Recently, I conducted an investigation into an unusually sophisticated fraud case.
I wish I could tell you the subject was a petty con artist. But, it's not true.
They were SKILLED. Moving through elite circles with ease, playing with perception, status, symbols and - most powerfully - association.
This case fascinated me.
And when I get into my "investigative mode", I NEED to become obsessed, relentless.
Given the stature of my client, I kept asking myself: how could they have fallen for something this big?
But the deeper I went into the investigation, the more I had to admit... wow.
This was high-level work.
The fraudster did not need to lie... that's what made this case so complex and insidious.
The lies came from others, the victims of the deception themselves!
Influential people - captivated by proximity, seduced by the appearance of credibility - built the illusion for the fraudster.
They filled in the gaps, embellished the story, and projected prestige onto the subject, without even realizing it.
The fraudster simply created the initial frame, and the elites painted the picture.
Now, from an intelligence perspective, this is where things get dangerous:
- The deception is decentralized. The narrative is crowdsourced by credible insiders.
- The subject's hands stay clean. Every falsehood originates from someone else.
- The fraud becomes self-sustaining. The higher the status of the believers, the harder it is to dismantle the illusion - because exposure now threatens THEIR reputation, not just the fraudster's.
As an investigator, I am fully aware of the malicious intent here.
My role is to protect my client, neutralize the threat, and close the vulnerabilities.
But I also believe analysts must acknowledge something uncomfortable:
Many high-level fraudsters operate with a level of strategic creativity and psychological acuity that deserves study. Not admiration, but understanding.
In certain cases:
- The fraudster often believe in their own narrative.
- They exploit status and social proof better than most legitimate leaders.
- They understand that in certain circles, what is implied is stronger than what is said.
If we, analysts, only look at their malice, we miss the mechanics.
And if we fail to understand the mechanics, we are destined to face them again just in a different form, wearing a different face.
A methodological note for analysts
What I’m describing here is a classic cognitive bias in human intelligence work: the double reading of an adversary.
In any fraud investigation, there are three layers that must remain separate:
- The raw fact: the objective, documented action, backed by evidence. No moral judgement here, just data.
- Risk evaluation: the concrete impact on your client. This is where recommendations focus: neutralize, contain, prevent spread.
- Strategic reading of the actor: their skills, creativity, psychology, and internal narrative. Here, you can appreciate the mechanics, while knowing it's a weapon pointed at someone.
Finding 'genius' in a fraudster is NOT contradictory.
Strategically, you can acknowledge the quality of a method, just as a cryptanalyst admires the code they are about to break.
Ethically, you MUST stay clear: the use of that method is malicious and must be stopped.
Psychologically, many of these profiles don't see themselves as criminals. They rationalize, seeing themselves as justice-seekers, misunderstood entrepreneurs, or artists of the loophole.
To remain lucid, you need to compartmentalize:
- Collection phase: no judgement. Just facts and signals.
- Analysis phase: map the skills / motivations / opportunities / beliefs.
- Recommendation phase: focus solely on client protection.
Fraud at this level is about engineering the context so others deceive themselves.
And in the Grey Zone, that is the most effective weapon of all.
Stay safe, and lucid!
Oriane
P.S.: if you believe you're the victim of a fraudster, or surrounded by one... you know where to find me.