Data 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jan 2024 | 443 | 443 | 100.0% |
| Feb 2024 | 685 | 685 | 100.0% |
| Mar 2024 | 391 | 391 | 100.0% |
| Apr 2024 | 487 | 487 | 100.0% |
| May 2024 | 519 | 519 | 100.0% |
| Jun 2024 | 303 | 303 | 100.0% |
| Jul 2024 | 545 | 545 | 100.0% |
| Aug 2024 | 352 | 352 | 100.0% |
| Sep 2024 | 387 | 387 | 100.0% |
| Oct 2024 | 493 | 493 | 100.0% |
| Nov 2024 | 496 | 496 | 100.0% |
| Dec 2024 | 565 | 565 | 100.0% |
Each record represents a source web page, not a verified incident. Different URLs can describe the same event. About these records.
Each of the14 own variants has the same Brant County dating-app conversation and$34,500 loss. Police-blotter branding does not establish an investigation or arrest. Dating contact is insufficient for a fabricated/manipulated relationship mechanism, and no currency type, payment route, calendar event year or refund is supplied. Fourteen copies are not fourteen cases or corroborations.
Reported caseThe own title reports a Brant County resident losing $34,500 to a romance scam, and the description reports OPP avoidance tips. The warning is general, not proof that this target used a service or that prevention worked. No payment route, offender persona, specific relationship construction, court result, incident year, refund or clinical harm is supplied; currency is not filled from location.
Reported caseThe own report says a woman from Kitzbuhel district transferred over EUR100,000 to a love-scam offender between February and July, and a mistaken transfer exposed the fraud. Retain the reported loss and generic online facilitation; the copy gives no calendar year, named platform, actual crypto route or detailed relationship construction. A sequence of payments does not alone prove further offender demands, and discovery via a wrong transfer does not prove recovery or return of money.
Reported caseEach own description reports a Brant County resident losing$34,500 after a dating-app conversation. The roundup headline concerns a separate collision/intimate-partner-violence investigation and is not attached to this scam as physical harm or police action. Dating contact alone does not describe fabricated intimacy. Dollar currency, payment route, event year and recovery remain unspecified; four copies are not four independent cases.
Reported caseOwn headline reports sentencing for more than$100K defrauded from a Wichita woman; own description reports an investigation and social-media money requests beginning in late2020. Only contact has the explicit2020 year: no payment or sentencing date is filled. The romance label does not describe fabricated intimacy, and no sentence length, served term, refund, offender name or currency type is imported.
Reported caseEach of the14 own variants has the same Brant County dating-app conversation and$34,500 loss. Police-blotter branding does not establish an investigation or arrest. Dating contact is insufficient for a fabricated/manipulated relationship mechanism, and no currency type, payment route, calendar event year or refund is supplied. Fourteen copies are not fourteen cases or corroborations.
Reported caseEach own description reports a Brant County resident losing$34,500 after a dating-app conversation. The roundup headline concerns a separate collision/intimate-partner-violence investigation and is not attached to this scam as physical harm or police action. Dating contact alone does not describe fabricated intimacy. Dollar currency, payment route, event year and recovery remain unspecified; four copies are not four independent cases.
Reported caseOwn headline reportsR450,000 lost and marriage/house promises; description attributes to police a request to take loans and hand over money for an allegedR3.8million return. The request is not proof debt was incurred, houses bought, investment trading occurred or a refund was paid. The short source does not explicitly establish fabricated identity/intimacy rather than an unspecified boyfriend relationship. Zambian nationality is not an operation country and a police statement alone is not a described enforcement action.
Reported caseEach of the14 own variants has the same Brant County dating-app conversation and$34,500 loss. Police-blotter branding does not establish an investigation or arrest. Dating contact is insufficient for a fabricated/manipulated relationship mechanism, and no currency type, payment route, calendar event year or refund is supplied. Fourteen copies are not fourteen cases or corroborations.
Reported caseEach of the14 own variants has the same Brant County dating-app conversation and$34,500 loss. Police-blotter branding does not establish an investigation or arrest. Dating contact is insufficient for a fabricated/manipulated relationship mechanism, and no currency type, payment route, calendar event year or refund is supplied. Fourteen copies are not fourteen cases or corroborations.
Reported caseThe own report describes a 44-year-old woman from Lienen spending a five-figure amount for an unknown person in a love scam; the title calls him an alleged admirer from the USA. This supports the reported financial loss and a purported romantic suitor, not a real US operation, verified nationality, a named platform, clinical distress, repeated demands, conviction or an event year. No currency or precise amount is invented.
Reported caseThe own title reports a Wichita woman’s $110,000 romance loss and a New York man’s sentence. The quoted description presents elderly people living alone as potentially vulnerable in general; it does not establish that this particular target lived alone, had a specified age, suffered post-scam isolation or received help. No term served, court location from the man’s residence, event year, refund or clinical diagnosis is inferred.
Reported caseOwn clipped Nara report describes an Instagram comment to a woman in her50s and a partially shown profile. The romance-scam title does not fill the missing money, false-intimacy or later manipulation clauses. ThisyearApril remains yearless; Asian-looking profile imagery is not nationality or an actual country role. No victim blame is inferred from the headline question.
Reported caseOwn short AI headline and clipped dating-app/social-media description support general technical commentary only. The missing tail is not restored from fuller copies. No specific incident, money act or fabricated relationship is described; AI remains a source claim rather than technically verified use, and Ottawa is only a dateline.
Research & trendsEach of the14 own variants has the same Brant County dating-app conversation and$34,500 loss. Police-blotter branding does not establish an investigation or arrest. Dating contact is insufficient for a fabricated/manipulated relationship mechanism, and no currency type, payment route, calendar event year or refund is supplied. Fourteen copies are not fourteen cases or corroborations.
Reported caseOwn general account attributes AI and social-media/dating-app deception concerns to BMO’s financial-crimes head. Code asserted general AI/digital mechanisms, not technical verification, individual AI use, measured prevention effect, financial loss amount or quantitative research statistic. Specific false-romance mechanism detail is insufficient; Ottawa dateline/employer is not a country role.
CommentaryOwn AI/dating-app/social-media commentary only: the source says AI makes romance scams harder to detect. This is an attributed general claim, not verified AI use in a particular case or technical proof. Love-seeking and the topic label do not describe a fabricated relationship or a financial act. No experienced harm, prevention effect or event year is supplied.
Research & trendsOnly the own AI-and-romance-scam detection headline is available. Retain an AI-facilitation commentary claim at that headline’s level, not proof of a demonstrated synthetic-media method, measured detection trend, a particular offender, loss, court action or prevention effect. The question about love at first sight does not establish an actual fabricated relationship or individual harm.
CommentaryEach of the14 own variants has the same Brant County dating-app conversation and$34,500 loss. Police-blotter branding does not establish an investigation or arrest. Dating contact is insufficient for a fabricated/manipulated relationship mechanism, and no currency type, payment route, calendar event year or refund is supplied. Fourteen copies are not fourteen cases or corroborations.
Reported caseEach own text reports$34,500 lost by a Brant County resident after a dating-app conversation. This supports money loss and digital contact, not a described fabricated persona or relationship. Currency type, exact payment route, event year and refund are absent. Repeated publication copies do not establish repeated victimization or independent cases.
Reported caseThe title combines financial fraud and romance scams in a $27 billion annual elder-loss statement. The description ranks Hispanic older adults after Whites for consumer financial crime; these are mixed-scope source statistics, not $27 billion allocated to romance, independent incidence, individual losses, an event year or proof of age/ethnicity-based targeting. No own deception narrative or prior individual isolation is supplied.
Research & trendsEach of the14 own variants has the same Brant County dating-app conversation and$34,500 loss. Police-blotter branding does not establish an investigation or arrest. Dating contact is insufficient for a fabricated/manipulated relationship mechanism, and no currency type, payment route, calendar event year or refund is supplied. Fourteen copies are not fourteen cases or corroborations.
Reported caseThe own title asserts AI makes romance scams harder to detect. The description is Manitoba/Canada publisher boilerplate. Preserve only the headline-level AI commentary claim, without borrowing another copy’s body, synthetic technique, victim, loss, measured effect, operating country or event year. Publisher geography does not locate the scam.
CommentaryEach of the14 own variants has the same Brant County dating-app conversation and$34,500 loss. Police-blotter branding does not establish an investigation or arrest. Dating contact is insufficient for a fabricated/manipulated relationship mechanism, and no currency type, payment route, calendar event year or refund is supplied. Fourteen copies are not fourteen cases or corroborations.
Reported caseOwn romance-fraud headline reports R$483000loss; own description explicitly says the target financed four vehicles and bank loans for him during2022. Preserve financial loss/debt, without adding vehicle/property surrender, housing/work harm or four independent cases. Specific false-persona/affection mechanism and renewed requests remain insufficient; no force, clinical harm, refund, jurisdiction or country from PR/currency is inferred.
Reported case