In everyday life, almost everyone has heard, seen, and even experienced in person the terrible things of being cheated. The police have successfully opened a case to arrest people who have been tricked to the police for thousands of dollars, and have been told that this is not a fraud and that they have to go to court. A lot of people didn't get it at the end of the day: it was the same thing that money was taken away, so why should it be a civil dispute to have a case
In fact, the core test of whether a fraud case can be brought to criminal justice is never “sufficient enough”, but whether four key conditions are met at the same time. The amount is only one of the references, and even if the amount reaches the target, it may not be possible to establish a case without other conditions; conversely, it may be possible to do so even if the amount falls short of the normal criteria。
Today, these four core conditions will be removed in conjunction with the state and the local authorities' policy and rules of 2026, so that the logic of the case can be fully understood and the path of injustice avoided。
First, to be clear: the core logic of fraud is not "value above"
When many people report it, the first thing they say is, "i've been tricked. Can i open a case?" by its very nature, however, the crime of fraud is judged by four elements of the crime — subjective unlawful possession, objective fraud, targeted fraud, and damage to standard property。
Interpretation of the supreme people's court, the supreme people's procuratorate on a number of issues relating to the specific application of the law in criminal cases of fraud, in force in 2011 and still in force in 2026 (law interpretation) no. 7) it is clear that fraud of public and private property is valued at between $3,000 and more than $10,000, $30,000 to $100,000 and $500,000, respectively, and is considered to be "larger" and "great" and "specially large". Each province may set specific criteria within this range, taking into account the local economic level, for reporting to the highest law and record。
In the case of hunan, an opinion issued in july 2025 on the criteria for determining the amount of eight property offences in our province made it clear that the starting point for ordinary fraud was $5,000 for "larger" amounts, $50,000 for "great" amounts, and $500,000 for "specially large" amounts. This means that, in hunan, ordinary fraud amounts to less than $5,000, which is probably below the threshold for criminal cases, but not absolute — as there are three key conditions to be met simultaneously。
Ii. 4 core filing conditions: one cannot be left and one is a civil dispute
Condition 1: subjectively, the counterparty must have an "unlawful possession"
This is the central distinction between fraud and civil disputes. In civil disputes, the non-payment of money and the breach of contract are common, but the perpetrator may have been unable to perform because of financial liquidity difficulties, objective inability to perform and the subjective absence of the notion of "ownership and refusal to return", while the core of fraud is the subjective desire to expropriate the other party's property, without any intention of doing so from the outset。
How do you judge if the other party has an illegal occupation purpose? Official cases are determined in the context of specific acts
- fiction of identity, fiction of facts, such as impersonation of doctors, civil servants, executives of enterprises, creation of non-existent projects, diseases, relationships
- failure to comply with any commitments by rapidly losing links and transferring funds upon receipt of the money
- when the money is received, it is used for non-contractual purposes such as volatilization, gambling, etc., and not for the purposes of the agreement
- multiple frauds against multiple persons on the same grounds, with a clear lack of capacity to perform。
The real case: in 2024, hunan changsha, 60-year-old ryu, using dr. Wuhan as a fake and dating three women, had over $310,000 stolen from him on grounds such as "surgery" and "family visits" and revolving. In court, the court focused on the subjective purpose of ryuichi - his false identity, his lack of medical qualifications and his lack of corresponding capacity to perform, his receipt of the money, which was not used for contractual purposes, resulted in his being sentenced to a term of imprisonment for fraud, which is typical of fraud "for illegal possession"。
On the other hand, if someone knows to borrow money, the other party does have a stable income and repayment plan, which is only temporary, and even if it is not paid on time, it is a private borrowing dispute, not a fraud。
Condition 2: objectively, deceptive acts of "false facts/hidden truth" were committed
The objective manifestation of the crime of fraud is the way in which the facts are created or the truth is concealed, leading the victim to misperception and, in turn, to the voluntary delivery of property. There can be no fraud without deception。
Common frauds include:
- fiction of facts that do not exist: for example, a false claim to be a substitute for social security, a false claim to be a graduate, a false claim to be a low-cost home
- concealment of key facts, such as the fact that they are already heavily indebted and continue to borrow money; concealment of the fact that goods are of poor quality and cannot be delivered and collection of money
- leveraging poor information: using, for example, the lack of knowledge of the internet among older persons, impersonating a client to say "account anomalies" and to induce transfers。
Here's to note: deceptive acts must be "active". If the victim had misunderstood the meaning of the other party, or if the other party had simply failed to give a true account of the situation, it had not acted as if it had been false or concealed and did not constitute fraud。
For example, a merchant sells goods without a clear reference to "defects", but without offering to say "it's a brand-new good", a consumer buys it and finds it to be a defect, more of a civil contract dispute; but if the merchant expressly says "it's a brand-new good", it's actually a vice, it's a fictional fraud。
Condition 3: evidence of a complete fraud ring
This is the easiest point to ignore when reporting. Many people go to the police with the transfer records, but they are told "not enough to open a case" -- because the transfer records only prove that the money was transferred, not that it was a fraud。
In order to establish a case, a complete chain of evidence must be formed to prove the whole process of "mistake and misperception of the delivery of property for illegal possession". Core evidence includes:
- recording of conversations, recording of conversations: to prove what the other party had invented, what had been concealed, and what the parties had agreed to
- transfer vouchers: proof of the movement of money, the amount of money and the time of delivery
- identity information of the other party, such as the true name, contact, address, etc., attesting to the identity of the fraud
- witness testimony: for example, friends who participate in the transaction, bystanders who see the other party's fiction
- other key evidence, such as false contracts, forged documents, evidence that the other party received the money, etc。
True case: in 2025, mr. Wang reported to the police that he had been deceived by the "upgrading company" for $4,800. He provided only the transfer records, did not keep the chat records of the company and did not know the true identity of the other party, but only a micro-credit account number. As a result of the police investigation, it was found that this micro-account was registered by another person's real name, that the other person had lost contact and could not prove that the other person had a fictional, illegal occupation purpose, and that, in the end, mr. Wang could only be advised to pursue his civil defence。
Another citizen, ms. Lee, was similarly deceived by $4,800, and she kept complete chat records (the other party's fictional "refurbishment qualification" "concessional activity"), transfer records, and a copy of the other party's business licence (which was later identified as forged), on the basis of which the police determined that the conditions for filing the case had been met and that the investigation had been completed and the damage recovered。
Condition 4: as a result, direct loss of property in "larger" amounts was caused
It's the "reference threshold" for a case, but it's not the only criterion. The amount will be considered only if the first three conditions are met; if the first three conditions are not met, even if one million people are deceived, they will be civil disputes。
In 2026, there was a clear distinction between different types of fraud and the value criteria:
- common fraud (underline, acquaintances, business dealings, etc.): by provincial standards, hunan is "larger" than $5,000
- telecommunications network fraud (telephones, text messages, the internet, billing, impersonating guest clothes, etc.): 3,000 yuan in national uniform, without distinction between regions
- special circumstances: even if the amount does not meet the criteria, a case can be filed (based on a "two-high" explanation), i. Fraud is committed against a non-specified majority (e. G. Sending over 5,000 fraudulent text messages, making over 500 calls)
Fraud in disaster relief, recovery, protection, accommodation, poverty alleviation, migration, relief, medical care
3. Fraud in the name of disaster relief
Fraudulent property of persons with disabilities, elderly persons, minors, persons incapable of working
The victim committed suicide, mental disorder or other serious consequences。
For example, in hunan, a call was made to 100 elderly people in an impostor service, for a sum of $2000 each, for a sum not exceeding $5,000 each, but as "frauding a non-specified majority + defrauding an elderly person" to meet a special case and the police must file a case。
Iii. Common error zones: these three perceptions will make you miss the case
Mistake 1: if the money doesn't reach the "larger amount", it won't stand. Case
Many people think it's useless to call the police if they don't get $5,000. In practice, however, exceptional circumstances are not subject to monetary limits。
For example, in 2025, a fraudster sent a fraudulent text message to 5,000 elderly people, calling them "free health-care recipients", which was actually an incentive to transfer funds, for a sum of $1,000 each, totalling $5 million. Although the sum of $5,000 per person was not reached, more than 5,000 text messages were sent, which were "frauded against a specific majority" and the police opened a direct investigation and eventually captured the suspect。
Mistake 2: transfer records will prove fraud
This is the most common area of error. The transfer records are just proof that the money went out. They can't prove that the other party lied to you。
For example, you agreed to do business with your friend, you turned him $5,000, and he didn't do business, and he didn't pay you back. You have a transfer record, but there is no evidence that he tried to lie to you from the beginning, nor that he made up the facts, which is a private borrowing dispute, not a fraud。
Mistake 3: telecommunications fraud. We don't have a case until $3,000
There are special rules for fraud in telecommunications networks: fraud amounts are difficult to verify, but fraud charges (attempts) are filed for fraud by sending more than 5,000 fraud messages, making more than 500 calls for fraud。
For example, in 2025, a fraudster called 600 times, but met the condition of "more than 500 calls for fraud" and the police opened a case of attempted fraud, which resulted in criminal penalties。
Iv. Progress in the problems of problems, progress of rights (update 2026)
First-time fixation of evidence: maintenance of chat records, telephone recordings, transfer records, information on the identity of the other party, false contracts/documents, etc., without deletion
2. Clarity of type of judgement: distinguishing between common fraud and telecommunication network fraud, with different types of filing criteria
3. Close alert: report to the local police station, or call 110, provide the civilian police with a clear account and complete evidence
4. Cooperation with police investigations: providing factual information, assisting the police in securing evidence and tracking the flow of funds
5. Civil remedies: if the conditions for the filing of a case are not met, civil action may be brought before a court for restitution of property and compensation for damages。
V. Special reminder from hunan local:
1. Amount criteria: hunan common fraud "larger" is $5,000, telecommunications network fraud is carried out according to the national standard of $3,000, in exceptional circumstances and in exceptional circumstances
2. Reporting material: it is recommended that the "list of evidence" be prepared well in advance, including interview transcriptions, money transfer vouchers, information on the identity of the counterparty, statements of fraud and omissions
3. Special protection: if the elderly, the disabled, the minors are deceived, even if the amount is not up to standard, the police will take priority and quickly file cases, focusing on protecting the rights and interests of vulnerable groups。
Summary
The crux of the criminalization of fraud cases is the subjective purpose of illegal possession, the objective perpetration of deception, the complete closure of evidence, and the loss of standard property. The amount is only one reference item and not the only criterion。
In 2026, both the state and hunan local policies made clear the orientation of the "chain-wide fight against fraud" and did not let it go because it was "small". The premise, however, is that you need to have the right logic of judgement and the right approach, so as not to miss the opportunity to open a case because of a perceived error。
Last but not least, when it comes to calls from strangers, connections from strangers, requests for transfers from strangers, be careful not to trust, not to transfer, not to divulge personal information and reduce the risk of fraud from the source。
This is a public policy information and personal interpretation and does not constitute any operational recommendation, which is based on official guidelines and is based on operational risk. These are public goods content, not easy to create, rational communication and understanding。
