Romance fraud in court: how prosecutors prove intent

Most people charged with romance fraud do not dispute that money changed hands. The central question at trial is usually narrower: did the defendant set out to deceive the victim from the start, or was the relationship, however flawed, genuine? Proving that state of mind is the core task in any scam prosecution, and it is rarely done with a single piece of evidence.

What the law has to establish

Romance fraud is not usually a separate offence. Prosecutors charge it under general fraud laws, and the exact wording depends on the country. A defendant is presumed innocent until a court decides otherwise, and the prosecution carries the burden of proof throughout.

In England and Wales, the usual charge is fraud by false representation under the Fraud Act 2006. The prosecution must show that the defendant made a representation that was false, knew it was or might be untrue, acted dishonestly, and intended to make a gain or cause a loss, or to expose someone to the risk of one. The offence does not require the victim to have lost money in the end. It is the dishonest attempt that counts.

In the United States, federal prosecutors often use the wire fraud statute, which covers schemes to defraud carried out through electronic communications. They must prove a scheme to obtain money or property by deception, that the defendant took part knowingly and with intent to defraud, and that interstate wires, such as internet messaging or bank transfers, were used.

Proving dishonesty and intent

England and Wales

Dishonesty is a question for the jury or magistrates. Under the test set out by the Supreme Court in Ivey v Genting Casinos and later applied in criminal cases, the court first works out what the defendant actually knew or believed about the facts. It then asks whether the conduct was dishonest by the standards of ordinary decent people. The defendant does not need to accept that their behaviour was dishonest.

Because nobody can see inside a defendant's mind, intent is normally inferred from what the person said and did. A jury is entitled to draw sensible conclusions from the surrounding facts.

United States

American courts speak of specific intent: the defendant must have meant to deceive and to deprive the victim of money or property. A genuine, honestly held belief, even a mistaken one, can amount to a defence of good faith. Prosecutors therefore try to show that any such belief was not credible.

The evidence prosecutors rely on

In a romance fraud trial, the case is usually built from digital and financial records, set alongside the victim's account.

• Messages and emails. Investigators look for scripted or repeated wording, sudden requests for money after emotional build-up, and invented emergencies such as medical bills or customs fees.
• False identities. Profile photographs taken from other people, fabricated job histories and inconsistent personal details can show that the persona was constructed.
• Bank and payment records. Tracing where the victim's money went, and how quickly it was moved or withdrawn, can show who benefited and whether the funds were spread across several accounts.
• Devices and accounts. Digital forensic analysis of phones and computers can link the accused to the fake profiles, to saved templates or to messages sent to more than one person.
• Other victims. In England and Wales, evidence of similar conduct towards others may be admitted as bad character evidence if the court finds it relevant. In the US, comparable evidence may be allowed to show intent or the absence of mistake. Judges usually give juries directions on how such evidence may be used.

Common defences and how they are tested

A defendant at a fraud trial may argue that the relationship was real and the payments were gifts or loans. They may say someone else controlled the accounts, or that they were an intermediary who did not know the true purpose of the transfers.

Prosecutors test these claims against the timeline. A person who truly intends to repay a loan is likely to behave differently from someone who stops responding once the money arrives. Contradictions between a defendant's account in interview and the records on their own devices can also weigh heavily with a jury.

Money mules and deliberate ignorance

Many online scams rely on people who receive and forward money. Some know exactly what they are doing, while others claim they believed they were handling a legitimate job or favour. They are often charged with money laundering offences, which have their own mental elements, such as knowing or suspecting that funds are criminal property.

US courts may allow a jury to find knowledge where a defendant deliberately avoided learning the truth. The prosecution still has to show that the person was aware of a high probability of wrongdoing and took steps to avoid confirming it. Evidence of warnings from banks, unusual payment instructions or payments in return for little effort can all be relevant.

Why these cases are difficult

Romance fraud prosecutions face practical hurdles. Offenders may be abroad, so evidence can take months to obtain through formal international requests. Victims may feel shame, and some are reluctant to give evidence. Courts can offer protections such as giving evidence by video link, depending on the jurisdiction and the witness's circumstances.

For a court, the question is never whether the victim was foolish or the scam was convincing. It is whether the evidence proves, to the required standard, that the accused acted with an intent to defraud. Where it does, a conviction follows. Where it leaves reasonable doubt about what the defendant knew or intended, the law requires an acquittal.