Crime, Law and Social Change

, Volume 67, Issue 1, pp 77–96 | Cite as

Cyberfraud and the implications for effective risk-based responses: themes from UK research

  • Michael Levi
  • Alan Doig
  • Rajeev Gundur
  • David Wall
  • Matthew Williams


The nature of the risk or threat posed by ‘cyberfraud’ - fraud with a cyber dimension – is examined empirically based on data reported by the public and business to Action Fraud. These are used to examine the implications for a more effective risk-based response, both by category of fraud and also responding to cyberfraud generally, not just in the UK. A key characteristics of cyberfraud is that it can be globalised, unless there are major national differences in attractiveness of targets or in the organisation of control. This does not mean that all cyberfraud is international, however: not only do some involve face to face interactions at some stage of the crime cycle, but in online auction selling frauds, it appears to be common for the perpetrators and victims to reside in the same country. After reviewing patterns and costs of victimisation and their implications for control, the paper concludes that any law enforcement response must begin by being strategic: which other public and private sector bodies should be involved to do what; what should be the specific roles and responsibilities of the police and where ‘problem ownership’ should lie; what are we willing to pay for (in money and effort) for greater cybersecurity and how to reduce ‘market failure’ in its supply; and, how that security is going to be organised for and/or by the huge numbers of businesses and people that are (potentially) affected.


Financial Gain Voice Over Internet Protocol Potential Victim Economic Crime Acquisitive Crime 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. 1.
    Williams, M. L., & Burnap, P. (2016). Cyberhate on social media in the aftermath of Woolwich: a case study in computational criminology and big data. British Journal of Criminology, 56(2), 211–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Williams, M. L. (2016). Guardians upon high: an application of routine activities theory to online identity theft in Europe at the country and individual level. British Journal of Criminology, 56(1), 21–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Williams, M. L., & Levi, M. (2015). Perceptions of the eCrime controllers: modelling the influence of cooperation and data source factors. Security Journal, 28(3), 252–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Levi, M. and Williams, M. L. (2012). eCrime reduction partnership mapping study: final report. Cardiff University. Available at:
  5. 5.
    Crawford, A., Lister, S., Blackburn, S., & Burnett, J. (2005). Plural policing: the mixed economy of visible patrols in England and Wales. Bristol: Policy Press.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Levi, M., & Maguire, M. (2012). Something old, something new; something not entirely blue: Uneven and shifting modes of crime control. In T. Newburn & J. Peay (Eds.), Policing: politics, culture and control. Oxford: Hart Publishing.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Maguire, M., & John, T. (2006). Intelligence-led policing, Managerialism and community engagement: competing priorities and the role of the National Intelligence Model in the UK. Policing and Society, 16, 1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Levi, M., & Williams, M. L. (2013). Multi-agency partnerships in cybercrime reduction: Mapping the UK information assurance network cooperation space. Information Management & Computer Security, 21(5), 420–443.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Doig, A., & Levi, M. (2013). A case of arrested development? Delivering the UK National Fraud Strategy within competing policing policy priorities. Public Money and Management., 33(2), 145–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gannon, R., & Doig, A. (2010). Ducking the answer: fraud strategies and police resources. Policing and Society, 20(1), 39–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Levi, M., Doig, A., Wall, D., Gundur, R., & Williams, M. (2015a). The implications of economic cybercrime for policing. Report. London: City of London Corporation.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Levi, M., Doig, A., Wall, D., Gundur, R., & Williams, M. (2015b). The implications of economic cybercrime for policing. Technical Annexe. London: City of London Corporation.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Attorney General (2006). Fraud review. London: Office of the Attorney General,
  14. 14.
    Wall, D.S. (2005). The internet as a conduit for criminals. In A. Pattavina (ed), Information technology and the criminal justice system (pp. 77–98). Thousand Oaks: Sage (revised 2015) Available at
  15. 15.
    ONS (2016). Overview of fraud statistics: year ending Mar 2016. London: Office of National Statistics.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Wall, D. (2010). Micro-frauds: virtual robberies, stings and scams in the information age’. In T. Holt & B. Schell (Eds.), Corporate hacking and technology driven crime: social dynamics and implications (pp. 68–85). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Home Affairs Committee (2016) Proceeds of crime: Fifth Report of Session 2016–17. London: House of CommonsGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Metcalf, L. and Spring, J. (2015). Blacklist ecosystem analysis: Spanning Jan 2012 to Jun 2014,, pp.13–22.
  19. 19.
    Spring, J. (2014). Modeling malicious domain name take-down dynamics: why eCrime pays.

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Michael Levi
    • 1
  • Alan Doig
    • 2
  • Rajeev Gundur
    • 3
  • David Wall
    • 4
  • Matthew Williams
    • 5
  1. 1.School of Social SciencesCardiff UniversityWalesUK
  2. 2.Northumbria UniversityNewcastle upon TyneUK
  3. 3.Social Policy and CriminologyUniversity of Liverpool in SingaporeSingaporeSingapore
  4. 4.Centre for Criminal Justice StudiesLeeds UniversityLeedsUK
  5. 5.School of Social SciencesCardiff UniversityCardiffUK

Personalised recommendations