Synopsis (AI-Generated)
Cross-border fraud represents a global challenge, spanning forms such as online retail fraud, pyramid schemes, romance fraud, and pig butchering. While there is clear evidence that these abuses are expanding across borders, there is relatively limited research detailing how extensive the problem is or identifying the most effective policing responses. This article aims to address that gap by examining what is currently known about the nature of cross-border fraud and the policing approaches that are in place today, with the aim of clarifying what works and what does not. In contrast to other cross-border crime areas where international bodies and nation-states engage through high-visibility, surface-level actions, responses to cross-border fraud have not attracted the same overt attention at the international level. Instead, policing activity tends to occur more within the private sector and operates largely below the public-facing radar, receiving less public profile. Moreover, although collaboration and coordination between public authorities and private sector actors are recognized as crucial, there are relatively few policing structures designed to bring these diverse actors together to counter cross-border fraud, revealing notable gaps in existing arrangements. To inform policy-makers, the study draws on examples of alternative governance structures that address cross-border economic crime. It uses these illustrations to map out key actions and organizational configurations that should be considered to enhance the global response to cross-border fraud. In doing so, the article seeks to outline practical structures and steps that could help bridge the public–private divide, improve coordination, and strengthen the overall policing response to this pervasive and evolving form of economic crime.
Identified Gaps (AI-Generated)
The paper identifies inadequate knowledge of the scale and nature of cross-border fraud, weak links between public and private actors, lack of globally recognised accreditation and training, insufficient global intelligence, no fraud-specific sanctions and disruption system, under-resourced international programmes, and limited capacity for cross-border investigations. It also notes a lack of reliable incident and origin data, making measurement difficult.
Methods (AI-Generated)
This is a non-primary, descriptive criminological mapping paper. It synthesises published scholarship, official reports, organisational materials, media reports, publicly available Interpol Red Notice data, and a UK freedom-of-information request on extradition. It compares the low operational friction faced by cross-border fraudsters with legal, jurisdictional, resource and coordination barriers faced by investigators, then maps state, international, private, NGO and voluntary responses and proposes institutional reforms.
Limitations (AI-Generated)
The paper states that high-quality data on the nature and extent of cross-border fraud are lacking. It cautions that available figures may be incomplete or inaccurate, including victim-perceived fraud origins, limited detail in official estimates, and extradition as only a rough indicator of investigative activity. Evidence on local prosecutions, disruption activity and private policing is difficult to obtain, so the mapping cannot provide definitive estimates of enforcement activity.
Future Work (AI-Generated)
Develop a global forum and accredited network linking law enforcement, private-sector and NGO actors; expand training, research and common terminology; consider a UNODC- or OECD-coordinated convention; increase Interpol-supported investigations and private-sector engagement; examine an EPPO-like model outside the EU; create fraud-specific sanctions and disruption arrangements; and establish a mechanism to share basic global intelligence and alerts.
AI-Generated Content Notice
The synopsis and research notes on this page were generated with AI from available publication information and, when available, the uploaded paper text. They may contain errors, omissions, or interpretation issues. Readers should follow the DOI or source link, review the original publication, and make their own judgment about the content.
Found a possible error? Request a correction.
