One of the most pressing challenges with policing online fraud relates to jurisdiction. Policing is traditionally based on territoriality, but the internet has changed this. Offenders in one country can target a victim in a second country, who is requested to send money to a third or fourth country.
This article examines online fraud victims’ reporting to police. Specifically, it demonstrates the misconceptions that exist regarding jurisdiction, namely the relationship between the Australian Federal Police and state/territory police. A clear disconnect emerges between understandings and expectations of who can investigate what relating to online fraud. The Australian Cybercrime Online Reporting Network’s establishment in 2014 is a positive step but this has not fixed the issue entirely.
Overall, the article argues that the jurisdictional challenges experienced by police are not understood by victims, and improvement is needed regarding awareness of victims and police alike, to reduce unnecessary, additional trauma to victims.
BigosO (2005) Jurisdiction over cross-border wrongs on the internet. International and Comparative Law Quarterly54(3): 585–620.
5.
BrennerS (2006) Cybercrime jurisdiction. Crime, Law and Social Change46(4–5): 189–206.
6.
BroadhurstR (2006) Developments in the global law enforcement of cyber-crime. Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies and Management29(2): 408–433.
7.
ButtonM (2012) Cross-border fraud and the case for an ‘Interfraud’. Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies and Management35(2): 285–303.
8.
ButtonMLewisCTapleyJ (2009) A better deal for fraud victims. London: Centre for Counter Fraud Studies.
9.
ButtonMLewisCTapleyJ (2012) The ‘fraud justice network’ and the infrastructure of support for the individual fraud victims in England and Wales. Criminology and Criminal Justice13(1): 37–61.
10.
ButtonMMcNaugton-NicollsCKerrJ, et al. (2014) Online frauds: Learning from victims why they fall for these scams. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology47(3): 391–408.
11.
CloughJ (2015) Principles of Cybercrime. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
12.
CopesHKerleyKMasonK, et al. (2001) Reporting behavior of fraud victims and Black’s theory of law: An empirical assessment. Justice Quarterly18(2): 343–363.
13.
CrossC (2018) Expectations vs reality: Responding to online fraud across the fraud justice network. International Journal of Law, Crime and Justice55: 1–12.
14.
CrossCKellyM (2016) The problem of ‘white noise’: Examining current prevention approaches to online fraud. Journal of Financial Crime23(4): 806–828.
15.
CrossCRichardsKSmithRG (2016) Improving responses to online fraud victims: An examination of reporting and support. Final report. Canberra: Criminology Research Grants.
16.
CrossCSmithRGRichardsK (2014) The challenges of responding to victims of online fraud. Trends and Issues in Crime and Criminal Justice, No. 474. Canberra: Australian Institute of Criminology.
17.
DaskalJ (2016) Law enforcement access to data across borders: The evolving security and rights issues. Journal of National Security and Policy8(3): 1–10.
18.
FinkleaK (2013) The interplay of borders, turf, cyberspace and jurisdiction: Issues confronting US law enforcement. Congressional Research Service Report for Congress. Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service.
19.
FletcherN (2007) Challenges for regulating financial fraud in cyberspace. Journal of Financial Crime14(2): 190–207.
20.
GraboskyPSmithRG (1998) Crime in the Digital Age: Controlling Telecommunications and Cyberspace Illegalities. Sydney: The Federation Press.
21.
HodgsonT (2008) From famine to feat: The prosecution of multi-jurisdictional financial crime in the electronic age. Journal of Financial Crime15(3): 320–337.
22.
HueyL (2002) Policing the abstract: Some observations on policing cyberspace. Canadian Journal of Criminology44(3): 242–254.
23.
JeffrayC (2015) Caught in the net: The law enforcement response to international cybercrime. Australian Strategic Police Institute International Cyber Police Centre Special Report, March 2015: 3–10.
24.
KuleszaJ (2012) International internet law. Global Change, Peace and Security24(3): 351–364.
25.
LeviM (2017) Assessing trends, scale and nature of economic cybercrimes: Overview and issues. Crime, Law and Social Change67(1): 3–20.
26.
LeviMDoigAGundurR, et al. (2017) Cyberfraud and the implications for effective risk-based responses: Themes from UK research. Crime, Law and Social Change67(1): 77–96.
MenonSSiewT (2012) Key challenges in tackling economic and cyber crimes: Creating a multilateral platform for international co-operation. Journal of Money Laundering Control15(3): 243–256.
RansleyJMazerolleL (2009) Policing in an era of uncertainty. Police Practice and Research: An International Journal10(4): 365–381.
31.
RegeA (2009) What’s love got to do with it? Exploring online dating scams and identity. International Journal of Cyber Criminology3(2): 494–512.
32.
ReitanoTOertingTHunterM (2015) Innovations in international cooperation to counter cybercrime: The Joint Cybercrime Action Taskforce. The European Review of Organised Crime2(2): 142–154.
33.
RossSSmithR (2011) Risk factors for advance fee fraud victimization. Trends and Issues in Crime and Criminal Justice, No. 420. Canberra: Australian Institute of Criminology.
34.
SchultzT (2008) Carving up the internet: Jurisdiction, legal orders, and the private/public international law interface. European Journal of International Law19(4): 799–839.
35.
SpeerD (2000) Redefining borders: The challenges of cybercrime. Crime, Law and Social Change34: 259–273.
36.
SvantessonD (2015) A new jurisprudential framework for jurisdiction beyond the Harvard Draft. AJIL Unbound109: 69–74.
37.
SvantessonD (2016) Internet jurisdiction: Today and in the future. Precedent132: 4–9.
38.
Van WykJMasonK (2001) Investigating vulnerability and reporting behavior for consumer fraud victimization: Opportunity as a social aspect for age. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice17(4): 328–345.
