Skip to main content

“More intelligent, less emotive and more greedy”: Hierarchies of blame in online fraud

Nataraj-Hansen, Shalini (2024) — International Journal of Law, Crime and Justice

View Original Source (opens in a new tab)

DOI: 10.1016/j.ijlcj.2024.100652 (opens in a new tab)

Type:   Journal Article
Country:   Australia
Tags:   Australia, Fraud Justice Network, Ideal Victim Theory, Investment Fraud, Online Fraud, Romance Scams, Victim Blame
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 article examines how professionals within Australia’s Fraud Justice Network perceive and assign blame to victims of online fraud, focusing on romance and investment fraud. Based on fourteen semi-structured interviews with people working across policing, private investigation, finance, and legal fields, the author analyzes how victimhood is constructed and how these constructions may affect justice responses. Using vignettes drawn from real cases, the study probes when and why professionals attribute blame, sympathy, or legitimacy to victims, and it situates these judgments within a broader theory of the “ideal victim.” The findings reveal a marked asymmetry between the two victim types. Romance fraud victims are consistently seen as weak, lonely, and vulnerable, yet this vulnerability is paired with virtuous motivations to help others, which fosters pity rather than moral condemnation. In contrast, investment fraud victims are portrayed as self-interested and greedy, pursuing rapid financial gain, and thus bearing greater blame. The analysis suggests that greed is framed as a disqualifying trait for investment victims, whereas loneliness and vulnerability are treated as external circumstances rather than moral failings. The study also notes a counterintuitive facet: investment fraud offenders are often described with humanizing nuance, described as sophisticated and capable actors rather than uniformly “big and bad” criminals. Methodological limitations include a small, non-generalizable sample and potential order effects in vignettes. The author argues that these findings illuminate a hierarchy of victim legitimacy within fraud responses and raise questions about broader biases affecting justice for all fraud victims, including those in emerging or less traditional domains such as cryptocurrency or AI-driven impersonations. The article calls for further research to dismantle these hierarchies to improve equity in fraud responses.

          

        
                  

            
Identified Gaps

            
The paper identifies little prior scholarship explicitly categorizing Fraud Justice Network (FJN) blame by fraud type. It notes no prior inquiry into how perceived loneliness among romance-fraud victims and greed among investment-fraud victims shape victim blame or judgments of deserving victim status. It also raises unanswered questions about bias toward victims of emerging frauds involving cryptocurrencies and artificial intelligence.

          

        
                  

            
Methods

            
The study used 14 qualitative semi-structured interviews with Australian FJN professionals in policing, private investigation, finance, law, and security. Participants responded to standardized vignettes depicting romance and investment fraud and discussed professional experience. Interviews were transcribed verbatim, openly coded in NVivo, and analyzed thematically; codes were categorized by whether discourse concerned romance, investment, or both victim groups.

          

        
                  

            
Limitations

            
The small, selectively recruited sample limits generalizability. The study reused a prior data set and used a deductive application of ideal-victim theory. It did not control vignette order, character gender, financial-loss amounts, or circumstances, so these features may have affected blame judgments. Participants' years of fraud experience were not systematically collected, although most reported more than five years.

          

        
                  

            
Future Work

            
Research should examine variation in blame and bias across current and emerging online frauds, including cryptocurrency investment scams and romance-seeking involving artificial intelligence. It should investigate whether these victims are viewed as virtuous or ideal and identify ways to dismantle institutional hierarchies of victim legitimacy.

          

              

    
    

        
Related Research Insights

        

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