The Language of Lies: A Linguistic Analysis of Carder-Victim Correspondence (How Deceptive Narratives Are Constructed in Chats and Phishing Emails)

[Professor]

Introduction: The Grammar of Deception.
Fraud is, first and foremost, a communicative act. Behind every successful carding scheme lies a carefully constructed narrative, a language that deceives not through blatant lies, but through the manipulation of trust, context, and emotion. A linguistic analysis of the conversations in carding communities and their phishing messages reveals not just a set of words, but a system of linguistic influence, where each construction serves a purpose: to undermine defenses, evoke a desired reaction, and direct the victim's actions in the desired direction.

Part 1. The Language of the Carding Community: Cryptolect, Slang, and Paranoia​

1. Slang as a coding and identification system.
Slang serves three key functions:

• Hiding meaning from outsiders: "Drop", "bins", "fullz", "escrow", "check." These terms create a semantic barrier for the uninitiated (suckers, police).
• Creating a group identity: Using slang is a marker of "friend or foe." Correct use of terms increases trust and status within the community.
• Operational efficiency: Slang allows one to convey a complex concept in one or two words ("the house is on fire" - the attention of law enforcement has been attracted; "he made a mess" - he caused problems).

2. Stylistics of internal correspondence: Laconicism, imperative, verification.

• Conciseness and clichés: Correspondence is free of emotional excess. Phrases follow a template: "We have a US bin database, 70% check, price X." Excessive politeness or verbosity are signs of a newbie or a provocateur.
• The imperative and questions predominate: "Send the logs," "Check the card," "Where's the download?" Communication is instrumental, action-oriented.
• Ongoing verification: Questions testing your knowledge of slang, history, and methods ("What was the first carding forum?", "Explain what a SIM swap is"). This is a test for professional suitability and the absence of surveillance.

3. The Language of Paranoia: The Modality of Should and Prohibition.
Rules and warnings are dominated by the modality of should and risk:

• "Don't show your face" (don't reveal any information about yourself).
• "Always check the guarantor before making a deal."
• "If they dictated it, it means they already know." (A reference to the inevitability of exposure in the event of an error).
  This creates a linguistic field of constant threat, where security depends on adherence to strict speech and behavioral norms.

Part 2. Victim-Focused Language: Phishing and Vishing Architecture​

Here, the language changes dramatically. Its purpose is not to conceal, but to deceive, creating trust and urgency.

1. Lexical and stylistic markers of professional phishing (new wave):

• Imitation of a formal business style with a “human” face: Use of corporate communication cliches (“Dear client,” “Security service informs you”) with a light, barely noticeable “friendly” admixture (“Please take a couple of minutes,” “We appreciate your vigilance”).
• Error-free writing is the new norm. Generative AI enables flawless text creation. Now, errors are more often seen as a sign of old, low-quality spam.
• Personalization: Referencing real details (last four digits of card, city of residence, name) from leaked data. This is a key trust trigger, breaking initial skepticism.
• Use of legitimate brands and contexts: Exact names of services, services, names of top managers (found on social networks).

2. Grammar of manipulation: Syntactic devices.

• Creating artificial urgency: Inflating time markers ("within 24 hours," "immediately," "right now," "to avoid blocking"). This suppresses rational analysis.
• Shifting responsibility to the victim: "If you don't confirm the data, access will be restricted." The victim is made to understand that the problem already exists, and inaction will lead to negative consequences. This creates a sense of guilt and fear of missing out on the opportunity to fix it.
• False choice and illusion of control: "To confirm, follow the link or call the number..." Two actions are offered, both controlled by the scammer.
• The use of passive and impersonal constructions: "An unauthorized access attempt has been detected," "The verification procedure has been initiated." This creates the image of an objective, faceless "System" that cannot be resisted, only submitted to.

3. Linguistics of vishing (voice phishing):

• Imitating the professional, but slightly tired tone of a call center employee.
• The use of pauses, interjections ("so-s," "uh-huh"), and keyboard sounds to create background legitimacy.
• Escalation scenario: First, a calm announcement, then mild alarm, then an urgent request for action. The tone of voice follows the scenario.

Part 3. Comparative Analysis: Two Poles of the Same Deception​

Parameter	Carders' language (internal)	Language for victims (external)
Target	Identification, concealment, efficiency	Disorientation, building trust and urgency
Vocabulary	Slang, technicalities, abbreviations	Official business stamps, personalized details
Tone	Cynical, instrumental, paranoid	Caring, anxious, formally friendly
Syntax	Laconic, imperative	Expanded, with complex structures that create pressure
Emotions	Detachment, wariness	Artificially simulated care, anxiety, regret
Key modality	Must (safety rules)	Urgency and threat (immediate action)

Part 4. How to Recognize the Language of Lies: Practical Linguistics of Defense​

Triggers for analyzing a suspicious message:

1. Abnormal urgency without a compelling reason. Legitimate banks rarely demand action "within the next 10 minutes."
2. Mixing styles: Formal address with a colloquial or emotionally manipulative phrase ("Dear subscriber! Urgent! You are in danger!").
3. Mismatch between channel and style: An overly formal personal messenger message from "support service."
4. A request to confirm something the organization should already know. A legitimate bank will never ask you to enter your full PIN, CVV, or password in a reply email or on a linked website.
5. Grammatical impeccability in a dubious context. While this alone is no longer an indicator of legitimacy, combined with points 1-4, it should raise red flags.

Conclusion: Narrative Diagnostics
The language of carding is a mirror of its dual nature. Internally, it is a dry, technocratic code, the language of the digital workshop. Externally, it is a psychologically calibrated tool for invading consciousness, exploiting basic human fears: loss, isolation, being late.

Understanding these linguistic mechanics is key not only to analyzing the crime but also to defense. The most powerful antivirus is critical reading. The ability to deconstruct text by asking questions like, "Who is speaking?", "Why is he saying it this way?", "Why now?" deprives the scammer of his main weapon: the ability to control your perception of reality through words. Ultimately, the fight against carding is also a fight for semantic hygiene, for the purity and clarity of digital communication.