IOCTA
EUROPOL SPOTLIGHT
ONLINE FRAUD
SCHEMES:
A WEB OF DECEIT
2
EUROPOL SPOTLIGHT ONLINE FRAUD SCHEMES: A WEB OF DECEIT
Content s
03  Key terms
04  Key ndings
05  Introduction
06  A fast-growing threat
06  Online fraud against individuals and the private and public sectors
Investment fraud
Business e-mail compromise (BEC)
Phishing campaigns
12  Online fraud against payment systems
Logical attacks on ATMs
Skimming
Shimming
Account takeover (ATO)
16  Criminal actors involved in online fraud
16  The future of OFSs
17  Europol’s response in the ght against online fraud schemes
3
EUROPOL SPOTLIGHT ONLINE FRAUD SCHEMES: A WEB OF DECEIT
Key terms
ACCOUNT CHECKER: a soware tool that veries
the validity of login credenals – such as
usernames and passwords – for a parcular
service or plaorm. In online fraud schemes
(OFSs), an account checker is a bot that takes
lists of leaked or stolen credenals (e.g.
usernames and passwords) and tests them
against websites to access accounts.
BOT: automated soware that is programmed to
perform repeve tasks.
CARDING: fraudulent use of stolen credit card
data. Somemes called credit card stung or
card vericaon, it involves a series of mulple
aacks usually performed by bots (soware
used to perform automated operaons) to
idenfy which card numbers or details can be
used to make purchases. Thanks to the bots,
criminals are able to make parallel automated
operaons to aempt purchase authorisaon.
CRACKING TOOL: soware deployed to break
through security measures on systems
and applicaons.
DEEPFAKE: technology that uses arcial
intelligence (AI) soware to make synthec
duplicates of real people’s voices, images
and videos. In OFSs, deepfake is an
impersonaon technique.
MALWARE: soware that is designed to inltrate
computer systems or mobile devices without
the owner’s consent to gain control over the
device, steal valuable informaon or corrupt
data. The word is a portmanteau of ‘malicious’
and ‘soware’.
MAN-IN-THE-MIDDLE (MITM) ATTACK: the aacker
places himself between two communicang
pares and relays messages for them, while the
pares believe they are communicang with
each other directly and securely.
ONE-TIME PASSWORD (OTP): a password that is
valid for only one login session or transacon
on a computer system or other digital device.
The OTP is usually sent by banking instuons
to customers to authorise a money transfer.
Also known as a one-me PIN, one-me
authorisaon code or dynamic password.
PHISHING: a form of social engineering,
characterised by unsolicited communicaons
which appear to come from a reputable source
(oen impersonang a bank instuon, delivery
company or judicial authority). Generally, these
communicaons solicit payments or contain
malicious links that land on fraudulent websites
(either a domain created by the criminals or
a compromised legimate website). They
may also contain aachments that will install
malware if opened.
SMISHING: a form of phishing using text
messages or common messaging apps.
SOCIAL ENGINEERING: the main technique used
in OFSs. Social engineering means the use
of decepon to manipulate individuals into
divulging condenal or personal informaon
that may be used for fraudulent purposes.
It can take many forms, but always relies
on psychological manipulaon and
emoonal aacks.
THIRD-PARTY SHOPPING SOFTWARE: any
soware developed outside of the vendor’s
website or the vendors main website provider.
VISHING: a form of phishing using voice calls
and voicemails.
4
EUROPOL SPOTLIGHT ONLINE FRAUD SCHEMES: A WEB OF DECEIT
Key ndings
Online fraud schemes represent a
major crime threat in the EU and
beyond as online fraudsters generate
mulple billions in illicit prots every
year to the detriment of individuals,
companies and public instuons.
Criminal networks involved in online
fraud schemes are persistent and
driven by opportunism. Their chain of
crime is business-like, facilitated by
the growing presence of accessible
enablers and the wide availability of
crime-as-a-service.
Fraudsters display sophiscated
modi operandi, which are usually
a combinaon of dierent types
of fraud. Vicms of fraud are oen
re-vicmised within the same
criminal scheme.
Social engineering techniques that
fraudsters use have been growing
in complexity. Criminals adapt these
techniques according to the prole of
the vicm and the typology of fraud.
Investment fraud and business e-mail
compromise (BEC) fraud remain the
most prolic online fraud schemes.
Criminal networks involved in
these schemes pose a high threat,
given their level of organisaon
and resilience.
Charity scams leveraging emergency
situaons have increased. This
was visible during the COVID-19
pandemic, the Russian invasion
of Ukraine and the earthquake in
Türkiye and Syria. Fraudsters show
great versality in modelling their
narraves around current crises.
While physical skimming is an
ever-diminishing threat in the EU,
relay aacks targeng payment card
chips (shimming) are increasingly
being detected.
Logical aacks on ATMs sll occur in
the EU, with criminal networks tesng
ways to exploit new vulnerabilies at
the ATMs they target.
Digital skimming is a persistent
threat that results in the the, re-
sale and misuse of credit card data.
A major evoluon in digital skimming
is the shi from the use of front-
end malware to back-end malware,
making it more dicult to detect.
5
EUROPOL SPOTLIGHT ONLINE FRAUD SCHEMES: A WEB OF DECEIT
Introduction
Online fraud schemes (OFSs) comprise a wide range of criminal acvies
that are exclusively or primarily perpetrated online or with the use of
computers; we call this cyber-enabled. The increasing online presence of
individuals, businesses and instuons has prompted many fraud schemes
to shi from the physical world to the digital environment. Although online
fraud specically occurs online, such schemes can comprise both online and
oine operaons.
A fraud scheme is perpetrated with the intenon of defrauding vicms of
their assets using false and deceiul pretexts, or with the use of cyber-
aack techniques. This results in the voluntary or involuntary transfer of
personal or business informaon, money or goods to criminals.
Today, OFSs represent a major crime threat in the EU and beyond, with
criminals generang mul-billion illicit prots by targeng individuals,
private companies and public instuons. Some types of OFS specically
target banking systems. OFSs are carried out by opportunisc individuals
and by highly organised criminal networks.
Fraudsters exploit digital tools that have been produced and marketed by
lawful businesses and service providers and also create their own illegal
tools or buy others manufactured by cybercriminals. To idenfy their
vicms and communicate with them, fraudsters make extensive use of
legimate websites, email service providers, dang apps, social media and
instant messaging services, as well as tradional telephone and voice over
IP (VoIP) services.
Virtual private networks (VPNs) are commonly used to conceal oenders’ IP
locaons. Remote Administraon Tools (RATs) provide scammers access to
vicms’ computers from a distance and let them install malicious soware,
change sengs, run applicaons and access all the vicms’ data, including
two-factor authencaon (2FA) details.
Fraud is the most frequently idened predicate oence that involves the
misuse of cryptocurrencies. Online fraudsters commonly misuse digital
currencies, crypto-wallets and crypto-exchange plaorms. This misuse
includes the deposing, transferring and laundering of fraud proceeds as
well as perpetrang cryptocurrency investment fraud.
6
EUROPOL SPOTLIGHT ONLINE FRAUD SCHEMES: A WEB OF DECEIT
Criminals misuse bank accounts, digital wallets, instant money transfer and
peer-to-peer services to obtain money transfers from their vicms and
transfer these sums across country borders and jurisdicons. Addionally,
fraudsters create fake websites, fake ads on legimate websites and landing
pages, and fake online trading plaorms, not forgeng bots, chatbots,
computer malware, mobile malware and phishing kits.
A fast-growing threat
OFSs are a ourishing criminal market. Online fraudsters target millions of
vicms across the EU every day, and the impact of these crimes is enormous
and increasing. Not only are there the direct nancial losses for the vicms
(with some instances of fraud amounng to millions of euros in damages),
but also the costs of invesgaon by law enforcement and recovery and
reimbursement by nancial service providers.
Compared to past scenarios where fraud schemes were perpetrated
chiey in person, modern fraudsters exploit the increasing online presence
of cizens, businesses and public instuons to skilfully target the
vulnerabilies of each segment of society. The harm from online fraud is
exacerbated by the detrimental eect on the vicms’ mental and physical
health and the common re-vicmisaon.
Fraudsters are capable of adapng their modi operandi to emerging
trends and socio-economic developments, quickly integrang innovave
technologies and tools into their business models. These criminals are oen
non-EU naonals operang from abroad. Similarly, stolen funds are swily
transferred out of the EU, bringing further challenges to invesgaons,
asset tracing and recovery.
Online fraud against individuals and
the private and public sectors
Investment and business e-mail compromise (BEC) fraud remain the most
prolic forms of OFS. Phishing campaigns also persist, adding new narraves
to lure vicms into transferring money to the oenders. Fraudsters
connue to show high levels of adaptability, leveraging crises such as the
7
EUROPOL SPOTLIGHT ONLINE FRAUD SCHEMES: A WEB OF DECEIT
Russian war of aggression against Ukraine or the earthquake in Türkiye and
Syria, to scam their vicms.
There are other typologies of fraud that connue to have a strong impact
on vicms. Tech-support scams cause huge losses by tricking the vicms
into providing access to their computer systems to obtain login credenals
and credit card data. Romance fraud is widely reported in the EU,
somemes in combinaon with other fraud schemes targeng the same
vicms.
Recence in reporng online fraud to law enforcement is very common,
oen due to a sense of shame individuals feel or a company’s fear of
reputaonal damage. This result is an under-reporng of the phenomenon.
Fraud vicms are oen re-vicmised by dierent types of fraud within the
same criminal process; vicms’ informaon is monesed to its full extent
and frequently sold on to criminals, leading targets of fraud to be re-
vicmised.
Criminal networks are increasingly resorng to social engineering
1
. This
technique uses decepon to manipulate individuals into voluntarily or
involuntarily divulging condenal or personal informaon to fraudsters. As
authencaon mechanisms have been strengthened with the introducon
of 2FA measures such as one-me passwords and digital ngerprints,
criminal networks not only seek out credit card details, but also access
accounts through account takeover (ATO)
2
.
Phishing is a key access vector for most types of fraud, aiming to intrude
into systems, steal data or extort money. This technique may also involve
installing malware to steal credenals and/or banking informaon
3
. Phishing
can also take dierent guises, depending on the means of communicaon
in use. Common alternave techniques are smishing (SMS phishing) and
vishing (voice phishing).
1  Europol, 2020, Internet Organised Crime Threat Assessment (IOCTA), available at hps://www.europol.
europa.eu/publicaons-events/main-reports/internet-organised-crime-threat-assessment-iocta-2020
2  Direcve (EU) 2015/2366 (payment service direcve 2 – PSD 2) provides the legal foundaon for the
further development of a beer integrated internal market for electronic payments within the European
Union (EU). It establishes comprehensive rules for payment services, with the goal of ensuring harmonised
rules for the provision of payment services in the EU and a high level of consumer protecon. The direcve
requires Secure Customer Authencaon (SCA) for most electronic payments, involving two-factor
authencaon (2FA) or mul factor authencaon (MFA) to access services and/or authorise transacons.
Full Direcve available at: hps://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex%3A32015L2366
3  Europol, 2023, Cyber-aacks: The apex of crime-as-a-service, Europol Spotlight, IOCTA 2023, available at
hps://www.europol.europa.eu/publicaon-events/main-reports/cyber-aacks-apex-of-crime-service-
iocta-2023
8
EUROPOL SPOTLIGHT ONLINE FRAUD SCHEMES: A WEB OF DECEIT
Impersonaon is a technique used in the majority of online fraud schemes
to deceive vicms. Spoong is one example of a very eecve technique
to gain vicms’ trust, whereby fraudsters make a phone call or send a
text message that bears a dierent caller ID than that of the telephone
from which the call was actually placed. Some criminal networks provide
spoong-as-a-service to other fraudsters
4
.
Investment fraud
Investment fraud persists as a key threat in the EU, targeng thousands of
vicms and generang millions in illicit prots every year. Criminal networks
involved in this type of fraud show great levels of adaptability by constantly
rening and improving their modi operandi and leveraging new investment
products that are highly in demand.
Fraudsters commonly seek out vicms on social media plaorms, but also
use e-mail, instant messaging applicaons or dedicated websites with
ads encing vicms to open online trading porolios and lure them in
with inial benets. Once the vicm starts asking for claricaon on the
investment returns or becomes suspicious, the criminals pretend that there
are legimate reasons why they cannot withdraw their money, such as fees
or state taxes. The vicm is then asked to pay more money to release their
funds. In order to provide the vicm with a sense of legimacy, criminal
networks involved in investment fraud make extensive use of call centres.
These call centres operate in dierent languages and the operators are in
some cases unaware of the criminal acvies behind the work they do.
Some investment fraud criminal networks use taccs such as pyramid
schemes, namely encouraging vicms to recruit other vicms. This process
provides fraudsters with a wider vicm base and eortlessly increases their
criminal prots.
A concerning threat around investment fraud is its use in combinaon
with other fraud schemes against the same vicms. Investment fraud is
somemes linked to romance scams: criminals slowly build a relaonship
of trust with the vicm and then convince them to invest their savings
on fraudulent cryptocurrency trading plaorms, leading to large nancial
losses. Following the the of the investments and the fraud being
4  Europol, 2022, Acon against criminal website that oered ‘spoong’ services to fraudsters: 142 arrests,
available at hps://www.europol.europa.eu/media-press/newsroom/news/acon-against-criminal-
website-oered-%E2%80%98spoong%E2%80%99-services-to-fraudsters-142-arrests
9
EUROPOL SPOTLIGHT ONLINE FRAUD SCHEMES: A WEB OF DECEIT
uncovered, criminals oen contact their vicms posing as lawyers or law
enforcement agents oering help to retrieve their funds in exchange for
a fee. The actual perpetrators of such schemes are somemes vicms of
forced labour themselves.
Fraudsters adverse a wide range of investment products (such as stocks,
binary opons and pension funds) and adapt to socio-economic trends by
connuously shiing their focus to aracve products. The most reported
investment fraud products in the EU are cryptocurrencies. This type of
fraud has shown to be extremely protable, rising in parallel with the price
surge on common cryptocurrencies
5
and the proliferaon of new ones.
However, the cryptocurrencies market saw a sharp drop in 2022 with
a strong decrease in cryptocurrency prices
6
leading to a decline in
the revenue from the crypto scams detected in 2022
7
. Though this
could be related to a general market decline, under-reporng might also
play a role, parcularly in relaon to crypto-investment fraud combined
with romance scams
8
.
Business e-mail compromise (BEC)
BEC is a form of digitally-enabled fraud perpetrated against private
companies with the use of social engineering techniques. The most
common types of BEC are chief execuve ocer (CEO) fraud (where
criminals make urgent payment requests by impersonang a company
execuve) and fake invoice fraud (which involves fraudsters impersonang
business partners and requesng payment on cous invoices, or
exploing genuine invoices where the legimate suppliers’ bank details
have been altered).
To perpetrate their scheme, fraudsters illicitly gain access to a company’s
e-mail communicaon, gaining insights into internal structures and
operang procedures. In some cases, fraudsters use phishing techniques
to obtain personal data, which they then use to intercept and manipulate
corporate communicaon.
5  Chainalysis, 2022, Crypto Crime Report 2022, available at hps://go.chainalysis.com/2022-Crypto-Crime-
Report.html
6  J. Yang, J. Gunzberg, M. Good, B. Keoun, CoinDesk, 20 December 2022, CoinDesk Market
Outlook: 4Q Crypto Gloom Spills Into 2023, available at hps://www.coindesk.com/consensus-
magazine/2022/12/20/2023-crypto-price-market-outlook/
7  Chainalysis, 2023, Crypto Crime Report 2023, available at hps://go.chainalysis.com/2023-crypto-crime-
report.html
8  Ibid.
CEO FRAUD
STEP 1
A fraudster contacts an
employee in the finance
department at a company,
posing as a high-ranking
executive (CEO or CFO).
STEP 1
A fraudster contacts an
employee in the finance
department at a company,
posing as a high-ranking
executive (CEO or CFO).
STEP 2
The fraudster requests an
urgent transfer of funds and
absolute confidentiality,
invoking a sensitive situation
(e.g. a tax inspection, merger
or acquisition)
STEP 2
The fraudster requests an
urgent transfer of funds and
absolute confidentiality,
invoking a sensitive situation
(e.g. a tax inspection, merger
or acquisition)
STEP 3
The fraudster pressures the
employee into not following the
regular authorisation procedures.
Instructions on how to proceed
are given by a third person or via
e-mail (optional).
STEP 3
The fraudster pressures the
employee into not following the
regular authorisation procedures.
Instructions on how to proceed
are given by a third person or via
e-mail (optional).
STEP 4
The employee transfers funds
to an account the fraudster
controls. The money is then
transferred to accounts across
multiple jurisdictions.
STEP 4
The employee transfers funds
to an account the fraudster
controls. The money is then
transferred to accounts across
multiple jurisdictions.
10
EUROPOL SPOTLIGHT ONLINE FRAUD SCHEMES: A WEB OF DECEIT
BEC, and parcularly CEO fraud, have grown in sophiscaon, focusing on
upper-level management. Vicms somemes conclude several transfers
before realising the scam, while the ill-goen gains are quickly split through
accounts based in mulple countries and laundered.
Criminal network involved in CEO fraud
In 2021, a Franco-Israeli criminal network was involved in large-scale CEO
fraud targeng companies located in France. The perpetrators used the
idenes of the companys CEOs and trusted business partners (such as
lawyers working for accounng companies or consultants) to request large,
urgent and condenal transfers. One of the companies targeted lost almost
EUR 38 million in just a few days. The suspects laundered the criminal
proceeds through a pre-exisng money laundering scheme involving mulple
bank accounts in the EU, China and Israel
9
.
An indicator of the growing sophiscaon of CEO fraud is the use of
deepfakes. In one case, criminals used deepfake audio to impersonate
the CEO of a company and elicit the transfer of the equivalent of
EUR 35 million
10
.
9  Europol, 2023, Franco-Israeli gang behind EUR 38 million CEO fraud busted, available at hps://www.
europol.europa.eu/media-press/newsroom/news/franco-israeli-gang-behind-eur-38-million-ceo-fraud-
busted
10  Europol, 2022, Facing reality? Law enforcement and the challenge of deepfakes, Europol Innovaon Lab
observatory report, available at hps://www.europol.europa.eu/publicaons-events/publicaons/facing-
reality-law-enforcement-and-challenge-of-deepfakes
11
EUROPOL SPOTLIGHT ONLINE FRAUD SCHEMES: A WEB OF DECEIT
Phishing campaigns
Massive phishing campaigns based on various themes connue to target
millions of vicms in the EU, causing signicant nancial losses and
reputaonal damage to the enes they impersonate. Phishing campaigns
are perpetrated mostly via email, but also via SMS, and oen entail
money transfer requests and impersonaon of well-known businesses or
government enes.
Vicms receive false informaon about overpayments, tax requests,
announcements of detected crimes, or promises of signicant cash prizes,
goods or services. Fraudsters nd or purchase contact lists and e-mail
addresses online. The increased availability of phishing kits sold online
allows more criminal networks to be successful in their phishing aacks,
regardless of the level of organisaon and technical experse.
Police-themed scams
In an online scam in 2022, fake correspondence was sent via email and social
media, purportedly from Europol departments and senior sta. The message
told vicms that they had visited websites hosng child sexual abuse material
and urged them to reply to an email address. Respondents were asked
to make a payment of between EUR 3 000 and 7 000 via bank transfer or
instant money services to avoid prosecuon
11
.
Fraudsters are always driven by opportunism, luring their targets with
aracve claims. Recurring narraves used for phishing campaigns relate
to ongoing crises to exploit people’s emoonal involvement. Charity scams
are a parcularly unscrupulous type of phishing campaign, proteering
from an individuals generosity towards those in need. Criminals pose as
genuine organisaons to obtain donaons, vicmising both the donor
and the legimate aid agency. Scams exploing crises have been detected
increasingly in the last few years, rst in relaon to the COVID-19 pandemic,
and more recently in the context of the Russian invasion of Ukraine and the
earthquake in Türkiye and Syria.
11  Europol, 2021, Beware of scams involving fake correspondence from Europol, available at
hps://www.europol.europa.eu/media-press/newsroom/news/beware-of-scams-involving-fake-
correspondence-europol
12
EUROPOL SPOTLIGHT ONLINE FRAUD SCHEMES: A WEB OF DECEIT
Leveraging the Russian war of aggression against Ukraine
Charity scams through phishing campaigns have been detected in relaon to
the Russian war of aggression against Ukraine. Fraudsters targeted vicms
across the EU under the guise of supporng Ukraine or Ukrainians. The
scammers created fake webpages to solicit money using URLs that included
misleading keywords. They also used fraudulent addresses to send fake
emails pretending to raise funds for humanitarian eorts. In some cases,
fraudsters impersonated celebries that were heading or supporng real
campaigns, or spoofed humanitarian organisaons’ domains, inving vicms
to donate in cryptocurrency.
Online fraud against
payment systems
A range of online fraud schemes are perpetrated specically against
payment systems. These specialised types of fraud use common intrusion
techniques
12
to access and manipulate payment and nancial systems
while remaining undetected. They target the systems without the users
being directly involved. The purpose is to either to steal funds or obtain
personal informaon that is then further exploited by the criminals. This
type of fraud not only has a signicant nancial impact on payment service
providers but also causes reputaonal damage to legimate vendors and
undermines consumer trust.
Compromising payment systems does not directly aect users who do not
experience any anomalies in their transacons. However, individuals may be
a secondary target of these types of fraud. Fraud against payment systems
is oen followed by the the of personal informaon that can then be
used for further criminal acts. This could include identy the, fraudulent
nancial transacons, or for rening social engineering methods to re-
vicmise the same individuals whose informaon was stolen during the rst
fraud scheme.
12  Europol, 2023, Cyber-aacks: The apex of crime-as-a-service, Europol Spotlight, IOCTA 2023,
available at hps://www.europol.europa.eu/publicaon-events/main-reports/cyber-aacks-apex-of-
crime-service-iocta-2023
13
EUROPOL SPOTLIGHT ONLINE FRAUD SCHEMES: A WEB OF DECEIT
Logical attacks on ATMs
Automated teller machine (ATM) logical aacks involve electronically
compromising ATMs to withdraw cash without using a bank card. These
aacks connue to be an aracve avenue for criminals who exploit
vulnerabilies in ATMs. ATM logical aacks comprise a coordinated set of
acons aimed at gaining access to the ATM computer system, manipulang
or extracng data, and controlling the dispensing funcon. The most
common type of ATM logical aack is the Black Box (or jackpong) aack.
This is carried out either by connecng an unauthorised external device to
the ATM or by injecng malware into it. In both instances, the aim is to send
commands directly to the ATM cash dispenser so that it ejects cash.
Skimming
Digital skimming is a common technique that allows fraudsters to steal
credit card credenals from online vendors’ checkout pages or credenals
that are stored online (oen in mobile apps). Digital skimmers steal
payment data from input elds on exisng payment forms or redirect
unsuspecng users to fake checkout pages. Compromised card details
are sold on dedicated websites and dark web marketplaces (also known
as card dumps). These illicitly obtained credenals are oen used for
carding, usually performed by bots that test the validity of stolen card data,
and to make purchases. Through the bots, criminals are able to perform
simultaneous automated operaons to aempt purchase authorisaon.
Magecart
Magecart is a well-known digital skimming technique, named aer the most
known cybercrime group that specialises in cyber-aacks involving digital
credit card the by skimming online payment forms. Its name comes from
Magento, the rst type of third-party shopping soware targeted back in
2015. Since then, digital skimming aacks have grown in scope, scale, impact
and sophiscaon. Thousands of online stores around the world have been
infected
13
, resulng in their customers’ personal data being collected at
check out.
13  As of April 2023, Sansec has idened over 70 000 e-commerce websites that have suered a Magecart
aack. Available at hps://sansec.io/docs/what-is-magecart
14
EUROPOL SPOTLIGHT ONLINE FRAUD SCHEMES: A WEB OF DECEIT
Physical skimming on bank and credit cards is diminishing in the EU,
however it remains a threat outside its borders. Physical skimming captures
data from the magnec stripe on cards. It is now forbidden to use the
magnec strip for transacons within the EU in compliance with the new
Strong Customer Authencaon (SCA) requirement of the revised Payment
Services EU Direcve (PSD2)
14
. This Direcve seeks to add extra layers of
security to electronic payments. The magnec stripe will not be required on
newly issued payment cards in many regions from 2024
15
. Nevertheless, EU
criminal networks with experse in this crime area may shi their aenon
to countries where there is sll widespread use of the magnec stripes.
Shimming
Similar to skimming, shimming is an intercepon and/or a manipulaon of
informaon owing between a card and the chip interface of a card reader.
In recent years, relay aacks targeng payment card chips have been
increasingly reported in the EU. In a relay aack, an aacker intercepts
communicaon between two pares and then relays it to another device.
The aacker does not need to iniate any communicaon between sender
and receiver, as is the case a Man-in-the-Middle aack.
Account takeover (ATO)
Recent invesgaons into the trade in compromised credenals show
the growing threat of the illicit trade in personal data. The extensive
compromised credenals market and readily available illicit tools are
making fraudsters less dependent on specic experse, as some tasks
within OFSs can be easily outsourced.
Account takeover is a form of hacking that occurs when criminals illegally
access a vicm’s online account for their own gain. Targeted accounts (such
as online banking, email accounts or social media proles) are valuable to
criminals as they can hold funds and access specic services or relevant
private informaon that can then be sold online. ATO is now considered
14  PSD2 is the acronym for the Direcve (EU) 2015/2366 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25
November 2015 on payment services in the internal market, amending Direcves 2002/65/EC, 2009/110/
EC and 2013/36/EU and Regulaon (EU) No 1093/2010, and repealing Direcve 2007/64/EC (Text with EEA
relevance), available at hps://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32015L2366. The
Second Customer Authencaon (SCA) measure WAS introduced in September 2019 following the entry
into force of PSD2.
15  Emerchantpay, 24 May 2022, ‘Mastercard is phasing out magnec stripes, available at
hps://www.emerchantpay.com/insights/mastercard-is-phasing-out-magnec-stripes/
15
EUROPOL SPOTLIGHT ONLINE FRAUD SCHEMES: A WEB OF DECEIT
quite an easy hacking technique to implement as cracking tools and account
checkers are sold on cybercrime forums for a very low price.
The the of digital ngerprint data from compromised devices has emerged
following the introducon of digital ngerprinng as an authencaon
mechanism
16
. This highlights the adaptability of criminals in countering
online an-fraud systems, which is set to connue in the future.
Tokenised credit cards have become a popular means of payment. They
are obtained aer card tokenisaon, the process of de-idenfying sensive
cardholder data by converng it to a string of randomly generated
numbers called token. Tokenisaon protects the cardholder in the event
of a data breach or other exposure. Tokenised credit cards are usually
found on mobile payment services and digital wallets and can be linked to
subscripons to online services as well as to card-not-present (CNP) online
purchases. Fraudsters apply several techniques to obtain the one me
password (OTP) – sent by banking instuons to customers to authorise
a money transfer – connected to tokenised credit cards. They can then
connect the stolen credit card data to exisng mobile payment systems to
purchase items or obtain cash from the counter (in the countries where this
is allowed).
SIM swapping is another ATO technique entailing fraudsters taking control
of the vicm’s mobile phone SIM card (or obtaining a duplicate of the SIM
card). Fraudsters deceive mobile phone operators into porng the vicm’s
mobile number to a SIM in their possession so they can receive incoming
calls and text messages and have access to sensive data. SIM swapping is
oen used to obtain the OTP to authorise money transfers. In 2022, cases of
SIM swapping had decreased, probably due to telecommunicaon providers
implemenng beer prevenon and customer idencaon mechanisms
17
.
16  Informaon provided to Europol
17  Informaon provided to Europol
16
EUROPOL SPOTLIGHT ONLINE FRAUD SCHEMES: A WEB OF DECEIT
Criminal actors involved in
online fraud
The criminal actors engaged in OFSs span from lone criminals to highly
organised networks composed of tens, hundreds and even thousands of
facilitators. Criminals are facilitated by the growing presence of enablers,
such as guidelines and tutorials on fraud methods on dark web forums,
phishing kits, remote administraon tools, card dumps, and databases of
personal data. The wide availability of crime-as-a-service has made this
criminal acvity more accessible.
The degree of internal organisaon of such criminal networks varies
according to the complexity of the fraud scheme, the geographical extent
of the operaons, and the intricacy of the money laundering processes.
The structure of these criminal networks is typically pyramidal. Some of
them resemble internaonal corporate structures with a high level of
internal organisaon and sophiscated HR and they operate across
mulple jurisdicons.
Criminal networks involved in OFSs accrue their prots in both at and
cryptocurrencies. Funds are usually laundered very quickly aer the fraud
has taken place; by the me the vicm realises the scam, the money is
already split across accounts based in mulple countries and laundered.
Online fraudsters make frequent use of gambling plaorms to launder
prots. Criminals make use of money mules to launder illicit prots and
to swily move funds across a network of accounts, oen in dierent
countries. While money mules are somemes recruited in criminal forums,
social media remains a key recruitment environment. Somemes, the
vicms of frauds are unwingly used as money mules themselves.
The future of OFSs
Online fraud schemes are set to further expand in the future in terms
of both harm and reach. New foci, new narraves, new products and
new modi operandi will lure in more vicms than ever. Investment fraud
involving emerging products and growing economic sectors are likely to
evolve too.
17
EUROPOL SPOTLIGHT ONLINE FRAUD SCHEMES: A WEB OF DECEIT
Online fraudsters and cybercriminals will connue to embrace new
technologies and maximise their potenal for harm with sensive data as
a core target. The growth of new technologies such as ChatGPT and other
generave arcial intelligence (AI) variants of large language models
(LLMs) will open them up to misuse, adding complexity to the exisng
threat. Against a backdrop of the rising trend in generave AI models,
unethical variants of ChatGPT – such as WormGPT and FraudGPT – are set
to evolve.
Defence from the harm of deepfakes will become an utmost necessity in
the ght against online fraudsters. The metaverse may also open up new
opportunies to dierent fraudulent schemes. Through the increasing use
of innovave technologies and tools, the crime-as-a-service ecosystem will
likely expand to service a wider criminal base, bringing criminal acvies
within the reach of more players and act as a mulplier for organised crime.
Both criminal networks and lone actors will gain new and more harmful
means of vicmising their targets.
The state-of-the-art encrypon that is used today to protect sensive
informaon will be challenged by the expected capability of quantum
computers. Encrypted data collected today may become available to
criminals in the not-too-distant future. This may facilitate a variety of
criminal acvies, including more threats related to social engineering and
advanced phishing techniques
18
.
Europol’s response in the ght
against online fraud schemes
Online fraud schemes are expected to further increase as a criminal threat
aecng the EU, its cizens and its economy. Cybercriminals are likely to
further embrace new technologies and maximise the reach of their services.
The crime-as-a-service business model will likely expand to service a wider
criminal base. Personal data, such as access credenals, are set to remain
an extremely valuable commodity for online fraudsters.
18  Europol, ‘The Second Quantum Revoluon: the impact of quantum compung and quantum technologies
on law enforcement, Europol Innovaon Lab observatory report, available at hps://www.europol.
europa.eu/publicaon-events/main-reports/second-quantum-revoluon-impact-of-quantum-compung-
and-quantum-technologies-law-enforcement
18
EUROPOL SPOTLIGHT ONLINE FRAUD SCHEMES: A WEB OF DECEIT
Europol’s mission is to support EU Member States and cooperaon
partners in prevenng and combang all forms of serious internaonal
and organised crime, cybercrime and terrorism. In 2013, Europol set up
the European Cybercrime Centre (EC3) to provide dedicated support for
cybercrime invesgaons in the EU to help protect European cizens,
businesses and governments from online crime. EC3 oers operaonal,
strategic, analycal and forensic support to Member States’ invesgaons.
EC3’s dedicated Analysis Project Terminal, focused on the threat of online
fraud schemes, supports internaonal invesgaons and operaons into
fraud targeng various vicms and payment systems in the EU and beyond.
19
EUROPOL SPOTLIGHT ONLINE FRAUD SCHEMES: A WEB OF DECEIT
Your feedback matters.
By clicking on the following link or scanning the embedded QR code you
can ll in a short user survey on the received strategic report. Your input
will help us further improve our products.
hps://ec.europa.eu/eusurvey/runner/eus_strategic_reports
The Internet Organised Crime Threat Assessment (IOCTA) is a strategic
analysis report that provides a law enforcement-centric assessment of the
latest online threats and the impact of cybercrime within the EU. It serves
to inform decision-makers at strategic, policy and taccal levels in the ght
against cybercrime, with a view to updang the operaonal focus for EU
law enforcement authories.
The IOCTA is chiey informed by operaonal informaon shared with
Europol by EU Member States and third partners, combined with expert
insights and open source intelligence.
This ninth edion of the IOCTA appears in an updated format. A summary
presents the main overarching ndings concerning the major typologies of
cybercrime, namely cyber-aacks, online fraud schemes, and online child
sexual exploitaon. This report, “Online fraud schemes: a web of deceit,
is the second in a series of spotlight reports covering each of these crime
areas in-depth as part of the IOCTA 2023.
Headquartered in The Hague, the Netherlands, Europol supports the 27 EU Member
States in their ght against terrorism, cybercrime and other serious and organised
forms of crime. We also work with many non-EU partner states and internaonal
organisaons. From its various threat assessments to its intelligence-gathering and
operaonal acvies, Europol has the tools and resources it needs to do its part in
making Europe safer.
EUROPOL SPOTLIGHT - ONLINE FRAUD SCHEMES: A WEB OF DECEIT
PDF | ISBN 978-92-95220-96-6 | ISSN 2600-2760 | DOI: 10.2813/543686 | QL-AN-23-003-EN-N
Neither the European Union Agency for Law Enforcement Cooperaon nor any person acng on behalf of
the agency is responsible for the use that might be made of the following informaon.
Luxembourg: Publicaons Oce of the European Union, 2023
© European Union Agency for Law Enforcement Cooperaon, 2023
Reproducon is authorised provided the source is acknowledged.
For any use or reproducon of photos or other material that is not under the copyright of the
European Union Agency for Law Enforcement Cooperaon, permission must be sought directly
from the copyright holders.
While best eorts have been made to trace and acknowledge all copyright holders, Europol would like to
apologise should there have been any errors or omissions. Please do contact us if you possess any further
informaon relang to the images published or their rights holder.
Cite this publicaon: Europol (2023), Online fraud schemes: a web of deceit,
Europol Spotlight Report series, Publicaons Oce of the European Union, Luxembourg.
This publicaon and more informaon on Europol are available on the Internet.
www.europol.europa.eu