Because fraud is so widespread, almost all of us will have our own fraud story. That time you were expecting a parcel and clicked on a link without thinking, or you bought that bargain online from what seemed like a genuine seller, or you answered that telephone call about suspicious activity on your account. Maybe you realised in time. Maybe you didn’t. Maybe you felt foolish once you understood what had happened. Maybe you reported it. Or maybe you felt too ashamed. Perhaps you felt anxious and stressed until it was resolved. Perhaps you were able to put it behind you. Or perhaps that anxiety began to spill over into other parts of your life.
If any of this sounds familiar, you are far from alone. Fraud is now the most common crime in England and Wales. Yet while we no longer describe fraud as a victimless crime, it is still primarily understood and responded to as a financial offence. This means our understanding of its impact on victims remains limited and the health consequences of fraud remain largely absent from public policy and service design.
Published today, Invisible Harms: Understanding the Hidden Health Impact of Fraud, funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR), sets out the evidence. In partnership with the University of Portsmouth, we examined the scale and nature of fraud-related health impacts in two county forces, who are among the few to record health impact. We looked at who is most affected, how recovery unfolds, and how well current systems respond.
We found that nearly every victim experiences some impact on their health and wellbeing. For many, this manifests as worry or stress. But a significant minority experience more serious consequences, including sleep disturbance, intrusive thoughts, stress-related illness, exacerbation of pre-existing conditions, thoughts of self-harm, and in some cases suicide.
Nearly one in five victims who responded to our survey reported that fraud had significantly affected their daily life, and a quarter reported moderate impact. For some, symptoms resolved quickly, while others endured symptoms for months or even years.
Victims often experienced clusters of symptoms. Common emotional responses: worry, stress, anger and anxiety, frequently appeared together. More severe patterns included isolation, hopelessness, nightmares and thoughts of self-harm. These variations matter. They demonstrate that fraud-related harm is not uniform and that recovery needs differ substantially.
Our in-depth interviews with 16 victims, aged from their early 20s to late 70s, reinforced this. Financial losses ranged from a few pounds to £350,000. Some frauds lasted minutes; others unfolded over months. Some victims had pre-existing health conditions that were exacerbated by the stress, while others had gone through the strain of a divorce or bereavement.
What united them was not inherent vulnerability. They were intelligent, capable individuals who, because of specific life circumstances and carefully designed criminal tactics, became vulnerable in that moment.
We found fraud methods themselves shape health outcomes. Those most severely affected were often victims of relationship and trust fraud, such as romance scams. Some were groomed online by individuals or organised groups over weeks or months, gradually building emotional dependence until transferring money felt natural and justified. Others met fraudsters through friends or at the gym, believing they were in genuine romantic or business relationships until, as one victim described it, they “woke up from the spell.” For one romance fraud victim the process of realisation was a double blow – she had lost £350,000 but also the man she thought she loved and was left “mourning at a level that cannot be described… [feeling] mentally, and physically horrendous for a year after”. Another relationship fraud victim, who lost his home and his business, attributed his cancer diagnosis to the fraud.
We also spoke to 17 practitioners drawn from the police, victim support and other local support services who work directly with vulnerable fraud victims, and five national experts. These interviews put the individual experiences of victims into a wider context. Practitioners and experts explained that much of the harm victims experience remains unrecognised. Societal narratives of “falling for” fraud reinforce victim blame. Victims internalise this language, which affects their willingness to report and to seek help. As one technical support fraud victim put it: “Do you understand? I was complicit … you know, when they said, ‘do this,’ I did it. I’m. I was so obedient. That’s what I hate. I’m really, I’m ashamed.”
At the same time, public institutions are not systematically designed to assess or respond to health impacts. One in five victims in our survey said they wanted support to help them recover. For some, this meant assistance recovering funds. For others, it meant emotional or psychological support. But practitioners we interviewed believe the true level of need is likely higher, as many victims do not recognise that they have been victimised. Or else, as was the case of an investment fraud victim we interviewed, they suffer in silence. He reported the first fraud he suffered, but not the constant calls he received from fraudsters who took thousands of pounds more off him while promising him to give him his money back because the police had better things to do than go after ‘someone who had diddled me out of a few pennies’.
We also identified significant structural gaps. Intensive support is typically reserved for those formally classified as “vulnerable.” However, current vulnerability frameworks are inconsistently applied and insufficiently defined. They risk overlooking victims whose health and capacity to cope are significantly affected but who do not meet narrow criteria.
Practitioners described limited onward referral pathways into health and welfare services, which are often operating at capacity and may lack expertise in fraud-related harm. In some cases, police-based victim support workers reported managing highly complex cases because there was nowhere else to refer victims.
Where effective support systems were in place, outcomes were markedly better. Skilled practitioners helped victims navigate reporting systems, challenged financial institutions where necessary, reassured victims that they were not at fault, and connected them with peer support. One romance fraud victim, who had lived with her fraudster, said the “strength of the people around her” had helped, though it hadn’t completely taken the impact away.
These examples demonstrate that recovery can be supported – but provision is inconsistent and not embedded at scale.
The policy implications are clear. Fraud must be recognised as a crime with measurable health consequences and addressed through a coordinated, cross-government response. Support for victims should be mapped, evaluated and strengthened across policing, health, welfare and the voluntary sector to ensure gaps are identified and access to help remains open. Responsibility for victim care cannot sit with policing alone.
A national, evidence-based vulnerability framework is needed to ensure consistent, transparent and accountable decision-making across forces. Definitions of vulnerability and response protocols – including within the new Report Fraud system – must integrate health impact and recovery, not rely solely on financial loss or pre-existing characteristics. Current support models should be rigorously evaluated through longer-term follow-up with victims to assess their effectiveness in improving health and wellbeing outcomes.
Health and social care services, including GPs, must improve identification of fraud-related harm, recognising that victims may not readily disclose their experiences due to shame or self-blame.
A trauma-informed, victim-focused model of service, co-developed across policing, criminal justice agencies, financial institutions and the voluntary sector, should guide interactions with victims. National coordination of fraud responses must not detract from the quality of local, public-facing victim support.
Finally, public messaging should challenge victim-blaming and recognise fraud as sophisticated criminal exploitation. Further applied research is needed to understand who is most affected, why, and which interventions are most effective.
Our work begins to uncover what has long been hidden: fraud is not only an economic crime. It is a public health issue. Recognising this changes the conversation. It challenges the narrative of blame and brings to light the invisible harms suffered by victims.
The evidence now exists. The policy response must follow.