Global Scams & Financial Fraud: What the Data Tells Us About Who Gets Targeted, What They Lose and…

An analysis combining reported fraud data with a primary survey to explore scam patterns, financial losses, public awareness, and prevention.

What would you do if someone called you claiming to be from your bank and told you that your account was at risk?

Would you provide the information they requested?

Would you recognise the warning signs?

And if you realised afterwards that it was a scam, would you report it?

These questions sit at the centre of our Global Scams & Financial Fraud Analysis project.

Financial fraud is often discussed in terms of numbers: the number of victims, the amount of money lost, or the number of complaints received.

But numbers alone do not tell the whole story.

They do not tell us why someone trusted a fraudster.

They do not tell us why someone failed to report the incident.

And they do not necessarily tell us whether a decline in reported cases means that fraud is actually declining.

To explore these questions, the team combined secondary fraud-reporting data with primary survey responses.

The Data: Two Sources, Two Perspectives

Financial scams are no longer limited to traditional forms of deception. As people increasingly rely on phones, social media, online banking and digital platforms, opportunities for fraud have expanded alongside legitimate digital activity.

Our Global Scams & Financial Fraud Analysis examined the problem from two complementary perspectives.

The first part used secondary fraud-reporting data to investigate reported scam patterns, geographic differences, financial losses, age groups and reporting trends.

The second part used primary survey data collected from respondents to explore their experiences and perceptions of scams, including common scam channels, awareness, reasons victims may remain silent, sources of scam information, prevention preferences and financial losses.

What the Secondary Data Revealed

More than 234,000 complaints were represented

The secondary dashboard recorded approximately:

234,000 complaints

with approximately:

$1.55 billion in reported financial losses

and an average loss of approximately:

$7,000 per complaint.

These figures illustrate the scale of the problem represented in the project dataset.

Importantly, these are reported losses, not an estimate of all financial losses from fraud.

Investment Scams Were the Financial Heavyweight

One of the strongest findings was the financial impact of investment scams.

Investment scams generated approximately $938.8 million in losses in the project dataset.

By comparison:

• Service scams: approximately $59.5 million
• Merchandise scams: approximately $22.2 million

The project therefore found that investment scams represented the most financially damaging scam category.

This is consistent with more recent CAFC reporting, which also identifies investment fraud as one of the highest-loss categories in Canada.

Why this matters

A scam does not have to be the most frequently reported to cause the greatest harm.

This means that prevention programmes should consider financial severity as well as the number of incidents.

Who Was Being Targeted?

The picture changes when we look at money lost rather than the number of complaints.

The 60–69 age group recorded the highest financial losses in the project analysis, at approximately:

$404.4 million

followed by:

• 50–59: approximately $344.7 million
• 40–49: approximately $263.1 million

This produces one of the most important findings from the project:

The people reporting the most incidents are not necessarily the people losing the most money.

That distinction matters when designing interventions.

A group may require high-volume awareness campaigns because it encounters scams frequently, while another group may require stronger financial safeguards because individual losses are potentially much greater.

Victimisation Versus Attempts

Of the approximately 234,000 reports:

• 70.19% were classified as victims;
• 28.13% were attempted scams;
• 1.34% were classified as other;
• 0.20% were unknown; and
• 0.13% were incomplete.

The large proportion of attempted scams is important.

An attempted scam can represent a prevention success: the fraudster made contact, but the individual did not complete the transaction.

Therefore, attempted scams should not simply be viewed as unsuccessful cases.

They can provide information about:

• emerging scam methods;
• suspicious phone numbers;
• fraudulent platforms;
• new targeting techniques; and
• groups increasingly being targeted.

The Age Group With the Most Complaints Wasn't the Group With the Greatest Losses

The secondary analysis found that people aged 30–39 recorded the highest number of complaints:

33,413

followed by:

• 40–49: 28,050
• 20–29: 27,989

This suggests that scam exposure is not limited to older people.

Working-age adults may face considerable exposure because of their participation in employment, digital commerce, banking, investments, and online communication.

Why Reporting Numbers Need to Be Interpreted Carefully

The project dashboard recorded the highest number of reports in 2021, with:

68,071 reports

The number subsequently declined:

Year Reports

2021 68,071

2022 62,084

2023 44,786

2024 36,344

2025 22,908

The project therefore observed a substantial decline in reported cases after 2021.

However, we should not conclude that fraud itself declined by the same amount.

Reporting behaviour, data collection practices, prevention measures and changes in scam channels can all affect the number of cases appearing in a reporting system.

The CAFC similarly warns that fraud is substantially underreported.

What Did Our Survey Tell Us?

The primary survey added something that the secondary dataset could not provide:

The people's perspective

The dashboard showed that:

• Phone calls were the leading scam channel;
• Lagos was the most exposed state among the surveyed locations;
• Social media was the leading source of scam information; and
• 2FA was highlighted as the key safety practice.

Phone Calls Still Matter

Although digital scams often bring social media and phishing to mind, phone calls emerged as the leading scam channel in our survey.

This is important because a phone call can feel more personal and credible than an anonymous message.

A fraudster may impersonate:

• a bank;
• a government agency;
• an employer;
• a telecommunications provider; or
• someone the victim knows.

Implication

Fraud-awareness campaigns should explicitly teach people how to handle unexpected calls involving money or sensitive information.

Social Media: Part of the Problem, Part of the Solution

Social media emerged as the leading source of scam awareness among survey respondents.

This presents an interesting opportunity.

The same platforms that can be used to distribute fraudulent content can also be used to distribute:

• scam alerts;
• educational videos;
• real examples of fraudulent messages;
• verification tips;
• reporting instructions; and
• digital-safety information.

The message is therefore not simply "avoid social media."

It is:

Use the platforms people already trust and use them strategically to improve fraud awareness.

Why Do Victims Stay Silent?

The survey examined several reasons people may not report scams, including:

• embarrassment;
• no financial loss;
• reporting difficulties;
• and situations where the scam did not succeed.

This is a critical finding.

If someone encounters a scam but does not lose money, they may feel that there is nothing worth reporting.

Similarly, someone who loses money may feel embarrassed.

But every report can potentially help institutions identify patterns and warn others.

The CAFC similarly notes embarrassment and uncertainty about reporting as reasons fraud may go unreported.

Prevention: Education vs Technology

The primary dashboard shows public education as the dominant prevention preference, accounting for 83.33% of the responses represented in that visual. Other options included bank security, stronger laws and technological warnings.

This is a particularly useful finding for organisations working in public awareness.

People are not simply asking for stronger enforcement after scams happen.

They are also recognising the importance of preventing scams before financial loss occurs.

For technology, two-factor authentication was highlighted as the key safety practice in the primary dashboard.

This reinforces an important principle:

Fraud prevention should not depend entirely on human judgement.

People can make mistakes, particularly when faced with convincing messages or urgent requests.

Technical safeguards such as 2FA can provide an additional layer of protection.

What Both Datasets Taught Us

1. The most frequent scam is not necessarily the most damaging.

Investment scams produced the largest financial losses despite not necessarily having the highest number of reports.

2. Younger and working-age adults can experience high exposure.

The 30–39 group recorded the highest number of complaints in the secondary dataset.

3. Older adults may experience greater financial consequences.

The 60–69 group recorded the highest financial losses in the secondary analysis.

4. Phone-based fraud remains important.

The primary survey identified phone calls as the leading scam channel.

5. Prevention needs both education and technology.

Public education was the dominant prevention preference, while 2FA was highlighted as a key safety practice.

What Should We Do Next?

1. Make investment fraud a priority

Financial institutions, regulators and awareness organisations should increase education around:

• fake investment platforms;
• guaranteed returns;
• Ponzi schemes;
• fraudulent cryptocurrency opportunities;
• unsolicited investment offers.

This is particularly important given the financial losses associated with investment scams in the secondary analysis.

2. Develop age-specific prevention strategies

Do not use one generic fraud message.

For example:

Younger adults: jobs, online shopping, social media and investment scams.

Working-age adults: investment, employment, banking and payment scams.

Older adults: impersonation, banking and high-value financial scams.

3. Strengthen phone-scam awareness

Because phone calls emerged as the leading scam channel in the primary survey, public education should include clear guidance on handling suspicious calls.

4. Use social media for prevention

Since respondents already use social media as an information source, institutions should use these platforms for:

• short videos;
• scam alerts;
• case examples;
• myth-busting;
• reporting guidance.

5. Make reporting easier

Reporting should be available through simple channels such as:

• mobile platforms;
• online forms;
• telephone channels;
• banking applications;
• anonymous reporting mechanisms.

6. Treat attempted scams as valuable information

A prevented scam is still useful data.

Attempted scams can provide early signals about emerging threats and should feed into fraud-monitoring systems.

7. Promote 2FA and layered security

Individuals should be encouraged to use 2FA wherever available, while banks and technology providers should continue strengthening automated fraud detection and transaction monitoring.

8. Reduce the stigma around victimisation

Awareness campaigns should avoid blaming victims.

Instead:

"Anyone can be targeted. Reporting helps protect others."

This can help address embarrassment as a barrier to reporting.

9. Improve fraud data collection

Countries and institutions should improve:

• standardisation of fraud categories;
• geographic coverage;
• demographic information;
• reporting accessibility;
• collection of attempted-fraud data.

Conclusion

Financial fraud is not simply a problem of people losing money.

It is a problem involving technology, behaviour, awareness, reporting, financial systems and institutional response.

The secondary analysis showed that approximately 234,000 complaints and $1.55 billion in reported losses were represented in the project dataset. Investment scams stood out as the most financially damaging category, while people aged 30–39 recorded the highest number of complaints and those aged 60–69 recorded the highest financial losses.

The primary survey added a local perspective. Phone calls emerged as the leading scam channel, social media was the leading source of scam information, public education was the strongest prevention preference, and 2FA emerged as an important safety practice.

The central lesson is therefore:

Effective fraud prevention requires both informed people and stronger systems.

People need to recognise suspicious behaviour, but institutions also need to make fraud harder to execute, easier to report and faster to detect.