Skip to main content

Understanding Romance Fraud: Insights From Domestic Violence Research

Cross, C. ; Dragiewicz, M. ; Richards, K. (2018) — The British Journal of Criminology

DOI: 10.1093/bjc/azy005
Type:   Journal Article
Country:   Australia
Tags:   romance fraud, psychological abuse, coercive control, online dating, economic abuse, victim support, Australia, psychological maltreatment, domestic violence, online fraud, victim narratives

Synopsis (AI-Generated)

The article conducts a retrospective qualitative thematic analysis of 21 Australian romance-fraud victim interviews drawn from a larger study of 80 online-fraud victims who reported losses of AUD$10,000 or more to Scamwatch. Interviews were semi-structured, primarily face-to-face, transcribed verbatim, imported into NVivo, and deductively coded by the first author using Tolman et al.'s nine psychological-maltreatment categories. Romance-fraud victims experience a double loss: grief for the relationship and financial losses. Romance-fraud victim support services were described as basically non-existent, and understanding psychological maltreatment may help identify victim needs and improve recovery support. The sample was drawn from a broader online-fraud study rather than research designed specifically for romance fraud or psychological maltreatment.

Identified Gaps (AI-Generated)

Romance fraud had received little scholarly attention, with fewer than a dozen publications identified. Prior work primarily addressed initial grooming and persuasion, while little was known about how offenders secure ongoing compliance and repeated payments. The authors identify limited evidence on chronic victimization and the reasons victims continue transferring money. Support services for romance-fraud victims were described as basically non-existent. The applicability of unobserved psychological-maltreatment categories requires dedicated research.

Methods (AI-Generated)

The article conducts a retrospective qualitative thematic analysis of 21 Australian romance-fraud victim interviews drawn from a larger study of 80 online-fraud victims who reported losses of AUD$10,000 or more to Scamwatch. Interviews were semi-structured, primarily face-to-face, transcribed verbatim, imported into NVivo, and deductively coded by the first author using Tolman et al.’s nine psychological-maltreatment categories. The analysis examines whether and how these domestic-violence-derived tactics appeared in victim–offender relationship narratives.

Limitations (AI-Generated)

The sample was drawn from a broader online-fraud study rather than research designed specifically for romance fraud or psychological maltreatment. Consequently, some abuse types may not have occurred or may simply not have been discussed. The typology was applied retrospectively, and five interviews—each with male victims—contained no relevant information, though these victims may still have experienced maltreatment. Detailed demographics for the romance-fraud subsample were unavailable because of privacy and confidentiality requirements.

Future Work (AI-Generated)

Conduct purpose-built romance-fraud research to determine whether unobserved psychological maltreatment, including rigid sex-role expectations and trivial requests, occurs in victims’ experiences. Investigate why victims make chronic, ongoing transfers over lengthy periods and the factors shaping continued compliance. Develop prevention and intervention measures that foreground positive manipulation, isolation, offender benefits, and intentionality. Examine victim needs and support responses, including whether lessons from domestic-violence services can improve recovery support.

Related Research Insights

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

AI-Generated Content Notice

The synopsis and research notes on this page were generated with AI from available publication information and, when available, the uploaded paper text. They may contain errors, omissions, or interpretation issues. Readers should follow the DOI or source link, review the original publication, and make their own judgment about the content.

Found a possible error? Request a correction.