London is fraud capital of Britain

New figures from CIFAS, the UK’s Fraud Prevention Service, have revealed that London is the capital of fraudulent activity.

The research looked at the addresses actively involved in frauds recorded by CIFAS Members and produced a top ten of the most commonly appearing postal districts:

1. SE18 – Plumstead
2. IG11 – Barking
3. E6 – East Ham
4. SE15 – Peckham
5. SE28 – Thamesmead
6. E17 – Walthamstow
7. CR0 – Croydon
8. E7 – Forest Gate
9. E16 – Bromley by Bow
10. E13 – Plaistow

CIFAS Research Manager, Sandra Peaston, comments:

“London is a city of dense population where material wealth and disadvantage can be found in close proximity. It is therefore perhaps unsurprising that the most active fraud hotspots should be centred around the London area. The fact that only three postal districts in the top 30 are outside London clearly underlines the intensity of this activity, which presents a rather bleak portrait of the nation’s capital city.”

However, a similar analysis of the addressed of the victims of fraud shows that while the perpetrators are largely based in London, the victims are slightly more widely-spread.

While the Croydon postal district has the highest number of recorded victims of both impersonation (where the fraudster uses details to apply for bank accounts in the victim’s name) and facility takeover (where the fraudster, rather than impersonating a victim, secretly hijacks and plunders a victim’s bank account), the ten most common postal districts for the victims of impersonation include Harrow and Luton, showing a slight move outside of London.

However, the most dramatic shift away from London is among victims of facility takeover. Only four of the top ten postal districts for victims of facility takeover are traditional London areas, which Maidenhead, Aldershot, Beckenham, Birmingham, Hove and Leicester all revealed to be hotspots for this type of fraud.

CIFAS Communications Manager, Richard Hurley, said:

“The geographical spread of victims is proof of the dangers faced by modern consumers. The relative closeness to London of victims of impersonation is, perhaps, not too surprising. With fraudsters requiring access to a full set of the victim’s personal data, proximity is likely to be a factor. The range of locations where victims of takeover are to be found, however, just underlines how often this traumatic type of fraud is carried out remotely.”