Scottish Crime and Justice Survey 2024/25: Main findings
Main findings from the Scottish Crime and Justice Survey 2024/25.
Fraud and computer misuse
Background to fraud and computer misuse in the SCJS
A user consultation in 2022 gathered feedback expressing a desire for the SCJS to collect more information on cyber-crime incidents – many of which are crimes of fraud.[1] In 2023/24, a new victim form was included in the SCJS questionnaire, with the aim of gathering information on crimes of fraud and computer misuse. For the first time, this allows us to estimate the volume and prevalence of these crimes in Scotland, as well as present information on their characteristics (such as victim demographics). This new victim form replaces the previous cyber-crime module.
Fraud is a complex and evolving crime category that encompasses a wide range of offences. The fraud data has been subdivided into more specific subtypes, allowing for more detailed analysis. As this is only the second year of collecting this data in this format, it remains in development, and we anticipate refining these categories in future reports based on emerging trends and user feedback.
For the purposes of this report, fraud and computer misuse is broken down into the following categories:
- bank and credit card fraud - for example gaining access to someone’s bank account or using someone’s bank details to make a payment
- other types of fraud - for example buying or selling goods online, investment fraud or door to door salespeople
- computer misuse - includes incidents of hacking, viruses or other types of computer misuse
As the SCJS is a survey of adults living in private residences, the results presented here do not include crimes against businesses, tax fraud or benefit fraud for example.
In addition to the specific crime groups mentioned above, it is also possible to discuss the characteristics of fraud in terms of the elements that are common to all subgroups. In this report, further breakdown is provided in the following ways:
- whether the crime involved any loss to the victim or not
- whether the crime involved the use of any cyber-technologies or not
The findings presented in this chapter represent a high-level summary of the information collected through these questions. The 2024/25 SCJS is the second year that this information is available. Given that there is only one comparison point for the most recent findings, it is important to view any changes presented here as not indicative of long term trends. Further data collection is necessary to better understand how these crimes may have changed over time.
The analysis here indicates where any relevant statistically significant change over time has been detected, otherwise it can be assumed that figures shown in this chapter were found to be at a similar level to the previous results from 2023/24.
The statistics on the prevalence and characteristics of fraud and computer misuse are currently badged as official statistics. The Office for Statistics Regulation (OSR) will assess these statistics in 2026, with a view to awarding the accredited official statistics status.
What was the extent and prevalence of fraud and computer misuse in Scotland in 2024/25?
The SCJS estimates that 11.5% of adults in 2024/25 were victims of at least one crime of fraud or computer misuse, within a margin of error[2] between 10.3% and 12.8%.
As a sample survey of the public, SCJS results on fraud and computer misuse are estimates with wide margins of error, not exact counts. Analysis is focused on the best estimates for each year of the survey. Further details are provided in the Background chapter and in the Technical Report.
Between 2023/24 and 2024/25 there was a two percentage point increase in fraud and computer misuse victimisation, from 9.5% to 11.5% of adults. When these crime types are viewed separately, the victimisation rate was 9.9% for fraud and 2.0% for computer misuse. However, unlike the combined measure, these separate rates are at a similar level to 2023/24.
Figure 5.1: The proportion of adults experiencing fraud and computer misuse increased by two percentage points since 2023/24.
Proportion of adults experiencing fraud and computer misuse crime, 2023/24 to 2024/25.
Variables: PREVFRAUDANDCOMPMISUSE; PREVALLFRAUD; PREVCOMPUTERMISUSE
The estimated volume of crimes of fraud and computer misuse was 588,000, between a lower estimate of 520,000 and an upper estimate of 657,000. This is at a similar level to that seen previously in 2023/24. These account for just under half (49%) of all crime measured by the SCJS in 2024/25. As shown in Figure 5.2, most of these crimes were fraud (84% or 494,000 crimes) with the remaining 16% or 95,000 crimes being computer misuse.
Figure 5.2: Of the estimated 588,000 incidents of fraud and computer misuse in 2024/25, the majority (84%) of these cases were fraud.
Estimated number of fraud and computer misuse incidents, 2024/25.
Variables: INCALLFRAUD; INCCOMPUTERMISUSE.
What types of fraud were experienced by adults in Scotland?
As shown in Table 5.1, over two-fifths of fraud and computer misuse crimes experienced in 2024/25 (45%) were bank and credit card fraud with two-fifths being all other types of fraud (39%). When considering fraud in isolation, bank and credit card fraud comprise 53% of all frauds with all other types of fraud making up the other 47%. All of these figures are unchanged from 2023/24.
A similar proportion of adults experienced a bank or credit card fraud (5.3%) to any other type of fraud (4.8%).
Table 5.1: Around one in nine adults experienced a fraud or computer misuse crime in 2024/25.
Proportion of adults experiencing fraud and computer misuse crime and estimated volumes by crime category, 2024/25.
| Crime category | Prevalence (% of adults) | Estimated volume | % of total fraud and computer misuse |
|---|---|---|---|
|
All fraud and computer misuse |
11.5% |
588,000 |
100% |
|
All fraud |
9.9% |
494,000 |
84% |
|
Bank and credit card fraud |
5.3% |
263,000 |
45% |
|
All other types of fraud |
4.8% |
231,000 |
39% |
|
All computer misuse overall |
2.0% |
95,000 |
16% |
Variables: (PREV/INC)FRAUDANDCOMPMISUSE, (PREV/INC)ALLFRAUD, (PREV/INC)BANKANDCREDITFRAUD, (PREV/INC)COMPUTERMISUSE
How did experiences of fraud and computer misuse vary across the population?
The SCJS finds that the only difference in victimisation rate between demographic groups was within disability, with disabled respondents more likely to be a victim (14.4%) than respondents without a disability (10.5%). There were no differences detected for any other demographic group or area characteristic such as age, sex, rurality or level of deprivation.
Most demographic groups remained at the same level seen in the previous survey in 2023/24. However, the victimisation rate for males increased from 7.5% to 11.4% in 2024/25, meaning it is now at a similar level to females where previously a difference was seen by sex. Those aged 60+ also saw an increase in the victimisation rate, from 8.0% to 10.8%.
The same differences between groups were observed when analysing fraud alone, where the only difference found was within disability (12.8% for disabled respondents and 8.9% for respondents without a disability). There were no significant differences detected between demographic groups for computer misuse.
What can the SCJS tell us about repeat victimisation of fraud and computer misuse?
The majority of adults (88.5%) were not a victim of either fraud or computer misuse in 2024/25.
The survey enables us to see what proportion of victims experienced a particular type of crime more than once during the year.[3] This is known as ‘repeat victimisation’.[4]
It was found to be extremely rare that a respondent reported having experienced multiple incidents of computer misuse (0.1%), therefore this analysis focusses only on crimes of fraud.
The 2024/25 results show that fewer than 1 in 100 (0.6%) of adults were the victim of repeated incidents (i.e. two or more) and their experiences accounted for 14% of all frauds in 2024/25. Victims of fraud overall experienced 1.1 crimes each and repeat victims on average 2.4 crimes each. High frequency repeat victimisation (i.e. five or more incidents) was experienced by an extremely small proportion of the population, at less than one tenth of a percent (<0.1%). Table 5.2 explores the extent of repeat victimisation in more detail.
Table 5.2: Repeat victims made up about one in seven of all fraud victims in 2024/25.
Proportion of fraud experienced by victims, by number of crimes experienced.
| Number of crimes experienced | % of population | % of fraud crime volume |
|---|---|---|
|
None |
90.1% |
0% |
|
One |
9.2% |
86% |
|
Two |
0.5% |
9% |
|
Three |
0.1% |
3% |
|
Four |
< 0.1% |
1% |
|
Five or more |
< 0.1% |
1% |
|
Two or more |
0.6% |
14% |
Variables: INCALLFRAUD.
What kind of contact did victims of fraud have with the perpetrator?
The SCJS found that contact between the victim and the perpetrator only happened in a minority of frauds, just over a fifth of cases (22%) in 2024/25.
Where there was contact, Figure 5.3 shows that the most common means of contact were by phone (40%), social media (25%), email (14%) and text message (10%). Contact in person was less common, present in only 7% of frauds.
Figure 5.3: In over three quarters of frauds where there was contact between the victim and perpetrator, the contact was made through either telephone, social media or email.
Proportion of methods for contact between victim and perpetrators for incidents of fraud.
Variables: FHOWCONT2.
In terms of were the victim and perpetrator had contact, as shown in Figure 5.4, the most common reasons were:
- buying or selling online (20%)
- someone selling bogus services (14%)
- a friendship or relationship contact which led to a request for money (11%)
Figure 5.4: The most common reason for contact between the victim and perpetrator of fraud was for items being bought or sold online.
Proportion of reasons for contact between victim and perpetrators for incidents of fraud.
Variables: FMFRDTYP2_01 – FMFRDTYP2_17.
In fewer than one-in-ten cases (8%) the victim could say anything about the person who committed the crime. Given the small numbers involved it is not currently possible to provide any detailed information on the characteristics of perpetrators of fraud.
How much money or property did victims of fraud lose?
There are a range of ways in which a victim could have experienced loss. Examples include loss of personal information, money including cash or from bank accounts, or some form of property.
In some instances of fraud anything lost by the victim may be refunded. However, even in cases where the total loss was refunded in full, the SCJS still considers these crimes as having a loss associated with them.
Overall, in over two-thirds (68%) of fraud in 2024/25, the victim incurred the loss of money or property. In most cases (93%), the victim said that it was money that was lost. This was followed by 11% who said they lost personal information and 3% who said they lost property.
As shown in Figure 5.5, where money was lost, in just over three-fifths (61%) of fraud, the victim lost less than £100. A further 31% lost between £100 and £999. While the remaining 9% of victims lost more than £1,000 including 2% who lost more than £5,000. The median amount lost in 2024/25 due to crimes of fraud was £65.
The proportion of people who lost less than £100 increased from 46% to 61% between 2023/24 and 2024/25. The increase in the overall victimisation rate of fraud and computer misuse can partially be explained by this increase in cases of fraud where the victim lost less than £100.
Figure 5.5: Where some money was lost in a fraud crime, just over three-fifths lost £100 or less, with one-in-ten losing more than £1,000.
Financial impact of fraud crimes where money was lost.
Variable: FQLOSS4_2.
Where victims lost money, the SCJS estimates that in the majority of cases (72%) they were refunded in full, and in 2% they were partially refunded. In just under a quarter (24%) of cases the victim was not refunded at all. In the remaining 1%, the cases had not yet been resolved at the time of interview.
What proportion of fraud was reported to the police or another organisation?
In 2024/25, one-in-twenty (5%) crimes of fraud were reported to the police. This rate was lower than both property (27%) and violent (30%) crimes in the latest year.
When asked why they did not report the incident to the police, the most commonly given reasons were:
- reported incident to other authority (e.g. the bank/financial institution) (35% of cases)
- the police could have done nothing (21%)
- thought incident would be reported by other authority (e.g. the bank/financial institution) (17%)
- the police would not have bothered/not been interested (13%)
- too trivial/not worth reporting (13%)
- dealt with the matter myself/ourselves (13%)
In 2024/25, it was found to be much more common for an incident of fraud to be reported to a bank than the police. Over three-quarters (78%) of all fraud crimes were reported to a bank, building society or credit card company.
How does fraud with loss compare to fraud without loss?
As mentioned earlier, in addition to comparing different types of fraud, it is also possible to discuss the characteristics of fraud in terms of the elements that are common to all subgroups. This allows us to ask questions such as whether there is a difference between fraud which involved a loss to the victim and those that didn’t.
In most fraud incidents (68%), the victim experienced some form of loss, such as money or personal information, with the remaining 32% of victims experiencing no loss.
The victimisation rate for frauds that involved loss was higher (6.7%) compared to those without loss (1.7%). This was true for all demographic groups except for those aged between 16 and 24 where there was no difference.
As with fraud overall, respondents with a disability were more likely to experience fraud with loss than respondents without a disability (9.5% compared to 5.7% respectively). However, respondents with and without a disability were equally likely to experience frauds without loss.
How does cyber-enabled fraud compare to non cyber-enabled fraud?
Just under a third (31%) of fraud incidents in 2023/24 were cyber-enabled, with the majority (69%) being not cyber-enabled.
There were no significant differences founds between any demographic groups for the victimisation rate of either cyber-enabled fraud on non cyber-enabled fraud.
Overall, it was found that it was more common to be the victim of a non cyber-enabled fraud (6.9% of people) than a cyber-enabled fraud (3.1%). As above, this was true for all demographic groups except for respondents aged between 16 and 24 where there was no difference.
What can the SCJS tell us about incidents of computer misuse?
As the number of respondents who disclosed they were a victim of computer misuse was low (less than 100) it is difficult for us to provide a detailed analysis of the nature of these crimes such as victim demographics. What follows is an initial summary of the information collected through these questions. We will continue to review this data in future years to see what additional information can be provided.
Victims of computer misuse only had any form of contact with the perpetrator in 6% of cases detected by the SCJS in 2024/25, and in only 4% of incidents the victim was able to say something about the offender that did it.
The majority of victims (68%) believed that what happened to them was a crime, however, with just over 1% deciding to report the matter to the police.
When asked why they did not report it to the police, the most commonly given reasons were:
- too trivial/not worth reporting (36%)
- dealt with the matter themselves (30%)
- police could have done nothing (25%)
- police would not have bothered/not been interested (20%)
[1] As a sample survey of the general public, SCJS results on violence are estimates with wide margins of error, not exact counts. Analysis here is focused on the best estimates for each year of the survey. Further details are in the Technical Report.
[2] Accredited Official Statistics on Police recorded crime data shows that of the 14,120 estimated cyber crimes recorded by the police in 2024/25, 7,550 (53%) of these were frauds.
[3] i.e. two or more experiences of fraud and computer misuse crime.
[4] Further information about the approach taken to process and derive SCJS results, including on repeat victimisation, is provided in the Technical Report.
Contact
Email: scjs@gov.scot