I think Jim's post admirably picks apart this issue. One is never blameworthy ("culpable") if one is conned. One may be daft, desparate, silly, stupid, greedy, frightened, lonely, cold, broke, hungry, -- or just naive and idealistic. But never guilty. A victim of a con is not blameworthy.

It's the con merchant who is culpable and blameworthy, regardless of why the con works in any particular case.