Skip to main content

Meeting the Challenges of Fraud in a Digital World

Cassandra Cross (2022) — The Handbook of Security

Citation activity

Total citations · Google Scholar
18
Average per calendar year
3.6

Count checked .

18 citations ÷ 5 calendar years (2022–2026). The first and last years may be partial. This is a lifetime average, not a year-by-year citation history.

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

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
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:
  • 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

The publication surveys fraud in the digital era, foregrounding how technology and online environments have expanded both the reach and complexity of offending. It frames fraud as a cyber-enabled, cross-channel phenomenon that blends online and offline techniques, with offenders leveraging multiple communication platforms (email, social media, text, phone, in person) to deceive victims. The chapter’s purpose is to summarize what is known about fraud, including its categories, how it is perpetrated, who is vulnerable, and how policing, prevention, and victim support operate today. It emphasizes that despite long-standing recognition of fraud, the online context has created new challenges for law enforcement, policy makers, and service providers, underscoring the need to rethink current practices. The work highlights several prevalent fraud categories, including advance fee fraud, romance fraud, and business email compromise, and it explains common techniques such as social engineering and psychological abuse that exploit human vulnerabilities. It discusses who is vulnerable, noting that there is no universal victim profile and that risk can shift with life circumstances, age, and other factors. The analysis also covers harms beyond financial losses, including physical safety, emotional well-being, relationships, and reputation, and it addresses gaps in policing and victim support. Finally, it reviews prevention and response efforts, arguing for messaging that centers on the act of requesting money or information, rather than enumerating every possible scam, and it describes emerging support programs for fraud victims in several countries. The chapter notes ongoing challenges and the need for stronger evaluation, coordination, and resource allocation to reduce victimization and improve recovery.

Identified Gaps

The chapter identifies a paucity of evaluated fraud-prevention interventions despite the growing global fraud problem. It also describes inconsistent public prevention messaging, insufficient knowledge of fraud-specific banking red flags, and a global shortage of services supporting fraud victims' recovery. Evidence on whether older adults are more susceptible to fraud is mixed, although vulnerability may differ by fraud type.

Methods

Narrative handbook chapter synthesizing cited research, official fraud-loss reports, and examples of policing, prevention, and victim-support programs. It reviews fraud categories, offender tactics, victim vulnerability, harms, policing barriers, prevention, and support. Romance-fraud-specific claims draw on prior studies, including a cited analysis of 21 victim narratives.

Limitations

This is a broad, descriptive synthesis rather than a new empirical study. It does not report a systematic search, selection criteria, quality appraisal, or original data collection. Romance fraud is one category within a wider fraud review, so its claims are mainly based on cited prior research rather than detailed primary evidence in this chapter.

Future Work

Develop and rigorously evaluate fraud-prevention programs using robust measures of effectiveness. Test prevention messages that focus on requests for money or personal information rather than changing scam plotlines. Improve banks' understanding of victimization and identify transaction red flags relevant to authorized fraud transfers. Expand and resource victim-support services and staff training.

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