Criminal networks in a digitised world: on the nexus of borderless opportunities and local embeddedness

Abstract

This article presents the results of empirical analyses of the use of information technology (IT) by organized crime groups. In particular, it explores how the use of IT affects the processes of origin and growth of criminal networks. The empirical data presented in this article consist of 30 large scale criminal investigations into organized crime, including traditional organized crime, traditional organized crime in which IT is an innovative element, low tech cybercrimes and high tech cybercrimes. Networks involved in cybercrimes or traditional crimes with an innovative IT element can be characterized as a mixture of old school criminals that have a long criminal career, and a limited number of technically skilled members. Furthermore, almost all cases have a local dimension. Also the cybercrime cases. Dutch sellers of drugs on online marketplace, for example, mainly work for customers in the Netherlands and surrounding countries.

Organized Financial Cybercrime: Criminal Cooperation, Logistic Bottlenecks, and Money Flows

“…Empirical research into organized cybercrime in the Netherlands, Germany, England, Sweden, and the United States shows that the structure of a number of cybercriminal networks is similar to that of traditional networks (Bulanova-Hristova et al 2016;Werner and Korsell 2016;Leukfeldt et al 2017b, c, d;Odinot et al 2017;Kruisbergen et al 2018;Leukfeldt et al 2019). For example, most of the cybercriminal networks studied by these authors consisted of a more or less stable group of core members who committed offenses together for a prolonged period of time.…”

“…Furthermore, several studies on cybercriminal networks illustrate, similar to traditional networks, the importance of actors functioning as brokers (Soudijn and Monsma 2012;Lu et al 2010;Yip et al 2012;Holt and Smirnova 2014;Décary-Hétu and Dupont 2012;Leukfeldt et al 2017cLeukfeldt et al , e, 2019. Traditionally, so-called brokers were needed to overcome the limitations of offline social networks.…”

“…Similar to traditional networks, facilitators also play an important role in cybercriminal networks. A few networks manage to commit crimes without the services of others, but the majority of the networks make (extensive) use of facilitators (Odinot et al 2017;Bulanova-Hristova et al 2016;Leukfeldt et al 2017a, b, c, d, e;Kruisbergen et al 2018;Leukfeldt et al 2019). Indeed, that is exactly why there is so much activity on online meeting places such as cryptomarkets (e.g., Peretti 2008, Holt andLampke 2010;Chu et al 2010;Soudijn and Monsma 2012;Lu et al 2010;Yip et al 2013;Holt 2013;Holt and Smirnova 2014).…”

Profiling the Cybercriminal: A Systematic Review of Research

“…Along the same area of research other studies explored the organizational structures of groups involved in cybercrime [34]- [37]. For instance, Leukfeldt et al [36] discuss the differences distinguished between networks carrying out lowtech attacks and high-tech attacks as well as the different layers of these networks such as the core members (the higher lever), professional enablers (a layer below the core members) and money mules (the bottom layer).…”

“…It is also identified that researchers are selecting some parts of specific frameworks which they find appropriate to analyse the type of data they have collected or analysing. For example, a study [34] has selected some aspects of an analytical framework [30] used to systematically analyse cases of organised crime. The selected aspects of the framework were ties between members of networks, processes of origin and growth, the composition of the network, its structure, the dependencies, the background of members, social ties and the (digital) offender convergence settings used by the criminals.…”