Internet Crime Stats Go Up, But It’s Mostly Due To Methodology Change

Written by Fred J. Aun
April 1st, 2009

Internet fraud complaints received by the Internet Crime Complaint Center (IC3), a partnership between the FBI and a non-profit consumer protection organization, seem to reveal that online scam victims lost about $25 million more in 2008 than in 2007, but the IC3 concedes its numbers might be skewed by an increased effort to make filing complaints easier.

The report points out that the IC3 has been pushing major E-Commerce players to provide defrauded customers with easy ways to file IC3 complaints. “As part of these efforts, many of these companies, such as eBay, have provided their customers links to the IC3 website,” the report said. “As a direct result, an increase in referrals depicted as auction fraud has emerged.”

Because of that, the IC3 cautioned its statistics about Internet crime complaint numbers might be “misleading” and should be viewed as a generalized “snapshot” of the problem.

If the increase in complaints is due, at least in part, to the IC3’s efforts, that would also call into question the IC3’s assertion that money lost to Internet scammers reached an “all-time high” in 2008 of $265 million. The IC3 says it fielded more than 275,000 complaints in 2008. There were about 207,000 complaints filed in 2007.

Rip-offs involving merchandise sales were “by far the most reported offense,” according to the report. During 2008, complains about non-delivery of merchandise and/or payment comprised 32.9 percent of referred crime complaints. “This represents a 32.1 percent increase from the 2007 levels of non-delivery of merchandise and/or payment reported to the IC3,” said the IC3. “About one in three complaints were for nonpayment or non-delivery. The other most common complaints were for auction fraud or credit and debit card fraud.”

A small piece of good news: Auction fraud, representing 25.5 percent of the complaints received by the organization, declined during the year. The 2008 figure was down almost 29 percent from 2007.

Of the complaints where victims reported losing money, the mean dollar loss amount was about $4,100 and the median was $931, according to IC3. Nearly 15 percent of the lost-money complaints involved losses of less than $100 and about 37 percent reported a loss between $100 and $1,000. “In other words, over half of these cases involved a monetary loss of less than $1,000,” says the report.

The IC3 said it forwarded to various law enforcement agencies more than 70,000 of the complaints.

For whatever reason, possibly because of the different types of online shopping done by men and women, the IC3 found that men get scammed more, or for more money, than do women.


Comments are closed.


StorefrontBacktalk delivers the latest retail technology news & analysis. Join more than 60,000 retail IT leaders who subscribe to our free weekly email. Sign up today!

Most Recent Comments

Why Did Gonzales Hackers Like European Cards So Much Better?

I am still unclear about the core point here-- why higher value of European cards. Supply and demand, yes, makes sense. But the fact that the cards were chip and pin (EMV) should make them less valuable because that demonstrably reduces the ability to use them fraudulently. Did the author mean that the chip and pin cards could be used in a country where EMV is not implemented--the US--and this mis-match make it easier to us them since the issuing banks may not have as robust anti-fraud controls as non-EMV banks because they assumed EMV would do the fraud prevention for them Read more...
Two possible reasons that I can think of and have seen in the past - 1) Cards issued by European banks when used online cross border don't usually support AVS checks. So, when a European card is used with a billing address that's in the US, an ecom merchant wouldn't necessarily know that the shipping zip code doesn't match the billing code. 2) Also, in offline chip countries the card determines whether or not a transaction is approved, not the issuer. In my experience, European issuers haven't developed the same checks on authorization requests as US issuers. So, these cards might be more valuable because they are more likely to get approved. Read more...
A smart card slot in terminals doesn't mean there is a reader or that the reader is activated. Then, activated reader or not, the U.S. processors don't have apps certified or ready to load into those terminals to accept and process smart card transactions just yet. Don't get your card(t) before the terminal (horse). Read more...
The marketplace does speak. More fraud capacity translates to higher value for the stolen data. Because nearly 100% of all US transactions are authorized online in real time, we have less fraud regardless of whether the card is Magstripe only or chip and PIn. Hence, $10 prices for US cards vs $25 for the European counterparts. Read more...
@David True. The European cards have both an EMV chip AND a mag stripe. Europeans may generally use the chip for their transactions, but the insecure stripe remains vulnerable to skimming, whether it be from a false front on an ATM or a dishonest waiter with a handheld skimmer. If their stripe is skimmed, the track data can still be cloned and used fraudulently in the United States. If European banks only detect fraud from 9-5 GMT, that might explain why American criminals prefer them over American bank issued cards, who have fraud detection in place 24x7. Read more...

Our apologies. Due to legal and security copyright issues, we can't facilitate the printing of Premium Content. If you absolutely need a hard copy, please contact customer service.