment-13996275.html

Image note: Both visuals were supplied by the requester. Figure 1 was cross-checked against the Ministry of Finance/PIB clarification cited in Reference [1].

‍

Artificial intelligence is growing at a rapid pace, with startups promising breakthroughs in industries and attracting billions in investment. Among these was Builder.ai, a London-based company founded in 2016 by an Indian entrepreneur. Once valued at over $1.5 billion, it was known for its game-changing platform that could let anyone build custom apps quickly and affordably with the help of AI.

Yet in 2025, Builder.ai collapsed dramatically, filing for bankruptcy across multiple countries and laying off nearly 80% of its workforce. What was once a celebrated unicorn has become a cautionary tale, exposing not only the risks of hype-driven growth in AI but also inflicting reputational damage on Indian founders in the global startup ecosystem.

The Rise: Big Promises, Big Investors

Builder.ai branded itself as a no-code/low-code app development platform, where its AI assistant “Natasha” would guide customers in creating apps without technical expertise. The pitch was simple and attractive: app development was made “as easy as ordering pizza.” The story resonated with major investors. Backed by SoftBank, Microsoft, and Qatar’s sovereign wealth fund, Builder.ai raised more than $450 million. It scaled rapidly, positioning itself as one of Europe’s most promising AI startups.

The Cracks Appear

Behind the glamour, the first cracks appeared as early as 2019, when The Wall Street Journal reported that Builder.ai’s platform depended far more on human engineers than on the AI automation it advertised. In reality, the much-hyped AI assistant “Natasha” was often just “a guy instead”, i.e., skilled developers in India manually writing code behind the scenes on whose backs the company expanded aggressively. 

The real blow came from Builder.ai’s finances. The company was accused of inflating revenue figures by 300%, with alleged use of round-tripping tactics involving fake invoices that inflated financials.  While it publicly projected revenues of $220 million in 2024, its actual figure was closer to $55 million. When this reality surfaced, investor confidence was lost quickly, and the company’s liabilities ballooned to nearly $100 million, with less than $ 10 million in assets remaining. 

Collapse and Legal Scrutiny

By 2025, the company’s foundations had crumbled. The founder stepped down as CEO but retained the unusual title of “Chief Wizard.” Massive debts to AWS, Microsoft, and other partners mounted into the hundreds of millions. Assets were seized, and the company filed for bankruptcy in the U.S., UK, India, and the UAE.

For clients, the collapse meant abandoned projects. For employees, around 1,000 of them, it meant sudden unemployment. And for investors, it was a devastating loss. The Securities and Exchange Commission and U.S. Attorney’s Office in New York have since launched investigations into potential fraud and investor misrepresentation.

Reputational Damage: Impact on Indian Founders

Perhaps the most enduring consequence of Builder.ai’s downfall is the hit to the credibility of Indian founders on the global stage.

For years, Indian entrepreneurs have earned trust in global tech circles, with leaders heading companies from Google to Microsoft. Indian-led startups abroad were viewed as reliable, innovative, and growth-driven. Builder.ai’s collapse disrupts this narrative.

The allegations of inflated revenue, AI exaggeration, and questionable governance risk reinforcing skepticism among global investors regarding Indian organisational ethics. For other Indian founders seeking international capital, the road has now become tougher: stricter due diligence, harsher scrutiny of claims, and slower trust-building.

This reputational damage arrives at a critical time when India is positioning itself as a global hub for AI and leads the world in AI skill penetration. Rather than highlighting the strength of India’s entrepreneurial and talent ecosystem, the fall of Builder.ai has drawn attention to the risks of overpromising and underdelivering.

Conclusion

The fall of Builder.ai is more than the bankruptcy of one AI unicorn. It is a warning to companies against chasing hyper growth fueled by the riding of the AI wave. While the company’s downfall exposed flaws in governance and accountability, its deeper impact lies in how it dented trust. To drive AI and technology innovation, startups must move beyond flashy valuations and commit to authentic innovation, transparency, and financial integrity.

References

• https://www.moodys.com/web/en/us/insights/lending/moodys-early-warning-in-action-builder-ai.html#:~:text=Despite%20marketing%20itself%20as%20an,fake%20invoices%20that%20inflated%20financials. 
• https://today-innovation.webflow.io/unveiling-the-power-of-natasha-an-ai-assistant-of-builder-ai-to-revolutionize-app-generation 
• https://finance.yahoo.com/news/builder-ais-shocking-450m-fall-170009323.html
• https://www.pib.gov.in/PressReleasePage.aspx?PRID=2108810 
• https://www.cnbctv18.com/technology/how-a-london-based-startups-artificial-ai-gambit-backfired-ws-l-19613692.htm# 

‍

Executive Summary 
‍

A video is being widely shared on social media claiming that a leopard dragged away a passenger from a moving train. Several users are circulating the clip as a real incident. However, CyberPeace Research Wing  research  found the claim to be false. Our research  revealed that the viral video is not real and was generated using Artificial Intelligence (AI).

‍

Claim

‍

An X user (formerly Twitter) shared the viral clip with the caption:“A leopard snatched a man from a moving train.”The link, archived version, and screenshot of the post are provided below.

• https://x.com/SandeshChaturv8/status/2059457529739194454 

‍

‍

Fact Check

‍

On closely examining the video, several visual inconsistencies were noticed. The leopard’s body appears distorted at multiple points in the clip. In some frames, parts of the animal’s body seem to merge into the background, while in others, sections appear incomplete or disappear entirely — something not typically seen in authentic footage. In the final part of the video, where the leopard is allegedly shown attacking a passenger, the person’s hands, limbs, and body also appear blurred and distorted. Additionally, unusual and selective blurring can be observed throughout the video, indicating possible editing or AI manipulation.

To further verify the clip, we scanned the viral video using the AI detection tool Sightengine. According to the results, the video showed an 86 percent probability of being AI-generated.

‍

‍

As part of the research , we also analysed the clip using another AI detection platform, UndetectableTM AI, which likewise indicated that the viral video was AI-generated.

‍

Conclusion

‍

Our research  found that the viral video claiming to show a leopard dragging away a passenger from a moving train is fake. The clip is AI-generated and does not depict a real incident.

‍