Abstract
Background
Consumer fraud (special fraud) disproportionately harms older adults in Japan, yet determinants of police reporting and vulnerability are unclear. This study compared victims, non-victims, victims with damage reports, and detectors who recognized scams and avoided loss.
Methods
A cross-sectional survey classified respondents as victims (n=17), non-victims (n=389), victims with reports (n=43), or detectors (n=44). Measures included five-year attempted-fraud frequency; incident characteristics; landline anti-fraud functions; response behaviors (e.g., responding email); motivation; fraud-vulnerability traits; and perceived drawbacks of providing information or seeking advice.
Results
Attempted fraud was more frequent among victims than non-victims but did not differ between victims with reports and detectors. Offender identity claims, initial contact channel, and explanation did not significantly distinguish victims with reports from detectors. Compared with detectors, victims with reports more often lacked landline anti-fraud functions, more often replied via email, more strongly endorsed profit-seeking motives (expecting eventual personal benefit), reported less knowledge of scam tactics, exhibited higher fraud-vulnerability traits, and perceived greater drawbacks of information provision or consultation.
Conclusion
Filing a damage report may not attenuate vulnerability, implying risk of repeat victimization if prevention is left to individuals. Policies should scale protective functions across landlines, email, and SNS; discourage contact with unknown persons via personal communication channels; provide rehearsal-based practice for refusing profit-framed offers and consulting trusted third parties; and reduce perceived costs of reporting and consultation through targeted risk communication. These targets may inform scalable, community-based interventions and regulatory guidance.