Skip to main content

Romanssihuijaus - rakkauden varjolla tehty kyberrikos

Riikka Kanervo ; Maria Normann ; Helmi Korhonen (2025) — Kriminologia

View Original Source (opens in a new tab)

DOI: 10.54332/krim.176443 (opens in a new tab)

Type:   Journal Article
Country:   Finland
Tags:   AI Deepfakes, AI-Enabled Fraud, Finland, Online Fraud, Organized Crime, Repeat Victimization, Romance Scams, Social Engineering, Victim Support
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

                    

                    
An authenticated administrator approved the bibliographic record for public Library display. This is not a review of every research claim.


                                            
    
                                                            
  • 
                                    Approved for public display:
                                    
                                
    • 
                                                    

                    
                                        

                

                            

                    
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 paper analyzes romance scams as a distinct and serious form of cybercrime, emphasizing that these schemes rely on emotional manipulation rather than purely financial deception. Offenders build fabricated romantic relationships through fake profiles, sustained communication, and deep social-engineering tactics, ultimately persuading victims to send money, disclose sensitive information, or unknowingly participate in crimes such as money laundering. The authors show how technological advances—including AI and deepfakes—have made scam operations increasingly sophisticated and locally tailored. Crucially, they argue that romance scams are not isolated acts but part of large, international criminal infrastructures operating from scam hubs in West Africa and Southeast Asia, sometimes linked to human trafficking and industrialized “fraud factories.” Despite their scope, romance scams remain statistically invisible in Finland because they are not recorded as a separate crime category and victims often refrain from reporting due to shame or self-blame. Drawing on data from the Finnish Nettideittiturva project, the authors identify common victim profiles—young adults isolated during the pandemic, middle-aged individuals in stagnant relationships, and older adults with limited digital literacy—highlighting that victims typically experience acute emotional distress, including shame, grief, and financial hardship. The paper underscores that the psychological loss of the imagined relationship often outweighs the financial loss, aligning romance fraud with dynamics seen in intimate-partner abuse. The authors conclude that Finland’s support systems and public awareness are insufficient and that effective prevention requires recognizing romance scams as a unique crime type, improving victim services, enhancing professional training, and acknowledging the broader societal impacts, including repeat victimization and cross-border criminal networks.

          

        
                  

            
Identified Gaps

            
Romance-scam research remains limited, with fragmented cybercrime classifications and theories that inadequately capture relational and cyber-intimacy features. Existing victim studies use relatively small, partly contradictory samples. The literature lacks evidence on recovery, support and prevention effectiveness, reporting, disengagement, repeat victimization, and links to grooming/exploitation. Western-European and North-American dominance also limits global and theoretical perspectives.

          

        
                  

            
Methods

            
This Finnish viewpoint article reviews international research on online romance scams and considers the phenomenon from Finland’s perspective. It also presents practice-based knowledge accumulated through the national Nettideittiturva project. Between March 2023 and September 2025, the project encountered 194 victims and relatives; staff observations and recurring client-contact patterns informed three descriptive victim-group profiles. No formal sampling, coding, or statistical analytic procedure is reported.

          

        
                  

            
Limitations

            
The article characterizes the wider evidence base as limited: victim-study samples are relatively small and findings partly contradictory. Its own project-derived profiles are based on workers’ experiences and recurring observations in client encounters, rather than a reported systematic research design. Romance scams are not separately recorded as a crime type in Finland, and underreporting and classification overlap with investment fraud constrain prevalence and loss estimates.

          

        
                  

            
Future Work

            
Prioritize research on recovery processes, support-service effectiveness, preventive-measure effectiveness, reporting behaviour, disengagement from scam relationships, and repeat-victimization risk. Further work should examine links between romance fraud and grooming/exploitation crimes, and vulnerability in relation to neurodiversity, psychiatric disorders, and addiction. Research should also diversify beyond Western theoretical frameworks.

          

              

    
    

        
Related Research Insights

        

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