Internet Crime Report 2007

8/8/2019 Internet Crime Report 2007

1/28


2/28

i | Table of ConTenTs

C t t1. 2007 Internet Crime Report 1

Executive Summary

Overview

General IC3 Filing Information

Complaint Characteristics

Perpetrator Characteristics

Complainant Characteristics

Complainant - Perpetrator Dynamics

Additional Information About IC3 Referrals Scams of 2007

Results of IC3 Referrals

Conclusion

2. Appendix 18

Appendix 1: Explaination of Complaint Categories

Appendix 2: Best Practices to Prevent Internet Fraud

Appendix 3: Complainant/Perprtrator Statistics, by State

Tables/Charts/Maps

Chart 1 Chart 2 Chart 3 Chart 4 Chart 5 Chart 6 Table 1 Chart 7 Map 1 Table 2

Map 2 Chart 8 Chart 9 Map 3 Table 3 Map 4 Table 4 Table 5 Chart 10 Table 6 Table 7 Table 8 Table 9


3/28

2007 InTerneT CrIme reporT |1

12007 I t t C i r t

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Te 2007 Internet Crime Report is the seventh annual compilation oin ormation on complaints received and re erred by the Internet CrimeComplaint Center (IC3) to law en orcement or regulatory agencies orappropriate investigative action. From January 1, 2007 to December 31,2007, the IC3 website received 206,884 complaint submissions. Tis isa 0.3% decrease when compared to 2006 when 207,492 complaints

were received. Tese lings were composed o raudulent and non-raudulent complaints primarily related to the Internet.

In 2007, IC3 processed more than 219,553 complaints that supportInternet crime investigations by law en orcement and regulatoryagencies nationwide. Tese complaints were composed o manydi erent raud types such as auction raud, non-delivery, and credit/debit card raud, as well as other illegal behavior, such as computerintrusions, spam/unsolicited e-mail, and child pornography. Allo these complaints are accessible to ederal, state, and local lawen orcement to support active investigations, trend analysis, andpublic outreach and awareness e orts.

From the submissions, IC3 re erred 90,008 complaints o crime

to ederal, state, and local law en orcement agencies around thecountry or urther consideration. Te vast majority o casesre erred alleged raud and involved a nancial loss on the part othe complainant. Te total dollar loss rom all re erred cases o

raud was $239.09 million with a median dollar loss o $680.00per complaint. Tis was an increase rom $198.44 million in totalreported losses in 2006. Other signi cant ndings related to ananalysis o re errals include:

Perpetrators were predominantly male (75.8%) and halresided in one o the ollowing states: Cali ornia, Florida,New York, exas, Illinois, Pennsylvania and Georgia. Temajority o reported perpetrators were rom the United

States. However, a signi cant number o perpetratorsalso were located in United Kingdom, Nigeria, Canada,Romania, and Italy.

Among complainants, 57.6% were male, nearly hal werebetween the ages o 30 and 50 and one-third resided inone o the our most populated states: Cali ornia, Florida, exas, and New York. While most were rom the UnitedStates, IC3 received a number o complaints rom Canada,United Kingdom, Australia, India, and Mexico.

Males complainants lost more money than(ratio o $1.67 to every $1.00 lost per emale)be a unction o both online purchasing di ergender and the type o raudulent schemes byindividuals were victimized.

Electronic mail (e-mail) (73.6%) and web pages ( were the two primary mechanisms by which thecontact took place.

Recent high activity scams commonly reportedIC3 in 2007 were those involving pets, checks, sonline dating sites, all o which have proven ecriminal devices in the hands o raudsters.

OVERVIEW Te Internet Crime Complaint Center (IC3), began operatiMay 8, 2000 as the Internet Fraud Complaint Center. In D2003, the Internet Fraud Complaint Center (IFCC) was rthe Internet Crime Complaint Center (IC3) to better re ebroad character o such criminal matters having a cyber

nexus. IC3 established a partnership between the N White Collar Crime Center (NW3C) and the Federal BuInvestigation (FBI) to serve as a vehicle to receive, dere er criminal complaints regarding the rapidly expandingcyber crime. IC3 was intended and continues to emphasithe broader law en orcement community, including ederand local agencies, which employ key participants in thenumber o Cyber Crime ask Forces. Since its inceptionreceived complaints across a wide variety o cyber crimincluding online raud (in its many orms), intellectualrights (IPR) matters, computer intrusions (hacking), ecoespionage (the t o trade secrets), child pornography, intemoney laundering, identity the t, and a growing list ocriminal matters.IC3 gives the victims o cyber crime a convenient andreporting mechanism that alerts authorities o suspectedor civil violations. For law en orcement and regulatoryat the ederal, state, and local level, IC3 provides a cenmechanism or complaints involving Internet relatedSigni cant and supplemental to partnering with law en oand regulatory agencies, it will remain a priority objectiveestablish e ective alliances with industry. Such alliances wIC3 to leverage both intelligence and subject matter expertpivotal in identi ying and cra ting an aggressive, proactiveto combating cyber crime. In 2007, the IC3 saw an


4/28

2 | I t t C i C i t C t

several additional crimes that were exclusively related to the Internetthese included but are not limited to pet scams, check cashing scams,online dating raud, phishing, spoo ng, and spam. Each o thesetypes o complaints has increased in prevalence over the past year.

Overall, the IC3 2007 Internet Crime Report is the seventhannual compilation o in ormation on complaints received andre erred by IC3 to law en orcement or regulatory agencies oraction. Tis report provides an examination o key characteristicso 1) complaints, 2) perpetrators, 3) complainants, 4) interactionbetween perpetrators and complainants, 5) common Internetscams observed throughout the year and 6) success storiesinvolving complaints re erred by IC3. Te results in this report areintended to enhance our general knowledge about the scope andprevalence o Internet crime in the United States. Tis report doesnot represent all victims o Internet crime or raud because it isderived solely rom in ormation provided by the people who leda complaint with IC3.

GENERAL IC3 FILING INFORMATIOInternet crime complaints are primarily submitted to IC3at www.ic3.gov. Complainants without Internet access canin ormation via telephone. A ter a complaint is ledthe in ormation is reviewed, categorized, and re erred

appropriate law en orcement or regulatory agency.From January 1, 2007 to December 31, 2007, there wercomplaints led online with IC3. Tis is a 0.3% decreaseto 2006 when 207,492 complaints were received (see Charnumber o complaints led per month, last year, averag(see Chart 2). Dollar loss o re erred complaints was athigh in 2007, at $239.09 million, as compared to prev(see Chart 3).

Chart 1


5/28

2007 InTerneT CrIme reporT |

Chart 2

Chart 3


6/28

| I t t C i C i t C t

Chart 4

Te number o re erred complaints has increased slightly rom86,279 in 2006 to 90,008 in 2007 (see Chart 4). Te 116,876complaints that were not directly re erred to law en orcement areaccessible to law en orcement, used in trend analysis, and also helpprovide a basis or uture outreach events and educational awarenessprograms. ypically, these complaints do not represent dollar lossbut provide a picture o the types o scams that are emerging viathe Internet. Tese complaints in large part are comprised o raudinvolving reshipping, counter eit checks, phishing, etc.

During 2007, there were 219,553 complaints processed on behalo the complainants. Tis total includes various crime types, suchas auction raud, non-delivery, and credit/debit card raud, othercriminal complaints as well as non- raudulent complaints, such ascomputer intrusions, spam, and child pornography.

Te results contained in this report were based on in ormation that was provided to IC3 through the complaint orms submitted onlineat www.ic3.gov or www.i cc bi.gov by complainants; however, thedata represents a sub-sample comprised o those complaints re erredto law en orcement. While IC3s primary mission is to serve as a vehicle to receive, develop, and re er criminal complaints regardingcyber crime, those complaints involving more traditional methodso contact (e.g., telephone and mail) were also re erred. Usingin ormation provided by the complainants, it is estimated that over90% o all complaints were related to the Internet or online service.Criminal complaints were re erred to law en orcement and/orregulatory agencies based on the residence o the subject(s) and victims(s). In 2007, there were 1 Memorandums o Understanding(MOUs) rom non-NW3C member agencies added to the IC3database system and an additional 12 NW3C member agenciesadded to the database.


7/28


COMPLAINT CHARACTERISTICSDuring 2007, Internet auction raud was by ar the most reportedo ense, comprising 35.7% o re erred crime complaints. Tisrepresents a 20.5% decrease rom the 2006 levels o auction raudreported to IC3. In addition, during 2007, the non-delivery omerchandise and/or payment represented 24.9% o complaints (up31.1% rom 2006). Con dence raud made up an additional 6.7%o complaints (see Chart 5). Credit and debit card raud, check

raud, and computer raud complaints represented 17.6% o allre erred complaints. Other complaint categories such as identitythe t, nancial institutions raud, threats, and Nigerian letter raudcomplaints together represented less than 8.3% o all complaints.

Statistics contained within a complaint category must be viewedas a snapshot which may produce a misleading picture due to theperception o consumers and how they characterize their particular victimization within a broad range o complaint categories. It isimportant to realize IC3 has actively sought support rom many keyInternet E-Commerce stake holders. As part o these e orts, manyo these companies, such as eBay, have provided their customers with links to the IC3 website. As a direct result, an increase inre errals depicted as auction raud has emerged.

Trough its relationships with law en orcement and regulatoryagencies, IC3 continues to re er speci c raud types to the agencies with jurisdiction over the matter. Complaints received by IC3included con dence raud, investment raud, business raud, andother unspeci ed rauds. Identity the t complaints are re erred to theFederal rade Commission (F C) and also are being addressed byother agencies. Nigerian letter raud or 419 scams are re erred to theUnited States Secret Service (USSS) in addition to other agencies.

Compared to 2006, there were slightly higher reporting levcomplaint types, except or auction raud and investment2007. For a more detailed explanation o complaint categby IC3, re er to Appendix I at the end o this report.

A key area o interest regarding Internet raud is t

monetary loss incurred by complainants contacting IC3in ormation is valuable because it provides a oundestimating average Internet raud losses in the general p o present in ormation on average losses, two orms oare o ered: the mean and the median. Te mean representso averaging amiliar to the general public: the total dodivided by the total number o complaints. Because thebe sensitive to a small number o extremely high orlow loss complaints, the median also is provided. Terepresents the 50th percentile, or midpoint, o all loss amouall re erred complaints. Te median is less susceptible tocases, whether the loss is high or low.

O the 90,008 raudulent re errals processed by IC3 du72,226 involved a victim who reported a monetary locomplainants who did not le a loss may have reported tprior to victimization (e.g., received a raudulent business ino er online or in the mail), or may have already recove

rom the incident prior to ling (e.g., zero liability incredit/debit card raud). Other re errals that do not havloss such as child pornography are sent to the NationalMissing and Exploited Children, terrorist tips are sent to PAthreats which are re erred to state and local law en orcem

Te total dollar loss rom all re erred cases o raud$239.09 million. Tat loss was greater than 2006 when

Chart 5


8/28


loss o $198.44 million was reported. O those complaints witha reported monetary loss, the mean dollar loss was $2,529.90and the median was $680.00. Nearly sixteen percent (15.5%) othese complaints involved losses o less than $100.00, and ortyone and a hal percent (41.5%) reported a loss between $100.00and $1,000.00. In other words, over hal o these cases involved a

monetary loss o less than $1,000.00. Nearly a third (30.7%) o thecomplainants reported losses between $1,000.00 and $5,000.00and only 12.2% indicated a loss greater than $5,000.00 (see Chart

Amount Lost by Selected Fraud Type for ind v duals Report ng Monetary Loss

Compla nt Type % of ReportedTotal Loss

Of those whoreported a loss theAverage (med an) $Loss per Compla nt

Investment Fraud 6.1% $3,547.94

Check Fraud 9.9% $3,000.00Nigerian Letter Fraud 6.4% $1,922.99Con dence Fraud 12.6% $1,200.00 Auction Fraud 22.4% $483.95Non-delivery (merchandise andpayment)

17.8% $466.00

Credit/Debit Card Fraud 4.6% $298.00

Chart 6

Table1

6). Te highest dollar loss per incident was reported by InFraud (median loss o $3,547.94). Check raud victimmedian loss o $3,000.00 and Nigerian letter raud (mo $1,922.99) were other high dollar loss categories. Tdollar loss was associated with credit/debit card raud (meo $298.00).


9/28


PERPETRATOR CHARACTERISTICSEqually important to presenting the prevalence and monetaryimpact o Internet raud is providing insight into the demographicso raud perpetrators. In those cases with a reported location, over75% o the perpetrators were male and over hal resided in one o

the ollowing states: Cali ornia, Florida, New York, exas, Illinois,Pennsylvania, and Georgia (see Chart 7 and Map 1). Tese locationsare among the most populous in the country. Controlling orpopulation, District o Columbia, Nevada, Delaware, Florida, New York, and Utah have the highest per capita rate o perpetrators inthe United States. Perpetrators also have been identi ed as residingin United Kingdom, Nigeria, Canada, Romania, and Italy (seeMap 2). Interstate and international boundaries are irrelevant to

Chart 7

Internet criminals. Jurisdictional issues can impede investidue to issues with multiple victims, multiple states/countr varying dollar loss thresholds used or initiating investig

Te vast majority o perpetrators were in contact wcomplainant through either e-mail or via the web.Appendix III at the end o this report or more iabout perpetrator statistics by state). Tese statistics highlianonymous nature o the Internet. Te gender o the per was reported only 42% o the time, and the state o rdomestic perpetrators was reported only 35.1% o the tim


10/28


Top Ten States by Count: Individual Perpetrators

Perpetrators per 100,000 people

Rank State Per 100,000 People1 District o Columbia 99.102 Nevada 65.45

3 Delaware 41.984 Florida 40.735 New York 38.066 Utah 36.407 Washington 31.968 Cali ornia 31.879 Alaska 28.5310 Rhode Island 28.45

Map 1 - op en States (Perpetrators)1. Cali ornia 15.8%2. Florida 10.1%3. New York 9.9%4. exas 7.0%5. Illinois 3.6%

Table 2

6. Pennsylvania 3.5%7. Georgia 3.1%8. Ohio 2.8%9. Washington 2.8%10. New Jersey 2.8%


11/28


Top Ten Countr es By Count: Perpetrators

Map 2 - op en Countries By Count (Perpetrators)1. United States 63.2%2. United Kingdom 15.3%3. Nigeria 5.7%4. Canada 5.6%

5. Romania 1.5%

6. Italy 1.3%7. Spain 0.9%8. South A rica 0.9%9. Russia 0.8%

10. Ghana 0.7%


12/28


COMPLAINANT CHARACTERISTICS Te ollowing graphs o er a detailed description o the individuals who led an Internet raud complaint through IC3. Te averagecomplainant was male, between 40 and 49 years o age, and aresident o one o the our most populated states: Cali ornia,

Florida, exas, and New York (see Chart 8 and 9 and Map 3).Alaska, Colorado, and Washington, while having a relatively smallnumber o complaints (ranked 24th, 16th, and 8th respectively), hadamong the highest per capita rate o complainants in the UnitedStates (see able 3). While most complainants were rom theUnited States, IC3 has also received a number o lings romCanada, the United Kingdom, and Australia (see Map 4).

Chart 8

Chart 9


13/28


Top Ten States By Count: Individual Complainants

Compla nants per 100,000 people

Rank State Per 100,000 People1 Alaska 356.412 Colorado 90.653 Washington 86.764 Maryland 83.395 Nevada 81.906 Oregon 79.417 Arizona 78.588 District o Columbia 78.199 Florida 71.1810 Cali ornia 70.87

Map 3 - op en States (Complainant)1. Cali ornia 14.4%2. Florida 7.2%3. exas 7.2%4. New York 5.7%5. Pennsylvania 3.6%

Table 3 - based on 2007 Census gures

6. Illinois 3.5%7. Ohio 3.1%8. Washington 3.1%9. New Jersey 3.1%10. Virginia 2.9%


14/28


able 4 compares di erences between the dollar loss per incidentand the various complainant demographics. Males reportedgreater dollar losses than emales (ratio o $1.67 to every $1.00).Individuals over 60 years o age reported higher or equal amountso loss than did other age groups.

Amount Lost per Referred Compla nt by SelectedCompla nant Demograph cs Compla nant

Demograph cs

Average (Med an) Loss Per Typ cal Compla nt

Male $765.00Female $552.00

Under 20 $384.9920-29 $610.0030-39 $699.9940-49 $760.0050-59 $750.40

60 and older $760.00

Top Ten Countries (Complainant)

Map 4 - op en Countries (Complainant)1. United States 91.9%2. Canada 2.10%3. United Kingdom 1.1%4. Austrailia 0.60%5. India 0.36%

Table 4

6. Mexico 0.18%7. South A rica 0.16%8. Germany 0.14%9. France 0.14%10. Philippines 0.11%


15/28


COMPLAINANT-PERPETRATOR DYNAMICSOne o the components o raud committed via the Internet thatmakes investigation and prosecution difcult is that the o enderand victim may be located anywhere in the world. Tis is a uniquecharacteristic not ound with other types o traditional crime.

Tis jurisdictional issue o ten requires the cooperation o multipleagencies to resolve a given case. able 5 highlights this trulyborderless phenomenon. Even in Cali ornia, where most o thereported raud cases originated, only 18.3% o all cases involvedboth a complainant and perpetrator residing in the same state.Other states have an even smaller percentage o complainant-perpetrator proximity in residence. Tese patterns not onlyindicate hot spots o perpetrators (Cali ornia or example) thattarget potential victims rom around the world, but also indicatethat complainants and perpetrators may not have had a relationshipprior to the incident.

Another actor that impedes the investigation and prosecInternet crime is the anonymity a orded by the Internet.complainants in these cases may report multiple contact

ew reported interacting ace-to- ace with the vast mperpetrators. Contact with complainants predominantly stem

rom e-mail (73.6%) or a webpage (32.7%) commu

Others reportedly had phone contact (18.0%) with the peror corresponded through physical mail (10.1%). Intethrough chat rooms (2.3%) and in-person (1.7%) meeting were reported. Te anonymous nature o an e-mail addr website allows perpetrators to solicit a large number o with a keystroke (see Chart 10).

Perpetrators from Same State as Compla nantState Percent 1 2

1. Cali ornia 18.3 (New York 9.1%) (Florida 8.0%) ( exas 5.7%)2. Florida 13.6 (Cali ornia 13.4%) (New York 8.1%) ( exas 5.7%)3. New York 12.6 (Cali ornia 12.9%) (F lorida 9.1%) ( exas 5.9%)4. Nevada 10.9 (Cali ornia 14.4%) (Florida 9.5%) (New York 9.5%)5. exas 10.9 (Cali ornia 11.7%) (Florida 9.5%) (New York 8.9%)6. Arizona 10.6 (Cali ornia 12.9%) (F lorida 8.8%) (New York 8.4%)7. Illnois 9.2 (Cali ornia 12.9%) (Florida 8.9%) (New York 8.9%)8. New Mexico 8.8 (Cali ornia 11.3%) (Florida 8.3%) (New York 8.0%)9. Washington 8.8 (Cali ornia 13.6%) (New York 9.3%) (Florida 8.8%)10. ennessee 8.7 (Cali ornia 12.2%) (Florida 10.3%) (New York 9.5%)

Table 5 - Other top three locations in parentheses

Chart 10


16/28


ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ABOUT IC3REFERRALSAlthough IC3 is dedicated to speci cally addressing complaintsabout Internet crime, it also receives complaints about othercrimes. Tese include robberies, burglaries, threats, as well as other violent crimes and other violations o law. Te people submittingthese types o complaints are generally directed to make immediatecontact with their local law en orcement agency in order tosecure a timely and e ective response to their particular needs. I warranted, the IC3 personnel may make contact with local lawen orcement authorities on behal o the complainant. IC3 alsoreceives a substantial number o computer-related o enses that arenot raudulent in nature.

For those complaints that are computer-related but not consideredInternet raud, IC3 routinely re ers these to agencies andorganizations that handle those particular violations. For example,i IC3 receives in ormation related to a threat on the Presidento the United States, the complaint in ormation is immediately

orwarded to PACU (FBI tips) who orwards them to the UnitedStates Secret Service. Spam (USSS) complaints and cases o identitythe t are orwarded to the Federal rade Commission (F C) andre erred to other government agencies with jurisdiction. Te F Calso receives all other complaints on a monthly basis as well.

SCAMS OF 2007Among the Internet- acilitated scams commonly reported to theIC3 in 2007 were those involving pets, checks, spam, and onlinedating sites, all o which have proven e ective as criminal devices

in the hands o raudsters. In an e ort to raise public awareness,this section describes the basic characteristics o these scams, whilehighlighting their variations and the ways they o ten overlap.

Pet ScamsPet scams can target either buyers or sellers. In pet scams targetingbuyers, raudsters advertise pets or sale in online (or hard copy)publications and agree to sell to buyers. Buyers, in turn, sendpayment to the raudsters, o ten covering delivery costs as well. Ten, having parted with their money, the buyers wait or theirpets to be delivered; but the pets never arrive.

When pet scams target sellers, the raudster agrees to buy the petand sends the seller a bad check (or some other illicit paymentinstrument) or an amount that exceeds the asking price. Whenasked about the overpayment, the raudster explains that the extramoney is intended or another person who will be receiving andtemporarily caring or the pet. Te raudster then instructs theseller to deposit the check and wire the di erence immediately tothis other person. I the scam is success ul, the seller wires moneyto the raudster, and the raudster makes o with the cash be orethe bank returns the initial payment as invalid, at which point theseller absorbs the nancial loss.

Secret Shopper and FundsTransfer ScamsAnother kind o scam involving the use o bad checksshopper scam. In this scam, victims are led to believe thbeen hired to shop or dine out and to submit evaluationconsumer experiences. A sequence o nancial transactionto the one characterizing seller-targeted pet scams, thenVictims receive bad checks, are instructed to deposit ththen are asked to wire a percentage o the money to a while using the rest o the money to complete their asAs in the seller-targeted pet scams, this scam is succesthe raudster is able to convert the victims wire transbe ore the bank realizes that the initial payment is coun

In order to give the secret shopper scam the appearance oemployment opportunity, many raudsters commit anotherthey misappropriate brand logos and place them on lette-mails containing instructions or new hires, thus violatcopyright law. For instance, the logos o Wal-Mart, FedEMcDonalds, Gap, Pepsi, Kmart, and Money Gram all haveon such letters. Te use o these logos gives the documenappearance and o ten is e ective in deceiving recipients.

Several variations o this overpayment scam havein the past year, including one in which people adverpropertiesparticularly apartments and other kinds o resunits In these scams, the raudster sends the renter anmoney that exceeds the amount o rent due and instructsto wire the di erence to a third party. In a slightly dio this scam, victims are led to believe that they haveby a company to receive payments on the companys bto redistribute unds via wire trans ers to other people with the company (e.g., employees, clients, contact persoHere, the same sequence o nancial transactions is prethe hook is not an overpayment; it is the job descriptionrequires victims to receive and redistribute money.

Adopt on Fraud (Char ty Fraud)Another prevalent scam reported to the IC3 involves thunsolicited e-mails, or spam. Te speci c orm taken by varies, but essentially the scam includes e-mails that appmore compassionate and charitable among us, o ten annin the subject eld, URGEN ASSIS ANCE IS NEEDSuch scams are commonly known as charity rauds.

A charity raud that came to the IC3s attention in 200spam where senders claimed to be representatives o tAssociation or Adoption and Fostering (BAAF), a legitimregistered charity; however, according to the BAAF, the sp were not collecting money on the organizations behal ;out to de raud people. Te content o the spam wasdevoted to explaining the predicament o an orphan or achild and to convince the recipient to le or adoption.then solicited the recipient or money to cover applicatio


17/28


Another version o this scam involves a slightly di erent approach.It casts a much wider net by adding a nancial lure. In this version,the spam contains a poignant account o a child whose only parentis about to die due to some incurable illness. Moreover, the dyingparent is rich and has promised to leave a small ortune to whoeveradopts the child. Here, again, the BAAF is invoked to give the

solicitation an air o legitimacy and the recipient is asked to sendmoney or the adoption papers.

Spam, o course, is the pre erred instrument in a wide variety oother scams. Perhaps oremost among these scams is the phishingexpedition that can lead to identity the t. Phishing re ers to the practiceo eliciting identity in ormation rom victims under alse pretenses.For instance, the intended victim receives an e-mail that purports tocollect personal in ormation on behal o a nancial institution inorder to update personal les. Here, again, the misappropriation oa brand logo o ten is used to give the communication a legitimateappearance. I the phishing is success ul, the victim discloses his orher identity in ormation to the raudster, who, in turn, can sell thisin ormation or assume the persons identity while taking out bankloans or applying or credit cards.

Romance FraudOnline dating and social networking sites also have gured prominentlyin scams reported to the IC3. Fraudsters use these sites as springboards

or meeting people and committing what is commonly known asromance raud. Heres how it works: A ter meeting someone at oneo these sites, the raudster tries to gain a persons trust through alsedisplays o a ection. In most cases, the raudster lives ar away, usuallyin another country. Te raudster expresses an ardent desire to visitthe person, but the raudster cannot a ord to make the trip. Te scam

is success ul when the two agree to meet and the raudster convincesthe victim to send money to cover his travel expenses. Ten, invariably,an un oreseen event (o ten an accident o some sort) prevents the

raudster rom making the trip (or, at least, so goes the raudsterslie). Te raudster lands in the hospital, and now the victims moneyhas to be used to cover medical expenses. Te raudsters brother hasbeen kidnapped, and now the money has to be used to set him ree. Te raudster was mugged on her way to the airport, and now shehas no money at all. In any event, the raudster always needs moremoney; and, i the raudsters success continues, he is able to obtainmore money rom the victim while making more promises to visit. Te raudster, however, always has an excuse or missing the plane,and the rounds o alse promises and excuses continue until the victimloses patience and stops sending money.

Scam Synops s Te scams detailed above are just a sample o scams that were

requently reported to the IC3 in 2007. Although in this report wehave ocused on pets, checks, spam, and online dating sites, we wouldbe remiss to leave the impression that the Internet raudsters toolboxis limited to these devices. Te Internet presents raudsters withmyriad opportunities to multiply the devices at their disposal. Some

raudsters, as we have seen, have even used the reputations o charitableorganizations to exploit the most benevolent o human impulses.

Perhaps the best way to guard against Internet- acilitatedto simply stay in ormed. Keeping in ormed o the latethe Internet may enable Internet users to recognize and rescams instead o losing money in one o them. o lenew scams, we recommend periodically checking the FBI,and lookstoogoodtobetrue.com websites or the latest upda

RESULTS OF IC3 REFERRALSIC3 routinely receives updates on the disposition o reagencies receiving complaints. Tese include documented aand restitution, as well as updates related to ongoing invepending cases, and arrest warrants. However, IC3 can onthis data rom the agencies that voluntarily return enresults, and it has no authority to require agencies toreturn status orms.

IC3 has assisted law en orcement with many succesresolutions. Some o the cases include the ollowing:

Te Colorado Attorney Generals Ofce announced thave reached a $40,000 out-o -court settlement witEnterprises and their company president, Steve Bo Te company, which has been the subject o ma hundred complaints led with the IC3 in the years, operated the Uzed.com website. Te site sconsumers to send their used CDs, DVDs, video gaelectronics to the Broom eld-based business in exchaan advertised payment. Te Colorado Attorney GeOfce received more than 200 complaints rom theBusiness Bureau and the IC3 when the companypay consumers in a timely ashion. Some consumthey had not been paid at all.

Prior to the settlement, Consumer Protection IManager Nancy Bullis, contacted the IC3 and reqa search o the complaint database to identi y victims as possible. Tis search uncovered 127 co who had led against the site with the IC3. Te srequires Uzed and Bonneau to pay back nearly $4more than 400 consumers across the country. Inthe company and Bonneau are barred rom operabusiness in Colorado in which they are responspaying consumers, unless a bond is in place.

wo Houston, X men have been ound guiltyup a bogus Salvation Army website that collectethan $48,000 in the name o Hurricane KatrinBrothers Steven and Bartholomew Stephens sthe site in September 2005, which collected moPayPal, in September 2005, but it had no afliatiothe Salvation Army. According to testimony rAnalyst ony Yurkovich (assigned to IC3), the siteicons associated with the Christian organization inclthe red shield and kettle. Te brothers used otheridentities to set up the PayPal accounts, but had thsent to their bank accounts. Te brothers had a doaccounts, six o which received hurricane relie Te accounts were rozen a ter raud reports wer


18/28


Te brothers were ound guilty on nine counts o conspiracy, wire raud, and aggravated identity the t. Tey ace up totwenty years in prison and nes up to $250,000.

Te New Jersey Attorney General reports that John G.Messina was sentenced to three years in state prison andrestitution o $35,500 or perpetrating an online raudand check kiting scheme. Messina advertised online at vFinance.com, claiming that he could obtain investors andinvestment capital or businesses. He subsequently took$14,900 rom victims while promising to either securemoney rom investors or the client or to release undsthat he had already raised or the client; he never obtainedinvestors or raised money or the victims. Messina also wasordered to pay $20,600 to Bank o America or check kiting wherein he deposited this amount into his mothers Banko America account using raudulent checks, withdrawingthe money be ore the check had time to bounce.

Four de endants have been arraigned in Atlanta, Georgia

on Internet raud charges. Jonathan Rembert, DwayneBarrow, Clarence Shelton, and Andwele Butler, along withthree others, ace ederal wire raud and conspiracy tocommit wire raud charges related to an eBay raud ring. Te charges state that the de endants used eBay auctions tosell custom car tires and rims as well as vehicles. Interestedcustomers negotiated a price with the de endants andpayment was made via wire trans er or Western Union; it isalleged that the merchandise was never sent to the victims.From July 2003 to October 2006, 215 individuals paidthe de endants approximately $539,000 or non-existentmerchandise. Tis case is currently being investigatedby the FBI and is being prosecuted by the United StatesAttorneys Ofce or the Northern District o Georgia.In February o 2007, the United States Attorneys Ofce

or the Southern District o Florida announced thatthree de endants, Steven Michael May, Jr., Christopher William Cook, and Joseph John Vaquera, pled guilty tomail raud charges in a $2 million scheme to de raud retailbusinesses throughout the United States. Te de endantsused alse and raudulent nancial in ormation toestablish business-to-business lines o credit with over 30businesses. Tis credit then was used to obtain assortedhigh-end merchandise (including computer monitors,

at-screen televisions, DVD camcorders, electronic

equipment and cameras). Te merchandise was shippedto various commercial mailboxes or virtual business ofces(set up by the de endants) across the United States. Oncemerchandise was received at the mailbox or virtual ofce,the de endants would have the merchandise re-shipped toa di erent commercial mailbox, virtual ofce, or storage

acility located in Palm Beach County. Te de endantssubsequently sold the high-end merchandise througheBay auctions or a pro t.

errance J. Holmes o Vermillion, Ohio was sent37 months in prison and three years o supervis

or wire raud charges. Holmes owned andGPS Computer Services rom January 2001 to F2002. Te company o ered various laptop and nocomputers or sale via an Internet website or the

and through eBay auctions. Te computers, retaili$1,100 to $1,600 each, were sold or $400 to $70 were accepted rom at least 1,187 customers viaphone, and in-person, with sales totaling approxi$964,560. Te merchandise, however, was not deliveaddition to prison time, Holmes has also been orderrestitution to the victims in the amount o $867,34

National White Collar Crime Center, Te National Public Survey on White Collar Crime, August 2005.1.


19/28


CONCLUSION Te IC3 report has outlined many o the current trends andpatterns in Internet crime. Te data indicates that raud isincreasing; however, reported complaints remained relatively level with 206,884 complaints in 2007, down rom 207,492 complaints

in 2006, 231,493 complaints in 2005, and 207,449 complaintsin 2004. Tis total includes many di erent raud types, non-raudulent complaints, as well as complaints o other types o crime.

Yet, research indicates that only one in seven incidents o raudever make their way to the attention o en orcement or regulatoryagencies.1 Te total dollar loss rom all re erred cases o raud was$239.09 million in 2007 up rom $198.44 million in 2006.

Internet auction raud again was the most reported o enseollowed by non-delivered merchandise/payment and con denceraud. Among those individuals who reported a dollar loss rom

the raud, the highest median dollar losses were ound amonginvestment raud victims ($3,547), check raud victims ($3,000),and Nigerian letter raud victims ($1,922). Male complainantsreported greater losses than emale complainants, which may be a

unction o both online purchasing di erences by gender and thetype o raud. Comparing data rom the 2006 and the 2007 reports,e-mail and web pages were still the two primary mechanisms by which the raudulent contact took place.

Although this report can provide a snapshot o the prevalenceand impact o Internet raud, care must be taken to avoid drawingconclusions about the typical victim or perpetrator o thesetypes o crimes. Anyone who utilizes the Internet is susceptible,and IC3 has received complaints rom both males and emalesranging in age rom ten to one hundred years old. Complainantscan be ound in all ty states, in dozens o countries worldwide,and have been a ected by everything rom work-at-home schemesto identity the t. Although the ability to predict victimization islimited, particularly without the knowledge o other related risk

actors (e.g., the amount o Internet usage or experience), manyorganizations agree that education and awareness are major toolsto protect individuals. Despite the best proactive e orts, someindividuals may nd themselves the victims o computer-relatedcriminal activity even when ollowing the best prevention strategies(see Appendix II).

Over the two years, the IC3 has begun to update/change its methodo gathering data regarding complaints, in recognition o theconstantly changing nature o cybercrime and to more accurately

re ect meaning ul trends. With this in mind, changes to the IC3 website and complaint orm have been implemented, with many othose changes taking e ect as o January, 2006. Along with thesechanges, the IC3 and its partners continue to host a public website,www.lookstoogoodtobetrue.com, which educates consumers with various consumer alerts, tips, and description o raud trends.

In reviewing statistics contained in this report, it is recognized thatconsumers may characterize crime problems with an easier broadcharacter, which may be misleading. For instance, a consumerthat gets lured to an auction site which appears to be eBay maylater nd that they were victimized through a cyber scheme. Tescheme may in act have involved SPAM, unsolicited e-mail

inviting them to a site, and a spoo ed website which othe true legitimate site. Te a orementioned crime problebe characterized as SPAM, phishing, possible identity thecard raud, or auction raud. In such scenarios, many chave depicted schemes such as auction raud even thoughmay be incomplete or misrepresent the scope o the sch

It also is important to note that the IC3 has actively sourom many key Internet E-Commerce stake holders over

several years. With these e orts, companies like eBay have very pro-active posture in teaming with the IC3 to identi y ato cyber crime schemes. As part o these e orts, eBacompanies have provided guidance and/or links or their cuthe IC3 website. Tis activity also has no doubt also contribincrease in re errals regarding schemes depicted as auction

Whether a consumer has become a victim o a bogus io er, a dishonest auction seller, or a host o other Interthe IC3 is in the position to o er assistance. Trough thcomplaint and re erral process, victims o Internet c

provided with an easy way to alert authorities, at many jurisdictional levels, o a suspected criminal or civil viol


20/28

1 | I t t C i C i t C t a i

Explanation of Complaint TermsIC3 Internet Fraud Analysts determined a raud type or eachInternet raud complaint received and sorted complaints into raudand crime categories. Below are the de nitions or the categoriesand terms used within this report:

Financial Institution Fraud - Knowing misrepresentation othe truth or concealment o a material act by a person toinduce a business, organization, or other entity that managesmoney, credit, or capital to per orm a raudulent activity.2Credit/debit card raud is an example that ranks amongthe most commonly reported o enses to IC3. Identitythe t also alls into this category; cases classi ed under thisheading tend to be those where the perpetrator possessesthe complainants true name identi cation (in the orm o asocial security card, drivers license, or birth certi cate), butthere has not been a credit or debit card raud committed.

Gaming Fraud - o risk something o value, especiallymoney, or a chance to win a prize when there is amisrepresentation o the odds or events.3 Sports tamperingand claiming alse bets are two examples o gaming raud.

Communications Fraud - A raudulent act or process in which in ormation is exchanged using di erent orms omedia. Te ts o wireless, satellite, or landline services areexamples o communications raud.

Utility Fraud - When an individual or company misrepresentsor knowingly intends to harm by de rauding a governmentregulated entity that per orms an essential public service,such as the supply o water or electrical services.4

Insurance Fraud - A misrepresentation by the provideror the insured in the indemnity against loss. Insurance

raud includes the padding or in ating o actual claims,misrepresenting acts on an insurance application,submitting claims or injuries or damage that neveroccurred, and staging accidents.5

Government Fraud - A knowing misrepresentation othe truth, or concealment o a material act to induce thegovernment to act to its own detriment. Examples ogovernment raud include tax evasion, wel are raud, andcounter eit currency.

Investment Fraud - Deceptive practices involving the useo capital to create more money, either through income-producing vehicles or through more risk-oriented venturesdesigned to result in capital gains.7 Ponzi/Pyramid schemesand market manipulation are two types o investment raud.

2 a i 1Business Fraud - When a corporation or bknowingly misrepresents the truth or conceals a m

act.8 Examples o business raud include baraud and copyright in ringement.

Con dence Fraud - Te reliance on anothers disand/or a breach in a relationship o trust res

nancial loss. A knowing misrepresentation o tor concealment o a material act to induce anoto his or her detriment.9 Auction raud and non-deo payment or merchandise are both types o c

raud and are the most reported o enses toNigerian letter scam is another o ense classi edcon dence raud.Credit/Debit Card Fraud Any t unauthorizeda credit card with the purpose o obtaining any value with the intent to de raud.

Check Fraud - Te orgery, alteration, counter eitiknowing issuance o a check on an account thatclosed or has insufcient unds to cover the amo which the check was written.

Computer Fraud - In the broadest sense, computis a violation o law involving a computer. Asthe U.S. General Accounting Ofce, Ofce o Sp

Investigations, computers can be used as tools totraditional o enses. Tis means that the unctionsto computers, such as so tware programs andcapabilities, can be manipulated to conduct cactivity. Tis broad category o crime is o tenin terms o two subcategories: true computer ccomputer-related crime. rue computer crime rethose crimes that target the content o computer osystems, programs, or networks.

Identity Te t -Simply put, identity the t is theuse o another persons identi ying in ormatioas a name, birth date, social security and/or cr

number), and it is one o the astest growing crUnited States.

Blacks Law Dictionary, Seventh Ed., 1999.Ibid.Ibid.Fraud Examiners Manual, Tird Ed., Volume 1, 1998.Blacks Law Dictionary, Seventh Ed., 1999. Te Merr iam Webster Dictionary, Home andOfce Ed., 1995.Barrons Dictionary o Finance and Investment erms, Fi th Ed., 1998.Blacks Law Dictionary, Seventh Ed., 1999.Ibid.

2.3.4.5.6.

7.8.9.


21/28

2007 InTerneT CrIme reporT - appendIx 1

Nigerian Letter Fraud Any scam that involves anunsolicited email message, purportedly rom Nigeria oranother A rican nation, in which the sender promises alarge sum o money to the recipient. In return the recipientis asked to pay an advance ee or provide identity, credit cardor bank account in ormation. Subsequently, the recipient

loses all monies they have entrusted to the sender o themessage and they get nothing in return.

2 a i 2Best Practices to Prevent Internet CrimeInternet Auction Fraud Prevention tips:

Understand as much as possible about how Internetauctions work, what your obligations are as a buyer, and what the sellers obligations are be ore you bid.

Find out what actions the website takes i a problem occursand consider insuring the transaction and shipment.

Do not allow the seller or buyer to convince you to ignorethe rules o a legitimate Internet auction website or exitthe auction website to complete a transaction.

Be cautious o second chance o ers especially unsolicitedemail o ers where you are contacted a ter an auction islisted as closed, or the item is listed as sold, with an o erto purchase the listed item allegedly because the originalbuyer backed out o a sale. Many times these second chanceo ers are raudulent.

Learn as much as possible about the seller, especially ithe only in ormation you have is an e-mail address. I itis a business, check the Better Business Bureau where theseller/business is located.

Examine the eedback on the seller and use common sense.I the seller has a history o negative eedback, then do notdeal with that particular seller.

Determine what method o payment the seller is asking orand where he/she is asking to send payment. Use caution when the mailing address is a post ofce box number.Be aware o the di erence in laws governing auctionsbetween the U.S. and other countries. I a problem occurs with the auction transaction that has the seller in onecountry and a buyer in another, it might result in a dubiousoutcome leaving you empty handed.

Be sure to ask the seller about when delivery can be expectedand warranty/exchange in ormation or merchandise that you might want to return.

o avoid unexpected costs, nd out i shipping and deliveryare included in the auction price or are additional.

Avoid giving out your social security number orlicense number to the seller, as the sellers have nothis in ormation.

Finally, practice an attitude o healthy skepticsomething sounds too good to be true, it usually

Steps to take i victimized:File a complaint with the online auction company.to be considered or eBays Fraud Protection you should submit an online Fraud Complaint 9a ter the listing end-date at ( http://crs.ebay.com/aw-cgiebayisapi.dll?crsstartpage).

File a complaint with the Internet Crime ComCenter ( http://www.ic3.gov ).

Contact law en orcement ofcials at the local anlevel (your local and state police departments).

Also contact law en orcement ofcials in the perpe

town and state.File a complaint with the shipper USPS, UPS, Fed-

File a complaint with the National Fraud In oCenter ( http://www. raud.org/in o/contactnfc.htm).

File a complaint with the Better Business Bureau( http://( http://www.bbb.org ).

Non-Delivery of MerchandisePrevention tips:

Make sure you are purchasing merchandise rom asource. As with auction raud, check the reputation o whenever possible, including the Better Business Bur

ry to obtain a physical address rather than mereofce box and a phone number. Also, call the seli the number is correct and working.

Send them e-mail to see i they have an actaddress. Be cautious o sellers who use ree e-m where a credit card was not required to open the

Investigate other websites regarding this person/com

Do not judge a person/company by their ancythoroughly check out the person/company out.

Be cautious when responding to special o ers (esthrough unsolicited e-mail).

Be cautious when dealing with individuals/comrom outside your own country. Remember the

di erent countries might pose issues i a proble with your transaction.

Inquire about returns and warranties on all items.

Te sa est way to purchase items via the Interncredit card because you can o ten dispute the csomething is wrong. Also, consider utilizing an

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.


22/28


or alternate payment service, a ter conducting thoroughresearch on the escrow service. Many times raudsters want victims to pay using wire trans ers because they cancollect and move the victims money be ore the victimlearns o the raud.

Make sure the website is secure when you electronicallysend your credit card numbers.

Credit Card FraudPrevention tips:

Dont give out your credit card number(s) online unlessthe website is both secure and reputable. Sometimes atiny icon o a padlock appears to symbolize a higher levelo security to transmit data. Tis icon is not a guarantee oa secure site, but may provide you some assurance.

Be ore using a site, check out the security so tware it usesto make sure that your in ormation will be protected.

Make sure you are purchasing merchandise rom areputable/legitimate source. Once again investigate theperson or company be ore purchasing any products.

ry to obtain a physical address rather than merely a postofce box and a phone number. Call the seller to see i thenumber is correct and working.

Send them e-mail to see i they have an active e-mailaddress and be wary o sellers who use ree e-mail services where a credit card was not required to open the account.

Do not purchase rom sellers who re use to provide you

with veri able contact in ormation.Check with the Better Business Bureau to see i there havebeen any prior complaints against the seller.

Check out other websites regarding this person/company.

Be cautious when responding to special o ers (especiallythrough unsolicited e-mail).

Be cautious when dealing with individuals/companiesrom outside your own country.

I you are going to purchase an item via the Internet, usea credit card since you can o ten dispute the charges isomething does go wrong.

Make sure the transaction is secure when you electronicallysend your credit card numbers.

You should also keep a list o all your credit cards andaccount in ormation along with the card issuers contactin ormation. I anything looks suspicious or you lose yourcredit card(s), contact the card issuer immediately.

Prevention tips or Businesses:

Do not accept orders unless complete in ormaprovided (including ull address and phone nRequire address veri cation or all o your credit cRequire anyone who uses a di erent shipping addrtheir billing address to send a ax with their sigcredit card number authorizing the transaction.Be especially care ul with orders that come romservices there is a much higher incidence othese services. Many businesses wont even acceptcome through these ree e-mail accounts anymore.e-mail requesting additional in ormation be ore youthe order asking or: a non- ree e-mail address,and phone number o the bank that issued the crethe exact name on credit card, and the exact billing

Be wary o orders that are larger than your tyamount and orders with next day delivery.

Be cautious o buyers who use numerous creditpay or a single order, especially i the order isnature or size. Check all the credit cards to veriall belong to the same person or business.

Pay extra attention to international orders. Validaorder be ore you ship your product to a di erent

I you are suspicious, pick up the phone andcustomer to con rm the order.

Consider using so tware or services to ght crraud online.

I de rauded by a credit card thie , you should cbank and the authorities.

Investment FraudPrevention tips:

Do not invest in anything based upon appearances. Juan individual or company has a ashy website doesnlegitimate. Web sites can be created in just a ew dshort period o taking money, a site can vanish with

Do not invest in anything about which youabsolutely sure. Do your homework on the inveensure that it is legitimate.

Toroughly investigate the individual or companensure that they are legitimate.

Check out other websites regarding this person/com

Be cautious when responding to special investmen(especially through unsolicited e-mail) by asttelemarketers. Know with whom you are dealing w

Inquire about all the terms and conditions dealinthe investors and the investment.

Rule o Tumb: I it sounds too good to be true, it


23/28


Nigerian Letter Scam/419 ScamPrevention tips:

Be skeptical o individuals representing themselves as Nigerianor other oreign government ofcials asking or your help inplacing large sums o money in overseas bank accounts.

Do not believe the promise o large sums o money or your cooperation.

Do not give out any personal identi ying in ormation regarding your savings, checking, credit, or other nancial accounts.

I you are solicited, do not respond and quickly noti y theappropriate authorities.

Business FraudPrevention tips:

Purchase merchandise rom reputable dealers orestablishments.

ry to obtain a physical address rather than merely a postofce box and a phone number, and call the seller to see ithe number is correct and working.

Send them e-mail to see i they have an active e-mail addressand be wary o those that utilize ree e-mail services wherea credit card wasnt required to open the account.

Do not purchase rom sellers who wont provide you withthis type o in ormation.

Purchase merchandise directly rom the individual/

company that holds the trademark, copyright, or patent.Be aware o counter eit and look-alike items.

Beware when responding to e-mail that may not have beensent by a reputable company. Always investigate be orepurchasing any products.

Identity TheftPrevention tips:

Check your credit reports once a year rom all three o thecredit reporting agencies (Experian, ransunion, and Equi ax).

Guard your Social Security number. When possible, dontcarry your Social Security card with you.

Dont put your Social Security Number or drivers licensenumber on your checks.

Guard your personal in ormation. You should never give your Social Security number to anyone unless you can veri y that they are required to collect it.

Care ully destroy papers you discard, especially those withsensitive or identi ying in ormation such as bank accountand credit card statements.

Be suspicious o telephone solicitors. Neverin ormation unless you have initiated the call.

Delete any suspicious e-mail requests without reRemember: I your bank or credit card companyto contact them, they have telephone numbers andin ormation on your statement. You do not havon unsolicited emails to contact them.

Steps to take i victimized:

Contact the raud departments o each o the thcredit bureaus and report that your identity has been

Get a raud alert placed on your le so that n will be granted without your approval.

Contact the security departments o the apprcreditors and/or nancial institutions or any accoumay have been raudulently accessed. Close theseCreate new passwords on any new accounts that y

File a report with your local police and/or the polthe identity the t took place.

Retain a copy o the police report because it mayby the bank, credit card company, or other busievidence that your identity was stolen.

CyberstalkingPrevention tips ( rom W.H.O.A Working to Halt Onlineat www.haltabuse.org ):

Use a gender-neutral user name/e-mail address.

Use a ree e-mail account such as Hotmail (www.hotmail.comor YAHOO! (www.yahoo.com) or newsgroups/mailingchat rooms, Instant messages (IMs), e-mails rom smessage boards, lling out orms, and other online

Dont give your primary e-mail address to anyonenot know or trust.

Instruct children to never give out their real name, agor phone number over the Internet without your per

Dont provide your credit card number or other inas proo o age to access or subscribe to a w which you are not amiliar with.

Monitor/observe newsgroups, mailing lists, androoms be ore speaking or posting messages.

When you do participate online, be care ul what you would say to someones ace.

Dont be so trusting online dont reveal personal th yoursel until you really and truly know the other

Your rst instinct may be to de end yoursel Dis how most online harassment situations begin.

I it looks too good to be true it is.

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.


24/28


2 a i 3Compla nant/Perpetrator Stat st cs, by State

Compla nants by State

Rank State Percent Rank State Percent1 Cali ornia 14.4 27 South Carolina 1.22 Florida 7.2 28 Louisiana 1.13 exas 7.2 29 Connecticut 1.04 New York 5.7 30 Kentucky 1.05 Pennsylvania 3.6 31 Utah 1.06 Illinois 3.5 32 Oklahoma 0.97 Ohio 3.1 33 Kansas 0.88 Washington 3.1 34 Arkansas 0.89 New Jersey 3.1 35 Iowa 0.710 Virginia 2.9 36 New Mexico 0.611 Michigan 2.8 37 Idaho 0.512 Arizona 2.8 38 Mississippi 0.513 Georgia 2.6 39 West Virginia 0.514 Maryland 2.6 40 New Hampshire 0.515 North Carolina 2.6 41 Hawaii 0.516 Colorado 2.5 42 Nebraska 0.417 Indiana 2.0 43 Maine 0.418 Massachusetts 2.0 44 Montana 0.319 Missouri 1.9 45 Rhode Island 0.320 ennessee 1.8 46 District o

Columbia0.3

21 Oregon 1.7 47 Delaware 0.322 Wisconsin 1.6 48 Vermont 0.223 Minnesota 1.6 49 Wyoming 0.224 Alaska 1.4 50 South Dakota 0.225 Alabama 1.2 51 North Dakota 0.126 Nevada 1.2

Table 6 - Represents Percentage o total individual complainants within the United States where s tate is known

(Please note that percentages contained in the table above may not add up to 100%. Te table above only represents statistics rom50 states and the District o Columbia. Te table above does not represent statistics rom other U.S. territories or Canada.)


25/28


Compla nant/Perpetrator Stat st cs, by State (Cont nued)Perpetrators by State

Rank State Percent Rank State Percent1 Cali ornia 15.8 27 Connecticut 1.02 Florida 10.1 28 Kentucky 1.03 New York 9.9 29 South Carolina 0.94 exas 7.0 30 Oklahoma 0.85 Illinois 3.6 31 District o

Columbia0.8

6 Pennsylvania 3.5 32 Louisiana 0.77 Georgia 3.1 33 Kansas 0.78 Ohio 2.8 34 Maine 0.59 Washington 2.8 35 Iowa 0.510 New Jersey 2.8 36 Nebraska 0.511 Michigan 2.5 37 Arkansas 0.512 Arizona 2.4 38 Delaware 0.513 Nevada 2.3 39 New Hampshire 0.414 North Carolina 2.0 40 Rhode Island 0.415 Virginia 1.9 41 New Mexico 0.416 Indiana 1.7 42 Mississippi 0.417 Colorado 1.7 43 Idaho 0.318 Maryland 1.7 44 West Virginia 0.319 Massachusetts 1.6 45 Montana 0.320 Missouri 1.5 46 Hawaii 0.321 ennessee 1.4 47 Alaska 0.322 Utah 1.3 48 Wyoming 0.223 Wisconsin 1.2 49 Vermont 0.224 Minnesota 1.2 50 South Dakota 0.225 Alabama 1.2 51 North Dakota 0.126 Oregon 1.1

Table 7 - Represents percentage o total individual perpetrators within the United States (where state is known)

(Please note that percentages contained in the table above may not add up to 100%. Te table above only represents statistics rom50 states and the District o Columbia. Te table above does not represent statistics rom other U.S. territories or Canada.)


26/28


Compla nant/Perpetrator Stat st cs, by State (Cont nued)Compla nants per 100,000 people

Rank State Per 1,000 Rank State Per 1,0001 Alaska 356.41 27 Connecticut 53.482 Colorado 90.65 28 Minnesota 53.353 Washington 86.76 29 New York 52.744 Maryland 83.39 30 Pennsylvania 52.235 Nevada 81.90 31 ennessee 51.116 Oregon 79.41 32 Kansas 51.087 Arizona 78.58 33 North Carolina 51.048 District o

Columbia78.19 34 Delaware 50.88

9 Florida 71.18 35 Rhode Island 50.5810 Cali ornia 70.87 36 West Virginia 50.3911 Virginia 68.33 37 Wisconsin 49.8112 Utah 66.46 38 Michigan 49.7113 New Hampshire 65.66 39 Georgia 49.3614 Wyoming 65.03 40 Illinois 48.3515 New Jersey 63.94 41 Arkansas 47.7616 Idaho 63.23 42 South Carolina 47.55

17 Hawaii 63.11 43 Alabama 46.5018 Ohio 62.24 44 Louisiana 45.9119 Montana 59.51 45 Nebraska 44.0120 Vermont 58.02 46 Oklahoma 43.0421 Missouri 57.60 47 Kentucky 42.8622 Maine 56.10 48 Iowa 42.7623 Indiana 55.33 49 South Dakota 37.3024 Massachusetts 54.25 50 North Dakota 35.1725 exas 54.04 51 Mississippi 32.1026 New Mexico 53.56



27/28


Compla nant/Perpetrator Stat st cs, by State (Cont nued)Perpetrators per 100,000 people

Rank State Per 1,000 Rank State Per 1,0001 District o

Columbia99.10 27 Massachusetts 19.66

2 Nevada 65.45 28 Missouri 19.243 Delaware 41.98 29 Indiana 19.054 Florida 40.73 30 Alabama 18.995 New York 38.06 31 Hawaii 18.866 Utah 36.40 32 Virginia 18.45

7 Washington 31.96 33 Kansas 18.198 Cali ornia 31.87 34 Michigan 18.129 Alaska 28.53 35 Ohio 18.0910 Rhode Island 28.45 36 ennessee 17.2511 Arizona 27.99 37 Kentucky 17.2312 Maine 27.63 38 Minnesota 16.9513 Colorado 25.84 39 North Carolina 16.5414 Montana 25.16 40 South Carolina 15.7915 Georgia 24.25 41 Oklahoma 15.7916 New Jersey 23.44 42 Idaho 15.67

17 Vermont 22.86 43 Wisconsin 15.3718 Maryland 21.64 44 North Dakota 15.1619 exas 21.53 45 New Mexico 14.6720 Oregon 21.43 46 South Dakota 13.5621 Pennsylvania 20.94 47 Arkansas 11.9222 New Hampshire 20.90 48 West Virginia 11.9223 Wyoming 20.85 49 Louisiana 11.6724 Illinois 20.70 50 Iowa 11.5825 Connecticut 20.39 51 Mississippi 8.7726 Nebraska 20.17


Electronic Law En orcement: Introduction to Investigations in an Electronic Environment. (2001). Washington, DC: U.S. General Accounting Ofce, Ofce o Special Investigations.

1.


28/28

Internet Crime Report 2007

Documents