Included for relevance; source claims are not independently verified. This record is based on saved titles and descriptions unless a separate deeper-reading assessment is explicitly shown. Observation dates are not incident dates. An arrest or charge is not a conviction.
Story groups for this report
Contextual research groupings, not verified case membership.
Each of six own copies reports Adan Look losing $500,000 in a fake romance involving a crypto investment, then encountering another scam. Keep reported loss separate from the second scam; no second amount, crypto-transfer route, recovery or unique-case merger is inferred. Retiree status alone does not establish vulnerability. The repeated-targeting subtype remains unspecified.
Evidence basis: saved title description
Places in the available evidence
No geographic role could be established from the available text.
Unlisted locations remain unknown. Nationality, language and web address alone do not establish where a scam happened.
Current source qualifications
These attributed statements apply to their specified subjects and scope. They do not establish guilt, a whole-article denial, or an unstated outcome.
source specific current qualifications
notes
This own copy reports Adan Look’s $500,000 fake-romance crypto-investment loss and subsequent scam. The second loss amount and any official proceeding remain unsupported.
context kind
FILE-derived DATE20 notes and unknown-role qualifications
qualification
Exact authored FILE fields; no native SQL producer, country inference, case identity or new semantic review.
unknown roles
Item 1
country.jurisdiction
Item 2
country.operation
Item 3
country.publisher
Item 4
country.victim
Item 5
date.incident
Item 6
date.procedural
Source statement flags
raw verified
false
is publisher quote
false
source truth verified
false
interpretation not source literal
true
source specific current qualifications
note
Each of six own copies reports Adan Look losing $500,000 in a fake romance involving a crypto investment, then encountering another scam. Keep reported loss separate from the second scam; no second amount, crypto-transfer route, recovery or unique-case merger is inferred. Retiree status alone does not establish vulnerability. The repeated-targeting subtype remains unspecified.
context kind
FILE-derived ALL24 review notes and explicit denials
qualification
Exact authored FILE fields; an empty denial list adds no denial and changes no code state.
changes to explicit denials
No listed value
Source statement flags
raw verified
false
is publisher quote
false
source truth verified
false
interpretation not source literal
true
Reported developments
These attributed statements apply to their specified subjects and scope. They do not establish guilt, a whole-article denial, or an unstated outcome.
development assertions
role
reported_development
basis
explicit
field
development
scope
article
value
reported_loss
reason
The amount applies to the first reported loss; the second scam is not given the same amount.
These labels describe the available reporting. “Not reported” does not mean a harm did not happen. A theme's stage applies to that statement, not every claim in the article.
Only direct reviewed connections are shown. Shared wording is weaker evidence than a supported case connection. A connection through a third article does not establish that two reports concern the same case.
No direct connection is recorded. This does not establish that the story is unique.
A page can change after it first appears. Observation dates record when its URL was seen; they do not prove that the wording assessed here was present on every date.
Record: 84a78f24abe2b8ebcf057f266137c80a9cd1decb2803d6a20ffbe0c19b8f2e6c Decision: 8f18b823e917d90fda4814486256ae54c165ef5ca9eaba02c5e79a1e94c7f4e6 Base reviewed revision: 52cdec3b1ad8cbba6b5030ff05a518c6c1e4f5fec85d744aa7eefa4f2aa8ea0a
The local research archive retains source hashes, quoted evidence and review records. This collection does not redistribute full publisher articles.