The Dark Side of Digital Love: Emotional Exploitation and Organized Fraud on Dating Platforms<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Sefa Y\u00fcr\u00fckel,
Anthropologist and Ethnographer<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Comprehensive Academic Analysis and Field Research Report<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The digital age has enabled one of the greatest communication revolutions in human history. In this new era, where geographical boundaries lose their meaning and cultures interact instantaneously, humanity\u2019s millennia-old fundamental need to \u201cconnect\u201d has been brought to a larger stage than ever before. However, like every revolution, this digital transformation has brought with it a dark side.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
This study aims to systematically present the findings emerging from 9 months of intensive field research, participant observation, and in-depth analyses. Observations conducted on Facebook groups, WhatsApp, Telegram, Signal, and Google Chat platforms throughout the research period have shown that we are not only dealing with individual fraud cases, but with a global, organized crime industry that blends psychological manipulation techniques with cultural codes.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The primary purpose of this report is to raise awareness among individuals who have been victimized or are at risk of being victimized in digital dating environments, to reveal the workings of this exploitation mechanism in all its dimensions, and to provide a comprehensive resource in this field for academic literature.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Table of Contents<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Introduction \u2026 7
1.1. Research Subject and Significance \u2026 7
1.2. Research Method and Scope \u2026 9
1.3. Conceptual Framework \u2026 11<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Chapter 1: Anatomy of the Digital Dating Ecosystem \u2026 14
1.1. Sociological Transformation of Platforms \u2026 14
1.2. Commodification of Loneliness \u2026 17
1.3. Political Economy of the Global Dating Market \u2026 20<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Chapter 2: Pitfalls of Digital Dating Rituals \u2026 24
2.1. Standard Questions and Profile Analysis: Dating as Data Mining \u2026 24
2.2. Anthropological Perspective: The Digital Reflection of the Gift Economy \u2026 28
2.3. Geographic Codes and Economic Profiling \u2026 32<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Chapter 3: Construction of Emotional Capital \u2026 36
3.1. Psychological Manipulation Techniques: Love Bombing \u2026 36
3.2. Fake Identities and AI-Generated Images \u2026 40
3.3. \u201cDigital Self\u201d Theft: The Data Pool Logic \u2026 44<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Chapter 4: Use of Cultural and Anthropological Codes as Weapons \u2026 48
4.1. Exploitation of Compassion: Child Photos and Family Discourses \u2026 48
4.2. Collective Belonging and Protective Instinct \u2026 52
4.3. Exoticization and Manipulation of Cultural Distance \u2026 56<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Chapter 5: Digitalization of Economic Exploitation \u2026 60
5.1. Gift Card Economy: Untraceable Capital Transfer \u2026 60
5.2. Time Pressure and Urgency Creation Tactics \u2026 64
5.3. Gradual Demand Technique: From Small Favors to Big Losses \u2026 68<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Chapter 6: Organized Structures and Data Exploitation \u2026 72
6.1. \u201cFraud Manuals\u201d and Trained Networks \u2026 72
6.2. The Criminal Dimension of Network Society: Decentralized Cellular Structures \u2026 76
6.3. Instrumentalization of Victims: Data Sorting and Reuse \u2026 80<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Chapter 7: Case Analyses and Field Observations \u2026 84
7.1. Typological Case Studies \u2026 84
7.2. Cross-Platform Transition Strategies \u2026 90
7.3. Stages of the Fraud Process \u2026 94<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Chapter 8: Multidisciplinary Evaluation \u2026 98
8.1. Psychological Analysis: Depths of Victimization \u2026 98
8.2. Sociological Analysis: Fragility of Modern Relationships \u2026 102
8.3. Anthropological Analysis: Gift, Reciprocity, and Betrayal of Trust \u2026 106
8.4. Philosophical Analysis: Digital Existence and the Problem of Authenticity \u2026 110
8.5. Cultural Analysis: Globalization and Identity Imitation \u2026 114<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Conclusion \u2026 118
9.1. Summary of Research Findings \u2026 118
9.2. Theoretical Contributions \u2026 122
9.3. Practical Implications \u2026 124<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Recommendations \u2026 126
10.1. Precautions at the Individual Level \u2026 126
10.2. Policy Recommendations for Platforms \u2026 129
10.3. Legal and Regulatory Framework Improvements \u2026 131
10.4. Education and Awareness Programs \u2026 133<\/p>\n\n\n\n
References \u2026 135<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Appendices \u2026 148
Appendix 1: Sample Field Observation Form \u2026 148
Appendix 2: Sample Fraud Dialogues \u2026 150
Appendix 3: Guide to Identifying AI-Generated Images \u2026 154<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Introduction<\/p>\n\n\n\n
1.1. Research Subject and Significance<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The digitalizing world is witnessing one of the most profound communication transformations in human history. The proliferation of internet-based communication technologies since the beginning of the 21st century has fundamentally changed the nature of interaction between individuals. One of the most prominent areas where this transformation is evident is, undoubtedly, the way interpersonal relationships are formed. Dating and pre-marital relationships, traditionally shaped within organic social structures like family, kinship, neighborhood, or work circles, have now largely moved to digital platforms.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Dating apps and social media groups have become a vast marketplace, eliminating geographical boundaries and bringing together people from different cultures and socio-economic backgrounds. While these platforms enable encounters that were previously impossible, they also provide fertile ground for organized crime networks that manipulate emotions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The subject of this research is a systematic analysis of organized fraud activities commonly observed on digital dating platforms. The research aims to reveal the existence of a globally organized fraud network operating on a specific pattern, particularly in conversations conducted on platforms like Facebook groups, WhatsApp, Telegram, Signal, and Google Chat.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The significance of this study can be evaluated on multiple levels:<\/p>\n\n\n\n
a) Academic Significance: Existing studies on online dating fraud often remain at the level of individual case analyses or statistical data reports. This research offers a multidisciplinary perspective by addressing the issue at the intersection of psychology, sociology, anthropology, philosophy, and cultural studies.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
b) Practical Significance: Thousands of people suffer financial and emotional losses due to online dating fraud every year. This study aims to increase awareness among potential victims by documenting fraud methods in detail and contribute to the development of protective strategies.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
c) Policy Significance: The research findings provide concrete data for policymakers in areas such as digital platform regulation, combating cybercrime, and consumer protection.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
d) Social Significance: It aims to create social awareness about the increasing sense of loneliness in modern societies, digitalized relationship patterns, and the commodification of emotional labor.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
1.2. Research Method and Scope<\/p>\n\n\n\n
This research was designed based on qualitative research methods. Multiple techniques were used in the data collection process:<\/p>\n\n\n\n
a) Participant Observation: The researcher conducted participant observation for 60 days between January 1 and March 1 , 2026, by joining various dating groups on Facebook. During the observation period, 47 different groups (international groups, country-based groups, groups catering to specific age ranges) were actively monitored.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
b) Interview and Dialogue Analysis: During the research, communication was established with 83 profiles identified as fraudulent, and the dialogue patterns emerging during these communications were systematically recorded. These dialogues were analyzed using content analysis and categorized thematically.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
c) Analysis of Victim Statements: 124 different statements shared by victims on various online platforms (fraud complaint sites, forums, social media groups) were included in the dataset.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
d) Platform Analysis: The technical infrastructures, security features, and aspects enabling fraudulent activities of WhatsApp, Telegram, Signal, and Google Chat applications were analyzed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
e) Phone Number Analysis: The country codes, operator information, and usage patterns of over 200 phone numbers encountered during the research were analyzed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The scope of the research was defined within the following limitations:<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u00b7 Time Limitation: The research is based on a 30-day intensive field study. A longer observation period could have allowed for the analysis of changes in fraudulent activities across different seasonal periods.
\u00b7 Platform Limitation: The research was limited to the specified platforms. Dedicated dating apps like Tinder, Bumble, and Hinge were excluded.
\u00b7 Geographic Limitation: While conducted with a global perspective, the research primarily involved interactions with users of European and Turkish origin.
\u00b7 Language Limitation: The research was limited to conversations conducted in English.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
1.3. Conceptual Framework<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The concepts forming the theoretical basis of this research are addressed with a multidisciplinary approach:<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Emotional Exploitation: The process of manipulating individuals’ emotional needs (love, belonging, approval, feeling secure) to gain material or other advantages in return for satisfying these needs. This concept can be considered an adaptation of Marx’s theory of “exploitation” to the field of emotional labor.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Love Bombing: A technique used to make a person emotionally dependent by showering them with excessive attention, praise, expressions of love, and gifts at the beginning of a relationship. This term is used in psychology literature, particularly in the context of narcissistic personality disorder.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Gift Economy: An economic and social system, defined by anthropologist Marcel Mauss’s classic work, where social bonds are established and maintained through the reciprocal exchange of gifts. In this study, the role of gift cards in the digital environment is analyzed using this concept.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Digital Self: The digital identity an individual constructs in online environments, which can be an extension of their real self or a differentiated version of it. Introduced to the literature through the work of Sherry Turkle, this concept is used as a basis for analyzing fake profiles and identity theft.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Network Society: A term defined by Manuel Castells for the contemporary form of society where social structure is organized around networks rather than central hierarchies. It is used here to analyze the structural characteristics of organized fraud networks.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Data Pool: A central repository used by fraud networks to collect data obtained from different victims (photos, audio recordings, videos, personal information) for reuse in subsequent fraudulent activities.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Liquid Modernity: A concept coined by Zygmunt Bauman to describe the fluid, uncertain, and constantly changing nature of modern societies. It provides a theoretical framework for explaining the fragile and transient character of digital dating relationships.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Surveillance Capitalism: The new economic order defined by Shoshana Zuboff, where individuals’ behavioral data is systematically collected and commercialized. In this study, the data collection practices of fraud networks are linked to this concept.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Chapter 1: Anatomy of the Digital Dating Ecosystem<\/p>\n\n\n\n
1.1. Sociological Transformation of Platforms<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The emergence and widespread adoption of digital dating platforms are part of one of the most profound social transformations in human history. In traditional societies, marriage and dating relationships were regulated and supervised by organic social structures such as families, kinship networks, neighborhood relations, and religious communities. These structures functioned both to identify potential marriage candidates and to control the course of the relationship.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The Industrial Revolution and the subsequent modernization process weakened these traditional structures, granting individuals greater autonomy. This new form of relationship, which Anthony Giddens calls the “pure relationship,” is based solely on the mutual consent and emotional satisfaction of the parties, independent of external social norms. According to Giddens, with modernity, love evolved from “romantic love” to “confluent love”; this new form of love centers on equality, mutuality, and a constantly renegotiated understanding of commitment.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Digital dating platforms represent the most advanced point of this transformation. These platforms offer an artificial, algorithm-based matching mechanism that replaces organic social structures. Users can communicate directly with potential partners without traditional intermediaries. While this maximizes individual freedom, it also leads to the complete commercialization and commodification of the foundation upon which relationships are built.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
In her work “Cold Intimacies,” Eva Illouz analyzes how capitalism transforms emotional life. According to Illouz, in modern societies, emotions increasingly become objects of rational calculation, strategic behavior, and economic logic. Digital dating platforms are the most concrete manifestation of this process. “Liking” a profile, “swiping,” waiting for a “match” \u2013 these actions encode the emotional relationship as a consumer product from its very inception.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Significant differences exist among the platforms observed during the research:<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u00b7 Facebook Dating Groups: These have a less structured, community-based structure. Users typically post in groups created around specific criteria (e.g., “Foreigners in Turkey,” “International Friendship”) and send direct messages to those they are interested in. These groups are highly conducive to fraud activities because group administrators often have weak control mechanisms, and fake profiles are difficult to detect.
\u00b7 WhatsApp, Signal, Telegram: Although not originally designed as dating platforms, these are frequently used in the later stages of the dating process. Their encrypted messaging features, in particular, allow fraudsters to operate without leaving evidence. Telegram’s “channel” and “group” features can be used for coordinating organized fraud networks.
\u00b7 Google Chat: While designed as a corporate communication tool, its use for dating purposes was also observed during the research. The ease of creating accounts with a Google account and its integration with Gmail facilitate the creation of fake identities.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The transition between these platforms constitutes a critical stage in the fraud process. The victim usually meets the fraudster on a more “public” platform like Facebook and is then quickly directed to more “private” and difficult-to-monitor platforms like WhatsApp, Signal, or Telegram. This transition also functions as an indicator of the victim’s trust in the fraudster.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
1.2. Commodification of Loneliness<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The rise of digital dating platforms is closely linked to the feeling of loneliness, one of the core pathologies of modern societies. Zygmunt Bauman’s concept of “liquid modernity” provides a fundamental theoretical framework for understanding this relationship. According to Bauman, modern societies are characterized by the dissolution of solid institutions and permanent bonds. While individuals are forced to adapt to constantly changing conditions, they increasingly lose the ability to establish stable, reliable, and lasting relationships.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
This “liquefaction” process confronts individuals with a paradoxical situation: on one hand, they are liberated; on the other, they experience deep loneliness and a lack of belonging. Digital dating platforms emerge as a commodified solution to this feeling of loneliness. They promise to alleviate loneliness temporarily by offering users the chance to reach potential partners with a few clicks.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
However, this promise often leads to a deepening of loneliness. As documented in Robert D. Putnam’s “Bowling Alone,” social capital is declining in modern societies. As people prefer digital interactions over face-to-face relationships, their capacity for genuine connection weakens.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
In the fraud cases observed during the research, it was found that nearly all victims experienced a profound sense of loneliness before the fraud. This loneliness manifests in various forms:<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u00b7 Geographic Loneliness: Individuals living abroad, away from family and social circles. This group includes Turkish workers in Europe, young people on student exchange programs abroad, and individuals who have moved to different countries upon retirement.
\u00b7 Emotional Loneliness: Individuals deprived of emotional bonds due to the end of a long-term relationship, the death of a spouse, or divorce.
\u00b7 Social Loneliness: Individuals who have difficulty forming face-to-face social relationships due to social phobia, shyness, physical disability, or chronic illness.
\u00b7 Existential Loneliness: Individuals experiencing existential loneliness due to questioning the meaning of life, midlife crises, or the feeling of emptiness after retirement.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Fraudsters are highly skilled at identifying these types of loneliness and developing appropriate manipulation strategies. In the dialogues examined during the research, fraudsters were observed asking specially designed questions in initial conversations to map the victim’s loneliness situation: “Do you live alone?”, “Do you see your family?”, “How often do you go out?”, “You’re not very active on social media, why?”.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The commodification of loneliness also reveals a new form of emotional labor. As defined in Arlie Russell Hochschild’s classic study, emotional labor is the process of managing one’s emotions for a wage in the workplace. In online dating fraud, this labor is used to build a completely fake emotional connection. Fraudsters constantly perform emotions like love, interest, affection, curiosity, and empathy to meet the emotional needs of their victims. This performance is a job done in exchange for financial gain.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
1.3. Political Economy of the Global Dating Market<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Digital dating platforms constitute one of the most dynamic growth areas of global capitalism. As of 2023, the global online dating market size exceeded $10 billion, with an expected average annual growth rate of 8-10% over the next five years. This market has a multi-layered economic structure consisting not only of platform subscription revenues but also advertising revenues, premium feature sales, and the commercialization of user data.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Behind this global market operates a darker economy: the organized romance fraud industry. According to research findings, this industry is characterized by the following economic dynamics:<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u00b7 Low Cost, High Return: The cost of fraudulent activities is extremely low. A mobile phone, internet connection, a few fake profiles, and basic language skills are sufficient. In contrast, the income from a successful fraud case can amount to thousands of euros. In one case identified during the research, the fraudster demanded a total of 8,500 euros worth of gift cards from a single victim within two months.
\u00b7 Geographic Specialization: Fraud networks concentrate in specific geographical regions. Analysis of phone numbers identified during the research indicates that Nigeria, Benin, Ghana, South Africa, and some Eastern European countries are hubs for these activities. However, the widespread use of virtual private networks (VPNs) and fake SIM cards makes it difficult to determine the actual geographical location.
\u00b7 Organizational Structure: Fraud networks are typically organized in a cellular structure. A central management provides “employees” with manuals, dialogue scripts, fake photos, and technical infrastructure. Each operator communicates with multiple victims simultaneously. Successful operators are rewarded with bonuses or promotion systems.
\u00b7 Money Laundering Mechanisms: Various methods are used to launder the proceeds from fraud. Gift cards constitute the first stage of this process. The obtained card codes are cashed out on specialized platforms or converted into other digital assets (cryptocurrencies, virtual game items, etc.). These transactions occur through a network that is extremely difficult to trace.
\u00b7 Global Division of Labor: The romance fraud industry operates on the basis of a global division of labor. Different functions such as profile creation, photo editing, dialogue management, technical infrastructure, and money laundering are carried out by specialists in different countries. This makes it nearly impossible for any single country’s law enforcement to dismantle the entire network.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The political economy of this global market also reflects global inequalities. The countries where fraud activities are concentrated are typically characterized by high unemployment rates, low average income levels, and limited economic opportunities. Under these conditions, romance fraud becomes an attractive source of income for many. A Nigerian fraudster can earn significantly more than a year’s minimum wage in their own country from a single 500-euro payment from a European victim.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Chapter 2: Pitfalls of Digital Dating Rituals<\/p>\n\n\n\n
2.1. Standard Questions and Profile Analysis: Dating as Data Mining<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The initial phase of online dating fraud progresses through a dialogue flow that appears innocent but is highly calculated. In the conversations conducted with the 83 fraudulent profiles analyzed during the research, it was found that the questions asked at the initial point of contact showed a remarkable degree of standardization.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
These questions can be grouped into three main categories:<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Category 1: Geographical Location Identification<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u00b7 “Which country are you from?”
\u00b7 “Where do you live now?”
\u00b7 “Which city are you in?”
\u00b7 “How long have you been living there?”
\u00b7 “Do you live alone there or with your family?”<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Category 2: Socioeconomic Status Analysis<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u00b7 “What do you do for a living?”
\u00b7 “Do you have a car?”
\u00b7 “Do you own a house?”
\u00b7 “Do you live in your own place or rent?”
\u00b7 “How often do you go on vacation?”<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Category 3: Emotional State and Relationship History<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u00b7 “Are you okay?”
\u00b7 “Why are you here, what are you looking for?”
\u00b7 “Are you single or married?”
\u00b7 “Do you have children?”
\u00b7 “Do you live alone?”
\u00b7 “Have you ever had a long-distance relationship before?”
\u00b7 “Why did your previous relationship end?”<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Although coded as a simple getting-to-know-you ritual, these questions are essentially tools for data mining. Through these questions, the fraudster creates a three-dimensional profile of the victim:<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u00b7 Economic Profile: The country where the victim lives is the first indicator of how much money can be demanded. For example, victims living in countries like Germany, Switzerland, or the Netherlands are coded as “high-income,” while those in Turkey, Romania, or Bulgaria are placed in the “middle-income” category. Information about employment, homeownership, and car ownership further refines this profile.
\u00b7 Social Profile: Information such as whether the victim is married, has children, or lives alone plays a critical role in shaping the fraud strategy. A married victim with children might be pressured into paying more due to the risk of exposure. A victim living alone is subjected to more intense emotional bombardment.
\u00b7 Psychological Profile: Questions like “Are you okay?” or “Why did your previous relationship end?” aim to identify the victim’s emotional state and psychological vulnerabilities. Individuals who have recently divorced, lost a loved one, or been lonely for a long time become more susceptible to emotional manipulation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
During the research, it was observed that fraudsters ask these questions in a specific order and rhythm. Questions immediately after the initial contact typically focus on geographical location and basic socioeconomic status, while more personal and emotional questions follow as the relationship progresses. This sequence is carefully designed to erode the victim’s defenses and create the impression of a natural getting-to-know-you process.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
2.2. Anthropological Perspective: The Digital Reflection of the Gift Economy<\/p>\n\n\n\n
To understand the deep structure of online dating fraud, it is necessary to refer to anthropologist Marcel Mauss’s concept of the “gift economy.” In his classic 1925 work “The Gift,” Mauss demonstrated that gift exchange in traditional societies is not merely an economic transaction but serves a fundamental function in establishing, maintaining, and reproducing social bonds and hierarchical relationships.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
According to Mauss, gift exchange is organized around three obligations: the obligation to give, the obligation to receive, and the obligation to reciprocate. A person who receives a gift is obligated both to accept it and to reciprocate it in the future. This principle of reciprocity forms the basis of social bonds.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Online dating fraud is a dark reflection of this traditional gift economy. In the initial stage, the fraudster offers emotional gifts to the victim: attention, admiration, expressions of love, romantic messages, promises of the future. These “gifts” constitute an act of “giving” in Mauss’s sense. When the victim receives these gifts, they feel, consciously or unconsciously, an obligation to “reciprocate.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n
However, unlike in traditional societies, the principle of reciprocity here is asymmetrical. While the gifts offered by the fraudster are emotional and symbolic, the reciprocation demanded is material and concrete. The victim is forced to pay materially for the attention and affection shown to them.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
A dialogue observed during the research clearly demonstrates this dynamic:<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Victim: “Thank you for being so kind to me. You are truly a very special woman.”
Fraudster: “You are very special too. But I am very sad today. I couldn’t buy cards for my children’s games, they are crying. I wish you could help.”
Victim: “Of course I will help. How much?”
Fraudster: “25 euros would be enough. Thank you so much, I love you.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n
In this dialogue, the emotional “gift” offered by the fraudster (making the victim feel special) immediately creates the groundwork for the subsequent material demand. The victim believes they are “repaying” the attention shown to them, but are in fact being drawn into a one-sided exploitative relationship.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Another crucial point from an anthropological perspective is the relationship of the gift economy to concepts of “prestige” and “honor.” In traditional societies, generosity and reciprocity are fundamental values determining an individual’s social status. In online dating fraud, the victim’s need to position themselves as a “generous,” “helpful,” “protective” man also facilitates exploitation. The fraudster legitimizes their material demands by enabling the victim to internalize this social role.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
2.3. Geographic Codes and Economic Profiling<\/p>\n\n\n\n
One of the most striking findings of the research is that fraud networks systematically use geographic codes for economic profiling. In this context, “country code” and “city” information are not just geographical location data but also data points about the victim’s economic capacity.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Analysis of phone numbers identified during the research shows that fraudsters prefer certain country codes. The most frequently encountered country codes are:<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u00b7 +234 Nigeria: 38% observation frequency
\u00b7 +229 Benin: 22%
\u00b7 +44 United Kingdom: 15%
\u00b7 +1 USA\/Canada: 12%
\u00b7 +233 Ghana: 8%
\u00b7 +27 South Africa: 5%<\/p>\n\n\n\n
This distribution reflects two different strategies. Codes from countries like Nigeria, Benin, and Ghana typically reflect the fraudsters’ actual locations. However, codes from the UK and the US are usually obtained via fake or virtual numbers and aim to create a “trustworthy Westerner” profile in the victim’s mind.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The country where the victim lives directly determines the amounts demanded by the fraudster. Analysis of the demands examined in the research reveals the following pattern:<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u00b7 Switzerland, Norway, Iceland: Average requested amount 100-200 Euro\/Gift Card, Demand frequency 2-3 times per week.
\u00b7 Germany, Netherlands, Austria: Average requested amount 50-100 Euro, Demand frequency 2-3 times per week.
\u00b7 France, Italy, Spain: Average requested amount 50-100 Euro, Demand frequency 1-2 times per week.
\u00b7 Turkey, Poland, Hungary: Average requested amount 25-50 Euro, Demand frequency Once a week.
\u00b7 Other (South America, Asia): Average requested amount 25-50 Euro, Demand frequency Variable.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
This table shows that fraud networks have detailed knowledge of countries’ average income levels and scale their demands accordingly. The frequency of demands is also adjusted based on the victim’s economic capacity. Victims in high-income countries face both higher amounts and more frequent demands.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The city where the victim lives also plays a significant role in economic profiling. During the research, it was observed that fraudsters distinguish between major cities (like Istanbul, London, Berlin, Paris) and smaller cities. Victims in major cities are typically coded as higher-income, and demands are shaped accordingly.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Chapter 3: Construction of Emotional Capital<\/p>\n\n\n\n
3.1. Psychological Manipulation Techniques: Love Bombing<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The most effective psychological tool of online dating fraud is the technique known as “love bombing.” Although this term was first defined in the context of narcissistic personality disorder, it has since found wide use as a form of emotional manipulation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Love bombing is the process of making a person emotionally dependent by showering them with excessive attention, praise, expressions of love, and gifts at the beginning of a relationship. In online dating fraud, this technique is applied in the following stages:<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Stage 1: Intense Attention and Interest (First 24-48 Hours)
After initial contact, the fraudster shows extremely intense interest. They respond to messages instantly, constantly ask what the victim is doing, and send messages multiple times a day. This intense attention makes the victim feel special and desired. An example observed during the research:<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Fraudster (2 hours after meeting): “I can’t stop thinking about you. I’ve never seen anyone like you in my life. I think I’m falling in love with you.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Stage 2: Accelerated Intimacy and Familiarity (First Week)
Intimacy that would normally develop over weeks or months in a typical dating process is built within days. The fraudster immediately starts using intensely emotional forms of address like “sweetie,” “love,” “my life,” “hubby,” “wifey.” By sharing details of their personal life (usually fabricated), they expect the victim to show the same level of intimacy.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Stage 3: Future Promises and Shared Dreams (First 10 Days)
The fraudster begins to envision a future with the victim. They create romantic scenarios about things they will do together, places they will visit, and a home they will build. These promises increase the victim’s emotional investment and make them more open to manipulation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Fraudster: “I’m imagining the day when we will be together. We’ll have breakfast together, walk by the sea, raise our children. I want to spend the rest of my life with you.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Stage 4: Emotional Dependence and Isolation (From the Second Week Onward)
After ensuring the victim becomes emotionally dependent, the fraudster gradually begins isolating them from other social connections. They criticize the victim’s contact with family and friends, implying they are jealous or ill-intentioned. This isolation makes the fraudster the victim’s sole source of trust.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Psychologically, love bombing triggers the reward mechanism (dopamine release) in the victim’s brain, suppressing rational evaluation. The rapidly escalating emotional intensity eliminates the victim’s critical distance. This can be explained neuroscientifically by the “limbic system” (emotional brain) overpowering the “prefrontal cortex” (logical brain).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
As described in Daniel Kahneman’s “Thinking, Fast and Slow,” the human mind operates with two thinking systems: the fast, intuitive, emotional System 1 and the slow, logical, analytical System 2. Love bombing activates System 1, preventing System 2 from engaging. The victim makes quick decisions driven by emotions while postponing logical evaluation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
3.2. Fake Identities and AI-Generated Images<\/p>\n\n\n\n
At the core of online dating fraud lies the construction of flawless fake identities. All 83 fraudulent profiles examined during the research used names, photos, and personal information not belonging to real individuals. The methods used to create these fake identities are becoming increasingly sophisticated with technological advancements.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
a) Theft of Real People’s Photos:
The most common method is downloading photos belonging to real individuals from social media platforms and using them on fake profiles. Photos of people with large followings, known as “influencers” on platforms like Instagram, Facebook, and TikTok, are heavily used by fraudsters. In this method, there is no connection between the real identity of the person whose photo was stolen and the identity used by the fraudster.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
During the research, it was found that the same photos were used on multiple different profiles with different names. One photo set might be used by five different fraudster profiles simultaneously to convince five different victims. This is part of the “data pool” logic mentioned earlier.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
b) AI-Generated Images:
Recently, advancements in artificial intelligence technology have enabled fraudsters to generate photos of people who do not exist in reality. These images, created using Generative Adversarial Networks (GANs) and diffusion models (like Stable Diffusion, Midjourney, DALL-E), can produce faces that are extremely difficult to distinguish from real photos.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
In the AI-generated images identified during the research, the following characteristic features were observed:<\/p>\n\n\n\n
c) Montage and Manipulation:
Photo montage, a more traditional method, is also widely used. Faces and body parts from different people are combined to create the image of a non-existent person. It was found that, especially during requests for nude photos, images sent by victims were montaged with another person’s body and used to create new fake profiles.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
d) Voice and Video Manipulation:
With advancing technology, voice and video manipulation are also becoming tools for fraud. Deepfake technology can be used to place real people’s faces onto other bodies or to create entirely synthetic voices. During the research, it was observed that fraudsters who refused to conduct voice or video calls with victims instead sent pre-recorded or AI-generated voice messages.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
3.3. “Digital Self” Theft: The Data Pool Logic<\/p>\n\n\n\n
One of the most striking findings of the research is that fraud networks not only seek financial gain but also systematically steal victims’ “digital selves” and use this data in subsequent fraudulent activities. This is a dark reflection of the concept of the digital self as defined in Sherry Turkle’s “Alone Together.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n
According to Turkle, in the digital age, individuals construct “digital selves” online that are either extensions of or different from their real selves. This digital self is an identity composed of photos, posts, likes, friendships, and other digital traces. In online dating fraud, this digital self is captured, with or without the victim’s consent, and used to trap other victims.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Data Pool Logic:
The structure identified during the research operates on a “data pool” logic. Fraud networks collect all data obtained from different victims in a central pool. This data includes:<\/p>\n\n\n\n
This data is then used for the following purposes:<\/p>\n\n\n\n
a) Creating New Fake Profiles:
Using a victim’s photos, audio recordings, and personal information, a brand new fake profile is created. This profile is used not as a “victim” but as a “fraudster” in another operation. That is, the digital self of a former victim becomes a tool to trap other victims.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
b) Persuading the Victim Further:
Collected data is also used to persuade the same victim to make further payments. For example, nude photos previously sent by the victim can become blackmail material with threats like “I’ll send these photos to everyone.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n
c) Convincing New Victims:
Romantic photos or voice messages sent by one victim are shared with another victim to create the impression “this is me, look how real I am.” An innocently shared photo by one victim serves as “proof” for another.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
d) Profile Enrichment:
Obtained data is used to make fake profiles more convincing. Photos, voice recordings, and stories belonging to a real person increase the “reality” of the fake profile.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
This data pool logic transforms online dating fraud from an individual crime into an organized data exploitation industry. Victims not only suffer financial losses but also lose control of their digital selves, which continue to “live” online independently of them.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Chapter 4: Use of Cultural and Anthropological Codes as Weapons<\/p>\n\n\n\n
4.1. Exploitation of Compassion: Child Photos and Family Discourses<\/p>\n\n\n\n
One of the most manipulative dimensions of online dating fraud is the systematic exploitation of universal human emotions\u2014especially compassion, protective instinct, and family loyalty. In cases observed during the research, one of the most common methods used by fraudsters involves child photos and family discourses.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Use of Child Photos:
Fraudsters frequently use child photos on their fake profiles. These photos are obtained from three different sources:<\/p>\n\n\n\n
These photos serve different functions in the fraud process:<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u00b7 Building Trust: Child photos create a profile of a “family man\/woman,” “responsible,” and “trustworthy” individual in the victim’s mind.
\u00b7 Triggering Compassion: Phrases like “My children are sick,” “My children are crying,” “I couldn’t buy games for my children” activate the victim’s compassion.
\u00b7 Creating Urgency: Claiming the children have an urgent need causes the victim to make quick decisions and bypass logical evaluation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
A typical dialogue observed during the research:<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Fraudster: “I’m having a really bad day. I promised my children for their birthday, but my salary wasn’t enough. They’re crying, I feel so terrible.”
Victim: “How much do you need?”
Fraudster: “50 euros would be enough. Can you get a Steam card? I’ll buy them games. I’m so embarrassed, but I have no one else but you.”
Victim: “Okay, I’ll get it.”
Fraudster: “I love you so much. I will never forget this.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n
In this dialogue, the fraudster uses the “child” figure as a tool to trigger the victim’s compassion. The victim, wanting to prevent a child’s unhappiness, makes a payment they normally wouldn’t.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Family Discourses:
Fraudsters use not only child photos but also broader family discourses as manipulation tools. Phrases like “My mother is sick,” “My father had surgery,” “My sister is in a difficult situation” target both the victim’s compassion and their respect for “family values.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n
These discourses also position the fraudster as a “responsible family member.” The victim believes they are contributing to the fraudster being a “good” person by helping them.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Obstacles to Meeting:
Another function of family discourses is to provide excuses for constantly postponed face-to-face meetings. In cases observed during the research, when a meeting was planned, a “family emergency” almost always occurred:<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Fraudster: “We can meet tomorrow, I’m so excited. But\u2026 my mother came for a visit today, and my aunt is with her. We’ll have to wait until they leave. Maybe next week?”<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Such postponements can last for weeks or even months. Each postponement is combined with a new financial demand, testing the victim’s patience.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
4.2. Collective Belonging and Protective Instinct<\/p>\n\n\n\n
From an anthropological perspective, one of humanity’s most fundamental instincts is the feeling of “collective belonging” and “protectiveness.” For millennia, human communities have depended on each other for survival, and protecting weaker members within the group (children, elderly, sick) became a social necessity.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Online dating fraud manipulates this evolutionary heritage to trap victims. The fraudster positions themselves as “in need of protection” or “in need of help,” activating the victim’s protective instinct.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The “Savior” Role:
Faced with the fraudster’s stories of victimhood (poverty, illness, family problems, loneliness), the victim begins to position themselves as a “savior.” This role boosts the victim’s self-esteem and allows them to define themselves as a “good person,” “helpful,” and “generous.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Victim (during research interview): “What would they have done if I hadn’t been there for them in their difficult time? I helped them, I supported them. And they love me; they will reciprocate.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n
This statement shows how the victim reframes the exploitative relationship as “well-intentioned help.” The victim does not realize they are in a one-sided exploitation; they see themselves as a “savior.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The “Protector” Role:
Especially with male victims, the “protective male” role is heavily activated. The fraudster positions themselves as a “weak,” “helpless,” “vulnerable” woman. The victim takes on the duty of protecting this woman and her children.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
This dynamic reflects the reflection of traditional gender roles in the digital environment. The male victim internalizes the “protector” role as a requirement of his “masculinity” and fulfills the financial obligations this role brings.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The “Family” Discourse:
Fraudsters also bind the victim with the “family” discourse. Phrases like “You are my family,” “I have no one but you,” “I want to introduce you to my family” cause the victim to feel like part of the fraudster’s family. This feeling legitimizes financial help requests as “family solidarity.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n
4.3. Exoticization and Manipulation of Cultural Distance<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The global structure of digital dating platforms enables people from different cultures to come together. Fraudsters use this cultural difference as a tool for manipulation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Exoticization Strategies:
Fraudsters try to attract attention by positioning themselves as “exotic,” different from the victim’s culture. The curiosity and excitement of being from a different country reduce the victim’s critical distance.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
For example, for a European male victim, an “African” or “Asian” female profile possesses a “different,” “exotic,” “mysterious” allure. The fraudster uses this exotic appeal to keep the victim’s curiosity alive and bind them emotionally.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Cultural Distance and Evading Responsibility:
Cultural distance also helps fraudsters avoid responsibility. Financial demands are presented as a cultural norm using phrases like “In our culture, men take care of women,” “Things are like this in my country.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n
An example observed during the research:<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Fraudster: “In my country, if a man loves a woman, he takes care of her, he meets her needs. You say you love me, but you don’t help me. Maybe you don’t understand our culture.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n
This statement transforms the financial demand into a cultural expectation, coding the victim’s refusal as “cultural insensitivity” or “lack of love.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Language Barrier and Trust:
The language barrier appears as both an advantage and a disadvantage in the fraud process. In some cases, the fraudster’s native language being different from the victim’s leads the victim to view language errors as the natural result of being “foreign,” making them less suspicious.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
On the other hand, during the research, it was observed that fraudsters could generally communicate at a reasonably good level in the victim’s native language (Turkish, English, German, etc.). This indicates that fraud networks also invest in language training.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Chapter 5: Digitalization of Economic Exploitation<\/p>\n\n\n\n
5.1. Gift Card Economy: Untraceable Capital Transfer<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The ultimate goal of online dating fraud is not direct cash transfer but obtaining untraceable digital assets. The vast majority of demands identified during the research are made through gift cards from various platforms.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Types of Gift Cards Used:<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u00b7 Steam: 35% usage frequency. Preferred because easily cashed out, global use.
\u00b7 Google Play: 25% usage frequency. Widespread use, fast transaction.
\u00b7 App Store\/Apple: 20% usage frequency. High value, easy transfer.
\u00b7 Amazon: 12% usage frequency. Versatile use.
\u00b7 Other (Netflix, Spotify, etc.): 8% usage frequency. Less common.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Reasons for Preferring Gift Cards:<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Converting Gift Cards to Cash:
Fraudsters use various methods to convert gift card codes into cash:<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u00b7 Black Markets: On the dark web and specialized forums, gift card codes are cashed out at rates ranging from 50-80% of their value.
\u00b7 Digital Asset Conversion: Card codes are used to purchase cryptocurrencies or virtual game items, which are then converted to cash.
\u00b7 Resale: Card codes are sold directly to end-users on specialized platforms.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
This process blurs the line between fraud and money laundering. The obtained gift card codes also function as a money laundering tool for organized crime networks.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
5.2. Time Pressure and Urgency Creation Tactics<\/p>\n\n\n\n
One of the most effective psychological tools of online dating fraud is creating a sense of time pressure and urgency. Fraudsters surround their demands with constantly “urgent” situations to prevent the victim from thinking logically.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Urgency Strategies Used:<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u00b7 Time-Limited Offers: “This discount ends today, if I don’t buy it now, I’ll have to pay much more.”
\u00b7 Natural Disaster\/Emergency: “My house is on fire!”, “My computer broke, I’ll lose my job!”
\u00b7 Medical Emergency: “My child is in the hospital, I can’t afford the medicine!”
\u00b7 Social Pressure: “My friends say I don’t have a boyfriend who can help me. I need to prove you to them.”
\u00b7 Emotional Blackmail: “If you don’t help me, I won’t believe you love me.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n
These urgency scenarios disable the victim’s prefrontal cortex (logical thinking center), forcing decisions through the amygdala (fear and urgency center). The victim, feeling “if I don’t act now, something bad will happen,” becomes unable to make rational evaluations.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Stages of Time Pressure:<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u00b7 Stage 1 (First 24 hours): Intense interest, quick responses, expecting the victim to be constantly online.
\u00b7 Stage 2 (1-3 days): Start of “urgent” demands, small amounts.
\u00b7 Stage 3 (1 week): Demands become more frequent, amounts increase.
\u00b7 Stage 4 (2 weeks+): Constant urgency, “last chance,” “it’s now or never” pressure.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
In one case observed during the research, the fraudster created 7 different “urgent” demands over 10 days, using a different urgency scenario each time: birthday, children’s illness, rent, internet bill, car repair, mother’s surgery, sibling’s wedding.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
5.3. Gradual Demand Technique: From Small Favors to Big Losses<\/p>\n\n\n\n
One of the most insidious features of online dating fraud is the “gradual demand” technique. This technique aims to erode the victim’s psychological defenses by starting with small requests and gradually increasing the amount and frequency of demands.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Psychological Mechanism of Gradual Demand:
The “foot-in-the-door” technique, defined in Robert Cialdini’s “Influence,” forms the basis of this process. According to this technique, a person who agrees to a small request finds it difficult to refuse a larger one. This is because they have defined themselves as “helpful,” “generous,” and “trustworthy” and do not want to act inconsistently with this self-definition.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Gradual Demand Process:<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u00b7 Stage 1 (Request Amount: 10-25 Euro): “A small favor,” “games for the children.” Psychological effect: Low risk, high emotional reward.
\u00b7 Stage 2 (Request Amount: 25-50 Euro): “Emergency,” “bill.” Psychological effect: Medium risk, sense of commitment begins.
\u00b7 Stage 3 (Request Amount: 50-100 Euro): “Unexpected expense,” “health.” Psychological effect: High risk, “I’ve given so much, I can’t give up now.”
\u00b7 Stage 4 (Request Amount: 100+ Euro): “Big crisis,” “investment.” Psychological effect: Very high risk, effort to “recoup losses.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n
In one case examined during the research, it was found that the victim sent a 25 Euro gift card for the first request, but after two months, had sent a total of 3,200 Euros worth of gift cards. By the end of the process, the victim continued to accept demands with the logic of “I’ve already given so much money, if I stop now it will all be for nothing.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n
This is known in psychology as the “sunk cost fallacy.” When a person invests something they cannot recover (time, money, emotion), they continue investing to “save” that investment. Fraudsters systematically exploit this cognitive bias.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Chapter 6: Organized Structures and Data Exploitation<\/p>\n\n\n\n
6.1. “Fraud Manuals” and Trained Networks<\/p>\n\n\n\n
One of the most notable findings of the research is that romance fraud is not an individual endeavor but has an organized and systematic structure. Within this structure, there are manuals, dialogue scripts, and technical guides prepared for “workers.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Contents of Fraud Manuals:
Some of the manuals accessed during the research contained the following topics:<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u00b7 Target Selection: Which profiles (elderly, lonely, newly divorced, financially well-off) should be targeted.
\u00b7 First Message Templates: Message templates prepared for different platforms and target audiences.
\u00b7 Time Management: How many victims to communicate with per day, how quickly to respond to messages, at which times to intensify communication.
\u00b7 Psychological Manipulation Techniques: How to apply techniques such as love bombing, creating urgency, triggering compassion, in stages.
\u00b7 Objection Handling: Persuasion tactics to use if the victim becomes suspicious or refuses a request.
\u00b7 Money Transfer Methods: How to request gift cards, which gift card types to prefer, precautions during transfer.
\u00b7 Security Measures: IP hiding, fake account creation, trace avoidance techniques.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Training Process:
New members joining fraud networks typically undergo a specific training process:<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Successful operators take on “foreman” or “trainer” roles within the network, responsible for training new members. These individuals also receive a higher share of the proceeds.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Language and Cultural Expertise:
Organized networks employ experts who know the target audience’s language and culture. For example, a network targeting Turks in Germany employs operators who know both German and Turkish and are familiar with both cultures. These operators, knowing the victim’s cultural codes (religious holidays, national days, family structure, social values), make the manipulation more effective.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
6.2. The Criminal Dimension of Network Society: Decentralized Cellular Structures<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Manuel Castells’s concept of the “network society” provides a fundamental theoretical framework for understanding the structure of online dating fraud networks. According to Castells, in the information age, social structure is organized around flexible, adaptable, decentralized networks rather than central hierarchies.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Online dating fraud networks are a criminal reflection of this network society structure. These networks are characterized by the following features:<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u00b7 Decentralized Structure: The network has no central command structure. Decisions are made at different nodes of the network and spread throughout. Taking down one node does not paralyze the entire network; other nodes continue operating.
\u00b7 Cellular Organization: The network consists of independent but coordinated cells. Each cell finds its own victims, runs its own operations, and sends a certain percentage of its proceeds to the network center. Communication between cells is limited; taking down one cell does not expose the identities of others.
\u00b7 Flexibility and Adaptability: Networks can quickly adapt to changing conditions. If controls increase on one platform, they swiftly move to others. If one method becomes ineffective, they develop new ones. This flexibility makes law enforcement intervention extremely difficult.
\u00b7 Global Scale: Networks have a global structure that transcends geographical boundaries. Profile creation may occur in one country, dialogue management in another, and money laundering in a third. This global division of labor prevents any single national jurisdiction from intervening in the entire network.
\u00b7 Technology Use: Networks extensively use encrypted messaging apps (Signal, Telegram, WhatsApp), virtual private networks (VPNs), cloud storage services, and cryptocurrencies for communication and coordination. These technologies make the network difficult to monitor and dismantle.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
6.3. Instrumentalization of Victims: Data Sorting and Reuse<\/p>\n\n\n\n
One of the most disturbing findings of the research is that victims are not only seen as financial resources but are also instrumentalized as “data sources.” Data obtained from victims is systematically sorted and used in subsequent fraudulent activities.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Data Sorting Process:
Fraud networks categorize data obtained from victims as follows:<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u00b7 Category A – High-Value Data: Nude\/semi-nude photos and videos, audio and video call recordings, copies of identity documents, passports, driver’s licenses, address, workplace details. Used for blackmail or creating new fake profiles.
\u00b7 Category B – Medium-Value Data: Daily life photos, family and friend photos, personal stories, memories, emotional shares, hobbies, interests, habits. Used to increase the “realism” of fake profiles.
\u00b7 Category C – Low-Value Data: General chat logs, superficial personal information (age, hometown, profession), social media accounts. Used as reference for profiling new victims.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Reuse of Data:
Sorted data is then reused in various ways:<\/p>\n\n\n\n
This data exploitation causes the victim to lose control of their digital self even after the fraud process ends. The victim, unknowingly, becomes a tool in the creation of other victims.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Chapter 7: Case Analyses and Field Observations<\/p>\n\n\n\n
7.1. Typological Case Studies<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The cases encountered during the research can be classified within certain typologies. These typologies show the diversity of fraud methods and the differentiation of target groups.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Type 1: “Lonely Widower” Case<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u00b7 Profile: Male victims aged 50-65, widowed or divorced, grown children, living alone.
\u00b7 Fraudster Profile: Female appearance, aged 35-45, “widowed,” one or two children, “self-sufficient but needing support.”
\u00b7 Process: Long-term planning (3-6 months). Strong emotional bond established. Demands typically revolve around “children’s needs.” Victim positions self as a “father figure.”
\u00b7 Losses: Average loss between 5,000-20,000 Euros. Victims often do not go to the police upon realizing they were scammed, feeling ashamed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Type 2: “Young Entrepreneur” Case<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u00b7 Profile: Male victims aged 25-40, good income, career-oriented, limited social circle, living alone.
\u00b7 Fraudster Profile: Female appearance, aged 25-35, “successful,” “self-employed,” “exotic.”
\u00b7 Process: Medium-term planning (2-4 months). Fraudster identifies with victim’s “successful” identity. Demands presented with business language: “business opportunities,” “investment,” “partnership.”
\u00b7 Losses: Average loss between 10,000-50,000 Euros. Victims often stay silent to protect their “businessman” image.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Type 3: “Soldier\/Sailor” Case<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u00b7 Profile: Male victims aged 30-50, soldiers, sailors, oil rig workers \u2013 individuals away from home for long periods, living alone.
\u00b7 Fraudster Profile: Male or female appearance with professions the victim would understand: “US soldier in Syria,” “engineer on oil platform,” “ship captain.”
\u00b7 Process: Medium-term planning (2-4 months). Fraudster builds trust using the victim’s own professional experiences. Demands made with excuses like “my salary didn’t come,” “my account is blocked,” “passport problems.”
\u00b7 Losses: Average loss between 3,000-15,000 Euros. Victims often don’t report to avoid reputational damage among colleagues.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Type 4: “Romantic Tourist” Case<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u00b7 Profile: Female victims aged 45-70, retired, spending time in resorts, “open to different cultures.”
\u00b7 Fraudster Profile: Young, well-groomed, “exotic” male appearance, professions like “tourism worker,” “hotel employee,” “guide.”
\u00b7 Process: Short-term planning (1-2 months). Relationship starts during vacation, continues digitally afterward. Demands with excuses like “visa costs,” “plane ticket,” “illness.”
\u00b7 Losses: Average loss between 2,000-10,000 Euros. Victims suppress suspicion due to the pleasure of a “young man” showing interest.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Type 5: “Exploiting Religious Sentiments” Case<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u00b7 Profile: Male or female victims aged 40-65, religious, attached to traditional values, living alone.
\u00b7 Fraudster Profile: A profile consistent with the victim’s faith (Muslim, Christian, etc.), using religious discourse heavily.
\u00b7 Process: Medium-term planning (2-4 months). Fraudster builds trust with religious references (verses from the Quran, quotes from the Bible, religious days). Demands legitimized with religious language: “zakat,” “alms,” “charity donation,” “mosque construction.”
\u00b7 Losses: Average loss between 5,000-20,000 Euros. Victims struggle to accept their religious feelings were exploited.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
7.2. Cross-Platform Transition Strategies<\/p>\n\n\n\n
During the research, it was observed that fraudsters transition between platforms using a specific strategy. This transition strategy is both part of building trust and a method to avoid detection.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Stage 1: Public Platform (Facebook)
Initial contact usually occurs in Facebook dating groups. The fraudster makes contact with the victim using an “innocent” profile. Reasons for preferring Facebook:<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u00b7 Large user base
\u00b7 Weak moderation in group structures
\u00b7 Ease of creating fake profiles
\u00b7 Profile information (age, hometown, school, job) automatically visible<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Stage 2: Transition (Within First 3-7 Days)
After a few days of communication, the fraudster suggests moving to a “more intimate” platform:<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Fraudster: “I’m not very active on Facebook. Is there a place where we can talk more comfortably? Do you have WhatsApp?”<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Functions of this transition:<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u00b7 Test victim’s trust (accepting transition = trust)
\u00b7 Avoid Facebook moderation (account can be closed if reported)
\u00b7 Create a more intimate environment (WhatsApp is a “private” space)
\u00b7 Facilitate sharing visual and audio content<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Stage 3: “Secure” Platform (WhatsApp, Signal, Telegram)
Communication typically continues over WhatsApp. Signal and Telegram are presented as “secure” alternatives, especially for more aware victims.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Advantages of these platforms:<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u00b7 End-to-end encryption (makes communication harder to monitor)
\u00b7 Voice and video call capability (though fraudsters often refuse)
\u00b7 Ease of media sharing
\u00b7 “Last seen” and “online” status (allows monitoring victim’s activity)<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Stage 4: Backup Platform (Google Chat, Telegram Channel)
Fraudsters have backup platforms in case their WhatsApp account gets closed due to complaints. Google Chat is preferred, especially because the victim can be easily reached via their Gmail account.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
During the research, it was observed that the same fraudster communicated with the same victim from three different platforms (Facebook Messenger, WhatsApp, Google Chat) at different times.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
7.3. Stages of the Fraud Process<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Research findings show that online dating fraud is a process consisting of specific stages. Each stage involves different psychological and practical strategies.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Stage 1: Target Identification and Initial Contact (Days 1-3)<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u00b7 Fraudster selects targets based on specific criteria (age, gender, location, profile picture, posts).
\u00b7 Initial message usually starts with an innocent question or compliment: “Nice picture, where was it taken?”, “You look lonely, are you okay?”
\u00b7 Victim’s response speed and content determine the target’s potential.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Stage 2: Building Trust and Profiling (Days 3-10)<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u00b7 Victim’s economic, social, and psychological profile is extracted through standard questions.
\u00b7 “Love bombing” begins: intense attention, compliments, expressions of love.
\u00b7 A fake personal story is told (usually involving victimhood: widowed, orphaned, ill relative).
\u00b7 Cross-platform transition occurs (Facebook -> WhatsApp).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Stage 3: Creating Emotional Dependence (Days 10-20)<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u00b7 Future promises and shared dreams are established.
\u00b7 Phrases like “I love you,” “I want to marry you,” “I can’t wait to be with you” become frequent.
\u00b7 Victim becomes part of the fraudster’s daily life (morning messages, goodnights, constant communication).
\u00b7 Emotional dependence begins to form.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Stage 4: First Demands and Testing (Days 20-30)<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u00b7 Small gift card demands (10-25 Euro) begin.
\u00b7 Demands made with seemingly innocent excuses: “games for the kids,” “a small bill,” “birthday surprise.”
\u00b7 The victim accepting the request serves as “approval” to move to the next stage.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Stage 5: Systematic Exploitation (Day 30 onwards)<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u00b7 Amount and frequency of demands increase (50-100-200 Euro, 2-3 times a week).
\u00b7 “Emergency” scenarios are deployed: illness, accident, job loss, natural disaster.
\u00b7 Gradual demand technique increases the victim’s total payments.
\u00b7 In case of suspicion, emotional blackmail (“you don’t love me,” “you don’t trust me”) or threats (exposing photos) are used.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Stage 6: Termination or Continuation<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u00b7 When the victim runs out of money, the fraudster usually cuts off communication.
\u00b7 In some cases, if the victim becomes suspicious and refuses demands, the fraudster acts “offended” and ends communication.
\u00b7 Rarely, the victim realizes they’ve been scammed and reports it.
\u00b7 At the end of the process, the victim suffers not only financial loss but also deep emotional trauma and loss of trust.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Chapter 8: Multidisciplinary Evaluation<\/p>\n\n\n\n
8.1. Psychological Analysis: Depths of Victimization<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The psychological trauma experienced by victims of online dating fraud is not limited to financial loss. Victim statements examined during the research reveal multi-layered psychological effects.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Guilt and Shame:
Nearly all victims experience intense guilt and shame when they realize they have been scammed. Questions like “How could I be so stupid?”, “How did I miss such obvious signs?”, “How will I explain this to my family?” lead victims to blame themselves.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
These feelings are one of the most significant factors preventing victims from reporting. Of the victims reached during the research, only 15% filed official complaints, while 40% told no one about the situation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Loss of Trust:
After the fraud, victims lose their ability to trust not only digital relationships but people in general. This loss of trust prevents them from forming new relationships and negatively impacts existing ones.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
A victim’s statement: “I can’t trust anyone anymore. If someone is nice to me, I think, ‘what do they want?’ I even started looking at my spouse suspiciously.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Emotional Collapse:
Learning that a relationship they invested heavily in emotionally over a long period was completely fake causes deep emotional collapse in victims. Symptoms such as depression, anxiety, sleep disorders, and appetite changes are frequently observed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Identity Crisis:
After the fraud, victims also experience a shaking of their self-perception. Expressions like “I thought I was smart, strong-willed,” “Would I ever fall for something like this?” show the damage to the victim’s positive self-image.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Secondary Victimization:
Victims who tell their family, friends, or authorities often experience “secondary victimization.” Reactions like “How could you believe that?”, “How naive are you!”, “Didn’t you realize it was a scam?” deepen the trauma experienced by the victim.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
8.2. Sociological Analysis: Fragility of Modern Relationships<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The prevalence of online dating fraud offers significant sociological insights into the transformation of relationships in modern societies.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Liquid Modernity and Fluid Relationships:
Zygmunt Bauman’s concept of “liquid modernity” provides a fundamental framework for understanding the fragile nature of digital dating relationships. According to Bauman, modern societies are characterized by the dissolution of solid institutions and permanent bonds. Relationships have become temporary, easily started and ended, like “Velcro,” rather than solid commitments.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
This fluid form of relationship, while offering freedom to individuals, also leaves them in deep insecurity and lack of belonging. Digital dating platforms commodify this insecurity, luring individuals with the promise of “true love.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Commodification of Loneliness:
Loneliness has increasingly become a “market” in modern societies. Dating platforms commodify the feeling of loneliness, promising users “love at a click.” However, this promise often deepens loneliness, condemning individuals to superficial and temporary relationships.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Fraud networks constitute the darkest corner of this loneliness market. By identifying and manipulating the feeling of loneliness, they make victims susceptible to emotional and financial exploitation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Collapse of Traditional Intermediaries:
In traditional societies, structures like family, kinship, neighborhood, and religious communities acted as intermediaries regulating and supervising pre-marital relationships. These structures also served as filters protecting individuals from potential risks.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
With modernization, the influence of these traditional intermediaries weakened, and individuals began communicating directly with potential partners through digital platforms. This eliminated protective mechanisms, making individuals vulnerable to risks like fraud.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Digital Surveillance and Privacy Erosion:
In digital dating processes, individuals share personal information, photos, and their emotional world with strangers. This sharing leads to privacy erosion and exposes individuals to various risks.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Fraud networks systematically exploit this privacy erosion, turning every piece of information shared by victims into a tool for exploitation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
8.3. Anthropological Analysis: Gift, Reciprocity, and Betrayal of Trust<\/p>\n\n\n\n
An anthropological perspective offers the opportunity to analyze online dating fraud through one of the most fundamental social institutions in human history: the “gift economy” and the “principle of reciprocity.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Distortion of the Reciprocity Principle:
As Marcel Mauss’s classic work showed, gift exchange in human societies is organized on the principle of reciprocity. A person who receives a gift is obligated both to accept it and to reciprocate it in the future. This reciprocity forms the basis of social bonds.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
In online dating fraud, the fraudster offers emotional “gifts” (attention, love, compliments, future promises) to the victim. When the victim receives these gifts, they feel an obligation to “reciprocate” due to their internalized principle of reciprocity. However, here the reciprocity is asymmetrical: the fraudster’s gift is emotional and symbolic, while the demanded reciprocation is material.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
This distortion causes the victim to “normalize” the exploitation and make payments “of their own free will.” Without realizing they are in an exploitative relationship, the victim defines themselves as a “good person,” “generous,” and “protective.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Betrayal of Trust:
Anthropologically, trust is the most fundamental building block of social relations. Without trust, no social relation (economic, political, emotional) can be sustained. Online dating fraud is a violation targeting this fundamental sense of trust.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The fraudster spends weeks or months building the victim’s trust. During this process, the victim increasingly trusts the fraudster with their emotional world, personal information, and even financial assets. When the betrayal of trust is realized, the victim loses not only their money but also their ability to trust people.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Symbolic Violence:
Pierre Bourdieu’s concept of “symbolic violence” offers another anthropological tool for analyzing online dating fraud. Symbolic violence is a form of domination that ensures the victim’s submission without the use of physical force.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Online dating fraud is a typical example of symbolic violence. The fraudster convinces the victim to act in their own interest through emotional manipulation, without physical coercion. The victim only realizes much later that the decisions they thought were made with their “free will” were actually the product of manipulation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
8.4. Philosophical Analysis: Digital Existence and the Problem of Authenticity<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Online dating fraud raises fundamental philosophical issues such as “digital existence,” “authenticity,” and “relationship with the Other.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Digital Existence and the Problem of Reality:
Martin Heidegger’s concept of “Dasein” (being-there) requires reinterpretation in the digital age. According to Heidegger, human existence is defined by “being-in-the-world.” On digital dating platforms, individuals experience a “virtual” state of being-in-the-world, disconnected from the physical world.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
This virtual existence raises the issue of “reality.” Are relationships formed in the digital environment “real”? Relationships built with fake identities created by fraudsters lead to the formation of a “real” emotional bond with an “unreal” Other. The victim believes they are having a real relationship with a non-existent being.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The Problem of Authenticity:
Jean-Paul Sartre’s concept of “bad faith” is a crucial tool for the philosophical analysis of online dating fraud. According to Sartre, when a person denies their freedom and positions themselves as an “object,” they are in bad faith.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
In online dating fraud, both the fraudster and the victim are in different forms of bad faith. The fraudster denies their authenticity by identifying with a “role” (lover, caring, needy). The victim, by trapping themselves in roles like “lover,” “savior,” “generous,” submits to manipulation with their “free will.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Relationship with the Other:
Emmanuel Levinas’s philosophy of “the Other” allows us to question the ethical dimension of digital dating relationships. According to Levinas, the face-to-face encounter with the Other is the basis of ethical responsibility. The face of the Other reminds me of my responsibility.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
On digital dating platforms, the face-to-face encounter with the Other does not occur. It is replaced by manipulable, fake, reproducible images. Fraud, in the absence of this face-to-face encounter, completely eliminates the ethical dimension of the relationship with the Other.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
8.5. Cultural Analysis: Globalization and Identity Imitation<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Online dating fraud is a significant cultural phenomenon demonstrating the fluidity and imitability of identities in the age of globalization.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Global Culture and Local Codes:
While digital dating platforms are products of a global culture, they also incorporate local cultural codes. Fraudsters, by knowing these local codes (language, religious holidays, national days, family structure, gender roles), make manipulation more effective.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
For example, a fraudster targeting victims in Turkey shares photos of “iftar tables” during Ramadan, requests “zakat,” and uses discourses of “respect for elders.” These local codes are effective ways to gain the victim’s trust.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Identity Imitation and Orientalism:
Edward Said’s concept of “Orientalism” can be used to analyze Western victims’ perception of “Eastern” fraudsters. Fraudsters use Orientalist stereotypes in the minds of Western victims\u2014such as “exotic Easterner,” “mysterious Asian,” “passionate African”\u2014to facilitate manipulation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Similarly, for Eastern victims, “Western” profiles (American soldier, British engineer, German doctor) have a similar “exotic” appeal. This identity imitation shows how global cultural stereotypes are turned into manipulation tools.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Digital Nomadism:
The phenomenon called “digital nomadism” by cultural anthropologists takes on a new dimension in online dating fraud. Fraudsters exhibit a “fluid” existence, lacking a fixed identity, constantly changing their identities, locations, and even cultural affiliations.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
This fluidity questions traditional categories of cultural analysis (ethnicity, nationality, religion, class). An online dating fraudster can simultaneously be “Nigerian,” “American,” “Muslim,” “Christian,” “rich,” “poor,” changing these identities according to the situation and the victim’s profile.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Conclusion<\/p>\n\n\n\n
9.1. Summary of Research Findings<\/p>\n\n\n\n
This research aimed to investigate organized fraud activities commonly observed on digital dating platforms through one month of intensive fieldwork, participant observation, and multidisciplinary analysis. The research findings can be summarized under the following main headings:<\/p>\n\n\n\n
9.2. Theoretical Contributions<\/p>\n\n\n\n
This research offers the following theoretical contributions to the literature on online dating fraud:<\/p>\n\n\n\n
9.3. Practical Implications<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The research findings reveal the following practical implications:<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Recommendations<\/p>\n\n\n\n
10.1. Precautions at the Individual Level<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Precautions individuals using digital dating platforms can take to reduce the risk of fraud:<\/p>\n\n\n\n
10.2. Policy Recommendations for Platforms<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Measures social media and messaging platforms can take to combat online dating fraud:<\/p>\n\n\n\n
10.3. Legal and Regulatory Framework Improvements<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Legal and regulatory measures states and international organizations can take to combat online dating fraud:<\/p>\n\n\n\n
10.4. Education and Awareness Programs<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Recommended education programs to increase awareness of online dating fraud across society:<\/p>\n\n\n\n
References<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u00b7 Bauman, Z. (2000). Liquid Modernity. Cambridge: Polity Press.
\u00b7 Bourdieu, P. (1991). Language and Symbolic Power. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
\u00b7 Castells, M. (2000). The Rise of the Network Society. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.
\u00b7 Cialdini, R. B. (2001). Influence: Science and Practice. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
\u00b7 Giddens, A. (1992). The Transformation of Intimacy: Sexuality, Love and Eroticism in Modern Societies. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
\u00b7 Heidegger, M. (1962). Being and Time. New York: Harper & Row.
\u00b7 Hochschild, A. R. (1983). The Managed Heart: Commercialization of Human Feeling. Berkeley: University of California Press.
\u00b7 Illouz, E. (2007). Cold Intimacies: The Making of Emotional Capitalism. Cambridge: Polity Press.
\u00b7 Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, Fast and Slow. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
\u00b7 Levinas, E. (1969). Totality and Infinity: An Essay on Exteriority. Pittsburgh: Duquesne University Press.
\u00b7 Marx, K. (1867). Das Kapital. Hamburg: Verlag von Otto Meissner.
\u00b7 Mauss, M. (1925). The Gift: Forms and Functions of Exchange in Archaic Societies. London: Cohen & West.
\u00b7 Putnam, R. D. (2000). Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community. New York: Simon & Schuster.
\u00b7 Said, E. W. (1978). Orientalism. New York: Pantheon Books.
\u00b7 Sartre, J. P. (1956). Being and Nothingness. New York: Philosophical Library.
\u00b7 Turkle, S. (2011). Alone Together: Why We Expect More from Technology and Less from Each Other. New York: Basic Books.
\u00b7 Turkle, S. (1995). Life on the Screen: Identity in the Age of the Internet. New York: Simon & Schuster.
\u00b7 Whitty, M. T. (2013). The Scammers Persuasive Techniques Model: Development of a Stage Model to Explain the Online Dating Romance Scam. British Journal of Criminology, 53(4), 665-684.
\u00b7 Zuboff, S. (2019). The Age of Surveillance Capitalism: The Fight for a Human Future at the New Frontier of Power. New York: PublicAffairs.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Appendices<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Appendix 1: Sample Field Observation Form<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The observation form used during the research includes the following headings:<\/p>\n\n\n\n
OBSERVATION FORM NO: [Sequence Number]
DATE: [Observation Date]
PLATFORM: [Facebook \/ WhatsApp \/ Telegram \/ Signal \/ Google Chat]
GROUP\/CHANNEL: [Group Name \/ Channel Name]<\/p>\n\n\n\n
FRAUDSTER PROFILE:<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u00b7 Name Used:
\u00b7 Country Code:
\u00b7 Profile Photo Type: [Real \/ AI-generated \/ Montage \/ Stock]
\u00b7 First Message Content:
\u00b7 Language Used: [Turkish \/ English \/ Other]
\u00b7 Platform Transition: [If any]<\/p>\n\n\n\n
CONVERSATION PROCESS:<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u00b7 Initial Contact Date:
\u00b7 First Request Date:
\u00b7 Request Type: [Gift Card \/ Money \/ Other]
\u00b7 Request Amount:
\u00b7 Urgency Scenario Used:
\u00b7 Emotional Manipulation Techniques Used:<\/p>\n\n\n\n
VICTIM PROFILE (Estimated):<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u00b7 Age Range:
\u00b7 Gender:
\u00b7 Geographic Location:
\u00b7 Socioeconomic Status:
\u00b7 Emotional State:<\/p>\n\n\n\n
OBSERVATION NOTES:
[Detailed observation notes, dialogue examples, noteworthy points]<\/p>\n\n\n\n
EVALUATION:<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u00b7 Stage of Fraud:
\u00b7 Effectiveness of Techniques Used:
\u00b7 Notable Elements:<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Appendix 2: Sample Fraud Dialogues<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Example 1 – Love Bombing and First Request (WhatsApp)<\/p>\n\n\n\n
[Fraudster, 3 days after meeting the victim]<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Fraudster: “Good morning, my love. Were you able to sleep? I couldn’t sleep thinking about you.”
Victim: “Good morning, I’m fine, how are you?”
Fraudster: “I was so happy to get your message. I’ve never seen anyone like you in my life. I think I’m falling in love with you.”
Victim: “You’re very nice, but we just met.”
Fraudster: “The heart doesn’t listen to logic, my love. My feelings for you are very strong. I can’t stop thinking about you.”
\u2026
Fraudster (2 hours later): “I’m so sad. I promised my children I’d get them games for their birthday, but my salary wasn’t enough. They’re crying, I feel terrible.”
Victim: “I’m sorry to hear that. How much do you need?”
Fraudster: “25 euros is enough. Can you get a Steam card? I’m so embarrassed, but I have no one else but you.”
Victim: “Okay, I’ll get it.”
Fraudster: “I love you so much. I will never forget this.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Example 2 – Cultural Manipulation and Gradual Demand (Signal)<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Fraudster: “Hey, my dear. I talked to my family today. I mentioned you.”
Victim: “What did they say?”
Fraudster: “They were very happy. But in our culture, men take care of the women they love. When I told them you were helping me, they found it a bit strange.”
Victim: “What do you mean?”
Fraudster: “I mean, in our culture, the man takes care of the woman. You’re helping me, so it confused them. They want to be sure you love me.”
Victim: “How can I prove it?”
Fraudster: “If you send a small gift? A 50 Euro Google Play card, for example. If I told them ‘my boyfriend sent me this,’ they would accept you.”
\u2026
[3 days later]
Fraudster: “My dear, my computer broke. I’m going to lose my job. I urgently need 100 Euros.”
Victim: “But I just sent you something 3 days ago.”
Fraudster: “Don’t you love me? I’m really in a difficult situation. Am I not important to you?”
Victim: “I love you, but\u2026”
Fraudster: “Then help me. Otherwise, I will be in a very difficult situation.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Example 3 – Emotional Blackmail in Case of Suspicion (Telegram)<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Victim: “I’m starting to get suspicious. You’re always asking for money, but we never get to meet.”
Fraudster: “What do you mean? I believed in you, I trusted you. Now you’re calling me a fraud?”
Victim: “No, I didn’t mean that, but\u2026”
Fraudster: “I’m very hurt. My feelings for you were real. But you don’t trust me. Maybe we should break up.”
Victim: “No, I didn’t say that.”
Fraudster: “Then why don’t you trust me? I told you everything about myself, about my children. You know how I feel about you.”
Victim: “Okay, I’m sorry. I just\u2026”
Fraudster: “If you truly love me, you need to trust me. Look, I’m really in a difficult situation right now. Can you send 100 Euros? Then we can talk everything over.”
Victim: “Okay, I’ll send it.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Appendix 3: Guide to Identifying AI-Generated Images<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Points to consider to distinguish AI-generated images from real photos:<\/p>\n\n\n\n
If one or more of these signs are present in images, the likelihood of them being AI-generated is high. If you notice such anomalies in the profile photos of the person you are communicating with, be cautious and definitely request a video call.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
End of Report<\/p>\n\n\n\n