Spam

[Roland Perry]

In message <FMEFLOMOCGIMKOKKKLFIGEPNCFAA.oml@sysrx.uk.com>, Owen Lewis
<oml@sysrx.uk.com> writes
>> Several that I'm aware of in recent times - although they are cases
>> where people have lost money, not the initial spamming exercise.
>
>Well, I expect that can be read as 'more than one'.

Many more than one case where someone has lost money and it has
developed into a case that was prosecuted by the police.

> You attest to knowledge
>of more than 365 of these scams a year.

There was a certain irony in my earlier emails that perhaps escaped you.
*II get at least one west-african scam email a day. People in the UK
probably get hundreds of thousands a day.

>I believe that the Met's average
>detection rate is about 8%. In the case of NSs, what, to your understanding,
>is the number of prosecutions a year? I admit to knowing of none but that is
>not necessarily a fair indicator.

No prosecutions for sending the emails, but a measurable number for the
actual fraud.

>Interesting though. A key feature of these - and some other scams - is that,
>through greed, the 'mark' consents to make one or more criminal acts
>(conspiracy being perhaps but the first of these). In general, this produces
>several effects when the scam has been successful:
>
>       1. It makes the mark reluctant to complain of his loss.
>
>       2. It might make difficult the prosecution of the scammer without
>prosecuting also the mark who conspired with him and now bleats like the
>fleeced lamb he is.
>
>       3. Even where recovery of lost funds was possible, it makes their return to
>the mark unlikely.

It's still possible for the police to estimate the number of cases
reported to them, versus the number that go unreported.

>> I understand that new cases arise rather more frequently than you'd
>> expect, but for various good reasons the officers are publicity-shy.
>
>I do not follow you. Investigating officers details are but rarely
>publicised as a result of a prosecution of any sort. What do you suppose is
>so particularly sensitive in regard to NSs? I do admit to being amused at
>the thought of reporting restrictions being imposed whenever a one of these
>con artists is brought to justice :-)

It is, as you very correctly say a confidence trick. The more that the
tricksters know about the countermeasures and investigations, the more
they can both evade them, and even turn them to their advantage.
-- 
             Roland Perry | tel: +44 20 7645 3505 | roland@linx.org
Director of Public Policy | fax: +44 20 7645 3529 | http://www.linx.net
 London Internet Exchange | mbl: +44 7909 68 0005 |       /contact/roland