The scam that tried to scam the scammed

I’ve received all sorts of scam emails over the years. Some have tried to convince me that I’d won the lottery in a country I’ve never set foot in. Others have claimed to be long-lost relatives leaving me a fortune. I even received the famous death threat scams — those emails where someone pretends to be a hitman, claiming they’ve been paid to kill me but are willing to “spare my life” if I wire them some money.

As ridiculous as those emails were, they never struck me as particularly cynical. They were crude, obvious, and designed to provoke fear. But this latest scam? This one was different. It wasn’t about scaring someone into compliance — it was about giving false hope to people who were already suffering.

And that’s what made it one of the most ruthless scams I’ve ever seen:

I thought I had seen it all when it came to online fraud. I spend a lot of time analyzing sophisticated schemes, those well-oiled, complex fraud mechanisms that stand out for their precision. But the more I dig, the more I realize that the most effective scams — the ones that truly work, that hit their mark — are often the simplest ones.

That’s why this email caught my attention. Not because it was particularly clever or innovative, but because of how cold and ruthless it was. It was a scam targeting people who had already been scammed. A fraud designed to exploit the aftermath of fraud itself.

The idea was brilliant in the worst possible way. It played on desperation, on hope, on the very human desire to undo a mistake. The message was straightforward: criminals had been caught, justice was being served, and their victims — good news! — were about to get their money back. All that was required was a little bit of paperwork. Just a few details. Their full name, their phone number, the amount they had lost, and if possible, their home address. Because what better way to get your stolen money back than handing over even more personal information?

At first glance, the email had all the hallmarks of an official communication. It claimed to come from something called the “West Africa Interpol Service,” a name vague enough to sound somewhat credible. It had the usual authoritative tone, the promise of swift legal action, and of course, a sense of urgency:

“First thing tomorrow morning we will lead them to court and from the court they will be sent to jail and court will reverse back all your money.”

I have to say, that’s an impressive level of efficiency. Apparently, there exists a parallel universe where legal proceedings are handled in less than 24 hours, and stolen funds magically find their way back to their rightful owners with no paperwork or delays. If only real justice worked that way.

Then there was the email address: je0395787@gmail.com. Now, I’m no cybersecurity expert, but I would expect an international law enforcement agency to have something a little more… official.

But what fascinated me about this scam was not its mistakes. It was its target audience.

This wasn’t your typical phishing attempt, trying to trick someone into handing over their banking details under the guise of unpaid taxes or a pending delivery at the border. This was something else. It was preying on people who had already lost money, people who were actively looking for help, people who were vulnerable and searching for hope.

It was a scam built on false closure.

And that’s what made me pause. Because if scammers are bothering to send these emails, it means people are falling for them.

And when I looked into it, I realized this wasn’t an isolated case. People who have been scammed once are often scammed again. Sometimes by the same fraudsters, sometimes by others who bought their information.

Take Kate K., a 69-year-old widow from Philadelphia. She was scammed out of nearly $40,000 by a fraudster pretending to be a surgeon on Facebook. But it didn’t end there. After this first scam, she lost her home and even her pets. The emotional and financial damage left her even more vulnerable, and she became an easy target for further scams

A study by AARP and the FINRA Investor Education Foundation found that many fraud victims become repeat targets because they have an unmet psychological need for closure. The deeper someone gets pulled into a scam, the harder it is for them to walk away before they lose even more money.

However, justice does catch up — eventually. As you all know, the Brad Pitt romance scam became one of the most absurd yet revealing cases in online fraud history. A woman was tricked into believing she was in a relationship with the Hollywood actor and ended up sending over €830,000 to scammers. The case ultimately led to the arrest of an entire fraud network, proving that while fraudsters often operate with impunity, some do get caught in the end.

But for every scammer behind bars, dozens more take their place — always ready to exploit those already hurt.

Because the cruelest thing about fraud isn’t just the money stolen. It’s the way it convinces victims to keep believing — right until the moment they lose everything.

Where are the real protections — and why are they still missing?

Scams like these are not new, and neither are the tactics used to carry them out. Yet, despite their predictability, they continue to thrive. And why? Because the responsibility of protection still falls almost entirely on the victims.

Think about it — when someone gets scammed, who actually suffers the loss? The individual. Not the bank that processed the fraudulent transaction. Not the email provider that allowed the scammer’s message to reach an inbox. Not the telecom company that facilitated the call or text. Not even the regulatory bodies that are supposed to monitor financial crimes.

Victims are expected to be cautious, to educate themselves, to recognize red flags. And yes, personal vigilance is essential. But at what point do we start asking why major institutions — those with the power to prevent these scams — are still letting them happen?

• Banks approve suspicious transfers, even when a customer’s account behavior suddenly changes. While some have fraud detection systems in place, they don’t always intervene — especially if the transaction is “authorized” by the victim. Why aren’t banks required to take more responsibility when clear scam patterns emerge?
• Telecom companies allow scammers to spoof numbers, making it easy for fraudsters to impersonate banks, law enforcement, or trusted institutions. Why is number spoofing still so easy? Why aren’t carriers blocking known scam numbers more aggressively?
• Email providers filter out spam, yet countless phishing emails slip through every day. They have the ability to scan and block fraudulent emails — so why aren’t they doing more to prevent known scams from even reaching inboxes?
• Regulators and governments have introduced some measures, but enforcement is often reactive rather than preventive. Shouldn’t there be stronger legal accountability for companies that facilitate fraudulent transactions, knowingly or not?

Scams are not just a victim problem. They are a systemic problem, enabled by a lack of serious intervention from the very entities that could help stop them.

Perhaps it’s time to shift some of the liability. If a bank, a telecom provider, or a platform profits from a system that allows scams to flourish, shouldn’t they bear some responsibility when things go wrong?

Until real protections are in place, fraudsters will continue exploiting the weakest link in the chain — because they know that right now, the only ones truly paying for these crimes are the victims themselves.