Beyond Resources: Understanding Police Attitudes to Fraud and the Barriers to Prioritisation

Purpose – Fraud is the most common crime in the UK, yet it remains persistently deprioritised within policing. This study investigates the underlying reasons for this neglect.

Design/methodology/approach – The study is based on semi-structured interviews with twenty-four experienced police officers, selected from a diverse range of roles, ranks and policing contexts.

Findings – Despite frequent references to limited resources and complex cases, this study reveals a deeper issue: police often view fraud as low-harm, low-priority and less legitimate than violent crime. Officers describe it as unappealing to investigate, with little public or media concern and reluctant victims. These perceptions contribute to a policing culture that sidelines fraud, weakens investigations and limits victim support. Drawing on first-hand insights from officers, the study offers practical strategies – such as targeted training, cross-sector collaboration and cultural change – to reframe fraud as a core policing priority and promote a more strategic, victim-centred approach across UK law enforcement. It argues that meaningful progress requires not just greater capacity, but a fundamental shift in how fraud is understood within policing culture.

Practical implications – The study highlights several practical implications for policing. To address entrenched attitudes, cultural change is needed to reframe fraud as a serious and legitimate crime, supported by leadership
and training reforms. Enhanced victim engagement and awareness campaigns can improve public trust and reporting. Investment in digital and financial expertise, along with specialist fraud units, is essential to build
capacity and confidence. Stronger cross-sector collaboration – with banks, tech firms and other agencies – can support more effective investigations. Ultimately, meaningful change requires not just resources but a fundamental shift in how fraud is understood and prioritised within policing culture.

Social implications – The study reveals social implications related to trust in public institutions, victim justice and social inequality. When fraud is deprioritised, victims – many of whom are older, vulnerable or financially insecure – receive limited support and recognition, reinforcing the perception that certain harms are less worthy of justice. This undermines public confidence in policing and can discourage reporting, leading to under-detection and increased harm. Additionally, the perception that fraud is “victimless” or unimportant contributes to broader societal indifference, allowing perpetrators to exploit communities with little fear of consequence. Addressing these attitudes is vital to promote fairness, accountability and
social trust.

Originality/value – This study offers an original contribution by uncovering how organisational culture and frontline officer attitudes fundamentally shape the deprioritisation of fraud in UK policing – an area often overlooked in existing research. Unlike prior studies that focus on resource and complexity constraints, this research draws on first-hand practitioner insights to reveal how fraud is culturally framed as low-harm, low-
urgency and professionally unrewarding. It fills a critical gap in the literature by providing empirical evidence from officers themselves, rather than relying on policy commentary. The study advances both theory and
practice by proposing culturally informed, practitioner-driven strategies for a more strategic and victim-focused response.