Matthew Camilleri, left, and a woman using the name Jelly Phostrero.

When 22-year old Matthew Camilleri was tagged in an anniversary photo on Facebook with a woman from the Philippines, there was only one problem: the woman claiming to be his wife was a complete stranger.

Jean Camilleri, Matthew’s father, told The Sunday Times of Malta the problems began last week when Matthew accepted a friend request from a woman using the name Jelly Phostrero.

Within a few days, the woman, who appears to be in her teens and lists her hometown as Manila, began reposting his images on her own profile, claiming that the two were married.

When Mr Camilleri confronted the woman, she first insisted that he was her husband, but later changed her story, writing that he had abandoned her and demanding €10,000 to remove the photos. The woman eventually blocked him from messaging her or viewing her profile and Mr Camilleri turned to legal channels to attempt to get the photos removed.

A lawyer and a police officer from the Cyber Crime Unit both advised him that his only hope was to report the matter to Facebook. Yet some 60 reports made to Facebook by Mr Camilleri’s friends and acquaintances were returned with the notice that the profile “does not go against Facebook’s Community Standards”.

Facebook said the profile ‘does not go against standards’

At the time of writing, the woman’s profile remains active and at least one of the images in question is still publicly-accessible. A police spokesman said the mere copying of public photos from one profile to another was not a criminal offence, although if the content was being used to extort money, the matter could be considered blackmail.

“However, given that Facebook is managed by an entity located overseas, the local police are not in a position to order the removal of content from Facebook,” the spokesman said.

“The most effective and efficient way to do this would be to have the individual in question bring the matter to the direct attention of Facebook administrators, as this would possibly constitute a violation of Facebook’s own Terms of Service.”

This newspaper also reached out to the owner of the profile for comment, but no response had been received by the time of going to print.