Fake Experience Certificate Trap — Employees, HR & Companies

A 31-year-old SAP consultant in Pune walks in with a “9-year experience” stamped letter from a Bengaluru IT firm that closed in 2018. The hiring manager loves him. The offer is rolled out. Weeks later, the background-verification (BGV) report flags two things: the EPFO UAN history shows only 4.5 years of contributory service, and the issuing company's MCA records confirm it was struck off the Register of Companies in March 2018 — before the “relieving letter” was dated. The offer is withdrawn, his PAN is added to the NASSCOM National Skills Registry (NSR) shared “do-not-hire” database, and a criminal complaint is filed under BNS, 2023 §318 (cheating), §336 (forgery) and §340 (using a forged document as genuine). This page explains how the fake-experience-certificate trap snaps on employees, HR consultancies, and hiring companies — and what each must do to stay on the right side of the BNS, 2023, the IT Act 2000, the EPF & MP Act 1952, and the Companies Act 2013.

A “fake experience certificate” in India is any relieving letter, experience letter, salary slip, Form 16, offer letter, or bank salary credit that misrepresents employment that never happened, was for a shorter period, was at a lower salary, or was issued by an entity that did not legally employ the person. Verification destroys it in three checks: (1) EPFO UAN passbook + member service history at unifiedportal-mem.epfindia.gov.in cross-checked against the claimed employer's PF establishment code; (2) Form 26AS + AIS on the income-tax portal at incometax.gov.in showing TDS deducted by the claimed employer; (3) MCA21 + GST search confirming the issuing company was a live taxpayer with PF + ESI registration on the date the “relieving letter” was dated. Penalty for the employee: termination + criminal case + industry blacklist (NSR) + visa refusal. Penalty for the HR consultancy that issues the letter: criminal case + GST + income-tax action + MCA strike-off. Penalty for the employer that issued the false letter: Companies Act §447 (fraud) + BNS §318, §336, §340 + EPF §14, plus director-disqualification under §164(2) of the Companies Act 2013.

• What counts as a fake experience certificate
• The supply chain — who sells, who buys, who suffers
• The 4-minute verification drill any HR can run
• How the employee gets trapped
• How the HR consultancy or placement agency gets trapped
• How the hiring company gets trapped
• The eight red flags on any experience letter
• If you discover a fake — first 14 days
• Sample internal-inquiry notice to employee
• Sample RTI to EPFO for UAN cross-verification
• Sample complaint to MCA Registrar of Companies
• FAQ
• Myth vs reality

Any one of these falls inside BNS, 2023 §318 (cheating), §336 (forgery), §340 (using forged document as genuine) read with IT Act 2000 §66D when issued/transmitted electronically:

• A relieving letter for an employment that never happened.
• A relieving letter that inflates duration (e.g., “Apr 2019 – May 2023” when actual employment was Sep 2021 – May 2023).
• A salary certificate / pay-slip / Form 16 showing CTC higher than what was actually paid.
• A letter issued by a company that did not exist on the dates shown (struck off, dissolved, or incorporated later).
• A letter signed by a “Director / HR Head” who was not a director or employee at that date per MCA / EPFO records.
• A letter from a dummy “shell” company floated only to issue experience letters — no GST, no PF, no real payroll.
• Doctored Form 16 (TRACES-generated PDF altered) — a separate offence under IT Act §66 + §66D and Income-Tax Act §277.
• A bank statement modified to show “salary credit” from the claimed employer when no such credit happened.

Warning — Even an embellished experience letter — same employer, real dates, but inflated salary or designation — is forgery. The “I only added 6 months” defence has no legal standing under BNS, 2023 §336. The offence is the act of falsification, not the size of the lie.

Operates as: a sole-proprietorship “HR Consultancy” or “Career Solutions” firm with a one-room office in an IT corridor. Sells “packages” — a relieving letter, sometimes bundled with pay-slips, a forged Form 16, and a reference-call answering service. Prices vary widely, from tens of thousands to several lakh rupees depending on how much “documentation” is bundled.

1. Lateral switcher wants extra years to clear an IT-services hiring band.
2. Foreign-job aspirant needs “post-qualification experience” for an H-1B / Australia 482 / Germany Blue Card visa.
3. Career-gap concealer wants to cover months or years of unemployment, illness, family caregiving, or a failed startup.

1. The employee: criminal case + termination + industry blacklist + visa refusal + potential PF / TDS demands.
2. The HR consultancy: criminal case + MCA strike-off + GST + income-tax action.
3. The receiving employer: regulatory penalty (especially listed firms under SEBI LODR), director liability under Companies Act §447, brand damage, and — in regulated sectors (banking, audit, healthcare, defence) — licence issues.

Ask the candidate for the UAN (12-digit Universal Account Number) and login to unifiedportal-mem.epfindia.gov.in → Member Passbook. The passbook lists every contributing establishment with PF Establishment Code, member ID, date of joining, date of exit, and monthly wage on which PF was deducted. Cross-check with the experience letter — dates and the employer's PF establishment code must match. A fake employer almost never has a real EPFO establishment code with PF contributions in the candidate's name on the claimed dates.

Ask the candidate for a recent Form 26AS and AIS download from incometax.gov.in → Services → Annual Information Statement. Form 26AS shows TDS deducted by every employer against the candidate's PAN. Match the employer's TAN with the claimed employer. A fake employer has no TDS entries.

Open mca.gov.in → MCA Services → View Company / LLP Master Data. Enter the issuing entity's CIN or name. Confirm: (a) status is “Active” on the date of the letter; (b) registered office matches the letterhead; © directors listed on the date match the signatory. Cross-check on services.gst.gov.in → Search Taxpayer for an active GSTIN. A struck-off company cannot issue a relieving letter.

For IT / ITES candidates, query the National Skills Registry at nationalskillsregistry.com (run by NSDL-NDML for NASSCOM). Many IT majors share BGV outcomes — a candidate flagged once for a fake certificate at one employer surfaces at the next.

Why this matters — For listed entities, a failed BGV becomes a Companies Act §134(5)(e) internal-financial-control failure that surfaces in the auditor's report. Treating verification as optional is the costliest mistake an HR team can make.

• BNS §318 (cheating) — for inducing an employer to hire and pay salary, up to 7 years imprisonment + fine.
• BNS §336(3) (forgery for cheating) — up to 7 years + fine.
• BNS §340 (using a forged document as genuine) — same punishment as the forgery itself.
• IT Act §66D (cheating by personation using a computer resource) — up to 3 years + ₹1 lakh fine.
• Indian Stamp Act / state laws — if a stamp paper / notarised affidavit is involved.

Under §17 of the Indian Contract Act 1872, an employment contract obtained by fraud is voidable at the option of the employer. Companies routinely terminate without notice, recover the salary paid + joining bonus + relocation, and forfeit the entire ESOP grant. Courts have repeatedly upheld summary dismissal where fraudulent misrepresentation in employment amounts to moral turpitude.

Once a fake certificate surfaces:

• NASSCOM NSR flag against PAN — visible to subscriber companies across Indian IT.
• Internal “do-not-hire” flags carried by BGV vendors and shared between employers.
• Reference-call network among CHROs — informal but effective.

A blacklist flag is not automatically erasable. Removal requires a formal representation with corroborating evidence to NSR and the original flagging employer.

• H-1B / H-1B1 / L-1 (USA) — “willful misrepresentation of a material fact” under INA §212(a)(6)(C)(i) — lifetime inadmissibility to the United States, removable only via a §212(i) waiver that requires “extreme hardship” to a US-citizen spouse / parent.
• Skilled Worker (UK) — a 10-year re-entry ban for deception under the Immigration Rules.
• Subclass 482 / 189 / 190 (Australia) — Public Interest Criterion 4020 — 3-year refusal + further bans.
• Express Entry (Canada) — 5-year inadmissibility for misrepresentation under IRPA §40.

If the employee also claimed PF withdrawal or filed an income-tax return showing the fake employer:

• EPF & MP Act 1952 §14 — fine and imprisonment for false statements in PF claims.
• Income-Tax Act §277 — wilful attempt to evade tax.
• Re-assessment under §148 can re-open concealment for earlier years.

Tip — If you have already used a fake experience certificate to obtain a job and the BGV has not yet completed, the least bad option is to come clean to HR before the BGV report flags it. Some companies treat voluntary disclosure as mitigation — a confidentiality + voluntary-resignation arrangement can avoid a criminal complaint. Once the BGV report is filed, the employer's hands are usually tied by internal compliance policy.

• BNS §61 (criminal conspiracy) for the consultancy + every signatory.
• BNS §318, §336, §340 for cheating + forgery + using forged documents.
• IT Act §66D + §66F for electronic issuance + transmission of forged instruments.
• Companies Act 2013 §447 (fraud) — minimum 6 months, up to 10 years + fine.
• PMLA 2002 — if proceeds are aggregated and laundered.

• Strike-off under Companies Act §248 for a shell company with no real operations.
• Director disqualification under §164(2) for 5 years.
• Personal liability under §447 survives strike-off.

• No real services rendered → “supply” without consideration → GST §74 (fraud) — penalty equal to tax + interest.
• Cash receipts > ₹2 lakh → Income-Tax §269ST — penalty equal to amount received.
• PMLA scheduled offence — properties of the directors can be attached.

When the receiving employer discovers the fake certificate, §17 + §19 of the Indian Contract Act 1872 allow recovery of salary, joining bonus, relocation, and consequential costs (BGV vendor fees, replacement-hiring costs) from the issuing consultancy as well as the employee.

Citizen tip — “HR Consultancy” firms operating from rented one-room offices with no GST registration, no listed directors on MCA, and a free webmail address as the only contact are almost always fronts. Before engaging any consultancy for “documentation services,” verify it on MCA + GST and ask for the partnership deed / incorporation certificate.

• Companies Act §134(5)(e) — directors' responsibility statement on “internal financial controls” — a failed BGV becomes a control failure.
• SEBI LODR — disclosure of code-of-conduct breaches involving key managerial personnel.
• SEBI (Prohibition of Fraudulent and Unfair Trade Practices) Regulations 2003 — issuance of false certificates by a listed employer is a fraud violation.

• Banking — RBI Master Direction on KYC + Fit-and-Proper criteria for officers.
• Insurance — IRDAI corporate-agent and intermediary regulations require employee BGV.
• Audit firms (ICAI) — articleship/employment fraud triggers disciplinary action under the CA Act.
• Healthcare — NMC Act 2019 + state medical council rules — a fake qualification triggers de-registration.
• Defence and PSU — MHA security-clearance withdrawal.

If the fake-experience employee was deployed at a client site (common in IT services, consulting, audit, BFSI), the client can pursue the staffing firm under §230 of the Contract Act 1872 and the Civil Procedure Code 1908 Order 1 Rule 8 class-action route.

When fake-certificate hires surface publicly, the affected employer typically bears BGV-vendor costs, replacement-hiring, relocation clawbacks, and client penalties — and in listed firms, reputational and shareholder fallout. The cost of not running verification is far larger than the cost of running it.

Genuine corporate letterheads carry CIN, GSTIN, registered-office address, PAN/TAN, and (often) MSME / Udyam number. A “letterhead” with only a logo and phone number is suspect.

The address on the letterhead must match the registered office address on MCA's Master Data within the period of employment. Frequent moves are documented on MCA via Form INC-22.

MCA Master Data → Signatories shows the directors and KMPs at any point. A signatory who is not on the list on the date of the letter is a red flag.

A genuine relieving letter often carries the PF number / UAN of the employee. Cross-check on the EPFO portal.

Genuine salary certificates carry the CTC structure: basic + HRA + special allowance + retirals. A flat “₹12,00,000 per annum” without breakdown is fraud-prone.

PDF properties → Description: a relieving letter for “Apr 2019” with “PDF created on 14-Feb-2026 with Foxit PDF Editor” is forgery. BGV tools routinely check PDF metadata.

An “HR Manager” reachable only on a personal mobile (no IVR, no extension routing, no company switchboard) is a reference-call answering service, not a real HR.

A genuine employer with many employees inevitably has a website, a LinkedIn corporate page, and an MCA filing history. Absence of all of these is a near-certain fraud.

Tip — Reverse-image-search the letterhead. Fake consultancies recycle the same template across “different” companies. The same signature appears on multiple letters issued by ostensibly different firms.

1. Day 1-2 — Pull your own EPFO UAN passbook, Form 26AS, AIS, and bank statements for the disputed period.
2. Day 3-5 — Consult an employment lawyer + (if relevant) an immigration lawyer.
3. Day 6-10 — If the misrepresentation is documented, prepare a voluntary disclosure letter to HR — most firms have a “self-disclosure” mitigation clause.
4. Day 11-14 — Negotiate a confidentiality-bound exit: voluntary resignation + garden leave + waiver of joining-bonus recovery in exchange for no FIR.

1. Day 1 — Suspend system access (revoke laptop, badge, VPN, SaaS tokens).
2. Day 2 — Trigger an internal-inquiry committee under the standing orders.
3. Day 3-5 — Issue a show-cause notice with copies of the certificate + the BGV report.
4. Day 6-10 — Hold the inquiry hearing; record findings.
5. Day 11-14 — Decide on: (a) termination + FIR + civil suit; or (b) voluntary resignation + confidentiality + minimal recovery. File a BNS §318 / §336 / §340 FIR at the local cyber-crime / EOW police station and lodge a NCRP complaint at cybercrime.gov.in if electronic transmission is involved. Keep the BGV report, the forged PDF, and email headers ready — if the matter goes to court, electronic evidence has to be produced with a certificate under BSA, 2023 §63 (formerly Evidence Act §65B).

The right answer is: refuse, and report the requester to NCRP. Issuing the letter brings the consultancy inside BNS §61 (conspiracy) + §318, §336, §340 + Companies Act §447. There is no business model in which the fee outweighs the criminal + GST + MCA exposure.

[On company letterhead]

Date: DD-MM-2026
Ref: HR/IR/2026/____

[Name]
[Address]

Subject: Show-cause notice — discrepancy in
         pre-employment documentation

This is in reference to your employment with the
Company as [Designation] vide offer letter dated
DD-MM-YYYY and joining on DD-MM-YYYY.

During the post-joining background verification
conducted by [BGV Vendor Name], the following
discrepancies have been identified against the
documents furnished by you at the time of joining:

1. The relieving letter dated DD-MM-YYYY purportedly
   issued by [Company X] could not be authenticated
   on the EPFO Member Passbook of UAN [____].
   The PF establishment code of [Company X] shows
   no contribution under your UAN for the period
   [Date A] to [Date B].

2. Form 26AS for AY [____] does not reflect any TDS
   credited against PAN [____] from [Company X].

3. MCA records confirm that [Company X] was struck
   off the Register of Companies under §248 of the
   Companies Act 2013 vide order dated DD-MM-YYYY,
   which is prior to the date of the relieving
   letter you have furnished.

In light of the above, you are called upon to show
cause within 7 (seven) working days from receipt of
this notice, why disciplinary action — including but
not limited to termination from service, recovery of
salary and joining bonus paid, and filing of a
criminal complaint under BNS §318, §336 and §340
read with IT Act §66D — should not be initiated
against you.

You may submit your written reply with documentary
evidence to the undersigned. Failure to respond
within the stipulated time will result in ex-parte
action.

For [Company Name]

___________________
Authorised Signatory
[Designation, HR]

PIO, Employees' Provident Fund Organisation
[Regional Office Address]

Sub: Application under §6(1) RTI Act 2005

Please furnish the following information in respect
of UAN [____] / Member ID [____] / PAN [____]:

1. The complete service history (date of joining,
   date of exit, monthly wage on which PF was
   deducted, member ID, and PF establishment code)
   for every contributing establishment from
   DD-MM-YYYY to DD-MM-YYYY.

2. Whether any contribution has been credited under
   the above UAN by establishment [PF Code ____]
   ([Establishment Name]) during the period
   DD-MM-YYYY to DD-MM-YYYY, and if so, the monthly
   wage and contribution amount for each month.

3. Whether establishment [PF Code ____] has filed
   ECR (Electronic Challan-cum-Return) for the
   above period and the date of last filing.

4. Whether any complaint or inspection has been
   undertaken in respect of the above establishment
   in the last 36 months, and the outcome thereof.

The above information is sought in connection with
[verification of a pre-employment relieving letter
issued by the said establishment / suspected
fraudulent EPF entry], and is required for ongoing
disciplinary / criminal proceedings.

A reply is requested under §7(1) within 30 days.
Postal Order of ₹10 (No. ____) is enclosed.

Yours sincerely,
___________________
[Name, designation, company,
 address, contact, e-mail]

The Registrar of Companies
[State]
Ministry of Corporate Affairs
Government of India

Sub: Complaint under §206 + §447 of the Companies
     Act 2013 against [Company Name] (CIN ____)
     for issuance of fraudulent employment
     documents and shell-company operations

Sir / Madam,

The undersigned has reason to believe that
[Company Name] (CIN ____) registered at
[Registered Office] is a shell entity engaged in
the issuance of fraudulent relieving letters,
salary slips and Form 16 documents to enable
candidates to misrepresent their employment history
to genuine employers across India.

The following are the specific grounds:

1. The Company has filed no EPFO ECR / no GST
   returns / no Income-Tax TDS since incorporation
   on DD-MM-YYYY, yet has issued multiple stamped
   relieving letters covering the said period.

2. The Company has issued the enclosed letter
   dated DD-MM-YYYY purporting to relieve
   [Name, PAN ____] from the post of [Designation].
   The recipient has separately confirmed that no
   actual employment subsisted on the stated dates.

3. The signatories on the enclosed letter — [Name],
   [Designation] — were not directors / KMPs of the
   Company on the date of the letter per MCA Master
   Data.

4. The registered office at [Address] is, on
   physical verification, a residential premises
   with no signage / no employee presence.

It is prayed that:

(a) An inspection under §206 of the Companies Act
    2013 be ordered into the affairs of the
    Company;

(b) Prosecution under §447 (fraud) read with
    BNS §318 / §336 / §340 be initiated against
    the directors / signatories;

(c) Strike-off under §248 be considered if the
    Company is found to be a shell;

(d) Director disqualification under §164(2) be
    invoked.

I am furnishing the enclosed documents in support.

Yours sincerely,
___________________
[Name, address, contact]

Annexure 1 — Disputed relieving letter
Annexure 2 — MCA Master Data screenshot
Annexure 3 — EPFO ECR-status screenshot
Annexure 4 — GSTIN search screenshot
Annexure 5 — Site-visit report / photos

• EPFO Unified Member Portal — unifiedportal-mem.epfindia.gov.in
• Income-Tax e-Filing + Form 26AS + AIS — incometax.gov.in
• MCA21 Master Data — mca.gov.in
• GST Taxpayer Search — services.gst.gov.in
• National Skills Registry (NASSCOM / NDML) — nationalskillsregistry.com
• NCRP — cybercrime.gov.in / helpline 1930 — cybercrime.gov.in
• BNS, 2023 — §61, §318, §336, §340
• Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA), 2023 — §63 (electronic records; §63(4) certificate, formerly Evidence Act §65B)
• IT Act 2000 — §66, §66D, §66F
• Companies Act 2013 — §134, §164, §206, §248, §447
• EPF & MP Act 1952 — §14
• Indian Contract Act 1872 — §17, §19, §230

Useful RTI Wiki tools and references:

• AI RTI Drafter — to draft the EPFO RTI above
• Fake university / degree scam India
• Fake job / executive-course scams India
• Fake LinkedIn recruiter scam India
• Fake immigration consultancy scam India
• RTI Act 2005 — complete guide

The purchase alone is part of a conspiracy under BNS §61 read with §318 / §336. Practically, prosecution begins when the document is used — submitted to an employer, an embassy, or a regulator. But once seized in any context (e.g., during an unrelated cyber-crime raid on the seller), the buyer's PAN is on the FIR.

Yes. BNS, 2023 §336 punishes the act of falsification, not the size of the lie. Even a one-day inflation is forgery.

Yes, under Indian Contract Act §17 + §19 — a contract obtained by fraud is voidable, and the party that suffered loss can recover restitution. Employers routinely recover salary + joining bonus + relocation.

No. PF accruals to your genuine UAN from real employers remain with EPFO. However, if you withdrew PF citing the fake employer, EPF & MP Act §14 comes into play.

Removal is procedural: file a representation to NSR + the flagging employer with corroborating evidence + a sworn affidavit. Voluntary disclosure + restitution can sometimes lead to early lifting.

For US H-1B, a willful-misrepresentation finding under INA §212(a)(6)(C)(i) is lifetime inadmissibility, removable only via a §212(i) hardship waiver. For Canada, IRPA §40 imposes a 5-year ban. For Australia, PIC 4020 imposes a 3-year ban with limited waivers.

You can complain under the Consumer Protection Act 2019 — but courts are reluctant to enforce contracts whose object is illegal (Contract Act §23). Practically, the recovery route is to turn approver and assist the police + GST authorities.

Yes. The Limitation Act 1963 gives a 3-year window for civil recovery from the date of knowledge, and there is no limitation on criminal prosecution for offences punishable with more than 3 years' imprisonment.

If you did not verify and did not collude, your liability is limited to refunding the placement fee + bearing the BGV vendor cost. Active collusion or wilful blindness brings the recruiter inside the criminal liability chain.

Yes — EPFO is a public authority under §2(h) of the RTI Act 2005. The candidate's own service history is “personal information,” but with the candidate's consent (or with a court order in an ongoing inquiry), the establishment-side data is disclosable in public interest.

Last reviewed: 17 July 2026.