Skip to main content

Meeting you was a fake: investigating the increase in romance fraud during COVID-19

David Buil-Gil ; Yongyu Zeng (2021) — Journal of Financial Crime

View Original Source (opens in a new tab)

DOI: 10.1108/jfc-02-2021-0042 (opens in a new tab)

Type:   Journal Article
Country:   United Kingdom
Tags:   Action Fraud, AI-Enabled Fraud, Arima, Covid 19, Internet Use, Law Enforcement, Loneliness, Measurement, Older Adults, Online Dating, Risk Factors, Romance Scams, Victim Experience, Victim Support, Victimization
What do these research terms mean?
Preprint
A manuscript shared before formal peer review and publication. Check whether a later published version is available.
Dataset
A collection of data or examples for others to inspect or reuse. It can appear in Library search and topic mapping, but RSRC does not use dataset records as evidence in Research Insights.
Dissertation or thesis
Research submitted for an academic degree. This describes its format, not its reliability.
Journal article
An article published in a journal. This label alone does not establish peer review, study quality, or how well the findings apply elsewhere.
Qualitative research
Examines experiences, meanings, or processes, often through interviews or observations. It can explain how something happens without estimating how common it is.
Quantitative research
Uses numerical measurements to describe patterns or test relationships. A relationship between two measurements does not by itself show that one causes the other.
Systematic review
Uses a planned, documented method to find and assess research addressing a question. Its conclusions still depend on the included studies and what the search covered.
Meta-analysis
Statistically combines results from multiple studies. Combining studies does not remove weaknesses in their design or make unlike populations interchangeable.
Not classified
This record has no recognized label in this filter. It does not mean the publication used no method, or that no research exists.

Definitions draw on DataCite resource types; Cochrane review methods; NLM: association and causation. RSRC’s dataset and classification rules are explained in our methodology.

Citation tools
Download RIS Download BibTeX 


              
              

            

          

        


      

      

    

        
Transparency

        
Evidence and review status

        
This page contains AI-generated content. No human content review or subject-matter-expert review is recorded.

    


    

                    

                
Source basis

                

                    Downloaded PDF
                

            

                    

                
Source updates

                

                    No notice found at last check
                

            

                    

                
AI-generated page content

                

                    Yes
                

            

                    

                
Automated checks

                

                    Passed
                

            

                    

                
Administrative approval

                

                    Yes
                

            

                    

                
Human content review

                

                    Not recorded
                

            

                    

                
Subject-matter-expert review

                

                    Not recorded
                

            

            


    

        
            How this was prepared
        
        

                            

                    
Source basis

                    

                    
RSRC downloaded and privately stored a copy of the paper for internal analysis. The PDF is not offered to viewers from this page.


                                            
    
                                                            
  • 
                                    PDF added to RSRC:
                                    
                                
    • 
                                                    

                    
                                        

                

                            

                    
Source updates

                    

                    
No incoming update notice was found in the dated Crossref response. Coverage is incomplete, particularly for corrections and expressions of concern; this is not a guarantee that the source is valid or unchanged.


                                            
    
                                                            
  • 
                                    Last source-status attempt:
                                    
                                
    • 
                                                    

                    
                                        

                

                            

                    
AI-generated page content

                    

                    
AI-generated research notes displayed on this page: Synopsis, Identified gaps, Methods, Limitations, Future work. The paper itself is not described as AI-generated.


                                            
    
                                                            
  • 
                                    Document analysis recorded:
                                    
                                
    • 
                                                            
  • 
                                    Page record updated:
                                    
                                
    • 
                                                    

                    
                                        

                

                            

                    
Automated checks

                    

                    
The current, source-bound synopsis passed the recorded versioned publication checks.


                                            
    
                                                            
  • 
                                    Checks completed:
                                    
                                
    • 
                                                    

                    
                                            

                            
                                View passed checks (3)
                            
                            
    
                                                                    
  • Length, completeness, repetition, refusal, boilerplate, and active-markup screening
    • 
                                                                    
  • Numerical claims checked against the available source text
    • 
                                                                    
  • English-source lexical grounding check
    • 
                                                            

                        

                                        

                

                            

                    
Administrative approval

                    

                    
The record is approved for public display, but a complete historical administrator action is not recorded.


                    
                                        

                

                            

                    
Human content review

                    

                    
No human review is recorded for the AI-generated content displayed on this page.


                    
                                        

                

                            

                    
Subject-matter-expert review

                    

                    
RSRC has not recorded review of this content by a subject-matter or methods expert.


                    
                                        

                

                    

    


    

        Review-state definitions

        Found a possible error?
        Request a correction.
    



    



              

        
                  

            
Synopsis

            
This study modeled monthly U.K. Action Fraud romance-fraud reports from April 2014 through December 2020 and Understanding Society estimates of loneliness and daily internet use. ARIMA forecasts based on pre-pandemic trends showed that reported romance fraud rose sharply after March 2020 and remained above the upper prediction interval through December; the increase was more abrupt among younger adults. Only people aged 16-29 showed loneliness above forecast levels, while adults 50 and older, especially those over 70, showed unusually large increases in daily internet use. These parallel time trends do not establish that loneliness or internet use caused fraud growth. Underreporting, limited subgroup periods, a single loneliness item, and sparse internet-use waves constrain interpretation.

          

        
                  

            
Identified Gaps

            
Before this study, official UK sources indicated increased romance fraud after March 2020, but no evaluation had established its extent or whether it reflected COVID-related restrictions rather than pre-existing growth. The study also identifies a need for individual-level evidence on relationships among loneliness, internet use, and fraud victimisation, because its aggregate time-series approach cannot test causal or correlational associations. More detailed demographic analyses and cross-national replication are needed.

          

        
                  

            
Methods

            
The study analysed monthly UK Action Fraud romance-fraud reports from April 2014–December 2020 and Understanding Society survey estimates of loneliness and daily internet use from January 2017–November 2020. Univariate ARIMA models, fitted to pre-COVID trends, generated 95% prediction intervals to assess whether pandemic-period values exceeded expected variation. It compared detailed Action Fraud records for November–December 2019 versus the same months in 2020 using Poisson mean tests. Analyses were conducted in R using the forecast package.

          

        
                  

            
Limitations

            
Police-recorded fraud data are affected by victim underreporting and police underrecording, creating measurement error. Detailed victim characteristics were available only for the final 13 months, limiting subgroup comparisons to November–December 2019 and 2020. The design cannot establish causal or correlational relationships between loneliness, internet use, and romance fraud. Internet use could only be compared with September 2020 because the measure appeared in only COVID survey wave 5. Loneliness was measured by one frequency item rather than the 20-item UCLA scale.

          

        
                  

            
Future Work

            
Use survey data and individual-level survey microdata to assess COVID-19’s effect on fraud and test associations between loneliness, internet use, and victimisation. Use the 20-item UCLA loneliness scale where feasible. Replicate the study in other countries and examine variation by victims’ sex, ethnicity, and language skills. The authors also recommend awareness campaigns, cross-jurisdictional investigative collaboration, partnerships with NGOs and educational institutions, and platform flagging systems.

          

              

    
    

        
Related Research Insights

        

            See how this publication connects to RSRC's living evidence syntheses through current citations and research-topic mapping.