A Better Response for Fraud Victims

Fraud is the most widespread crime type in England and Wales. Making up 45% of all crime, fraud affects millions of individuals and businesses each year. An estimated 4.4 million fraud incidents occurred in the year ending December 2025, while around 1 in 14 adults experienced fraud in the year ending September 2025. For those affected, the consequences are both immediate and longer term, extending beyond financial loss to include psychological and socioeconomic harm, isolation and financial insecurity. Previous research shows that around 92% of fraud victims reported an emotional or mental health symptom.

However, many of these experiences are left outside the formal response to fraud because reporting remains limited. ONS data underlines that only one in eight fraud offences were reported to the police or Action Fraud. This means that the number of people who may need support is likely to be larger than those who reported their victimisation. Yet, the victim experience for much of 2010s has not been treated as a central measure of success in the UK's response to fraud. Public and policy debates have tended to focus on reducing volumes, disrupting criminal networks and reimbursement schemes.

The government's latest Fraud Strategy published earlier this year, however, signals a recognition of this challenge and sets out an ambition to 'match [fraudsters'] innovation … to protect our people and defend our economy'. It also establishes a system-wide approach structured around three pillars: 'disrupt', 'safeguard' and 'respond'.

The 'respond' pillar recognises that an effective fraud response must extend beyond reporting and investigation to address victims' experiences and longer-term support needs. Under this pillar, the government announced the launch of Report Fraud1 a new national reporting service (replacing Action Fraud) led by the City of London Police. The government also announced its commitment to introducing a Fraud Victims Charter, due in 2027. This Charter commits to 'set[ting] national standards for the level of service every victim should receive'.

With the fraud victim agenda firmly on the policy table, the Centre for Finance and Security at RUSI and the City of London Police jointly hosted a roundtable with key partners across the fraud ecosystem to examine the current gaps in victim care and support, explore how coordination and system response could be improved, and inform the development of the Fraud Victims Charter.

This paper summarises the main findings from the roundtable. It first sets out the background and current context of victim care in the UK, before turning to gaps at systemic, institutional and individual level. Lastly, the paper offers recommendations to be highlighted in the upcoming Victims Charter.

None of the discussions at the meeting are attributable to any specific individual or organisation. Unless otherwise indicated, statements in this paper reflect points raised during the discussions.

Background on Victim Care in the UK

For many years, Action Fraud served as the national reporting centre for fraud and cybercrime. However, reviews of the previous system identified persistent shortcomings in the victim experience which needed to be addressed, such as low reporting confidence, poor service and limited follow-up with victims.

The UK's approach to fraud victim care has therefore been undergoing notable change. Following substantial investment from the Home Office and the City of London Corporation, Report Fraud was publicly launched in January 2026, replacing Action Fraud as the national reporting service for fraud and cybercrime in the UK. Hosted, led and run by the City of London Police (who serve as National Lead Force for Fraud), Report Fraud provides an end-to-end process for reporting, investigation and intelligence assessment to local forces, the National Crime Agency and third-sector victim support services. With improved speed and quality of outputs, automation and AI functionality, the service provides an enhanced experience for users as well as victims.

Report Fraud Victim Services (RFVS) provides specialist victim support, tailored to support the victim's recovery and reduce the risk of repeat victimisation. RFVS offers three levels of support: 'calls for service', where local forces are alerted to provide an emergency response to people in crisis; dedicated victim care provided by assigned Victim Care Advocates within RFVS; and signposting victims to appropriate resources and support while aligning with the Code of Practice for Victims of Crime in England and Wales (Victims' Code), which sets minimum standards for service providers supporting victims of crime.

Beyond central policing structures, theUK's fraud victim support landscape involves a much wider array of public, private and third sector actors, including local neighbourhood policing, financial institutions' customer support teams, independent charities and advice services in the not-for-profit sector. This breadth gives victims multiple possible routes to receive help, but it also means that responsibility for victim care has no clear lead and is shared or passed between organisations. The roundtable considered where the current response is falling short for fraud victims and what changes would be needed to provide more consistent and effective care.

Current Gaps in Fraud Victim Support

The roundtable identified a mismatch between the scale and complexity of fraud-related harm and the support currently available to people affected by it. Although important progress has been made in improving reimbursement and developing national reporting arrangements, participants considered that the wider victim-care system remains fragmented. Despite recent improvements under Report Fraud, the support offered is focused on the acute-level response rather than the longer-term victim recovery journey. Three broad sets of gaps emerged from the discussion: gaps at the system level, institutional level and individual victim-care level.

System-Level Strains

There has been a 50% increase in fraud reporting in 2025/26 compared to a year earlier. Given the steady increase in fraud, an increase in the demand for victim support services has naturally followed, putting pressure on the wider fraud response system. Participants emphasised two challenges: ensuring that the response system has the capacity to keep pace with rising demand and ensuring that prevention measures reach people before they are victimised.

Capacity and Prioritisation

Since the launch of Report Fraud, monthly cyber reporting has increased by 34% and fraud reporting by 50%. Participants noted that, though greater reporting is a positive development, increased demand does not always match the capacity and resources available to maintain public confidence in the service. It was also highlighted that police struggle to prioritise fraud due to competing demands. Competition with other threats, which often gain greater media coverage and political attention, reduces the strategic attention and funding required to combat the scale and impact of fraud.

Limits of 'Protect' Messaging

Participants pointed to limitations in the extent to which existing so-called 'Protect' advice2 reaches people before they are targeted or victimised. Public awareness initiatives, including the national Stop! Think Fraud campaign, provide information on recognising common fraud techniques. However, the impact of messaging can be limited where people do not recognise the relevance of the advice or where the information does not reach or appear relevant to certain segments of public until the point at which fraud occurs. Participants emphasised the importance of more segmented, targeted and practical communication using accessible language/phrases, examples and channels that reflect how different audiences engage with digital services.

Institutional-Level Gaps

Participants identified weaknesses at the points where different parts of the fraud response system interact. These gaps leave victims navigating fragmented pathways, with inconsistent standards of care, limited recognition of wider harms and uncertainty over which institutions are responsible for providing support.

Fragmented Victim Journeys and Limited Continuity of Care

Participants agreed that fraud victims lack a clear and continuous support pathway. Victims can report/disclose fraud via many channels, including through their bank, Report Fraud, local police forces or a specialist support service. The initial response is critical, as it can shape if and how an individual receives timely advice, information about reimbursement, safeguarding support or access to more sustained assistance.

Participants characterised current arrangements as a 'handoff' rather than a 'handover' between organisations, in regard to both the victim and the organisations involved. Participants noted that directing someone to a website, helpline or external organisation may be sufficient for victims with straightforward needs. For others, particularly those who are distressed, financially insecure, ashamed or still under an offender's influence, it can place too much responsibility on the individual to navigate an unfamiliar system. In this context,victims can experience the system as a series of referrals rather than a joined-up process of support.

Inconsistent Standards and Accountability

Relatedly, participants pointed out that there is currently no shared, cross-sector agreement on the minimum standard of care that a fraud victim should receive. Participants questioned where responsibility for victim support begins and ends, and which organisation should remain accountable for ensuring that a victim receives appropriate onward support. The discussion pointed to the need for consistent first-responder standards, including victim-sensitive communication and clear information on available support.