Telling someone, reporting, and receiving support
Interpretation. These are different actions, not interchangeable measures of help-seeking. Someone may report to authorities without telling family, or want support without wanting police involvement. For organizations receiving disclosures, the distinction matters: accepting a report does not necessarily meet the person's reasons for reaching out (Cantin et al., 2025; Cross, 2018b; Cross et al., 2016).
| Focus | What the studies show | What remains uncertain |
|---|---|---|
| Personal disclosure Interviews | Participants sometimes withheld their experiences from family and friends because they feared anger, blame, or other negative reactions (Whitty & Buchanan, 2015). | Interpretation. Recruitment was through law enforcement or a previous survey, not a population-wide sample (Whitty & Buchanan, 2015). |
| Official reporting Interviews with online-fraud victims | Interviewees described difficulty finding an agency willing to accept their complaint, including repeated referrals between agencies (Cross, 2018a). | The study involved people who had already reported online fraud and lost at least AUD $10,000 (Cross, 2018a). |
| Peer support online Analysis of online mutual-help practices | Posting under a pseudonym can limit exposure to the judgment victims fear when sharing their experiences (Cantin et al., 2025). | The research identifies a reason these spaces may feel accessible, but benefits for crime victims remain insufficiently established (Cantin et al., 2025). |
Disclosure does not follow a fixed order
Recognizing a crime does not mean someone feels able to tell the people closest to them. In interviews about online-fraud reporting, many participants had withheld their experiences from family or friends despite acknowledging the crime and wanting to report it to an authority. Silence at home therefore need not mean failure to recognize deception (Cross, 2018b).
Other people can also help make reporting possible. In qualitative research involving cyberscam survivors with acquired brain injury and people close to them, every reported instance of contacting police, banks, service providers, or dating sites was initiated or supported by a family member, friend, or another person close to them. Most participants nevertheless described reporting as unhelpful or were still awaiting a response (Gould et al., 2021).
Interpretation. These accounts argue against assuming that family involvement is always helpful or always unwelcome. A service could ask whether the person wants someone involved and what assistance they need, rather than treating disclosure to relatives as a necessary first step (Gould et al., 2021; Whitty & Buchanan, 2015).
The barrier is not always embarrassment
Fear of judgment can coexist with other concerns. In Whitty's research on online dating scams, participants described shame and humiliation and anticipated similar reactions from law enforcement. Some also believed they had been involved in money laundering and withheld reports for that reason. These were participants' fears, not findings about their legal responsibility (Whitty, 2013).
Recognition itself can be difficult when a relationship leads to an investment offer. An analysis of romance-linked investment fraud suggests that people may interpret losses as a bad investment rather than deception, especially in volatile cryptocurrency markets. This could keep them from recognizing a reason to report (Cross, 2023).
Interpretation. A person may also see little point in police contact while still wanting help. Research on online mutual help describes reluctance to report alongside low expectations of recovering money, shame, and humiliation. Yet many victims wanted organizational support to rebuild their lives. Lack of a police report should not be read as lack of need (Cantin et al., 2025).
What happened when 80 victims tried reporting?
A 2018 study interviewed 80 online-fraud victims across Australia. Eligibility required an earlier report to Scamwatch, an Australian scam-reporting service, a loss of at least AUD $10,000, adulthood, and residence near one of five capital cities. These requirements limit what the study can tell us about people who never report or lose smaller amounts (Cross, 2018a).
Across 28 interviews, victims described being passed from one agency to another, sometimes returning to where they started. The problem was not simply uncertainty about which form to complete: people struggled to find anyone willing to accept their complaint (Cross, 2018a).
Reporting did not have a single purpose. Nineteen interviews described reporting to the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission to help prevent others from experiencing the same fraud. These participants were content for their experiences to be used for education. Elsewhere in the interviews, people expected their complaint to generate action (Cross, 2018a).
Complaint records cannot tell us how many people stay silent
Meikle and Cross's 2024 study examined 3,259 reports using thematic analysis: identifying recurring themes in complainants' written accounts. Researchers individually assessed every narrative. This approach can reveal what people chose to describe. The authors also flagged likely self-selection bias: people contributing accounts may differ from those absent from the dataset (Meikle & Cross, 2024).
Interpretation. The reporting form did not tell complainants what to include in the free-text field, and accounts varied in detail. The researchers therefore expected their analysis to underestimate help-seeking. A narrative that does not mention counseling, family contact, or other assistance cannot automatically be counted as evidence that no help was sought (Meikle & Cross, 2024).
Interpretation. There is a separate problem outside the records altogether. Official statistics based on self-reports capture people who recognize victimization and choose to report it. They leave out unreported experiences, while reported losses may be under- or overestimated. Calculating an overall reporting rate requires the total number of victims, including those who never report; complaint totals alone cannot provide that number (Cross, 2023).
The response matters after someone reaches out
Whitty and Buchanan's interview research found contrasting police experiences. UK participants identified through law-enforcement intelligence described empathetic contact as fairly therapeutic. Those who approached police with suspicions described dismissive, unhelpful responses. Participants were recruited through police introductions or an earlier survey; this was not a controlled comparison showing that one contact route produces better outcomes (Whitty & Buchanan, 2015).
Referral to counseling is not the same as receiving useful support. A qualitative study of cyberscam survivors and their social networks found mixed experiences of psychological services. Two romance-scam victims said counseling was unhelpful because therapists did not understand the scam's emotional complexity. Their accounts identify a service problem, not evidence that counseling generally fails (Cazanis et al., 2025).
What reporting and support teams could change
Interpretation. The following implications concern how organizations receive and respond to people seeking help. They draw on reported needs and difficulties, rather than tested evidence that these changes increase reporting, recover money, or prevent another scam (Cross, 2018a; Cross et al., 2016; Parti, 2022).
Ask what the person wants from contact
Distinguish requests for an investigation, emotional support, acknowledgment, and help protecting others. Explain which of these the organization can provide and what happens next. Do not assume that recording an incident satisfies someone who expected action or a route to support (Cross, 2018a; Cross et al., 2016).
Make referrals understandable
Review whether people are repeatedly redirected without knowing who has responsibility. Provide a clear explanation of where a report goes and whether a referral occurred. Ask whether the person reached the receiving service, rather than treating the act of giving a referral as completion (Cross, 2018a, 2019).
Measure help received, not just reports submitted
Separate personal disclosure, formal reporting, support access, and perceived helpfulness in evaluation questions. Ask directly rather than inferring these from unprompted narratives. If the aim is preventing further victimization, measure later experiences; a larger number of reports alone does not establish that benefit (Cazanis et al., 2025; Cross, 2018b; Meikle & Cross, 2024; Parti, 2022).
Can support remain available without a police report?
Consider whether your organization makes police reporting a condition for receiving support. The research describes people who wanted help rebuilding their lives despite reluctance to contact police. What assistance could your organization offer while respecting that choice? (Cantin et al., 2025; Cross et al., 2016).
About the evidence
This explanation draws on selected sources from RSRC’s full synthesis. The full research record, its source list and version history remain available below.
Scope, preparation and limitations
AI prepared this explanation from synthesis version 74, then performed separate editorial grading and source-support checks. The automated grades assess communication; they are not reader-test results or measures of scientific certainty. No human or expert content review of this explanation is recorded.
The full synthesis preserves 44 publication records and 148 evidence statements. These counts do not establish the number of independent studies or the strength of a finding. Practical implications are editorial interpretations, with limitations explained alongside the evidence.
RSRC methodologySources cited in this explanation (13)
Links open the publication record or original work. Journal access may vary.
- Cantin, P.-M., Ream, F., & Dupont, B. (2025). The Online Mutual Help Practices of Romance Fraud Victims. Les Presses de l’Université d’Ottawa | University of Ottawa Press eBooks, 179–194. https://doi.org/10.2307/jj.37022854.16
- Cazanis, A., Carminati, J.-Y., Chew, K., Cross, C., Ponsford, J., & Gould, K. R. (2025). “Falling into a Black Hole”: A Qualitative Exploration of the Lived Experiences of Cyberscam Victim-Survivors and Their Social Support Networks. Victims & Offenders, 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/15564886.2025.2481267
- Cross, C. (2018a). Expectations vs reality: Responding to online fraud across the fraud justice network. International Journal of Law, Crime and Justice, 55, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijlcj.2018.08.001
- Cross, C. (2018b). Victims’ motivations for reporting to the ‘fraud justice network’. Police Practice and Research, 19(6), 550–564. https://doi.org/10.1080/15614263.2018.1507891
- Cross, C. (2019). ‘Oh we can’t actually do anything about that’: The problematic nature of jurisdiction for online fraud victims. Criminology & Criminal Justice, 20(3), 358–375. https://doi.org/10.1177/1748895819835910
- Cross, C. (2023). Romance baiting, cryptorom and ‘pig butchering’: an evolutionary step in romance fraud. Current Issues in Criminal Justice, 36(3), 334–346. https://doi.org/10.1080/10345329.2023.2248670
- Cross, C., Richards, K., & Smith, R. (2016). The reporting experiences and support needs of victims of online fraud. Australian Institute of Criminology eBooks. https://doi.org/10.52922/ti148355
- Gould, K. R., Carminati, J.-Y. J., & Ponsford, J. L. (2021). “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. Neuropsychological Rehabilitation, 33(2), 325–345. https://doi.org/10.1080/09602011.2021.2016447
- Kassem, R., & Carter, E. (2023). Mapping romance fraud research – a systematic review. Journal of Financial Crime, 31(4), 974–992. https://doi.org/10.1108/jfc-06-2023-0160
- Meikle, W., & Cross, C. (2024). “What action should l take?”: Help-seeking behaviours of those targeted by romance fraud. Journal of Economic Criminology, 3, 100054. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeconc.2024.100054
- Parti, K. (2022). “Elder Scam” Risk Profiles: Individual and Situational Factors of Younger and Older Age Groups’ Fraud Victimization. International Journal of Cybersecurity Intelligence & Cybercrime, 5(3), 20–40. https://doi.org/10.52306/2578-3289.1117
- Whitty, M. T. (2013). Anatomy of the online dating romance scam. Security Journal, 28(4), 443–455. https://doi.org/10.1057/sj.2012.57
- Whitty, M. T., & Buchanan, T. (2015). The online dating romance scam: The psychological impact on victims – both financial and non-financial. Criminology & Criminal Justice, 16(2), 176–194. https://doi.org/10.1177/1748895815603773
Full synthesis and revision history
Download the full synthesis PDF
Across the reviewed corpus, many people targeted by romance- or relationship‑based online fraud withhold disclosure and avoid formal reporting. Studies report shame, humiliation, embarrassment, self‑blame, denial, and fear of social consequences or disapproval as reasons for non‑reporting; some victims also feared being seen as complicit in money laundering or believed reporting would be futile. Recognition that one has been defrauded is often delayed and in some cases prompted by third parties (family, friends, banks, remittance agencies, clinicians, or law enforcement). Institutional responses are uneven: victims identified proactively through law‑enforcement intelligence described empathetic, therapeutic police contact, while people who self‑reported described unhelpful or dismissive police interactions. Many victims encountered a fragmented reporting system in which agencies referred them between one another or did not accept complaints. Help‑seeking pathways are heterogeneous: in one structured survey a majority (60.9%) sought no support from third parties, and questionnaire data indicated only 9.4% reported to police while 32.1% kept the case to themselves. Methodological patterns across the literature—dominated by self‑selected portal reports, convenience surveys, and purposive qualitative samples—produce selection bias and a substantial dark figure; available statistics are based only on reported cases, and no recent study reliably quantifies the rate at which romance‑scam victims report the crime or the total extent of victimization (Cross, 2018a, 2023a, 2023b; Cross & Lee, 2022; Gould et al., 2022; Herrera, 2025; Kassem & Carter, 2023; Khukhunaishvili, 2024; Kim & Seo, 2019; Meikle & Cross, 2024; Normand, 2026; Shapiro, 2022; Whitty, 2013a; Whitty & Buchanan, 2015).
Observed reporting prevalence and patterns
Available fraud statistics are largely self-reports and therefore represent only people who acknowledge victimization and choose to report; official statistics based on reported cases substantially underestimate total victimization. Multiple studies report substantial non‑reporting: nearly half of respondents (45.8%) did not report the incident to any authority or platform; in one sample only 15.54% reached out for help while 84.46% told no one; and in another survey only 9.4% reported cases to police while 32.1% kept the case to themselves. Cross‑country studies estimate fewer than one‑third of victims report fraud to authorities. Reported reasons for not reporting include shame and embarrassment, denial, not knowing where to report, fear of not being taken seriously, belief that nothing can be done, ongoing manipulation, stigma, victim blaming, and trivialization; victims may also encounter blame when they do report. No recent study reliably quantifies the reporting rate for romance scams, and future research should produce reliable estimates of reporting rates and total victimization (Corpuz et al., 2025; Cross, 2016, 2023a; Herrera, 2026; Khukhunaishvili, 2024; Nataraj-Hansen & Richards, 2022; Normand, 2026).
Administrative and portal datasets nonetheless yield useful descriptive evidence about complainants (for example, demographic proxies, reported losses, and narrative themes), but these datasets derive from people who recognized victimisation and chose to report—producing a large dark figure that authors explicitly highlight (Cross, 2023a; Cross et al., 2023; Cross & Lee, 2022; Shapiro, 2022).
Psychological and social barriers to disclosure and reporting
Multiple studies report that shame, embarrassment, self‑blame, and fear of negative social judgement are recurrent reasons victims do not disclose their experience to family, friends, or formal agencies. These feelings reduce motivation to seek help and can delay or prevent reporting even after financial loss or emotional harm has occurred (Annadorai et al., 2020; Kassem & Carter, 2023; Kim & Seo, 2019; Rabby & Chowdory, 2024; Shapiro, 2022; C. Wang, 2022; Whitty, 2013a).
Related concerns also include fear of being implicated in criminal activity (for example, worries about money‑laundering) and perceptions that reporting is futile because recovery is unlikely; these beliefs can produce incomplete or withheld information that undermines investigatory usefulness when victims do contact authorities (Button et al., 2014; Cantin et al., 2025b; Cross, 2023a; Kim & Seo, 2019; M. Houck, 2023; Whitty, 2013a).
Recognition of fraud and third‑party triggers
Recognition that one’s relationship or investment has been a scam commonly precedes reporting. Multiple qualitative and administrative-report analyses document that family, friends, banks, remittance services, cryptocurrency exchanges, clinicians, and law‑enforcement contacts sometimes alert or prompt victims to recognise deception and later report (Cross, 2023a, 2023b; DeLiema & Witt, 2023; Gould et al., 2021, 2022; Maras & Ives, 2024; Shapiro, 2022; Whitty, 2013b).
Investment framing—especially in cryptocurrency‑associated schemes such as pig‑butchering or romance‑baiting—can reduce victims’ recognition of deception because losses are plausibly interpreted as bad investments in a volatile market; authors argue that this framing further lowers visibility in official investment‑fraud statistics (Cross, 2023a).
Help‑seeking pathways and peer/anonymous support
Help‑seeking pathways are heterogeneous. Survey and administrative‑report analyses show a substantial share of people who report to portals nonetheless sought no further third‑party support; in one sample a majority reported no third‑party support. Other victims disclose only in anonymous or pseudonymous online mutual‑help forums, which lower fears of judgment and enable disclosure when formal or informal in‑person routes feel unsafe (Cantin et al., 2025a, 2025b; Herrera, 2025; Meikle & Cross, 2024).
Qualitative forum studies and peer‑support case reports describe anonymous and pseudonymous mutual‑help spaces as important avenues for disclosure and for sharing practical advice. Pseudonymous posting may reduce victims’ fear of others’ judgment and enable them to share experiences they might not disclose to people they know. One study in this batch conducted online interviews with field experts and the founder of a German romance‑scam victim support forum and distributed a victim questionnaire through that forum (Cantin et al., 2025b; Khukhunaishvili, 2024).
Institutional responses, practical impediments, and victims’ experiences
When victims report, motives combine individual and prosocial reasons: seeking justice or recovery and wanting to prevent others from being victimized both recur across interview and portal‑narrative analyses. Some analyses of complaint datasets also indicate that victims who suffered financial loss are more likely to seek police or anti‑fraud assistance than those reporting only emotional harms (Cross, 2018b; Cross et al., 2023; Cross, Richards, & Smith, 2016; F. Wang & Topalli, 2022).
Quantitative estimates of reporting vary by sample and method. Convenience and portal samples yield widely different reporting rates (from very low police reporting percentages in some samples to substantially higher informal disclosure rates in surveys). Authors caution that no recent study reliably quantifies overall reporting rates for romance‑type victimization and that official statistics reflect only reported cases, producing a large dark figure (Corpuz et al., 2025; Cross, 2016; Golladay & Snyder, 2025; Herrera, 2026; Holt, 2022; Khukhunaishvili, 2024; Nataraj-Hansen & Richards, 2022; Normand, 2026).
Several authors and practitioner commentators recommend centralized single‑contact routing (for example, ACORN‑style mechanisms), clearer victim communication, and staff training to reduce blaming and improve sympathetic responses, although direct causal evaluations of such reforms are not present in the reviewed evidence (Cross, 2018a, 2018b, 2019; Nataraj-Hansen & Richards, 2022).
Methodological patterns, limitations, and consequences for inference
A prominent methodological pattern is reliance on self‑selected reporters (Scamwatch and similar portals), convenience surveys (often recruited via social media), purposive qualitative samples, single‑case reports, and narrative reviews. Because these sources disproportionately represent people who know about and choose to report, studies cannot produce population reporting rates, causal inferences about reporting determinants, or robust prevalence estimates; authors repeatedly note selection bias and the resulting limitations for generalizability (Cross et al., 2023; Kemp et al., 2021; Meikle & Cross, 2024; Normand, 2026).
Other recurrent dataset limitations include unprompted and uneven free-text fields that varied in detail and likely led to underestimation of help-seeking, absence of routine screening or human interaction when portal reports were lodged and lack of triangulation or consistent verification of reports, and reliance on reported cases only; the latter limits generalizability to people who do not report and means known statistics likely underestimate true victimisation. The final regression sample for one analysis included 2,686 cases (Cross, 2023a; Cross et al., 2023, 2024; Meikle & Cross, 2024; Normand, 2026).
Evidence gaps, underrepresented subgroups, and research priorities
Authors consistently identify empirical gaps: reliable population‑representative estimates of reporting rates and total romance‑type victimization, evaluations of whether reporting and help‑seeking reduce repeat victimization, and better measurement and harmonization across reporting systems to reduce misclassification and the dark figure (Cross, 2018b; Cross et al., 2023; Normand, 2026; Parti, 2022).
The literature also highlights subgroup evidence gaps. Populations noted as underrepresented or at special risk include older adults, people with acquired brain injury or cognitive disability, minors in coercive cultural contexts, people experiencing homelessness or extreme poverty, and victims who never engage official reporting channels. Several qualitative clinician and specialist‑service studies call for tailored outreach, accessible reporting pathways, and more systematic monitoring of these groups, but empirical evaluations of tailored interventions are not yet available in the reviewed corpus (Amirkhani et al., 2026; Cazanis et al., 2025; Chew et al., 2024; DeLiema & Witt, 2023; Gillespie, 2017; Gould et al., 2021, 2022; Maras & Ives, 2024; Pope & Seto, 2026; Whitty, 2013a).
References
- Amirkhani, S., Alizadeh, M. F., Randall, D., Stevens, G., & Zytko, D. (2026). My Parents Expectations Were Overwhelming: Online Dating Romance Scams Targeting Minors in Iran Through Exploitation of Parental Pressure. Publication Server of Bonn-Rhein-Sieg University of Applied Sciences (Bonn-Rhein-Sieg University of Applied Sciences). https://doi.org/10.48550/arxiv.2601.16321 Publication record
- Annadorai, K., Krish, P., Shaari, A. H., & Kamaluddin, M. R. (2020). Mapping Computer Mediated Communication Theories and Persuasive Strategies in Analysing Online Dating Romance Scam. Journal of Xidian University, 14(5). https://doi.org/10.37896/jxu14.5/070 Publication record
- Button, M., Nicholls, C. M., Kerr, J., & Owen, R. (2014). Online frauds: Learning from victims why they fall for these scams. Australian & New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 47(3), 391–408. https://doi.org/10.1177/0004865814521224 Publication record
- Cantin, P.-M., Ream, F., & Dupont, B. (2025a). CHAPTER 10 The Online Mutual Help Practices of Romance Fraud Victims. University of Ottawa Press eBooks, 179–194. https://doi.org/10.1515/9780776645636-014 Publication record
- Cantin, P.-M., Ream, F., & Dupont, B. (2025b). The Online Mutual Help Practices of Romance Fraud Victims. Les Presses de l’Université d’Ottawa | University of Ottawa Press eBooks, 179–194. https://doi.org/10.2307/jj.37022854.16 Publication record
- Cazanis, A., Carminati, J.-Y., Chew, K., Cross, C., Ponsford, J., & Gould, K. R. (2025). “Falling into a Black Hole”: A Qualitative Exploration of the Lived Experiences of Cyberscam Victim-Survivors and Their Social Support Networks. Victims & Offenders, 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/15564886.2025.2481267 Publication record
- Chew, K. A., Ponsford, J., & Gould, K. R. (2024). Addressing Cyberscams and Acquired Brain Injury (“I Desperately Need to Know What to Do”): Qualitative Exploration of Clinicians’ and Service Providers’ Perspectives. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 26, e51245. https://doi.org/10.2196/51245 Publication record
- Corpuz, D. R. R. N., Galang, M. J. G., Gueco, K. H. S., & Pamintuan, K. D. (2025). ROMANCE AND RUIN: THE INTERPLAY OF FINANCIAL LOSS AND PSYCHOLOGICAL WELL-BEING AMONG LOVE SCAM VICTIMS IN THE PHILIPPINES. EPRA International Journal of Multidisciplinary Research (IJMR), 675. https://doi.org/10.36713/epra25491 Publication record
- Cross, C. (2016). Using financial intelligence to target online fraud victimisation: applying a tertiary prevention perspective. Criminal Justice Studies, 29(2), 125–142. https://doi.org/10.1080/1478601x.2016.1170278 Publication record
- Cross, C. (2018a). Expectations vs reality: Responding to online fraud across the fraud justice network. International Journal of Law, Crime and Justice, 55, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijlcj.2018.08.001 Publication record
- Cross, C. (2018b). Victims’ motivations for reporting to the ‘fraud justice network’. Police Practice and Research, 19(6), 550–564. https://doi.org/10.1080/15614263.2018.1507891 Publication record
- Cross, C. (2019). ‘Oh we can’t actually do anything about that’: The problematic nature of jurisdiction for online fraud victims. Criminology & Criminal Justice, 20(3), 358–375. https://doi.org/10.1177/1748895819835910 Publication record
- Cross, C. (2023a). Romance baiting, cryptorom and ‘pig butchering’: an evolutionary step in romance fraud. Current Issues in Criminal Justice, 36(3), 334–346. https://doi.org/10.1080/10345329.2023.2248670 Publication record
- Cross, C. (2023b). “I knew it was a scam”: Understanding the triggers for recognizing romance fraud. Criminology & Public Policy, 22(4), 613–637. https://doi.org/10.1111/1745-9133.12645 Publication record
- Cross, C., Holt, K., & Holt, T. J. (2023). To pay or not to pay: An exploratory analysis of sextortion in the context of romance fraud. Criminology & Criminal Justice, 25(3), 777–792. https://doi.org/10.1177/17488958221149581 Publication record
- Cross, C., Holt, K., & O'Malley, R. L. (2024). “If U Don't Pay they will Share the Pics”: Exploring Sextortion in the Context of Romance Fraud. Scams, Cons, Frauds, and Deceptions, 10–31. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003474982-2 Publication record
- Cross, C., & Lee, M. (2022). Exploring Fear of Crime for Those Targeted by Romance Fraud. Victims & Offenders, 17(5), 735–755. https://doi.org/10.1080/15564886.2021.2018080 Publication record
- Cross, C., Richards, K., & Smith, R. (2016). The reporting experiences and support needs of victims of online fraud. Australian Institute of Criminology eBooks. https://doi.org/10.52922/ti148355 Publication record
- DeLiema, M., & Witt, P. (2023). Profiling consumers who reported mass marketing scams: demographic characteristics and emotional sentiments associated with victimization. Security Journal, 37(3), 921–964. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41284-023-00401-5 Publication record
- Gillespie, A. A. (2017). The Electronic Spanish Prisoner. The Journal of Criminal Law, 81(3), 217–231. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022018317702803 Publication record
- Golladay, K. A., & Snyder, J. A. (2025). ‘Love is a powerful force and in our pursuit of it we are easily blinded’: Examining negative consequences experienced by catfishing fraud victims. International Review of Victimology, 32(2), 431–449. https://doi.org/10.1177/02697580251392596 Publication record
- Gould, K. R., Carminati, J.-Y. J., & Ponsford, J. L. (2021). “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. Neuropsychological Rehabilitation, 33(2), 325–345. https://doi.org/10.1080/09602011.2021.2016447 Publication record
- Gould, K. R., Carolan, M., & Ponsford, J. L. (2022). Do we need to know about cyberscams in neurorehabilitation? A cross-sectional scoping survey of Australasian clinicians and service providers. Brain Impairment, 24(2), 229–244. https://doi.org/10.1017/brimp.2022.13 Publication record
- Herrera, L. D. (2025). Romance Scam Victimization: A Survey-Based Examination of Financial, Psychological, and Reporting Factors. 2025 13th International Symposium on Digital Forensics and Security (ISDFS), 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1109/isdfs65363.2025.11012081 Publication record
- Herrera, L. D. (2026). Romance Scam Reporting and Support: Help-Seeking Timing, Trust, and Escalation. 2026 14th International Symposium on Digital Forensics and Security (ISDFS), 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1109/isdfs69419.2026.11458949 Publication record
- Holt, T. J. (2022). Understanding the state of criminological scholarship on cybercrimes. Computers in Human Behavior, 139, 107493. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2022.107493 Publication record
- Kassem, R., & Carter, E. (2023). Mapping romance fraud research – a systematic review. Journal of Financial Crime, 31(4), 974–992. https://doi.org/10.1108/jfc-06-2023-0160 Publication record
- Kemp, S., Buil-Gil, D., Moneva, A., Miró-Llinares, F., & Díaz-Castaño, N. (2021). Empty Streets, Busy Internet: A Time-Series Analysis of Cybercrime and Fraud Trends During COVID-19. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 37(4), 480–501. https://doi.org/10.1177/10439862211027986 Publication record
- Khukhunaishvili, D. (2024). Romance Scam as one of the main Challenges of cybercrime. https://doi.org/10.13140/rg.2.2.23659.14880 Publication record
- Kim, H.-S., & Seo, J.-B. (2019). A Study on Romance Scam : The Current Situation and Effective Countermeasures. The Police Science Journal, 14(3), 117–146. https://doi.org/10.16961/polips.2019.14.3.117 Publication record
- M. Houck, M. (2023). Hook, line, and sinker: the mechanics of fraud. Handbook on Crime and Technology, 17–37. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781800886643.00009 Publication record
- Maras, M.-H., & Ives, E. R. (2024). Deconstructing a form of hybrid investment fraud: Examining ‘pig butchering’ in the United States. Journal of Economic Criminology, 5, 100066. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeconc.2024.100066 Publication record
- Meikle, W., & Cross, C. (2024). “What action should l take?”: Help-seeking behaviours of those targeted by romance fraud. Journal of Economic Criminology, 3, 100054. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeconc.2024.100054 Publication record
- Nataraj-Hansen, S., & Richards, K. (2022). Why do fraud victims get blamed? Lerner’s Belief in a Just World and its application to victims of online fraud. Journal of Financial Crime, 30(3), 828–839. https://doi.org/10.1108/jfc-02-2022-0037 Publication record
- Normand, V. L. (2026). Romance Scam Statistics 2024-2026: verified, source-attributed figures from FBI IC3, FTC, City of London Police, Cybermalveillance.gouv.fr, GASA and Chainalysis (Baromètre 2026 des arnaques sentimentales). https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.22284080 Publication record
- Parti, K. (2022). “Elder Scam” Risk Profiles: Individual and Situational Factors of Younger and Older Age Groups’ Fraud Victimization. International Journal of Cybersecurity Intelligence & Cybercrime, 5(3), 20–40. https://doi.org/10.52306/2578-3289.1117 Publication record
- Pope, T., & Seto, C. H. (2026). From swipe to swindle: a narrative review of research on older adult victims of romance fraud. Journal of Elder Abuse & Neglect, 38(4), 423–443. https://doi.org/10.1080/08946566.2026.2690996 Publication record
- Rabby, F., & Chowdory, M. M. U. (2024). Romance Scamming: Uncovering the Transnational Crime and Legal Challenges. International Journal of Law and Societal Studies, 1(1), 48–62. https://doi.org/10.61424/ijlss.v1i1.134 Publication record
- Shapiro, L. R. (2022). Online Romance Scammers. Cyberpredators and Their Prey, 17–41. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003092292-2 Publication record
- Wang, C. (2022). Online Dating Scam Victims Psychological Impact Analysis. Journal of Education, Humanities and Social Sciences, 4, 149–154. https://doi.org/10.54097/ehss.v4i.2740 Publication record
- Wang, F., & Topalli, V. (2022). Understanding Romance Scammers Through the Lens of Their Victims: Qualitative Modeling of Risk and Protective Factors in the Online Context. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 49(1), 145–181. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12103-022-09706-4 Publication record
- Whitty, M. T. (2013a). Anatomy of the online dating romance scam. Security Journal, 28(4), 443–455. https://doi.org/10.1057/sj.2012.57 Publication record
- Whitty, M. T. (2013b). The Scammers Persuasive Techniques Model: Development of a Stage Model to Explain the Online Dating Romance Scam. British Journal of Criminology, 53(4), 665–684. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjc/azt009 Publication record
- Whitty, M. T., & Buchanan, T. (2015). The online dating romance scam: The psychological impact on victims – both financial and non-financial. Criminology & Criminal Justice, 16(2), 176–194. https://doi.org/10.1177/1748895815603773 Publication record
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.
Revision history
-
Version 74
Current public versionAutomated claim-level support repair round 2, correcting 2 passages from synthesis version 73.
-
Version 73
Automated claim-level support repair round 1, correcting 4 passages from synthesis version 72.
-
Version 72
Automated evidence-grounded revision attempt 1. Initial version.
- Publications: 44 (-7)
- Evidence statements: 148 (-14)
- Cited sources: 44 (-7)
Sources removed: A Juridical Review of Love Scam Crimes from the Perspective of Criminal Law and the Electronic Information and Transactions Law in Indonesia; Analysis of a Cryptocurrency Investment Scam: Pig Butchering; Facebook as a Tool of Catfishing: An Analytical Study of University Students; More than Money: Examining the Potential Exposure of Romance Fraud Victims to Identity Crime; and 3 more.
Looking for reporting or support information? Visit the RSRC resource list. RSRC does not provide direct support.