For years, 57-year-old Amal Wagih Saleh and her family lived in a modest apartment under Egypt’s old rent system in Fayda Kamel, Maadi. It was the setting for the family’s celebrations and difficulties alike.
Hoping to improve their circumstances, her son began looking for an apartment they could own. An estate agency offered a unit in a new building under construction in Arab al-Maadi. In 2017, Amal borrowed money and pooled her savings to make an initial payment of EGP 65,000 towards a home priced at EGP 150,000. She signed the contract with high hopes. When she visited the property, she says, she discovered the same apartment had been sold to several other people.
“When I tried to get my money back, the seller threatened me and used his relatives to put pressure on us,” she tells Zawia3. Other buyers had made similar complaints, she says. She later learned that the seller’s uncle was a lawyer who intervened on his behalf in the cases.
Amal now lives with her unmarried daughter, while her married son has moved to al-Marg. She says she could not afford a lawyer to bring proceedings authenticating the signature on her contract. Over the years, the purchasing power of the money she lost has collapsed. According to her account, the seller received a nine-year prison sentence and has served five years, but the family still does not know whether its money will be recovered.
A prison sentence is not the same as recovering a lost home or a lifetime’s savings. For Amal, the question of repayment remains unanswered.
This report draws on interviews, a month-long survey of 100 people recruited from Facebook and WhatsApp groups for fraud victims, and a database compiled from press reports. The survey is a non-probability sample of affected people; it does not represent all Egyptians or all fraud victims. The source labels on the archive graphics identify their period as January–June 2023, rather than the six months immediately preceding this article.
The accounts raise questions about the time required to pursue a complaint, enforce a judgment and recover money. They also show why participants believe delays can discourage reporting and benefit those accused of fraud.
Fraud takes different forms
Amal’s experience is one among many involving deception online or through direct personal relationships. Zawia3’s survey sought to explore participants’ experiences, the methods used against them and reasons for not reporting. It cannot establish the national prevalence of fraud.
The published summary says 60% of participants did not report what happened, 30% did report it, and 10% took no action. The distinction between “did not report” and “took no action” is not explained in the available summary, so these labels should not be assumed to describe clearly different behaviours.
Online fraud accounted for 36% in the survey graphic and financial fraud for 32%. The text gives 23% for fake products or services, while the original chart displays 24% for counterfeit products. The available material does not resolve that discrepancy. Real-estate fraud, including fictitious apartment or land sales, accounts for 4%.
Asked why they had fallen victim, 34% cited haste or time pressure, 25% a failure to verify the source and 22% limited awareness of protective measures. A further 11% cited emotional or psychological manipulation.
Some 43% reported substantial financial losses, while 39% described serious psychological and social harm. Among the reasons given for not reporting, the summary lists lack of confidence in recovering rights at 42.9%, considering the matter unimportant at 29.9%, and not knowing which authority to contact at 19.5%. It does not state the number answering that particular question or the denominator used for those percentages.
Participants were also asked to assess the authorities’ role. Forty-five per cent saw no effective protective role, 43% saw a limited role and 12% considered it effective. Three-quarters believed lengthy judicial procedures significantly contributed to fraud’s spread. These are respondents’ views, not evidence establishing causation.
Why cases take time
Gamal Mahmoud, a lawyer practising before the High Court of Appeal and the State Council, tells Zawia3 that fraud cases may take time to reach court because essential material must first be completed, including police inquiries into the alleged incident. The delay varies with each case’s circumstances, he says, but this stage can significantly prolong proceedings.
Mahmoud argues that Egyptian law already provides serious penalties for fraud under Article 336 of the Penal Code, including imprisonment and the possibility of police supervision for repeat offenders. He also believes cybercrime legislation has helped address newer forms of deception.
In his assessment, the Justice Ministry’s digital systems and links between courts have reduced some procedural delays. But enforcement remains difficult when perpetrators conceal their identities or evade the authorities.
Mahmoud advises people to have a specialist lawyer review a contract before signing, and to preserve supporting documents if fraud occurs. He recommends filing a police report promptly and following its progress with prosecutors.
Promises of profit and work abroad
People interviewed for this report describe losing savings built up over years. Their accounts include a young man saving for marriage and a family hoping to secure a more stable future.
Amr Asaad, 28, from Damietta, says he lost EGP 350,000 after receiving a WhatsApp invitation to join a platform calling itself “Ali Express 202”. That is the name he reports; it does not establish a connection with the established AliExpress retail platform.
The operators promised payments for liking social media content. Small early returns made the offer appear credible, he says, before demands for deposits grew. Eventually he was asked to send large sums supposedly to “unfreeze” his balance.
Amr filed complaints with Damietta police and the cybercrime police, but says the lengthy process has not recovered his money or identified the people responsible. He believes they used methods designed to conceal their identities.
“The reporting system is extremely slow. Between one step and the next, the scammers disappear with the money,” he says. “They exploited me and took my life savings.”
Amir Mahmoud, a baker from Shiblanja village near Banha, describes a different promise. He says he paid EGP 56,000 to a man named Mohamed Samir, who operated an office using the name “Al-Hayat Company”, in return for a Saudi employment contract within a month.
After nearly four months of postponements, Amir says he learned that the man had been detained over accusations of defrauding other people. According to Amir, the man disappeared after release on bail, taking clients’ money and documents. Amir and other complainants were left without a clear route to recovery. These allegations are presented as the complainant’s account.
Supporting victims
Mohamed al-Yamani, chairman of the board of trustees of Qawem Foundation, tells Zawia3 that the organisation was established to combat cybercrime. He says it launched the “Catch a Scammer” platform to document online fraud and raise awareness of deceptive methods and ways to avoid them.
According to al-Yamani, Qawem provides legal and psychological support through specialist teams that help collect evidence, prepare police reports and follow cases with the relevant authorities. Its psychological and social support is particularly important for young people who can experience severe distress, including suicidal thoughts, after losing their savings.
He identifies court delays as a major obstacle. The foundation submits electronic requests and follows investigations with higher authorities in an effort to accelerate proceedings, he says. Difficulty locating suspects and enforcing judgments further complicates the process, particularly when telephone lines are registered under false identities.
Qawem works with specialist lawyers and volunteers, offers legal advice and proposes legislative changes aimed at stronger penalties and faster proceedings. Al-Yamani also calls for telecom customer records to be updated so the registered identity corresponds to the person actually using a line.
He argues that online fraud has effects extending beyond individual victims and requires a coordinated response from the relevant institutions.
What the law provides
Article 336 of Egypt’s Penal Code criminalises obtaining money, movable property or financial documents through fraudulent methods, including fictitious projects or profits, false names or capacities, and disposing of property one neither owns nor has authority to sell.
Completed fraud is punishable by imprisonment. Article 18 sets the general maximum for this category of imprisonment at three years unless a specific provision states otherwise. Attempted fraud under Article 336 carries up to one year. Repeat offenders may additionally face one to two years of police supervision; that supervision period should not be confused with the maximum prison sentence.
The code distinguishes felonies, punishable by the more severe categories of imprisonment or death; misdemeanours, punishable by ordinary imprisonment or fines whose statutory maximum exceeds EGP 100; and contraventions, whose maximum fine does not exceed EGP 100.
For the people in Zawia3’s survey, the existence of penalties has not necessarily translated into redress. Many believe slow proceedings and difficulties pursuing suspects have prevented recovery of their money. Their experiences underline the gap that can remain between a legal complaint, a criminal judgment and an effective remedy for the person harmed.
