Upon learning that their Dublin-based sister had discovered love on the internet, her family harboured some doubts. Their worries amplified as they learnt she had not yet met this supposed lover who had captured her heart. Their uneasy feelings turned into certainty that she was ensnared in a love fraud upon learning that she had wired this man thousands of euros for bizarre reasons and had “wedded” him via an online ceremony. However, their repeated warnings fell on deaf ears as she rejected their fears, asserting that she was in a genuine relationship.
This all started when she was approached by a seemingly successful entrepreneur known as Donald who claimed his frequent travels between Germany and Japan had prevented him from meeting her in person. He has since received more than €20,000 of her inherited wealth as he allegedly required assistance with cash flow issues. She further loaned €5,000 from one of her sisters for heating repairs, but due to sending this money to the man as well, she endured winter in a freezing residence. Further attempts to borrow from another sister and her niece led to her estrangement from her family, who she accuses of meddling with her matters and driving a wedge in her romantic life.
As the current situation stands, she remains convinced that she has found true love despite mountains of evidence against this belief. Also, she is at the edge of losing all her worldly savings, as well as her house and even her family, for love that is nothing more than an intense con by scrupleless criminals. Even with the intervention of the Garda and her bank, it seems there isn’t much that can be done to help her see reason and the potentially catastrophic path she is on.
This is a harrowing account of a love hoax happening right now. Her family hopes to use this narrative to illuminate the devastation such dishonesty can cause to the victims and their families.
Our initial correspondence, from a reader we’ll refer to as Martha, began with her expressing her concerns about her sister, who we’ll name Mary. The latter was described as “being exceptionally bright, yet easily duped”. Martha divulged that because of Mary’s gullibility, she was an easy victim for tricksters and had become entwined in a scam. So much so that Mary has severed all familial connections, refusing to answer calls or reply to messages. Martha believes that Mary has lost upwards of €30,000 to the fraud. It has come to a point where Mary refused to speak to Martha after she denied her a loan of €67,000 to aid her so-called boyfriend stuck in Japan because of an unpaid business debt.
Martha then mentioned how Mary had approached other relatives for financial assistance. One kind-hearted sister offered to directly pay for Mary’s heating repairs, but Mary was incensed when the money wasn’t handed to her. Martha explained her, her daughter’s, and her sister’s predicament, expressing concern that the fraudsters may persuade Mary to sell her home and deposit the funds into their account, rendering her homeless. The family is deeply grieved and feel unable to intervene.
Martha’s objective for writing the letter was to raise awareness of the family’s helplessness against such deceit when they’re fully aware of the scam but can’t intervene. Her last remaining link with Mary has been severed, creating a sense of desperation as the shrewd scammers continue to manipulate the situation. Martha worries that her sister’s stubbornness might prevent her from seeking their aid even after losing everything.
Mary’s frightening ordeal began the previous summer when she revealed to her sisters that she had met a charming man on an online dating platform. The man, supposedly named Donald and hailing from Dublin, was introduced via screenshots of his profile picture. Mary mentioned that he wanted to take their relationship slow. Martha asked Mary if she had met the man face-to-face, to which she replied negatively, blaming his reluctance to meet on his shyness.
Several years prior, Mary had fallen prey to an investment fraud. Martha had reminded her of this incident, counselling her to guard her financial details carefully, especially in case an inquiry came from a gent named Donald from Dublin. Mary pledged her caution, ending their discussion. Yet, their story did not draw to a close.
The “relationship” with Donald from Dublin persisted over time. Mary shared a link of Donald’s business website with Martha, reassuring her that everything was above-board. To substantiate her claims, Mary presented the website as irrefutable evidence of the legitimacy of Donald’s business.
Their close sibling relationship kept them in constant communication. Mary always spoke about her new partner, constantly sharing that he was reserved and only video called occasionally. The couple hadn’t met face-to-face because his job necessitated frequent trips to Germany. She reassured her sisters, saying they were still only good friends.
A few months into the saga, Mary pleaded for a €5,000 loan from her sister, Martha. The purpose was to fund necessary house repairs; she planned to repay using the income from the rent-a-room scheme she intended to sign up for. Martha didn’t hesitate in granting the loan, and the funds were quickly transferred.
A few weeks after, Mary sought more financial help – this time, €67,000 to aid Donald cope with temporary financial hardships. She further revealed her engagement to Donald. Alarmed at these developments, Martha could hear the warning bells. Yet, Mary seemed oblivious to them, even sending Martha a snapshot of a cheque for over €1 million issued by her fiancé. This cheque, Donald purported, was evidence of his financial capability. He promised to cash it upon his return from Germany, a point at which they’ll embark on their marital journey together.
The terrible narrative continued to unravel.
Mary’s niece received a phone call from her aunt seeking a €7,000 contribution to fix her heating. Unfortunately, the niece didn’t have such resources, rendering the call unsuccessful.
Mary’s recent conduct had immensely shocked the entire family. Despite their voiced concerns, Mary insisted that everything was in order. She confessed that her situation might appear fraudulent to a third party but was convinced its legitimacy.
Mary recounted that her supposed fiancé, working in Germany, was funded by a firm with its headquarters in Japan. She explained that while his sizable payment was arranged by cheque, he couldn’t access the fund because of his impenetrable bank account. The solution required him to traverse to Japan to converse with the main office since the employee wages were pending. In the interim, a €7,000 payment was needed to ensure a Japanese lawyer of his commitment to his hotel charges.
As bizarre as it seemed, the situation escalated further. Mary exposed a cheque to her sister that her fiancé had mailed to her for safeguarding until his return to Ireland when they would settle in his Northern Dublin estate. Despite pointing out the businesses preferred bank transfers to cheques, Mary continued to disregard the advice.
Mary pleaded with her sister to trust her, ecstatic about her contribution to facilitate her fiancé’s homecoming. With no other options, the family felt obligated to report the case to the police who empathised but pointed out a third party couldn’t lodge a complaint.
As the year entered November, Mary’s pleadings to the family for financial aid persisted and an alternative proposal to directly fund her heating repairs was rejected. This greatly disturbed Mary who assured repayment in full early the following year once a bond matured to €30k.
The family’s desperation moved them to launch an independent investigation, frustrated with their attempts to reason with Mary.
By conducting a reverse image search, the identity of the man posing as ‘Donald’ was discovered. It emerged that the individual behind these romantic falsehoods was actually based in San Francisco. Despite informing Mary about this alarming revelation, she disregarded their worries. Consequently, the family decided to communicate directly with the man from the photograph.
“We revealed to him that our sister had pictures identical to those on his Instagram,” shares Martha. His response was an admittance that this wasn’t the first time his photos had been misused. He offered to video call Mary to confirm his identity, as he has done previously to prove to another woman she was being defrauded. He disclosed to us that he’s gay with a 27-year-long marriage, thus courting women isn’t his interest.”
Concerning what can and cannot be done to combat romance scams, Mary obstinately argued her independence and requested her privacy be maintained. She demanded an end to their interference.
As winter set in, Mary’s house became chillier. Martha tried to understand her reluctance to let her sibling finance a plumbing repair to restore her heating. However, this suggestion was met with immediate outrage by Mary who accused them of being condescending and deceitful. As Martha explained that their investigations stemmed from suspicion about the man’s true identity, Mary declared fiercely that he was now her husband and she didn’t require any official recognition of their union. Upon questioning why she wasn’t residing with her so-called husband, Mary became irate and instructed Martha to leave immediately.
The family felt they were left with no option but to involve the police. Martha recalls that whilst sympathetic, they stated that since no crime had been observed, they couldn’t intervene unless Mary, being the perceived victim of fraud, lodged a complaint herself. They offered to send a patrol car to ensure her safety, but it was thought this action might further infuriate Mary and drive her deeper into the scammer’s grasp.
At the tail end of last year, the story was still in progress when the family decided to contact their sister’s bank which redirected them to the fraud department. The personnel they engaged with was quite empathetic and agreed that the situation had the appearance of a scam, but due to prevailing data protection regulations, they were unable to provide any details about transactions made from Mary’s account. The bank representative promised to send Mary a letter asking her to connect with the bank to verify the transactions. However, he highlighted that the bank wouldn’t be able to intervene if Mary affirmed the transactions were authentic, given people’s freedom to spend their money as they wish, as elucidated by Martha. Since then, relentless attempts have been made to make their sister realise she’s the victim of a scam. At the moment of drafting this piece, the scam situation was still ongoing.