Skip to main content

The reporting experiences and support needs of victims of online fraud

Cross, Cassandra ; Richards, Kelly ; Smith, Russell (2016) — Australian Institute of Criminology eBooks

View Original Source (opens in a new tab)

DOI: 10.52922/ti148355 (opens in a new tab)

Country:   Australia
Tags:   AI-Enabled Fraud, Australia, Fraud Reporting, Online Fraud, Psychology, Romance Scams, Scamwatch, Support Needs, Victim Experience, Victim Impacts
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
                

            

                    

                
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:
                                    
                                
    • 
                                                    

                    
                                        

                

                            

                    
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:
                                    
                                
    • 
                                                            
  • 
                                    Synopsis generation 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

            
This publication presents the results of in-depth interviews with a sample of 80 individuals from across Australia who lodged complaints about online fraud involving losses of $10,000 or more over the preceding four years. The narratives illustrate the financial impact of fraud and the breadth of consequences for victims, including emotional, psychological, interpersonal, and physical effects connected to their victimization. The accounts also convey the practical and social repercussions of pursuing a report, highlighting how reporting the crime intersects with daily life, relationships, and well-being. A central focus is the barriers victims faced when reporting online fraud. The paper documents the obstacles within reporting processes and the challenges victims encountered in seeking assistance and redress. By foregrounding victim experiences, the study connects individual accounts to broader questions about the adequacy of available support and the responsiveness of systems charged with assisting victims of cyber-enabled crime. The work ultimately identifies the support needs of victims of online fraud, aiming to inform improvements in services, guidance, and policy responses. The emphasis is on aligning responses to address both emotional and practical repercussions and on reducing barriers to reporting, so that victims can access appropriate assistance and achieve better outcomes. The publication offers a grounded, source-based portrait of victim experiences and outlines areas where enhanced support may be warranted.

          

        
                  

            
Identified Gaps

            
The paper addresses a prior lack of Australian interview-based research with online-fraud victims. Its findings also indicate gaps in clear reporting pathways, agency role information, empathetic victim handling, and accessible formal and informal support. Because participants were already official reporters, the experiences and needs of unreported victims remain less clear.

          

        
                  

            
Methods

            
The study used in-depth, semi-structured, primarily face-to-face interviews with 80 self-selected Australian Scamwatch complainants aged 18 or older who had reported losses of at least $10,000. Interviews were digitally recorded in almost all cases, transcribed verbatim, and coded in NVivo. Recruitment covered major Australian cities during specified 2011-2014 or 2012-2014 reporting periods.

          

        
                  

            
Limitations

            
The sample was self-selected and restricted to Scamwatch reporters with losses of $10,000 or more who agreed to future contact. It excluded smaller jurisdictions and did not represent the many fraud victims who do not report. Consequently, the severity of impacts and reasons for reporting may not generalize to all online-fraud victims.

          

        
                  

            
Future Work

            
Future work should evaluate whether centralized reporting systems are adequately resourced and whether staff training improves responses to online-fraud victims. Research should also assess consistent prevention messages, dating-site risk information, and information about recovery-fraud revictimization.

          

              

    
    

        
Related Research Insights

        

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