Is online fraud just fraud? Examining the efficacy of the digital divide

Abstract

Purpose Fraud is not a new offence. However, the recent evolution and proliferation of technologies (predominantly the internet) has seen offenders increasingly use virtual environments to target and defraud victims worldwide. Several studies have examined the ways that fraud is perpetrated with a clear demarcation between terrestrial and cyber offences. However, with moves towards the notion of a “digital society” and recognition that technology is increasingly embedded across all aspects of our lives, it is important to consider if there is any advantage in categorising fraud against the type of environment it is perpetrated in. This paper aims to discuss these issues. Design/methodology/approach This paper examines the perceived utility of differentiating online and offline fraud offences. It is based upon the insights of thirty-one professionals who work within the “fraud justice network” across London, UK and Toronto, Canada. Findings It highlights both the realities faced by professionals in seeking to ether maintain or collapse such a differentiation in their everyday jobs and the potential benefits and challenges that result. Practical implications Overall, the paper argues that the majority of professionals did not feel a distinction was necessary and instead felt that an arbitrary divide was instead a hindrance to their activities. However, while not useful on a practical front, there was perceived benefit regarding government, funding and the media. The implications of this moving forward are considered. Originality/value This paper provides new insights into how fraud justice network professionals understand the distinction between fraud offences perpetrated across both online and offline environments.

Who is to blame? Exploring accountability in fraud victimisation

“…Interviews covered a range of topics on the interaction between the FJN and victims of fraud (for other publications taken from the same data set see Cross 2019a, b). Given the variety in topics covered across the interviews, the current paper focuses only on the issue of accountability as it relates to fraud victimisation.…”

Dimensions of Electronic Fraud and Governance of Trust in Nigeria’s Cashless Ecosystem

“…In other words, fraudulent people abound everywhere and Nigeria is not an exception. To underscore the ubiquity of fraud, Cross (2019) extensively reports fraud incidences from the United Kingdom, the United States, Australia, Canada, and Hong Kong with attendant losses in millions of dollars.…”

What we think we know about cybersecurity: an investigation of the relationship between perceived knowledge, internet trust, and protection motivation in a cybercrime context

“…It should be noted that most studies on cybercrime and cybersecurity that use the PMT framework recognize the value of the theory, but also acknowledge the importance of extending the original framework and adapting it to the online environment by including one or several additional variables, such as exposure to media coverage on security (Anderson & Agarwal, 2010), experience with the internet (Anderson & Agarwal, 2010;Youn, 2009), prior experience with online threats (Anderson & Agarwal, 2010), digital safety skills (Dodel & Mesch, 2018, 2019, or knowledge (Youn, 2009). These studies illustrate that extending the PMT framework creates a better understanding of people's protection motivation.…”

“…Even though no consensus exists about the exact definition of cybercrime, the term is usually applied to refer to two types of incidents: cyber-enabled/computer-assisted crimes, and cyber-dependent/computer-focused crimes (e.g., Cross, 2019;Holt & Bossler, 2016;McGuire & Dowling, 2013). The former category refers to crimes that already have an offline equivalent (e.g., fraud, identity theft), and where the online environment offers additional ways for perpetrators to approach their targets.…”