Case Explained: A Scam Is a Crime — Not a National Identity – Legal Perspective

When the FBI recently stated that the surge in scam operations across Southeast Asia is not a “Cambodian problem” but a regional one, it clarified something essential in the global conversation about online fraud. In today’s digital economy, crime moves faster than borders can respond. What once might have been contained within a single jurisdiction now operates across multiple legal systems, financial networks and digital platforms simultaneously.

Importantly, this statement should not be interpreted as an absolution for any country, nor as a dismissal of the seriousness of the crisis. Rather, it serves as a broader reminder that Cambodia is not uniquely the source of the problem, and no single nation can be singularly cast as its architect. Transnational crime networks operate across jurisdictions, exploiting structural and legal gaps that extend well beyond national boundaries. Recognising this reality shifts the discussion from stigma toward shared legal responsibility.

The instinct to attach the scam crisis to one country oversimplifies a complex transnational ecosystem. Scam compounds relocate when enforcement intensifies. Profits are reinvested into new operations elsewhere. Networks exploit differences in criminal law enforcement capacity, regulatory oversight, financial supervision and technological governance. What appears geographically concentrated today may shift tomorrow. This mobility is strategic, calculated and designed to outpace fragmented enforcement efforts.

The scale of the challenge illustrates why narrow framing is inadequate. In 2025 alone, the FBI’s Internet Crime Complaint Centre recorded more than 80,000 complaints linked to Southeast Asian scam networks, with reported losses exceeding $2.9 billion. These figures reflect an industrialised criminal economy operating across borders and targeting victims worldwide. Behind those numbers are retirees losing life savings, small business owners drained of working capital, migrant workers deceived by fraudulent recruitment schemes and families destabilised within minutes.

There is also a human dimension within the compounds themselves. Investigations have shown that some scam operations rely on coercion, deception, and in certain cases human trafficking. Individuals are recruited under false promises of employment, transported across borders and confined under exploitative conditions. This elevates the crisis beyond financial fraud. It raises fundamental concerns about human security, labour protection and cross-border legal accountability.

At the same time, caution is necessary to avoid another unintended consequence of this crisis: profiling and discrimination. Public discourse sometimes highlights the nationality of individual suspects or associates particular types of buildings with criminal activity. Repetition of such narratives risks creating simplified conclusions — that crime belongs to a particular country, community or urban development. In reality, transnational fraud networks are structured enterprises that recruit across borders, utilise layered financial channels, and exploit regulatory vulnerabilities in multiple jurisdictions.

Criminal responsibility is individual, not collective. A rule-of-law response requires enforcement based on evidence and due process, not generalised assumptions about nationality or origin. Preserving fairness while strengthening enforcement is essential to maintaining both social cohesion and legal integrity.

For Cambodia, the issue extends beyond perception. It touches rule of law, economic credibility and national security. In a country pursuing deeper integration into regional and global markets, institutional trust is a form of strategic capital. Investor confidence, banking relationships, tourism flows and diplomatic partnerships depend not only on macroeconomic indicators but also on credible legal enforcement and transparent governance systems. Addressing transnational fraud is therefore not merely a policing matter; it is a legal and institutional imperative.

Cambodia has increasingly recognised that large-scale online fraud presents not only reputational challenges but significant rule-of-law implications. Enforcement actions against scam compounds, cooperation with regional partners and engagement with international agencies reflect an understanding that transnational crime cannot be addressed through isolated or reactive measures. Strengthening investigative capacity, prosecutorial coordination, regulatory oversight and financial intelligence systems remain central to protecting public confidence and national stability.

At the same time, continued institutional development is necessary. As digital threats evolve, legal frameworks must adapt accordingly. Cybercrime legislation, evidence-sharing procedures, financial monitoring mechanisms and cross-border cooperation agreements require constant updating to keep pace with technological change. Enhanced transparency, deeper intelligence-sharing frameworks and sustained collaboration with regional and international counterparts are not concessions to external scrutiny; they are investments in sovereign resilience.

For Southeast Asia as a whole, this moment represents both a challenge and a test of institutional maturity. The region is among the fastest-growing digital markets globally. Mobile banking penetration is rising. E-commerce platforms are expanding. Cross-border digital payments are increasing. These developments create opportunity and prosperity. Yet when digital integration advances more rapidly than harmonised legal coordination, vulnerabilities inevitably emerge.

Criminal enterprises have adapted quickly to these conditions. Legal systems must do the same.

Blame does not dismantle transnational networks. Coordinated legal action does.

Effective responses require intelligence sharing, harmonised enforcement standards, joint investigations, extradition cooperation, asset tracing and strengthened financial compliance regimes. Regional frameworks such as ASEAN cooperation mechanisms must move beyond declarative commitments toward operational integration. International partnerships, including with agencies outside the region, are equally essential. If criminal networks operate regionally and globally, responses must match that scale and sophistication.

Technology adds further urgency. Artificial intelligence and automation tools are now being used to generate convincing scam communications, mimic trusted voices and scale fraudulent operations at unprecedented speed. Traditional warning signs are fading. Legal institutions and regulatory bodies must invest in technological capacity, digital forensics and specialised expertise to remain effective. The future of enforcement will depend not only on legal authority but also on technical competence.

Trust remains the invisible infrastructure of globalisation. Without it, cross-border commerce slows, financial systems become strained and digital innovation loses legitimacy. In a highly interconnected economic environment, reputational damage in one sector can ripple across others.

If crime has globalised, responsibility must globalise as well. The path forward lies not in narrowing a regional crisis into a single-country narrative, but in strengthening legal institutions, enhancing cross-border coordination and reinforcing shared accountability. In a borderless digital economy, security is no longer solely domestic. It is regional, and ultimately global.

In the years ahead, credibility will belong not to those who assign blame, but to those who strengthen the rule of law, modernise institutions and commit to cooperative enforcement. In a borderless digital era, leadership is measured by action.

Panhavuth Long is founder and attorney-at-law at Pan & Associates Law Firm. The views and opinions expressed are his own.