CYBERCRIME & CYBERSECURITY - SOC3075
Why have Digital Networks been described as ‘Fraudogenic’ Environments?
Word count: 2,200/2,000
Although the official definition is a deliberate use of deception or dishonesty to cause loss, ‘Fraud’ is
an umbrella term for multiple cybercrimes, all sharing common characteristics and striving for
economic prosperity. It is not a new phenomenon; the history of fraud within the technological
sphere is arguably as old as technology itself, simply continuing to evolve and refine its strategies of
offence. Evidence of exhibited fraudulent behaviour dates to scribes in ancient Egyptian times,
exploiting their high status as vital communicators of information. Therefore, technology has not
amplified the desire to engage in fraud but altered the means through which it is executed. This
paper will compare the different types of fraud, their dependency upon factors for success and
reflect upon the digital tools, techniques and cross-border legislation serving to combat the
‘fraudogenic’ shift owing to the technological revolution. Finally, it will be analysing the assets held
by digital networks which serve as windows for global communities of fraudsters to target victims,
ultimately intending to understand why they are now described as ‘fraudogenic’ environments.
As fraud originally came into operation pre-technology, a proportion of cyber fraud is considered
cyber-enabled; the most achievable as it only demands a mediocre level of expertise, which can be
expected of most individuals. Fraud can also be a product of cyber-dependent crime, which tends to
require significantly more technical skills to execute, skills which often outwit law enforcement. Both
ensure a large digital presence and account for financial fraud, cyberattacks, phishing, identity theft
and romance fraud among many others. Face-to-face contact is vital in gauging authenticity and
visual cues to safeguard against the possibility of deception; the digital aspect of the crime removes
this luxury, which simultaneously wins greater levels of anonymity and trust.
The CSEW (2012) claims the advent of social networking has expanded the reach and scale of fraud;
supporting evidence from Financial Fraud Action (2013) highlights an increase in phishing attempts
from 51,161 websites to 256,641 in 2012. Phishing scams account for a large sum of fraudulence and
operate on a mass-marketing basis often through disguised emails containing requests for personal
information and ‘pharmed’ with a malicious website link. Activist groups such as the Anti-Phishing
Working Group (2012) identify the interdependent relationship between globalisation and
opportunity as integral in accommodating attacks from outside the UK, specifically from the US
which hosts around 88% of phishing sites compared to 0.44% hosted in the UK. The global crisis of
COVID-19 saw ample popularity in fraud via crisis-relief funds, PPE products and health-related
phishing emails with perpetrators posing as the WHO which in combination with individual-level
responses to the catastrophe, provided an ideal environment for virus-related frauds.
As with any profession, often multiple tools are utilised in pursuit of a single outcome, including
DDoS, grooming and predominantly, malware – utilising trojans to infiltrate software, enabling
criminals to obtain identification. Fraudulent techniques have evolved in pace with technology and
digitalisation of mass data storage has provided hackers access to legitimate lists of emails,
telephone numbers, open-source information and lists of ‘suckers’ (individuals already victims of
fraud) are sold to cybercriminals. Illicit access to personal information permits more direct and
precise targeting, unprecedented before the conception of digital networking which explains why
fraud could be described as time dependent.
1
, CYBERCRIME & CYBERSECURITY - SOC3075
Until 2006, the primary issue with convicting an individual on the suspicion of fraud was the complex
composition of legislation expected to be understood and appropriately applied. The Fraud Act
(2006) marks a pivotal moment in the development and recognition of fraudulent UK prosecution,
encompassing fraud committed by abuse of position, false representation or failing to disclose
information. Nevertheless, crimes recorded by both the police and data held by the Ministry of
Justice, continue to prosecute based on the offence, not the medium that is used to commit it.
Button et al (2015) evidence that historically, fraud has never been prioritised by policing agencies,
practically or financially. Poor assignment of resources has resulted in inaccurate findings and
ambiguous understandings surrounding the issue. Data from the Financial Fraud Action (2021) into
‘plastic card fraud’ sees increased rates since 2012 and reports losses of £388 million per annum.
The additional lack of mainstream reports on fraud represents it as an unnecessary topic of attention
and validates the substandard policing and prosecution strategies.
However, ONS and Ipsos (2013) data show only 3% of internet users experience significant financial
loss due to fraud. Academics argue that the widening of the issue has generated a unanimous
awareness and caution toward unsolicited communications and scams. Many nation states argue
that the epidemic of fraudulent activity has had the corresponding effect by consequentially
contributing toward a more ‘street wise’ online network. Therefore, the implementation of a
legislative framework surrounding fraud is often perceived as unnecessary, in addition to the
argument of responsibilisation. Present among much governmental literature, responsibilisation
refers to a type of governance process in the post-modern world which renders individuals and
public organisations, not the welfare state, responsible and capable of managing their interactions
and behaviour. An evident issue in this context as it widens to opportunity for fraudsters to practice
crucial tactics, for example, Advance-Fee Fraud. As demonstrated during a ‘non-delivery scam’, AFF
adopts a cyclical process to repeatedly charge victims for a product before shipping to secure
financial extraction with small sums of money from multiple crimes; if the scale of each crime
remains under £50,000, there is a significant reduction in the likelihood of being reported, triggering
an investigation or a civil recovery case, therefore, maintaining the perpetrator’s state of undetected
operation.
Law enforcement’s struggle concerning developmental challenges of fraud are experienced
universally and is an area of urgency for private policing and voluntary initiatives. Johnston (1996)
highlights the role of vigilantism in compensating for the inadequate state response to a large social
problem. In combination with responsibilisation, vigilantism depends heavily upon interpretation,
often delivering a somewhat skewed effort in addressing the root cause and deterring online
offenders. Nevertheless, Kemp (2022) suggests the development of public-private partnerships
operating in tangent with evidence-based prevention helps better understand the true nature and
volume of fraudulent threats against relative digital devices. Initiating policies which disperse easy-
access education programmes and authorise end-users direct access to their personal data would
significantly advocate awareness and astute care for personal security.
Therefore, social interaction and the cultural landscape determine new digital opportunities for
fraud and the response. Moreover, reduced rates of individual exploitation in the pre-technology era
are explained by fewer opportunities for social interaction due to factors of class position, gender
roles etc. The influence of the cultural landscape was also exhibited during the COVID-19 pandemic,
routines became more technologically dependent, with individuals and businesses being forced to
adapt to exchanging data online and purchasing goods online. Kennedy et al (2021) found 42.5% of
their sample felt fraudulently targeted with COVID-19 related products. Furthermore, the mental
implications of COVID-19 illustrate a trend in increased anxiety which mediates the impact of self-
2
