Many people in life have the same suspicion that money has been fraudulently committed, that the police have opened a case immediately after calling the police, and that others have gone back and forth to the police station, and that they have been given only one sentence, “no criminal case will be opened”, and that they can only take the blame for their own actions。
Many mistakenly believed that the police were misexamining the law, which was essentially due to the fact that the vast majority of ordinary people did not understand the latest fraud rules of 2026. Fraud cases are never based solely on the amount of the fraud, but are determined by the four hard criteria of the type of fraud, legal characterization, completeness of evidence and jurisdiction. Today, by speaking in plain language about official standards of authority, we are able to make a clear distinction between what is deceiving to establish a criminal case and what can be considered an ordinary dispute。
First, the most critical, and the largest, gap: telecommunication network fraud and common-line fraud, with completely different thresholds for filing cases, is the primary reason for the failure of many cases。
According to the two most recent judicial interpretations, in 2026 the national standard of uniform enforcement was applied: a telecommunication network fraud, 3,000 dollars for criminal proceedings. All frauds committed through micro-intelligence, tremors, telephones, short videos, web platforms, such as bill-backing, false investments, impersonating client claims, impersonating public scrutiny, cyber-lending fraud, cyber-loathing pigboards, etc., are subject to uniform standards, regardless of region。
Even if the amount is less than $3,000, a case can still be filed if there are exceptional aggravating circumstances. For example, in cases of fraud against the elderly, minors and persons with disabilities, multiple frauds, gang crimes, or fraud in disaster relief, medical treatment, money earmarked for poverty alleviation, and fraud, which results in the psychological breakdown of the victim, extreme consequences, etc., the police are required to file a case。
The standard for the establishment of cases is not uniform and is based on the economic level of the provinces and municipalities, with the vast majority of developed provinces starting with $5,000. Non-network fraud, such as money borrowed by acquaintances, under-line investment scams, face-to-face fraud, is common fraud。
This creates the most real contrast: people who have been tricked online for $3,200 to start a case successfully, and people who have been tricked online by acquaintances for $4,800 to not be able to open a criminal case. The amount fell short of the local common fraud line, and the police could only deal with security cases or be found to be a civil economic dispute and could not initiate criminal investigations。
What is more important than the amount is the legal qualification. The term “frauded” in the eyes of ordinary people is not the same as the term “fraud” as defined in criminal law. Many have failed to defend their rights, and this constitutes criminal fraud only if four conditions are met simultaneously。
First, there must be a subjective aim of illegal possession. In short, the counterparty had no intention of repaying or performing from the outset, merely to take possession of the money. Fiction of identity borrowing, direct blackouts after fraudulent investment, and roll-backs are typical of illegal occupation. However, if it is a normal loan, a business partnership and a later period of loss, unemployment and inability to pay, and without failure of connection and deliberate concealment of property, it is a normal debt dispute and not a fraud, and the police will not file a case。
Secondly, there must be deception based on fiction and concealment of the truth. Examples include falsification of identity, falsification of investment projects, false claims of special resources, forgery of public officials, etc. However, ordinary merchants exaggerate propaganda, verbal promises fail, goods are defective and, without fabricated core facts, can be counted as consumer disputes and not as fraud。
Thirdly, the victim must voluntarily transfer the money by giving false knowledge of the other party's deception. In the case of voluntary gifts, loss of money from gambling and the transfer of wrong accounts, even if property damage is caused, it is not a fraud and can only be recovered through civil proceedings。
Fourth, the amount involved was up to the standard and there was a complete chain of evidence, without four conditions。
A large number of people had reached the target and were unable to open a case. In 2026, the judicial process was conducted with complete closed-ring evidence and the case could not be opened on mere verbal representation。
The police found that fraud required the complete retention of all documents such as chat records, telephone recordings, money transfers, information on the accounts of the other party, fraud propaganda interceptions, etc. In reality, many victims are tricked into removing chat records, failing to keep money vouchers, and not knowing the true information of the other victim, resulting in a broken chain of evidence. Without evidence to support it, the police could not open an investigation, even if it was probable fraud。
In addition to this, the failure to report jurisdictional errors is also the reason why many people are travelling in vain. Telecommunications network fraud can be reported at random police stations in the victim's domicile and place of origin, while common underline fraud is mostly reported in the place where the fraud occurred and where the suspect habitually resides. Misdirection of the case would be directly dismissed as inadmissible。
Three real cases in life are visual evidence of a case-building gap. A network bill was fraudulently filed for $3500 to preserve all the evidence and meet the standards for the filing of a case of telecommunications fraud, which was opened by the police on the same day. Some people have been tricked by their friends to open a joint store for $4,500, due to the standard standard of $5,000 for common fraud in the province, which falls short of the standard and is prosecuted by the courts. There are also second-hand purchases of used goods that are subject to non-conformity, consumer fraud, without the purpose of illegal possession, and are ultimately dealt with by mediation by market regulators and not involving criminal fraud。
In the event of deception and failure by the police to open a case, ordinary people also have formal channels for defending their rights and do not have to feel unlucky. In the first instance, the police station is required to issue a notice of non-registration, specifying the reasons in writing; within seven days of receipt of the notice, the public security organ may apply for review and review; in the event of disagreement, the prosecutor's office may apply for supervision of the case, and the prosecutor's office shall verify that the police is required to act in accordance with the law. If the conditions for the establishment of a criminal case are not met, all the evidence can be collated, civil proceedings brought to court and damages recovered in accordance with the law。
In fact, it is clear from the recent 2026 criteria that the establishment of a case is never a subjective determination, but is carried out strictly on the basis of law, evidence, type, without bias or arbitrariness。
Many ordinary people do not always understand the law, are deceived, feel distasteful about their rights and are unaware of the boundaries of criminal fraud and civil disputes. The law strictly combats both telecommunication fraud and criminal offences, as well as economic disputes, and avoids criminal abuse of civil matters。
Here again, everyone is reminded that the best defence against fraud is always prevention. It should also be borne in mind that the best way to preserve all evidence in the first instance of fraud is to distinguish between the types of fraud and the legitimate defence of rights。
Has anyone ever been deceived to defend their rights? Was it a successful case to recover money, or was it not established because of the amount and evidentiary problems? We welcome comments and discussions in the comment area to avoid each other。
I'm gonna need you to fine-tune the word numbers
