Abstract
This article explores the impact of online crime victimisation. A literature review and 41 interviews – 19 with victims and 22 with experts – were carried out to gain insight into this. The interviews show that most impacts of online offences correspond to the impacts of traditional offline offences. There are also differences with offline crime victimisation. Several forms of impact seem to be specific to victims of online crime: the substantial scale and visibility of victimhood, victimisation that does not stop in time, the interwovenness of online and offline, and victim blaming. Victims suffer from double, triple or even quadruple hits; it is the accumulation of different types of impact, enforced by the limitlessness in time and space, which makes online crime victimisation so extremely invasive. Furthermore, the characteristics of online crime victimisation greatly complicate the fight against and prevention of online crime. Finally, the high prevalence of cybercrime victimisation combined with the severe impact of these crimes seems contradictory with public opinion – and associated moral judgments – on victims. Further research into the dominant public discourse on victimisation and how this affects the functioning of the police and victim support would be valuable.
Introduction
As a consequence of the pervasive digitisation of the Western world over recent decades, online crimes have become an increasing problem in our society today. For example, while bicycle theft was traditionally the most common offence in the Netherlands, it has been surpassed by hacking (reported by, respectively, 5% versus 4% of the Dutch population aged 15 and older, 12 months prior to the self-report survey) (Centraal Bureau voor de Statistiek [CBS], 2017). The latest statistics show that 13% of Dutch citizens aged 15 and older have been victim of online crime (CBS, 2020). Statistics from all over the world seem to show a similar picture. The Crime Survey for England and Wales reports some 763,000 fraud and computer misuse incidents, which is an increase of 5% in comparison to the year before. Action Fraud (the official agency to which cybercrime is reported in England and Wales) recorded an increase in computer misuse offences over the past year, 2019-20 by 35% to a total of 29,138 offences (Office for National Statistics [ONS], 2020).
Cybercrimes can be divided into two broad categories (see McGuire and Dowling, 2013; Leukfeldt and Yar, 2016; Leukfeldt, 2015, 2017). The first is cyber-dependent crimes. These are ‘new’ offences in which information technology (IT) is used to commit the crime and which are always aimed at IT. Examples include hacking, malware or shutting down websites and networks. The second category is cyber-enabled crimes. These are ‘traditional’ forms of crime that are now also carried out using IT. Examples include online fraud and online stalking. In this article, we use the term cybercrime as an umbrella concept to cover both cyber-dependent and cyber-enabled crime.
The impact of online crime victimisation is a relatively understudied subject in the field of victimology. This article offers a contribution to the existing body of knowledge by exploring different forms of impact via in-depth interviews with victims and experts in the field. Indeed, despite the increasing prevalence of cybercrime, little research has been done into the impact of such crimes on victims. Recent studies do show that victims experience (sometimes severe) financial, psychological and emotional impacts (e.g. Cross et al., 2016; Jansen and Leukfeldt, 2018; Worsley et al., 2017; Reyns and Randa, 2015). A study from the United Kingdom (UK) on the impact of computer misuse crime, for example, demonstrated that victims experience many of the impacts that victims of offline crimes experience, whereby the experienced impact varied from severe to impact that is no more than a little disruption (Button et al., 2020).
Often the impact is aggravated by lack of understanding of the victims’ experience within their social environment, problems with investigation and prosecution, and lack of support from police and other organisations (Worsley et al., 2017; Cross et al., 2016). Prevailing victim (support) policy is based on victims of traditional offline crime and little attention is paid to the experiences of cybercrime victims (see, for example, Leukfeldt et al., 2018). It is therefore important to better understand the impact on these cybercrime victims and the differences and similarities between them and victims of traditional offline offences.
This article presents the results of an exploratory study of cyber-dependent and cyber-enabled cybercrime victimisation in the Netherlands. The article is based on a report commissioned by the Dutch Ministry of Justice and Security (see Leukfeldt et al., 2018, 2019). The present article focuses on the extent to which the impact of cybercrime differs from the impact of traditional offline crime. The intention of this study is not to compare victimisation for specific crimes, but rather to gain insight into similarities and differences between offline crimes and online crimes.
The central question of this study therefore is: What is the impact of online crime victimisation and how does this differ from the impact of traditional offline crime? The following section presents the literature on the impact on victims of traditional offline offences and the impact on victims of cybercrimes. The research methods are described thereafter. Next, the results of the empirical study are discussed: the impact of cybercrime as experienced by victims themselves, and the impact according to the experts. The discussion and conclusion are presented in the final section.
The impact of traditional offline offences
Historically, according to the United Nations Human Rights Office of the High Commissioner (1985), victims are defined as ‘persons who, individually or collectively, have suffered harm, including physical or mental injury, emotional suffering, economic loss or substantial impairment of their fundamental rights, through acts or omissions that are in violation of criminal laws.’ According to this definition, the impact on one’s life (‘injury’) is central to victimhood and this injury or impact could be physical, mental, emotional or economic. But what does research say about the impact of crimes?
Several important empirical studies have been carried out to investigate the impact of criminal victimisation (Shapland et al., 1985; Maguire and Bennett, 1982; Morgan and Zedner, 1992). These studies show that beyond the financial and physical impacts that are often deliberately inflicted by the offender, victimisation can also have strong psychological and emotional impacts. Ten Boom et al. (2008) reviewed 33 empirical studies of victims to develop a clustering of different forms of impact. They define the impact of crimes as problems or feelings that develop after an incident of victimisation and that can be divided into emotional, financial or physical impacts (see also Wittebrood, 2006). In the current study, the above forms of impact are included and grouped into financial, psychological, emotional and social clusters.
Psychological and emotional impacts
The psychological and emotional effects of criminal victimisation can range from non-existent to severe and from short-term to long-term (Wallace, 1998), depending on the type of victimisation, the amount of loss incurred, and the trauma suffered. Among the more intense psychological reactions, the most common are fear, resentment, humiliation and anger, not only towards the offenders but also towards the police and the judicial system (Williams, 1999). Additionally, Williams (1999) states that people may react to crime by withdrawing from regular activities and they may have trouble sleeping or concentrating, can be easily startled, may not participate in activities they once enjoyed, and may experience lowered self-esteem. Norris and Kaniasty (1997) also found that crime victims showed symptoms of depression, anxiety, somatisation, hostility and fear. Research into the specific emotional impacts of crimes indicate depression, panic, suicide, and anxiety (Freedy et al., 1997; Williams, 1999; Devalve, 2005), paranoia (Devalve, 2005), feeling unsafe (Devalve, 2005), feeling isolated or alone (Devalve, 2005; Williams, 1999), loss of trust and feelings of anger (Devalve, 2005).
The psychological and emotional impacts can become highly problematic if psychological distress results in the victim being unable to cope with the world around them, leading to psychological disorders such as depression and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) (Petersen and Walker, 2003). PTSD is not uncommon among crime victims (Freedy et al., 1997; Williams, 1999).
The severity of the emotional and psychological impact can ‘shatter the very basic assumptions victims have about themselves and the world around them’ (Petersen, 2003: 97; see also Winkel and Denkers, 1995). Gintner (2001) proposes that this may be even more common for homicide survivors. The shattering of these assumptions means that a victim’s core beliefs – that bad things do not happen to good people or that the world is a just place – are negatively influenced or even destroyed (Gintner, 2001; Schneider, 2001).
The impact of time and the level of cooperation in victimisation
The impact of criminal victimization surfaces directly following the incident, but can also emerge long after. For example, research into burglary victims (Maguire and Bennett, 1982) showed that even though the financial impact is often minor and there is no contact with the offender, still a considerable group of victims experience significant emotional impact and a small minority suffer long-lasting effects including fear, sleeplessness and a deep distrust of others. A similar picture emerges from research into juvenile victims of a wide range of crimes, such as sexual abuse, theft, assault and kidnapping (Morgan and Zedner, 1992). This research showed how few children escape the experience of victimisation without impact. Even falling victim to less intrusive crimes like burglary, can lead to severe emotional impact directly following the crime but also in the long term.
Studies of victims of fraud also illustrate how impact emerges in the long term. Research into fraud victims shows not only a direct financial impact on victims (Deem, 2000) but also an indirect financial impact, such as the loss of time spent on resolving the problems that arise from the victimisation (Pascoe et al., 2006), as well as an emotional impact (Deem, 2010; Spalek, 1999; Pascoe et al., 2006), such as depression that can develop over time (Ganzini et al., 1990).
The level of the victim’s ‘cooperation’ in the crime is also related to the impact of a crime. The level of cooperation differs and a higher level of cooperation often leads to a greater impact (see, for example, Titus, 1999; Titus and Gover, 2001). At one end of the spectrum, there is a complete absence of cooperation, with a victim’s information used without their knowledge. In the middle, there is a degree of cooperation, with the victim playing a part but generally being more passive (like a victim of a phishing e-mail). At the other end of the spectrum, there is ‘considerable cooperation’, with the victim proactively involved in the fraud, for example in home-working scams. Victim cooperation can involve the following actions: making initial contact, providing information about him/herself, allowing the offender to convert a business relationship into a personal relationship, allowing the offender to create a scenario or chain of events that set the stage for the fraud, writing checks or transferring money. Because of their cooperation in the crime, victims tend not to report fraud and when they do, it is common for victims to receive blame (Titus and Gover, 2001).
Victimisation and the victim’s environment
Financial, social, psychological and emotional forms of impact are not only caused by experiencing the incident itself, but also by the circumstances that surround victimisation. For example, research into victims of violent crime (Shapland et al., 1985) showed that the emotional impact of victimisation is often influenced by compensation schemes failing to meet victim needs. The importance of victim participation, the provision of information for victims, investigation and prosecution, victim compensation and victim support services are stressed. Often these needs are not met, increasing the negative impact of victimisation that is experienced.
The impact of a crime is also related to other factors, including the demographic and psychological aspects of the victim, characteristics of the crime and social influences (Ten Boom and Kuijpers, 2008; Wittebrood 2006). In terms of social influences, the victim’s partner plays a particularly important role, as does the previously described support received from the authorities (Denkers, 1999; Scott and Deena, 2018).
Not all victims experience the same impact following a crime. Social support is helpful in dealing with the effects of victimisation. According to Gintner (2001), the availability of positive support helps victims overcome the emotional impact. Kaukinen (2002) confirms that support (for example, from informal networks, family and friends) has a positive influence on coping for victims. Winkel and Denkers (1995) also found that social networks offer victims support, although this support declines over time.
Personal characteristics, support from the social environment and culture all influence the impact on a victim’s life. The specific needs of a victim (expressed needs) are also culturally determined and depend on the expectations of the victim, the expected effects of the crime and the victim’s knowledge of his/her options and rights after victimisation (Van Dijk, 2000; Shapland et al., 1985).
Whereas support from a social environment can help victims to better cope with impact, lack of support can aggravate the experienced impact. This lack of support is related to the perception of the victim by his/her social environment, as well as how the role the victim has played in the incident is perceived. These perceptions are based on characteristics of an ‘ideal victim’ as being weak, unknown to the offender, engaged in legitimate activities, unambiguously blameless and targeted by a ‘big and scary criminal’. This ideal victim is deserving of empathy and support by the social environment (Christie, 1986). Any individual who does not meet these criteria is undeserving of empathy or support, and can be held accountable for their victimisation. The attribution of blame or being held accountable for victimisation is shown to have a negative impact on victims of crimes like rape, hate, sexual assault and other violent crimes (Abrams et al., 2003; Masser et al., 2010).
Previous research into the impact of cybercrime victimisation
In order to gain insight into the impact of cybercrime as a specific type of crime, the literature on its impact was reviewed. The aim of this review was to see if the forms of impact observed in traditional offline crime – i.e. financial, psychological, social, emotional and financial – are also prevalent in these new forms of crime. Although this is an understudied topic, relevant articles were found regarding online fraud and identity fraud, interpersonal crimes (e.g. cyberstalking) and sex crimes (mainly image-based sexual abuse, for example, escalated sexting or sextortion). The results are described below.
Online fraud
As found in research into offline fraud (Spalek, 1999; Deem, 2000; Pascoe et al., 2006), the impact of online fraud is not limited to financial impact. Victims also experience emotional and psychological impacts. Studies in Australia and the UK, for example, show not only that victims suffered significant financial damage, ranging from tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands of euros, but also that they experienced emotional and psychological impacts (Button and Brooks, 2009; Cross et al., 2018).
Research into victims of online crime also shows similarities to offline crime in how the emotional and psychological impacts relate to victims’ personal circumstances (Cross et al., 2016). The emotional and psychological impacts expressed by victims include shame, sadness, stress, loneliness and anger. In severe cases, victims may indicate that they are suffering from depression. Button and colleagues (2014) illustrated that victimisation in online fraud can be ‘devastating’. Another similarity to offline crime is how the emotional impact of online crime can surface and develop over a long period of time (Cross et al., 2016). Research by Button and Brooks (2009) shows that almost three-quarters of online fraud victims change their own behaviour as a result of their victimisation. Victims lose faith in others and are more careful when they go online. In some cases of so-called dating fraud, victims receive a double hit (Whitty and Buchanan, 2012, 2015). This means that victims not only suffer – or are ‘hit’ by – a financial loss but also the loss of a (perceived) lover. In addition, victims are blamed for their own victimisation, which would imply a ‘triple’ hit.
Furthermore, a physical impact of online fraud can also be present. Victims indicate they suffer from insomnia, nausea and weight loss (Cross et al., 2016). Lastly, victims or their families are sometimes threatened by the offenders of advance fee fraud (Ross and Smith, 2011).
Identity fraud has been studied as a specific type of cybercrime. This type of fraud is described as an offence in which the offender uses the victim’s personal information, often for direct financial gain. The consequences of identity fraud are not only financial loss; victimisation can also have an emotional impact, such as loss of confidence in others or feelings of helplessness (Van der Meulen, 2006; Identity Theft Resource Center, 2009). A specific problem with the consequences of identity fraud is the burden of proof. Various studies show that identity fraud victims experience negative consequences because they must themselves prove that they are not offenders, but rather are victims (for example, Grijpink, 2006; Whitson and Haggerty, 2008; Van der Meulen, 2006; Van der Meulen and Koops, 2012). Such cases may even involve a so-called ‘reverse burden of proof’. All traces lead to the victim and the same victim must then prove that they are actually the victim rather than the offender. Van der Meulen (2006) observes that these victims are often not taken seriously by the police and experience difficulties in getting information from government organisations because they are perceived as offenders. Another consequence of identity fraud is that the cyberoffender’s modus operandi is to create false registrations for the victim; these errors then need to be corrected within all kinds of databases. This can take a very long time or may even be impossible, leading to feelings of helplessness and frustration because victims face disbelief throughout the entire process. Van der Meulen and Koops (2012) describe going through ‘a maze of authorities, the majority of whom regularly refuse to take action to correct errors and thereby limit the consequences of (also future) abuse’ de Hert (2012). observes that the correction of errors is often difficult or impossible for victims. Once data are stored in police and judicial systems, its removal by citizens may be highly problematic and often proves impossible (Buruma, 2011).
Online interpersonal crime
Interpersonal crimes concern criminal behaviour aimed at damaging a person. In these types of crime, offenders use ICT as a means of communication with the victim, sometimes widely disseminating images and other materials. Examples of such interpersonal crimes are (cyber)stalking, threatening, defamation or distributing texts or photos online without permission (Leukfeldt at al., 2015).
Studies of cyberstalking show that offenders often use a combination of offline and online techniques to stalk the victim (Maple et al., 2011; Sheridan and Grant, 2007; Malsch et al., 2015). Offenders use the possibilities that the internet offers: expressing direct threats via e-mail or social media, causing others to harass or threaten the victim, doxxing 1 the victim’s personal information, impersonating the victim and collecting information about the victim (Fox et al., 2016). There are similarities between cyberstalking and traditional offline stalking in the sense that the offender is often the victim’s ex-partner, most offenders are male and most victims are female (Dressing et al., 2014; Malsch et al., 2011). Research into the impact of online stalking shows that victims of cyberstalking experience similar psychological problems compared to victims of traditional stalking (Kraft and Wang, 2010; Dressing et al., 2014; Worsley et al., 2017). The psychological impacts of cyberstalking include feelings of anger, helplessness and anxiety. Victims can also experience a loss of control over their lives, depression and symptoms of stress. These far-reaching emotional impacts can lead to victims withdrawing from public life, which also results in (indirect) financial damage (Worsley et al., 2017).
Online sex crimes
The clustering or labeling of online sex crimes can be difficult (Henry et al., 2019). Image-based sexual abuse (IBSA) is a broad definition that refers to a spectrum of incidents which refer to the taking off, threatening with and distribution of explicit media without consent (Powell et al., 2019; DeKeseredy and Schwartz, 2016; McGlynn and Rackley, 2017; McGlynn et al., 2017). Australian research shows a prevalence of victimization of one in ten women (Powell and Henry, 2016, 2017, 2018). Brazilian research on the impact experienced by victims of IBSA suggests that victims suffer from fear, isolation, depression, PTSD, self-mutilation and suicidal thoughts (França and Quevedo, 2020).
An extensive body of research into online sex offences 2 deals with the phenomenon of sexting. Studies usually focus on the positive effects of sexting. Sexting is the sending and receiving of sexual image material via digital message services such as WhatsApp, Snapchat or Instagram (Anastassiou, 2017). Existing research focuses on sexting among juveniles. The results show that sexting can be a ‘safe’ method of sexual experimentation for young people who are not yet ready for physical sexual activity (Anastassiou, 2017). Sexting also forms a safe solution to sexual frustration when no partner is involved (Stanley et al., 2016) or, in contrast, offers sexual possibilities in a long-distance relationship. Sexting is seen as ‘fun’ (Lippman and Campbell, 2014) and ‘entertaining’ (Burkett, 2015). Research by Lippman and Campbell (2014) shows that the majority of youngsters considered sexting to be normal.
Negative consequences are connected to so-called ‘escalated sexting’, when images get into the hands of someone other than the intended recipient. This can happen because the recipient distributes the image material him/herself or because a third party acquires the images by, for example, hacking the sender or recipient (Yeung et al., 2014). The impact of escalated sexting can be huge for victims, potentially resulting in depression, decreased self-confidence or the loss of confidence in others (Dake et al., 2012; Sorbring et al., 2014; Burkett, 2015). Research into sextortion victimisation has provided some insight into the emotional and psychological effects that individuals, families and friends may suffer (Wolak and Finkelhor, 2016). This emotional and psychological impact can be so severe for victims that it may lead to self-harm or even suicide (Europol, 2017; Wittes et al., 2016; Wolak and Finkelhor, 2016).
One consequence is reputational damage. Victims report that they feel stigmatised and that they receive negative responses from their online and offline social environment (Ringrose et al., 2012; Walker et al., 2013). Victims may start speaking negatively about themselves and blame themselves for becoming a victim (Burkett, 2015; Hasinoff, 2013). In the longer term, victims might develop feelings of paranoia. Victims also fear that images or videos might reappear online. This sense of threat and fear can persist for years (McGovern et al., 2016).
Materials and methods
The central question of this article is: What is the impact of online crime victimisation and how does this differ from the impact of traditional offline crime? To answer this question, the research literature has been reviewed to formulate a topic list to interview victims and experts in the field of online crime. These methods are described in more detail below.
Victim interviews
In order to understand the impact that cybercrime can have on victims’ lives, 19 victims were interviewed. Interviews with victims paint a clear picture of the experiences of victims and the impact of victimisation (see also Cross, 2016; Jansen and Leukfeldt, 2018; Malsch et al., 2015). Cybercrimes differ in nature from other types of crime, while different cybercrimes might have a different effect on the impact experienced (see, for example, Leukfeldt and Yar, 2016). Victims of the following types of cybercrime were therefore interviewed:
A topic list was constructed based on the existing literature on the impact of online and offline crimes and this was used to interview victims. Every interview started with open questions regarding the incident and the victimisation. These were followed by questions about the impact this had on the victim, directly after victimisation but also later in life. After these open questions, questions were asked about the emotional impact, the financial impact and the impact on the victim of contact with the social environment and police or other organisations (see Leukfeldt et al., 2018 for a comprehensive list of questions asked).
The Dutch Fraud Help Desk and Victim Support Netherlands helped to recruit the victims for interviews, by reaching out to victims registered in their systems regarding participation in the study. Victims were also recruited via social media such as LinkedIn and Facebook. Lastly, respondents were recruited via the social networks of victims who had already been interviewed. Sometimes victims knew other victims and suggested them as candidates for an interview.
Finding victims to cooperate with the interviews proved to be difficult. On several occasions, victims cancelled an appointment at the last moment or did not show up. In those cases, victims stated that it was emotionally too difficult to reflect on the experience.
A total of 19 victims were interviewed (see Table 1). Together they had fallen victim to 30 crimes. Of the victims, 14 were women and 5 were men. The victims can be divided into the following age categories: between 18 and 25 years (2), between 26 and 35 years (6), between 36 and 55 years (8) and 56 years and over (3).
Number of victim respondents (n=19) per crime category. 11
All interviews were held in Dutch and lasted between 55 minutes and roughly 2 hours. Before the interview, all respondents signed an informed consent form, acknowledging that their participation was on a voluntary basis and that they had the right to withdraw from the study without providing a reason at any time.
Respondents were asked to select the location that they would find most convenient for the interview. That could be at the Netherlands Institute for the Study of Crime and Law Enforcement (NSCR), at the respondent’s home (which might be a temporary one, because of the crime), at their work or in a public location. All of the victims were interviewed at home, work or in a public location. The interviews were recorded with an encrypted voice recorder and transferred to the (offline) Secure Analytics Lab at the NSCR as soon as possible after the interview.
Interviews with experts
In addition to interviews with victims, interviews with experts were conducted on the same topics relating to the impact of cybercrime victimisation. By interviewing victims as well as experts, potentially contrasting views on the impact could be compared. The topic list used for interviewing experts was constructed by adjusting the questions used for victim interviews in such a way that they were usable in expert interviews. For example, ‘What impact did the incident have on your life?’ was changed into ‘What impact do these incidents have on victims?’.
Experts who work with cybercrime victims were selected, for example, the police cybercrime unit, victim support organisations and the (cyber) public prosecutor. In addition, experts who study cybercrime victims were interviewed because of their knowledge on the subject. In total, 22 experts were interviewed, including 4 employees of the Public Prosecution Service, 6 employees of the National Police, 3 employees of Victim Support Netherlands, 4 employees of public/private hotlines such as the National Hotline for Internet Fraud and helpwanted.nl, 3 scientific researchers, the cyber ombudsman from the Estonian police, and a coordinator of Victim Support Portugal. Table 2 provides an overview of the expert interviews per category of cybercrime.
Number of expert respondents (n=22) per crime category. 12
The interviews with Dutch experts were held in Dutch. The interviews with international experts were all held in English via Skype. The shortest interview lasted 45 minutes and the longest interview lasted 72 minutes. The interviews were recorded with an encrypted voice recorder. As soon as possible after the interview, the researcher transferred the data from the encrypted voice recorder to the Secure Analytics Lab that is physically located at the NSCR and not connected to the internet.
Based on the number of victims interviewed, none of the results can be generalised, nor are they representative of the total population of victims. Since little is known about the impact of online crimes, this study was designed to be exploratory and qualitative in character. This research served the purpose of exploring the potential impact of these new forms of crime, not to provide generalisable findings. In relation to each other and in combination with the literature study, respondents’ answers provide good insight into the impact of cybercrime victimisation.
Results: The impact of cybercrime victimisation
This section presents the empirical results from the interviews with victims and experts. The results are structured in line with the findings from the literature on the impact of offline crimes: financial impact and psychological-emotional impact.
Financial consequences
Most victims of cybercrimes (16 out of 19) in this research reported financial impact. Financial impact was described by all fraud victims (12), but also occurred in interpersonal crimes (3 out of 8), sex offences (2 out of 5) and cybercrimes (1 out of 5). More than half of the victims (11 out of 19) reported direct financial damage, while 7 out of 19 victims (also) suffered indirect financial damage, such as job loss due to a bad reputation following victimisation.
In this section we elaborate on these financial consequences for victims. The financial consequences that victims reported varied from the loss of several hundred euros to amounts of more than €200,000. The financial impact of these losses on the lives of victims differed depending on victims’ financial situation and their social environment. In some cases, the financial loss meant no more than a nasty situation that had little or no impact. In other cases, the damage meant the loss of a victim’s life savings. In the most serious case, the outcomes were large debts with direct family and loss of the victim’s home: I have nothing left! I transferred my last cent!…In a couple of weeks I lost everything that I built up in all these years. (V14)
In total, seven of the victims (also) reported indirect financial damage. In three cases, these were fraud victims who suffered additional indirect financial damage. This indirect damage was mostly inflicted because victims could no longer work or became ill due to the emotional impact of the fraud. In one case, part of the crime scheme involved making the victim work a day job for a (non-existent) company (home-working scam). The indirect damage here is the loss of time spent working for no compensation.
Victims of crimes that are not directly aimed at financial gain can also suffer indirect financial damage. In total, indirect damages were reported by two victims of sex crimes, two victims within the cyber-dependent crime (‘new’ crime that uses and targets ICT) category and one victim of an interpersonal cybercrime report. Indirect financial consequences included loss of time, the replacement of computer equipment, inability to comply with contractual agreements and the loss of work (V3; V5; V14; V16; V20; ENaPo5). In identity fraud, for example, a negative credit registration after victimisation constituted indirect financial damage, with the victim having difficulty obtaining a credit card or a mortgage (V01). A sex crime victim indicated that the images and stories roaming the internet had a negative impact on the victim’s career: I was in the probation period of my job. I decided to tell [my boss], so I said to him: [It’s possible] you might hear my name on the radio, etc. etc. At first he responded nicely…but a few weeks later, I was called to his office. He said: ‘You’ve got quite a lot of baggage – we can’t have that’. (V03)
Psychological-emotional consequences
Almost all victims reported psychological and emotional consequences of online crimes (18 out of 19). It is striking that 6 of the 19 victims indicated that they experienced far-reaching consequences. According to the respondents, those consequences were so severe that they sometimes had a devastating impact. Some of those victims reported they had suicidal tendencies. Other consequences were: loss of confidence (14), feelings of guilt and shame (11), anger and frustration (8), stress (8), anxiety (7), feeling unsafe (7), powerlessness (7), sadness and disappointment (5), and mourning (4). These consequences are further elaborated below.
Devastating impact
Six of the 19 respondents indicated that they experienced profound emotional consequences that had a devastating impact; three even reported they had suicidal tendencies. These extreme consequences were experienced by victims of sex crimes (2) and fraud (4). The former were victims of revenge porn and sexting; in both cases, compromising images of the victim became available online to large groups of people. The social disapproval of friends, family and strangers on the internet was very substantial and the victim felt as if their life ‘had ended’ because of these consequences. Of the four victims of fraud, three cases concerned victims of dating fraud and one case involved identity fraud. In the dating fraud cases, a romantic relationship developed with strong feelings of love on the part of the victim. The loss of a romantic lover, accompanied by the loss of large sums of money, feelings of shame and social disapproval, had a devastating impact on the victims. According to an expert (EHW), the same devastating impact on victims is also seen in sex offences where compromising photos of the victim are shared online. A victim of revenge porn, where sexual footage of the victim was distributed online by an ex-partner, said: You destroy a life by doing this…There are girls that just end it [their lives]…I can totally understand that. I understand that you just want it all to be over. (V03) I slept very badly. Because I was waking up every night and every morning, just to check my cell phone…for new threats or to see whether my personal data and images had been made public, as he threatened to do. With every new message I received on my phone, I was in shock again – no matter how much I tried to let it go. The uncertainty about my images maybe being made public and the fact that I had no idea who was behind it made it impossible to get this case off my mind…and that all day long, for months. (V20) I have never been physically raped, yet I feel as if I have been raped. (V04) This is mental abuse…I just suddenly burst into tears, [even] while exercising (V15) You feel so embarrassed, you feel very alone. (V15)
Loss of confidence
For the majority of the victims (14 out of 19), a direct consequence of being a victim is the loss of trust in others, trust in humanity or trust that anything positive might happen in the future. This occurred among crime victims who fall within the fraud cluster (9 out of 12), the sex cluster (4 out of 5) and the interpersonal cluster (1 out of 8). For example, victims of crimes within the sex cluster said: After that [I] went to a psychologist, who couldn’t guarantee that my feelings would pass. I have built up a relationship of trust with that psychologist. Someone who maintains professional confidentiality, because your trust is completely broken. So professional confidentiality is nice. (V03) I thought it was finished, my world has ended. Also for my sister who is being targeted. (V23) I keep strangers away. My trust is gone. You have to build that [relationship] up first and then I can trust you. (V08) I daren’t express my feelings any more, I daren’t say anything any more, I daren’t stand up for myself any more. (V04) You can block all your new followers…and I no longer say (online) where I am going. (V21) You just feel unsafe because someone has been snooping around in your things. I stood on the roof terrace a few times during the night when I heard something again [to see if the car was still there].(V10) [My] trust has not been compromised. I have sold more through the online marketplace since then and all went well.
Guilt and shame
Victims also experienced feelings of shame (8 out of 19). This was especially the case with victims in fraud cases (6 out of 12) and sex offences (2 out of 5). According to the respondents, this was because of the taboo on the distribution of sexually explicit material, regardless of whether the initial distribution was intentional or not. When the victim is confronted with these images by the offender, feelings of shame arise because the victim considers him/herself responsible for the creation of these compromising images. This shame is personal but also in relation to loved ones. I did it myself, nobody forced me to send that photo. (V23) The worst thing is for your parents to find out, you don’t want to disappoint them. (V22) I am so ashamed. I should have realised it much sooner. (V04) To this day, I don’t tell many people about what happened, because I’m worried they will think: ‘he fell for that easily!’ or ‘he’s stupid!’. I only told my family about it when I appeared on TV. (V17) I’ve kept it quiet from my friends and family, [because of] contempt, that’s all you’ll get…People poking fun at you, you don’t want that. (V06) I know that it’s not my own fault, but it feels that way…Because I took that picture myself, it’s also my own responsibility. (V22) You’re also guilty yourself, you go along with it yourself. I gave the order myself (for the money to be transferred)…it’s just like driving your car backwards into a stump. Stupid! (V06) In retrospect I blame myself a lot. Because of this, I started to find myself less worthy…how could I have been so stupid? (V04)
Cybercrime-specific impact
The previous paragraphs describe different impacts of cybercrime that seem to overlap with the impacts of traditional offline crimes as described in the literature. In addition to these mostly financial and emotional impacts, 8 out of the 19 victims experienced other consequences. These impacts appear to bear a direct relationship with the online nature of these forms of crime. These cybercrime-specific impacts include the substantial scale and visibility of victimhood, the fact that victimisation does not stop with time, the interwovenness of online and offline, and victim blaming. These impacts are further elaborated below.
Scale and visibility of victimhood
The first and perhaps most important aspect of online crime victimisation is the scale at which victimisation can occur. Not only can one offender create a large number of victims via the internet, one offender can also make one victim visible to a large (possibly limitless) group of ‘spectators’. This is especially true in cases of image-based abuse, such as sexting, revenge/non-consensual pornography and sextortion, but also in cases of stalking, defamation and threatening. Because of the ease with which images and text can be shared online, the victim becomes visible to a very large group of people. These people may decide to further share the images or stories surrounding victimisation, as a result of which the visibility of the victim might grow exponentially. The victim must therefore live with the knowledge that many people can view their images – images that should never have been made public. I was continuously confronted with it…it really was everywhere. The e-mail had been forwarded by everyone. (V22) It’s so bad when everyone is talking about you – you just want to emigrate. To somewhere where nobody knows you…Everyone in the auditorium was looking at that photo…When you walk through the supermarket, people are just pointing at you. (V23)
Victimisation does not stop with time
The second impact that is specific to cybercrimes seems to correlate with the substantial scale and visibility discussed above. Because of this substantial scale, and the possibly exponential dissemination of images and information, it is impossible to remove the materials that cause the impact from the internet. It therefore becomes impossible to restore a victim’s life fully to the situation prior to victimisation. So victims must learn to live with the fact that, at any given time or moment, the images might resurface and have impact again. Several victims (4 out of 19) described such an impact, which revealed itself not only at the time the offence occured but also at (random) moments thereafter.
This impact was mentioned in particular for sex offences, such as in the case of compromising visual material: Someone recently told me:’ Haha, I still have that photo!’ (V22) I will always remain that girl, even though it was already 5 years ago. (V23) That video can never be taken off the internet again. If I get into a fight now [then it will be used against me]. (V3) If you do something stupid now, you will never get rid of it until you die (ESHN3).
Crimes involving sexual images are not the only cases in which victimisation resurfaces later and does not stop with time. This impact can also occur with victims of identity fraud. Experts state that incorrect (negative) registrations can lead to a victim continuing to suffer from the offence in the future. Since registrations form the basis for actions on the part of a wide range of (government) organisations, false negative registrations can lead to negative consequences and victimisation far beyond the incident (ECMI; EMG). In a victim’s words: My ex had access to my accounts, [he] used it to buy stuff I knew nothing about and had it delivered somewhere else. I received bills from all sorts of web shops…This put me in debt and I still have a negative credit score. (V01).
Interwovenness of online and offline
The emotional impact of cybercrimes can become very significant due to the interwovenness of online and offline. This effect was mostly seen in interpersonal crimes where the victim was being stalked or threatened (4), but also occurred in fraud cases or sextortion cases where the victim was being threatened. In the stalking cases, the offender could continue their harassment despite measures taken in the ‘physical’ world, such as a restraining order or moving to an unknown address. The internet made victims traceable and approachable by the offender and by others. One offender used the credentials of the victim’s online marketplace account to retrieve her new address and threaten her there (V1). Other victims continuously received messages via all sorts of social media accounts, even after getting a restraining order against the offender (V1; V2). Victim V2 even noticed that the offender was convincing people online that the victim wanted to be raped by them and wanted to receive videos showing masturbation and the victim’s photo. All these examples show how the internet offers opportunities to threaten or abuse victims anywhere and any time: The fact that I had no idea who was behind this meant that this case was constantly in my head, throughout the day for months. Because it could be anyone, I also started to distrust anyone on the street who even looked at me for a moment. (V20)
Victim blaming
Previous sections have already shown that victims experience feelings of guilt. In total, 11 of the 19 victims reported that they were held accountable for their own victimisation by their social environment or the police. This is referred to in the literature as victim blaming (see, for example, Cross, 2016). Victim blaming is not new, and can also be observed in offline cases of sex crimes and fraud where there is considerable contact with the offender (Titus and Gover, 2001). Strikingly, in online crimes we see victim blaming in all types of offences studied: sex offences (4 out of 5), fraud (6 out of 12) and interpersonal crimes (3 out of 8). Victims indicated that they suffered from victim blaming in their immediate social environment: The biggest problem is that people think I did something wrong: ‘If you don’t allow it to be recorded, it [the victimisation] won’t happen’. (V03) A bit of modesty is becoming to a woman, [why don’t you] behave like a lady instead of an ordinary slut. Then you would have saved yourself from this. (Public Facebook message to V20) The police told me ‘You should never have taken a photo of a bank card!’…She [the police officer] clearly showed me that she thought I was a bumbling fool. (V09) [The police said to her] ‘Why would you take that kind of photo?’ ‘Why would you put it online?’ (V20) So stupid that you did that! That’s what that person behind the counter said!…I had been stupid, how could I have done that? Two women said that [at different organisations]. I could have slapped them…you feel very alone. (V15)
Discussion
The central question of this exploratory study is: What is the impact of online crime victimisation and how does this differ from the impact of traditional offline crime? The interviews with victims and experts show – in line with the literature – that, in fact, most impacts of online offences correspond to the impacts of traditional offline offences. For example, most victims experience direct financial consequences. In addition, victims of offences report indirect financial impact, such as loss of time, the need to replace computer equipment, inability to meet contractual agreements and the loss of work. The financial consequences reported by victims vary from the loss of several hundred euros to amounts of more than €200,000. The ultimate impact of these financial consequences on victims’ lives varies depending on their financial situation and social environment, which is in line with the literature on victims of offline crime (Ten Boom et al., 2008).
Almost all online crime victims reported psychological and emotional consequences as well, to a greater or lesser extent. This is in line with what is known about traditional offline crimes (Freedy et al., 1997; Williams, 1999; Devalve, 2005). Some crimes even have a devastating impact, for example, if they affect multiple aspects of life. Commonly reported consequences are: loss of trust, guilt and shame, anger, outrage and frustration, stress, fear, feeling unsafe, powerlessness, grief and disappointment. An initial important observation is that online offences can also have a major impact on victims.
There are also differences with offline crime victimisation. Several forms of impact seem to be specific to victims of online crime: the substantial scale and visibility of victimhood, victimisation that does not stop with time, the interwovenness of online and offline, and victim blaming. Because of the limitlessness and speed of the internet, potentially the whole world can witness victimisation. Removing material from the internet has proven to be difficult, so victimisation does not stop in time and space: it can always resurface. Victims suffer from double, triple or even quadruple hits; it is the accumulation of different types of impact, enforced by the limitlessness in time and space, which makes online crime victimisation so extremely invasive.
The realisation of this causes great fear in victims. The scope and range of the internet affords offline offenders opportunities to be omnipresent in their victim’s world. In addition, parts of the internet can be successfully constructed into a convincing and realistic-looking stage to mislead victims. The combination of the possibilities of this stage and having information in abundance on victims proves potent for offenders. Victims, who have lived in a constructed lie for some months, seem to truly experience an image of the world being shattered (Petersen, 2003). Further research into the psychological effect of living a lie – so all-encompassing and refined that it shows similarities with the 1998 movie The Truman Show – is indeed needed.
Considering the significant emotional impact of – mainly – sex crimes and fraud crimes with notable cooperation, victims need more support and empathy: first, to ensure they do not end up in isolation: ‘I’ve kept it quiet from my friends and family’ (V06); Second, to help them cope with the impact. Earlier work (Leukfeldt at al., 2019) shows that a criminal investigation is rarely started in these cases. It may be that no victim notification report is written up at the police station because the police fail to acknowledge the severity of what has happened or assume it would be impossible to prosecute the offender successfully (ENAPO4). This may lead to anger and frustration, as is also seen in offline crimes (Williams, 1999), especially when the offender is still visible online and is committing new crimes. If the police do not file a report or no investigation is started, this can be felt as a rejection of the victimisation, with victims feeling they have not been heard. In these cases, when the impact is severe, there should always be confirmation of the fact that something terrible has been done to the victim and access to support must be provided. Research into victims of offline crimes show that lack of social support for the victims, lack of investigation into the crime and with that, a lack of compensation for the damage done to the victim, all increase the negative impact experienced by victims (Shapland et al. 1985).
Characteristics of online crime victimisation greatly complicate the fight against and prevention of online crime. At the same time, these characteristics may facilitate the detection and prosecution of online crime. Online crime leaves traces that can often be found easily via the internet. On the other hand, perpetrators are often concealed, and this concealment complicates investigation and prosecution. A high prevalence of cybercrime victimisation seems contradictory with public opinion – and associated moral judgments – on victims. Further research into the dominant public discourse on victimisation and how this affects the functioning of the police and victim support would be valuable, not only to understand feelings of responsibility for victimisation but also to generate valuable insight into victim blaming.
Due to the relatively small number of respondents, it is not possible to generalise the results of this study to all victims of cybercrime. The study discussed nevertheless gives strong indications of the victimhood of this specific type of crime and the difficulty of tackling it. Future studies are required to gain further insight into those forms of impact that seem to be specific to victims of cybercrimes. Wallace (1998) has shown that the impact of crime victimisation can differ from the short term to the long term. Further study of cybercrime victims is necessary to see what the long-term effects of online crime victimisation encompass.
Footnotes
Acknowledgement
This work was supported by the Scientific Research and Documentation Centre of the Dutch Ministry of Justice and Security.