Giving love a bad name: How to talk about romance fraud

Romance “scams,” in which fraudsters steal money by assuming fake or stolen identities to trick victims into thinking they’re in a loving, committed relationship, aren’t actually scams.

They are real relationships based on grooming and abusive behaviors — and we need to acknowledge them as fraud, not the blunders of sad, lonely or stupid people, says Elisabeth Carter, a criminologist and forensic linguist at Kingston University in London.

More than 350 million people globally use dating apps to find love and companionship. In the United States, one in 10 committed couples — and 20% of those under 30 — met on the internet. But the rise of online romance has led to a corresponding increase in financial fraud, with devastating effects on victims’ emotional, financial and social lives. Sidestepping many of the brute-force criminal tactics that internet users have learned to recognize, fraudsters siphon money in a way that seldom raises red flags — and, in fact, often causes victims to feel cold-hearted if they don’t hand it over.

As a result, Americans lose over a billion dollars annually to romance fraud, and billions more are lost worldwide. According to Carter, who works with the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) and other law enforcement agencies, the actual numbers are likely much greater, because the way we talk about romance fraud makes many victims too ashamed to report losses.

Carter literally wrote the book on the subject: UNODC’s “Handbook on Effective Communication Strategies for the Prevention of Organized Fraud.” She recently sat down to discuss romance fraud with the Mastercard Newsroom — and why it’s crucial to reframe the way we talk about it. 

Carter: Using “fraud” and “scam” interchangeably can downplay how serious and structured these offenses are. In U.K. law, “fraud” is a defined criminal offense, while “scam” does not carry equivalent legal meaning, and it risks sounding informal or trivial. Imprecise language weakens public understanding, feeds into negative narratives of fraud victimhood and obscures the real and multifaceted harms of the crime. We need consistent, precise terminology across media and institutional messaging to reflect the deliberate, organized nature of fraud.

The UNODC 2026 handbook recommends consistent, precise terminology across media and institutional messaging to reflect the deliberate, organised nature of fraud.

Carter: Phrases like “fall for it” suggest individual error rather than targeted, criminal manipulation. Victim‑blaming language increases shame and reduces the likelihood of reporting. Victims also experience additional harms — secondary victimization — as a result of institutional responses and the use of shame-laden terminology, including if there are difficulties in reimbursement. Additionally, fraudsters use familiar social patterns to embed deceptive requests in ordinary interactions, making the victim’s experience feel logical and benign. 

Carter: Fraud criminals often use subtle, socially familiar language to manipulate victims, so public messaging must reflect this complexity. Over-simple, inaccurate, colloquial or humorous depictions create a sense of ease around fraud that does not match victims’ real experiences. They also leave the public under-protected. When fraud is described colloquially, people may underestimate risk and impact or feel that it couldn’t happen to them. That misleads the public into complacency, or into believing that it is a trivial crime rather than an abuse with devastating consequences for victims, both financially and for their mental health and well-being. 

Carter: Messages that focus solely on “be alert” can unintentionally blame victims. Many [romance] frauds unfold through sustained emotional and linguistic engagement that simple vigilance tips do not accurately represent nor provide effective public protections. Trust is carefully built over time through repeated interaction; these patterns are not random but structured to foster compliance, which awareness guidance on vigilance cannot interrupt. Addressing this requires work to meet people where they are, in a form that is recognizable to them, in a way that makes it relevant and actively protects them and people they know. A first step is to interrupt the fraudster’s frictionless passage through social media communications and financial transactions and accurately relaying how offenders build narratives so audiences understand manipulation without internalizing blame.

Carter: Victims often believe the offender’s narrative because it feels socially plausible and coherent. Trust develops gradually, making blunt warnings like “this is a fraud” less effective. Offense interactions replicate normal conversational patterns, so direct confrontation can reinforce denial. Manipulative language resembles coercive control, so I recommend non‑judgmental, evidence‑based language that introduces doubt through explanation, preserving trust while disrupting the fraud narrative. Also worth recognizing: Victims are often groomed to lie to their banks and see them as an oppositional, interfering barrier. That perception must be recognized by bank employees because it first needs to be overcome.

Carter: Clear, consistent, non‑trivializing language across media, banks, law enforcement, and civil society would improve understanding, reporting, and prevention; minimum communication standards are essential for effective prevention across sectors. Consistent and appropriate (in both placement and content) communications that reflect victims’ real experiences rather than stereotypes reduces confusion, aligns stakeholders and strengthens coordinated action against organized fraud and encourages victims to seek support. 

Carter: Organizations should use language that frames fraud as deliberate, manipulative criminal acts rather than personal errors. Research shows that precise, victim‑sensitive language improves recognition, reporting and recovery by clarifying dynamics and reducing stigma. Consistent use ensures communication becomes an effective prevention tool. Clear, accurate language supports earlier intervention, helps victims feel understood, and strengthens coordinated prevention efforts.