More than splitting hairs: exploring trivialisation and harmful narrative distortion in the synonymous use of 'scam' and 'fraud'

This paper explores the legal, social and ethical drivers behind readdressing the synonymous use of the words ‘fraud’ and ‘scam’ in the United Kingdom. Drawing on a variety of data from across academia, professional practice and the media, this paper challenges and redefines prevailing narratives and reporting practices. It explores the difficulties of inaccurate terminology in referring to fraudulent acts in the media, in academia and in public protection messaging and education, and the potential harms of this in terms of victims, offenders and the criminal justice system. It also identifies the harms associated with authoritative organisations using colloquial terminology for fraud in public-facing communications. The work suggests that the language used, including media hyperbole and negative narratives around fraud victimhood, can harm victim care and contribute to existing barriers to individuals reporting their victimhood. It concludes by recommending minimum communicative standards in the use of consistent, legally accurate language to refer to fraudulent acts, and that these standards will play a role in starting to redress harmful biases and negative societal perceptions of victims of this crime.