The ryots complained that moneylenders were devious and deceitful. They accused moneylenders of manipulating laws and forging accounts. Specifically, they complained that moneylenders refused to give receipts when loans were repaid, entered fictitious figures in bonds, acquired peasants' harvest at low prices, and ultimately took over peasants' property. They also protested against the practice of forcing ryots to sign new bonds every three years, where the unpaid balance (original loan plus accumulated interest) was entered as principal for calculating fresh interest charges.

The harvest taken by moneylenders was not credited to the peasants' account because moneylenders used this as one of the means to short-change the ryot. By acquiring the peasants' harvest at low prices and not properly crediting it, moneylenders ensured that peasants remained trapped in debt. This manipulation of accounts allowed moneylenders to keep extracting more from the peasants.

Peasants were not given receipts because moneylenders deliberately refused to give receipts when loans were repaid. This was a calculated strategy to short-change the ryot. Without receipts, peasants had no proof of repayment, making it impossible for them to contest the moneylenders' claims in court. This kept peasants perpetually indebted and dependent on moneylenders.

If I were a moneylender, I would argue that these practices were necessary for risk management. The revenue demand had increased dramatically (50-100 per cent), prices were falling, and credit had dried up. I had no confidence in the ryots' capacity to repay. The Limitation Law of 1859 required new bonds every three years, so I was following legal procedures. Without proper documentation and security, I would face financial losses, and the customary practices were necessary to protect my interests.