What makes it a scam?
The deception is deliberate. Someone presents the relationship as genuine while using it to take advantage of the other person. A relationship ending badly, a disagreement about money, or a request for help does not by itself make it a scam.
In Whitty’s interview study, messages about love and commitment helped make later requests for money persuasive. The person targeted could see a payment as helping a partner. (Whitty, 2013)
A stolen photograph or invented name can be part of the deception, but neither is required. Research also discusses real identities and face-to-face contact. Knowing someone’s name or meeting them does not establish that their intentions are honest. (Gillespie, 2017)
A scam attempt still matters if you do not send money. Whitty’s study included people who had been deceived but had not lost money. Stopping a payment does not erase the deception that came before it. (Whitty, 2013)
How it can look
These made-up examples illustrate two financial patterns described in the research. They are not individual victims’ stories or a list of every possible scam.
“I need your help”
A supposed partner invents a crisis and asks for money. You send it because you believe someone you love needs help. Further problems bring further requests. (Whitty, 2013)
“Let’s invest for our future”
A supposed partner leads you to a false investment platform. It shows gains on your money. When you try to withdraw it, you are told to pay a fee first. (Wang & Zhou, 2023)
These approaches can overlap. One study described a case that moved from requests for medical expenses into investment fraud. A scam does not have to follow one fixed sequence. (Maras & Ives, 2024)
A reason to pause, not a verdict
A request for help or a delayed meeting is not proof of a scam. Consider the deception, the demands and the pressure together. You do not need certainty before seeking advice.
Why the harm goes beyond money
Discovering the scam can mean losing a relationship the person believed in, as well as money. Whitty and Buchanan’s interviews described grief, shame and damaged trust. Some people who had not lost money still reported distress. (Whitty & Buchanan, 2016)
You do not have to defend why you trusted someone before asking for help. The person who deceived you is responsible.
Other names you may see
Romance fraud, love scam, sweetheart scam, online dating scam and online dating fraud are overlapping names in this literature. Authors do not always mean exactly the same thing by them. (Herrera & Hastings, 2024; Zainal Abidin et al., 2018)
Herrera and Hastings compared five English search terms using U.S. Google Trends data from January 2004 to January 2023. “Romance scam” attracted the most search interest among the terms they tested. That tells us about searches in one country, not the number of scams. (Herrera & Hastings, 2024)
Other researchers have examined the wording too. Kassem and Carter’s review of 41 papers found inconsistent and overlapping terminology. When comparing studies, check what the authors include, not just the label in the title. (Kassem & Carter, 2024)
Has the meaning changed?
The papers reviewed here do not show one definition simply replacing another. Using apparent romantic trust to obtain money remains a central idea. Investment approaches have received more attention, but requests for help with emergencies or visits have not disappeared. (Cross, 2024; Whitty, 2013)
Some studies include sexual exploitation
Broader wording is not entirely new. A Malaysian paper published in 2018 described love scams as involving financial or sexual aims. (Zainal Abidin et al., 2018)
In a 2025 study, women in Iran described false promises of romance or marriage used to obtain intimate images or sexual contact. Some accounts also involved threats. The authors argued that definitions focused only on money miss these experiences. This is a proposed wider use of the term, not a settled worldwide definition. (Amirkhani et al., 2025)
Here, the goal of the deception is different. That is separate from the emotional harm a financial scam can cause, or a scam attempt stopped before anyone pays.
Sources and review
This introduction draws on research held in the RSRC library. Follow a citation for the reference, relevant pages and study limits.
Read the 15 references
-
Amirkhani, S., Alizadeh, M., Randall, D., Stevens, G., & Zytko, D. (2025). “Society encourages the killing of girls like me”: Layers of victimization in online dating romance scams in Iran that target sexual access over financial gain. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction, 9(7), Article CSCW357. https://doi.org/10.1145/3757538
Twenty interviews with women in Iran. Proposes a broader definition involving sexual exploitation; does not establish a worldwide definition or measure how common this is. See pp. 7–8 and 18–20.
-
Button, M., & Carter, E. (2024). Relationship fraud: Romance, friendship and family frauds. Journal of Economic Criminology, 4, Article 100069. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeconc.2024.100069
A proposed way to group overlapping frauds, including relationships involving friends and family. The authors describe it as a starting point, not a definitive classification. See pp. 1–2.
-
Cross, C. (2024). 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
A conceptual discussion of investment approaches alongside continuing requests for personal help. Published online in 2023; this reference uses the 2024 issue. See pp. 337–339.
-
Cross, C., Holt, K., & Holt, T. J. (2025). 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
Examines reports involving intimate-image threats and distinguishes those threats from a prior romantic relationship. See pp. 778–780 and 789. Published online in 2023; this reference uses the 2025 issue.
-
Gillespie, A. A. (2017). The electronic Spanish prisoner: Romance frauds on the internet. The Journal of Criminal Law, 81(3), 217–231. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022018317702803
A legal analysis discussing online and face-to-face fraud, including use of a real or largely real profile. See pp. 218–219. Used for these distinctions, not as a legal definition for every country.
-
Herrera, L. D., & Hastings, J. (2024). The trajectory of romance scams in the U.S.. 2024 12th International Symposium on Digital Forensics and Security (ISDFS), 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1109/ISDFS60797.2024.10527224
Compared five English terms using U.S. Google Trends data from January 2004 through January 2023. Measures relative search interest, not worldwide terminology or scam prevalence. See pp. 1–2 and Figure 1.
-
Hu, Y., Wang, H., Zhou, Y., Guo, Y., Li, L., Luo, B., & Xu, F. (2021). Dating with scambots: Understanding the ecosystem of fraudulent dating applications. IEEE Transactions on Dependable and Secure Computing, 18(3), 1033–1050. https://doi.org/10.1109/TDSC.2019.2908939
Technical study of fraudulent Android dating apps collected in 2017, mainly from Chinese app markets. Describes fake profiles, automated messages and subscription payments; it does not classify every paid dating service as fraudulent. See pp. 1033–1036 and 1047. Published online in 2019; this reference uses the 2021 issue.
-
Kassem, R., & Carter, E. (2024). Mapping romance fraud research—A systematic review. Journal of Financial Crime, 31(4), 974–992. https://doi.org/10.1108/JFC-06-2023-0160
Review of 41 English-language papers from 2000–2023. Directly examines inconsistent definitions and terminology; it does not represent every language or jurisdiction. See pp. 975–976 and 980. Published online in 2023; this reference uses the 2024 issue.
-
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, Article 100066. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeconc.2024.100066
Study of 59 U.S. cases. Includes romantic, friendship and professional approaches, non-crypto investments, and a case combining emergency and investment demands. See pp. 6, 10 and 14–15; the sample is not a global prevalence estimate.
-
Snyder, J. A., & Golladay, K. (2026). More than just a “bad” online experience: Risk factors and characteristics of catfishing fraud victimization. Deviant Behavior, 47(1), 64–84. https://doi.org/10.1080/01639625.2024.2416071
Discusses differing catfishing definitions, romantic and platonic relationships, and varied motives. See pp. 65–66. Its broad U.S. survey is not a measure of romance-scam prevalence. Published online in 2024; this reference uses the 2026 issue.
-
Wang, F., & Zhou, X. (2023). Persuasive schemes for financial exploitation in online romance scam: An anatomy on Sha Zhu Pan (杀猪盘) in China. Victims & Offenders, 18(5), 915–942. https://doi.org/10.1080/15564886.2022.2051109
Forty online accounts and four police reports from China. Describes promises of a shared future, false gains and withdrawal fees; it does not show how often each tactic succeeds. See pp. 923–925 and 928–934. Published online in 2022; this reference uses the 2023 issue.
-
Whittaker, J. M., Lazarus, S., & Corcoran, T. (2024). Are fraud victims nothing more than animals? Critiquing the propagation of “pig butchering” (Sha Zhu Pan, 杀猪盘). Journal of Economic Criminology, 3, Article 100052. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeconc.2024.100052
A critique of language that compares victims to animals. Supports explaining the familiar label while choosing respectful wording. See pp. 5–7; not an empirical test of the label’s effects.
-
Whitty, M. T. (2013). The scammers persuasive techniques model: Development of a stage model to explain the online dating romance scam. The British Journal of Criminology, 53(4), 665–684. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjc/azt009
Twenty interviews, including people who had not lost money. Describes trust-building and requests for financial help, not how often tactics succeed. See pp. 669–670, 672–674 and 677–680.
-
Whitty, M. T., & Buchanan, T. (2016). 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
Twenty interviews about relationship loss and distress, including distress without financial loss. See pp. 179–182 and 189–191. Interviews overlap the 2013 Whitty study, so these are not independent samples. Published online in 2015; this reference uses the 2016 issue.
-
Zainal Abidin, N., Kamaluddin, M. R., Shaari, A. H., Din, N., & Ramasamy, S. (2018). Pengetahuan dan amalan perlindungan pengguna Facebook wanita terhadap penipuan cinta di Malaysia [Knowledge and protective practice towards love scam among female Facebook users in Malaysia]. Jurnal Komunikasi: Malaysian Journal of Communication, 34(4), 113–133. https://doi.org/10.17576/JKMJC-2018-3404-07
The Malay introduction and English abstract include financial and sexual aims in their description of love scams (pp. 113–114). The 609-person survey measures knowledge and protective practices, not the prevalence of sexual exploitation.
How this page was prepared
Revised with Codex on after screening the locally stored library documents for definitions, terminology and different forms of romance scams. Relevant passages and methods were examined more closely. No web searches or paid API requests were used for this revision.
The opening is RSRC’s paraphrase of selected research, not a quotation or a single definition agreed worldwide. The sources include research concerning China, Iran, Malaysia and other settings. These studies do not represent every country. This is not a systematic review or an assessment of any individual relationship.
The two Whitty papers draw on overlapping interviews and should not be counted as independent evidence. References use the year of the reviewed journal issue where it differs from the earlier online publication.
Editorial review assessed clarity, structure, examples, source support and usefulness. These are AI-assisted judgments, not reader testing or independent human review. This page is maintained separately from automated Research Insight updates. New publications do not automatically rewrite it. Read RSRC’s methodology.
Find help or keep learning
Need assistance?
If this sounds familiar, use Resources to find reporting and support services for your country. You can seek help even if you have not lost money.
RSRC does not accept individual scam reports, investigate cases, or recover money.
Find reporting and support resourcesUnderstand more of the research
Research Insights explain what studies found and what remains uncertain.