The perception among some police officers that fraud is a victimless offence can weaken investigations and the support given to those affected, a new study shows.

Officers are hampered by having to rely on limited resources and outdated, fragmented local structures which are poorly equipped to address cyber-enabled, cross-border criminal activity, researchers have found.

Fraud is the most prevalent crime in the UK and a global concern, causing substantial financial and societal harm, yet it can be deprioritised within policing.

Researchers interviewed twenty-four experienced police officers across various roles and ranks who gave a first-hand insight into fraud investigations.

Officers involved in the research reported challenges arising from limited resources, skill gaps, and the complexity of fraud cases. Some described how fraud can be perceived by police as low-harm, low-priority, and less legitimate than violent crime. This contributes to a policing culture that sidelines fraud, weakens investigations and limits victim support.

Reasons given by police for fraud not being a priority was the lack of visible, immediate harm and the perception that reimbursement resolves the issue. These views are reinforced by assumptions that victims were careless or complicit, despite the growing complexity of fraudulent schemes.

Some officers said there were those in forces who perceived fraud as “dull”, unrewarding or lacking in status compared to more visible crimes. Fraud investigations are sometimes considered less stimulating, which makes them less appealing to pursue.

A further issue is that victims rarely report fraud or contest inadequate investigations often due to shame, fear of not being believed or a lack of awareness about how to report such crimes.

The complexity of fraud – its cross-border nature, reliance on digital infrastructure, and sheer volume – was frequently cited as a key reason for de-prioritisation. Officers also highlighted limited access to banking data and weak intelligence-sharing frameworks, often exacerbated by minimal cooperation from financial institutions.

Those involved in the research described how resource constraints lead to a reactive, risk-averse policing model that emphasises safeguarding over investigation. Participants strongly advocated for ring-fenced funding, digital training, a national reporting and analytics system and expanded access to specialist investigators. They called for a multi-stakeholder approach involving banks, insurers, tech companies and regulators. Stronger regulation may be required to compel institutions to share data in a timely, transparent manner. Officers reported that current arrangements are slow, opaque and unaccountable.

The study suggests there should be greater partnerships with tech firms, graduate recruitment schemes and the creation of dedicated fraud units.

While some specialist economic crime units already exist, participants noted that their reach and resourcing are inconsistent across forces. Several officers advocated for nationally coordinated fraud teams with clear remits, accredited financial investigators and embedded digital analysts to ensure capacity for both complex and lower-value cases. Such units could be modelled on major crime teams, but adapted to include forensic accounting, cyber investigation and intelligence liaison roles.

The study, by Dr. Rasha Kassem, from Aston University and Professor Umut Turksen, from the University of Exeter, recommends targeted training, investment in cyber and financial forensics, stronger collaboration with external agencies, and cultural change within police organisations.

The authors argue that meaningful change requires not only improved capacity and cross-sector collaboration, but a fundamental shift in how fraud is conceptualised within policing culture. They also highlight the urgent need for a more strategic, victim-centred, and cross-sector approach to tackling fraud in the UK.

Professor Turksen said: “We hope our work will inform more effective policies, training, and structural reforms to strengthen the policing of fraud and improve outcomes for victims.

“Fraud can be perceived by officers as low harm, low urgency, and unengaging. This significantly influences operational decision-making and undermines both investigative effort and victim support. Addressing these attitudes is vital to promote fairness, accountability and social trust.

“It is important now to encourage attitudinal and cultural change alongside capacity-building and multi-agency collaboration. Police need better resources, training, specialised units and data-sharing frameworks to tackle these issues effectively.”