Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Tackling online fraud

  • Article
  • Published:
ERA Forum Aims and scope

Abstract

Online fraud continues to be one of the most challenging forms of cybercrime. It is an extremely varied species of crime, with multiple examples and definitions. The prevalence of online fraud is so vast that law enforcement and financial bodies can quickly become swamped. The EU recognises the threat that online fraud poses to the Union and has passed a new Directive that seeks to tackle online fraud. However, the Directive misses many forms of online fraud, potentially leaving citizens of Europe vulnerable to online fraud.

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.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Gillespie [12], p. 155.

  2. Sandwell [18], p. 46.

  3. Stabek [19], pp. 44–45.

  4. Wall [23].

  5. For example, see Gillespie [12], Chap. 6 or Yar [28], Chap. 6.

  6. FBI [11], p. 19.

  7. Aniello [1], p. 42.

  8. Synder [20], p. 457.

  9. Kieffer [15].

  10. Whitty [25], p. 181.

  11. Whitty [24].

  12. Buchanan [2], p. 261.

  13. Buchanan [2], p. 279.

  14. Holt [13], p. 137.

  15. Holt [13], p. 149.

  16. Gillespie [12], p. 159.

  17. Cross [6], p. 1.

  18. Cross [7], p. 1.

  19. Whitty [26].

  20. Directive 2019/713 on combating fraud and counterfeiting of non-cash means of payment.

  21. Article 18.

  22. ECB [10], p. 7.

  23. The United Kingdom is constituted of four countries, with three different legal systems (England and Wales; Scotland and Northern Ireland). Crimes are recorded separately in each jurisdiction.

  24. Overview of fraud and computer misuse statistics for England and Wales (ONS, 2018). Available online at: https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/crimeandjustice/articles/overviewoffraudandcomputermisusestatisticsforenglandandwales/2018-01-25. (Accessed June 2019).

  25. UK Finance [21], p. 13.

  26. UK Finance [21], p. 29.

  27. UK Finance [21], p. 31.

  28. UK Finance [21], p. 33.

  29. ECB [10], p. 7.

  30. Dean [9].

  31. FBI [11], p. 20.

  32. Yar [28].

  33. Pratt [16], p. 267.

  34. Van Wilsem [22], p. 170.

  35. Button [3], p. 403.

  36. Whitty [27].

  37. Whitty [27], p. 106.

  38. Cross [7], p. 5.

  39. See, for example, Cross [8].

  40. Cross [8], p. 191.

  41. Cross [8], p. 193.

  42. Cross [8], p. 198.

  43. Buchanan [2], p. 279.

  44. Gillespie [12], p. 162.

  45. Rege [17], p. 494.

  46. ETS No 185. Budapest 23.xi.2001.

  47. ‘T-CY Guidance Note #4: Identity theft and phishing in relation to fraud’ T-CY (2013)8E Rev.

  48. Ibid., 4–5.

  49. 2001/413/JHA. OJ L 149, 02.06.2001.

  50. Directive (EU) 2019/713. OJ L 123/18. 10.5.2019.

  51. Recital (3).

  52. The United Kingdom, Ireland and Denmark are not bound by the Directive under the terms of Articles 1 and 2 of Protocol 21 of the TEU and TFEU (see recital (38) and (39) OJ L 123/23).

  53. Article 1 of Directive 2019/713.

  54. https://www.ecb.europa.eu/paym/pol/activ/instr/html/index.en.html. (Accessed 20.6.19).

  55. Gillespie [12], pp. 44–48.

  56. Directive 2013/40/EU, Articles 3–6.

  57. For a real-life example, see https://www.theguardian.com/money/2017/jan/14/lost-67000-conveyancing-scam-friday-afternoon-fraud-legal-sector-email-hacker. (Accessed 22 June 2019).

  58. Karlof [14].

  59. For a discussion see Gillespie [12], Chap. 11.

  60. OJ L123/19. 10.5.2019.

  61. Chang [4].

  62. Gillespie [12], p. 314.

  63. Article 9 of the Directive. This follows the usual process whereby States are told that the maximum sentence can be no less than that specified within the Directive. Member States can, of course, decide to set a higher punishment.

  64. Cross [6], pp. 6–8.

  65. Cross [5].

References

  1. Aniello, S., Caneppele, S.: Selling stolen goods on the online markets: an explorative study. In: Global Crime, vol. 19, pp. 42–62 (2018)

    Google Scholar 

  2. Buchanan, T., Whitty, M.T.: The online dating romance scam: causes and consequences of victimhood. Psychol. Crime Law 20, 261–283 (2014)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Button, M., Nicholls, C.M., Kerr, J., Owen, R.: Online frauds: learning from victims why they fall for these scams. Aust. N. Z. J. Criminol. 47, 391–408 (2014)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Chang, J.J.S.: An analysis of advance fee fraud on the internet. J. Financ. Crime 15, 71–81 (2008)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Cross, C.: Banks can’t fight online credit card fraud alone, and neither can you. The conversation. Available at: https://theconversation.com/banks-cant-fight-online-credit-card-fraud-alone-and-neither-can-you-82088. Accessed 1 July 2019

  6. Cross, C.: Expectations vs reality: responding to online fraud across the fraud justice network. Int. J. Law Crime Justice 55, 1–12 (2018)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Cross, C., Kelly, R., Smith, R.G.: The reporting experiences and support needs of victims of online fraud. Trends Issues Crime Crim. Justice 518, 1–14 (2016)

    Google Scholar 

  8. Cross, C.: No laughing matter: blaming the victim of online fraud. Int. Rev. Vict. 21, 187–204 (2015)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Dean, B.: Hard evidence: how much is cybercrime really costing us? The conversation. Available at: http://theconversation.com/hard-evidence-how-much-is-cybercrime-really-costing-us-34473. Accessed 9 June 2019

  10. ECB: Fifth Report on Card Fraud. European Central Bank, Brussels (2018)

    Google Scholar 

  11. FBI: Internet Crime Report 2018. Department of Justice, Washington (2018)

  12. Gillespie, A.A.: Cybercrime: Key Issues and Debates 2nd edn. Routledge, London (2019)

    Book  Google Scholar 

  13. Holt, T.J., Graves, D.C.: A qualitative analysis of advance fee fraud e-mail schemes. Int. J. Cyber Criminol. 1, 137–154 (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  14. Karlof, C., Shanker, U., Tygar, J.D., Wagner, D.: Dynamic pharming attacks and locked same-origin policies for web browsers. In: Proceedings of the 14th ACM Conference on Computer and Communications Security, pp. 58–71 (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  15. Kieffer, C., Mottola, G.: Understanding and combating investment fraud. In: Mitchell, O.S., Brett Hamond, P., Utkus, S.P. (eds.) Financial Decision Making and Retirement Security in an Aging World. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2017)

    Google Scholar 

  16. Pratt, T.C., Holtfreter, K., Reisig, M.D.: Routine online activity and Internet fraud targeting: extending the generality of routine activity theory. J. Res. Crime Delinq. 47, 267–296 (2010)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Rege, A.: What’s love got to do with it? Exploring online dating scams and identity fraud. Int. J. Cyber Criminol. 3, 494–512 (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  18. Sandwell, B.: On the globalisation of crime: the internet and new criminality. In: Jewkes, Y., Yar, M. (eds.) Handbook of Internet Crime. Routledge, London (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  19. Stabek, A., Watters, P., Layton, R.: The seven scam types: mapping the terrain of cybercrime. In: Second Cybercrime and Trustworthy Computing Workshop, IEEE 2010 (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  20. Synder, J.M.: Online auction fraud: are the auction houses doing all they should or could to stop online fraud? Fed. Commun. Law J. 52, 453–472 (2000)

    Google Scholar 

  21. UK Finance: Fraud the Facts 2018. Available at: https://www.ukfinance.org.uk/policy-and-guidance/reports-publications/fraud-facts-2018. Accessed 1 July 2019

  22. Van Wilsem, J.: ‘Bought it, but never got it’: assessing risk factors for online consumer fraud victimization. Eur. Sociol. Rev. 29, 168–178 (2011)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Wall, D.: Cybercrime: The Transformation of Crime in the Information Age. Polity, Cambridge (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  24. Whitty, M.T.: Anatomy of the online dating romance scam. Secur. J. 28, 443–455 (2015)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Whitty, M.T., Buchanan, T.: The online romance scam: a serious cybercrime. Cyberpsychol. Behav. Soc. Netw. 15, 181–183 (2012)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Whitty, M.T., Buchanan, T.: The online dating romance scam: the psychological impact on victims–both financial and non-financial. Criminol. Crim. Justice 16, 176–194 (2016)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Whitty, T.M.: Do you love me? Psychological characteristics of romance scam victims. Cyberpsychol. Behav. Soc. Netw. 21, 105–109 (2018)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Yar, M., Steinmetz, K.F.: Cybercrime and Society, 3rd edn. Sage, London (2019)

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Alisdair A. Gillespie.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Alisdair A. Gillespie, Professor of Criminal Law and Justice, Lancaster University.

Samantha Magor, Research Assistant, Lancaster University.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Gillespie, A.A., Magor, S. Tackling online fraud. ERA Forum 20, 439–454 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12027-019-00580-y

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12027-019-00580-y

Keywords

Navigation