Anatomy of a Scam Call: What 10,000 real scam and spam calls reveal about how phone scammers operate
cs.CR, cs.CL, cs.CY, cs.LG
Submitted: 2026-08-25
Updated: 2026-08-25
Comments: 19 pages, 7 figures
License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/
The gist: Telephone fraud is pervasive and costly, but its inner workings are rarely observed at scale.
Terminology
Abstract
Telephone fraud is pervasive and costly, but its inner workings are rarely observed at scale. We analyze a complete corpus of 10,211 inbound scam and spam calls -- 913 hours of audio and 330,956 transcribed turns from 5,780 distinct numbers -- collected over 54 days by an AI voice-agent honeypot that answered callers and kept them talking, and introduced in a companion data descriptor. We separate outright scams, which solicit sensitive information, from the larger stream of predatory but legal lead generation ("spam") that feeds them. Scam operations keep office hours (6.6x more calls per weekday than weekend day); thousands of disposable numbers run a small catalog of recycled scripts (thirty opening clusters, half the traffic in the top five); and callers solicit identity anchors -- a home address and a date of birth -- far more often than payment credentials, pressing through persistence and manufactured authority rather than overt threats. Our central experiment asks: does it matter who picks up? Every seeded lead carried one of ten fictitious identities drawn uniformly at random, so the identity a fraud operation reaches is fixed before the caller exists. Across 1,823 randomized calls, scammers spent about 15% more conversational turns per decade of the target's apparent age (rate ratio 1.15, 95% CI 1.08-1.23; randomization p = 0.005) -- yet what they asked for did not change (26.3% of calls reached a request for sensitive information; odds ratio 0.99 per decade, 95% CI 0.90-1.08). A second experiment casts early detection as a benchmark: from a scammer's opening lines alone, on a caller-disjoint split, escalation is predictable at 0.72 ROC-AUC from the first line and 0.87 by the eighth, and a plain bag-of-words classifier matches a fine-tuned on-device language model. Telephone fraud emerges as a templated industry that varies how hard it works a target, but not what it wants.
Sources
- Send to which account? Evaluation of an LLM-based Scambaiting System
- AI-in-the-Loop: Privacy Preserving Real-Time Scam Detection and Conversational Scambaiting by Leveraging LLMs and Federated Learning
- How well are open sourced AI-generated image detection models out-of-the-box: A comprehensive benchmark study
- GPT-Image-2 in the Wild: A Twitter Dataset of Self-Reported AI-Generated Images from the First Week of Deployment
- Qwen2.5 Technical Report
- Combating Phone Scams with LLM-based Detection: Where Do We Stand?
- PreScam: A Benchmark for Predicting Scam Progression from Early Conversations
- TeleAntiFraud-28k: An Audio-Text Slow-Thinking Dataset for Telecom Fraud Detection
- Detecting Voice Phishing with Precision: Fine-Tuning Small Language Models
Related papers
- SoK: AI-Augmented Binary Reversing
- Relaxed Sender Anonymity for CBDC Interbank Settlement: A Zero-Knowledge Approach on Permissioned EVM
- Calibration-Family Overfit: Why Trusted Sabotage Monitors Don't Transfer Across Lineages
- Efficient Fuzzy PSI under One-Sided Assumptions
- Sealing the Audit-Runtime Gap for LLM Skills
- Token Composition: A Graph Based on EVM Logs