Skip to main content

Victims’ motivations for reporting to the ‘fraud justice network’

Cross, Cassandra (2018) — Police Practice and Research

View Original Source (opens in a new tab)

DOI: 10.1080/15614263.2018.1507891 (opens in a new tab)

Type:   Journal Article
Country:   Australia
Tags:   Australia, Consumer Protection, Fraud Justice Network, Fraud Reporting, Online Fraud, Reporting Motivations, Romance Scams, Victim Expectations
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 investigates why online fraud victims in Australia choose to report their experiences to authorities, focusing on the motivations that underlie engagement with the fraud justice network. The study aims to fill a gap in understanding reporting decisions by examining victims who did come forward, rather than the barriers faced by those who do not report. It situates reporting within the broader context of online fraud’s impact and the complex array of agencies victims encounter when seeking redress or action. Using a qualitative design, the author conducted semi-structured interviews with eighty online fraud victims who had incurred losses of at least AUD 10,000. Participants were recruited with the help of the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) and discussed reporting experiences across a range of agencies, with particular attention to the ACCC and the Scamwatch platform. Data were analyzed thematically to identify recurring motives and patterns. The findings reveal two primary motivations for reporting: a desire for individual justice, including recovery of funds or accountability for the offender, and an altruistic impulse to prevent further victimization by informing and protecting others. The study also notes pervasive negativity in reporting experiences when victims’ expectations about agency responsiveness were not met. The paper discusses implications for improving the reporting process, emphasizing clearer communication about agency capabilities and limitations, and considering how the fraud justice network can better support victims. It acknowledges limitations related to sample representativeness and the unverifiable nature of interview data, and it suggests that institutional changes, including centralized reporting mechanisms, may influence victim experiences and outcomes. Overall, the research highlights how expectations of action shape victim engagement with authorities in online fraud cases.

          

        
                  

            
Identified Gaps

            
The paper identifies a lack of research on why some online fraud victims report to authorities. Prior research has mainly examined non-reporting, victim demographics, and objective incident characteristics, with limited clarity about the motivations of people who do report online fraud.

          

        
                  

            
Methods

            
Qualitative thematic analysis of semi-structured interviews with 80 self-selecting online fraud victims across Australia who had reported losses of at least AUD10,000 to the ACCC. Interviews were transcribed verbatim, coded in NVivo using an axial-coding framework and emergent themes, and analyzed thematically.

          

        
                  

            
Limitations

            
The sample was self-selecting and not representative of all Australian online fraud victims; people who reported for other reasons may not have participated. The researchers did not independently verify interviewees’ accounts or recollections. The response rate could not be accurately determined because many recruitment invitations may not have been received.

          

        
                  

            
Future Work

            
Future work should examine the mismatch between victims’ expectations of police action and the practical realities of responding to online offenses. It should also identify how reporting systems, criminal justice practices, or alternatives can provide more realistic and satisfactory outcomes while reducing additional trauma caused by reporting processes.

          

              

    
    

        
Related Research Insights

        

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