RBI restricted Paytm Payments Bank, then cancelled its licence
Paytm Payments Bank Ltd (One97 Communications associate) · Fintech / payments bank
The case in brief
Visible before detection
Checks that could have surfaced it, on hindsight
Regulatory & litigation records
Would have surfaced RBI directions from 2021 and the 2022 onboarding ban.
Can mislead when: Court records lag and name spellings vary. A clean record can mean the problem has not reached court yet.
Operating-metric verification
Would have shown 31 crore of 35 crore wallets inoperative.
Can mislead when: Contract staff do not appear in EPFO. Vahan access needs licensed APIs. Some businesses have no physical trace.
Governance signals
Would have flagged related-party dependence on the parent.
Can mislead when: Private companies file late, so these signals are lagging. Kubr uses them to support other flags, not to prove anything alone.
Where Kubr services would have helped
Portfolio monitor
Offered in India- C8 Would have surfaced RBI directions from 2021 and the 2022 onboarding ban.
- C10 Would have shown 31 crore of 35 crore wallets inoperative.
- C11 Would have flagged related-party dependence on the parent.
Verified Snapshot
Offered in India- C8 Would have surfaced RBI directions from 2021 and the 2022 onboarding ban.
- C11 Would have flagged related-party dependence on the parent.
Legal diligence support
Offered in India- C8 Would have surfaced RBI directions from 2021 and the 2022 onboarding ban.
- C11 Would have flagged related-party dependence on the parent.
Promoter profiles
Offered in India- C8 Would have surfaced RBI directions from 2021 and the 2022 onboarding ban.
- C11 Would have flagged related-party dependence on the parent.
Mapped from the checks each service runs. A hindsight reading of public records, not a promise that the failure would have been found.
Same pattern
A summary of public documents. It reports what the sources say. It is not Kubr's finding and not a statement of guilt.