Skip to main content

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

Cassandra Cross (2018) — Police Practice and Research

Citation activity

Total citations · Google Scholar
64
Average per calendar year
7.1

Count checked .

64 citations ÷ 9 calendar years (2018–2026). 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

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
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
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
                

            

                    

                
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 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.