What is the exact legally safe language for warning the numismatic community about a fraudulent dealer?

The complete legally safe template

'Community notice — shared for information: On [date], I purchased [specific description: e.g., ₹10 Ranga Rao prefix 07A star note] from [dealer name / Instagram/Facebook/WhatsApp username] for ₹[amount]. Payment was made via UPI to [UPI ID], UTR number [UTR], on [date]. The item I received was [specific description of what arrived — e.g., a different denomination / lower-grade note / no item at all]. I contacted [dealer name] on [dates] requesting resolution; the matter was not resolved to my satisfaction.

I have [filed a consumer forum complaint, Case No. [X], at [District Consumer Commission] / filed an FIR, No. [Y], at [police station] / filed a cybercrime complaint, Ref. [Z]]. I am sharing this so that other members of this community can make informed decisions before transacting with this person. I encourage anyone with a similar experience to file their own complaint through appropriate channels.'

Why each element provides protection

'On [date]... I purchased': First-person, specific, dated — my own experience, not hearsay. 'UTR number [UTR]': The single most powerful piece of evidence — the UTR links the payment to the recipient's bank account irrevocably. Anyone who doubts the statement can verify the UTR. 'The item I received was [specific]': Factual description of what happened — not a legal conclusion about why it happened. 'I contacted [dealer] on [dates]': Documents that a resolution was attempted — shows good faith and completeness. 'I have filed [complaint]': This transforms the warning from an allegation into a report of an already-initiated legal process. The complaint existence can be verified.

'So that other members can make informed decisions': this states the protective purpose of the warning explicitly. It is a phrase that courts have consistently recognised as indicating public interest rather than malicious intent. 'I encourage anyone with a similar experience to file their own complaint': this encourages legal action, not mob justice — it directs others to formal channels rather than collective action against the dealer.

What to avoid — and why

'This person is a fraud / scammer / criminal': legal conclusions require conviction. A dealer who has not been convicted of fraud cannot be called a fraud — the term is legally loaded. Describe what happened; let others draw their own conclusions. 'Everyone should avoid / boycott this dealer': a call to collective action goes beyond personal experience and can be treated as an organised campaign of harm. 'I heard from others that...': hearsay. If others want to share their experiences, let them do so — do not aggregate and republish unverified third-party claims as if you had verified them personally. 'This is not the first time': unless you personally know this from first-hand evidence (not community gossip), this is an assertion you cannot prove and should not make.

Laws & authorities referenced in this chapter

BNS 2023 — §356 Exception 1 (truth + public good: complete defamation defence for specific, factual, first-person warnings)

Consumer Protection Act 2019 — consumer's right to share experience; specific factual reviews are protected

Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015) — IT Act §66A unconstitutional; truth-based consumer warnings cannot be prosecuted under this provision

IT (Intermediary Guidelines) Rules 2021 — platform takedown mechanism; truth is a defence to takedown complaints