Amanda Riley, who deceived friends, members of her church, and others for years by falsely claiming to have terminal cancer, has become the subject of a new documentary titled *Scamanda*. The film, produced by ABC News Studios and originally released on Hulu last year, chronicles Riley’s elaborate fraud, which involved soliciting donations purportedly to cover expensive medical treatments that never actually occurred.

Riley’s scheme spanned approximately seven years, beginning in 2012 when she announced her terminal diagnosis. She maintained a blog detailing her supposed treatments and experiences, including a pregnancy she claimed had temporarily reversed the cancer. Her story, supported by her youth, charisma, and strong religious faith, garnered significant sympathy and financial support from her megachurch community and others. The total sum she obtained remains unknown, largely due to the untraceable nature of cash gifts.

Her ruse began to unravel after Lisa Berry, a former friend, grew suspicious of Riley’s health claims and severed ties. Berry alerted investigative journalist Nancy Moscatiello, who verified inconsistencies in Riley’s account and alerted law enforcement. This prompted a wider investigation involving the IRS fraud squad, highlighting suspicions that Riley’s solicitation of funds may have constituted wire fraud.

Riley was eventually arrested and stood trial, where prosecutors sought an 18-month sentence. However, the court imposed a five-year prison term. She was divorced from her husband, Corey, with whom she has a stepdaughter and a biological child born during the scam period.

The documentary, now airing on the BBC, is presented in four 40-minute parts titled after cancer stages. While the structure reflects the narrative of Riley’s fabricated illness, the approach has been described as lengthy and, at times, overly detailed with reenactments of everyday actions and procedural elements of the investigation. The production draws from a podcast hosted by Charlie Webster but prioritizes voices of victims and investigators over extensive interviews with Webster himself.

Critics of the film question its purpose beyond recounting the fraud and highlighting the existence of con artists. While the story’s compelling nature is acknowledged, the documentary offers little insight into Riley’s motivations or the broader implications of such scams. Observers note the potential risks of giving undue attention to such cases, suggesting it might distort public perception of their prevalence and undermine social trust.

Overall, *Scamanda* provides a thorough account of one woman’s extensive deception and the legal actions taken to address it, but leaves some questions about the underlying causes and the societal impacts of such frauds unanswered.