New guidance urges police to look beyond financial loss when assessing the harm caused by fraud

Police officers should do more to consider the psychological and emotional impact of fraud and look beyond financial loss during investigations, new guidance says.

Assessments of the seriousness of fraud cases should include the effect on wellbeing, health and independence.

The guidance cautions police officers against assuming monetary reimbursement removes the impact of fraud. Although victims may recover their financial losses, this does not necessarily undo the deception, distress, anxiety, shame or loss of trust caused by the crime.

Fraud is substantially under-reported, and Home Office research shows victims experience stress, anxiety and depression.

The research-informed guidance developed by Dr Rasha Kassem, Director of the Fraud Research Group at Aston University, and Professor Umut Turksen, from the University of Exeter and Visiting Scholar in the Fraud Research Group.

“Rethinking Fraud in Policing: Challenging Misconceptions and Strengthening the Police Response” translates their work on police attitudes towards fraud into practical recommendations for police officers, supervisors and leaders in England.

Dr Kassem said: “Fraud may not always leave visible injuries, but its effects can be profound. It can affect mental health, relationships, confidence, independence and trust, sometimes long after any financial loss has been addressed.

“Police officers make difficult decisions every day about harm, risk, vulnerability and where their intervention can make the greatest difference. This guidance is intended to support those decisions by bringing the wider impact of fraud into clearer view.

“We want to encourage officers to look beyond the transaction to the harm, and beyond the victim’s actions to the offender’s manipulation. That can help policing identify vulnerability, investigative opportunities and where intervention could make the greatest difference.”

The guidance recognises the difficult decisions officers make about competing demands and the challenges involved in policing complex and cross-jurisdictional offending with limited resources.

Its purpose is to help officers distinguish these operational realities from perceptions that may unintentionally influence how fraud cases, victims and investigative opportunities are assessed

Understanding the offender’s manipulation

A central recommendation is that officers should examine how offenders make fraudulent approaches appear credible.

Fraudsters can exploit normal human behaviours and responses, including trust, respect for authority, fear, urgency and the desire to help or protect others. Technology can make these approaches increasingly convincing.

The guidance encourages officers to explore what an offender said or did, what made the approach believable and how trust, authority, fear or pressure was exploited. This can help them better identify risks and potential investigative opportunities.

Professor Turksen said: “Fraud thrives on subtle manipulation, not just clever tactics. When officers tune into those human dynamics, they can spot risk earlier, support victims better and uncover opportunities that might otherwise stay hidden.”

Making the first response count

The guidance also emphasises the importance of the initial police response.

It encourages officers to listen without judgement, assess wider harm and vulnerability, explain what will happen next and manage expectations realistically, including where an investigation may not be possible. Officers should also consider whether the offender remains in contact with the victim and whether there is a risk of repeat targeting.

Valuing fraud investigation as skilled police work

The guidance also highlights the skills involved in investigating fraud. This includes tracing money, reconstructing deception, analysing digital evidence, connecting victims and offences, and identifying offenders operating through false identities or wider criminal networks.

The guidance also recommends providing opportunities for officers to develop financial and digital investigative skills and creating career pathways through which expertise in fraud is professionally valued.

It argues organisational priorities should be informed by evidence of harm, risk, vulnerability and emerging threats, rather than reporting volumes or media attention alone.

The guidance leaves officers and leaders with a central principle:

“See the harm. Understand the manipulation. Recognise vulnerability. Respond to the person, not just the fraud.”