Skip to main content

Romance Scam Statistics 2024-2026: verified, source-attributed figures from FBI IC3, FTC, City of London Police, Cybermalveillance.gouv.fr, GASA and Chainalysis (Baromètre 2026 des arnaques sentimentales)

Le Normand, Valentin (2026) — Zenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research)

Source monitoring coverage

Checked Oct 13, 2026 18:15 UTC — no notice found.

DataCite identity and deposited events checked. DataCite incoming relationships checked. Zenodo record and latest version checked. No explicit source-update notice identified in the checked information. Coverage is incomplete and does not certify source validity. Routine version changes do not trigger writing.

Citation activity

Total citations · Google Scholar
Unavailable
Average per calendar year
Citation count unavailable

Counts reflect Google Scholar’s coverage and do not measure research quality. Source, calculation and limitations

This is an RSRC catalog record. The original source provides the dataset and its terms of use.

License listed in source metadata: Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (opens in a new tab)

DataCite source metadata checked Oct 13, 2026.

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. 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
Not applicable
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: 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

No public synopsis is displayed, so no synopsis check result applies to this page.

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.

Identified Gaps

Reported figures substantially understate prevalence and losses because many victims do not report. No recent study reliably quantifies the reporting rate. Classification differences between agencies and the separation of investment fraud from romance fraud hinder comparison and obscure the scale of romance-initiated pig-butchering schemes.

Methods

This is a descriptive cross-national compilation of reported romance-fraud statistics and trends. It synthesizes figures attributed to government, law-enforcement, industry, and anti-scam sources, including the FTC, FBI IC3, ACCC, City of London Police, CAFC, Global Anti-Scam Alliance, and Chainalysis. It compares reported losses, complaints, demographics, payment methods, platforms, and emerging tactics across years and jurisdictions.

Limitations

The article relies on reported cases, while it states that a large majority of victims do not report. Agency reporting systems and offense categories differ, making figures non-comparable in some cases. Romance-initiated investment fraud may be counted as investment fraud rather than romance fraud. Some claims are presented as summarized source findings without underlying methodological detail in the supplied text.

Future Work

Develop reliable estimates of romance-scam reporting rates and total victimization. Improve measurement of romance-initiated investment fraud, which may be classified separately from traditional romance fraud. Strengthen data collection so governments and platforms can make policy decisions using more complete evidence.

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