----- **Bureau of Justice Assistance** **U.S. Department of Justice** This project was supported by Grant No. 2010-BE-BX-K023 awarded by the Bureau of Justice Assistance. The Bureau of Justice Assistance is a component of the Office of Justice Programs, which also includes the Bureau of Justice Statistics, the National Institute of Justice, the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, the Office for Victims of Crime, and the Office of Sex Offender Sentencing, Monitoring, Apprehending, Registering, and Tracking. Points of view or opinions in this document are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. The National White Collar Crime Center (NW3C) is the copyright owner of this document This information may not be used or reproduced in any form without express ----- ###### Project Partners The mission of the National White Collar Crime Center (NW3C) is to provide training, investigative support and research to agencies and entities involved in the prevention, investigation and prosecution of economic and high-tech crime. While NW3C has no investigative authority itself, its job is to help law enforcement agencies better understand and utilize tools to combat economic and high-tech crime. NW3C has other sections within its organization, including Training (in Computer Crime, Financial Crime and Intelligence Analysis), Research and Investigative Support Services. As a threat-based and intelligence-driven national security organization, the mission of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) is to protect and defend the United States against terrorist and foreign intelligence threats, to uphold and enforce the criminal laws of the United States and to provide leadership and **FBI** criminal justice services to federal, state, municipal and international agencies and partners. ----- **_Mission: To serve as a vehicle to receive, develop and refer criminal complaints_** _regarding the rapidly expanding arena of cyber crime. The Internet Crime Complaint_ _Center (IC3) gives the victims of cyber crime a convenient and easy-to-use reporting_ _mechanism that alerts authorities to suspected criminal or civil violations. For law_ _enforcement and regulatory agencies at the federal, state, local, tribal and international_ _levels, IC3 provides a central referral mechanism for complaints involving Internet-_ _related crimes._ ----- ##### Table of Contents Executive Summary……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..…….6 IC3 Overview………………………………………………………………..…………………………………………………………………... 7 Lifecycle of a Complaint….............................................………………………………………………………………………....7 Resources for Building Cases…………………………………………………………………………………………………………....8 Complainant Demographics…...………………………………………………………………………………………………………... 9 Overall Statistics……………………................………………………………………………………………………………………….10 Complaint Characteristics……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….10 2011 Frequently Reported Internet Crimes…………………………………..……………………………………..………….11 Case Highlights…..............………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..16 Scam Alerts………………………………………………………………………………………………...................................……...18 Protecting the Public……………………………………………………………………………………………...................………...19 Conclusion……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….19 Appendix I: Online Crime Prevention…………......................……………………………………………………..…………..20 Appendix II: 2011 Public Service Announcements…………………………………………………………………..……….22 Appendix III: Complainant Statistics…………......................………………………………………….………………….…..23 ----- ###### 2011 Internet Crime Report # 1 ###### Executive Summary In 2011, the Internet Crime Complaint Center (IC3) actively pursued its mission to address crimes committed using the Internet, providing services to both victims of online crimes and to law enforcement. Statistics in this report reveal IC3’s success. IC3 marked the third year in a row that it received over 300,000 complaints, a 3.4-percent increase over the previous year. The adjusted dollar loss of complaints was $485.3 million.[1] The 2011 IC3 Internet Crime Report reveals both the scope of online crime and IC3’s battle against it. The most common victim complaints included FBI-related scams, identity theft and advance fee fraud.[2] IC3 received and processed more than 26,000 complaints per month. Based on victim complaints, the top five states were California (34,169), Florida (20,034), Texas (18,477), New York (15,056) and Ohio (12,661). Victims in California reported the highest dollar losses with a total of $70.5 million. For victims reporting financial losses, the average was $4,187. IC3 serves as a powerful conduit for law enforcement to share information and pursue cases that often span jurisdictional boundaries. Collaboration within this partnership has produced a number of technological advancements to streamline how the public’s complaints are processed and referred to investigators. Initially established as simply a convenient method for citizens to report Internet crime information, IC3 has evolved into a vital resource for both victims of online crime and for law enforcement across the country that investigate and prosecute a wide range of cases. Yearly Comparison of Complaints[3] # 1 350,000 300,000 250,000 200,000 150,000 100,000 50,000 0 336,655 314,246 303,809 275,284 231,493 207,449 207,492 206,884 124,449 75,064 50,412 16,838 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 1Methodology of evaluating loss amounts: FBI IC3 Unit staff reviewed for validity all complaints that reported a loss of more than $100,000. Analysts also converted losses reported in foreign currencies to dollars. The final amounts of all reported losses above $100,000 for which the complaint information did not support the loss amount were excluded from the statistics. 2Complaint category statistics that are based on the perceptions of the complaints are not typically accurate for statistical purposes. The statistics pulled from the complaints themselves, however, are considerably more accurate as they are categorized and grouped through the IC3 automated system. IC3 does not verify complaint data. ----- ###### IC3 Overview The Internet Fraud Complaint Center — a partnership between NW3C, BJA and the FBI — was established May 8, 2000 to address the ever-increasing incidence of online fraud. Just three years later, in response to the exponential increase in cyber crime of all types, the center changed its name to the Internet Crime Complaint Center (IC3®). Today, IC3 accepts more complaints in a single month than it received in its first six months. With more than two million complaints received since its inception, IC3 serves as the nation’s portal for reporting Internet crime and suspicious activity. IC3’s success has attracted international interest, with Canada, the United Kingdom and Germany using IC3 as a model for similar cyber crime centers. ###### Lifecycle of a Complaint Victims file complaints with IC3, some of which are auto-referred to appropriate law enforcement, while all go into the expansive bank of Internet crime complaints that make up the IC3 database. While developing a case, Internet crime analysts compile similar complaints, collect relevant case information from both open- and closed-source public information databases and confer with state, local, tribal, federal and international law enforcement personnel. Of all the complaints received in 2011, only 36.9 percent (115,903) reported financial loss. Although IC3 may not immediately build all complaints into referrals, all complaints are helpful in identifying trends and building statistical reports. IC3 compiles this information into reports that are available to all law enforcement through direct emails and placement on www.ic3.gov. It also develops public awareness documents. IC3 encourages victims of Internet crime to report all incidents to IC3 – whether or not an actual dollar loss is involved – due to the broad dissemination and varied uses of the data gathered from the complaints. ###### Complaint is Filed ###### The Lifecycle of a Complaint at IC3 Cases for Law Enforcement - Criminal Prosecution - Restitution Public Service Announcements - Media Distribution - Corporate Distribution - Website Posting Intelligence Reports - Corporate Analysts - Fusion Centers - Crime Analysts ----- ###### Resources for Building Cases IC3 analysts use an automated matching system to NW3C designed the Internet Complaint Search and identify links and commonalities between numerous Investigation System (ICSIS®) to assist with Internetcomplaints and combine related investigations. It the respective complaints allows IC3 analysts and law into referral groups for law enforcement to build and share enforcement. Of the 314,246 case information seamlessly. ### 314,246 complaints received in 2011, Complaints reported to IC3 IC3 examiners and analysts the IC3 automated complaint review complaints and grouping system generated analyze trends in ICSIS for 47,592 new groupings for similar complaints. Once they find similar complaints analytical review. involving an individual, a group of individuals or a In 2011, IC3 developed remote access, making IC3 data business, they compile this information into a case. available to over 30,000 FBI employees. Additionally, ICSIS training, provided by NW3C, is available for IC3 established a link to the remote access tool on Law law enforcement agencies (local, state, federal and Enforcement Online (LEO), which currently has over tribal) and allows them direct access to data and 150,000 vetted users. This web-based access provides trends within their locality, state or region. In addition users the ability to aggregate victims and losses to to allowing all law enforcement agencies to search, substantiate criminal activity within the agency’s analyze and compile information, ICSIS enables users area of jurisdiction and to enhance the development to communicate and share information. of cases. _NW3C provides ICSIS training to law enforcement_ ----- ###### Complainant Demographics Of the individuals who filed complaints with IC3 in 2011, 51.76 percent were male and 48.24 percent were female. In 2010, 53.10 percent of complainants were male and 46.89 percent were female. These numbers reflect a trend in recent years where the number of male and female complainants is equalizing. There was little change between 2010 and 2011 in the age groups that filed complaints. In 2010, those younger than 20 represented 3.2 percent; in 2011 they represented 3.1 percent. Those between ages 20-39 Top 10 State Complainant Rates per 100,000 Population State Per 100,000 Population 1. Alaska 196 2. District of Columbia 137 3. New Jersey 131 4. Nevada 130 5. Colorado 123 6. Ohio 110 7. Maryland 109 8. Florida 107 9. Virginia 106 10. Washington 104 **_Note: Based on U.S. Census data._** |State|Per 100,000 Population| |---|---| |1. Alaska|196| |2. District of Columbia|137| |3. New Jersey|131| |4. Nevada|130| |5. Colorado|123| |6. Ohio|110| |7. Maryland|109| |8. Florida|107| |9. Virginia|106| |10. Washington|104| 1. California 11.95% 2. Florida 7.01% 3. Texas 6.46% 4. New York 5.27% 5. Ohio 4.43% represented 39 percent in 2010, and 40 percent in 2011. The highest percentage of complainants were between ages 40 to 59, which represented 44 percent in 2010 and 43 percent in 2011. For 2010 and 2011, those 60 and older represented 14 percent of the complainants. The top four states with the most individual complainants were California, Florida, Texas and New York. Most foreign complainants were from Canada, the United Kingdom, Australia and India. Top 10 States by Count: Individual Complainants (Numbered by Rank) 6. New Jersey 4.02% 7. Pennsylvania 3.34% 8. Illinois 3.07% 9. Virginia 2.96% 10. Washington 2.44% **_Note: Of the complainants, 9.19% did not provide location information._** Top 10 Countries by Count: Individual Complainants (Numbered by Rank) 1. United States 90.99% 2. Canada 1.44% ----- ###### Overall Statistics Total complaints received: 314,246 Complaints reporting loss: 115,903 Total Loss: $485,253,871[*] Median dollar loss for those reporting a loss: $636 Average dollar loss overall: $1,544 Average dollar loss for those reporting loss: $4,187 ###### Complaint Characteristics Major Fraud Types Reported in 2011 FBI Impersonation Scams 14,350 Loan Intimidation Scams 9,968 Work-from-Home Scams Auto-Auction 17,352 Fraud 4,066 Romance Scams 5,663 During 2011, FBI-related scams were the most reported offense, followed by identity theft and advance fee fraud. IC3 primarily refers complaints with claims of dollar losses. Other complaints, which may represent a comparatively large percentage of complaints received, do not contain dollar loss claims, but are intended only to alert IC3 of the scam. Complaint category statistics may not always produce an accurate picture. They are based on complainant perception. However, the Complaint Management System (CMS) was designed to mitigate a certain degree of subjectivity, allowing complaint categorization to be reported more consistently. Top Five Reported Crime Types 18,511 Overpayment Fraud 35,764 FBI-Related Scams 22,404 Non-AuctionNon-Delivery of Merchandise 28,915 27,892 Identity Theft Advance Fee Fraud Definitions of the top five crime types: - **FBI-related Scams – Scams in which a criminal** poses as the FBI to defraud victims. - **Identity Theft – Unauthorized use of a victim’s** personal identifying information to commit fraud or other crimes. - **Advance Fee Fraud – Criminals convince victims** to pay a fee to receive something of value, but do not deliver anything of value to the victim. - **Non-Auction/Non-Delivery of Merchandise –** Purchaser does not receive items purchased. - **Overpayment Fraud – An incident in which** the complainant receives an invalid monetary instrument with instructions to deposit it in a bank account and send excess funds or a percentage of the deposited money back to the sender. ----- ###### 2011 Frequently Reported Internet Crimes Auto-Auction Fraud In fraudulent vehicle sales, criminals attempt to sell vehicles they do not own. Criminals create an attractive deal by advertising vehicles for sale at prices below book value. Often the sellers claim they must sell the vehicle because they are moving for work or being deployed for the military. Because of the alleged pending move, criminals refuse to meet in person or allow inspection of the vehicle, and they often attempt to rush the sale. To make the deal appear legitimate, the criminal instructs the victim to send full or partial payment to a third-party agent via a wire transfer payment service and to fax their payment receipt to the seller as proof of payment. The criminal pockets the payment but does not deliver the vehicle. Victims of these scams reported losses exceeding $8.2 million in 2011. With an average reported loss of more than $2,000, more than $22,700 per day was lost to these frauds, or $946.13 every hour. IC3 received a complaint of this variety approximately every two hours. |Col1|Col2|Col3|Auto-Fraud Scam Summary|Col5|Col6|Col7| |---|---|---|---|---|---|---| ||Male||Female|||| |Age Range|Complaints|Loss|Complaints|Loss|Total Complaints|Total Loss| |Under 20|74|$141,244.39|73|$125,545.71|147|$266,790.10| |20 - 29|503|$888,033.90|454|$763,667.57|957|$1,651,701.47| |30 - 39|491|$967,194.68|410|$709,244.27|901|$1,676,438.95| |40 - 49|590|$1,282,333.20|380|$790,528.10|970|$2,072,861.30| |50 - 59|494|$1,031,193.53|253|$448,375.49|747|$1,479,569.02| |Over 60|271|$883,705.96|73|$257,031.93|344|$1,140,737.89| |Total|2,423|$5,193,705.66|1,643|$3,094,393.07|4,066|$8,288,098.73| Males Count by Age Range Females Count by Age Range Under 20 Under 20 Over 60 ----- Romance Scams In 2011, IC3 received over 5,600 complaints of romance scams in which scammers target individuals who search for companionship or romance online. Victims believe they are “dating” someone decent and honest. However, the online contact is often a criminal with a well-rehearsed script that scammers use repeatedly and successfully. Scammers search chat rooms, dating sites, and social networking sites looking for victims. Although the principal group of victims is over 40 years old, divorced or widowed, disabled and often elderly, all demographics are at risk. Scammers use poetry, flowers and other gifts to reel in victims, while declaring “undying love.” These criminals also use stories of severe life circumstances, tragedies, family deaths, personal injuries or other hardships to keep their victims concerned and involved in their schemes. They also ask victims to send money to help overcome alleged financial hardships. These scams not only take a high toll on victims emotionally, but monetarily as well. In 2011, victim reported losses to various romance scams totaled $50.4 million. On average, each victim reported a loss of $8,900. At a rate of 15 complaints received per day, these scams saw daily reported losses of roughly $138,000, or more than $5,700 every hour. |Col1|Col2|Col3|Romance Scam Summary|Col5|Col6|Col7| |---|---|---|---|---|---|---| ||Male||Female|||| |Age Range|Complaints|Loss|Complaints|Loss|Total Complaints|Total Loss| |Under 20|20|$2,575.39|24|$28,207.00|44|$30,782.39| |20 - 29|268|$667,631.90|219|$530.617.45|487|$1,198,249.35| |30 - 39|339|$955,109.47|468|$2,784,399.71|807|$3,739,509.18| |40 - 49|486|$2,668,065.76|1,305|$8,481,733.46|1,791|$11,149,799.22| |50 - 59|438|$3,645,586.34|1,351|$18,802,678.69|1,789|$22,448,265.03| |Over 60|211|$2,551,007.37|534|$9,281,950.62|745|$11,832,957.99| |Total|1,762|$10,489,976.23|3,901|$39,909,586.93|5,663|$50,399,563.16| Males Count by Age Range Females Count by Age Range Under 20 20 1% Under 20 24 1% ----- Work-from-Home Scams Consumers continue to lose money from work-fromhome scams that cyber criminals use to move stolen funds. Regrettably, due to their participation, these individuals may face criminal charges. Organized cyber criminals recruit their victims through newspaper ads, online employment services, unsolicited emails or “spam,” and social networking sites advertising workfrom-home “opportunities.” Participating with a legitimate business, the consumer becomes a “mule” for criminals who use the consumer’s or other victim’s accounts to steal and launder money. In addition, the scammers may compromise the victim’s own identity or accounts. Employment scams reported to IC3 in 2011 showed losses exceeding $20 million. Complaints from victims of these scams averaged two per hour in 2011. With an average reported loss of $1,160 per complaint, victims of employment scams reported losing more than $55,000 per day ($2,297 per hour). Work-from-Home Scam Summary Male Female Complaints Loss Complaints Loss Total Complaints 182 $136,735.13 356 $315,968.24 538 1,361 $1,213,441.54 2,986 $2,462,623.73 4,347 1,090 $1,237,682.12 2,222 $1,924,376.64 3,312 1,160 $1,600,690.90 2,346 $2,861,209.50 3,506 1,717 $2,848,604.41 2,108 $2,035,254.74 3,825 948 $2,008,822.68 876 $1,480,017.36 1,824 6,458 $9,045,976.78 10,894 $11,079,450.21 17,352 Males Count by Age Range Females Count by Age Range |Col1|Male|Col3|Female|Col5|Col6|Col7| |---|---|---|---|---|---|---| |Age Range|Complaints|Loss|Complaints|Loss|Total Complaints|Total Loss| |Under 20|182|$136,735.13|356|$315,968.24|538|$452,703.37| |20 - 29|1,361|$1,213,441.54|2,986|$2,462,623.73|4,347|$3,676,065.27| |30 - 39|1,090|$1,237,682.12|2,222|$1,924,376.64|3,312|$3,162,058.76| |40 - 49|1,160|$1,600,690.90|2,346|$2,861,209.50|3,506|$4,461,900.40| |50 - 59|1,717|$2,848,604.41|2,108|$2,035,254.74|3,825|$4,883,859.15| |Over 60|948|$2,008,822.68|876|$1,480,017.36|1,824|$3,488,840.04| |Total|6,458|$9,045,976.78|10,894|$11,079,450.21|17,352|$20,125,426.99| Under 20 182 3% Under 20 356 3% Over 60 948 20 - 29 15% 1,361 20 - 29 21% 50 - 59 2,986 2,108 28% ----- Loan Intimidation Scams IC3 receives a high volume of complaints from victims of payday loan telephone collection scams. In these scams, a caller claims that the victim is delinquent in a payday loan and must repay the loan to avoid legal consequences. The callers purport to be representatives of the FBI, Federal Legislative Department, various law firms or other legitimate-sounding agencies. They claim to be collecting debts for various companies. One of the most insidious aspects of this scam is that the callers have accurate information about the victims, including Social Security numbers, dates of birth, addresses, employer information, bank account numbers, and names and telephone numbers of relatives and friends. The method by which the fraudsters obtained the personal information is unclear, but victims often relay that they had completed online applications for other loans or credit cards before the calls began. The fraudsters relentlessly call the victims’ homes, cell phones and places of employment. They refuse to provide the victims any details of the alleged payday loans and become abusive when questioned. The callers threaten victims with legal actions, arrests, and in some cases physical violence if they refuse to pay. In many cases, the callers even resort to harassment of the victims’ relatives, friends and employers. In 2011, reported losses for victims of loan intimidation scams exceeded $8 million. At the rate of 27 complaints received per day, these scams resulted in reported losses of $934 per hour, or more than $22,000 per day. |Col1|Col2|Col3|Loan Intimidation Scams|Col5|Col6|Col7| |---|---|---|---|---|---|---| ||Male||Female|||| |Age Range|Complaints|Loss|Complaints|Loss|Total Complaints|Total Loss| |Under 20|38|$6,824.77|40|$17,688.99|78|$24,513.76| |20 - 29|969|$479,041.08|1,405|$595,085.65|2,374|$1,074,126.73| |30 - 39|1,174|$855,926.43|1,942|$794,067.27|3,116|$1,649,993.70| |40 - 49|925|$807,032.96|1,371|$1,159,770.34|2,296|$1,966,803.30| |50 - 59|754|$569,680.16|838|$969,530.75|1,592|$1,539,210.91| |Over 60|268|$1,001,285.03|244|$926,920.65|512|$1,928,205.68| |Total|4,128|$3,719,790.43|5,840|$4,463,063.65|9,968|$8,182,854.08| Males Count by Age Range Females Count by Age Range Under 20 38 2% Under 20 40 1% ----- FBI Impersonation Email Scams The names of various government agencies and high-ranking government officials have been used in spam attacks in an attempt to defraud consumers. Government agencies do not send unsolicited emails. Complaints related to spam emails purportedly sent from the FBI continued to be reported with high frequency to IC3. In 2011, IC3 received about 39 complaints per day of this type. With an average reported loss of approximately $245 per complaint, victims reported losing more than $9,600 to this scam every day. FBI Impersonation Email Scams Male Female Complaints Loss Complaints Loss Total Complaints 75 $3,487.78 35 $850.00 110 702 $171,207.57 681 $33,472.00 1,383 1,233 $220,032.01 1,203 $93,036.71 2,436 1,793 $577,707.19 1,681 $237,698.99 3,474 2,361 $327,661.06 1,795 $501,021.39 4,156 1,838 $1,100,782.43 953 $250,098.45 2,791 8,002 $2,400,878.04 6,348 $1,116,177.54 14,350 Males Count by Age Range Females Count by Age Range |Col1|Male|Col3|Female|Col5|Col6|Col7| |---|---|---|---|---|---|---| |Age Range|Complaints|Loss|Complaints|Loss|Total Complaints|Total Loss| |Under 20|75|$3,487.78|35|$850.00|110|$4,337.78| |20 - 29|702|$171,207.57|681|$33,472.00|1,383|$204,679.57| |30 - 39|1,233|$220,032.01|1,203|$93,036.71|2,436|$313,068.72| |40 - 49|1,793|$577,707.19|1,681|$237,698.99|3,474|$815,406.18| |50 - 59|2,361|$327,661.06|1,795|$501,021.39|4,156|$828,682.45| |Over 60|1,838|$1,100,782.43|953|$250,098.45|2,791|$1,350,880.88| |Total|8,002|$2,400,878.04|6,348|$1,116,177.54|14,350|$3,517,055.58| Under 20 75 1% Under 20 35 1% ----- ###### Case Highlights Attorney Collection Scam In July 2007, IC3 began receiving complaints from U.S. law firms that subject(s) contacted them via email requesting assistance with third party debt collection. The victims received checks from the alleged debtor along with instructions to wire transfer the collected funds minus attorney fees. In most instances, the funds were wired to banks in Korea, China, Ireland and Canada. In all instances the checks were counterfeit. This company sells non-prescription dietary aids, nutritional supplements and other products online. The Attorney General’s Economic Crimes Division began its investigation in December 2009 after consumers complained of receiving and being billed for products they did not order. An investigation revealed that acceptance of a trial product offer triggered a negative option agreement, which imposed automatic monthly shipments and re-occurring costs associated with receiving the trial products. The company fully cooperated with the investigation In a twist on this scam, the criminals purported to be receiving the trial products. a divorcee needing the law firm to handle the divorce settlement. In another instance, the scammers tried to The company fully cooperated with the investigation purchase real estate in the and reimbursed or assisted U.S., using law firms to _“IC3 has been an invaluable resource for_ in the reimbursement of handle the transaction. approximately $3 million to ###### me in my role as an investigator. The crime consumers nationwide. In The law firms that wired _analysts provide a wide array of complete_ addition to refunds, it will funds experienced large ###### investigative support and research to pay approximately $51,000 monetary losses because to the Attorney General’s the checks were usually _assist me. I look forward to another year_ Office for attorneys’ fees in excess of $100,000. _of partnering with IC3 to combat_ and future investigation and IC3 received over 600 ###### economic crime.” enforcement. A special agent attorney collection scam involved in the case said, complaints from victims Detective Douglas D. Hoffman “The (Attorney General’s) who reported more than University of Toledo Police Department, OH Office used all of the victim $16 million in losses. information obtained from IC3 as part of their settlement In August 2011, a Federal High Court in Lagos, Nigeria … I will make sure and contact (IC3) if I need any more granted the extradition of Emmanuel Ekhator to the assistance, which is very likely.” U.S. Ekhator allegedly defrauded U.S. law firms of more than $29 million in a third party debt collection Infomercial Pitchman Scam scam. Ekhator will stand trial on the charges in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania. In June 2011, a federal grand jury returned a 41-count indictment against an infomercial pitchman on fraud Deceptive Marketing related charges for promoting an Internet-based, vitamin-selling business that ensnared more than IC3 provided information to the Florida Department 226,000 victims who invested about $51.8 million. of Law Enforcement and the Florida Attorney It recruited victims to establish businesses selling General’s Office that was used to reach a settlement vitamins over the Internet. The pitchman was indicted with a company over deceptive marketing practices. ----- on conspiracy, mail fraud, attack causes websites to wire fraud, promotional “Rings were matched with 10 victims in be knocked offline from money laundering and our case, nine of which had filed com­ numerous requests from transactional money plaints with IC3. If not for IC3, we would outside computers at laundering charges. one time. Complainants ###### not have had a case. They were instru­ reported that this This takedown was a mental in solving this case, putting the individual hacked and cooperative effort involving ###### crook in jail and recovering property for perpetrated a DDoS IC3 along with the Phoenix attack on a gaming site. Better Business Bureau, the the victims.” The site claimed to have Arizona Attorney General’s Detective Bill Barrett lost 12 hours of sales, Office, the Federal Trade San Diego County Sheriff’s Department, CA costing $500,000. The Commission, and the U.S. gaming site also claimed C.A.T.C.H. Team Postal Inspection Service. the hacker had changed their domain name Spoofed Website Case system (DNS) server information, the technology that Early in 2011, IC3 received complaints indicating that a allows website addresses to appear as names rather non-profit organization that battles child pornography than numbers. through its reporting hotline had been spoofed. This International Work-At-Home Scam organization helps parents prevent children from viewing age-restricted material online with the “Restricted To Based on information from IC3, police in Long Adults” website label. Beach, CA arrested a woman suspected of facilitating a wide-scale, international “work-at-home” scam The fraudulent company sent threatening emails operated out of Lagos, Nigeria. The defendant was to operators of adult websites claiming that child directed to accept packages, sell the contents, retain pornography was found on their websites. IC3 analysts 20 percent of proceeds and then wire the remaining learned that the group’s website was fraudulently funds to unknown suspects in Nigeria, according to registered under the name of a U.S. congresswoman. Long Beach Police Detective Greg McMullen. The Ultimately the domain name was transferred to the victims posted their resumes or ads online seeking job legitimate organization, ending the operation of the opportunities, Detective McMullen explained. The spoofed site. defendant in this case was charged with grand theft, Distributed Denial of Service (DDoS) Attack by Teen possession of stolen property and parole violations. IC3, working via the Internet Crime Working Group (ICWG), investigated a case that pertained to Distributed Denial of Service (DDoS) attacks by an individual who went by “phr34k1sh” and “verbal vampire.” A DDoS ----- ###### Scam Alerts Victims’ complaints are a vital resource for IC3, law enforcement agencies and industry partners. IC3 uses all complaint data it receives to prepare public service announcements (PSAs) on the latest cyber trends to keep consumers and industry up-to-date on Internet fraud. IC3 distributes these PSAs through media outlets, corporate partners and www.ic3.gov. Below are some of the alerts distributed in 2011 (see Appendix II). Traffic Ticket Spam ###### Prevention Tips _Consumers_ _who_ _exercise_ _diligence_ _when_ _conducting business online often avoid becoming_ _victims. (Additional prevention tips can be found in_ _Appendix I.)_ _•_ _Be cautious when dealing with individuals_ _outside of your own country._ _•_ _Be wary if the seller only accepts wire transfers_ _or cash, or if the business operates from P.O._ _boxes or maildrops._ _•_ _Beware when money is required up front for_ _instructions or products._ _•_ _Monitor your credit statements monthly for any_ _fraudulent activity and review a copy of your_ _credit report at least once a year._ _•_ _Do not open spam. Delete it unread. Never_ account. Unaware the check was counterfeit, the victim followed the fraudster’s instructions. The victim was duped twice, and the fraudster successfully executed his “double-dipping” strategy. Radio Ad Seeks Mystery Shoppers Some retailers hire marketing research companies to evaluate their quality of service. These research companies, in turn, use mystery shoppers to make purchases in stores or restaurants and then report on the experience. Traffic Ticket Spam _respond to spam as this will confirm to the_ on the experience. _sender that it is a “live” email address._ IC3 received more than 70 Another version of complaints between July mystery shopping involves and October 2011 about consumers “hired” to evaluate the speed and efficiency fraudulent emails claiming the recipients had been issued of a specified money transfer service. The shopper traffic tickets. The spam, which spoofed a nyc.gov email receives a check with instructions to deposit it in a address, claimed to be from the New York State Police personal bank account, withdraw the amount in cash (NYSP). The email instructed victims to print the ticket and wire it to a third party. After wiring the cash to and mail it to a town court in Chatham Hall. a third party, the victim learns that the check was NYSP is investigating this matter with assistance from counterfeit. To appear credible, scammers advertise the FBI Albany Division. Initial analysis indicated the such opportunities on reputable websites, television email campaign is associated with a Russian domain. stations and in publications. In reality, media outlets are Some emails included malware associated with bogus unable to verify the legitimacy of the job opportunity. anti-virus software. Recently, IC3 received information from radio stations Fraudster ‘Double-Dipping’ in Los Angeles and Palm Springs, California reporting that they had been contacted via email by an individual In an Internet fraud involving autos, a scammer posts wanting to purchase ads to promote a mystery shopper a nonexistent vehicle for sale on the Internet. Often the program. The stations received signed confirmations description and photos of the vehicle are lifted from and credit card payments, which cleared. The stations legitimate websites. A buyer responds and is told that the ran the ads and then received complaints from listeners vehicle is located overseas. The fraudster then instructs who were scammed. Listeners received a check and the victim to send a deposit via wire transfer to initiate were instructed to cash it immediately. After deducting the shipping process. $450 for their commission, they were told to wire the difference to a third party. Later, the check was identified In a recent twist to this scam, the criminal advised there as counterfeit. In addition, the credit card used to pay was a problem with the initial wire transfer and sent the for the ads had been compromised h h k Th d ----- Bogus Lawsuits Promise Mortgage Relief IC3 received several complaints from people who received a letter stating they were a potential plaintiff in a “mass joinder” lawsuit filed against their mortgage companies. The law firm made a variety of claims and sales pitches for legal and litigation services, asking consumers to pay non-refundable, upfront fees of $2,000 to $5,000. Its goal, however, was taking money, not providing a service. Lawyers seeking plaintiffs to join a class action lawsuit do not seek an up-front commission. The California Department of Real Estate and the Better Business Bureau posted online warnings about this scam. ###### Protecting the Public Over the past decade, Internet fraud has become one of the fastest-growing crime concerns facing the public. Nearly all crime that once was committed in person, by mail or over the telephone can now be committed through the Internet. IC3 serves as a convenient and easy way for victims of Internet crime to alert authorities to a suspected violation. IC3 also understands how important it is to inform the _Information about cyber crime or filing a_ _complaint may be found at www.ic3.gov_ public about the dangers of cyber crime. Because all age groups are potentially at risk, IC3 is dedicated to providing educational services to both children and adults. IC3 annually visits schools and community organizations to help ensure the public knows how to stay safe while online. Through a partnership with the U.S. Postal Inspection Service and other businesses and organizations, IC3 operates the website www.lookstoogoodtobetrue.com, which provides information on the latest schemes and gives victims the opportunity to share their experiences online. ###### Conclusion The 2011 IC3 Internet Crime Report provides a snapshot of the variety of crimes perpetrated online. The report details IC3’s efforts to prevent and reduce crime and assist law enforcement. In 2011, IC3 processed over 300,000 complaints, representing dollar losses approaching a half-billion. IC3 referred complaints to local, state, federal and international law enforcement agencies, providing additional analysis to assist investigations, when relevant. As the case highlights and statistics in this year’s report show, IC3’s efforts led to the arrests and convictions of many cyber criminals. IC3 also produced trend analysis reports, public service announcements, scam alerts and other publications to alert both law enforcement and the general public. IC3 will continue to enhance its services and products to keep up with technology and trends in the ongoing war against cyber crime. ----- ###### Appendix I Online Crime Prevention Every day IC3 receives complaints from victims who clicked links in an email or paid up front for a product or service only to be conned out of their hard-earned money. Based on the type of scam, there are a number of things a consumer can do to avoid becoming a victim (This information appears online www.ic3.gov/preventiontips.aspx). Auction Fraud - Before you bid, contact the seller with any questions you have. Review the seller’s feedback. - Be cautious when dealing with individuals outside of your own country. - Ensure you understand refund, return, and warranty policies. - Determine the shipping charges before you buy. - Be wary if the seller only accepts wire transfers or cash. - Consider insuring your item. Credit Card Fraud - If purchasing merchandise, ensure it is from a reputable source. Do research to ensure legitimacy of the individual or company. - Beware of providing credit card information through unsolicited emails. - Promptly reconcile credit card statements to avoid unauthorized charges. Debt Elimination - Know who you are doing business with – do your research. Contact the state Attorney General’s Office or the state corporation commission, to see if there are any registered complaints. - Be cautious when dealing with individuals outside of your own country. - Ensure that you understand all terms and conditions of any agreement. - Be wary of businesses that operate from P.O. boxes or maildrops. Employment/Business Opportunities - Be wary of inflated claims of product effectiveness. - Be cautious of exaggerated claims of possible earnings or profits. - Beware when money is required up front for instructions or products. - Be leery when the job posting claims “no experience necessary.” - Do not give your Social Security number when first interacting with your prospective employer. - Be wary when replying to unsolicited emails for work-at-home employment. Identity Theft - Ensure websites are secure before submitting a credit card number. - Never throw away credit card or bank statements in usable form. - Be aware of missed bills, which could indicate the account has been taken over. - Be cautious of scams requiring personal information. - Never give a credit card number over the phone unless you make the call. - Monitor credit statements monthly for any fraudulent activity. Review a copy of your credit report at least once a year. - Report unauthorized transactions to bank or credit card companies as soon as possible. ----- Investment Fraud, Ponzi and Pyramid Schemes - If the opportunity appears too good to be true, it probably is. - Beware of promises to make fast profits. - Be wary of investments that offer high returns at little or no risk. - Be cautious when you are required to bring in subsequent investors. - Do not invest in anything unless you understand the deal. - Independently verify the terms of any investment that you intend to make. Beware of references given by the promoter. - Do not assume a company is legitimate based on appearance of the website. - Be leery when responding to investment offers received through unsolicited email. Lotteries - Be wary if you do not remember entering a lottery or contest. - Be cautious if you receive a telephone call stating you are the winner of a lottery. - Beware of lotteries that charge a fee before delivering your prize. - Be wary of demands to send additional money to be eligible for future winnings. - It is a violation of federal law to play a foreign lottery via mail or phone. Phishing/Spoofing - Be suspicious of any unsolicited email requesting personal information. - Avoid filling out forms in email messages that ask for personal information. This could be a phishing scam. - Always compare the link in the email to the link that you are actually directed to visit. - Log on to the entity’s official website, instead of “linking” to it from an unsolicited email. - Contact the actual business that supposedly sent the email to verify if the email is genuine. Spam - Do not open spam. Delete it. - Never respond to spam because this will confirm to the sender that it is a valid email address. - Have a primary and secondary email address — one for people you know and one for all other purposes. - Avoid giving out your email address unless you know how it will be used. - Never purchase anything advertised through unsolicited email. Reshipping - Be cautious if you are asked to ship packages to an “overseas home office.” - Be leery if the individual states that his country will not allow direct business shipments from the United States. - Be wary if the ship-to address is yours but the name on the package is not. - Do not accept packages you did not order. - If you receive packages you did not order, either refuse delivery or contact the company that sent the package. ----- ###### Appendix II 2011 Public Service Announcements* December http://www.ic3.gov/media/2011/111229.aspx - Password Safety Posted - Operation in Our Sites November **Holiday Shopping Tips** http://www.ic3.gov/media/2011/111121.aspx - Fraudulent Classified Ads or Auction Sales - Gift Card Scams - Phishing and Social Networking October http://www.ic3.gov/media/2011/111017.aspx - Traffic Ticket Scam - Fraudster Double-Dipping - Online Vehicle Scam - Mystery Shopper Scam - Use of Government Officials’ Identities Scam - Modeling Scam - Purported FDIC Email Scam September http://www.ic3.gov/media/2011/110901.aspx - Mass Joinder Lawsuits for Mortgage Relief - Online Auction Site Sony® Playstation® Bundle ad Scam - Fraud Trends Effecting E-commerce - Advisory on Military Addresses - Email Address Tumbling August **Automotive Brand Hijackers:** http://www.ic3.gov/media/2011/110815.aspx **Spam Emails Use FBI Officials’ Names:** http://www.ic3.gov/media/2011/110809.aspx July http://www.ic3.gov/media/2011/110714.aspx - DDoS Attacks - Extortion Emails Targeting Physicians - Scam Promises Large Winnings; Threats for Non compliance - Email Impersonating the FBI - Threatening IC3 Impersonation Calls May http://www.ic3.gov/media/2011/110526.aspx - Current Events Fraud - Misrepresentation of the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network http://www.ic3.gov/media/2011/110510.aspx - Job Scam Used to Reship Merchandise to Russia - Counterfeit Check Scam Targeting Realtors and Real Estate Attorneys **Malicious Software Features Osama bin Laden Links:** http://www.ic3.gov/media/2011/110504.aspx April **Online Romance Scams:** http://www.ic3.gov/media/2011/110429.aspx **Fraud Alert: Unauthorized Wire Transfers to China** http://www.ic3.gov/media/2011/ ChinaWireTransferFraudAlert.pdf http://www.ic3.gov/media/2011/110404.aspx - Automated Clearing House Spam - Lottery Scammers Misusing Public Services - Potassium Iodide Price Gouging March **Avoiding Fraudulent Charitable Contribution Schemes:** http://www.ic3.gov/media/2011/110311.aspx http://www.ic3.gov/media/2011/110310.aspx - Romance Scammers - Phishing Email Regarding Alleged Rejection of Tax Payments - Telephone Scam Offering Virus Removal Services February http://www.ic3.gov/media/2011/110214.aspx - Social Network Misspelling Scam - Fake Online Receipt Scam - Malicious Code in .gov Email January **Emails Containing Malware Sent to Businesses** **Concerning Job Postings:** http://www.ic3.gov/media/2011/110119.aspx _*Note: No PSAs were issued in June_ ----- ###### Appendix III Complainant Statistics Complainant Statistics by State* Rank State Percent Rank State Percent 1 California 11.95% 27 Louisiana 1.02% 2 Florida 7.01% 28 Connecticut 0.94% 3 Texas 6.46% 29 Kentucky 0.87% 4 New York 5.27% 30 Oklahoma 0.84% 5 Ohio 4.43% 31 Utah 0.72% 6 New Jersey 4.02% 32 Kansas 0.69% 7 Pennsylvania 3.34% 33 Iowa 0.68% 8 Illinois 3.07% 34 Arkansas 0.67% 9 Virginia 2.96% 35 New Mexico 0.59% 10 Washington 2.44% 36 Mississippi 0.55% 11 Michigan 2.38% 37 West Virginia 0.49% 12 North Carolina 2.35% 38 Alaska 0.49% 13 Arizona 2.29% 39 Idaho 0.44% 14 Georgia 2.23% 40 Hawaii 0.41% 15 Maryland 2.20% 41 New Hampshire 0.39% 16 Colorado 2.16% 42 Nebraska 0.35% 17 Tennessee 1.81% 43 Maine 0.32% 18 Indiana 1.67% 44 Montana 0.30% 19 Massachusetts 1.61% 45 District of Columbia 0.29% 20 Missouri 1.49% 46 Rhode Island 0.27% 21 Wisconsin 1.39% 47 Delaware 0.26% 22 Alabama 1.28% 48 Vermont 0.19% 23 Oregon 1.25% 49 Wyoming 0.18% 24 Nevada 1.23% 50 South Dakota 0.15% 25 Minnesota 1.18% 51 North Dakota 0.13% 26 South Carolina 1.09% _*Note: This is the total number of complaints from each state and the District of Columbia. This total includes_ _complaints that list dollar loss amounts and complaints that do not list dollar loss amounts. Also, 9.19% of the_ _complainants did not provide location information. Figures were rounded to the nearest hundreth percent and do_ _not total 100%._ |Rank|State|Percent|Rank|State|Percent| |---|---|---|---|---|---| |1|California|11.95%|27|Louisiana|1.02%| |2|Florida|7.01%|28|Connecticut|0.94%| |3|Texas|6.46%|29|Kentucky|0.87%| |4|New York|5.27%|30|Oklahoma|0.84%| |5|Ohio|4.43%|31|Utah|0.72%| |6|New Jersey|4.02%|32|Kansas|0.69%| |7|Pennsylvania|3.34%|33|Iowa|0.68%| |8|Illinois|3.07%|34|Arkansas|0.67%| |9|Virginia|2.96%|35|New Mexico|0.59%| |10|Washington|2.44%|36|Mississippi|0.55%| |11|Michigan|2.38%|37|West Virginia|0.49%| |12|North Carolina|2.35%|38|Alaska|0.49%| |13|Arizona|2.29%|39|Idaho|0.44%| |14|Georgia|2.23%|40|Hawaii|0.41%| |15|Maryland|2.20%|41|New Hampshire|0.39%| |16|Colorado|2.16%|42|Nebraska|0.35%| |17|Tennessee|1.81%|43|Maine|0.32%| |18|Indiana|1.67%|44|Montana|0.30%| |19|Massachusetts|1.61%|45|District of Columbia|0.29%| |20|Missouri|1.49%|46|Rhode Island|0.27%| |21|Wisconsin|1.39%|47|Delaware|0.26%| |22|Alabama|1.28%|48|Vermont|0.19%| |23|Oregon|1.25%|49|Wyoming|0.18%| |24|Nevada|1.23%|50|South Dakota|0.15%| |25|Minnesota|1.18%|51|North Dakota|0.13%| |26|South Carolina|1.09%|||| ----- ###### Complainant Loss by Victim State* Rank State Loss Percent Rank State Loss Percent 1 California $70,479,912 17.78% 27 Louisiana $3,832,686 0.97% 2 Florida $31,552,488 7.96% 28 Kentucky $3,792,044 0.96% 3 Texas $29,915,173 7.55% 29 Oregon $3,671,495 0.93% 4 New York $23,162,563 5.84% 30 Oklahoma $3,660,524 0.92% 5 Pennsylvania $12,454,055 3.14% 31 Arkansas $2,925,389 0.74% 6 Virginia $11,332,175 2.86% 32 Hawaii $2,675,128 0.67% 7 Illinois $11,121,452 2.81% 33 Kansas $2,632,465 0.66% 8 Arizona $10,999,652 2.77% 34 New Mexico $2,557,720 0.65% 9 Ohio $10,619,201 2.68% 35 Iowa $2,530,020 0.64% 10 New Jersey $9,932,889 2.51% 36 Utah $2,481,421 0.63% 11 Washington $9,572,357 2.41% 37 Idaho $2,229,701 0.56% 12 North Carolina $9,054,427 2.28% 38 Rhode Island $2,112,805 0.53% 13 Michigan $8,850,400 2.23% 39 New Hampshire $2,042,570 0.52% 14 Colorado $8,110,787 2.05% 40 District of Columbia $1,825,865 0.46% 15 Georgia $8,089,934 2.04% 41 West Virginia $1,814,270 0.46% 16 Maryland $8,052,280 2.03% 42 Nebraska $1,683,598 0.42% 17 Indiana $6,313,102 1.59% 43 Mississippi $1,577,778 0.40% 18 Massachusetts $6,183,331 1.56% 44 Montana $1,475,823 0.37% 19 Nevada $6,122,688 1.54% 45 Alaska $1,275,859 0.32% 20 Tennessee $5,540,995 1.40% 46 Maine $1,009,523 0.25% 21 Wisconsin $5,196,383 1.31% 47 Delaware $872,365 0.22% 22 Minnesota $4,704,908 1.19% 48 Wyoming $636,685 0.16% 23 South Carolina $4,593,741 1.16% 49 North Dakota $587,752 0.15% 24 Missouri $4,547,345 1.15% 50 Vermont $571,938 0.14% 25 Connecticut $4,434,352 1.12% 51 South Dakota $498,387 0.13% 26 Alabama $4,087,028 1.03% _*Note: This is the total number of complaints from each state and the District of Columbia. Of the complainants, 5.17% ($20,478,582) did not provide_ _location information. Percentages were rounded to the nearest hundreth and do not add up to precisely 100%._ |Rank|State|Loss|Percent|Rank|State|Loss|Percent| |---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---| |1|California|$70,479,912|17.78%|27|Louisiana|$3,832,686|0.97%| |2|Florida|$31,552,488|7.96%|28|Kentucky|$3,792,044|0.96%| |3|Texas|$29,915,173|7.55%|29|Oregon|$3,671,495|0.93%| |4|New York|$23,162,563|5.84%|30|Oklahoma|$3,660,524|0.92%| |5|Pennsylvania|$12,454,055|3.14%|31|Arkansas|$2,925,389|0.74%| |6|Virginia|$11,332,175|2.86%|32|Hawaii|$2,675,128|0.67%| |7|Illinois|$11,121,452|2.81%|33|Kansas|$2,632,465|0.66%| |8|Arizona|$10,999,652|2.77%|34|New Mexico|$2,557,720|0.65%| |9|Ohio|$10,619,201|2.68%|35|Iowa|$2,530,020|0.64%| |10|New Jersey|$9,932,889|2.51%|36|Utah|$2,481,421|0.63%| |11|Washington|$9,572,357|2.41%|37|Idaho|$2,229,701|0.56%| |12|North Carolina|$9,054,427|2.28%|38|Rhode Island|$2,112,805|0.53%| |13|Michigan|$8,850,400|2.23%|39|New Hampshire|$2,042,570|0.52%| |14|Colorado|$8,110,787|2.05%|40|District of Columbia|$1,825,865|0.46%| |15|Georgia|$8,089,934|2.04%|41|West Virginia|$1,814,270|0.46%| |16|Maryland|$8,052,280|2.03%|42|Nebraska|$1,683,598|0.42%| |17|Indiana|$6,313,102|1.59%|43|Mississippi|$1,577,778|0.40%| |18|Massachusetts|$6,183,331|1.56%|44|Montana|$1,475,823|0.37%| |19|Nevada|$6,122,688|1.54%|45|Alaska|$1,275,859|0.32%| |20|Tennessee|$5,540,995|1.40%|46|Maine|$1,009,523|0.25%| |21|Wisconsin|$5,196,383|1.31%|47|Delaware|$872,365|0.22%| |22|Minnesota|$4,704,908|1.19%|48|Wyoming|$636,685|0.16%| |23|South Carolina|$4,593,741|1.16%|49|North Dakota|$587,752|0.15%| |24|Missouri|$4,547,345|1.15%|50|Vermont|$571,938|0.14%| |25|Connecticut|$4,434,352|1.12%|51|South Dakota|$498,387|0.13%| |26|Alabama|$4,087,028|1.03%||||| ----- ###### Complaints per 100,000 Population* Rank State Complaint Count 1 Alaska 196 2 District of Columbia 137 3 New Jersey 131 4 Nevada 130 5 Colorado 123 6 Ohio 110 7 Maryland 109 8 Florida 107 9 Virginia 106 10 Washington 104 11 Arizona 103 12 Oregon 94 13 California 92 14 Wyoming 90 15 Vermont 88 16 Montana 87 17 New Hampshire 86 18 Hawaii 85 19 Delaware 83 20 Tennessee 82 21 New Mexico 82 22 Idaho 80 23 New York 78 24 Alabama 77 25 West Virginia 76 26 Connecticut 75 _*Note: Based on U.S. Census data._ |Rank|State|Complaint Count|Rank|State|Complaint Count| |---|---|---|---|---|---| |1|Alaska|196|27|Pennsylvania|75| |2|District of Columbia|137|28|Rhode Island|75| |3|New Jersey|131|29|Utah|74| |4|Nevada|130|30|Indiana|74| |5|Colorado|123|31|Texas|73| |6|Ohio|110|32|Missouri|71| |7|Maryland|109|33|Massachusetts|71| |8|Florida|107|34|North Carolina|70| |9|Virginia|106|35|Wisconsin|70| |10|Washington|104|36|Maine|70| |11|Arizona|103|37|Michigan|69| |12|Oregon|94|38|Kansas|69| |13|California|92|39|Illinois|68| |14|Wyoming|90|40|South Carolina|68| |15|Vermont|88|41|Georgia|66| |16|Montana|87|42|Arkansas|66| |17|New Hampshire|86|43|Louisiana|64| |18|Hawaii|85|44|Oklahoma|64| |19|Delaware|83|45|Iowa|64| |20|Tennessee|82|46|Minnesota|64| |21|New Mexico|82|47|Kentucky|58| |22|Idaho|80|48|North Dakota|56| |23|New York|78|49|Nebraska|55| |24|Alabama|77|50|Mississippi|53| |25|West Virginia|76|51|South Dakota|52| |26|Connecticut|75|||| ----- ###### Average Dollar Loss by Victim State per 100,000 Population* Rank State Average Loss Rank State Average Loss 1 District of Columbia $1,119.70 27 Orgeon 2 Rhode Island $727.28 28 Colorado 3 Wyoming $631.07 29 Arizona 4 North Dakota $536.11 30 Minnesota 5 Vermont $516.39 31 Louisiana 6 Montana $514.35 32 Wisconsin 7 Alaska $508.90 33 Indiana 8 Hawaii $430.32 34 Alabama 9 South Dakota $375.54 35 Washington 10 New Hampshire $374.77 36 Massachusetts 11 Idaho $360.10 37 Maryland 12 Delaware $348.22 38 Tennessee 13 Nebraska $254.65 39 Missouri 14 Maine $231.70 40 New Jersey 15 New Mexico $207.02 41 Virginia 16 Nevada $178.80 42 North Carolina 17 West Virginia $157.67 43 Michigan 18 Arkansas $134.85 44 Georgia 19 Kansas $129.22 45 Ohio 20 Utah $125.22 46 Illinois 21 Connecticut $118.27 47 Pennsylvania 22 Iowa $116.81 48 Florida 23 Oklahoma $112.94 49 New York 24 Kentucky $89.17 50 Texas 25 South Carolina $81.61 51 California 26 Mississippi $81.55 _*Note: Average based on complaints reporting dollar loss. Based on U.S. Census data._ |Rank|State|Average Loss|Rank|State|Average Loss| |---|---|---|---|---|---| |1|District of Columbia|$1,119.70|27|Orgeon|$80.33| |2|Rhode Island|$727.28|28|Colorado|$74.11| |3|Wyoming|$631.07|29|Arizona|$71.91| |4|North Dakota|$536.11|30|Minnesota|$71.83| |5|Vermont|$516.39|31|Louisiana|$69.81| |6|Montana|$514.35|32|Wisconsin|$63.59| |7|Alaska|$508.90|33|Indiana|$57.31| |8|Hawaii|$430.32|34|Alabama|$56.44| |9|South Dakota|$375.54|35|Washington|$56.24| |10|New Hampshire|$374.77|36|Massachusetts|$53.05| |11|Idaho|$360.10|37|Maryland|$51.14| |12|Delaware|$348.22|38|Tennessee|$47.22| |13|Nebraska|$254.65|39|Missouri|$47.01| |14|Maine|$231.70|40|New Jersey|$43.77| |15|New Mexico|$207.02|41|Virginia|$41.49| |16|Nevada|$178.80|42|North Carolina|$36.06| |17|West Virginia|$157.67|43|Michigan|$35.73| |18|Arkansas|$134.85|44|Georgia|$33.14| |19|Kansas|$129.22|45|Ohio|$32.13| |20|Utah|$125.22|46|Illinois|$27.81| |21|Connecticut|$118.27|47|Pennsylvania|$25.69| |22|Iowa|$116.81|48|Florida|$21.60| |23|Oklahoma|$112.94|49|New York|$20.27| |24|Kentucky|$89.17|50|Texas|$16.36| |25|South Carolina|$81.61|51|California|$14.73| |26|Mississippi|$81.55|||| ----- ----- -----