FOI 1223-2024/25 OnlyFans Crimes

Request
Refined request –1223.2024-25
With other forces we have agreed to amend the request by limiting it to a keyword search to ‘OnlyFans’ or 'only fans'which provides results where OnlyFans or only fans has been mentioned in the Summary and/or MO of the crime. Can you undertake that search for the time period requested?

Initial request – 1150.2024-25
I would be grateful if you could provide the following information for the period 1st January 2020 to 31 December 2024.

Q1. Fraud/Financial Crimes:
The number of reported crimes involving fraud, blackmail, or financial scams/crimes where OnlyFans was mentioned.

The number of reports specifically involving:

*            Subscription fraud.

*            Identity theft.

*            Chargeback fraud.

Please provide any information held by your officers on:

*            The total financial losses reported in fraud cases involving OnlyFans.

*            The average financial loss per case.

*            The number of cases resulting in arrests or prosecutions.

Q2. Coercion & Exploitation

*            The number of reports mentioning controlling or coercive behaviour (as defined under Section 76 of the Serious Crime Act 2015) involving OnlyFans.

*            The number of Modern Slavery Act offences recorded where victims were forced to create content on OnlyFans.

*            The number of reports involving:

o            Revenge porn.

o            Stalking.

o            Harassment.

o            Threats against OnlyFans creators.

Please break down data (where available) into the following criteria:

*            The demographics of victims (e.g., age, gender) where available.

*            The number of cases involving organized crime groups.

*            The number of cases resulting in safeguarding interventions.

Q3. Underage Content & Exploitation

*            The number of child exploitation or grooming-related crimes recorded where OnlyFans was mentioned.

*            The number of reports where minors were found to be using or appearing on OnlyFans.

*            The age range of minors involved.

*            The number of cases involving parental or guardian coercion.

*            The number of cases involving 3rd part coercion (other than a parent).

*            The number of cases resulting in prosecutions under the Protection of Children Act 1978.

If possible, I would be grateful if you could also provide anonymised summaries of notable cases involving OnlyFans.  I would also welcome any contextual information or trends (e.g., whether cases are increasing or decreasing over time) that could be shared from your records.

Extent and Result of Searches to Locate Information
To locate the information relevant to your request searches were conducted within North Yorkshire Police.

I can confirm that the information you have requested is held by North Yorkshire Police.  

Decision
I have today decided to disclose the following information to you.

Please see the table below showing the number of crimes recorded in the period 1 January 2020 to 31 December 2024, where 'only fans' or 'onlyfans' is recorded in either the occurrence summary or MO remarks, broken down by Home Office Level 1 & 2 Description and calendar year.

HO Level 1 Description	HO Level 2 Description	2020	2021	2022	2023	2024
Fraud	Nfib Fraud	1	-	-	0	0
Sexual Offences	Other Miscellaneous Sexual Offences   Exposure and Voyeurism   Sexual Activity Involving A Child Under 13	0	-	-	0	3
Theft: All Other Theft	Blackmail	0	-	-	2	2
Violence Against The Person	Malicious Communications   Harassment   Engage In Controlling/Coercive Behaviour In An Intimate/Family Relationship	2	-	-	2	4
Total		3	-	-	4	9

Please see the tables below showing the age range and gender of the victims.

Age Range	Total
Under 11	1
11-17	2
18-34	12
35-49	2

 

Victim Gender	Total
Female	14
Male	1
Not Recorded	2

Please see the table below showing the outcomes of the above crimes.

Outcome	Total
14-Evidential difficulties victim based – suspect not identified	1
15-Evidential difficulties prevent further action; victim supports police action	4
16-Evidential difficulties prevent further action; victim does not support police action	4
18-Investigation complete - no suspect identified	4
20-Action by other agency	1
Not Recorded	3

I have disassociated tables to protect the anonymity of individuals pursuant to Section 40 (Personal Information) Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act). Please see the below exemption explanation.

I have decided to exempt any additional information to that provided above namely the full MO remarks pursuant to Section 40 and Section 31 (Law Enforcement) of the Act. This is to prevent the identification and protect the anonymity for those involved in each case. In addition, the public make reports to the police, (some of which are highly sensitive) in confidence and regardless of whether all personal information is redacted to protect the identity of those involved, the details of a report made to the police could potentially impede the victim’s future confidence in the police. Please see the exemption explanation below.

Exemption Explanation

Section 17 of the Act requires North Yorkshire Police, when refusing to provide such information (because the information is exempt) to provide you the applicant with a notice which: (a) states that fact, (b) specifies the exemption in question and (c) states (if that would not otherwise be apparent) why the exemption applies.

Section 40(2) – Personal Information
Section 40(2) is an absolute class-based exemption, which does not require a public interest test, but requires the balancing of the legitimate interests of the public against the interests of the individual under the first Data Protection Principle; in that processing of personal data must be lawful and fair (DPA 2018 35(1), EUGDPR Article 5(1)).

Where an individual can be identified by such data, releasing it would clearly breach the first data protection principle of being ‘fair’ to the data subject.

This exemption applies because the right given under the FOI Act to request official information held by public authorities does not apply to the personal data of third parties where disclosure of that information would not be fair to the individual, and where there is no legitimate public interest in disclosure.

In all the circumstances of the case it has been determined that the duty to the individual under the Data Protection Act 2018 & EU General Data Protection Regulations, and the public interest in maintaining the exemption from disclosure of personal information held by the force in such instances, outweighs the public interest in disclosure. In this instance, personal information can only be disclosed to the individual concerned.

Releasing personal details to a person other than the data subject would not only breach the data subject’s Data Protection rights it may also breach the obligations placed on an authority under the European Convention on Human Rights.

Section 31 – Law Enforcement
Section 31 is a prejudice-based qualified exemption and there is a requirement to articulate the harm as well as carrying out a public interest test.

Evidence of Harm
As you may be aware, disclosure under FOIA is a release to the public at large. Whilst not questioning the motives of the applicant, disclosing details of crimes committed would allow patterns of offending to be recognised which may compromise Law Enforcement and any future tactics or plans to apprehend offenders. This would be to the detriment of providing an efficient policing service and a failure in providing a duty of care to all members of the public.

The MO remarks of a crime report are sensitive to the reporting person and albeit it can be redacted to protect their identity, disclosure of such information may impact the future relationship between the victims and the police. This could subsequently also affect any future reports they may wish to make, due to the risk of that information would be released into the public domain, via FOIs.

Furthermore, the Police are there to support the public and deliver effective law enforcement, including the investigation of suspects and the protection and safeguarding of victims. Releasing any MO remarks could compromise the personal safety of any victims if an offender is unaware their crime has been reported and in turn potentially impact any subsequent/future investigation.

Providing details of how specific offences have occurred out may also facilitate future crimes. It is widely known that Freedom of Information is utilised and exploited by criminals to gain intelligence of policing activities. The release of MO remarks can give other criminals knowledge of how to commit similar, and in some cases more sophisticated, offences.

Information that adversely affects public safety and confidence will have a negative impact on law enforcement.

Factors favouring disclosure under Section 31
Releasing information would allow the public to see the type of offences reported, making them more aware of such offences which would enable them to take any necessary precautions to protect themselves.

It would show how public funds are being spent in relation to protecting the public.

Factors against disclosure under Section 31
A fear of crime would be realised by the public.

Victims could be placed at risk if the offender is unaware of police involvement as the MO remarks can provide specific details about the offence.

Any offences reported, especially those of a sensitive nature and individuals need to ensure that the reports they provided are confidential. Individuals may therefore become reluctant to provide information, which could assist an investigation, due to concerns that the information provided may be requested and released under Freedom of Information requests.

Balance test
The safety of the public is of paramount importance and the Police service will not divulge the information, if to do so would place the safety of individuals at risk or compromise law enforcement.

Whilst there is a public interest in the transparency of policing, ongoing criminal activity and providing assurance that the police service is appropriately and accurately recording and investigating crime, there is also a very strong public interest in safeguarding the integrity of police reports and those that report crime.

Having considered the public interest factors I am required to determine whether on balance the factors favouring disclosure outweigh those which are against disclosure. It is my view that the factors favouring disclosure do not outweigh those which favour non-disclosure of the requested information. I would therefore inform you that North Yorkshire Police declines to release the information.

Pursuant to Section 17(1) of the Act this letter acts as a refusal notice under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 in relation to part of your request.

Please note that systems used for recording information are not generic, nor are the procedures used locally in capturing the data.  It should be noted therefore that this force’s response to your questions should not be used for comparison purposes with any other responses you may receive.