Is "Frauded" a word?

If something bad happened to the money in your bank account, such as it being taken without your consent, or you were tricked into making payments you wouldn’t otherwise have made, would it be best, or clearest, to say:

  • You’d been frauded
  • You’d been a victim of fraud
  • You’d been defrauded

0 voters

Read on for context…

Monzo. Please sort out your copywriting. I can take the emojis but not these stupid Americanised words.

The word you’re looking for is defrauded.


Reminds me of all the times I see people say I could care less to mean I couldn’t care less

Grinds my gears more than it should.


Technically there is also difference, as in fraud is lying to benefit from it, defraud is specifically to financially gain.

So you can be “frauded” but it sounds weird instead of being “a victim of fraud”.

Defrauded is the correct word.

1 Like

You could also claim that English is not a codified language, like say French, so there is no such thing as ‘not a word’ in English. If a ‘made up’ English word is accepted as a word by the general population, it is considered a real word.

1 Like

Google :man_shrugging: is prime example

My favourite example of this effect is how ‘literally’ can now mean ‘figuratively’. :neutral_face:


That literally grinds my gears. :face_with_symbols_over_mouth::rofl:


The difference is that defraud is a verb and fraud is a noun.

That’s why ‘you have been frauded’ sounds wrong. Because it is.


Not necessarily. Even though there is no “boss of English” like for Spanish or other languges, you can still follow guidlines from Oxford, Cambridge, and so on.

Of course there is a moment where a word becomes widely accepted like verb “google” but it’s different. “frauded” is just a word that doesn’t exist. It doesn’t bring anything new and only distorts the correct one…


What I find weird is how we have defraud as de is usually the opposite.

Decalcify / Calcify
Decode / Encode
Destruct / Construct
Defrost / Frost

I’m sure someone will know why it’s defraud.

I know you can follow guidelines for English. I did follow guidelines during my degrees. I teach English to 7, 8 and 9 year olds following a ‘National Curriculum’ for English.

However, the simple fact is English is not codified language. The French language is codified for example. It has the Académie Française who dictates what is or is not a French word. English doesn’t have this equivalent. I can set up a dictionary and claim to be the Master of the English language. That is all what it is, a claim and collection of English words. It doesn’t make it codified.

1 Like

One gains; another loses.

Please sort out flammable / inflammable for me! :wink:


I think you’re mixing things up ever so slightly. When you defraud someone, sure, you make a financial gain, but you’re taking it away from someone else, hence the de. I think the issue stems from how the dictionary is wording the definition.

The English language is quite frustrating at times.

Edit: @anon70107404 beat me to what I was trying to see in a more concise manner!

1 Like

Sure, I agree on codification and rules but the main test as to whether something is ‘wrong’ is whether it sounds wrong to competent speakers of the language.

And ‘I’ve been frauded’ definitely sounds unnatural to me.


I’ve actually done a quick Google and the de is usually Latin for undoing the action like defrost, however in the case of defraud it’s the French to blame.

The de in defraud is not taking it away from someone.


Think there’s a QI episode for that. :sweat_smile:

1 Like

How can it not ?? :rage:

1 Like

Americanized :rofl: