The term “419” is coined from Section 419 of the Nigerian criminal code (part of Chapter 38: obtaining property by false pretenses; cheating) dealing with fraud. Nowadays, the axiom “419” generally refers to a complex list of offences which in ordinary parlance are related to stealing, cheating, falsification, impersonation, counterfeiting, forgery and fraudulent representation of facts (Tive 2006, p. 3). The main difference between the “419” scam and stealing is that “false pretense” is the major element in the “419” scam. According to Section 23 of the advance fee fraud decree: “False pretense means a representation, whether deliberate or reckless, made by word, in writing or by conduct, of a matter of fact or law, either past or present, which representation is false in fact or law, and which the person making it knows to be false or does not believe to be true”. Section 383, Sub-section 1 of the Nigerian Criminal Code states: “A person who fraudulently takes anything capable of being stolen, or fraudulently converts to his own use or to the use of any other person anything capable of being stolen, is said to steal that thing”. It must be noted that falsification, impersonation, forgery and fraudulent representation of facts are all related tools that combine to either abet or facilitate the advance fee fraud (Ibid). Advance fee fraud did not start with the internet, although the internet enables the criminals to reach a greater number of potential victims more quickly and economically, and sometimes without being traced.

In the United Kingdom, the Audit Commission has conducted four triennial surveys of computer-related fraud based on a definition referring to: “any fraudulent behavior connected with computerization by which someone intends to gain financial advantage”. Such a definition is capable of encompassing a vast range of activities some of which may have only the most tenuous connection with a computer. The Council of Europe, in its report on computer-related crime advocates the establishment of an offence consisting of: “The input, alteration, erasure or suppression of computer data or computer programs [sic], or other interference with the course of data processing, that influences the result of data processing thereby causing economic loss or possessor loss of property of another person, or with the intent of procuring an unlawful economic gain for himself or for another person”. However this definition is broad in scope. It would appear for example that the proposed offence would be committed by a person who wrongfully uses another party’s cash dispensing card to withdraw funds from a bank account. Although there can be little doubt about the criminality of such conduct, the involvement of the computer is purely incidental. In most areas of traditional legal interests, the involvement of computer data does not cause specific legal problems. The respective legal provisions are formulated in terms of results and it is completely irrelevant if this result is achieved with the involvement of a computer or not.

The Online Etymology Dictionary associates 419 scam with a nineteenth century British slang “scamp”, which means “cheater” or “swindler”. Nevertheless, ever since 1963, when some scholars say the term “scam” made it into written literature for the first time, the central meaning has not changed—it is a trick, a ruse, a swindle, a racket (Igwe 2007, p. 6). Although 419 is broached as a global phenomenon, it did emerge from Nigeria and was the brainchild of a group of Nigerian nationals (Ibid). Therefore, a frontal battle against 419 ought not to overlook its place of origin and the numerous factors that gave birth to it. Many specialists in African studies claim, without substantiating details, that the game began in the 1980s with the Nigerian petroleum companies as major players. Some argue to the contrary, maintaining that 419 evolved from various types of tricks played since time out of mind, mostly in Igbo land in southeastern Nigeria (Ibid). Neither of these arguments is far from the truth, since both the oil industry and local intelligence have influenced the evolution of the scheme. The fact is that human beings tend to look for scapegoats all the time. In doing so, we frequently adopt limited views that undermine the idea that a single incident may be the result of a chain of combining and complementary forces and actions. A massive amount of advance fee fraud messages are sent out every day around the world, though many recipients ignore or discount their content. At the same time, a small percentage of all recipients respond to these messages and become victims who lose money or have their identities stolen at the hands of fraudsters (Graves and Holt 2007, p. 138).

Advanced fee frauds commence with the receipt of an official-looking letter or email, usually purporting to be from the relative of a former senior government official, who, prior to their death, accrued a large amount of money which is currently being held in a bank account within the country from which the letter was being sent (Wall 2007, p. 90). The sender of the following typical 419 letter invites the recipients to assist with the removal of the money by channeling it through his or her bank account. In return for collaborating, the recipient is offered $12 million, 20 % of the 460 million to be transferred (Wall 2007, p. 91). Once recipients respond to the sender, an advanced fee is sought to pay for banking fees and currency exchange. As the victim becomes more embroiled in the scam and pays out money, it becomes harder to withdraw. Needless to say, the majority, if not all, of these invitations are bogus and are designed to defraud the respondents, sometimes for considerable amounts of money (Wall 2007, p. 92). Another technique employed by the scammers is to invite the victim to visit the scammers in their ‘home’ country to explain their situation in person and ask for money and assistance. This ploy is relatively uncommon, though it can lead the victim to be held hostage or killed (Graves and Holt 2007, p. 140). A final method requires the victim to provide the scammer with personal information, such as their name, address, employer, and bank account information. The initial request may be made under the guise of assuring the sender that the recipient is a sound and trustworthy associate (Holt et al. 2007, p. 140). However the information is surreptitiously used by the sender to drain the victim’s accounts and engage in identity theft.

Advance fee fraud is a vexing threat and a major problem. It takes diverse forms and degrees, ranging from advancing sums of money, to murder (Tenfa 2006, p. 11). Furthermore, law enforcement officers often find it difficult to identify and apprehend cyber scammers. This may be due to the fact that perpetrators can use technology to conceal their identities and physical location, thereby frustrating law enforcement efforts to locate them (Chawki and Wahab 2006, p. 5). The traditional model of law enforcement assumes that the commission of an offence involves physical proximity between perpetrator and victim (Brenner 2004, p. 6). This assumption has shaped our approaches to criminal investigation and prosecution. Real-world criminal investigations focus on the crime scene as the best way to identify a perpetrator and link him to the crime (Chawki 2008, p. 13). However, in automated or cybercrime there may either be no crime scene or there may be many crime scenes, with shredded evidence of the crime is scattered throughout cyberspace. In this respect Dana van der Merwe (2008, p. 104) argues that:

[T]he true problem of the information and communication era seems to be to decide exactly how much value should be attached to a given piece of information, especially when that information is stored electronically and digitally. The only field of law which advertises itself as a specialist in the area of verifying facts is the law of evidence. Unfortunately, like all other fields of law this field sometimes finds itself struggling to adapt to a new world in which paper is being phased out of general commercial transactions and to decreasing contact between human beings and the information needed to conduct business.

Accordingly, identifying an electronic crime scene can be a daunting task when the perpetrator may have routed his communications with the victim through computers in three or four countries, with obscure networks that are inaccessible to investigators (Chawki and Wahab 2006, p. 5). Very few estimates are available for advance fee fraud, and many of those published are more than a decade old. With regard to the United States, a number of conflicting figures have been published. Some examples include the following (Bocij 2006, p. 103):

It is also difficult to obtain realistic estimates for other countries. However, the available information suggests that average losses are similar to those experienced in the United States. Some examples of losses experienced by other countries include (Bocij 2006, p. 103):

According to 2010 Internet Crime Report prepared by the National White Collar Crime Centre and the FBI, Nigeria currently ranks third in the world with 5.8 % of perpetrators of cybercrime (2010 Internet Crime Report, p. 11). Though the perpetrator percentage of 5.8 from Nigeria appears low, we can regard it as rather high considering that less than 10 % of the 150 million population of Nigeria use the internet (Delta State University Report). Cybercrime has a negative impact on Nigeria. It can be explained in the terms of the following statistics:

Nigerian Cybercrime has the potential to impact technology growth which is a key requirement for productivity improvement, and ultimately for socio-economic growth because:

Accordingly cybercrime has created an image nightmare for Nigeria. When one comes across phrases like ‘Nigerian scam’, the assumption that crosses one’s mind is that all (or conservatively most) scam e-mails originate from Nigeria or Nigerians—though this is actually not the case (Adomi 2008, p. 720). Advance fee fraud has brought disrepute to Nigeria from all over the world. Essentially, Nigerians are treated with suspicious in business dealing. Consequently, the honest majority of Nigerians suffer as a result (Adomi 2008, p. 720).