The Hostage Hoax:Increasing Virtual Kidnappings in the US

Between 8 and 10 January 2016, three families in Santa Cruz, California, were contacted by a male caller stating, “This is a kidnapping. Listen to my instructions. We are holding your family members hostage. Send me money or you will never see them again.” Fearing for their loved ones, the families were quick to transfer ransoms of USD 5,000 to the ‘kidnappers’. However, these threats proved to be empty, as the supposed ‘victims’ were later found safe and unaware of the hoax. This is not a new phenomenon in the US. Increasing reports of virtual kidnappings in the US prompted the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) to issue an alert in September 2015, warning the public of the extortion scam.

Virtual kidnappings originated in Latin America, where high crime rates in countries like Mexico, Brazil and Guatemala have made people more likely to believe that their loved ones have been abducted. Mexican authorities assess that virtual kidnapping ransoms between 2007 and 2013 amounted to a total of USD 500,000. The scam has since spread north. While comprehensive US statistics on this type of kidnapping is unavailable, police in major cities in California, Nevada, Texas, Florida and New York claim that virtual kidnapping has consistently increased since 2013.

Although there are several iterations of virtual kidnappings, cases generally follow a similar pattern. The victim will receive a phone call from the assailants – frequently represented as drug cartel members or corrupt law enforcement officials – who make specific demands to ensure the safe return of a loved one that has allegedly been kidnapped. However, unlike traditional cases of kidnap for ransom, the loved one is never actually abducted by perpetrators. Instead, assailants rely on perceived threats of violence to force the targeted individual to hand over money in a short time-frame. FBI Supervisory Special Agent Tony Robleto notes that “they’re controlling you the whole time by keeping you on the phone, making you think that if you don’t follow instructions, harm will come to you.” One warning sign is that assailants will never call from the alleged victim’s phone – a red flag indicating that no kidnapping has taken place at all.

The assailants’ primary aim is to ensure that the victims do not verify the whereabouts of their loved ones before handing over a relatively small ransom. The ‘kidnappers’ will wait until the ‘abductee’ is unavailable for contact by phone, such as in a movie, business meeting, or university class before contacting their victims. Criminals will go as far as to threaten violence against the ‘victim’ to prevent them from hanging up or corroborating the abduction claim. Callers have also been known to use accomplices to scream in the background to heighten the victim’s sense of fear and urgency. Perpetrators have also been known to make demands based on non-existent drug debts, fabricated car accidents or alleged assaults to extort ransoms from victims. For example, in May 2015, a woman living in Chicago paid a USD 1,500 ransom because the caller claimed that her boyfriend was involved in a vehicular accident and had seriously injured someone.

Given that this type of scam is generally opportunistic, there is no discernible victim profile. Criminals tend to randomly select names from phone books or professional directories. For example, in August 2014, there was a flurry of virtual kidnapping cases against local doctors working in the San Antonio area of Texas. One of the targeted doctors claimed that even though he did not have a daughter, he feared that someone’s life was in danger, and was reluctant to hang up the phone when assailants attempted to extort a ransom. The spate of virtual kidnapping attempts prompted the FBI to issue a warning to local doctors in the regional service area.

One of the primary tools used by virtual kidnappers is information drawn from victim’s online social media profiles. American victims have commented that perpetrators knew their personal information, including what kinds of cars they drove, names of family members and their day-to-day activities. While social networks provide people with a platform to share information and interact with others, online sharing may reveal significant amounts of personal details, particularly if users’ security and visibility settings are lax. According to a 2015 study by Pew Research Centre, nearly 65 percent of adults in the US use social networking websites. This exponential increase in usage provides criminals with a growing pool of potential victims for virtual kidnappings.

Virtual kidnappings have become so popular because the scam offers a high return for low investment or risk on the part of the assailants. The required groundwork for assailants is limited to selecting a name from a phonebook or directory, and conducting a cursory research on social media. The use of untraceable numbers also limits the risk of being caught. Many calls are reportedly made from Puerto Rico or Central American countries on blocked or restricted numbers, which makes apprehending assailants less likely in most cases. For example, in January 2015, during a spate of virtual kidnappings in New York, victims were told by Hispanic males to transfer ransoms of up to USD 1,900 to Puerto Rican bank accounts. Traditional kidnappings, on the other hand, require significant planning and resources, with perpetrators facing an increased risk of being apprehended.

Given that virtual kidnapping is a low-risk and low-investment endeavour for criminals, and personal information is becoming increasingly accessible through online platforms, the upward trend in virtual kidnapping is likely to continue in the US in 2016.