Hubbry Logo
ScamScamMain
Open search
Scam
Community hub
Scam
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Scam
Scam
Scam
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

Political cartoon by J. M. Staniforth: Herbert Kitchener attempts to raise £100,000 for a college in Sudan by calling on the name of C. G. Gordon

A scam, or a confidence trick, is an attempt to defraud a person or group after first gaining their trust. Confidence tricks exploit victims using a combination of the victim's credulity, naivety, compassion, vanity, confidence, irresponsibility, and greed. Researchers have defined confidence tricks as "a distinctive species of fraudulent conduct ... intending to further voluntary exchanges that are not mutually beneficial", as they "benefit con operators at the expense of their victims (the 'marks')".[1]

Terminology

[edit]

Other terms for "scam" include confidence trick, con, con game, confidence game, confidence scheme, ripoff, stratagem, finesse, grift, hustle, bunko, bunco, swindle, flimflam, gaffle, and bamboozle.

The perpetrator is often referred to as a scammer, confidence man, con man, con artist, grifter, hustler, or swindler. The intended victims are known as marks, suckers, stooges, mugs, rubes, or gulls (from the word gullible). When accomplices are employed, they are known as shills.[2]

Length

[edit]

A short con or small con is a fast swindle that takes just minutes, possibly seconds. It typically aims to rob the victim of their money or other valuables that they carry on their person or are guarding.[3] A long con or big con (also, chiefly in British English, long game)[4] is a scam that unfolds over several days or weeks; it may involve a team of swindlers, and even props, sets, extras, costumes, and scripted lines. It aims to rob the victim of a huge amount of money or other valuables, often by getting them to empty out banking accounts and borrow from family members.[5]

History

[edit]

The shell game dates back at least to ancient Greece.[6] William Thompson (1821–1856) was the original "confidence man". Thompson was a clumsy swindler who asked his victims to express confidence in him by giving him money or their watch rather than gaining their confidence in a more nuanced way. A few people trusted Thompson with their money and watches.[7] Thompson was arrested in July 1849. Reporting on this arrest, James Houston, a reporter for the New York Herald, publicized Thompson by naming him the "Confidence Man".[7] Although Thompson was an unsuccessful scammer, he gained a reputation as a genius operator mostly because Houston's satirical tone was not understood as such.[7] The National Police Gazette coined the term "confidence game" a few weeks after Houston first used the name "confidence man".[7]

Stages

[edit]

In Confessions of a Confidence Man, Edward H. Smith lists the "six definite steps or stages of growth" of a confidence game.[8] He notes that some steps may be omitted. It is also possible some can be done in a different order than below, or carried out simultaneously.

Foundation work
Preparations are made in advance of the game, including the hiring of any assistants required and studying the background knowledge needed for the role.
Approach
The victim is approached or contacted.
Build-up
The victim is given an opportunity to profit from participating in a scheme. The victim's greed is encouraged, such that their rational judgment of the situation might be impaired.
Pay-off or convincer
The victim receives a small payout as a demonstration of the scheme's purported effectiveness. This may be a real amount of money or faked in some way (including physically or electronically). In a gambling con, the victim is allowed to win several small bets. In a stock market con, the victim is given fake dividends.
The "hurrah"
A sudden manufactured crisis or change of events forces the victim to act or make a decision immediately. This is the point at which the con succeeds or fails. With a financial scam, the con artist may tell the victim that the "window of opportunity" to make a large investment in the scheme is about to suddenly close forever.
The in-and-in
A conspirator (in on the con, but assumes the role of an interested bystander) puts an amount of money into the same scheme as the victim, to add an appearance of legitimacy. This can reassure the victim, and give the con man greater control when the deal has been completed.

In addition, some games require a "corroboration" step, particularly those involving a fake, but purportedly "rare item" of "great value". This usually includes the use of an accomplice who plays the part of an uninvolved (initially skeptical) third party, who later confirms the claims made by the con man.[8]

In a Long Con

[edit]

Alternatively, in The Big Con, David Maurer writes that all cons "progress through certain fundamental stages" and that there are ten stages for a "big con."[9]

  1. Locating and investigating a well-to-do victim. (Putting the mark up.)
  2. Gaining the victim’s confidence. (Playing the con for him.)
  3. Steering him to meet the insideman. (Roping the mark.)
  4. Permitting the insideman to show him how he can make a large amount of money dishonestly. (Telling him the tale.)
  5. Allowing the victim to make a substantial profit. (Giving him the convincer.)
  6. Determining exactly how much he will invest. (Giving him the breakdown.)
  7. Sending him home for this amount of money. (Putting him on the send.)
  8. Playing him against a big store and fleecing him. (Taking off the touch.)
  9. Getting him out of the way as quietly as possible. (Blowing him off.)
  10. Forestalling action by the law. (Putting in the fix.)

Vulnerability factors

[edit]

Confidence tricks exploit characteristics such as greed,[9] dishonesty, vanity, opportunism, lust, compassion, credulity, irresponsibility, desperation, and naïvety. As such, there is no consistent profile of a confidence trick victim; the common factor is simply that the victim relies on the good faith of the con artist. Victims of investment scams tend to show an incautious level of greed and gullibility, and many con artists target the elderly and other people thought to be vulnerable, using various forms of confidence tricks.[10] Researchers Huang and Orbach argue:[1]

Cons succeed for inducing judgment errors—chiefly, errors arising from imperfect information and cognitive biases. In popular culture and among professional con men, the human vulnerabilities that cons exploit are depicted as "dishonesty", "greed", and "gullibility" of the marks. Dishonesty, often represented by the expression "you can't cheat an honest man", refers to the willingness of marks to participate in unlawful acts, such as rigged gambling and embezzlement. Greed, the desire to "get something for nothing", is a shorthand expression of marks' beliefs that too-good-to-be-true gains are realistic. Gullibility reflects beliefs that marks are "suckers" and "fools" for entering into costly voluntary exchanges. Judicial opinions occasionally echo these sentiments.

Online fraud

[edit]
See also: Internet fraud

Fraud has rapidly adapted to the Internet. The Internet Crime Complaint Center (IC3) of the FBI received 847,376 reports in 2021 with a reported loss of money of $6.9 billion in the US alone.[11] The Global Anti Scam Alliance annual Global State of Scam Report, stated that globally $47.8 billion was lost and the number of reported scams increased from 139 million in 2019 to 266 million in 2020.[12]

Government organizations have set up online fraud reporting websites to build awareness about online scams and help victims make reporting of online fraud easier. Examples are in the United States (FBI IC3, Federal Trade Commission), Australia (ScamWatch ACCC), Singapore (ScamAlert[13]), United Kingdom (ActionFraud), Netherlands (FraudeHelpdesk[14]). In addition, several private, non-profit initiatives have been set up to combat online fraud like AA419 (2004), APWG (2004) and ScamAdviser (2012).

[edit]

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]

Further reading

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Scam

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
A scam, also known as a confidence trick or confidence game, is a deliberate fraudulent scheme in which the perpetrator deceives a victim by first gaining their trust through , false promises, or fabricated scenarios, ultimately to extract , , or sensitive . Such deceptions exploit fundamental human tendencies toward , , and reciprocity, enabling scammers to manipulate victims into voluntary compliance without overt force. Scams trace their origins to antiquity, with the earliest documented case occurring around , when Greek merchant Hegestratos insured his cargo at inflated value and conspired to sink his ship to collect on the policy, marking an early instance of . Over centuries, scams evolved alongside societal and technological advancements, from street-level cons like the shell game in to sophisticated 19th-century operations targeting postal services, prompting U.S. mail fraud statutes in 1872. In the digital era, internet-enabled variants such as , investment frauds, and imposter schemes have proliferated, leveraging anonymity and scale to target millions globally. Contemporary scams inflict substantial economic damage, with U.S. consumers reporting $12.5 billion in losses in 2024, a 25% rise from the prior year, predominantly from scams ($5.7 billion) and schemes initiated via or texts. Imposter scams, where fraudsters pose as like officials or tech support, remain the most reported category, underscoring the enduring effectiveness of authority exploitation in eroding . Defining characteristics include the scammer's reliance on psychological tactics—such as urgency, scarcity, or —rather than physical , which distinguishes scams from other crimes and complicates detection, as victims often bear partial causal responsibility through insufficient .

Definition and Terminology

Core Concepts and Distinctions

A scam constitutes a deliberate act of designed to induce a victim to voluntarily surrender money, assets, or sensitive information under , typically by first establishing trust. This process exploits psychological vulnerabilities, such as , , or , to manipulate . Unlike routine business transactions, scams hinge on material misrepresentations that the perpetrator knows to be false, with the specific intent to cause reliance leading to the victim's loss. Central to scams are four foundational elements derived from principles: a or omission of fact that is significant to the victim's ; the scammer's awareness of its falsity; purposeful inducement of the victim's action or inaction; and the victim's reasonable dependence resulting in demonstrable harm, such as financial detriment. These elements distinguish scams from mere errors or in , where no knowing deceit for gain occurs. Scammers often employ narratives promising improbable returns or urgent resolutions to crises, bypassing rational scrutiny. Scams represent a subset of characterized by the victim's conscious involvement, contrasting with unauthorized frauds like account takeovers where access is illicitly obtained without consent. In scams, the perpetrator engineers voluntary compliance through social engineering tactics, such as impersonation or fabricated emergencies, rather than technical breaches. This distinction underscores scams' reliance on interpersonal dynamics over systemic vulnerabilities, though both fall under broader criminal statutes involving intentional deception for unjust gain. Further delineations separate scams from hoaxes, which involve primarily for , , or ideological ends without direct pecuniary extraction from individuals. Scams, by contrast, prioritize tangible profit, often escalating to or asset diversion post-deception. Confidence tricks, synonymous with scams, emphasize the "con" artist's role in building to lower defenses, a tactic evident in schemes from street-level hustles to sophisticated operations. The term "scam" entered American English as slang in the mid-20th century, with its earliest documented uses appearing around 1958 to 1963, primarily in the context of carnival or fairground deception. Its etymology remains obscure, though it likely derives from earlier slang associated with trickery, possibly the 19th-century British "scamp," denoting a rogue or swindler who cheats through dishonest means. Alternative hypotheses include connections to Danish "skam" (meaning shame or disgrace, implying moral culpability in deception) or Irish "cam" (crooked), but these lack definitive evidence and reflect speculative linguistic tracing rather than confirmed roots. By the 1960s, "scam" had broadened from niche argot to general usage for any fraudulent trick or scheme aimed at financial gain, gaining prominence amid rising awareness of consumer cons in post-war America. In legal contexts, "scam" lacks a standalone statutory in major jurisdictions like the , where it functions as a colloquial descriptor for deceptive practices prosecuted under broader statutes rather than as a codified offense. , for instance, addresses scams through provisions like 18 U.S.C. § 1341 (mail ), which penalizes any "scheme or artifice to defraud" executed via or interstate wires, requiring to deceive for monetary or property gain, with penalties up to 20 years imprisonment or fines exceeding $1 million for aggravated cases. Similarly, 18 U.S.C. § 1343 (wire ) extends this to electronic communications, encompassing modern scams like or investment s that cross state lines, emphasizing the use of interstate wires in furthering the scheme. State s vary but typically align with common- elements: a material of fact, knowledge of its falsity, to induce reliance, justifiable victim reliance, and resulting damage. Internationally, frameworks like the UN Convention Against treat scams as forms of involving cross-border deception, but enforcement relies on domestic codes without uniform "scam" terminology. This absence of precise legal codification for "scam" underscores its role as an informal label, often overlapping with but not synonymous to , as some scams may evade criminal thresholds if lacking provable or harm.

Historical Evolution

Pre-Modern and Ancient Examples

One of the earliest codified responses to scams appears in the , dating to approximately 1750 BCE in ancient , which imposed harsh penalties for deceptive trade practices. Laws 104–107 mandated death for merchants employing false scales or measures that defrauded buyers, particularly if the state incurred losses from diluted goods like or , reflecting an awareness of systematic cheating in barter and commodity exchanges. Similar frauds involved tampering with weights, as evidenced by archaeological finds of rigged stone weights from the period, underscoring causal links between measurement deception and economic harm in pre-monetary societies. In ancient Egypt around 525 BCE, tax collectors manipulated grain measurements to overcharge households and skim profits, exploiting administrative opacity for personal gain; penalties included severe corporal punishments or restitution to deter state-level embezzlement. Greek records from the same era document merchant Hegestratos's attempt to sink his ship off Salamis circa 525 BCE to fraudulently claim bottomry insurance proceeds, a maritime loan repaid only if the vessel arrived safely; his crew thwarted the plot by alerting authorities, highlighting early insurance-related cons reliant on staged disasters. By the Roman Republic, Cicero's Verrine Orations (70 BCE) exposed Governor Gaius Verres's extortionate tax farming in Sicily, where he inflated assessments and pocketed differences through rigged auctions and bribery, amassing wealth equivalent to millions in sesterces while impoverishing provincials. Pre-modern Europe saw widespread relic frauds, where vendors peddled forged saintly remains—such as multiplied foreskins of or duplicate heads of —to pilgrims, capitalizing on devotional fervor for profit; 12th-century monk Guibert de Nogent lambasted these in De pignoribus sanctorum, noting absurd proliferations like two-headed Baptist relics sold across monasteries. In the , scholar denounced artifacts like the as painted forgeries in his treatise De configurationibus qualitatum et motuum, arguing they exploited credulity via artisanal tricks rather than miracles, a critique predating scientific dating. Alchemy in medieval often devolved into scams, with practitioners promising transmutation of base metals into to secure from ; laws against such emerged by the in and , banning false demonstrations using sleight-of-hand or substitutions. The 13th-century Book of Charlatans by Jamāl al-Dīn ʿAbd al-Raḥīm al-Jawbarī cataloged over 30 types in Middle Eastern cities, including fake oculists applying caustic pastes disguised as cures, rigged with loaded dice, and illusory "flying" tricks via hidden pulleys, drawn from the author's observations to warn against urban tricksters preying on the gullible. These schemes thrived on asymmetries in and verification, persisting until empirical scrutiny curbed their prevalence.

Industrial Era Confidence Games

The Industrial Era, spanning the late 18th to early 20th centuries, facilitated the rise of confidence games through rapid , enhanced mobility from railroads and steamships, and that fostered interactions among strangers in burgeoning cities. These conditions eroded traditional community-based trust while necessitating reliance on personal assurances in commercial dealings, creating fertile ground for deceivers who exploited emerging social anonymity. The archetype of the "confidence man" emerged prominently during this period, exemplified by William Thompson, who in 1849 approached well-dressed pedestrians in , engaged them in conversation to build rapport, and then requested they lend him valuables like watches under the guise of mutual , directly inspiring the term "confidence man" as reported in contemporary newspapers. One prevalent scheme was the green goods scam, which proliferated in the late 19th-century via advertisements in newspapers or letters promising high-quality —referred to as "green goods" due to the color of U.S. bills—for sale at a fraction of . Victims, often rural or naive individuals, would remit genuine money to urban operators, receiving in return either worthless blank paper, low-grade fakes, or nothing at all; this capitalized on the era's postal expansion and industrial printing capabilities, with gangs like those dismantled by authorities in the netting thousands of dollars before interventions by figures such as in his role as a . Larger-scale confidence operations targeted industrial magnates and tourists, leveraging transatlantic trade and infrastructure booms. In 1885, con artist William McCloundy reportedly swindled a visitor out of $50,000 by convincing him to "purchase" the under false pretenses of development rights, reflecting how iconic industrial projects became props for exploiting credulity amid speculation. Similarly, in 1893, an impostor posing as a executive defrauded British steel manufacturer Mr. Lamb of significant sums by promising introductions to , preying on the era's oil and steel tycoons' interconnected networks. These schemes underscored causal vulnerabilities: the confidence man's success hinged on victims' greed or ambition, amplified by the era's speculative fervor in railroads, , and investments. Petty urban cons also adapted to industrial mobility, such as the 1859 antics of A.V. Lamartine, who staged apparent laudanum overdoses in Ohio hotels to solicit sympathy donations totaling $25 in Dayton and $40 in Sandusky, exploiting transient railroad travelers. By the 1880s, distraction-based thefts like the "disappearing act"—where female accomplices shoplifted luxury goods such as laces from Cincinnati stores while diverting clerks—thrived in commercial hubs, with reports from July 1881 highlighting the anonymity of growing metropolises. Such tactics reveal how industrialization's social dislocations, including rural-to-urban migration and class mixing, enabled deceivers to impersonate clergy or brokers, as in the 1888 case of a fake priest stealing diamonds in Washington, D.C., by invoking misplaced religious trust.

20th Century to Digital Transition

In the early , scams increasingly leveraged postal services for mass dissemination, building on industrial-era techniques but scaling through printed circulars and mail fraud. Charles Ponzi's scheme in 1919-1920 exemplifies this shift, promising investors 50% returns in 45 to 90 days via purported in international reply coupons, though it operated as a paying early participants with later inflows; by July 1920, it had attracted over $15 million from 40,000 investors before collapsing, leaving debts exceeding $7 million. Similar boiler-room operations and stock manipulations proliferated during the economic boom, such as the Radio Pool scam, where fraudsters artificially inflated RCA stock prices before dumping shares, exploiting speculative fervor in unregulated markets. Advance-fee frauds, requiring victims to pay upfront for promised large rewards, gained traction mid-century through letters mimicking official correspondence, with Nigerian variants—known as 419 scams after the relevant criminal code section—emerging in the 1980s via mail and , targeting Westerners with tales of frozen assets from corrupt officials. These analog methods relied on low-cost replication and postal reach but were limited by response times and verification challenges, often yielding modest individual hauls despite high volume. The late 20th-century advent of fax machines accelerated these schemes by enabling faster, pseudo-official communications, but the internet's commercialization in the mid-1990s marked a pivotal transition, replacing physical mail with for near-instantaneous, global distribution at negligible cost. Nigerian 419 operations migrated en masse to by the late 1990s, amplifying reach and reported losses into billions annually by the 2000s, as scammers exploited digital anonymity and poor filtering. Concurrently, emerged around 1995 on platforms, where hackers used fake login prompts and tools like to steal credentials, with the term "" (a play on "fishing") first documented that year; by 1996, it involved mass instant messages tricking users into revealing passwords, evolving from isolated intrusions to targeted financial attacks by 2003. This digital pivot reduced barriers to entry, enabling scriptable automation and broader targeting, while eroding traditional trust cues like verifiable postage.

Operational Mechanics

Fundamental Stages of Deception

The operational core of most scams revolves around a sequence of stages that progressively erode the victim's while amplifying their investment, whether emotional, financial, or informational. This framework, derived from ethnographic studies of professional confidence artists in early 20th-century America, emphasizes building false confidence before extraction, distinguishing elaborate cons from impulsive thefts. David W. Maurer's 1940 analysis, based on interviews with over 100 con men, outlines the "big con" as involving seven primary phases: the put-up, the play, the rope, the tale, the convincer, the breakdown, and the send. These stages are adaptable across scam types, from advance-fee frauds to investment schemes, and rely on causal mechanisms like reciprocity and rather than overt force. Put-Up and Play: The initial phase entails and preliminarily engaging the victim, or "mark," to assess suitability based on traits like , isolation, or . Con artists, often working in teams, observe public behaviors—such as betting habits or financial displays—to select targets unlikely to report losses due to . This "put-up" merges into the "play," where casual interaction establishes , the victim's interests or vulnerabilities to foster subconscious trust; for instance, a scammer might pose as a sympathetic stranger in a bar or online forum, exploiting shared perceived hardships. Empirical accounts from Maurer's informants reveal this stage succeeds by 70-80% through non-verbal cues like , avoiding premature scheme disclosure. Rope and Tale: Once hooked, the "rope" phase employs logic and flattery to deepen commitment, presenting the scam as a low-risk opportunity tailored to the mark's desires, such as quick wealth or romance. This transitions to the "tale," the core narrative fabricating urgency or exclusivity—e.g., insider tips or fabricated emergencies in scams reported by the FBI, where perpetrators claim a relative's requiring wire transfers. Causally, this exploits , as victims selectively interpret ambiguous signals as validation; a study on romance scams documented groomers sustaining this via daily affirmations, escalating from platitudes to promises over weeks. Convincer and Breakdown: To dispel doubts, the "convincer" delivers a controlled "win," such as a small payout or verifiable "proof" like staged testimonials, reinforcing the illusion of legitimacy and triggering sunk-cost escalation. In Maurer's wire scam variant, marks receive falsified racing tips yielding minor gains, priming them for larger bets. The "breakdown" follows, extracting the bulk via high-pressure demands framed as final steps, often involving accomplices to simulate authenticity; FTC data from 2023 shows investment cons averaging $7,000 losses here, with victims transferring funds under false deadlines. Send: Concluding deception, the "send" ejects the mark with excuses like logistical delays, ensuring they depart without immediate confrontation while con artists disperse to evade traceability. Maurer's cases note often rationalize losses as , with only 10-20% pursuing authorities due to self-blame. This phase underscores scams' reliance on post-exploitation silence, as psychological denial perpetuates the con's ecosystem; modern adaptations, like cryptocurrency "pig butchering" schemes, extend it digitally by ghosting after wallet drains, per FinCEN alerts analyzing $ billions in annual U.S. losses.

Adaptations in Complex Schemes

In complex scam schemes, perpetrators extend the fundamental stages of —such as initial contact, trust-building, and extraction—through multi-layered operations that incorporate , technological augmentation, and organizational division of labor to enhance , reduce , and prolong victim engagement. These adaptations often involve specialized roles within syndicates, where individuals handle discrete tasks like data gathering, communication, or fund laundering, minimizing individual risk exposure. For instance, business email compromise (BEC) schemes typically begin with extensive to identify high-value targets and their hierarchies, followed by spear-phishing to gain email access, account takeover via credential theft or , and impersonation to authorize fraudulent wire transfers, resulting in global losses exceeding $2.7 billion in 2022 alone as reported by the FBI. Technological integrations further evolve these mechanics, enabling real-time adaptation to defenses. In authorized push payment (APP) fraud, scammers leverage stolen personal data from breaches—such as hotel loyalty programs—to profile victims, initiate urgency-driven phishing (e.g., alerting to a "detected fraud"), deploy AI-generated deepfake voices or texts for impersonating bank officials, and guide victims to self-initiate transfers to mule accounts, bypassing traditional transaction flags. This multi-stage approach exploits psychological pressure alongside tools like voice cloning software, contributing to annual global losses in the billions, with the UK's APP scams alone costing £485 million in 2023. Transnational adaptations amplify complexity by exploiting jurisdictional gaps and digital anonymity. Job scams, for example, recruit victims via with promises of high-yield , extract upfront "fees" or , then layer proceeds through high-velocity micro-transactions across cryptocurrencies, digital wallets, and banks in permissive regions, complicating . A 2023-2024 syndicate targeting Singaporeans defrauded over 3,000 victims of $45.7 million before arrests in March 2024 highlighted this model's efficiency, with operations spanning and using mules for fund dispersion. Such schemes evolve by incorporating feedback loops from forums, where tactics like AI chatbots for sustained victim interaction replace static scripts, sustaining yields amid increasing platform scrutiny.

Categories of Scams

Interpersonal and Advance-Fee Scams

Interpersonal scams involve direct or simulated personal engagement to establish trust, often culminating in requests for upfront payments characteristic of advance-fee schemes. These frauds exploit emotional bonds or fabricated relationships, inducing victims to send money for promised benefits that fail to materialize. Advance-fee scams specifically require victims to pay fees—such as processing, legal, or costs—to access larger sums, prizes, or services. A prominent example is the 419 scam, named after section 419 of the , where perpetrators pose as officials or heirs offering shares in fortunes, oil deals, or contracts in exchange for advance fees to cover alleged bureaucratic hurdles. Originating in the 1980s via letters and faxes, these evolved to by the 1990s, with scammers often operating from . Victims have lost billions globally, though exact figures remain elusive due to underreporting. Romance scams represent a modern interpersonal variant, where fraudsters create fake profiles on dating sites or to cultivate affection before soliciting funds for emergencies, travel, or investments. Scammers frequently claim to be deployed , widowed professionals, or stranded travelers, using scripted narratives to evoke . In 2023, U.S. consumers reported $1.14 billion in losses to such schemes, with a median loss of $2,000 per victim—the highest among scam categories tracked by the . Losses escalated further in 2024, exceeding $1.3 billion amid rising online interactions. Other advance-fee interpersonal tactics include job offer scams demanding fees for training or equipment, and or prize notifications requiring payment to claim winnings. These schemes thrive on urgency and secrecy, warning victims against disclosure to "protect" the deal. The FBI classifies them under confidence frauds, noting organized networks use money mules and for laundering. Reported U.S. losses to confidence scams, encompassing these types, reached $652 million in 2023 per FBI estimates, though actual totals likely exceed this due to unreported cases.

Investment and Pyramid Structures

Investment scams typically involve promoters enticing victims with promises of high returns on purported investments, such as , cryptocurrencies, or fictitious assets, often with assurances of low or guaranteed profits that defy market realities. These schemes rely on influxes of new capital to sustain payouts to earlier participants, creating an illusion of legitimacy until recruitment falters. The U.S. (FTC) and Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) classify such frauds as violations of securities laws, emphasizing that legitimate carry inherent risks and no assured gains. Pyramid schemes, a subset of investment fraud, operate on a recruitment-driven model where participants are compensated primarily from fees paid by new recruits rather than from product sales or genuine profits. Each participant must enlist additional members to advance levels and receive payouts, forming an inverted that demands —typically doubling recruits per level—which becomes mathematically impossible after a few tiers due to finite population limits. The FTC deems pure pyramid schemes illegal under Section 5 of the FTC Act, as they generate no underlying value and inevitably collapse, leaving most participants as net losers. In contrast, Ponzi schemes centralize control under a single operator who fabricates investment performance, using funds from new investors to pay "returns" to earlier ones without engaging in actual trading or business activity. Named after Charles Ponzi's 1920 postal coupon fraud, which promised 50% returns in 45 days but paid out with fresh deposits, these differ from pyramids by lacking overt multi-level recruitment; instead, they mimic legitimate funds through falsified statements. Bernie Madoff's operation, exposed on December 11, 2008, exemplifies this: it defrauded investors of approximately $65 billion over decades by reporting steady 10-12% annual gains via a nonexistent "split-strike conversion" strategy, collapsing amid the when redemption requests surged. Both structures exploit the same causal dynamic: sustainability hinges on continuous inflows exceeding outflows, but real-world constraints like market saturation or regulatory scrutiny trigger insolvency, with losses concentrated on late entrants. In 2024, U.S. consumers reported over $12.5 billion in total losses, with scams—including Ponzi and variants—driving the sharpest increases, often amplified by digital platforms promising crypto or forex windfalls. Regulators note that while multi-level marketing (MLM) programs may superficially resemble s, they skirt illegality by tying compensation to verifiable retail sales, though FTC actions against deceptive MLMs highlight blurred lines when recruitment dominates.

Digital and Technological Exploits

Phishing and spoofing represent the most reported form of digital scam, involving fraudulent attempts to obtain sensitive information such as credentials or financial data through deceptive emails, websites, or messages mimicking legitimate entities. In 2024, the FBI's (IC3) received over 193,000 complaints for /spoofing, making it the top category by volume. These scams often employ urgency or fear tactics, such as alerts about account compromises, leading victims to click malicious links or provide details directly. Losses from such schemes contribute significantly to the overall $16.6 billion in reported damages that year. Ransomware attacks, a technological exploit where encrypts victim data and demands payment for decryption keys, targeted businesses and individuals with increasing sophistication in 2024. Perpetrators typically gain entry via emails or exploited software vulnerabilities, then exfiltrate data for leverage in double- tactics. The FBI IC3 noted as a persistent threat, with serving as the primary vector in many cases, though specific complaint volumes were bundled under broader categories exceeding 86,000 reports. Global analyses indicate incidents drove portions of the $16.6 billion U.S. losses, often amplified by affiliates distributing through markets. Cryptocurrency scams exploit blockchain's pseudonymity and hype around digital assets, including investment frauds, fake exchanges, and wallet drainers that steal funds via or malicious smart contracts. The FBI reported nearly 150,000 complaints involving digital assets in , with losses totaling $9.3 billion—a 66% increase from prior years—fueled by schemes like pig butchering operations blending romance scams with crypto promises. Hacks and scams extracted approximately $2.2 billion in crypto funds globally, with notable incidents such as the $300 million theft from a single DeFi protocol. FTC data corroborates high stakes, with investment scams overall causing $5.7 billion in U.S. losses, many tied to crypto pitches via or apps. Business email compromise (BEC) schemes use compromised or spoofed executive accounts to authorize fraudulent wire transfers, leveraging digital communication tools for impersonation. These technologically enabled frauds resulted in substantial portions of the FBI's reported losses, often exceeding millions per incident due to rapid fund movement. Tech support scams, where fraudsters pose as IT help via pop-ups or calls to gain remote access and extract payments, saw U.S. losses rise to $1.464 billion in 2024, an 87% increase since 2022, frequently targeting seniors through malware-laden downloads. Emerging exploits incorporate AI, such as voice for impersonation in phone scams or deepfakes in video calls to build false trust, amplifying traditional deceptions with . NatWest analysis identified AI voice cloning among the fastest-growing scams in 2024, with 42% of surveyed victims encountering advanced tech variants. FTC reports highlight online-initiated scams causing over $3 billion in losses, underscoring the shift to digital platforms where verification lags behind technological manipulation. These methods succeed by exploiting trust in familiar interfaces, with total U.S. losses reaching $12.5 billion per FTC Sentinel data.

Human Vulnerabilities

Psychological Mechanisms and Biases

Scammers exploit inherent cognitive shortcuts and heuristics that evolved for efficient decision-making in ancestral environments but falter under deceptive pressures, leading victims to override rational scrutiny. Dual-process theory posits that human cognition operates via System 1 (fast, automatic, emotion-driven) and System 2 (slow, deliberate, analytical); fraudsters target System 1 by inducing urgency, emotional arousal, or familiarity, suppressing analytical verification. A 2022 study on scam compliance identified core influences including psychological traits like impulsivity and cognitive overload, where victims' motivation—often greed or fear—amplifies heuristic reliance, with empirical data from grounded theory analysis revealing these factors in over 80% of reported cases. Authority bias, the undue deference to perceived experts or officials, facilitates compliance in impersonation scams, as individuals subconsciously yield to symbols of power without evidence assessment; research on phishing susceptibility confirms this bias elevates victimization risk by 25-40% in simulated trials. Scarcity and urgency heuristics compound this, prompting impulsive actions under fabricated time constraints, such as "limited investment windows," which empirical experiments demonstrate reduce detection rates by triggering loss aversion over gain evaluation. Social proof bias further entrenches vulnerability, where scammers invoke fabricated testimonials or peer participation to normalize deceit, aligning with conformity pressures observed in group deception studies where compliance rises with perceived consensus. Overconfidence bias, particularly in self-assessed detection, heightens susceptibility across demographics, with well-educated victims paradoxically more prone due to illusory superior judgment; a review of victims linked this to higher scam engagement rates among overconfident profiles. amplifies -based tactics, rendering threat-laden messages—like account compromise alerts—more persuasive than neutral ones, as negativity draws disproportionate cognitive resources, evidenced by victimization models showing appeals increase response likelihood by up to 50%. sustains ongoing by selectively interpreting ambiguous cues as validating initial trust, perpetuating schemes like pyramid investments where early minor gains reinforce flawed beliefs despite mounting inconsistencies. These mechanisms, while adaptive in low-stakes contexts, causally underpin success by systematically distorting probabilistic reasoning, with meta-analyses affirming their role in 70-90% of analyzed victim narratives.

Demographic and Behavioral Risk Factors

Certain demographic characteristics correlate with elevated risk of scam victimization. Older adults, particularly those aged 60 and above, experience disproportionately high financial losses from , with median losses per victim exceeding those of younger groups; for instance, in FTC-reported data analyzed by , individuals over 60 accounted for a significant share of total scam losses despite comprising fewer reports overall. This vulnerability stems from factors such as age-related cognitive declines, which impair scam detection, as evidenced in cohort studies of community-dwelling seniors without . Lower education levels and reduced further amplify risk across age groups, with individuals possessing less formal education showing higher susceptibility due to diminished ability to evaluate complex financial propositions. Income levels present a mixed pattern: higher-income individuals are targeted more frequently in scams, while lower-income groups face elevated rates in advance-fee schemes, though overall victimization does not strictly align with . Gender differences in scam susceptibility are inconsistent across studies, with some indicating no significant disparity, while others note men overrepresented in high-stakes frauds and women in relational or scams, potentially reflecting targeting strategies rather than inherent traits. Ethnic and regional variations also emerge; for example, research in diverse populations highlights higher victimization among certain minority groups due to intersecting factors like language barriers or community-specific targeting, though causal links require controlling for confounders such as . Behavioral risk factors often interact with demographics to heighten exposure. and substantially increase scam susceptibility, as isolated individuals exhibit greater responsiveness to fraudulent overtures promising companionship or validation, with longitudinal data linking low to repeated victimization. traits like high —characterized by reluctance to confront or others—predict higher rates, as agreeable individuals are less likely to scrutinize suspicious claims. Risky health behaviors, including excessive alcohol consumption, , and , correlate with fraud exposure, potentially through impaired judgment or associations with high-risk social networks. Low scam awareness and routine online behaviors further contribute; adults engaging in frequent digital interactions without prior exposure to common fraud tactics, such as simulations, demonstrate heightened vulnerability, independent of age. and over-optimism, measurable via validated scales, drive decisions to bypass verification in urgent-seeming schemes, while poor financial habits—such as chasing high-return promises—exacerbate losses in or investment frauds. These factors underscore that behavioral interventions targeting and verification routines can mitigate risks more effectively than demographic profiling alone.

Societal and Economic Consequences

Quantified Financial Damages

In 2023, global financial losses from scams and related frauds were estimated at over $1 trillion, with scammers siphoning away more than $1.03 trillion in the subsequent 12 months ending October 2024, according to the Global Anti-Scam Alliance's analysis of reported incidents across 190 countries. Interpol corroborated this scale, reporting that scammers stole over $1 trillion from victims worldwide in 2023 alone, driven by the proliferation of cyber-enabled schemes targeting individuals and businesses. More conservative projections from Nasdaq Verafin pegged direct fraud and scam losses at $485.6 billion for 2023, encompassing consumer-targeted scams ($40 billion) and broader bank fraud ($450 billion), highlighting variances in estimation methodologies that often exclude unreported cases. These figures underscore systemic underreporting, as victims frequently withhold details due to embarrassment or lack of awareness, implying actual damages substantially exceed documented totals. In the United States, the Federal Trade Commission's Consumer Sentinel Network documented $10 billion in losses for 2023, with scams accounting for $4.6 billion—the largest category, reflecting a 21% year-over-year increase—and imposter scams contributing $2.7 billion. Losses escalated to $12.5 billion in 2024, a 25% rise, with surging to $5.7 billion amid heightened cryptocurrency-related deceptions. Complementing this, the FBI's (IC3) reported $12.5 billion in verified internet crime losses for 2023, predominantly from scams like business email compromise ($2.9 billion) and , before climbing 33% to $16.6 billion in 2024, where scams alone caused over $6.5 billion in damages.
YearFTC Fraud Losses (USD)Key Category BreakdownFBI IC3 Internet Crime Losses (USD)Key Category Breakdown
2023$10 billionInvestment: $4.6B; Imposter: $2.7B$12.5 billionBEC: $2.9B; Investment: significant portion
2024$12.5 billionInvestment: $5.7B$16.6 billionCrypto investment: $6.5B
These U.S. metrics, while rigorous in capturing reported incidents, likely understate true impacts, as IC3 data derive from voluntary complaints averaging $19,372 per loss case in 2024, excluding unreported smaller-scale scams. Globally, the disparity between national aggregates and trillion-scale estimates arises from incomplete international data harmonization, with developing regions bearing disproportionate burdens due to weaker reporting infrastructures.

Non-Monetary and Systemic Effects

Scams inflict profound psychological harm on victims beyond financial losses, manifesting as depression, anxiety, , embarrassment, and (PTSD). A 2025 analysis of scams documented severe emotional distress among victims, with sufferers experiencing prolonged trauma, , and heightened vulnerability to further exploitation due to eroded . Empirical studies corroborate these effects, linking victimization to elevated depressive symptoms, particularly among middle-aged and elderly individuals, where experiences of being defrauded correlate with persistent declines. Surveys of scam victims reveal that 69% report negative impacts, including stress and disturbances, while 44% experience clinical-level anxiety, often exacerbating pre-existing conditions. These individual traumas extend to relational and social disruptions, straining and fostering interpersonal distrust. Victims frequently describe feelings of leading to isolation, with identity theft cases associated with anger, relational conflicts, and withdrawal from social networks. In severe instances, such distress contributes to , as evidenced by qualitative accounts of and guilt persisting post-victimization. Among seniors, a global survey of 3,000 affected individuals highlighted widespread emotional fallout, including diminished confidence in personal judgment, which perpetuates cycles of vulnerability. Systemically, scams erode public trust in institutions, digital platforms, and societal norms, compromising the interpersonal confidence necessary for economic and social functioning. Government imposter schemes, for instance, foster skepticism toward official communications, reducing compliance with legitimate services and amplifying broader cynicism. This trust deficit hinders digital payment adoption, as victims' experiences propagate caution that stifles innovation and transaction efficiency. On a societal scale, pervasive fraud undermines faith in state entities, exacerbating governance challenges and diverting resources toward verification protocols that may infringe on privacy without fully restoring confidence. Such dynamics foster a feedback loop of suspicion, where repeated betrayals normalize guarded interactions, potentially weakening community cohesion and institutional legitimacy over time.

Countermeasures and Responses

Personal Vigilance and Verification

Individuals can enhance personal vigilance by adopting a deliberate pause before responding to unsolicited offers or requests, as hasty decisions under exploit cognitive biases like and urgency, which scammers frequently manipulate. Research on scam prevention indicates that slowing down allows time for rational evaluation, reducing susceptibility; for instance, FTC studies show that victims who consulted others prior to acting were less likely to incur losses. Verification entails independently confirming identities and claims through official channels rather than relying on contact details provided by the solicitor. For example, if an entity claims affiliation with a or , individuals should terminate the interaction and initiate contact using verified numbers from official websites or directories, a method recommended by the FTC to circumvent impersonation tactics prevalent in 2024 scam reports. Tools such as domain lookup services (e.g., ) can reveal website registration discrepancies, while reverse image searches detect stolen photos in romance or investment frauds, with noting these steps thwarted potential losses in tested scenarios. Key verification practices include scrutinizing for inconsistencies in communication, such as poor grammar, generic greetings, or evasion of direct questions, which signal non-legitimate sources per FTC guidelines. Enabling on accounts and monitoring credit reports via free annual services from agencies like add layers of protection, as fraud alerts can block unauthorized credit inquiries—a proactive measure that prevented in numerous documented cases.
  • Assess emotional triggers: Recognize appeals to , , or , which psychological analyses identify as core scam tactics; pausing to question motives disrupts manipulation.
  • Limit information sharing: Withhold personal or financial details until identity is confirmed, as scammers exploit shared data for further targeting.
  • Cross-reference claims: Search or regulatory databases (e.g., SEC for investments) for legitimacy, avoiding unverified promises of high returns.
Ongoing education through reputable resources fosters sustained vigilance, with evidence from prevention studies showing that awareness of specific scam variants correlates with lower victimization rates post-2023.

Regulatory and Technological Interventions

In the United States, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) enforces consumer protection laws by pursuing legal actions against fraudulent schemes, including lawsuits against operators of tax debt relief scams that impersonate government entities and make false threats to consumers. The FTC has also issued warning letters to companies engaging in potentially unlawful practices and maintains ongoing enforcement against scams targeting vulnerable groups, such as older Americans, where impersonation and sophisticated tactics have increased in prevalence as of October 2025. The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) complements these efforts by addressing investment-related fraud through whistleblower programs and notices of covered actions that recover assets from illicit schemes. In the European Union, regulatory frameworks like the proposed Payment Services Directive 3 (PSD3) and Payment Services Regulation (PSR) aim to enhance security against impersonation fraud and authorized push payment scams by mandating stronger authentication and liability shifts for payment service providers. The Digital Operational Resilience Act (DORA), effective from 2025, requires financial institutions to bolster cybersecurity and operational resilience to mitigate fraud risks in digital transactions. EU anti-fraud strategies vary by member state but emphasize coordinated measures against cross-border financial crimes, with all states reporting dedicated plans as of 2025. Internationally, organizations like the (FATF), , and the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) promote cooperation through initiatives such as the 2025 Handbook on International Co-operation against , which provides tools for detecting and prosecuting scams linked to illicit flows from , drug trafficking, and human . FATF standards focus on asset recovery to deprive scammers of proceeds, with partnerships like FATF- targeting trillions in illicit profits through enhanced global information sharing and enforcement. Technological interventions increasingly rely on (AI) and for real-time fraud detection, with tools like behavioral analyzing user patterns to identify anomalies in transactions and interactions. Solutions from providers such as BioCatch and Feedzai employ and AI models to detect scams, including authorized push payments and document , achieving deployment in 50% of banking operations for scam prevention by mid-2025. Platforms like ClearSale and Resistant AI integrate to flag suspicious orders and scams, reducing false positives through adaptive algorithms trained on vast datasets of fraudulent behaviors. Emerging uses of large language models and retrieval-augmented generation assist in proactive scam identification, countering AI-enhanced fraud tactics observed in 2025 trends. These technologies emphasize continuous monitoring of behavioral and transactional data, though their efficacy depends on integration with to address evolving threats like generative AI-driven impersonations.

Contemporary Developments

Rise of AI-Enabled Fraud

The advent of generative artificial intelligence (AI) has significantly lowered the technical and financial barriers for fraudsters, enabling the creation of highly convincing impersonations and automated deception at scale. Tools like voice cloning software, which can replicate a person's speech from mere seconds of audio, and deepfake video generators have transformed traditional scams such as business email compromise (BEC) and vishing (voice phishing) into more persuasive variants. For instance, in February 2024, a Hong Kong-based finance worker transferred $25 million to scammers after a video conference call featuring deepfake representations of the company's chief financial officer and other executives, all generated using publicly available images and AI synthesis. Similarly, AI-driven voice cloning has facilitated family emergency scams, where fraudsters mimic relatives' voices to solicit urgent funds, with attacks escalating as models require only 15 seconds of target audio for replication. Reports of generative AI-enabled scams increased by 456% year-over-year as of May , driven by and autonomous AI agents that handle entire scam interactions. Phishing incidents surged 466% in the first quarter of 2025, fueled by AI-generated kits that produce personalized, grammatically flawless lures, while breached volumes rose 186% amid automated exploitation. fraud cases in jumped 1,740% from 2022 to 2023, with global financial losses from such schemes nearing $900 million by mid-2025, split roughly 40% for businesses and 60% for individuals. Vishing attacks, amplified by AI deepfakes, increased 442% in 2025 alone, contributing to an estimated $40 billion in worldwide losses. The U.S. (FBI) highlighted generative AI's role in facilitating social engineering and financial fraud in a 2024 public service announcement, noting its use in crafting believable text for spear-phishing and BEC schemes. Overall fraud losses reported to the (FTC) reached $12.5 billion in 2024, a 25% rise from the prior year, with AI enhancements cited as a key accelerator in internet crime trends. Projections indicate U.S. AI-driven scam losses could hit $40 billion annually by the late , as fraudsters leverage accessible platforms to scale operations beyond manual capabilities. Financial institutions, the most targeted sector, average over $600,000 in losses per deepfake incident. These developments underscore AI's dual-edged nature, where rapid democratization of synthetic media outpaces detection technologies.

Global Trends and Statistics Post-2023

Global scam losses exceeded $1 trillion in the 12 months leading up to late , according to the Global Anti-Scam Alliance (GASA) and Feedzai's joint report surveying 58,329 consumers across multiple countries. This figure encompasses various types, with authorized push payment (APP) scams alone contributing over $1.026 trillion globally from August 2022 to August 2023, a trend persisting into amid rising digital transaction volumes. Recovery rates remain dismal, with only 4% of victims regaining their full losses, highlighting systemic underreporting and enforcement gaps. Prevalence has intensified, with nearly 50% of global consumers facing at least one attempted scam weekly in 2024, per GASA data cited in partnerships with cybersecurity firms. Victimization rates doubled in the United States to 62% by mid-2025, while reaching 90% in high-exposure regions like , according to F-Secure's Scam Intelligence Report analyzing surveys from multiple nations. scams affected 22% of respondents in the GASA-Feedzai study, marking the most common variant, followed by rapid-executing tactics where nearly half of incidents conclude within 24 hours of contact. Email-based scams proved most successful at 11%, with younger adults (18-34) facing over twice the risk compared to seniors, driven by and AI-enhanced . Fraud industrialization emerged as a dominant trend, with 96% of over 1,200 fraud professionals across the , , and expressing concern over cross-border, sophisticated attacks breaching sectors. Generative AI exacerbated this, enabling deepfakes and synthetic identities that may account for 20% of certain credit losses, prompting 75% of businesses to rank AI-driven as a top challenge. Only 7% of scams are reported globally, attributed to emotional distress surpassing financial harm and victim-blaming stigma, per analysis. Regional variations show with 63% exposure rates and the losing £11.4 billion ($14.4 billion) annually, underscoring uneven regulatory impacts.

References

  1. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/confidence_game
  2. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0963721421995489
  3. https://www.investopedia.com/articles/financial-theory/09/history-of-fraud.asp
  4. https://www.uspis.gov/history-spotlight-2023/the-ages-of-fraud-part-1
  5. https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2025/03/new-ftc-data-show-big-jump-reported-losses-fraud-125-billion-2024
  6. https://www.banking.nh.gov/news-and-media/ftcs-consumer-sentinel-network-releases-annual-data-book-detailing-consumer-losses
  7. https://www.ftc.gov/reports/consumer-sentinel-network-data-book-2024
  8. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/15564886.2023.2263756
  9. https://www.sardine.ai/blog/fraud-vs-scam
  10. https://www.fdic.gov/consumer-resource-center/2021-10/avoiding-scams-and-scammers
  11. https://dion-international.com/what-are-the-4-elements-of-fraud
  12. https://www.acfe.com/fraud-resources/fraud-101-what-is-fraud
  13. https://www.consumerfinance.gov/consumer-tools/fraud/answers/key-terms/
  14. https://svfcume.com/the-difference-between-frauds-and-scams/
  15. https://www.onpointcu.com/blog/whats-the-difference-between-fraud-and-scams/
  16. https://www.quora.com/Can-you-explain-the-difference-between-a-scam-and-a-hoax-Are-they-similar-or-different-Why-do-they-have-distinct-meanings
  17. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/scam
  18. https://www.etymonline.com/word/scam
  19. https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/scam
  20. https://www.dictionary.com/browse/scam
  21. https://www.justanswer.com/criminal-law/qp3o4-what-s-difference-fraud-scam.html
  22. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1341
  23. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/fraud
  24. https://www.delanceyplace.com/view-archives.php?p=4295
  25. https://www.trulioo.com/blog/fraud-prevention/history-fraud
  26. https://christianhistoryinstitute.org/study/module/nogent
  27. https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/archaeology/a65969645/oresme-fraud-shroud-of-turin/
  28. https://explorethearchive.com/alchemy-marketing-scheme-watm
  29. https://nyupress.org/9781479897636/the-book-of-charlatans/
  30. http://www.todayifoundout.com/index.php/2015/09/william-thompson-original-conman/
  31. https://lostmuseum.cuny.edu/archive/arrest-of-the-confidence-man-newyork-herald
  32. https://www.geriwalton.com/the-green-goods-scam-of-the-19th-century/
  33. https://www.mimimatthews.com/2016/06/20/the-19th-century-confidence-man/
  34. https://www.npr.org/sections/npr-history-dept/2015/02/12/385310877/how-scams-worked-in-the-1800s
  35. https://www.archives.gov/publications/prologue/2010/summer/ponzi-inmate-case-file
  36. https://internationalbanker.com/history-of-financial-crises/charles-ponzi-1920/
  37. https://www.history.com/articles/roaring-twenties-scams-ponzi-wall-street
  38. https://www.npr.org/2013/05/22/186048342/how-that-nigerian-email-scam-got-started
  39. https://www.newsweek.com/origins-nigerias-notorious-419-scams-456701
  40. https://nordvpn.com/blog/nigerian-prince-scam/
  41. https://www.phishing.org/history-of-phishing
  42. https://cofense.com/knowledge-center/history-of-phishing/
  43. https://www.forbes.com/sites/mastercard/2025/03/18/scams-in-the-digital-era-how-technology-is-changing-fraud/
  44. https://www.amazon.com/Big-Story-Confidence-Man/dp/0385495382
  45. https://www.deuceofclubs.com/books/199the_big_con.htm
  46. https://www.shortform.com/blog/how-to-become-a-con-artist/
  47. https://adiamond.me/2023/09/the-big-con-david-maurer/
  48. https://www.fbi.gov/how-we-can-help-you/scams-and-safety/common-frauds-and-scams/romance-scams
  49. https://research.monash.edu/en/publications/anatomy-of-the-online-dating-romance-scam
  50. https://www.fincen.gov/system/files/shared/FinCEN_Alert_Pig_Butchering_FINAL_508c.pdf
  51. https://albertclarksonsblog.com/books-2/the-big-con-1940-by-david-w-maurer/
  52. https://www.paloaltonetworks.com/cyberpedia/what-is-business-email-compromise-bec-tactics-and-prevention
  53. https://www.secretservice.gov/investigations/bec
  54. https://guidehouse.com/insights/financial-services/2025/new-face-of-financial-fraud
  55. https://www.tookitaki.com/afc-thoughts/the-globalization-of-fraud-the-rise-of-transnational-scams
  56. https://www.police.gov.sg/media-room/news/20240327_five_persons_arrested_in_joint_transnational_scam_operation
  57. https://seon.io/resources/guides/complex-fraud-schemes/
  58. https://www.fbi.gov/how-we-can-help-you/scams-and-safety/common-frauds-and-scams
  59. https://consumer.ftc.gov/node/78345
  60. https://www.atg.wa.gov/advanced-fee-fraud
  61. https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2024/02/love-stinks-when-scammer-involved
  62. https://lowcostdetectives.com/romance-scam-statistics-2025/
  63. https://www.moodys.com/web/en/us/kyc/resources/insights/swipe-left-on-fraud-risk-detecting-and-deterring-romance-scams.html
  64. https://www.investor.gov/additional-resources/spotlight/common-scams
  65. https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/reports/mass-market-consumer-fraud-united-states-2017-update/p105502massmarketconsumerfraud2017report.pdf
  66. https://www.fbi.gov/history/famous-cases/bernie-madoff
  67. https://www.investopedia.com/terms/b/bernard-madoff.asp
  68. https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/09/ponzi-vs-pyramid.asp
  69. https://www.ic3.gov/AnnualReport/Reports/2024_IC3Report.pdf
  70. https://www.fbi.gov/news/press-releases/fbi-releases-annual-internet-crime-report
  71. https://www.proofpoint.com/us/blog/email-and-cloud-threats/email-attacks-drive-record-cybercrime-losses-2024
  72. https://secureframe.com/blog/fbi-internet-crime-report-2024
  73. https://www.trmlabs.com/resources/blog/a-record-breaking-year-for-cybercrime-key-findings-from-the-fbis-2024-ic3-report
  74. https://www.chainalysis.com/blog/crypto-hacking-stolen-funds-2025/
  75. https://www.outseer.com/blog/fbi-2024-fraud-statistics
  76. https://www.natwestgroup.com/news-and-insights/news-room/press-releases/ai-and-data/2024/nov/fastest-growing-scams-of-2024-revealed.html
  77. https://consumer.ftc.gov/consumer-alerts/2025/03/top-scams-2024
  78. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12489987/
  79. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9317489/
  80. https://www.mdpi.com/2079-8954/13/4/280
  81. https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3706598.3714023
  82. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/391705423_A_Literature_Review_on_Phishing_Attacks_and_Cognitive_Biases
  83. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5806049/
  84. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0191886920300374
  85. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/15228053.2024.2439192
  86. https://www.social-engineer.org/wiki/archives/Scam/Scam-PsycologyOfScams.pdf
  87. https://www.aarp.org/money/scams-fraud/older-adults-ftc-fraud-report/
  88. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3916958/
  89. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12107710/
  90. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/02697580231215839
  91. https://www.finrafoundation.org/sites/finrafoundation/files/Does-One-Size-Fit-All-An-Examination-of-Risk-Factors-by-Scam-Type-Brief.pdf
  92. https://nij.ojp.gov/library/publications/effects-risky-behaviors-and-social-factors-frequency-fraud-victimization-among
  93. https://mrdrc.isr.umich.edu/publications/papers/pdf/wp429.pdf
  94. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11778706/
  95. https://www.finrafoundation.org/sites/finrafoundation/files/2025-02/research-brief-older-adults-fraud-risk.pdf
  96. https://www.nature.com/articles/s44271-025-00266-x
  97. https://www.gasa.org/post/global-state-of-scams-report-2024-1-trillion-stolen-in-12-months-gasa-feedzai
  98. https://www.weforum.org/stories/2024/04/interpol-financial-fraud-scams-cybercrime/
  99. https://www.nasdaq.com/global-financial-crime-report
  100. https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2024/02/nationwide-fraud-losses-top-10-billion-2023-ftc-steps-efforts-protect-public
  101. https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/ftc_gov/pdf/CSN-Annual-Data-Book-2023.pdf
  102. https://www.hipaajournal.com/2024-internet-crime-complaint-report/
  103. https://www.interpol.int/ar/content/download/21077/file/24COM005563-01%2520-%2520CAS_Global%2520Financial%2520Fraud%2520Assessment_Public%2520version_2024-03%2520v2.pdf
  104. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12192844/
  105. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0033350623000094
  106. https://www.lloydsbankinggroup.com/insights/what-is-the-emotional-impact-of-fraud.html
  107. https://www.lifehealth.com/finra-fraud-victims-vulnerable-to-severe-stress-anxiety-and-depression/
  108. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8699092/
  109. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2949791424000058
  110. https://www.feedzai.com/blog/the-psychological-impact-of-scams/
  111. https://www.emerald.com/jfc/article/32/1/77/1243133/What-does-trust-have-to-do-with-it-Training
  112. https://www.chubb.com/content/dam/chubb-sites/chubb-com/us-en/partnership/pdfs/digital-payments-trust-report.pdf
  113. https://www.undp.org/sites/g/files/zskgke326/files/2025-05/undp_anti-scam_handbook_v2.0.pdf
  114. https://sid.org.sg/common/Uploaded%2520files/Bulletin/forNewsletter/May_ThePsychologyofScams.pdf
  115. https://lionsgate.network/how-financial-fraud-changes-lives-and-destroys-communities/
  116. https://www.consumerreports.org/money/scams-fraud/how-to-protect-yourself-from-scams-and-fraud-a6839928990/
  117. https://theconversation.com/what-psychological-warfare-tactics-do-scammers-use-and-how-can-you-protect-yourself-223959
  118. https://consumer.ftc.gov/consumer-alerts/2019/09/self-defense-against-scams
  119. https://consumer.ftc.gov/system/files/consumer_ftc_gov/pdf/A%2520Review%2520of%2520Scam%2520Prevention%2520Messaging%2520Research.pdf
  120. https://consumer.ftc.gov/articles/how-avoid-scam
  121. https://consumer.ftc.gov/scams
  122. https://www.consumerreports.org/scams-fraud/how-to-protect-yourself-from-common-scams/
  123. https://consumer.ftc.gov/articles/how-recognize-avoid-phishing-scams
  124. https://consumer.ftc.gov/articles/credit-freezes-and-fraud-alerts
  125. https://www.ussfcu.org/media-center/security-corner/blog-detail-security-corner.html?cId=85037&title=the-psychology-behind-scams-7-manipulation-techniques-to-watch-out-for
  126. https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases
  127. https://www.ftc.gov/legal-library/browse/warning-letters
  128. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kGXY3WqMPbI
  129. https://www.sec.gov/enforcement-litigation/whistleblower-program/whistleblower-program-notices-covered-action
  130. https://www.aoshearman.com/en/insights/ao-shearman-on-fintech-and-digital-assets/combatting-payment-account-fraud-latest-regulatory-developments-in-the-european-union
  131. https://arws.cz/news-at-arrows/legal-obligations-of-fintech-companies-in-2025
  132. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:52025DC0426
  133. https://www.fatf-gafi.org/en/publications/Methodsandtrends/international-cooperation-against-money-laundering.html
  134. https://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/news/2025/September/fatf--egmont-group--interpol-and-unodc-call-for-stronger-cooperation-between-countries-as-they-launch-handbook-to-fight-money-laundering.html
  135. https://www.interpol.int/en/News-and-Events/News/2023/FATF-INTERPOL-partnership-putting-trillions-in-illicit-profits-back-into-legitimate-economies
  136. https://www.fatf-gafi.org/en/topics/asset-recovery.html
  137. https://www.gartner.com/reviews/market/online-fraud-detection
  138. https://salv.com/blog/fraud-detection-software-solutions/
  139. https://www.feedzai.com/pressrelease/ai-fraud-trends-2025/
  140. https://chargebacks911.com/fraud-detection-tools/
  141. https://www.tookitaki.com/compliance-hub/best-fraud-prevention-companies-in-2025
  142. https://www.thomsonreuters.com/en-us/posts/corporates/2025-predictions-interplay-fraud-ai/
  143. https://sumsub.com/blog/fraud-detection-and-prevention-best-practices/
  144. https://www.cnn.com/2024/02/04/asia/deepfake-cfo-scam-hong-kong-intl-hnk
  145. https://www.1kosmos.com/identity-management/the-15-second-voice-sample-that-could-empty-your-bank-account-how-ai-voice-cloning-is-rewriting-the-scammers-playbook/
  146. https://www.trmlabs.com/resources/blog/ai-enabled-fraud-how-scammers-are-exploiting-generative-ai
  147. https://sift.com/index-reports-ai-fraud-q2-2025/
  148. https://www.weforum.org/stories/2025/07/why-detecting-dangerous-ai-is-key-to-keeping-trust-alive/
  149. https://surfshark.com/research/chart/deepfake-fraud-losses
  150. https://deepstrike.io/blog/vishing-statistics-2025
  151. https://www.ic3.gov/PSA/2024/PSA241203
  152. https://www.secureworld.io/industry-news/ai-driven-fraud-financial-crime
  153. https://hyperverge.co/blog/examples-of-deepfakes/
  154. https://www.feedzai.com/resource/global-state-of-scams-report-2024/
  155. https://www.experian.com/blogs/global-insights/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/Global_Fraud_Trends_Report_2024_FinalV.pdf
  156. https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/security/blog/2025/05/05/microsoft-partners-with-global-anti-scam-alliance-to-fight-cybercrime/
  157. https://www.f-secure.com/en/partners/insights/scam-intelligence-and-impacts-report-2025
  158. https://www.gbg.com/en/reports/the-global-fraud-report-2024/
  159. https://www.gasa.org/post/new-study-reveals-63-of-southeast-asians-experienced-scams-in-past-year
  160. https://www.gasa.org/post/state-of-scams-in-the-united-kingdom-2024-11-billion-stolen
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.