Skip to main content

Table 8 Description of fraud types identified in the public sector literature

From: Cryptocurrencies and future financial crime

Label Description
COVID-related scams The publication that referred to COVID-related cryptocurrency scams did not provide a definition thereof. However, it is implied that this refers to any scam related to COVID-19 that requires payment in cryptocurrencies, such as donation scams, payment for fake personal protective equipment, etc. (NHS National Services Scotland, 2020). We note that Xia et al. (2020a) also define various scams in the context of COVID, which we have included separately above (see, for example, definitions of malware scams, giveaway scams, donation scams, and blackmail scams)
False signals of supply and demand (wash trading, layering, spoofing) False signals of supply and demand were not defined in the public sector literature. The UK Financial Conduct Authority, in the Market Abuse Regulations, defines this as providing information ‘which is likely to give the regular user a false or misleading impression as to the supply of, or the demand for, or the price or value of a qualifying investment or relevant product’, for example, of a crypto asset (Financial Conduct Authority, 2021)
Income tax scams The public sector publication referring to income tax scams did not offer a definition thereof (Manojlovic, 2019). However, in describing the scam, it appears to involve someone impersonating federal employees (defined above), specifically, in this case, Canada Revenue Agency employees (Manojlovic, 2019)
Unfair and deceptive acts This was not defined in the literature. However, it is understood to refer to the Federal Trade Commission Act, which prohibits any practice that ‘causes or is likely to cause substantial injury to consumers; cannot be reasonably avoided by consumers; and is not outweighed by countervailing benefits to consumers or to competition’ or ‘where a representation, omission, or practice misleads or is likely to mislead the consumer; a consumer’s interpretation of the representation, omission, or practice is considered reasonable under the circumstances; and the misleading representation, omission, or practice is material’ (Federal Trade Commission Act, 2012)