The Peculiarities of Cyber Crimes

Posted on | by Laureen
Do you need this or any other assignment done for you from scratch?
We have qualified writers to help you.
We assure you a quality paper that is 100% free from plagiarism and AI.
You can choose either format of your choice ( Apa, Mla, Havard, Chicago, or any other)

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Click Here To Order Now!

The Commonwealth Criminal Code Act 1995 states cybercrime is the “unauthorised access or modification of restricted data…unauthorised impairment of electronic communication… and using a carriage service to menace, harass, or cause offence”, where (Bregnant & Bregnant 2014) extends this to “crime unique to electronic networks.” This essay has a focus on Advance Fee Fraud , a component of cybercrime, and will analyse why individuals fall subject and the impact of such a crime on individuals, Australian National Security, government and law enforcement agencies. Contemporary criminal justice responses will be evaluated, showing to be victim-focused, concluding with preventative strategies. Reliable journal articles and government sources will be used throughout as an evidence means.

Advance Fee Fraud (AFF) uses one or more components of the internet to transmit proceeds of fraud to financial institutions or to those associated (Chang 2008, p. 73). The origin is unclear, however (Scannell 2014) states that it mainly originates from Nigeria, referred to as the 419 scam, being the Nigerian criminal code for fraud, where (Whitty 2018, p. 97) also indicates that Nigeria is the foremost region for this fraud. AFF was the result of the second republic reign of President Shagari, where an economically pressurised public sector began conducting in illegal trades, and with the rise of the internet, a more pragmatic way of executing these (Chang 2008, p. 74) (Esen 2002, p. 269). AFF is most commonly evident in emails sent from Nigeria, which seek investors to advance sums of money with guarantee of shares within the investment, however, this miscarries and leaves victims with zero reward and funds paid in advance (Chang 2008, p. 74). Most emails are personal; “I am… Investment Manager from Central Bank of Nigeria. I have just made a recent investment and I believe you are a trusting and reliable person for this opportunity. These are my contact details… please provide your personal bank details for your share of dividends paid into” (Onyebadi & Park 2012, pp. 182-183). Others seek victims to aid with accessing deceased estates, or offenders claim to be of high authority/royalty with funds to distribute to others.

(McQuade 2006, p. 141) mentions “there has been extremely little empirical testing of established theories to explain in explicit terms why cybercrimes occur.” However, with the rise in the digital age, such as the rapid advancements in mobile technology and computer-mediated communications, this has facilitated heightened opportunities for AFF and many other cybercrimes to occur (Williams, Bearmore & Joinson 2017). (Williams, Bearmore & Joinson 2017) mention that a small group of individuals appear to be more subject to repeat victimisation, such as those familiar with, and trust the offender. Additionally, individuals with high self-awareness consider personal knowledge and attitudes to a greater degree within decision-making and have higher resistance to persuasion attempts, despite this, when individuals see similar traits to the offender, self-focus can actually increase susceptibility, and in relation, those who have lack of self-control are often compulsive and have increased susceptibility, or even those ‘emotionally alone’ individuals may be at greater risk (Williams, Bearmore & Joinson 2017).

AFF has proliferated into a global issue, impacting individuals, organisations, governments and countries psychologically and financially (Whitty 2018, p. 97). The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) 2017 report shows that more than 200,000 scam reports were received, with losses equating to over $340 million, a $40 million increase from the 2016 report, with $4.6 million incurred though AFF (ACCC 2018). (Productivity Commission 2019, p. 3) affirms that during 2014-2019, over $500 million has been received from Australians. (Broadhurst 2017) explains that globally, cybercrimes cause annual losses of around USD $445 billion.

In 2016, the Australian Institute of Criminology conducted an in-depth, semi-structured, face-to-face interview study, involving eighty victims aged thirty to seventy-seven years who had reported a minimum financial loss of $10,000 to Scamwatch, with the greatest loss being $500,000 (Cross, Richards & Smith 2016). Two-thirds were subject to AFF, the other third Romance Fraud, and in conjunction with financial loss, the majority stated they were psychologically impacted as well, expressing the fraud as “soul-destroying and devasting” and even suicidal for one participant, with another conveying; “How did an intelligent person become victim? I’ve got a PhD for God’s sake!” (Cross, Richards & Smith 2016). However, (Norris, Brookes & Dowell) explain that weakness for incentive-driven behaviours cause these scams to sometimes be irresistible.

Additionally, (Hutchings 2013, p. 44) expresses that in 2011, a survey involving Australian’s who had been recognised by the Australian Transaction Reports and Analysis Centre, which uses financial intelligence and regulation to disrupt money laundering and terrorism financing, to have advanced funds to Nigeria in 2008, 59% had reported financial losses of around $12,000 during a one year time period, where 54% experienced financial hardship. Of this study, 43% reported emotional trauma, 40% reported a decrease in confidence within others as well as 12% experiencing marital or relationship complications.

AFF also impacts national security and the government, with the Australian Cyber Security Centre expressing during 2011-2014 the amount of cybersecurity episodes the Australian Signals Directorate acted on rose by 260% (313 and 1131), due to Australia’s wealth levels and advanced use of technological platforms (ACIC 2019). In light of this, the 2016 Cyber Security Strategy addresses this as an issue, although is of less significance compared to when cybersecurity was ‘one of Australia’s top tier national security priorities in 2009’ (Brangwin 2016). Regardless of, the Cyber Security Review analysed that cybercrime still directly costs the Australian Economy approximately $1 billion, as well as damages employment, personal identity and reputation together with depresses psychological wellbeing (ACIC 2019).

Overall, the true cost of AFF is under-representative due to under-reporting, where (Rosoff et al. 2004, p. 479) voices “some experts have adopted an ‘agnostic’ position that the true cost is unknowable.”

In response, policing AFF and other cybercrimes relies heavily on victim reporting, and due to the psychological impacts, many are reluctant to report, showing around 95% cases go unreported, or individuals feel as though no action will be taken regardless of reporting, where (Hutchings 2013, p. 2-3) states that less than 20% are likely to result in criminal charges. Police face complications identifying and prosecuting due to anonymous offenders, and thus, have changed their responses to be victim-focused (Webster & Drew 2017, p. 43). Australian jurisdictions have commenced strategies which focus on recognising victimisation and then unsettle this, such as sharing information regarding offenders with international Police jurisdictions (Webster & Drew 2017, p. 43).

The Fraud and Cyber Crime Group (FCCG) based within Queensland Police have adapted this, attempting to remove the fraud once identified using Australian financial data (Webster & Drew 2017, p. 43). FCCG ran nine semi-structured qualitative interviews over two months, including 219 victims, however 45.2% were uncertain if they were victims of AFF (Webster & Drew 2017, p. 43). The findings showed that a quarter of victims stopped sending money overseas and a third acknowledged that they were victims, however it is concluded that more research is required to better guide the method’s execution, as the detectives involved felt underprepared to implement such a strategy (Webster & Drew 2017, p. 49).

(Cross 2016) also adds policing AFF is complex, noting that Australian criminal justice responses now include Police and Consumer Protection agencies using financial intelligence to identity potential victims under a victim-focused approach. In 2013, South Australia Police adopted project Operation Disrepair, targeting Australian’s who transfer funds to Nigeria and Ghana through sending letters to victims which convey their anticipation of the fraud, in attempt to stop it from persisting (Button & Cross 2017, p. 206). The 2018-19 South Australia Police Report enlists that this operation functions with other law enforcement agencies and the community, having a substantial reduction within the number of individuals subject to AFF (Stevens 2019, p. 4).

Therefore, several preventative strategies have been initiated to aid with combatting AFF, including Scamwatch, under the ACCC, stating that individuals should never provide financial details online or agree to make advance-fee payments, should not communicate with strangers, and if this occurs, individuals should seek independent advice from another individual, or if the offender claims to be from an organisation, individuals should contact that organisation with details provided on the website (ACCC 2020). If individuals believe they have fallen subject, they can report it on ACCC via the report a scam page, or to the Australian Federal Police (AFP) (ACCC 2020) (AFP 2020).

(Hutchings 2013, p. 34) mentions that the annual campaign run by the Australasian Consumer Fraud Taskforce (ACFT), now Scams Awareness Network (SAN), is another effective preventative strategy, being comprised of twenty-two government agencies and departments alarmed with consumer protection in regards to fraud, and works to enhance Australian and New-Zealand governments’ enforcement methods against fraud. SAN is also responsible for the National Scams awareness Week Campaign, such as in the 2019 week where the topic was ‘Are you too smart to be scammed?’, which aimed at promoting individual awareness (Scamwatch 2019).

(Cross & Kelly 2016) add that publicity, awareness campaigns and educational drives are other effective preventative strategies as these “inform the public about the most common precautions against crime.” Contemporary prevention campaigns are victim-focused and aim to diminish victimisation, future offending and attempt to heighten individual collaboration with law enforcement (Cross & Kelly 2016). (Cross & Kelly 2016) also state that the Little Black Book of Scams (LBBS) is another victim-focused strategy, seeking to provide information and awareness in reducing the prevalence of fraud victimisation, as well as decreasing the susceptibility of potential victims to the community. (ACCC 2016) aver the LBBS to be internationally recognised as an essential tool for educating consumers and organisations on the different types of scams and how offenders contact victims, the warning signs together with where to seek help if impacted.

Threats to Australian National Security, governments and law enforcement agencies fall under existing terrorism international law; “an attack against infrastructure with intent to cause extensive destruction of such a place, facility or system, … results in, or is likely to result in major economic loss” (Tully 2012). The superior means of preventing cybercrime is the Council of Europe’s Convention on Cybercrime, establishing offences associated with the confidentiality, integrity and availability of computer data and computer-related offences (Tully 2012). Australia complies with this, introducing the Cybercrime Legislation Amendment Bill 2011, which increases intelligence and law enforcement agencies authority to obtain electronic communications and exchange data with foreign counterparts, as well as the Criminal Code Act 1995 giving the AFP power to investigate offences made against this Act (Tully 2012).

Department of Home Affairs Cyber Security Strategy 2020 Report shows that since the 2016 report, Australia has opened the Cyber Security Centre, which provides advice to individuals and organisations regarding protection against cybercrimes and alerts when a cybersecurity incident occurs, as well as injecting $50 million into the Cyber Security Cooperative Research Centre, which raises cyber security awareness and explores key security issues (Home Affairs 2020).

Concluding, AFF is shown to have devasting losses, both financially and psychologically, for Australians. Additionally, the crime costs the Australian Economy over $1 billion each year. In light of this, modern criminal justice responses, such as Operation Disrepair, are now attempting to be victim-focused, rather than offender-orientated, which aids with reducing further victimisation and prevents victims incurring even greater financial losses. To finalise, preventative strategies such as the ACCC’s Little Black Book of Scams allows individuals and organisations to identify scams and thus not fall subject to them, as well as the strategy of amended legislation allowing authorities to have greater power when addressing AFF. As a result of these initiated strategies, Australian National Security is better protected, with cybersecurity no longer being a major focus area for Australia.

REFERENCES

  1. Australian Competition and Consumer Commission 2018, Australian Government, viewed 16 April 2020, https://www.accc.gov.au/system/files/F1240_Targeting%20scams%20report.PDF
  2. Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission 2019, Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission Canberra, ACT, viewed 18 April 2020, https://www.acic.gov.au/about-crime/organised-crime-groups/cybercrime
  3. Australian Cyber Security Centre 2020, Australian Signals Directorate Kingston, ACT, viewed 25 April 2020, https://www.cyber.gov.au
  4. Australian Federal Police 2020, Australian Federal Police, viewed 23 April 2020, https://www.afp.gov.au
  5. Australian Transaction Reports and Analysis Centre 2016, Australian Government Canberra, ACT, viewed 26 April 2020, https://www.austrac.gov.au
  6. Brangwin, N 2016, Parliament of Australia Canberra, ACT, viewed 18 April 2020, https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/BriefingBook45p/Cybersecurity
  7. Bregant, J & Bregant R 2014, ‘Cybercrime and computer crime’, Encyclopedia of Criminology and Criminal Justice, viewed 15 April 2020, https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/9781118517383.wbeccj244
  8. Broadhurst, RG 2017, ‘Cybercrime in Australia’, in D Antje (ed.), The Palgrave Handbook of Australia and New Zealand Criminology, Crime and Justice, Palgrave McMillan, Canberra, pp. 1-11, viewed 25 April 2020, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/316172998_Cybercrime_in_Australia/link/58fa96d34585152edecedf5a/download
  9. Button, M & Cross, C 2017, Cyber Frauds, Scams and their Victims, Routledge, New York, pp. 1-232, viewed 26 April 2020, https://books.google.com.au/books?id=GggqDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA206&lpg=PA206&dq=operation+disrepair&source=bl&ots=yWUs5ASQLj&sig=ACfU3U0MKqbwJv84QEdQHwoj8kiCIZuEew&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwi5q87IwoXpAhV8wzgGHVvtBWYQ6AEwBXoECAsQAQ#v=onepage&q=operation%20disrepair&f=false
  10. Chang, J 2008, ‘An analysis of advance fee fraud on the internet’, Journal of Financial Crime, vol. 15, no. 1, pp. 71-81.
  11. Criminal Code Act 1995, Federal Register of Legislation, viewed 21 April 2020, https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/C2017C00235
  12. Cross, C 2019, ‘‘Oh we can’t actually do anything about that’: the problematic nature of jurisdiction for online fraud victims’, Criminology & Criminal Justice, pp. 1-18, viewed 18 March 2020, https://journals-sagepub-com.ezproxy.utas.edu.au/doi/10.1177/1748895819835910
  13. Cross, C 2016, ‘Using financial intelligence to target online fraud victimisation: applying a tertiary prevention perspective’, Criminal Justice Studies, vol. 29, no. 2, pp. 125-142.
  14. Cross, C & Kelly, M 2016, ‘The problem with ‘white noise’: examining current prevention approaches to online fraud’, Journal of Financial Crime, vol. 23, no. 4, pp. 806-818.
  15. Cross, C, Richards, K & Smith, RG 2016, ‘The reporting experiences and support needs of victims of online fraud’, Trends and Issues in Crime and Criminal Justice, viewed 18 April 2020, https://aic.gov.au/publications/tandi/tandi518
  16. Esen, R 2002, ‘Cyber crime: a growing problem’, The Journal of Criminal Law, vol. 66, n. 3, pp. 269-283.
  17. Hutchings, A 2013, ‘Theory and crime: does it compute?’, School of Criminolgy and Criminal Justice, Griffith Univeristy, pp. 1-286, viewed 27 April 2020, https://research-repository.griffith.edu.au/bitstream/handle/10072/365227/Hutchings_2013_02Thesis.pdf?sequence=1
  18. McQuade, SC 2006, ‘Understanding and managing cybercrime’, International Journal of Cyber Criminology, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 492-493.
  19. Norris, G, Brookes, A & Dowell, D 2019, ‘The psychology of internet fraud victimisation: a systematic review’, Journal of Police and Criminal Psychology, vol. 34, pp. 231-245.
  20. Onvebadi, U & Park, J 2012, ‘‘I’m sister Maria. Please help me’: a lexical study of 4-1-9 international advancement fee fraud email communications’, International Communication Gazette, vol. 74, n. 2, pp. 181-199.
  21. Ross, S & Smith, RG 2011, ‘Risk Factors for advance fee fraud victimisation’, Australian Institute of Criminology, pp. 1-6, viewed 15 April 2020, https://aic.gov.au/publications/tandi/tandi420
  22. Productivity Commission 2019, Australian Government Canberra, ACT, viewed 27 April 2020, https://www.pc.gov.au
  23. Scamwatch 2020, Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, viewed 16 April 2020, https://www.accc.gov.au/system/files/F1240_Targeting%20scams%20report.PDF
  24. Scannell, J 2014, ‘The ‘419 scam’: an unacceptable ‘power of the false’?’, Journal of Multidisciplinary International Studies, vol. 11, no. 2, viewed 16 April 2020, https://epress.lib.uts.edu.au/journals/index.php/portal/article/view/3220/4579
  25. South Australia Police 2019, Government of South Australia Adelaide, South Australia, viewed 26 April 2020, https://www.police.sa.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0006/838950/SAPOL-2018-19-Annual-Report.pdf
  26. Tully, S 2012, ‘Protecting Australian cyberspace: are our international lawyers ready?’, Australian International Law Journal, vol. 19, no. 4, pp. 49-77.
  27. Webster, J & Drew, J 2017, ‘Policing advance fee fraud (AFF): experiences of fraud detectives using a victim-focused approach’, International Journal of Police Science & Management, vol. 19, n. 1, pp. 39-53.
  28. Whitty, MT 2018, ‘419- It’s just a game: pathways to cyber-fraud criminality emanating from West Africa’, International Journal of Cyber Criminology, vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 97-114.
  29. Williams, EJ, Beardmore, A & Joinson, AN 2017, ‘Individual differences in susceptibility to online influence: a theoretical review’, Computers in Human Behaviour, vol. 72, pp. 412-421, viewed 18 April 2020, https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0747563217301504#!
Do you need this or any other assignment done for you from scratch?
We have qualified writers to help you.
We assure you a quality paper that is 100% free from plagiarism and AI.
You can choose either format of your choice ( Apa, Mla, Havard, Chicago, or any other)

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Click Here To Order Now!