Running head: FRAUD, THEFT, THREATS, AND SCAMS

Fraud, Theft, Threats, and Scams: Common Threads

Han-Jun Yoon
301260640
Crim 218 D700
Instructor: Barry Cartwright
Simon Fraser University

FRAUD, THEFT, THREATS, AND SCAMS

For the four studies not concerned romance scam victimization, there is one common
predictor for cybercrime victimization. Greater internet usage is positively correlated with
internet bank fraud victimization, consumer purchase fraud victimization, identity theft
victimization, and threat victimization. The reasoning for why internet usage is a common
predictor is that greater usage creates greater exposure to a motivated offender or offenders; the
longer and more frequently a suitable victim uses the internet, the more likely they are to have an
encounter with a motivated offender. Thanks to the anonymity afforded by the internet, it can be
incredibly difficult for police/law enforcement to respond to complaints from victims, creating a
lack of a suitable guardian; greater internet usage brings together the motivated offender and
suitable victim, giving credence to routine activities based explanations of crime.
When examining which demographics among all of the examined studies are most at risk,
another common predictor is which country the crimes occur in. The countries in which the
studies took place in, the Netherlands, Canada, and the United Kingdom, are all countries with
very high rates of internet penetration. After all, having access to the internet is a requirement of
being a victim of cybercrime to begin with; it makes perfect sense that individuals living in areas
with higher levels of internet penetration and usage are more at risk of general cybercrime
victimization.
Examining the data from Statistics Canadas study shows that people who earn more than
60,000 dollars an year and live in a census metropolitan area were at a greater risk than those
earning less than 20,000 dollars an year and living outside a census metropolitan area (Perreault,
2011, p. 05). Those with a university degree were even more likely to be victimized than those
with only a high school diploma (Perreault, 2011, p. 14). Furthermore, frequent users of the
internet were at an increased risk of victimization; the risk of victimization increases even more
for those who conduct internet banking at least once a week (Perreault, 2011, p. 14). These

FRAUD, THEFT, THREATS, AND SCAMS

results do make sense since the use of internet banking services is an important pre-requisite to
becoming a victim of internet bank fraud.
In terms of online purchase fraud, a study in the Netherlands found that participants who
demonstrated lower-levels of self-control in their routine activities tend to have a higher risk of
purchasing fraud victimization. As stated by Van Wilsem in his 2013 paper, Impulsive people
are more active on the Internet. Compared to less impulsive people, they spend more hours on
average buying products online, visiting Internet forums, and more often have personal Internet
profiles (p. 172). The results of Van Wilsems 2013 study yielded results demonstrating that
higher participation in riskier online activities, which more impulsive individuals take part in,
significantly and positively increases risks for online consumer fraud (p. 173). As for
demographics, Van Wilsems 2013 study posits that fraud victimization is inversely related to
age and positively related to educational level (p. 173). In laymans terms, younger individuals,
particularly those less than 35 years old, are more likely to be victimized and that those with a
higher education levels increase victimization risks. Where victimization demographics differ
between internet bank and consumer purchase fraud is in terms of education. For both digital and
traditional threat victimization, the risk is more pronounced for those who are less educated (Van
Wilsem, 2011, p. 122). As stated in previous paragraphs, those with greater educational
achievement are more at risk for internet bank fraud victimization.
Identity theft victimization was largely affected by routine activities, similar to the Van
Wilsems 2013 study on consumer purchase fraud and Van Wilsems 2011 study on threat
victimization. Generally speaking, those who spend more time and practiced less self-control in
routine internet activities in Britain are more at risk of identity theft. As mentioned in Reyns
2013 study, those who use internet banking services, conducted online shopping, used email or
instant messaging services, or downloaded media were at far greater risk than those who did not

FRAUD, THEFT, THREATS, AND SCAMS

follow similar routine internet activities (p. 230). In terms of income, Reyns demographics are
similar to those collected Statistics Canada regarding internet bank fraud. In both studies, higher
incomes are more likely to result in greater victimization risk. As stated by Reyns in his 2013
study, Those with higher incomes (more than 50,000 pounds) were nearly 60 percent more
likely to be victimized compared to those making less than 50,000 pounds (p. 227). Also Reyns
study on identity theft makes specific mention of internet banking; those who use internet
banking services are more at risk for identity theft victimization. This could indicate that
Canadians who are victims of internet bank fraud are also at risk of identity theft victimization,
due to the similarity in demographic trends in both countries, levels of internet penetration/use,
and similar risk factors.
Compared to financially motivated cybercrimes such as internet bank fraud, consumer
purchase fraud, and identity theft victimization, the demographics regarding threat victimization
are slightly different. Similar to consumer purchase fraud, Van Wilsems 2011 study states that
risks for both traditional and cyber threat victimization is higher for those under the age of 25,
while both types of victimization risk reduce drastically the older a person gets (p. 122). Also
similar to financially motivated cyber victimization, routine activities of the victim are
comparatively similar in risk of victimization for threats. As stated by Van Wilsem, Internet
activities determine not only digital threat risk but also traditional threat victimization.
Respondents who spend a lot of time surfing the Internet for information are more often the
victim of traditional threats, as are respondents with a profile on the Dutch social networking site
Hyves (2011, p. 122). To sum up, lower levels of self-control in routine activities will expose
individuals to greater risk of cyber and traditional threat victimization. The risk factor of low
self-control in routine activities is both present in Van Wilsems 2013 study on consumer
purchase fraud, and Van Wilsems 2011 study on threat victimization. In particular, owning a

FRAUD, THEFT, THREATS, AND SCAMS

social networking profile and surfing the Internet are shared risk factors in routine activities for
both studies. Furthermore, age is inversely correlated with victimization in both studies as well;
the younger you are, the more likely you are to be victim of crime.
The only difference in demographics for Reyns British study, both Van Wilsems studies,
and internet bank fraud data from Statistics Canada is that age is positively correlated with
identity theft victimization risk Reyns study (p. 227). In the other three studies listed, age is
inversely correlated.
It should be noted that all four studies mentioned previously used demographics data
from Canada, the Netherlands, and the UK. One possible explanation for the relative similarity in
the demographics for risk victimization is that all three countries have very high levels of
internet penetration among their respective populations; it is rare to find population centres
without steady internet access in all three countries.
Risk of victimization differed most significantly in the demographics from Buchanan &
Whittys 2014 dating romance scam study, when compared to the other four studies examined in
this paper. Reasons for the large difference in demographics can be attributable to the different
nature of cybercrimes. Whereas consumer purchase fraud, identity theft, and internet bank fraud
do not involve a large degree of back and forth interaction between victim and offender, dating
romance fraud is highly dependent on victim-offender interaction. Also, the two different sets of
crimes take place on widely differing environments on the internet. Whereas consumer purchase
fraud, internet bank fraud, and identity theft can largely occur within the same websites and
domains, dating romance scams is almost always initiated from an online dating website and
domain.
One key difference in demographics is that emotional risk factors such as low self-control
are not listed in the UK romance dating scam study. The predictors that closest resemble low
self-control: sensation seeking, agreeableness, and neuroticism, having almost no impact on the

FRAUD, THEFT, THREATS, AND SCAMS

risk of romance scam victimization (Buchanan & Whitty, 2014, p. 278). The only predictor that
had any significant correlation with victimization risk was Romantic Beliefs; Romantic Belief
scores were significantly and positively correlated with romance scam victimization risk
(Buchanan & Whitty, 2014, p. 278). The predictor of Romantic Beliefs does not even factor into
predicting victimization risk in the other four, non-romance scam studies, considering that this
particular predictor would not even be relevant in said studies. The demographic groups from the
romance scam victimization study cannot be said to be at greater risk of the other cybercrimes
listed in the four other studies.
Reducing the likelihood of cyber-victimization, especially for the types of cyber-crime
examined in this paper, is highly reliant on the victims internet usage and activities. This should
be accomplished through more education at the primary school level regarding safe internet
usage. Furthermore, more emphasis on safe and best practices regarding the use of social media
should be taught in schools; this would include teaching children and teenagers not to post
important personal information such as home address and phone number on the internet.

References
Buchanan, Tom and Whitty, Monica. (2014). The online dating romance scam: Causes and
consequences of victimhood. Psychology, Crime & Law, 20(3), 261- 283.
Perrault, Samuel (2011). Self-reported Internet victimization in Canada, 2009. Available at
http://statcan.gc.ca/pub/85-002-x/2011001/article/11530-eng.htm.
Van Wilsem, Johan. (2011). Bought it, but never got it: Assessing risk factors for online
consumer fraud investigation. European Sociological Review, 29(2), 168-178.
Van Wilsem, Johan. (2011). Worlds tied together? Online and non-domestic routine activities and
their impact on digital and traditional threat victimization. European Journal of
Criminology, 8(2), 115-127

FRAUD, THEFT, THREATS, AND SCAMS

Reyns, Bradford W. (2013). Online routines and identity theft victimization: Further explaining
routine activity theory beyond direct-control offenses. Journal of Research in Crime &
Delinquency, 50(2), 216-238.