Skip to main content

Legal Protection for Victims of Love Scam Crimes

Original title: PERLINDUNGAN HUKUM BAGI KORBAN KEJAHATAN LOVE SCAM

Document language: Indonesian. English title translated for RSRC.

Nindi Bimantari ; Sekaring Ayumeida Kusnadi ; Fifin Dwi Purwaningtyas (2023) — Jurnal Ilmu Hukum Wijaya Putra

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


              
              

Transparency

Evidence and review status

This page contains AI-generated content. Human review is recorded for the synopsis only; no human review is recorded for the other AI research notes, and no 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
Editor override
Administrative approval
Yes
Human content review
Synopsis only
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 automated gate raised issues. An authenticated editor approved this exact synopsis for display.

  • Automated check recorded:
  • Editor decision recorded:
View issues reviewed (1)
  • The source does not appear to be English, so lexical source matching requires editorial review.
Administrative approval

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

Human content review

An authenticated editor reviewed the displayed synopsis. No human review is recorded for the other AI-generated research notes.

  • Human review recorded:
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 is normative legal research based on primary, secondary, and tertiary legal materials. It uses statutory and conceptual approaches, reviewing applicable laws and legal doctrines concerning love-scam offences and victim protection in Indonesia. Love scams are defined as online romance fraud in which offenders feign love to obtain personal gain and cause victim losses. The paper describes two scam patterns: soliciting purported business capital and coercing money through threats to distribute intimate images or videos. The study is doctrinal and literature-based: it examines legal materials and regulations rather than collecting victim, offender, police, platform, or court data.

Identified Gaps

Indonesia lacks a specific statutory definition or dedicated law governing love scams; the paper identifies this as a legal weakness. It also states that prevention, enforcement, and oversight remain weak, while few victims report cases, contributing to increasing incidence.

Methods

This is normative legal research based on primary, secondary, and tertiary legal materials. It uses statutory and conceptual approaches, reviewing applicable laws and legal doctrines concerning love-scam offences and victim protection in Indonesia.

Limitations

The study is doctrinal and literature-based: it examines legal materials and regulations rather than collecting victim, offender, police, platform, or court data. Thus, its claims about prevalence, reporting, and implementation are not empirically tested within this study.

Future Work

The paper recommends government socialization/education on the dangers and warning signs of love scams, especially for social-media users seeking partners, to improve caution and reduce victimization.

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