Vocable (Anglais)


Pourquoi sommes-nous si durs avec les victimes d'arnaques à l'amour ?


Avec les sorties quasi simultanée­s du documentai­re The Tinder Swindler et de la série Inventing Anna sur Netflix, qui reviennent sur les histoires vraies de deux escrocs en herbe, on remarque que les spectateur­s réagissent différemme­nt face aux victimes d’arnaques amoureuses que face aux autres. Les femmes présentées dans le documentai­re sur l’arnaqueur de Tinder ont rapidement été jugées sur les réseaux sociaux et dépossédée­s de leur statut de victime puisque leur attirance pour l’argent les rendrait responsabl­es de leur sort.

The Tinder Swindler just shows how stupid women get when they fall in love.” “Where can I find these stupid women from The Tinder Swindler that will dash me something sweet?” It was comments like these that flooded Twitter following the release of The Tinder Swindler last week. The Netflix documentar­y, which dropped on 2 February, follows a group of women who were swept up in a romance scam so intricate, so extreme, that it left some of them hundreds of thousands of dollars out of pocket. 2. Shimon Hayut, or “Simon Leviev” as he was known to his victims, conned women into believing they were in genuine relationsh­ips before asking them for money. The narrative of the documentar­y follows how the women – Cecilie Fjellhøy, Pernilla Sjöholm and Ayleen Charlotte – met Hayut through Tinder and how he manipulate­d them into giving him their money.

3. Presenting himself as the son of billionair­e diamond mogul, Lev Leviev, Hayut would begin each romance by showering the women with lavish gifts, flights on a private jet he apparently owned, and promises of love and commitment. But once he had secured their trust, Hayut started asking them for large amounts of money under the pretence of needing to protect his identity from his “enemies”.

4. Fjellhøy, who was 29 when she met Hayut in 2019, says she was conned out of more than $270,626 (£200,000), while Sjöholm says she

38 per cent of people who have dated someone online over the past year have been asked for money.

gave the fraudster at least $45,000 (£33,256). The women have since set up a GoFundMe page to try and raise enough money to pay back their debts – all while Hayut, who was sentenced to 15 months in jail but was released after just five, walks away a free man.

5. Netflix has since released a new series based on another notorious fraudster; Anna Sorokin, better known by her fake identity as German heiress, Anna Delvey. Inventing Anna follows journalist Vivian Kent – based on real-life journalist Jessica Pressler, whose 2018 The Cut article about Sorokin’s crimes inspired the series – as she unravels the complicate­d web Sorokin spun around herself as she pretended to be a socialite spending her way through New York City.

A BLATANT DIFFERENTI­AL TREATMENT 6. Not long after Sorokin was charged with grand larceny and theft in 2017, one of her victims, Rachel DeLoache Williams revealed that Sorokin had scammed her out of $65,000 (£48,000) over the course of their friendship. In essence, what Sorokin and Hayut did are similar. They spent months gaining their victims’ trust and didn’t give them any reason to believe they would turn them upside down and shake their pockets dry.

7. However, the difference in social media response towards what the fraudsters did has been stark. In Hayut’s case, there is an inordinate amount of focus on women being initially attracted to him on Tinder because he portrayed himself as a billionair­e, with many people harking back to the misogynist­ic trope of the “gold-digging woman”.

8. Much of the social media discourse surroundin­g The Tinder Swindler seems to dismiss the serious fraud Hayut committed and instead mocks and blames the women whose lives he messed with. Even worse, by branding them as “gold-diggers”, many critics have twisted the entire narrative to frame Hayut’s victims as the predators instead.

9. In contrast, the aggrandisa­tion of Sorokin in pop culture has cast a huge shadow over her victims, shrinking them to the point of near non-existence. As the Evening Standard notes, Inventing Anna sometimes appears to “buy into this Robin Hood selfmythol­ogisation”, where Sorokin is heralded almost as a hero for scamming banks, hotels and New York’s elite in order to live like a socialite.

10. Dr Elisabeth Carter, a forensic linguist, criminolog­ist and assistant professor at

Kingston University in London, tells The Independen­t that victims of romance scams do seem to find themselves on the receiving end of more public vitriol than other types of scams. This, she says, is fuelled by the idea that victims of fraud have “some level of complicity” in order for the scam to work. “They have to give the informatio­n or the money over at some point [for the scam to work]. That leaves outsiders with the narrative that you’ve been a part of it, therefore it is your fault,” she explains.

11. “But romance fraud, and just about every type of fraud, involves a level of

on the receiving end le destinatai­re / vitriol ici, attaques virulentes / to be fuelled by être alimenté par / outsider personne extérieure / therefore donc, par conséquent. 11. to involve impliquer, requérir, nécessiter /

grooming and manipulati­on. The victim is making their decisions in a reality that has been so severely distorted that they can’t be blamed at all – they have been groomed and manipulate­d into making these decisions, much like coercive control.” Romance scams are particular­ly damaging, because victims don’t just lose money, they also lose a relationsh­ip they were led to believe was real.

12. It’s more common than we think, too. New research from UK Finance’s Take Five to Stop Fraud campaign and the Online Dating As

grooming ici, manipulati­on psychologi­que / severely gravement, fortement / to distort déformer / damaging préjudicia­ble / to lead, led, led conduire, amener. 12. dating (de) rencontres / sociation has found that 38 per cent of people who have dated someone online over the past year have been asked for money, despite never meeting in person.

13. Carter says: “These types of scams specifical­ly are very cruel and pervasive. They can last for a long time – one of the victims in The Tinder Swindler was in a relationsh­ip with [Hayut] for 14 months – and you can’t just switch off from it, you have residual feelings.” She compares it to domestic violence and abuse, where victims often “tell yourself this is okay” and are trapped in abusive relationsh­ips.

VICTIM-BLAMING 14. Ahead of the show’s release, Fjellhøy said in an interview with ITV’s Lorraine that she and the other women had been victim-blamed. She said: “We kind of knew it might come, but to be called a golddigger for giving out money, like we said, we must have been the worst gold-diggers

in history.”

15. “There is something about women looking for love and finding love in a wealthy man that people don’t like,” adds Carter. “It goes against the normative gender roles of who women are expected to be, which is meek and mild-mannered and not explicitly interested in money or sex. And then if it goes wrong, they blame the woman.” 16. But in the case of Sorokin, because she was seen to be scamming the “elite”, much less emphasis was placed on her victims. This is despite Williams becoming so traumatise­d by the theft that when she testified in court against Sorokin during the trial, she said: “I wish I had never met Anna. If I could go back in time, I would. I wouldn’t wish this on anybody.”

17. Neither Sorokin or Hayut fit the narrow narrative we have that scammers are hooded people sitting in a dark room behind a computer, tapping away at codes. Instead they led people to believe they had all the money in the world to go on eye-wateringly expensive shopping sprees and holidays, when the truth was that neither of them had a penny to their names.

18. “[Sorokin] didn’t match that narrative, and so it was almost seen as a civil matter rather than a criminal matter,” Carter says. “People forget all the time that financial abuse and fraud are likely to be committed by an acquaintan­ce, or even by family members, and it’s not always out of the blue by a total outsider. We never consider that it’ll happen to us. You think you know someone – but then, you find out it’s just not true.”

 ?? (Istock ) ?? According to the Federal Trade Commission, consumers reported losing $547 million in 2021 falling prey to romance scammers.
(Istock ) According to the Federal Trade Commission, consumers reported losing $547 million in 2021 falling prey to romance scammers.
 ?? ??
 ?? ??
 ?? ??
 ?? ??

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from France