Living Evidence Synthesis

Reporting and Help-Seeking

Reporting and Help‑Seeking in Romance and Relationship‑Based Online Fraud

Published Aug 30, 2026 Updated Aug 30, 2026 Romance Scam Research Center

Publications: 36
Evidence statements: 124
Cited sources: 36
Synthesis version: 50

Transparency

Evidence and review status

This Living Evidence Synthesis is AI-generated and machine-checked. Administrative approval is separate from content review; no human content review or subject-matter-expert review is recorded.

Source basis: Downloaded PDFs
AI-generated page content: Yes
Automated checks: Passed
Administrative approval: Yes
Human content review: Not recorded
Subject-matter-expert review: Not recorded

How this was prepared

Source basis: This version used preserved evidence from 36 approved publications with downloaded source PDFs.

Source snapshot generated: Aug 30, 2026
AI-generated page content: The executive summary and synthesis body were AI-generated from the preserved evidence snapshot.

Synthesis generated: Aug 30, 2026

Public page updated: Aug 30, 2026
Automated checks: 17 recorded checks passed for the linked synthesis version. 1 nonblocking warning was also recorded.

Checks completed: Aug 30, 2026
Administrative approval: An authenticated administrator released this page publicly. Publication does not by itself mean the content received expert review.

Published by administrator: Aug 10, 2026
Human content review: No separate human content-review decision is recorded for the linked synthesis.
Subject-matter-expert review: RSRC has not recorded review of this content by a subject-matter or methods expert.

Review-state definitions
Found a possible error? Request a correction.

Across the reviewed evidence, underreporting of romance‑type online fraud is substantial: official statistics and administrative counts underestimate victimisation because they rely on people who recognise abuse and choose to report. Only 9.4% of questionnaire respondents reported cases to police while 32.1% kept the case to themselves, and some complainants file proxy reports (romance scams had 7.6% proxy‑filed complaints). Emotional and social barriers—shame, embarrassment, denial, fear, social stigma, and low trust in legal institutions—are repeatedly identified as reasons for not reporting. Other reported barriers include lack of hope for help, limited knowledge of reporting procedures, perceptions that the crime is not significant, and general worry. Much of the literature draws on self‑selected complaint portals and self‑reported datasets (for example, a de‑identified set of 3,259 Scamwatch romance‑fraud reports after deduplication); these sources have methodological limits (self‑selection, optional free‑text fields causing missing and uneven narrative data, and unverified or incomplete loss estimates) that constrain generalisability. Some complainants say they report partly to prevent similar harm to others. ^{[1] [2] [5] [7] [6] [4] [3]}

Scope and the ‘dark figure’ of underreporting

Multiple studies and reviews report widespread underreporting of romance and relationship‑based fraud and conclude that official statistics and complaint‑portal counts substantially understate the number of victims; authors warn these administrative sources capture mainly people who choose to report, producing a large ‘‘dark figure’’ of unrecorded victimisation. ^{[1] [2]}

Contributing measurement problems include routine misclassification (for example, romance‑baiting recorded as investment fraud), reliance on self‑reports that capture only people who acknowledge victimization and choose to report, and frequent noninvolvement of law enforcement (estimated 75%–80% of cases); these factors lead official statistics to substantially underestimate the true scale of romance‑related financial harm, and reported financial losses may be inaccurately estimated. ^{[2] [8]}

Analyses that combine multiple information sources indicate romance scams generally are trending upward. Victims’ shame, self-blame, and fear of social consequences can deter them from reporting scams to law enforcement or disclosing them to their support networks. ^{[9] [8]}

Shame, embarrassment, fear of social disapproval, and anticipated blame are repeatedly identified across qualitative studies, administrative‑report analyses, and reviews as major inhibitors of both informal disclosure and formal reporting to authorities or support services; these emotions frequently lead victims to conceal incidents from friends, family, or institutions. ^{[1] [10] [11] [3] [4]}

Victim narratives and case analyses indicate related psychological reactions—humiliation, self‑blame, denial—that reduce willingness to engage with authorities, supply coherent statements, or seek support; several studies report that these emotional barriers can prolong secrecy and increase the risk of repeat victimisation. ^{[12] [1] [4] [13]}

Stigma and fear of reputational damage are further reinforced where offending is framed pejoratively (for example, pig‑butchering labels) or where victims worry about being seen as complicit in criminal activity; such concerns are described as reducing reporting and access to justice in multiple doctrinal and empirical contributions. ^{[14] [15] [16]}

Practical and institutional constraints shaping reporting

Practical deterrents include victims’ perceptions of low prospects for financial recovery and police investigation, and empirical and case reports show that small losses or single‑victim incidents are often deprioritised by investigators—factors that reduce victims’ willingness to report formally to law enforcement. ^{[17] [18] [8]}

Reporting systems are frequently fragmented: qualitative studies and administrative‑report analyses document referrals between agencies, difficulties locating the right agency, and reporting categories that lack a dedicated love‑scam option; these procedural features produce frustration and unmet expectations about investigation and recovery. ^{[19] [20]}

Some jurisdictional and practice reports note that single‑entry or centralised reporting mechanisms can reduce victim uncertainty about where to report and remove the burden of jurisdictional navigation, but outcomes and expectations remain variable across contexts and are not universally evaluated in the reviewed corpus. ^[19]

Authorities’ variable responses are documented: a minority of victims experience empathetic, intelligence‑led engagement, while many complain of dismissive or unhelpful interactions; proxy‑filed reports and high rates of noninvolvement by police are cited as contributors to underestimation of harm in administrative totals. ^{[21] [5] [22]}

Help‑seeking pathways and third‑party triggers

The study analysed 3,259 deidentified Scamwatch reports of dating and romance fraud (reports filed July 2018–July 2019) using thematic analysis of the free-text narratives; each of the 3,259 narratives was individually assessed rather than screened by keyword. The authors note limitations: the sample likely has self-selection bias because it includes only people who knew of and chose to use Scamwatch; unprompted and uneven free-text reporting probably led to underestimation of help-seeking; and the unscreened online self-report data may not reflect the experiences of all romance-fraud victims. Separately, a structured, predominantly closed-ended survey examining reporting, harms, and use of informal and institutional support found that 60.9% (n = 223) of respondents sought no support from other parties. ^{[25] [24] [23]}

Third parties—friends, family members, bank staff, remittance agents, clinicians, and volunteer anti‑scam communities—sometimes trigger recognition and later reporting; qualitative accounts document cases where friends or bank staff prompted victims to report, though such third‑party interventions occur in a minority of documented cases. ^{[26] [27] [28] [29]}

Methodological patterns, quality differences, and evidence limitations

The reviewed literature is dominated by self‑selected complaint‑portal datasets, purposive qualitative interviews, and narrative or scoping reviews; authors repeatedly caution that self‑selection, optional free‑text fields, unverified reports, and missing data limit generalisability and preclude reliable population‑level incidence or aggregate‑loss estimation from these sources alone. ^{[7] [2] [30]}

Several studies explicitly describe analytic steps taken to address data quality (duplicate removal, manual coding, case exclusions) and note that final analytic samples often exclude substantial numbers of initial reports because of missing narrative detail; these procedures improve internal transparency but do not resolve representativeness concerns. ^{[31] [32] [33]}

Researchers used a deidentified dataset of Scamwatch romance‑fraud reports (July 2018–July 2019), but because the reporting system is online and unscreened these self‑report data may not reflect the experiences of all romance‑fraud victims. Victims often avoid reporting for reasons such as self‑blame, perceiving losses as too small, reporting burden, or concern that police will not take the crime seriously. Even when law enforcement informed victims about a scam, some victims later reverted to the same or a new romance scam. ^{[13] [24] [34]}

Evidence gaps and future research directions identified in the corpus

Multiple syntheses and primary studies explicitly call for representative measurement of nonreporting victims and for research that directly asks victims about decision timing, motivations, and barriers to reporting and help‑seeking; these gaps are repeatedly flagged as essential for designing effective interventions and for understanding prevention potential. ^{[33] [30] [2]}

Authors also identify operational and policy priorities supported in the evidence: improving administrative reporting categories to enable specific identification of relationship‑based fraud, piloting and evaluating centralised single‑entry reporting mechanisms, and studying whether empathetic agency communication increases reporting and access to support. ^{[2] [19]}

The literature highlights underresearched populations and phenomena—sextortion within romance fraud, vulnerability among people with cognitive impairment, and pig‑butchering hybrids—calling for targeted study; the corpus notes that sextortion and certain victim groups are poorly captured in existing reporting mechanisms, limiting access to evidence and tailored responses. ^{[32] [33] [35] [36] [18]}

References

This AI-assisted synthesis is based on reviewed evidence records. It may contain errors or omissions. Follow the publication and DOI links, consult the original works, and make your own judgment about the evidence.

Topic evidence hub

Explore the Reporting and Help-Seeking evidence base

This synthesis version cites 36 public RSRC records. The broader Library currently contains 118 approved publications mapped to this topic. Newly mapped publications can appear in the topic collection before they are incorporated into a later synthesis version.

Browse 118 topic publications

View 36 cited publication records from synthesis version 50

Citation 1
A Study on Romance Scam : The Current Situation and Effective Countermeasures
Kim, Hyo-shin; Seo, Jun-bae (2019) The Police Science Journal
Citation 2
Romance baiting, cryptorom and ‘pig butchering’: an evolutionary step in romance fraud
Cross, C. (2023) Current Issues in Criminal Justice
Citation 3
Love Scamming in the Digital Era: Legal Protection and Challenges in Handling Love Scam Cases on Dating Applications in Indonesia
Soleha Liliani Malik; Fakhris Lutfianto Hapsoro (2025) AT-TAKLIM: Jurnal Pendidikan Multidisiplin
Citation 4
The Language of Romance Crimes
Carter, E. (2024) The Language of Romance Crimes
Citation 5
Profiling consumers who reported mass marketing scams: demographic characteristics and emotional sentiments associated with victimization
DeLiema, Marguerite; Witt, Paul (2023) Security Journal
Citation 6
Romance Scam as one of the main Challenges of cybercrime
Khukhunaishvili, Dina (2024)
Citation 7
Exploring Fear of Crime for Those Targeted by Romance Fraud
Cross, C.; Lee, M. (2022) Victims & Offenders
Citation 8
Online Romance Scammers
Shapiro, LR. (2022) Cyberpredators and Their Prey
Citation 9
The Trajectory of Romance Scams in the U.S
Herrera, LD.; Hastings, J. (2024) 2024 12th International Symposium on Digital Forensics and Security (ISDFS)
Citation 10
Mapping Computer Mediated Communication Theories and Persuasive Strategies in Analysing Online Dating Romance Scam
Annadorai, Kalaivani; Krish, Pramela; Shaari, Azianura Hani; Kamaluddin, Mohammad Rahim (2020) Journal of Xidian University
Citation 11
Romance Scams and Older Adults: A Health and Social Care Perspective
Sorinmade, Oluwatoyin; Emmett, Charlotte; Elugbadebo, Olufisayo; Okolo, Chidera (2025) Gerontology and Geriatric Medicine
Citation 12
Anatomy of the online dating romance scam
Whitty, MT. (2013) Security Journal
Citation 13
The Scammers Persuasive Techniques Model: Development of a Stage Model to Explain the Online Dating Romance Scam
Whitty, MT. (2013) British Journal of Criminology
Citation 14
Bi-Directional Exploitation of Human Trafficking Victims: Both Targets and Perpetrators in Cybercrime
Sarkar, Gargi; Shukla, Sandeep K. (2024) Journal of Human Trafficking
Citation 15
Romance Fraud in China
Han, Bing (2026) Critical criminological perspectives
Citation 16
Relationship fraud: Romance, friendship and family frauds
Button, Mark; Carter, Elisabeth (2024) Journal of Economic Criminology
Citation 17
Online frauds: Learning from victims why they fall for these scams
Button, Mark; Nicholls, Carol McNaughton; Kerr, Jane; Owen, Rachael (2014) Australian & New Zealand Journal of Criminology
Citation 18
Analysis of a Cryptocurrency Investment Scam: Pig Butchering
Botha, Johannes George; Singh, Kreaan; Leenen, Louise (2025) European Conference on Cyber Warfare and Security
Citation 19
Expectations vs reality: Responding to online fraud across the fraud justice network
Cross, C. (2018) International Journal of Law, Crime and Justice
Citation 20
E-Marketing: Utilizing Social Media and Marketplaces to Start Businesses for Online Love Scam Victims in Indonesia
Esfandari, DA.; Satria Putri, BP. (2021) Charity
Citation 21
The online dating romance scam: The psychological impact on victims – both financial and non-financial
Whitty, MT.; Buchanan, T. (2015) Criminology & Criminal Justice
Citation 22
Law Enforcement Against Perpetrators Of Romance Fraud In Cyberspace
Munir, Miftahul (2025) Proceedings of the First International Cyber Law Conference, ICL-C 2023, 11 November 2023, Jakarta, Indonesia
Citation 23
Romance Scam Victimization: A Survey-Based Examination of Financial, Psychological, and Reporting Factors
Herrera, LD (2025) 2025 13th International Symposium on Digital Forensics and Security (ISDFS)
Citation 24
More than Money: Examining the Potential Exposure of Romance Fraud Victims to Identity Crime
Cross, C.; Holt, TJ. (2023) Global Crime
Citation 25
“What action should l take?”: Help-seeking behaviours of those targeted by romance fraud
Meikle, Wesley; Cross, Cassandra (2024) Journal of Economic Criminology
Citation 26
“I knew it was a scam”: Understanding the triggers for recognizing romance fraud
Cross, C. (2023) Criminology & Public Policy
Citation 27
Online romance scams and victimhood
Sorell, T.; Whitty, M. (2019) Security Journal
Citation 28
Deconstructing a form of hybrid investment fraud: Examining ‘pig butchering’ in the United States
Maras, Marie-Helen; Ives, Emily R. (2024) Journal of Economic Criminology
Citation 29
“I Suspect That the Pictures Are Stolen”: Romance Fraud, Identity Crime, and Responding to Suspicions of Inauthentic Identities
Cross, C.; Layt, R. (2021) Social Science Computer Review
Citation 30
Mapping romance fraud research – a systematic review
Kassem, R.; Carter, E. (2023) Journal of Financial Crime
Citation 31
Exploring Fear of Crime for Those Targeted by Romance Fraud
Cross, C.; Lee, M. (2023) The Link between Specific Forms of Online and Offline Victimization
Citation 32
“If U Don't Pay they will Share the Pics”: Exploring Sextortion in the Context of Romance Fraud
Cross, Cassandra; Holt, Karen; O'Malley, Roberta Liggett (2024) Scams, Cons, Frauds, and Deceptions
Citation 33
To pay or not to pay: An exploratory analysis of sextortion in the context of romance fraud
Cross, C.; Holt, K.; Holt, TJ. (2023) Criminology & Criminal Justice
Citation 34
Hook, line, and sinker: the mechanics of fraud
M. Houck, Max (2023) Handbook on Crime and Technology
Citation 35
“They just say how stupid I was for being conned”. Cyberscams and acquired brain injury: A qualitative exploration of the lived experience of survivors and close others
Gould, Kate R.; Carminati, Jao-Yue J.; Ponsford, Jennie L. (2021) Neuropsychological Rehabilitation
Citation 36
Addressing Cyberscams and Acquired Brain Injury (“I Desperately Need to Know What to Do”): Qualitative Exploration of Clinicians’ and Service Providers’ Perspectives
Chew, Kimberly Ann; Ponsford, Jennie; Gould, Kate Rachel (2024) Journal of Medical Internet Research

Revision history

This history includes approved public synthesis versions. Drafts and unsuccessful generation attempts are not shown.

Version 50
Current public version Aug 30, 2026

Automated claim-level support repair round 2, correcting 1 passage from synthesis version 49.
Version 49
Aug 30, 2026

Automated claim-level support repair round 1, correcting 5 passages from synthesis version 48.
Version 48
Aug 30, 2026

Initial version (no prior evidence changes).
- Publications: 36 (+16)
- Evidence statements: 124 (+54)
- Cited sources: 36 (+16)
Sources added: Addressing Cyberscams and Acquired Brain Injury (“I Desperately Need to Know What to Do”): Qualitative Exploration of Clinicians’ and Service Providers’ Perspectives; Bi-Directional Exploitation of Human Trafficking Victims: Both Targets and Perpetrators in Cybercrime; Deconstructing a form of hybrid investment fraud: Examining ‘pig butchering’ in the United States; Exploring Fear of Crime for Those Targeted by Romance Fraud; and 15 more.

Sources removed: Do we need to know about cyberscams in neurorehabilitation? A cross-sectional scoping survey of Australasian clinicians and service providers; Love and Technology; The Online Mutual Help Practices of Romance Fraud Victims.

View full revision history (50 versions)

Return to Research Insights

Scope and the ‘dark figure’ of underreporting

Emotional and social barriers to disclosure and reporting