A Forensic Linguistic Investigation of Deceptive Communication in WhatsApp-Based Fraud
Kata Kunci:
Forensic Linguistics, WhatsApp Fraud, Deceptive Communication, Cybercrime, Digital Discourse AnalysisAbstrak
The increasing use of digital communication platforms, particularly WhatsApp, has been accompanied by a growing number of online fraud cases that exploit messaging applications as a medium for deception and manipulation. As fraudsters increasingly rely on language to establish credibility, influence victims, and conceal fraudulent intentions, forensic linguistics has become a valuable approach for examining linguistic evidence within digital communication. This study aims to analyze the linguistic patterns and communicative strategies employed in WhatsApp chat-based fraud in order to identify indicators of deceptive communication. The research adopts a qualitative forensic linguistic approach using WhatsApp fraud chat transcripts collected from victim reports, archived scam conversations, and publicly available fraud documentation as the primary data source. The data were analyzed through lexical, syntactic, pragmatic, and discourse analysis to examine how language is strategically used by fraudsters. The findings reveal that fraudulent conversations are characterized by recurring lexical features such as urgency-related vocabulary, authority claims, security-related terminology, and reward-based expressions. Syntactically, fraudsters frequently employ imperative and interrogative structures to direct victim behavior and obtain sensitive information. Pragmatic analysis indicates the extensive use of directive, assertive, and commissive speech acts, as well as implicatures and persuasive strategies designed to create trust and encourage compliance. At the discourse level, fraudulent interactions typically follow structured stages involving introduction, trust-building, information gathering, persuasion, and execution, often supported by narrative manipulation and false identity construction. The study concludes that WhatsApp-based fraud exhibits identifiable linguistic characteristics that function as indicators of deception and criminal intent. These findings demonstrate the significant role of forensic linguistic analysis in detecting fraudulent communication, supporting digital forensic investigations, and contributing to cybercrime prevention efforts through increased public awareness and the development of language-based fraud detection systems.
Referensi
Albrecht, C. C., Sanders, M. L., Holland, D. V, & Albrecht, C. (2016). The debilitating effects of fraud in organizations. In Crime and Corruption in Organizations (pp. 163–185). Routledge.
Anafo, C. (2017). The language of deception transitivity analysis of scam email messages. University of Education Winneba.
Anafo, C., & Ngula, R. S. (2020). On the grammar of scam: transitivity, manipulation and deception in scam emails. Word, 66(1), 16–39.
Bailey, F. G. (2019). The prevalence of deceit. Cornell University Press.
Buie, E., & Yeske, D. (2015). Gathering Information Necessary to Fulfill the Engagement. CFP Board Financial Planning Competency Handbook, 617–623.
Carter, E. (2015). The anatomy of written scam communications: An empirical analysis. Crime, Media, Culture, 11(2), 89–103.
Castells, M., Fernandez-Ardevol, M., Qiu, J. L., & Sey, A. (2009). Mobile communication and society: A global perspective. Mit Press.
Chen, J. (2021). “You are in trouble!”: A discursive psychological analysis of threatening language in Chinese cellphone fraud interactions. International Journal for the Semiotics of Law-Revue Internationale de Sémiotique Juridique, 34(4), 1065–1092.
Clarke, I., & Kredens, K. (2018). ‘I consider myself to be a service provider’: Discursive identity construction of the forensic linguistic expert. The International Journal of Speech, Language and the Law, 25(1), 79–107.
Coulthard, M., Johnson, A., & Wright, D. (2016). An introduction to forensic linguistics: Language in evidence. Routledge.
Dodge, A., Spencer, D., Ricciardelli, R., & Ballucci, D. (2019). “This isn’t your father’s police force”: Digital evidence in sexual assault investigations. Australian & New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 52(4), 499–515.
Eichstaedt, J. C., Kern, M. L., Yaden, D. B., Schwartz, H. A., Giorgi, S., Park, G., Hagan, C. A., Tobolsky, V. A., Smith, L. K., & Buffone, A. (2021). Closed-and open-vocabulary approaches to text analysis: A review, quantitative comparison, and recommendations. Psychological Methods, 26(4), 398.
Fritzen-Pedicini, C., Bleasdale, S. C., Brosseau, L. M., Moritz, D., Sikka, M., Stiehl, E., Jones, R. M., & Program, C. D. C. P. E. (2019). Utilizing the focused conversation method in qualitative public health research: a team-based approach. BMC Health Services Research, 19(1), 306.
Hua, T. K., Abdollahi-Guilani, M., & Zi, C. C. (2017). Linguistic Deception of Chinese Cyber Fraudsters. 3L: Southeast Asian Journal of English Language Studies, 23(4).
Humpherys, S. L., Moffitt, K. C., Burns, M. B., Burgoon, J. K., & Felix, W. F. (2011). Identification of fraudulent financial statements using linguistic credibility analysis. Decision Support Systems, 50(3), 585–594.
Jones, R. H., Chik, A., & Hafner, C. A. (2015). Introduction: Discourse analysis and digital practices. In Discourse and digital practices (pp. 1–17). Routledge.
Kissine, M. (2013). From utterances to speech acts. Cambridge University Press.
Leukfeldt, E. R., & Roks, R. A. (2021). Cybercrimes on the streets of the Netherlands? An exploration of the intersection of cybercrimes and street crimes. Deviant Behavior, 42(11), 1458–1469.
Meissner, C. A., Redlich, A. D., Michael, S. W., Evans, J. R., Camilletti, C. R., Bhatt, S., & Brandon, S. (2014). Accusatorial and information-gathering interrogation methods and their effects on true and false confessions: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 10(4), 459–486.
Morse, J. M. (2015). Critical analysis of strategies for determining rigor in qualitative inquiry. Qualitative Health Research, 25(9), 1212–1222.
Novak, A. (2014). Anonymity, confidentiality, privacy, and identity: The ties that bind and break in communication research. Review of Communication, 14(1), 36–48.
Pickering, M. J., & Garrod, S. (2013). An integrated theory of language production and comprehension. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 36(4), 329–347.
Rahi, S. (2017). Research design and methods: A systematic review of research paradigms, sampling issues and instruments development. International Journal of Economics & Management Sciences, 6(2), 1–5.
Sabillon, R., Cano, J. J., & Serra-Ruiz, J. (2016). Cybercrime and cybercriminals: A comprehensive study. International Journal of Computer Networks and Communications Security, 2016, 4 (6).
Shuy, R. W. (2005). Creating language crimes: How law enforcement uses (and misuses) language. Oxford University Press.
Smith, R. (2018). Crime in the digital age: Controlling telecommunications and cyberspace illegalities. Routledge.
Trisnasenjaya, H., & Riadi, I. (2019). Forensic analysis of Android-based WhatsApp messenger against fraud crime using The National Institute of Standard and Technology framework. International Journal of Cyber-Security and Digital Forensics, 8(1), 89–98.
Wylie, K., Bell, A., Fitzgerald, G., Crilly, J., Toloo, S., Burke, J., & Williams, G. (2014). The implications of activity based funding for emergency departments: a comprehensive literature review: statewide workforce and activity-based funding modelling in Queensland Emergency Departments Project (SWAMPED). Queensland University of Technology.
