Skip to main content

Gefährliche Liebe: Die KESB im Kampf gegen Romance Scam

Köbrich, Tim Oliver (2026) — sui generis

Citation activity

Total citations · Google Scholar
Unavailable
Average per calendar year
Citation count unavailable

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 (2)
  • Length, completeness, repetition, refusal, boilerplate, and active-markup screening
  • Numerical claims checked against the available source text
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 examines romance scams as a particular challenge to adult protection systems. It notes that affected individuals are not cognitively impaired, but repeatedly engage in self-harming behavior due to targeted emotional manipulation. Drawing on two cantonal decisions, the authors argue that the central issue is the state of weakness and the resulting protection needs, rather than the ability to discern right from wrong. To address this dynamic, the work offers a sociological explanation tied to symbolic capital, shame, and moral violence, illuminating why official assistance is frequently experienced as an intrusion. Building on this analysis, the authors propose three instruments to recalibrate protective interventions. Narrative Triage is introduced to categorize the level of danger faced by individuals. Sandbox design of cooperative guardianship, under Article 396 of the civil code, is presented as a temporary, reversible autonomy space that respects some independence while ensuring safeguards. A Third Space is described as a neutral reflection environment to facilitate decision making without coercion. The study also investigates practical interfaces with banks and identifies strategies used by perpetrators to evade safeguards. The conclusion connects these elements to broader questions about how authorities can balance protection with autonomy in cases of romance fraud, while recognizing the tensions and potential intrusions that such interventions may evoke. Overall, the publication outlines a structured, interventionist approach aimed at mitigating harm without overstretching protective authority.

Identified Gaps

The article identifies a legal protection gap: Swiss adult-protection law does not clearly capture purely financial self-endangerment through the self-endangerment provision. It also highlights operational gaps in detecting cumulative micro-payments, gift-card purchases, cash withdrawals, and third-party payment routes that circumvent ordinary bank controls.

Methods

Doctrinal legal analysis of Swiss adult-protection, banking, and criminal-law provisions, illustrated by two cantonal court decisions. The article combines this with a conceptual sociological analysis of symbolic capital, shame, and moral violence, then develops practice-oriented intervention models: narrative triage, a reversible "sandbox" co-determination guardianship, and a neutral "Third Space."

Limitations

The analysis is principally normative and practice-oriented rather than empirical. Its legal argument is illustrated mainly through two cantonal cases and secondary sources, so it does not establish prevalence, intervention effectiveness, or generalizability across victims, banks, or jurisdictions. The proposed triage, sandbox, and Third Space models are conceptual recommendations rather than evaluated interventions.

Future Work

The article does not set out a formal future research agenda. It recommends that adult-protection practice anticipate evolving offender payment-evasion tactics, clarify rapid bank–authority response pathways, and evaluate proportionate, reversible protective measures.

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