Explaining Public Indifference toward Victims of Fraud and Con Games

People who have lost money to swindlers often are pictured as undeserving of sympathy in the media, and they may encounter callousness, suspicion, or contempt when they turn to the police or consumer affairs bureaus for help. This second-class treatment seems to be due to negative stereo- types and ambivalent attitudes that are widely held by the public as well as criminal justice officials. A number of aphorisms place blame on the “suckers” themselves—“fraud only befalls those of questionable character,” “an honest man can’t be cheated,” and “people must have larceny in their hearts to fall for a con game.”

For example, white-collar crime investigators picture even sophisticated investors who lose their money to scam- mers in Ponzi schemes as being so blinded by their greed for suspiciously high returns that they ignore the red flags that should have alerted them to the likelihood that they were being drawn into a too-good-to-be-true business arrange- ment (Goldstein, 2011).

Con artists count on exploiting the anticipated behavior of their “marks.” Their targets may get so preoccupied with some “convincer” (such as a large sum of money awaiting them) that they are too distracted to realize what is really going on. Marks could be socially compliant to someone impersonating an authority figure (for example, they reveal their password in response to an e-mail allegedly from a bank’s security officer and subsequently are taken in by a “phishing” scheme). They may let their guard down and assume there is safety in numbers if it seems that lots of other people are willing to take a chance on some risky ven- ture. They may be willing to do something illegal (such as to buy stolen goods) and end up too compromised to go to the police. They could be so trusting and naïve that they fall for

tear-jerking emotional appeals for financial help. And under pressure to “act now or it will be too late,” they could make impulsive decisions they later regret. In well-planned con games pulled off by professionals, nothing is what it seems to be (Stajano and Wilson, 2011).

The stereotype of defrauded parties is that they disre- garded the basic rules of sensible conduct regarding financial matters. They don’t read contracts before signing and don’t demand that guarantees be put in writing before making purchases. Their apparent foolishness, carelessness, or com- plicity undermines their appeals for redress and makes others reluctant to activate the machinery of the criminal justice system and regulatory agencies on their behalf. Their claims to be treated as authentic victims worthy of support may be rejected if they are scorned as money-hungry “dupes” who were merely outsmarted (Walsh and Schram, 1980; Moore and Mills, 1990; and Shichor, Sechrest, and Doocy, 2000).

Using a broad definition of fraudulent schemes (including various rip-offs such as dishonest home, auto, and appliance repairs and inspections; useless warranties; fake subscription, insurance, credit, and investment scams; phony charities, contests, and prizes; and expensive 900-number telephone ploys), a nationwide survey found victimization to be widespread. More than half the respondents had been caught up in some scam or an attempt at deception at least once in their lives, costing an average loss of more than $200. Contrary to the prevailing negative stereotype, the elderly were not any more trusting and compliant; in fact, they were deceived less often than younger people (Titus, Heinzelmann, and Boyle, 1995).