Skip to main content

Romance Scamming: Uncovering the Transnational Crime and Legal Challenges

Fazle Rabby ; Mohammad Moin Uddin Chowdory (2024) — International Journal of Law and Societal Studies

View Original Source (opens in a new tab)

DOI: 10.61424/ijlss.v1i1.134 (opens in a new tab)

Type:   Journal Article
Country:   Bangladesh
Tags:   AI-Enabled Fraud, Bangladesh, Cross Cultural, Law Enforcement, Legal Challenges, Public Awareness, Romance Scams, Transnational Cybercrime, Victim Experience, Victim Harms
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:
                                    
                                
    • 
                                                            
  • 
                                    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

                    

                    
The record is approved for public display, but a complete historical administrator action is not recorded.


                    
                                        

                

                            

                    
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 paper examines romance scams, underreporting, enforcement barriers, and possible responses in Bangladesh. It describes a purposive qualitative design using semi-structured interviews with members of the public, people involved in scams, and police, and its respondent tables profile 50 participants. It identifies shame and fear of exclusion as reporting barriers and highlights limited public knowledge, legal uncertainty, and weak investigative tools; AI-assisted platform detection and victim support are proposed responses. However, the methods are internally inconsistent: the limitations state that most information was gathered without primary-data collection and that major evidence, including victim interviews, was absent. Its thematic claims and recommendations should therefore be treated as exploratory rather than as results from a clearly documented 50-person interview study.

          

        
                  

            
Identified Gaps

            
The paper identifies limited knowledge and public awareness of romance scams in Bangladesh, legislative uncertainty, inadequate enforcement tools and training, weak victim-support and reporting arrangements, and scarce digital-crime infrastructure. It also highlights uncertainty about the true scale of offending because shame and stigma discourage reporting. The authors call for clearer legal definitions and stronger transnational cooperation to address cross-border jurisdictional barriers.

          

        
                  

            
Methods

            
The study describes a qualitative, purposive-sampling design using semi-structured interviews with members of the public, people involved in romance scams, and law-enforcement personnel. Interviews were planned in person or remotely, recorded with consent, transcribed, and thematically analysed. The reported respondent tables describe 50 participants by demographic characteristics. However, the paper’s limitations section states that much information was gathered without primary data collection, creating uncertainty about the implemented design.

          

        
                  

            
Limitations

            
The authors state that the data were restricted and that most information was gathered without primary-data collection or quantitative evaluation. They report that major primary evidence, including victim interviews, was not included. The qualitative design limits generalizability, and recruiting people directly involved in romance scams was identified as difficult. Method reporting is also internally inconsistent: planned interviews and a 50-person respondent profile appear alongside the claim that primary data were largely absent.

          

        
                  

            
Future Work

            
Use larger quantitative surveys and face-to-face interviews with victims and police officers to identify patterns and trends. Conduct inter-regional comparisons of transnational offending and culturally shaped outcomes. Study emerging scam types and technology-based defences, including AI and machine learning, in partnership with technology companies and social-media platforms. Examine victims’ psychological and social effects more comprehensively to inform recovery support.

          

              

    
    

        
Related Research Insights

        

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