Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Assessing the trends, scale and nature of economic cybercrimes: overview and Issues

In Cybercrimes, Cybercriminals and Their Policing, in Crime, Law and Social Change

  • Published:
Crime, Law and Social Change Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Trends in police-recorded and (where they exist) household survey-measured cybercrimes for economic gain are reviewed in a range of developed countries – Australia, Canada, Germany, Hong Kong, the Netherlands, Sweden, the UK and the US - and their implications for criminal policy are considered. The datasets indicate a substantial rise in online fraud – though one that is lower than the rise in online shopping and other ‘routine activity’ indicators - but it is not obvious whether this is just displacement for the fall in household and automobile property crime, nor how much overlap there is between the offenders and past ‘offline’ offenders. Nor do the data indicate whether the frauds result from insiders or outsiders, or are collusive. The direct and indirect costs of cyberfrauds are examined, and it is concluded that there is no satisfactory basis for the larger estimates of cost, but it is undeniable that those costs are large enough to merit concern. There remains a problem of what metrics are appropriate for judging the threat and harm from cybercrimes, and their impact on national and human security. There is not a sharp division between these larger national security issues and cyber attacks on banks, businesses, and the spear phishing of individuals with important knowledge of system vulnerabilities in the public or the private sector. Rather there is a punctuated continuum in the interplay between private, corporate governmental and wider social risks.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. See further, http://cybersecurity.bsa.org/assets/PDFs/study_eucybersecurity_en.pdf.

  2. The author is a member of the Europol iOCTA and SOCTA advisory groups.

  3. The author must declare an interest, as an independent member of the UK Statistics Commission’s Crime Statistics Advisory Committee, and a member of Europol’s Internet-related Organised Crime Threat Assessment Advisory Group.

  4. Reyns [11] connects BCS 2008/9 data on identity fraud to routine activity indicators, showing higher risk for high-income households and people active online.

  5. This is a somewhat contentious area, as alleged victim negligence (for example in writing down their PIN or giving it to someone else for convenience) can be a reason for refusal of reimbursement which is defended by the banks but resented by cardholders and contested by some academic critics of bank processes.

  6. This has been the subject of several radio consumer programmes and City of London police warnings. To include the telephone in an aggregated count of ICT may be unhelpful: the fraudsters may have used VOIP (Voice Over Internet Protocol) to reduce criminal running costs and traceability. But it is harder to disguise sex, age and ethnicity if there is human communication compared with email and text.

  7. see also van Wilsem’s [19, 20] representative household panel, so more people per household are allowed to participate. It is smaller than the Domenic survey, but it is a longitudinal sample. Specific online behaviours predicted specific online victimization types (e.g., using social media predicted only harassment and not hacking).

References

  1. Beck, U. (1992). Risk society: Towards a new modernity. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Anderson, R., Barton, C., Böhme, R., Clayton, R., Van Eeten, M. J., Levi, M., Moore, T. & Savage, S. (2012). Measuring the cost of cybercrime. http://weis2012.econinfosec.org/papers/Anderson_WEIS2012.pdf.

  3. Levi, M., & Burrows, J. (2008). Measuring the impact of fraud: a conceptual and empirical journey. British Journal of Criminology, 48(3), 293–318.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Fitzgerald, M. (2014). The curious case of the fall in crime, https://www.crimeandjustice.org.uk/resources/curious-case-fall-crime

  6. Guardian (2013). Crime expert attacks ‘deceptive’ Home Office figures showing fall in offences, https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2013/may/05/crime-statistics-attacked-by-criminologist

  7. Levi, M., Doig, A., Gundur. R., Wall, D., and Williams, M. (2015). The Implications of Economic Cybercrime for Policing. London: City of London Corporation. http://www.cityoflondon.gov.uk/business/economic-research-and-information/research-publications/Pages/The-implications-of-economic-crime-for-policing.aspx.

  8. Eurostat. (2015). Special eurobarometer 423. Eurostat: Cyber security. Luxembourg.

    Google Scholar 

  9. ONS. (2016). Crime in England and Wales: Year ending march 2016. London: Office of National Statistics.

    Google Scholar 

  10. ONS. (2016). Overview of fraud statistics: Year ending Mar 2016. London: Office of National Statistics.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Reyns, B. W. (2013). Online routines and identity theft victimization further expanding routine activity theory beyond direct-contact offenses. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 50(2), 216–238.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. ECB. (2015). Fourth report on card fraud. Frankfurt: European Central Bank.

    Google Scholar 

  13. FFA, U. K. (2016). Fraud the facts 2015. London: Financial Fraud Action UK.

    Google Scholar 

  14. FFA, U. K. (2016). Year-end 2015 fraud update: Payment cards, remote banking and cheque. London: Financial Fraud Action UK.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Scottish Government. (2014). Scottish Crime and Justice Statistics, 2013/14.

  16. Scottish Government. (2016). Scottish Crime and Justice Statistics, 2014/15.

  17. German Federal Statistics. (2015). Police crime statistics – federal republic of Germany – report 2014. Wiesbaden: BundesKriminalAmt.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Domenic, M., Leukfeldt, E., van Wilsem, J., Jansen, J., & Stol, W. (2013). Victimisation in a digitised society. The Hague: Eleven International Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  19. van Wilsem, J. (2013). “Bought it, but never got it”. Assessing risk factors for online consumer fraud victimisation. European Sociological Review, 29, 168–178.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Van Wilsem, J. (2013). Hacking and harassment—Do they have something in common? Comparing risk factors for online victimization. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 29, 437–453.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Kloosterman, R. (2015). Slachtofferschap cybercrime en internetgebruik. Sociaaleconomische Trends, 9, 1–18.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Paulissen, L., & Van Wilsem, J. (2015). Dat heeft iemand anders gedaan! Een studie naar slachtofferschap en modus operandi van identiteitsfraude in Nederland. Amsterdam: Vantilt.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Switzerland, C. C. U. (2015). Annual report 2014. Bern: FedPol.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Biberstein, L., Killias, M., Walser, S., Iadanza, S., & Pfammatter, A. (2016). Studie zur Kriminalität und Opfererfahrungen der Schweizer Bevölkerung: Analysen im Rahmen der schweizerischen Sicherheitsbefragung 2015. Lenzburg: Killias Research & Consulting.

    Google Scholar 

  25. ABS (2016). Personal Fraud, Australia, Canberra; Australian Bureau of Statistics.

  26. FBI. (2015). 2014 internet crime report. Washington DC: FBI Internet Complaints Center.

    Google Scholar 

  27. FBI. (2016). 2015 internet crime report. Washington DC: FBI Internet Complaints Center.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Tcherni, M., Davies, A., Lopes, G., & Lizotte, A. (2016). The dark figure of online property crime: is cyberspace hiding a crime wave? Justice Quarterly, 33(5), 890–911.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Harrell, E. (2015). Victims of Identity Theft, 2014. Washington DC: Government Printing Office. http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/vit14.pdf.

  30. Leger (2016). Financial Fraud Survey. Montreal: Select PR / Equifax.

  31. Reyns, B. W., & Henson, B. (2016). The thief with a thousand faces and the victim with none: identifying determinants for online identity theft victimization with routine activity theory. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 60, 1119–1139.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Statistics Canada. (2011). Self-reported internet victimization in Canada, 2009. Ottawa: Statistics Canada.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Graves, J., Acquisti, A., & Christin, N. (2016). Big data and bad data: on the sensitivity of security policy to imperfect information. The University of Chicago Law Review, 83(1), 117–137.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Jardine, E. (2015). Global cyberspace is safer than you think: real trends in cybercrime. London: Chatham House. Available at SSRN 2634590.

  35. Detica, Office of Cyber Security and Information, Cabinet Office. (2011). The Cost of Cyber Crime. Guildford: Detica.

  36. Levi, M. (2009). Fear of fraud and fear of crime: A review. In S. Simpson & D. Weisburd (Eds.), The criminology of white-collar crime. New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Riek, M., Bohme, R., & Moore, T. (2016). Measuring the influence of perceived cybercrime risk on online service avoidance. IEEE Transactions on Dependable and Secure Computing, 13(2), 261–273.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Europol. (2016). IOCTA 2016: Internet organised crime threat assessment. The Hague: Europol.

    Google Scholar 

  39. NCA. (2016). NCA strategic cyber industry group cyber crime assessment 2016. London: National Crime Agency.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Sparrow, M. (2008). The character of harms. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  41. Van Duyne, P. C., & Van Dijck, M. (2007). Assessing organised crime: the sad state of an impossible art. In F. Bovenkerk & M. Levi (Eds.), The organized crime community (pp. 101–124). Springer: New York.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  42. Von Lampe, K. (2016). Organized crime: Analyzing illegal activities, criminal structures, and extra-legal governance. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Levi, M. (2012). The organisation of serious crimes for gain. In M. Maguire, R. Morgan, & R. Reiner (Eds.), The oxford handbook of criminology (5th ed., pp. 595–622). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  44. Becker, H. (1974). Labelling theory reconsidered. Deviance and social control (pp. 41–66). London: Tavistock.

    Google Scholar 

  45. BBA (2016). The Way We Bank Now: Help at Hand. London: British Bankers Association. https://www.bba.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/TWWBN3_WEB_Help-at-Hand-2016.pdf.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Michael Levi.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Levi, M. Assessing the trends, scale and nature of economic cybercrimes: overview and Issues. Crime Law Soc Change 67, 3–20 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10611-016-9645-3

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10611-016-9645-3

Keywords

Navigation