New research has revealed that Washington has lost over $96 million to elderly fraud, ranking 11th worse in the United States. The state had a total of 2,335 elderly fraud victims, averaging 131.1 victims per 100,000 elderly residents. The state reported a loss of $96,213,728 for this age group, the equivalent of $41,205 lost per victim.
Cybersecurity experts at VPNPro looked at data from the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Federal Trade Commission to see how many victims of fraud were over the age of 60 in 2022. The data was analyzed based on the number of victims aged 60 or over as a proportion of each state’s elderly population.
On a national level, Investment scams were found to have cost elderly victims the most money in 2022, at a total loss of $404 million, with business imposters ($271 million) and romance scams ($240 million) being the second and third most lucrative scams.
Regarding contact methods, those aged 60 and over are more likely to lose money online than any other contact method. Elderly fraud victims have lost a total of $564 million to online fraud (including social media), compared to $90 million to text scams.
The most popular payment method for elderly victims is bank payment or transfer, producing a total loss of $570 million in 2022. Surprisingly, cryptocurrency is the second most popular method, with a loss of $288 million.
The variance in fraud occurrence between individuals aged 60 or older, compared to those aged 18 to 59 (base group)
| Fraud type | The likelihood of victims aged 60 and over falling victim, compared to base group (2022) |
| Online shopping | – 39% |
| Business imposters | + 16% |
| Tech support scam | + 517% |
| Government imposters | + 27% |
| Investment scams | – 70% |
| Prizes, sweepstakes, and lotteries | + 167% |
| Romance scams | – 11% |
| Family and friendly imposters | + 73% |
| Fake check scams | – 42% |
| Vacation and travel | – 7% |
Speaking on the findings, Šarūnas Karbauskas, Technical Writer at VPNPro said, “Analyzing data on elderly fraud victims and losses by state can help policymakers, law enforcement agencies, and advocacy groups better understand the underlying factors contributing to financial exploitation of the elderly. It can also inform targeted interventions and resource allocation to mitigate the impact of fraud and protect vulnerable individuals.
“Examining which states have lost the most due to elderly fraud can shed light on the economic impact of such activities and potentially reveal areas where financial education and support are lacking.”
Methodology
Data from the Federal Bureau of Investigation was used to find the number of people in each state, aged 60 and over, who were victims of fraud throughout 2022. These figures were compared to state population estimates for residents aged 60 and older, to find the number of victims per 100,000 people in this age category. Data from the Federal Trade Commission data was used to find the trends in fraud data for this age group.
| Rank | State | Total amount of money lost by victims aged 60 and over (2022) | Average amount lost per victim aged 60 and over (2022) | Average rate of elderly fraud per 100,000 residents (2022) |
| 1. | Nevada | $38,563,008 | $20,148 | 261.9 |
| 2. | Colorado | $66,826,911 | $22,847 | 231.7 |
| 3. | Alaska | $7,646,998 | $24,199 | 216.5 |
| 4. | Arizona | $82,255,007 | $23,216 | 194.0 |
| 5. | South Dakota | $5,634,355 | $17,022 | 147.2 |
| 6. | Wyoming | $5,265,283 | $25,193 | 141.6 |
| 7. | California | $624,509,520 | $54,225 | 136.2 |
| 8. | New Mexico | $13,382,175 | $18,382 | 134.8 |
| 9. | Florida | $328,114,489 | $38,693 | 134.6 |
| 10. | Utah | $27,657,757 | $37,325 | 132.3 |
| 11. | Washington | $96,213,728 | $41,205 | 131.1 |
| 12. | Oregon | $46,324,137 | $35,254 | 121.6 |
| 13. | Virginia | $60,641,280 | $24,782 | 121.5 |
| 14. | Maryland | $63,662,134 | $36,927 | 119.0 |
| 15. | Maine | $12,741,072 | $27,758 | 108.9 |
| 16. | Delaware | $14,023,134 | $45,977 | 106.6 |
| 17. | New Jersey | $92,712,866 | $39,152 | 106.2 |
| 18. | Ohio | $51,041,223 | $16,470 | 104.9 |
| 19. | Idaho | $18,984,217 | $40,739 | 104.1 |
| 20. | Hawaii | $16,334,492 | $40,939 | 103.8 |
| 21. | Texas | $243,067,545 | $42,839 | 100.5 |
| 22. | Vermont | $5,663,838 | $30,127 | 99.7 |
| 23. | Connecticut | $33,660,316 | $37,071 | 98.8 |
| 24. | Missouri | $34,961,102 | $23,261 | 98.4 |
| 25. | Montana | $6,968,157 | $23,621 | 97.4 |
| 26. | South Carolina | $35,610,994 | $27,143 | 96.5 |
| 27. | Massachusetts | $70,100,868 | $42,408 | 95.4 |
| 28. | New Hampshire | $14,665,788 | $39,424 | 94.8 |
| 29. | Arkansas | $24,314,902 | $37,465 | 88.4 |
| 30. | Georgia | $78,736,227 | $39,270 | 87.5 |
| 31. | Tennessee | $36,568,079 | $25,012 | 87.4 |
| 32. | Oklahoma | $19,455,718 | $24,627 | 87.3 |
| 33. | Michigan | $52,520,999 | $23,416 | 87.2 |
| 34. | New York | $212,045,216 | $50,022 | 87.1 |
| 35.(=) | Kentucky | $22,494,352 | $24,007 | 86.1 |
| 35.(=) | Minnesota | $39,211,355 | $33,090 | 86.1 |
| 36. | Pennsylvania | $80,250,904 | $27,663 | 84.3 |
| 37. | Illinois | $75,905,639 | $30,423 | 84.0 |
| 38. | Rhode Island | $7,314,666 | $33,400 | 77.5 |
| 39. | North Carolina | $63,464,255 | $32,396 | 77.1 |
| 40. | Indiana | $26,497,603 | $22,609 | 73.8 |
| 41. | Nebraska | $16,117,012 | $48,110 | 73.7 |
| 42. | Alabama | $26,756,713 | $29,210 | 73.4 |
| 43. | Iowa | $12,082,177 | $21,692 | 70.1 |
| 44. | Kansas | $24,435,433 | $51,770 | 68.6 |
| 45. | West Virginia | $4,460,124 | $13,118 | 68.1 |
| 46. | Wisconsin | $31,024,115 | $30,150 | 67.7 |
| 47. | Louisiana | $18,374,982 | $25,485 | 67.1 |
| 48. | North Dakota | $3,054,570 | $28,024 | 61.6 |
| 49. | Mississippi | $5,459,509 | $15,336 | 51.2 |
SOURCE: https://vpnpro.com
Author: Lynnwood Times Staff
2 Responses
Having our personal phones public have created a lucrative medium for scamers as well as a public nuisance , and a horrible invasive attack on every person in a America. These calls come not only within our country but world wide. An invasion of privacy.
Where’s our attorney general? He sues everyone else, why not this set of criminals?