Marija Petrović | 19 Jun 2026

“How could you believe that?”

A person who has experienced fraud may already be asking themselves this question before anyone else says it aloud. They may replay a conversation, reconsider a message or search for the moment when they should have realised something was wrong. Telling another person can mean facing the possibility of criticism alongside the consequences of the deception itself.

The response they receive matters. A conversation can make it easier to seek assistance, understand what happened and regain confidence. It can also leave someone feeling that silence would have been safer.

For families, educators and organisations working with communities, this makes the language surrounding fraud an important part of prevention.

The comfort of believing it could never happen to us

From outside a deceptive situation, the warning signs can appear obvious. The observer knows how the story ends. They can examine the request without the caller’s insistence, the apparent emergency or the emotional involvement that shaped the original decision.

This distance can encourage an unhelpful conclusion: a sensible person would have recognised the deception immediately.

Such judgements offer reassurance to the person making them. If fraud happens only to people who are careless or uninformed, then being careful and informed seems to guarantee protection. Yet this reasoning overlooks the circumstances in which decisions are made and the deliberate work involved in making a false story convincing.

A more useful question is: what made the request credible at that moment? It invites examination of the deception rather than a judgement about someone’s character.

When embarrassment makes speaking difficult

Disclosing fraud can feel particularly uncomfortable when someone fears that others will question their independence. An older adult may worry that relatives will want to take over financial decisions. A professional may fear damage to their reputation. A young person may hesitate to admit that an online relationship involved deception.

These concerns give the listener a responsibility. Surprise is understandable, but expressing it through ridicule or accusation can close the conversation precisely when clear information is needed.

Questions such as “What happened next?” and “What support would be useful now?” give someone room to explain. They also help distinguish between understanding a decision and assigning responsibility for the fraud. The person who constructed and carried out the deception remains responsible for it.

Support that preserves dignity

Offering assistance should leave space for the affected person’s voice. They may need help organising information, understanding available options or approaching an institution. They should also have the opportunity to explain what they want and participate in decisions about the next steps.

This is especially important in relationships where one person already holds greater authority or technical knowledge. A relative who understands online banking, for example, can explain an unfamiliar process without treating the other person as incapable.

Respectful support recognises both an immediate difficulty and the person’s continuing ability to learn and make decisions. Experiencing deception should not become a permanent label.

Education without humiliation

Fraud awareness sessions often use examples to encourage recognition of suspicious situations. The way those examples are discussed shapes the learning environment.

If a facilitator presents a case as something that “nobody should fall for,” participants who recognise their own experience may become reluctant to speak. Others may leave with confidence based on feeling different from the person in the example.

Examining the persuasive elements creates more room for learning. What appeared familiar? Which claim seemed authoritative? How did the request discourage checking? What could create an opportunity to pause?

These questions allow participants to consider practical responses without having to prove that they would never make a mistake.

A community in which people can speak

Fraud is relevant to wider discussions about dignity, trust and participation because its consequences unfold within relationships. People turn to relatives, friends, colleagues and community organisations for help. Their willingness to do so depends partly on how they expect to be treated.

A constructive response can begin with a simple acknowledgement: “Thank you for telling me.” It recognises that speaking may have been difficult and keeps the conversation open.

Communities strengthen their capacity to respond to deception when people can share concerns without first having to defend their intelligence or worth. Making that possible is a responsibility shared by everyone who listens.

The blog entry is part of the “ODYSSEY – Your Financial Security” project, financed by the European Commission.