General Provisions
Consent isn't valid consent under the Sanhita if: given under fear of injury or a factual misconception the person doing the act knows/should know caused it; given by someone unable to understand it due to unsoundness of mind/intoxication; or given by someone under 12 (unless context shows otherwise).
This is a crucial fraud-relevant provision: "consent" obtained through fear, deception about the facts, or from someone unable to genuinely understand what they're agreeing to, doesn't count as real legal consent - it's treated as if no valid consent was given at all.
If a scammer tricks a victim into "consenting" to a money transfer by deceiving them about the true nature of the transaction (a factual misconception the scammer created and knows about), that consent is legally invalid - it doesn't protect the scammer from criminal liability for the resulting harm.