Phishing and vishing in Istanbul: Honest labor, moral rights, generalized trust, and state authority

While dominant narratives and theoretical models often frame fraud victimization through the lens of individual failure attributed to greed, this study investigates how deep-seated codes of obedience and state authority shape public perceptions of criminal seriousness and punitiveness surrounding impersonation frauds in Türkiye's high-context society. Using data from 51 in-depth interviews conducted in Istanbul, the research explores the Turkish public's diverse and frequently counterintuitive reactions to these crimes, including the infamous “financing terrorism” phone fraud. Contrary to commonsense assumptions that typically rank violent crimes as more serious than property crimes, the results indicate that fraud is considered extremely serious, eliciting calls for severe punishments sometimes on par with, or even exceeding, those for violent crimes such as murder and robbery. Victims are often shown in a compassionate light as old, vulnerable, and on the verge of losing their life savings, rather than being seen as driven by greed. Perpetrators are seen as educated and intelligent individuals chasing easy riches, acting in sharp contrast to deep-seated societal values that associate education with moral fortitude. Cultural constructs, such as kul hakkı (inviolable moral rights/dues) and emek (honest labor), act in crucial ways in forming these punitive conclusions. The findings also discuss the tensions between culturally ingrained respect for authority figures and the generally low level of social trust in Turkish society, arguing that deference to perceived state authority triumphs over widespread mistrust. The study concludes that to understand how the Turkish public views penal populism, we need to carefully analyze cultural factors, including the particularities of victim/perpetrator framing, the moral weight of labor and personal entitlement, and the complicated dynamics of trust and state authority. The diversity of crime perceptions across the world clearly illustrates the context-dependent character of penal populism and challenges the universal applicability of rational-choice models in cybersecurity.