About the project

Study 2: A unique perspective: A qualitative analysis of interviews with offenders

We will start by analysing 25 completed interviews by Leukfeldt with self-identified hackers over the past few years. These interviews contain valuable data about pathways into cybercrime. Subsequent interviews with additional cybercriminals will be undertaken to explore patterns identified through the systematic review and expert interviews, providing an insider’s perspective on the mechanisms of cybercrime involvement. The research team plans to interview around fifteen additional Dutch offenders, comprising five individuals involved in cyber-dependent crimes and ten in cyber-enabled financial crimes. These interviews will focus on pathways, cybercrime involvement mechanisms and processes of desistance. To facilitate this, the interview protocol employed in the previous interviews will be updated and refined. The interview process and coding and analysis schemes will be guided by previous research on offender interviews, grounded theory and coding methods (Charmaz, 2014; Holt, 2011; Hutchings & Holt, 2018; Saldaña, 2021).

Study 3: Offender debriefs

In addition to interviews conducted by the research team, a similar interview protocol will be used within the “International Cyber Offender Prevention” (InterCOP) network. The network comprises offender prevention professionals from police forces in over 30 participating countries, with five of these countries serving as co-signers. InterCOP is supported by Europol as part of EMPACT (European Multidisciplinary Platform Against Criminal Threats) (Europol, 2023). The objective is to gain additional insights from cybercriminals in these countries, aligned with the network’s goals of collaboration and knowledge sharing in preventing and disrupting cybercrime. The interview protocol was presented at the InterCOP conference on 11–12 June 2024 (Lyon). Police professionals from each co-signing country, as well as interested parties from other countries, are tasked with conducting at least two interviews or “debriefs” of individuals linked to cybercriminal activity but who are outside the criminal justice system. The expectation is that this minimum requirement of ten debriefs will be met and it is anticipated that more debriefs will be conducted. Emphasis will be placed on strict adherence to the interview protocol, and collaboration with a digital specialist and researcher will be encouraged to ensure effective communication and methodological rigor. The collected data will be anonymized and distributed to the research team for analysis.

Study 4: Secondary data analysis: Assessing cybercrime involvement and desistance factors

The fourth study entails a secondary data analysis aimed at discerning socio-psychological factors influencing cybercrime involvement and desistance. The survey data were collected in 2023 from a research panel of a renowned Dutch research agency, resulting in a sample of 1,240 individuals aged 16 to 25. Validated questionnaires and items were utilized, capturing risk and desistance factors commonly observed within forensic populations. The dataset includes measures of involvement in four cyber-dependent and six cyber-enabled financial crimes, as well as intentions to engage in these activities in the future. It encompasses components expected to be associated with cybercrime involvement or desistance, including demographics, criminogenic needs (i.e. antisocial personality patterns, attitudes, peer influence), and cyber-specific factors (i.e. IT-skills, online disinhibition, routine activities, parental supervision). Beyond shedding light on the risk and desistance factors associated with cybercrime involvement, the dataset enables comparisons between (potential) cyber-enabled crime offenders, (potential) cyber-dependent crime offenders, traditional crime offenders, and non-offenders.

Study 5: Analysing the desistance process of ethical hackers

Ethical hackers often possess comparable skills and use similar tools as cybercrime offenders, sharing potential commonalities in pathways into cybercrime. However, ethical hackers did not initiate or ceased engaging in cybercrime, directing their skills toward legal endeavours. This presents a valuable opportunity to gain insights into desistance processes. To explore this, we plan to conduct interviews with thirty ethical hackers, recruited through the personal networks of the research team and employing a snowballing approach. A distinct interview protocol will be tailored for this group, while the same methodologies utilized for offender interviews will be adopted to ensure consistency and comparability in data collection and analysis.