No laughing matter
| DOI | 10.1177/0269758015571471 |
| Date | 01 May 2015 |
| Published date | 01 May 2015 |
| Author | Cassandra Cross |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
Article
No laughing matter:
Blaming the victim
of online fraud
Cassandra Cross
Queensland University of Technology, Australia
Abstract
There is a strong sense of negativity associated with online fraud victimization. Despite an
increasing awareness, understanding about the reality of victimization experiences is not apparent.
Rather, victims of online fraud are constructed as greedy and gullible and there is an overwhelming
sense of blame and responsibility levelled at them for the actions that led to their losses. This belief
transcends both non-victims and victims. The existence of this victim-blaming discourse is signif-
icant. Based on interviews with 85 seniors across Queensland, Australia, who received fraudulent
emails, this article establishes the victim-blaming discourse as an overwhelmingly powerful and
controlling discourse about online fraud victimization. However, the article also examines how
humour acts as a tool to reinforce this discourse by isolating victims and impacting on their ability
to disclose to those around them. Identifying and challenging this victim-blaming discourse, as well
as the role of humour and its social acceptance, is a first step in the facilitation of victim recovery
and future well-being.
Keywords
Humour, online fraud, victim-blaming, victims
Introduction
It is difficult to ascertain the true extent of financial losses suffered as a result of online fraud. The
Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) (2013: 1) found that, in 2012, esti-
mated losses reported to the ACCC in relation to fraud were over $93 million – an increase of
9 percent from the previous year. Of that total, over $50 million were specifically as the result
of an email or internet solicitation – an increase of 21.5 percent over the previous year (ACCC,
2013: 5). Police estimate that Australians send between $8 and 10 million overseas each month
Corresponding author:
Cassandra Cross, School of Justice, Queensland University of Technology, GPO Box 2434, Brisbane QLD 4001, Australia.
Email: ca.cross@qut.edu.au
International Review of Victimology
2015, Vol. 21(2) 187–204
ªThe Author(s) 2015
Reprints and permission:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0269758015571471
irv.sagepub.com
as a result of online fraud victimization (Bradley, 2013). These figures are likely to undervalue the
true extent of losses, given the low reporting rate of online fraud to authorities (United Nations,
2013), but do provide evidence to indicate that, even based on what is known about online fraud,
financial losses experienced by victims as a result of this crime type are substantial.
Online fraud can be understood in a number of ways. In terms of process, it can be defined as
‘any type of fraud scheme that uses email, web sites, chat rooms or message boards to present frau-
dulent solicitations to prospective victims, to conduct fraudulent transactions or to transmit the pro-
ceeds of fraud to financial institutions or to others connected with the scheme’ (Australian Federal
Police, 2013). However, in terms of consequences and the impact on the individual victim, it can be
defined as ‘the experience of an individual who has responded through the use of the internet to a
dishonest invitation, request, notification or offer by providing personal information or money
which has led to the suffering of a financial or non-financial loss of some kind’ (Cross et al.,
2014). With regard to the current article, this definition applies to those who responded and suf-
fered some type of loss, financial or otherwise, and excludes those who responded to the fraudulent
request out of curiosity or for clarification and who did not send money, personal details or pass-
words and therefore suffered no loss of any kind.
There are various different ways in which online fraud can be perpetrated; however, this
research focused specifically on advanced fee fraud schemes such as: lottery notifications, invest-
ment invitations, inheritance notifications and employment opportunities (where a victim is asked
to send a small amount of money with the promise of receiving a larger amount of money in the
future) (Ross and Smith, 2011: 1); phishing emails (where a victim receives an email from a legit-
imate institution asking for confirmation of personal details) (Choo, 2011: 3); and romance fraud
(where a victim is defrauded in what they believe to be a legitimate relationship) (Rege, 2009:
497). While the number of approaches used by offenders is infinite, the end goal of the solicitation
is always money, either directly through the transfer of funds, or indirectly through the obtaining of
passwords or personal details (Cross, 2012). Online fraud (and arguably fraud more broadly) oper-
ates through the successful identification of a potential victim’s weakness or vulnerability and the
subsequent manipulation and exploitation of this by a highly skilled and savvy offender (Drew and
Cross, 2013; see also Whitty, 2013, for specific details on how these offences operate).
There is currently a very small body of research that examines the specifics surrounding online
fraud victimization, which is primarily concentrated in the UK. Of significance is a study con-
ducted by Button et al. (2009a, b, c). It focused on all aspects of online fraud, including how indi-
viduals were defrauded, the types of losses experienced, the impact of online fraud on the
individual, reporting of online fraud to authorities, and access to services and support. Face-to-
face interviews were conducted with 34 participants, with an additional 745 interviews conducted
over the telephone as well as two face-to-face focus groups. The findings of this study revealed that
victims of fraud are a diverse group, across all demographics (although this study encompassed
47%of victims over 60 years) and that different frauds impact on victims in different ways,
although the same fraud can affect multiple victims in diverse ways (Button et al., 2009c: 6).
In a similar vein to the work of Button et al., this article examines online fraud victimization, as it
relates to a group of seniors across Queensland, Australia. While seniors represent only a small per-
centage of crime victims, they consistently experience consumer fraud more than any other offence
type (Australian Institute of Criminology, 2009). In terms of online fraud, while all demographics
are potentially vulnerable to fraudulent solicitations (National Fraud Authority, 2011), seniors are
attractive targets to potential offenders, as they generally have access to life savings, superannuation
and own their own homes. This is particularly the case with a shift towards the self-management of
188 International Review of Victimology 21(2)
To continue reading
Request your trial