Cambodia's scam center reputation masks a global crime reality

Cambodia has become synonymous with online scams in international headlines. News outlets routinely label it as a "scam center hub," painting the Southeast Asian nation as the epicenter of digital fraud. But this narrative misses a crucial point: Cambodia is both perpetrator and victim in a complex web of transnational crime.

The reality is far more nuanced. Online scams operate through sophisticated networks that span continents, exploiting regulatory gaps, digital platforms, and cross-border financial systems. No single country controls—or even fully comprehends—the entire criminal chain.

The anatomy of borderless crime

Modern online scams are inherently global operations. A victim in Texas might receive a call from someone in Cambodia, who's using technology hosted in Singapore, to steal money that gets laundered through accounts in Dubai. Each piece of this puzzle exists in a different jurisdiction with different laws, different enforcement capabilities, and different priorities.

This fragmentation is precisely what criminal organizations exploit. They've mastered the art of regulatory arbitrage—moving operations to wherever oversight is weakest, compliance costs are lowest, and enforcement is most predictable. When one location becomes too hot, they simply migrate to another.

Cambodia's emergence as a scam hub wasn't inevitable—it was opportunistic. The country's rapid digitization, relatively loose regulatory framework, and geographic position made it attractive to criminal networks. But similar conditions exist in dozens of other countries across Africa, Eastern Europe, and Latin America.

The victim-blaming trap

Pointing fingers at Cambodia creates a dangerous illusion of control. It suggests that if we could just "fix" Cambodia, the global scam problem would disappear. This thinking ignores how criminal networks actually operate.

Consider the numbers: Global cybercrime damages reached an estimated *$10.5 trillion* in 2025, according to Cybersecurity Ventures. Even if Cambodia eliminated every scam operation within its borders tomorrow, the global impact would be minimal. Criminal networks would simply relocate and adapt.

The Cambodian government has taken steps to address the issue. Since 2019, it's suspended new online gambling licenses and conducted raids on suspected scam operations. In 2022, authorities shut down multiple compounds and arrested hundreds of suspected criminals. But these efforts, while significant, can only address the local symptoms of a global disease.

The platform paradox

Tech platforms face their own version of this challenge. Meta, Google, and Telegram invest billions in content moderation and fraud detection, yet scammers continue to evolve their tactics. When one platform cracks down, criminals migrate to another. When sophisticated AI detection systems emerge, scammers develop more sophisticated evasion techniques.

The platform response reveals the limits of isolated action. WhatsApp might detect and block a scam operation, but the same criminals can immediately resurface on Signal or Discord. Each platform's security measures, no matter how advanced, only pushes the problem elsewhere.

This dynamic explains why some experts argue for coordinated platform responses rather than individual corporate initiatives. But coordination raises its own challenges around competition law, data sharing, and privacy rights.

Beyond borders, beyond blame

The Cambodia case highlights a broader question about responsibility in the digital age. When crimes span multiple jurisdictions, who's accountable? When platforms enable both legitimate communication and criminal activity, where do we draw lines? When developing countries lack resources for sophisticated cybercrime enforcement, how do we balance support with accountability?

These questions don't have easy answers, but they point toward more productive approaches than country-specific blame. International cooperation initiatives like INTERPOL's cybercrime programs and the UN's efforts to develop global cybercrime treaties represent steps in the right direction.

Some countries are experimenting with innovative approaches. Singapore has developed regional cybersecurity partnerships that share intelligence and coordinate responses. Estonia has created cyber defense leagues that combine government and private sector expertise. These models suggest alternatives to the current patchwork of national responses.