Romance Fraud Is More Than Financial Loss

How emotional exploitation, uneven institutional responses, and the absence of clear standards continue to leave victims exposed

Romance fraud is usually described as a financial crime. But for many victims, the deeper injury is emotional. What is taken is not only money, but trust, dignity, routine, stability, and the sense that one’s judgment is still safe to rely on.

That is what makes romance fraud different from the way it is often discussed. The crime can unfold over months, sometimes years, through messages that create attachment, urgency, dependence, and hope. By the time money is requested, the victim may believe they are helping someone they love, protecting a shared future, or responding to a crisis inside what feels like a real relationship.

Yet the American response still tends to treat the harm too narrowly. The United States has no single national standard for how victims should be identified, treated, protected, and assisted once the deception is uncovered. Instead, the response is fragmented: federal statutes punish the conduct, agencies such as the FBI and the FTC track losses and issue warnings, prosecutors rely on familiar fraud and identity-theft laws, and some victim-service organizations and police agencies are trying to build trauma-informed approaches.

All of that matters. But it is not the same as a system designed around what victims actually experience.

Victims do not experience romance fraud as a simple financial mistake. They experience it as betrayal, coercion, humiliation, fear, and grief. Offenders do not merely ask for money; they exploit attachment, hope, loneliness, dependency, compassion, and sometimes even recent loss or personal crisis.

For many people, the damage is not only economic but psychological, relational, and long-lasting. And when victims finally report what happened, they may be passed from one agency to another, treated as if they were careless rather than harmed, or blamed for having “fallen for” the deception. If the United States is serious about confronting romance fraud, it must do more than punish offenders after the fact. It must build a response that understands the trauma, treats victims with dignity, and meets them with consistency, urgency, and care.

For many victims, the aftermath of romance fraud is not only financial loss, but the collapse of trust, routine, and a sense of personal security.

What Is Already in Place

To understand what is missing, it helps to start with what the law and federal agencies already do.

At the federal level, the closest thing to a formal standard for romance fraud lies in the criminal statutes used to prosecute it. The most common is wire fraud under 18 U.S.C. § 1343, which criminalizes schemes to defraud carried out through interstate or foreign electronic communications and carries penalties of up to 20 years in prison, or up to 30 years if the offense affects a financial institution. Mail fraud under 18 U.S.C. § 1341 works similarly when the mail or a private interstate carrier is used, with the same 20-year baseline and higher penalties where a financial institution is affected.¹

Identity-based conduct can also trigger 18 U.S.C. § 1028, which covers fraud involving identification documents and means of identification, and aggravated identity theft under 18 U.S.C. § 1028A, which adds a mandatory consecutive two-year prison term when another person’s identity is knowingly used during specified felony conduct. In most federal fraud cases, the ordinary limitations period is five years, but under 18 U.S.C. § 3293, mail or wire fraud affecting a financial institution may be charged within ten years. These statutes do not create a special romance-fraud offense, but together they form the main legal architecture used to charge perpetrators.

Federal agencies also provide an enforcement and reporting framework. The FBI’s Internet Crime Complaint Center reported more than 17,000 romance-scam complaints in 2024, with losses of roughly $672 million nationwide. The bureau uses these reports to identify patterns, warn the public, support investigations, and coordinate with other law-enforcement partners.²

The FTC, while not a criminal-prosecution agency, plays an important consumer-protection role by tracking scam trends, publishing public alerts, and scrutinizing the safety practices of online environments where fraud occurs. FTC data also show how closely romance scams intersect with broader digital-fraud ecosystems, especially social-media-based deception and investment-related fraud. Together, these agencies provide a meaningful anti-fraud infrastructure. What remains missing is a standardized, victim-centered response tailored to the realities of romance fraud.

There are, however, emerging best practices. Across victim-service fields, trauma-informed methods emphasize that people who have been deceived and exploited should be approached without ridicule, moral judgment, or simplistic assumptions. In the romance-fraud context, that means recognizing that offenders often rely on sophisticated grooming tactics over weeks, months, or even years.

Victims may comply with requests because they believe they are helping a partner, protecting a loved one, or preserving an emotionally meaningful relationship. A trauma-informed response therefore requires patient interviewing, careful documentation, respect for emotional ambivalence, and awareness that victims may grieve both the loss of money and the perceived loss of the relationship. These principles are increasingly discussed in victim-assistance and law-enforcement circles, but they are not yet embedded in one mandatory national standard.³

Where the Current System Falls Short

Those tools matter. But they still leave many victims without a clear path to protection or recovery.

The first major gap is the absence of a uniform victim-care protocol. A person who reports romance fraud to a local police department may encounter an officer with insight, empathy, and cybercrime awareness—or one who treats the case as an embarrassing personal mistake rather than a serious exploitation offense. That inconsistency can silence victims, discourage reporting, and deepen the very trauma the system should be trying to reduce.

For many victims, one of the most painful parts of the experience is not only the deception itself but the disbelief, shame, and dismissive treatment they encounter afterward. The harm does not necessarily end when the scam is exposed; it can continue as ridicule, institutional indifference, and the difficulty of explaining a deeply personal betrayal to people who do not fully understand it. Without clear national guidance, the quality of response depends too heavily on local attitudes, individual training, and chance.

A second gap is the lack of a standardized investigative workflow. Romance fraud cases often cross jurisdictions, involve foreign actors, unfold across encrypted apps or social platforms, and overlap with identity theft, money laundering, cryptocurrency transfers, or mule-account activity. Victims are routinely told to contact local police, the FBI, their bank, and the platform where the contact occurred, yet there is rarely a clear path through that maze.

In the confusion that follows disclosure, evidence can disappear, account records may not be preserved in time, and opportunities for intervention can close before the victim even understands what steps to take. Someone who has just learned they were manipulated and deceived should not have to navigate a fractured bureaucratic system alone. A national standard should make clear what must happen immediately after disclosure: preserve evidence, request account protections where possible, refer the victim promptly to federal reporting systems, and connect them to informed support.

A third gap is the persistent under-recognition of the psychological injury. Public discussion still too often reduces romance fraud to “sending money to a stranger online,” as if the crime were merely a lapse in judgment. That framing erases the manipulative structure of the abuse. Many victims experience intrusive thoughts, shame, sleep disruption, hypervigilance, isolation, self-blame, depression, and a lasting inability to trust. Some lose housing, savings, or family support. Others are revictimized by recovery scammers or by the same networks that harmed them. In many cases, romance fraud functions as a form of interpersonal exploitation with consequences that reach far beyond financial loss. Yet those consequences are still not consistently recognized in law, policy, or clinical screening. As a result, victims are often left to carry invisible wounds in systems that still measure harm too narrowly.

The U.S. response to romance fraud relies on existing fraud laws and agency reporting systems, but victims still face a fragmented path to protection, recognition, and recovery.

What Standards Should Be Established

If the current framework is incomplete, the next question is what a more humane and effective response should require.

The most urgent reform is a national trauma-informed response standard for romance-fraud victims. Every police department, prosecutor’s office, victim-advocacy program, and intake point should treat romance fraud as a serious exploitation offense—not as a credibility problem or a source of ridicule. The standard should prohibit victim-blaming language, require basic training in grooming and coercive dynamics, and teach responders how offenders build dependency, urgency, secrecy, and emotional control.

Interview protocols should be designed not only to improve evidence gathering but also to reduce shame and support accurate disclosure. Victims should be asked about communications, aliases, payment methods, manipulation tactics, fabricated crises, sexual extortion, and repeat contact in ways that recognize how difficult disclosure can be. The first institutional response should support recovery rather than intensify the harm.

Second, the United States needs a standardized investigative pathway. Every victim should receive the same core instructions at the first point of disclosure: preserve all messages and images, stop contact with the suspected offender, notify financial institutions immediately, document transfers and account information, report to federal and local authorities, and assess whether identity theft or account compromise has occurred.

Agencies should use a common checklist so that crucial steps are not missed. Financial institutions should also have a clearer romance-fraud response protocol, including rapid review of suspicious transfers, referral to fraud specialists, and education about secondary scams. Because time is critical, the standard should identify response windows for freezing transfers, escalating suspicious cryptocurrency activity, and preserving platform evidence.

Third, there should be a uniform classification and data standard. At present, romance fraud is often embedded in broader categories such as confidence fraud, cyber-enabled fraud, social-media scams, or investment scams. Better classification would improve prevention, budgeting, and treatment access.

National standards should distinguish at least among pure romance scams, relationship-investment frauds, sextortion-linked romance fraud, and romance fraud involving identity theft or money-mule recruitment. Agencies should collect consistent data on victim demographics, channels of contact, duration of grooming, payment methods, repeated victimization, and non-financial harms. Without better classification, the government cannot fully understand either the scale of victimization or the most effective interventions.

Fourth, victim support should be standardized beyond the moment of reporting. Too often, victims receive little more than a case number and a warning to be more careful in the future. A meaningful national model should guarantee referral pathways for trauma counseling, debt and credit repair assistance, digital-safety planning, peer support, and, where needed, elder-abuse or disability-sensitive services.

Many victims need help rebuilding far more than a bank balance. They may need support restoring routines, relationships, confidence, and a sense of safety in their own judgment. Family education should also be part of the response, since loved ones who react with anger or disbelief can unintentionally intensify the trauma. Victims deserve systems that do not simply document loss, but help restore stability and dignity.

What Clarifications Are Needed

Standards matter. But so does the language used to describe the harm and the responsibilities that follow from it.

One needed clarification is conceptual: romance fraud should be framed not only as deception for profit but as a form of relational abuse and coercive exploitation. This does not mean every case fits neatly into domestic-violence law, nor does it automatically require a new criminal category. It does mean that training, guidance documents, and victim services should plainly recognize the interpersonal control dynamics involved.

That clarification matters because it helps explain why intelligent, careful, highly functional people can be manipulated over time, and why the harm is not erased simply because money was transferred “voluntarily.” When intimacy is fabricated and trust is engineered for extraction, the victim has not merely made a bad decision; the victim has been deliberately targeted through deception and control.

Another needed clarification concerns terminology and responsibility. Agencies should clearly distinguish between consent obtained through deception and genuine informed consent. Too often, discussions of romance fraud imply that because the victim sent the money, the harm is somehow self-inflicted. That is not only analytically weak; it is morally damaging. Fraud law already recognizes that induced transfers can still be criminal. Victim-care policy should be equally clear that emotional manipulation, fabricated emergencies, false identities, promises of exclusivity, and sustained grooming undermine the idea that the victim simply made a free and informed choice. This clarification matters because it shapes whether victims are believed, whether banks act quickly, whether families offer compassion, and whether clinicians understand the depth of the betrayal trauma involved.

There also needs to be clearer guidance on victim pathways after first disclosure. Many victims do not know whether they should contact local police, the FBI, the FTC, the dating platform, a bank fraud team, adult protective services, or a therapist first. A true national standard would establish a clearer front door with coordinated referrals. Restitution and recovery expectations should also be clarified. Most victims should be told honestly that full recovery is often difficult, especially when funds move quickly across borders, but that immediate reporting may improve the chances of intervention. Candor matters, but so does support: people need realistic information without being told that nothing can be done.

A stronger response to romance fraud would not end with reporting alone. It would also include trauma-informed support, practical guidance, and a clearer path to recovery.

Should the Harm Be Reflected in the DSM?

Any serious discussion of recognition eventually leads to a harder question: whether the psychological impact of romance fraud should be reflected more explicitly in diagnostic practice.

The question of including romance-fraud-related harm in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders is important, but it must be approached carefully. At present, the DSM-5-TR includes trauma- and stressor-related disorders such as PTSD, acute stress disorder, adjustment disorders, and prolonged grief disorder. PTSD criteria, however, are tied to exposure to actual or threatened death, serious injury, or sexual violence.⁴

Many romance-fraud victims suffer profound psychological injury, but not every case will satisfy those threshold criteria. Some may instead present with adjustment disorder, depressive symptoms, anxiety, shame-related symptoms, dissociation, complicated grief-like reactions, or features that overlap with betrayal trauma. The existing DSM framework can therefore capture some harms indirectly, but it does not specifically recognize romance-fraud victimization as its own condition or specifier.

If advocates want stronger DSM recognition, the most realistic path is not simply to argue that romance fraud is painful, but to build a rigorous evidentiary record. The American Psychiatric Association’s proposal process requires structured evidence for additions, changes, and clarifications, including data on validity, reliability, clinical utility, and possible harms. In practice, that means researchers would need to show that romance-fraud victims display a sufficiently distinctive and clinically significant pattern of symptoms, that clinicians can identify the pattern consistently, that the proposed category or specifier improves treatment planning or case identification, and that it does not medicalize normal distress or create confusion with existing diagnoses. That is a high bar, but not an impossible one.⁵

A useful interim step may be to pursue clarifications in clinical guidance before seeking a brand-new diagnosis. Clinicians and researchers, for example, could develop consensus statements, screening tools, and training materials that help providers recognize romance-fraud victimization as a potential precipitating stressor with severe emotional and functional consequences.

Another possibility is proposing DSM text clarifications or placement in “other conditions that may be a focus of clinical attention,” if the evidence supports that route more readily than a standalone disorder. What should be avoided is an overly broad or premature diagnostic label that pathologizes all victims. The goal should be recognition of serious, recurrent, and treatable harm—not the creation of a category that confuses trauma, grief, fraud loss, and ordinary heartbreak.

A Practical National Roadmap

Taken together, these gaps and reforms point toward a practical agenda, not just a theoretical debate.

A serious national response to romance fraud would combine enforcement, victim care, and research. At minimum, the United States should adopt five reforms: a national trauma-informed response standard for all first responders and intake personnel; a standardized investigative and evidence-preservation workflow; a consistent classification and data-reporting model; guaranteed referral pathways for counseling, financial recovery support, and digital-safety assistance; and a research agenda focused on psychological outcomes, repeated victimization, and diagnostic recognition.

None of these reforms requires reinventing the legal system from scratch. Much of the machinery already exists. What is missing is integration, consistency, and the clarity to recognize that romance fraud is not merely about money lost. It is also about trust exploited for gain, and about victims trying to recover within systems that still respond unevenly to the full scope of the harm.

In the end, the central policy question is simple: will victims of romance fraud be treated as people who made poor decisions, or as people deliberately targeted through calculated emotional exploitation? The law already answers part of that question by criminalizing the conduct. National standards should answer the rest by ensuring that victims are met with dignity, clarity, evidence-based support, and institutions that understand what they have endured.

A country that sees romance fraud only as financial loss has misunderstood the crime. It is also a form of abuse through deception, in which intimacy and trust are used to facilitate extraction and control. Until law, mental-health systems, and victim-service structures respond more fully to that reality, victims will continue to face not only the consequences of the fraud itself, but also the cost of an uneven institutional response.

Notes

1. 18 U.S.C. §§ 1028, 1028A, 1341, 1343, 3293 (2018).

2. Federal Bureau of Investigation, Internet Crime Complaint Center, 2024 Internet Crime Report (Washington, DC: Federal Bureau of Investigation, 2025); Federal Trade Commission, “What To Know About Romance Scams,” Consumer Advice, August 22, 2022, accessed June 5, 2026, https://consumer.ftc.gov/articles/what-know-about-romance-scams; Federal Trade Commission, “New FTC Data Show People Have Lost Billions to Social Media Scams,” news release, April 27, 2026, https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2026/04/new-ftc-data-show-people-have-lost-billions-social-media-scams.

3. Office for Victims of Crime, Achieving Excellence: Model Standards for Serving Victims and Survivors of Crime (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, August 2016), accessed June 5, 2026, https://ovc.ojp.gov/library/publications/achieving-excellence-model-standards-serving-victims-and-survivors-crime; Hannah Feeney, Jim Markey, Crystal Daye, Amy Durall, Jesenia Alonso, and Laura Wilt, Victim-Centered, Trauma-Informed Practices: An Overview (Washington, DC: Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, 2025), accessed June 5, 2026, https://portal.cops.usdoj.gov/resourcecenter/content.ashx/cops-r1184-pub.pdf; Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, “Trauma-Informed Approaches and Programs,” February 8, 2026, accessed June 5, 2026, https://www.samhsa.gov/mental-health/trauma-violence/trauma-informed-approaches-programs.

4. American Psychiatric Association, Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th ed., text rev. (Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association Publishing, 2022).

5. American Psychiatric Association, “Submit Proposals for Making Changes to DSM-5-TR,” accessed June 5, 2026, https://www.psychiatry.org/psychiatrists/practice/dsm/submit-proposals.

Bibliography

American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. 5th ed., text rev. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association Publishing, 2022.

American Psychiatric Association. “Submit Proposals for Making Changes to DSM-5-TR.” Accessed June 5, 2026. https://www.psychiatry.org/psychiatrists/practice/dsm/submit-proposals.

Federal Bureau of Investigation, Internet Crime Complaint Center. 2024 Internet Crime Report. Washington, DC: Federal Bureau of Investigation, 2025.

Federal Trade Commission. “New FTC Data Show People Have Lost Billions to Social Media Scams.” Press release, April 27, 2026. https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2026/04/new-ftc-data-show-people-have-lost-billions-social-media-scams.

Federal Trade Commission. “What To Know About Romance Scams.” Consumer Advice, August 22, 2022. Accessed June 5, 2026. https://consumer.ftc.gov/articles/what-know-about-romance-scams.

Feeney, Hannah, Jim Markey, Crystal Daye, Amy Durall, Jesenia Alonso, and Laura Wilt. Victim-Centered, Trauma-Informed Practices: An Overview. Washington, DC: Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, 2025. Accessed June 5, 2026. https://portal.cops.usdoj.gov/resourcecenter/content.ashx/cops-r1184-pub.pdf.

Office for Victims of Crime. Achieving Excellence: Model Standards for Serving Victims and Survivors of Crime. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, August 2016. Accessed June 5, 2026. https://ovc.ojp.gov/library/publications/achieving-excellence-model-standards-serving-victims-and-survivors-crime.

Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. “Trauma-Informed Approaches and Programs.” February 8, 2026. Accessed June 5, 2026. https://www.samhsa.gov/mental-health/trauma-violence/trauma-informed-approaches-programs.

United States Code. 2018. Vol. 18, secs. 1028, 1028A, 1341, 1343, and 3293.