Who is to blame? Exploring accountability in fraud victimisation
| Published date | 16 December 2019 |
| Pages | 35-48 |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/JCRPP-07-2019-0054 |
| Date | 16 December 2019 |
| Author | Cassandra Cross |
| Subject Matter | Health & social care,Criminology & forensic psychology |
Who is to blame? Exploring accountability
in fraud victimisation
Cassandra Cross
Abstract
Purpose –The purpose of this paper is to examine the discourses surrounding accountability as it
relatesto fraud victimisation.
Design/methodology/approach –This paperis based upon interviews with 31 professionalsacross the
fraud justicenetwork (FJN) in the UK and Canada.
Findings –The paper highlights the complexities that surround participant’s perspectives of liability
when it comes to fraud. Professionals articulated responsibility falling across the spectrum of victims,
offenders and thirdparties. Further, it is evident that perspectivesof accountability are largely influenced
by the varioustypes of frauds that exist and the ways in which victims incur losses.
Research limitations/implications –Interviews with selected FJN professionals may not be
representativeof those across the broader sector in each country. Despite this, therewas still a diversity
in viewswhich highlights the tensions thatcurrently exist as to where accountabilityis positioned.
Practical implications –The findingsclearly indicate that accountabilityis not directed at any one party,
rather there appears to be an interplayacross offenders, victims and third parties. While the offender is
arguably the one who should be heldmost accountable for their actions, a lack of official responsesto
fraud offending means that the offender is largely invisible. For those who place accountability on the
victim, there is evidence of neoliberal discourses that argue for prudential citizens, or those who take
responsibilityfor their own actions. This is in contrast to those who believedthat victims could not be held
accountable for actions beyond their control, and instead third parties were accountable, and should
increasetheir role in education and awareness.
Originality/value –This paper articulates the discourses of accountability thatexist for fraud, and how
the current thinking can contribute to interactions with victims, as well as current responses to
victimisation. Further workis required to better identify the criteria against which victims are being held
accountable,as well as better understand who bears responsibilitywith responses to fraud victimisation.
Keywords Accountability, Victims, Fraud, Neoliberal, Fraud justice network, Prudential citizen
Paper type Research paper
Introduction
In recent years, reported fraud victimisation has increased across the globe. For example,
the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) state that in 2018,
Australians reported over AU$487m to fraud, up from AU$340m the previous year
(Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC), 2018,2019). Similar statistics
exist for other countries. In the USA of America, the Internet Crime Complaint Centre
reported losses of US$2.7bn to cybercrime up from US$1.4bn in 2017 (IC3, 2018, 2019).
Further, Canadians reported CA$97m (Competition Bureau, 2019) and the UK reported
over GBP1.2bn lost to fraud in 2018 (UK Finance, 2019, p. 4). The extent of fraud losses is
not restricted to western countries either, with countries in Asia and African also
experiencing losses. For example, in 2018 Hong Kong reported fraud losses totalling HK
$500m (US$63.7m) which was two and a half times more than losses reported in 2017
(Leung, 2019) and South Africa reported over R873m in credit card fraud losses (US
$61.7m) in the same year (SABRIC, 2019).
Cassandra Cross is based
at the School of Justice,
Queensland University of
Technology, Brisbane,
Australia.
Received 26 July 2019
Revised 5 November 2019
Accepted 5 November 2019
DOI 10.1108/JCRPP-07-2019-0054 VOL. 6 NO.1 2020, pp.35-48, ©Emerald Publishing Limited, ISSN 2056-3841 jJOURNAL OF CRIMINOLOGICAL RESEARCH, POLICY AND PRACTICE jPAGE 35
To continue reading
Request your trial