Skip to main content

Modus Operandi and Blockchain Analysis of Romance Scams: Cryptocurrency-Driven Victimization

Amy Lim ; Kyung-shick Choi (2025) — International Journal of Cybersecurity Intelligence & Cybercrime

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:
  • 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 mixed-methods study screened 783 Chainabuse reports and analyzed 107 verified English-language romance-scam cases reported from May 2022 to October 2024. It coded platforms, narratives, deposits, cryptocurrencies, and losses, used regression to test loss associations, and traced wallets for laundering behavior. Bitcoin and Ethereum were associated with greater individual- and cluster-level losses. Mixer or Tornado Cash use was associated with higher individual losses, while direct wallet deposits were associated with lower losses; identified laundering also included self-funding in 45.8% of cases, swaps in 43.0%, and peel chains in 8.4%. Self-reported narratives and addresses, uncertain scam classification, no direct victim verification, and variable reporting timing limit causal and population-level conclusions.

Identified Gaps

The study addresses limited case-level knowledge of cryptocurrency-driven romance-scam operations by linking reported contact and deception narratives to blockchain transaction histories. It also identifies an investigative need to prioritize risk patterns, rather than reported loss alone, because small losses may form larger connected patterns. The paper further indicates cross-jurisdictional barriers to platform subpoenas and accountability.

Methods

Mixed-methods analysis of 107 verified, English-language self-reported Chainabuse.com romance-scam cases collected from May 2022 to October 2024. Researchers screened 783 reports, excluded incomplete or inconsistent reports, and verified addresses and transactions using OSINT sources. They coded contact platforms, messaging transitions, deception and deposit methods, cryptocurrencies, losses, and laundering indicators. Descriptive statistics and OLS regressions examined associations with individual and cluster-level loss; Breadcrumbs blockchain tracing mapped transaction paths and laundering techniques.

Limitations

The public-platform data were self-reported and participants did not directly consent. Reporters may have lacked expertise to distinguish romance scams from other online fraud, including pig-butchering scams. Findings rely on victim recollections, reported narratives, and wallet addresses; researchers could not contact victims for independent verification. Reporting and scam-recognition timing also varied, potentially affecting reported details and transaction patterns.

Future Work

Develop and evaluate specialized blockchain-forensics training and tools for law enforcement; assess public awareness programs on fake profiles and cryptocurrency risks; develop legal guidance and capacity building for prosecutors and judges; and examine regulatory and cross-border jurisdictional approaches to cryptocurrency-enabled romance scams.

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