‘Oh we can’t actually do anything about that’: The problematic nature of jurisdiction for online fraud victims
Abstract
One of the most pressing challenges with policing online fraud relates to jurisdiction. Policing is traditionally based on territoriality, but the internet has changed this. Offenders in one country can target a victim in a second country, who is requested to send money to a third or fourth country. This article examines online fraud victims’ reporting to police. Specifically, it demonstrates the misconceptions that exist regarding jurisdiction, namely the relationship between the Australian Federal Police and state/territory police. A clear disconnect emerges between understandings and expectations of who can investigate what relating to online fraud. The Australian Cybercrime Online Reporting Network’s establishment in 2014 is a positive step but this has not fixed the issue entirely. Overall, the article argues that the jurisdictional challenges experienced by police are not understood by victims, and improvement is needed regarding awareness of victims and police alike, to reduce unnecessary, additional trauma to victims.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Another reason for not reporting is not considering the incident to be a crime, and feeling that there is little that authorities can do to hold perpetrators accountable.
“Another reason for not reporting is not considering the incident to be a crime (Kemp 2022), and feeling that there is little that authorities can do to hold perpetrators accountable (Cross 2020).”
From Profiling consumers who reported mass marketing scams: demographic characteristics and emotional sentiments associated with victimization (2024) · cites this paper as Cross 2020
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 27 · Cited by 72
- Authors
- Cross, C.
- Affiliations
- Queensland University of Technology (AU)
- Corresponding author
- Cross, Cassandra
- ORCID
- Cross, Cassandra
- Venue
- Criminology & Criminal Justice
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2019-03-13
- Volume
- 20
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 358-375
- ISSN
- 1748-8958 (ISSN-L)
- 1748-8966
- OpenAlex
- W2922302659
- Cited by
- 72
- References
- 27
- Citations by year
- 2026: 6 · 2025: 17 · 2024: 23 · 2023: 13 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 1
- FWCI
- 4.04
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Criminology & Criminal Justice (publishedVersion)
- QUT ePrints (Queensland University of Technology) (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- Australian Institute of Criminology (CRG 29/13-14)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Cybercrime and Law Enforcement Studies
- Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Policing Practices and Perceptions
- Social Sciences › Law › Criminal Justice and Penology
- Keywords
- online fraud, jurisdiction, cybercrime, police reporting, victim awareness, Australian Federal Police, transnational crime, victim trauma, territoriality
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
