[ilamont]

Honestly, the "acted upon" part needs to be highlighted in tangible ways, otherwise people will be suspicious that nothing ever happens to our reports, leading to fewer reports being submitted.

During the IC3 reporting process I was asked to submit the name of people behind the scam, if known. I knew one of them because the scammer asked for a wire transfer to a named account at a bank in Oregon. Probably a mule.

Does anyone at the FBI or other agencies actually do anything with this information, such as contacting the bank in question or correlating it with other investigations? That's what I would expect if law enforcement were serious about enforcing the laws on the books. But there is no indication that anything happened, other than a confirmation number being spit out on a web page that my report had been received. That's why I made the "black hole" comment earlier.

If the IC3 portal highlighted specific cases or stats ("thanks to reports submitted to IC3, n investigations were initiated/suspects charged/convictions secured") that would really help convince ordinary victims that the government is taking tangible steps to fight this scourge of small-scale scams and frauds that affect millions of people every year.

[eblume]

There are strict rules about not talking about open investigations because of so-called "Tipping-off" rules. It can carry some pretty serious penalties - jail time, fines. I agree it would be nice if the FBI itself made some announcements about these sorts of things, and they might do that in aggregate, but if you're a bank or fintech employee and you're in communication with the FBI you absolutely cannot say anything about it. Even confirming that an investigation existed could be penalized.

[ilamont]

> Even confirming that an investigation existed could be penalized.

I didn't know that. But that is another point that could be highlighted on the IC3 homepage or confirmation, along with aggregated data about enforcement actions resulting from submissions from ordinary victims.

[jasomill]

My assumption is that they at least have an intern read them, but only act on reports likely to lead to major cases, for some value of "major" that includes cases where terrorism, large sums of money, or Important People are involved, or more generally cases that could lead to seriously good/bad PR if pursued/ignored.

De minimis non curat FBI.

They may also flag certain cases to be passed to other relevant authorities like FinCEN, the Secret Service, the Postal Inspection Service, various military investigative services, or even the intelligence community (assuming NSA doesn't already intercept the mailbox which would be a very reasonable thing to do).

[cucumber3732842]

"Acted upon" in these sorts of bulk data contexts typically means "charge them for an extra count when we pick them up for something else".

It's like the internet crimes version of putting the serial number of stolen property in a police report. They ain't looking for it, but they'll tack the charge when they inventory a crackhouse bust and that number pops up stolen.

They aren't dedicating serious resources to speculatively looking at the reports and trying to assess patterns like some TV cop looking at a series of dead hookers and saying "aha we have a serial killer on the loose".