Romance and dependency

Romance fraud is better understood as a developing process than as one deceptive message. The U.S. Consumer Sentinel Network received nearly 70,000 romance-scam reports in 2022, including 1.3 billion U.S. dollars in reported losses and a median reported loss of 4,400 dollars. These totals included reports submitted through the FBI IC3 system.¹

Reported contact patterns show how the process can unfold. Among 2022 U.S. Consumer Sentinel romance-scam loss reports identifying a contact method, 40 percent began on social media and 19 percent began on a website or app. About 40 percent of the detailed loss reports with narratives of at least 2,000 characters mentioned WhatsApp, Google Chat or Telegram, documenting movement into private messaging.¹

The relationship then supplied a setting for new claims. In a keyword analysis of 8,070 detailed 2022 U.S. loss reports, 24 percent mentioned claims that the person or someone close was sick, hurt or jailed. Investment help, distant military service and an important delivery each appeared in 18 percent. Discussion of marriage despite never meeting appeared in 12 percent.¹ Among reports identifying a payment method, cryptocurrency and bank transfers together accounted for more than 60 percent of reported losses.¹

For someone assessing a request, a long conversation, a private channel, a crisis story and talk of commitment are not separate identity checks. They can all come from the same relationship narrative. Complaint records also do not identify whether AI generated any messages or images. The established structure matters even when the production method is unknown.

Boundary. Moving to private chat, discussing commitment or needing help can also occur in genuine relationships. These features are reasons to verify identity and payment claims independently, not proof of fraud. Studies of matchmaking users and self-selected victims found some associations with romantic beliefs and distress, but they were unsuitable for practical victim profiling. Loneliness was not significantly associated with victim status or money lost.² The evidence does not establish that emotional dependency itself causes payment.