Never Trust a Handsome Soldier: Becky Holmes on the Past, Present and Future of Fraud

“Fraud makes up between 40 and 50 percent of all crime in the UK. Police resource dedicated to fraud: 1 percent. No country is giving fraud the attention it deserves.” — Becky Holmes

Was Shakespeare a fraud? Possibly, says Becky Holmes, the Stratford-upon-Avon-based writer and the lady behind the X account @deathtospinach. She should know. Best known as the author of Keanu Reeves Is Not In Love With You, a cult hit among the romance fraud crowd, Holmes’ latest book is The Future of Fraud. It’s a short, sharp, witty history and anatomy of fraud, from the first recorded case in ancient Greece to today’s AI-enabled deepfakes and romance scams.

Holmes’ most alarming statistic is that fraud accounts for between 40 and 50 percent of all crime in the United Kingdom, while only 1% of police resources are dedicated to investigating it. No wonder so few fraudsters are ever prosecuted. Holmes wants more Sherlocks. She wants fraud awareness on every school curriculum. And she wants our language to change. No, you didn’t “fall for” a scam. Your money was stolen from you. As if you were mugged on the street or your home was broken into.

The internet was bad enough for fraud. But AI, she warns, offers online criminals even more opportunity. It’s not just Keanu Reeves who isn’t in love with you. Never trust a handsome soldier, she says. Especially a virtual one.

Five Takeaways

•       The First Recorded Fraud: 300 BC, Greece: A Greek merchant took out an insurance policy on his boat, borrowed money, and planned to sink it and collect the proceeds. It didn’t go according to plan. But the basic structure — a false representation designed to extract money or goods from another party — has not changed in 2,300 years. Every fraud since, from the South Sea Bubble to Bernie Madoff to AI-enabled romance scams, is a variation on the same theme: getting something from someone by not telling the truth.

•       AI Has Erased All the Red Flags: Holmes used to advise romance fraud victims and potential victims: if he won’t do a video call, that’s suspicious. If the voice sounds wrong, that’s suspicious. If he can’t meet in person, that’s suspicious. AI has rendered all of these warnings useless. You can now have a fully convincing video call, voice message, and real-time conversation with someone who doesn’t exist. Deepfakes mean you can’t even trust what your eyes tell you. The “red flags” that protected fraud victims for thirty years are gone.

•       40 to 50 Percent of Crime, 1 Percent of Resource: In the United Kingdom, fraud accounts for between 40 and 50 percent of all recorded crime. Police resources dedicated to investigating fraud: 1 percent. Holmes cites a comparable US statistic: in one state, there were millions of people and ten police officers dedicated to cybercrime — and not one of them did it as their primary job. No country, Holmes argues, is giving fraud the attention it deserves. The gap between the scale of the problem and the resources devoted to it is not a funding issue. It is a political choice.

•       You Didn’t Lose Your Money. It Was Taken from You: Holmes has a crusade about language. The phrase “fell for a scam” implies the victim’s credulity caused the loss. “Lost their money” implies carelessness. Both are wrong: in fraud, money is taken by a deliberate criminal act. Holmes wants the language changed because language shapes understanding, and understanding shapes policy. If fraud victims are seen as complicit in their own victimhood, society finds it easier to underfund investigation and under-p