The Internet Crime Complaint Center has issued reports over the past 26 years that detail the types of crimes reported involving the use of the internet. Despite the sense that crime is random and unpredictable, the author finds that is not the case and, in this article, sets forth the commonalities missed.
The Internet Crime Complaint Center (IC3) reports did not first encounter cryptocurrency as a mature asset class. Cryptocurrency appeared as a warning sign, denoted with a simple “various payments” summary as a payment mechanism for ransomware and later appearing inside other crime types. Long before cryptocurrency dominated complaints, IC3 was already describing virtual currency schemes, ransomware payments, tech support fraud, and other patterns that would eventually converge into cryptocurrency enabled investment fraud.
The annual reports after 2013 include crime type tables followed by a couple of additional subtotals referred to as descriptors; these are additional summaries of complaints that included a mention of cryptocurrency, AI, or social media over time. These descriptors are not additive to the crime type summaries but they are a different subtotal or portion of submitted complaints. The figure below shows the number of complaints submitted with each different descriptor.
Figure 1: Complaints by Descriptor
The 2025 report introduced two new tracked descriptors to accompany cryptocurrency: AI Related and Crimes Against Children.[1] AI made its debut in the tracked descriptors at a whopping reported loss of $893,346,472, or 7.86% of the cryptocurrency descriptor.[2] The only other tracked descriptor in 2025 is Crimes Against Children; this category was included as a crime type in prior reports. Its transition from a single crime type to a descriptor indicates that multiple other crime types are being tracked, that all have an element of crimes against children.[3]
The chart below shows reported crime types by era.[4] Cryptocurrency and AI-Related descriptors do not appear in this chart because those are not crime types.
The chart below shows total values reported in each era. Total losses reported in crime type tables between 2008 and 2025 are $88,328,625,762. This value differs from losses reported as annual totals by a net total of $3.39 billion.[5]
Figure 2: Complaints by Crime Type and Era
Figure 3: Reported Losses by Era, 2008–2025
On Cryptocurrency
The 2014 warning about Popular Virtual Currency Schemes noted that virtual currency complaints had more than doubled from the previous year and cautioned that as crypto becomes more popular, criminals will capitalize on the market’s vulnerabilities. The first national aggregate of all losses in 2017 captured just 4,139 complaints and $58 million in losses, which could be a tiny rounding error against today’s totals. Complaints grew steadily through 2020, hovering in the 30,000s with losses under $250 million.
The chart below shows complaints with a component of cryptocurrency as a percentage of total reported losses in each year where cryptocurrency was reported as a descriptor. As a percentage of total losses over time, those with a crypto component have risen from ¼% in 2014 to 54% in 2025.[6]
Figure 4: Crypto as a Percentage of All Reported Losses
A definition for virtual currency appeared in the 2015 report, “A complaint mentioning a form of virtual/crypto currency (Bitcoin, Litecoin, Potcoin, etc.)”, which remained until 2021. The analysis herein does not differentiate between any of the terms used from 2014 onward to present the most complete picture of tracked cryptocurrency related complaints reported through IC3. The 2024 report included a special separate section just for “cryptocurrency fraud” and broke down complaints into various subcategories by age, ATM users, and extortion victims. The 2025 report brings a definition back to cryptocurrency, “Information reported contains some reference to virtual currency.”
The chart below shows the total submissions and value of complaints with a component of cryptocurrency in each year where cryptocurrency was reported as a descriptor. Between 2020 and 2021, reported cryptocurrency losses jumped from $246 million to more than $1.6 billion even as complaint volume barely moved. The IC3 attributed this to crypto becoming a preferred payment method across nearly every scam category, and the emergence of pig butchering, the long con investment fraud cultivated through dating apps, social media, and crypto complexity. Reported losses have continued to rise every year since, reaching $9.3 billion in 2024 and $11.366 billion in 2025; values are shown in the chart below.
Figure 5: Crypto Complaints and Losses Reported to IC3 Over Time
The new separate sections for cryptocurrency starting in 2024 and 2025 are indications that cryptocurrency is not going away anytime soon.[7] The states with the most reports are California with 20,000 complaints, then Texas and Florida nearly tied with 14,000 and 13,000 complaints. New York is fourth with 8,000 followed by Pennsylvania with 5,000. Tangential scams that take advantage of the perceived technical complexity of crypto have also increased; crypto investment scams are up to $7.228 billion from $5.8 billion in 2024 and crypto ATM scams are up to $389 million from $246.7 million in 2024. Extortion and sextortion trends totaling $33.5 million in 2024 were dropped from the cryptocurrency section in 2025, replaced by a huge subcategory of crypto recovery scams totaling $1.4 billion in reported losses.
The chart below shows complaints with a component of cryptocurrency in 2024 and 2025 by age group. The demographic patterns from the 2024 and 2025 reports show that age groups comprised roughly the same overall percentage of cryptocurrency reports, with the largest share (about 30%) coming from people over 60. The loss values reported increased quite a bit for age groups over 50, which is consistent with the continued maturation of pig-butchering schemes that target older victims with substantial retirement assets. The 60+ age group continues to reflect the largest dollar losses by a wide margin; in 2025, this single age group accounted for 48% of total reported cryptocurrency losses totaling $4.43 billion, compared to 41% the year prior. People under 40 make up less than 30% of the complaints; people over 40 make up almost 70% combined and that holds across 2024 and 2025.
Figure 6: Crypto Losses Reported by Age Group, 2024–2025
Data Limitations and Reporting Weirdness
Crime types and descriptors were not consistently reported across all 25 years probably because crime itself did not continue to occur in the same ways. Category breakdowns appear in 2011 and consistency in reported crime types started to build from 2014 forward (the crime type years). Dollar values for 2010 were not included in that year’s report but were mentioned in a 2025 historical recap that states over $1 billion in reported losses for 2010. This recap value is about twice as high as the reported losses in the year prior and the year after and thus, is not included.
From 2000–2015, annual reports included at least two different counts of complaints—submissions and the portion of submissions that were referred to various investigating agencies. On average, only about 48% of submitted reports were referred for investigation.[8] Other reported portions of submissions included a different count for fraud complaints in some years. It appears the term “fraud” was used loosely in earlier years to mean any complaint submitted with a dollar value. During this time, the IC3 reported a summary of its overall referrals going back the prior 10 years and stated that on average, less than half of complaints are referred.[9] The 2010 report mentions a new domain, ic3.net, and clarifies that reports with dollar amounts are the ones referred to law enforcement but does not contain a total amount of losses for that year. The preferred attack vectors changed each year, but the underlying mechanism remained consistent: convince someone to trust first and verify later.
A crime type listed only as “Other” appears in all the crime type years. This crime type ranks as high as the 6th highest value crime type in some years and reported losses total $1.657 billion for 2014–2025. As a comparison, the Crimes Against Children crime type totals $12.2 million for the same period. The submission counts and crime types do not indicate a total amount of crime or a total value attributed to any category because they are severely limited to only those crimes that were voluntarily reported to the IC3.
Figure 2: Complaints by Crime Type and Era is a summary of the crime types reported from 2011–2025 as a percentage of the total value reported during each era. The total submissions and values were excluded for 2008 and 2009 for this figure because specific crime types were not available; these years equate to 7.7% and 16.4% of the era. The partial crime types reported for 2011–2014 are included to provide the overall division of crime types as reported; these years equate to 19%, 16%, 21%, and 61% of the total reported losses. The incomplete crime type data for this era renders this era non-comparable to the other three eras. It is nonetheless included as a reflection of the data contained in the reports.
Figure 4: Reported Losses by Era, 2008–2025 is a total of the reported losses in crime type tables for 2015–2025, with reported losses from 2008–2009 added as an “All” crime type, and the difference between reported losses and partial crime types for 2011–2014 added as an “All” crime type. These additions provide a complete picture of total value reported for this era and render each era more comparable. This chart shows an amount that is over $3.3 billion different than the annual total amounts reported for each year (2015–2025). The table above shows the difference of crime type values as compared to the total reported value for each year. These values do not include amounts reported for descriptors.
In Conclusion
The data is not perfect. Perfection is a tad grand for a data gathering mechanism that was brand new in Y2K. IC3’s data gathering and analysis changed over time to accommodate the changing needs of victims. Over 26 years, the IC3 annual reports show that internet crime is not the bundle of chaos it may appear to be at first glance; internet crime has adapted tried and true patterns to emerging technology to achieve gains in reach, engagement, returns, and overall profit because crime is a business and, as businesses do, crime will adapt.
[1] The only other descriptors were social media (dropped in 2022) and cryptocurrency wallet (dropped in 2024).
[2] The only other tracked descriptor is Crimes Against Children at $6,694,350. These are the only three tracked descriptors in the 2025 report; cryptocurrency is the only tracked descriptor in 2024, cryptocurrency and cryptocurrency wallet were the only tracked descriptors from 2022–2023, and social media and virtual currency were the only tracked descriptors from 2014–2021.
[3] The dollar value reported with this crime type is not reported consistently from about $200,000 in 2021.
[4] These Eras are discussed in detail in Part I.
[5] See the section on Data Weirdness.
[6] IC3 Reports from 2000 to 2025 (yes, all of them). Note that the retrospectives in later years do not always reflect the number reported at the time. The values in the chart reflect numbers reported at the time. For instance, 2010 reports total to about $485 million (close to 2011), but the 2025 lookback chart shows $1 billion for 2010, with no explanation.
[7] 2025 IC3 Annual Report; the graph contained therein does not include a summary of 2014, 2015, or 2016 counts or values related to cryptocurrency. Those reports used the term virtual currency as did 2017–2021.
[8] Both the original 2001 reported counts and the 2002 recap counts for 2001 are included because the numbers differ substantially.
[9] In 2014, a count and value by crime type table appeared in each annual report but the amounts do not total the total reported losses for any year from 2014 forward. In 2014, the table contained amounts for the second half of 2014 only. It is not clear why the other years do not sum to the total reported value.
Dorothy Haraminac, MBA, MAFF, CFE, LPI, provides financial forensics, digital forensics, and blockchain forensics under YBR Consulting Services, LLC and teaches software engineering and digital forensics at Houston Christian University. Ms. Haraminac is one of the first court-qualified testifying experts on cryptocurrency tracing in the United States and provides pro bono assistance to victims of cryptocurrency investment scams to gather and summarize evidence needed to report to law enforcement, regulators, and other parties. If you or someone you know has been victimized in an investment scam, report it to local, state, and federal law enforcement as well as federal agencies such as the FTC, the FCC, and the IRS.
Ms. Haraminac can be contacted at (346) 400-6554 or by e-mail to dh@ybr.solutions.
