'Mum sent them £140,000': How to spot the signs a loved one is being scammed
Daughter intervention described; warning separate from reported experience.
Reported caseData from The GDELT Project · Reviewed and interpreted by RSRC
Search the research collection
Find reporting by topic, place or language. Open a record to see why it was included and what the available evidence supports.
The chart uses every search filter above and all matching records, across every results page. The percentage denominator is all included URLs in the same dates, before theme, language, country or text filters.
Distinct included URLs matching these filters in each observation month. Select a point to explore its records. On small screens, scroll the chart horizontally.
A URL counts once per month and can appear in several months or themes. Themes describe the current record assessment; months show URL observations, not when events or each claim first appeared. Warnings, allegations and reported experiences are all included when coded. Partial months, collection gaps and changes in sources affect both measures. A higher share does not establish a higher risk to victims.
| Observation month | Matching URLs | All included URLs | Share |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sep 2026 | 638 | 638 | 100.0% |
Each record represents a source web page, not a verified incident. Different URLs can describe the same event. About these records.
Daughter intervention described; warning separate from reported experience.
Reported caseConceptual mention of authorized payments; no specific money-mule, asset-recovery or investment finding.
Related mentionInvestigative programme setup; no specific coded outcome in short metadata.
Research & trendsGeneral protective discussion, not a particular experienced loss.
Research & trendsDaughter intervention described; warning separate from reported experience.
Reported caseAvoided scam headline; insufficient to establish attempted payment or mechanism.
Prevention & supportGift-card warning; no victim harm or crypto transfer inferred.
Prevention & supportElectronic-money rights not necessarily crypto. Nurse occupation is not institutional harm.
Reported casePolice stopped target, not alleged scammer. No offender-arrest application; no attempted payment stated.
Reported caseSparse conflicting gender wording; identity impersonation only, no age-based vulnerability assumption.
Reported caseDaughter attributes deception to altered photos/video; independent AI verification absent.
Reported caseHelp from daughter; warning is general guidance, not another case outcome.
Reported caseKidnapping and impending death are scam pretexts, not verified physical harm.
Reported caseAttempted payment to a supposed rock star; bank intervention, not an actual 8500-euro loss.
Reported caseCONFLICT: title/description gender differs; no inferred identity resolution. Prior exposure to other scams is not repeat targeting by this actor.
Reported caseAttempt refused; misuse of deceased relative's LINE account. WITHHOLD harm.financial: proposed investment alone does not establish a payment demand or loss.
Prevention & supportWITHHOLD harm.material/housing: possible condo loss, not established. No automatic cognitive/vulnerability inference from age90.
Reported caseYamaguchi nurse and electronic-money loss; no assumption employer funds were used.
Reported caseSurvey fear of scams is not post-romance-scam psychological harm. WITHHOLD harm.psychological; multiple scam types.
Related mentionWidower and promised shared future; service invitation not demonstrated service uptake.
Reported caseMixed fraud education; no specific outcomes.
Related mentionResearchers describe fake profiles and apps; not measured harmed-person count.
Research & trendsGeneric AI-deepfake statement; no individual occurrence established.
Research & trendsBank staff prevented 1.5-million-yen attempt; award is not another victim outcome.
Prevention & supportTosu 3.7-million crypto loss; unrelated to Mihama mixed 3.7-million case.
Reported case