Reflections on the reporting of fraud in Australia

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to reflect on the reporting of cybercrime in Australia, specifically the reporting of fraud. Design/methodology/approach Using an evaluation of the (former) Australian Cybercrime Online Reporting Network (ACORN), this paper provides a commentary on the report findings, including both positive and negative aspects of the reporting mechanism. Findings The paper focuses on three key challenges that were identified in the evaluation: victim satisfaction; quality of data; and unintended consequences. Each of these topics is outlined and located within a broader context to better understand the evaluation findings. Research limitations/implications This viewpoint paper is a commentary based upon an evaluation of ACORN which itself has several limitations of its methodology. Despite this, the evaluation provides important insights into the challenges that currently exist with the online reporting of fraud offences both in Australia, and worldwide. Practical implications This paper emphasises the structural and systemic issues that exist for the reporting of fraud in Australia. It therefore warns against placing blame exclusively on police agencies as responsible for these results. Instead, it advocates the need for society to take a more coordinated and collaborative approach to the policing of fraud, which includes law enforcement, government and industry partners. Social implications The paper documents some of the underlying reasons for additional trauma and harm experienced by victims of fraud in their efforts to report their incident and receive what they perceive to be an appropriate criminal justice response. These must be acknowledged in order to make the required change. Originality/value This paper is a commentary and reflection on the current way in which fraud is reported in Australia. It points to a need to rethink this approach in some key areas. It highlights the critical need for an education campaign to dispel some of the myths that exist in relation to realistic police responses to fraud, and also calls for the need to consider alternatives to the exclusively online system currently in operation, as well as larger questions about notions of justice and appropriate responses to fraud victims.

“I knew it was a scam”: Understanding the triggers for recognizing romance fraud

“…Fraud is well established as having a notoriously low rate of reporting (Button et al., 2014; Copes et al., 2001; Van Wyk & Mason, 2001). To better understand these high levels of nonreporting, there are significant challenges known to impact the ability and willingness of fraud victims to report their experiences (Cross, 2020; Cross et al., 2016; Morgan et al., 2016). This includes the shame and stigma associated with victimization, as well as not believing that anything can be done (Button et al., 2009, 2014; Cross, 2015; Cross et al., 2016).…”

Responding to cybercrime: results of a comparison between community members and police personnel

“…An incident may then be referred back to state or federal police for an official investigation (Australian Federal Police 2019; Queensland Police Service (QPS) 2019: para 4). Previous Australian research suggests that general duties officers remain a primary point of contact for victims of cybercrime and that victims are often dissatisfied when these officers refer matters elsewhere (Cross 2020(Cross , 2018b. This suggests that discrepancies between community and police expectations about appropriate responses to cybercrime may contribute to public dissatisfaction with law enforcement (Cross, Richards & Smith 2016;Jang, Joo & Zhao 2010).…”

Do Good Corporate Governance and Whistleblowing Systems in Bank Industry Effectively Support Fraud Detection and Prevention?

“…In addition, it was also explained that fraud detection is mostly carried out by employees, who provide information related to fraud that occurs in the company (ACFE, 2022). Therefore, how important it is for every organization to develop an adequate supervisory framework accompanied by a system mechanism that supports the reporting of fraud (Cross, 2018(Cross, , 2019.…”