Skip to main content

A Quantitative Analysis on the Sentencing Disparity in Online Romance Scam Cases in United States: A Focal Concern Theory Perspective

Fangzhou Wang (2024) — Crime & Delinquency

View Original Source (opens in a new tab)

DOI: 10.1177/00111287241266561 (opens in a new tab)

Type:   Journal Article
Country:   United States
Tags:   AI-Enabled Fraud, Cross Cultural, Cybercrime, Federal Courts, Focal Concern Theory, Pacer Monitor, Romance Scams, Sentencing Disparity, United States, Victim Experience
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

            
The study quantitatively analyzed 148 U.S. federal sentencing memorandums for unique online romance-scam offenders (2016-2023), identified through DOJ searches and PACER Monitor records. It operationalized focal-concern variables (blameworthiness, community protection, practical constraints) and defendant demographics. Sentencing outcomes were primarily influenced by legal considerations. Older or female defendants had significantly reduced imprisonment time. Findings are correlational and may omit relevant influences.

          

        
                  

            
Identified Gaps

            
Research on post-offending legal treatment of online romance scammers, including apprehended-offender characteristics, guideline application, and sentencing fairness, is scant. Focal concern theory has not been applied to U.S. cybercrime convictions, and U.S. romance-scam sentencing research is limited by few prosecuted cases and difficult access to legal documents. Public statistics also provide little information on apprehension and prosecution rates. The study further identifies missing ethnicity data and unclear case-level information on victim numbers and offender-specific losses.

          

        
                  

            
Methods

            
The study quantitatively analyzed 148 U.S. federal sentencing memorandums for unique online romance-scam offenders (2016–2023), identified through DOJ searches and PACER Monitor records. It operationalized focal-concern variables (blameworthiness, community protection, practical constraints) and defendant demographics. Negative binomial regression modeled imprisonment length; binary logistic regression modeled non-imprisonment sanctions. A collinearity assessment found mean VIF=1.75.

          

        
                  

            
Limitations

            
Findings are correlational and may omit relevant influences. Restricted legal-document information prevented inclusion of attorney presence, court-level factors, judges’ attitudes, and more detailed defendant backgrounds. Defrauded-money values may not reliably reflect an individual offender’s losses because proceeds can result from collective activity. The sample was constrained to 148 available sentencing memorandums from 344 identified offenders; only 19 defendants received non-imprisonment sentences, and unusually large odds ratios may reflect small samples and group differences.

          

        
                  

            
Future Work

            
Use diverse methods to test observed sentencing associations: content-analyze sentencing transcripts, survey/interview judges, and qualitatively examine extensive records. Replicate with larger, more comprehensive datasets containing additional practical-constraint variables and detailed ethnicity data. Examine unmeasured factors and obtain direct judicial perspectives. Improve court investigations of victim counts and offender-specific losses; strengthen international police collaboration; and consider unified online-fraud legislation with clear definitions, penalties, and sentencing guidance.

          

              

    
    

        
Related Research Insights

        

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