Confidence trick

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

(Redirected from Scam)

Jump to navigationJump to search

"Con man" and "Scam" redirect here. For other uses, see Con Man (disambiguation), Confidence man
(disambiguation), and Scam (disambiguation).

"Confidence game" redirects here. For the 2016 film, see Confidence Game.

"Ripoff artist" redirects here. For counterfeits, see knockoffs.

"Con artist" redirects here. For other uses, see The Con Artist and The Con Artists.

Political cartoon by JM Staniforth: Herbert Kitchener attempts to raise £100,000 for a college in Sudan
by calling on the name of Charles George Gordon

A confidence trick is an attempt to defraud a person or group after first gaining their trust. Confidence
tricks exploit victims using their credulity, naïveté, compassion, vanity, irresponsibility, and greed.
Researchers have defined confidence tricks as "a distinctive species of fraudulent conduct ... intending
to further voluntary exchanges that are not mutually beneficial", as they "benefit con operators ('con
men') at the expense of their victims (the 'marks')".[1]

Contents

1 Terminology

1.1 Short and long cons

2 Stages of the con

3 Vulnerability factors

4 See also

4.1 In films

5 References

6 Further reading

7 External links

Terminology
Synonyms include con, confidence game, confidence scheme, ripoff, scam, and stratagem. The
perpetrator of a confidence trick (or "con trick") is often referred to as a confidence (or "con") man, con-
artist, or a "grifter". Samuel Thompson (1821–1856) was the original "confidence man". Thompson was
a clumsy swindler who asked his victims to express confidence in him by giving him money or their
watch rather than gaining their confidence in a more nuanced way. A few people trusted Thompson
with their money and watches.[2] Thompson was arrested in July 1849.

Reporting about this arrest, Dr. James Houston, a reporter of the New York Herald, publicized Thompson
by naming him the "Confidence Man".[2] Although Thompson was an unsuccessful scammer, he gained
the reputation as a genius operator mostly because Houston's satirical tone was not understood as such.
[2] The National Police Gazette coined the term "confidence game" a few weeks after Houston first used
the name "confidence man".[2]

A confidence trick is also known as a con game, a con, a scam, a grift, a hustle, a bunko (or bunco), a
swindle, a flimflam, a gaffle, or a bamboozle. The intended victims are known as marks, suckers, stooges,
mugs, rubes, or gulls (from the word gullible). When accomplices are employed, they are known as
shills.

Short and long cons

A short con or "small con" is a fast swindle which takes just minutes. It typically aims to rob the victim of
everything in his wallet.[3]

A "long con" or "big con" (also, chiefly British English: long game)[4] is a scam that unfolds over several
days or weeks; it may involve a team of swindlers, and even props, sets, extras, costumes, and scripted
lines. It aims to rob the victim of huge sums of money or valuables, often by getting him or her to empty
out banking accounts and borrow from family members.[5]

Stages of the con

In Confessions of a Confidence Man, Edward H. Smith lists the "six definite steps or stages of growth" of
a confidence game.[6] He notes that some steps may be omitted.

Foundation work

Preparations are made in advance of the game, including the hiring of any assistants required and
studying the background knowledge needed for the role.

Approach
The victim is approached or contacted.

Build-up

The victim is given an opportunity to profit from participating in a scheme. The victim's greed is
encouraged, such that their rational judgment of the situation might be impaired.

Pay-off or convincer

The victim receives a small payout as a demonstration of the scheme's purported effectiveness. This
may be a real amount of money or faked in some way. In a gambling con, the victim is allowed to win
several small bets. In a stock market con, the victim is given fake dividends.

The "hurrah"

A sudden manufactured crisis or change of events forces the victim to act or make a decision
immediately. This is the point at which the con succeeds or fails. With a financial scam, the con artist
may tell the victim that the "window of opportunity" to make a large investment in the scheme is about
to suddenly close forever.

The in-and-in

A conspirator (in on the con, but assumes the role of an interested bystander) puts an amount of money
into the same scheme as the victim, to add an appearance of legitimacy. This can reassure the victim,
and give the con man greater control when the deal has been completed.

In addition, some games require a "corroboration" step, particularly those involving a fake, but
purportedly "rare item" of "great value". This usually includes the use of an accomplice who plays the
part of an uninvolved (initially skeptical) third party, who later confirms the claims made by the con
man.[6][7]

Vulnerability factors

Confidence tricks exploit typical human characteristics such as greed, dishonesty, vanity, opportunism,
lust, compassion, credulity, irresponsibility, desperation, and naïvety. As such, there is no consistent
profile of a confidence trick victim; the common factor is simply that the victim relies on the good faith
of the con artist. Victims of investment scams tend to show an incautious level of greed and gullibility,
and many con artists target the elderly and other people thought to be vulnerable, using various forms
of confidence tricks.[8] Researchers Huang and Orbach argue:[1]

Cons succeed for inducing judgment errors—chiefly, errors arising from imperfect information and
cognitive biases. In popular culture and among professional con men, the human vulnerabilities that
cons exploit are depicted as 'dishonesty,' 'greed,' and 'gullibility' of the marks. Dishonesty, often
represented by the expression 'you can't cheat an honest man,' refers to the willingness of marks to
participate in unlawful acts, such as rigged gambling and embezzlement. Greed, the desire to 'get
something for nothing,' is a shorthand expression of marks' beliefs that too-good-to-be-true gains are
realistic. Gullibility reflects beliefs that marks are 'suckers' and 'fools' for entering into costly voluntary
exchanges. Judicial opinions occasionally echo these sentiments.

Accomplices, also known as shills, help manipulate the mark into accepting the perpetrator's plan. In a
traditional confidence trick, the mark is led to believe that he will be able to win money or some other
prize by doing some task. The accomplices may pretend to be strangers who have benefited from
performing the task in the past.[citation needed]

See also

A Face in the Crowd – Dramatised political cons

Badger Game

Boiler room (business)

Charlatan

Confidence tricks in literature

Confidence tricks in film and television

Counterfeit

Elmer Gantry – Fictional religious cons

Hijacked journals

List of con artists

List of confidence tricks

List of criminal enterprises, gangs and syndicates

Nigerian Prince scam

Quackery

Racketeering

Ripoff

Scam baiting

Scams in intellectual property

Social engineering (security)

Technical Support Scam

White-collar crime
In films

The Good Liar (2019) starring Ian McKellen and Helen Mirren

American Hustle (2013) starring Christian Bale, Amy Adams, Bradley Cooper, Jennifer Lawrence and
Jeremy Renner

Confidence (2003) starring Edward Burns, Rachel Weisz, Dustin Hoffman, and Andy Garcia

Matchstick Men (2003) starring Nicolas Cage, Alison Lohman and Sam Rockwell

Heartbreakers (2001) starring Sigourney Weaver and Jennifer Love Hewitt

Heist (2001) starring Gene Hackman, Delroy Lindo, and Danny Devito

The Spanish Prisoner (1997) starring Steve Martin, Campbell Scott, Rebecca Pidgeon, and Ben Gazzara

The Grifters (1990) starring Anjelica Huston, John Cusack, Annette Bening

Dirty Rotten Scoundrels (1988) starring Steve Martin and Michael Caine

House of Games (1987) starring Lindsay Crouse and Joe Mantegna

Paper Moon (1973) starring Ryan O'Neal, Tatum O'Neal, and Madeline Kahn

The Sting (1973) starring Robert Redford and Paul Newman

References

Huang, Lindsey; Orbach, Barak (2018). "Con Men and Their Enablers: The Anatomy of Confidence
Games". Social Research: An International Quarterly. 85 (4): 795–822.

Braucher, Jean; Orbach, Barak (2015). "Scamming: The Misunderstood Confidence Man". Yale Journal of
Law & Humanities. 72 (2): 249–292. doi:10.2139/ssrn.2314071. S2CID 148270133.

Maurer 1999, Ch. 8. Short-Con Games

Yagoda, Ben (June 5, 2012). "The long game". Not One-off Britishisms. Archived from the original on July
7, 2014. This language blog, while not a reliable etymological source, provides statistically gathered
usage data that demonstrates neutral as well as critical usage, and that it is of British origin, only
recently making notable inroads into American English.

Reading 2012, Ch. 1. Confidence

Smith, Edward H. (1923). Confessions of a Confidence Man: A Handbook for Suckers. Scientific American
Publishing. pp. 35–37.

Rossi, Richard (April 16, 2020). Canaan Land. Amazon. p. 43. ISBN 979-8634762654. Retrieved 30 April
2020.

Crimes-of-persuasion.com Archived 2007-04-15 at the Wayback Machine Fraud Victim Advice /