Today, smartphones are frequently sold through Equated Monthly Installment (EMI) by Financial lending institutions or small loan schemes, especially in developing countries where high upfront costs limits access. To secure repayments these financial lending institutions use custom software-based locks that restrict phone access when a payment default occurs. While these systems(locks) protect lenders, they pose major challenges for digital forensic to investigations, if such devices become crucial evidence in fraud or cybercrime cases. This research is based on a real criminal case involving a smartphone that was locked due to a pending loan repayment. The device (smartphone), a Vivo V2348, had active EMI-lock protection and file-based encryption. Using Cellebrite UFED Inseyets forensic tools in a live setup, a full data extraction was successfully performed. A complete and decrypted file system dump was obtained(extracted) from the locked phone, without bypassing or tampering with the device’s internal software. The extracted data was then thoroughly analyzed using Cellebrite Physical Analyzer, where all critical user information—such as application data, logs, contacts, messages, and media—was found to be intact. This case study proves that even when a phone is locked by EMI-based restrictions, digital forensic tools, when used correctly and lawfully, can recover essential evidence. It also confirms that original user data can be safely preserved, interpreted, and presented in a legally acceptable manner, maintaining both accuracy and integrity in forensic reporting.

This study confirms that full file system extraction from EMI-locked smartphones is both technically achievable and forensically sound when using tools like Cellebrite UFED. Despite interface-level restrictions by loan management apps, user data—including decrypted files and application content—can be accessed without altering or damaging evidence. These findings address a major forensic challenge and provide a validated method for lawful data recovery from financially locked Android devices.

1.Lessard, J., & Kessler, G. (2010). Android Forensics: Simplifying Cell Phone Examinations. Small Scale Digital Device Forensics Journal. 2.Hoog, A. (2011). Android Forensics: Investigation, Analysis, and Mobile Security for Google Android. Elsevier. 3.Satheesh Kumar, V., & Balakrishnan, V. (2019). A Review of Bypass Techniques for Android FRP Lock. IJEAT. 4.Quick, D., & Choo, K. K. R. (2014). Google Android Forensics: A Review of Forensic Features. Digital Investigation. 5.Azfar, A., Choo, K. K. R., & Liu, L. (2015). Forensic Taxonomy of Popular Android MDM Applications. Journal of Digital Forensics, Security and Law. 6.Azfar, A., Choo, K. K. R., & Liu, L. (2017). An Android Communication App Forensic Taxonomy. Future Generation Computer Systems. 7.Cellebrite. (2023). UFED Inseyets User Guide. Cellebrite Technical White Paper. 8.Islam, R., et al. (2022). Decrypting Android 10+ File-Based Encryption for Forensics: A Practical Analysis. Digital Investigation. 9.Kumar, P., & Singh, V. (2021). Loan Management Apps and Mobile Privacy: A Security Analysis. Journal of Mobile Security. Casey, E. (2011). Digital Evidence and Computer Crime: Forensic Science, Computers, and the Internet. Elsevier.

© 2025 International Journal of Engineering and Techniques (IJET).

Digital Object Identifier (DOI)

IJET assigns a unique DOI to every accepted article via Zenodo for persistent linking and citation. Your article’s DOI: https://doi.org/{{doi}}

Open DOI About Zenodo DOI

Close