Skip to main content

Data from The GDELT Project · Reviewed and interpreted by RSRC

← Back to your results

Research & trends

Figures show North East dating scam victims lost £4.3m in just three years

www.chroniclelive.co.ukEnglishObserved 2025-05-21
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.

How to read this record

LocalUK three-year datingfraud totals:NorthEast4.3m,Essex5.5m,Wiltshire1.8m,WestYorkshire7.5m separategeographies. UKquarterbillion aggregate/10324average notadded regionalvictimcounts/per-capita comparisons; record copies notindependent studies, historicalperiod not allcurrent2025worldprevalence.

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.

Themes reported in the text

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.

Financial and property harm

unspecifiedreported occurrenceStage: completed
Interpretation details
Scope
multiple cases
Person or institution described
targeted person
Link to romance fraud
explicit
Causal claim
not established
All 24 assessed themes
ThemeAssessment
Blame, stigma and responsibility framingnot reported in available text
Homicide and lethal violencenot reported in available text
Disruption of daily lifenot reported in available text
Financial and property harmreported in available text
Suicide and self-harmnot reported in available text
Family and social harmnot reported in available text
Protection or recovery of assetsnot reported in available text
Policy and regulatory responsenot reported in available text
Justice proceedings and outcomesinsufficient context
Coercion and exploitationnot reported in available text
Psychological distressnot reported in available text
Blackmail and extortionnot reported in available text
Help, reporting and preventionnot reported in available text
Physical or sexual harmnot reported in available text
Investment pretextnot reported in available text
Technical facilitationnot reported in available text
Investigation and operational responsenot reported in available text
Organization and division of labornot reported in available text
Relationship-based deceptionnot reported in available text
Involvement in other offendingnot reported in available text
Continued or renewed targetingnot reported in available text
Prior circumstances and claimed vulnerabilitynot reported in available text
Institutional barriers or harmful responsenot reported in available text
Moving money for a schemenot reported in available text

Connected reporting

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.

Research provenance

1 saved revision. Corrections preserve earlier versions.

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: d869699e722cade624cf48fe7003fb5307229e910a135e745cd6d3b2b1518a28
Decision: 0249a9cd436d783fd08eef74bf670b9dd6693c66e29566bc7105331c8bfb84eb
Current revision: b94fee602f2cbc64b6d0ee71ee39100901381c73fb82ebc00e857eee650e907c

The local research archive retains source hashes, quoted evidence and review records. This collection does not redistribute full publisher articles.