Skip to main content

Using financial intelligence to target online fraud victimisation: applying a tertiary prevention perspective

Cassandra Cross (2016) — Criminal Justice Studies

Citation activity

Total citations · Google Scholar
46
Average per calendar year
4.2

Count checked .

46 citations ÷ 11 calendar years (2016–2026). 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

This article examines how Australia has deployed a victim-oriented, tertiary prevention approach to online fraud by using financial intelligence to identify potential victims and then directly informing them through targeted letters. The author frames this practice within crime prevention theory, arguing that focusing on known victims and intervening early can reduce repeat victimisation and associated harms, rather than relying on traditional reactive policing. Cross presents three Australian case studies—Project Sunbird, Operation Disrepair, and the National Scams Disruption Project (NSDP)—to illustrate how letters to suspected victims were used as an intervention. Reported data show substantial volumes of funds moved overseas prior to intervention and indicate that a large share of recipients who received a first or second letter reduced or ceased sending money in subsequent weeks or months. Across the programs, preliminary observations suggest a reduction in the number of active senders and in total losses, though the author notes limitations: the data are not uniform across jurisdictions, no direct causal link is proven between letter receipt and behavior change, and longer-term effects remain uncertain. The article concludes that while not definitive, these programs offer a plausible foundation for tertiary prevention in online fraud and warrant further rigorous study to clarify the relationship between intervention and victim behaviour. It emphasizes that recognizing online fraud as a global problem requires innovative, victim-centered strategies alongside traditional enforcement.

Identified Gaps

The causal relationship between receiving a warning letter and stopping or reducing transfers remains unknown. Monitoring periods and targeted countries differ across programs, limiting comparison. Evidence is needed on whether West African transaction indicators generalize across jurisdictions and on suitable interventions for chronic, heavily involved victims.

Methods

This article presents three Australian case studies—Project Sunbird, Operation Disrepair, and the National Scams Disruption Project. It situates financial-intelligence-led victim notification within tertiary crime prevention theory and descriptively compares administrative program data on letters, international transfers, and post-letter sending behavior.

Limitations

The study does not establish that letters caused reduced transfers. Programs monitored recipients over different periods and countries, making data non-comparable. Apparent effects are agency assumptions partly supported by victim anecdotes, rather than rigorous causal evaluation. The small sample of 94 confirmed victims used for destination-country analysis was non-representative.

Future Work

Use more rigorous research to test whether letters directly change victims' subsequent money transfers. Replicate and compare results across jurisdictions to assess whether the selected West African countries are appropriate indicators of extended victimization. Develop and evaluate interventions for chronic victims, for whom letters may be ineffective.

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