【🧭Practical Guide】How Effective Is Evidence of Fraud? | Strength of Evidence and Police Decision Criteria
When you are a victim of fraud,
many people feel that "I have evidence, but the police won't take action."
In fact, it is not uncommon to be told, "Please handle this as a civil matter," even when you have records like LINE exchanges or bank transfer history. I myself have been told by the police to consult a lawyer for a civil matter, even though I thought I had evidence. This article organizes, on a practical basis, "how effective evidence is" and "what criteria the police use to make decisions."
【What you will learn in this article】
・How to think about the "strength" of evidence
・Key points the police look at
・Reasons why they might not act even with evidence
※This article takes about 3 minutes to read.
※This is not a legal explanation, but is organized based on actual experience and research.
※Responses may vary depending on the details of the incident and the status of the evidence.
【Important Points】
The police make decisions based on
"whether there is a possibility that a crime has been committed."
Therefore, they are not looking at whether evidence exists, but rather
"whether fraud is established by that evidence."
Also, it is important to note that evidence is
"judged by its combination, not individually."
【Conclusion of this article】
The strength of evidence is determined by whether the following three elements are present:
・Deceptive content (details of the deception)・Process of belief (flow of judgment)
・Flow of money (fact of damage)
The more these three are connected, the stronger the evidence becomes.
※Legally, elements such as "intent" and "intent of unlawful acquisition" are also required for fraud to be established, but this article organizes them in a practical and easy-to-understand way.
【Evidence is judged by its strength, not just its existence】
Many people tend to think that having evidence means everything is fine, but in practice, that is not the case. For example, even if you have LINE exchanges and bank transfer history, there may be cases where you cannot explain "why you paid." Even just lacking evidence for the reason for payment can sometimes lead to it not being judged as fraud.
What is important is "whether the evidence contains content that establishes fraud."
It is important whether the "flow of being deceived" and the "payment of money" can be explained as a continuous sequence through the evidence.
【The strength of evidence is determined by three elements】
Evidence is viewed from the following three perspectives:
① Is there deceptive content? (Details of the deception)
・Explaining things differently from the facts
・Using expressions that cause misunderstanding
・Explaining while hiding risks
For example, explanations like these:
"You will definitely make a profit"
"The principal is guaranteed"
If something that is not originally guaranteed is explained as guaranteed, it becomes an important piece of judgment material.
※If this part is weak, it becomes difficult to judge as fraud.
② Is there a process of belief? (Flow of judgment)
・What kind of explanation was received?
・What was the flow of the decision-making process?
・Why was the payment made?
For example, the following flow:
Receive explanation from the other party
↓
Agree to the contract after the explanation
↓
Lead to payment
By having this flow, it is possible to confirm the relationship that you paid money because you believed the explanation.
※It is important that the flow of being deceived is visible.
③ Can the flow of money be confirmed? (Fact of damage)
・Bank transfer history
・Credit card statements
・History of cashless payments or payment services (payment history and transaction IDs for services like PayPay or PayPal)
For example, it includes the following:
Records confirming that you actually transferred money to the account specified by the other party (showing the date, time, amount, name, etc.)
Having such a record allows you to confirm the fact that money actually moved.
*It is important to be able to objectively confirm the fact of the damage.
[Specific examples of strong and weak evidence]
I will explain examples of strong evidence and weak evidence.
For example,
There is a false explanation on LINE (LINE conversation records)
＋
You entered into a contract based on that (contractual documents such as a contract or consent form)
＋
You actually made a transfer (payment documents such as transfer history or credit card payment history)
This is a state where the flow of
Explanation → Decision → Payment
is connected.
Such documents become
"strong evidence."Conversely, if you only have part of the LINE conversation,
the other party's explanation is vague,
or the flow of money is unclear,
you are in a state where you cannot explain what happened.
Such documents become
"weak evidence."
[Why is it called a civil matter even if there is evidence?]
Even if there is evidence,
if it cannot be concluded as fraud or appears to be a mere contractual dispute,
it may be judged as a civil matter.
For example,
・The explanation is in a gray area
・It appears to be a misunderstanding between both parties
・It appears to be a Ponzi scheme (it just looks like the funding collapsed later)
This is a state where it
cannot be determined that they "intended to deceive from the beginning."
In cases where it cannot be said that they deceived you,
it is often treated as a civil matter.
[The meaning of evidence changes depending on the combination]
Even if evidence is weak on its own,
it becomes stronger when combined.
LINE only → Weak
LINE + Transfer → Medium
LINE + Explanation + Transfer → Strong
*Evidence is judged not just by quantity, but by
"how it is connected (structure)."
[Common misconceptions]
1. If there is evidence, the police will act
Even if there is evidence, if it is judged that there is a low possibility of meeting the conditions for fraud, the police may not treat it as a case.
2. If the amount is large, it becomes fraud
Whether fraud is established even if the amount is large is a separate issue.
*The police judge based on whether they can prove the fraud as a "structure" and how much "possibility of proof" there is.
[Summary of points so far]
The strength of evidence is
・Judged by 3 elements
・Not determined by a single item
・Changes with combinations
This point is important.
[Practical flow of evidence evaluation]
Check the strength of your evidence in the following order:
1. Is there deceptive content?
2. Is there a process of believing it?
3. Can the flow of money be confirmed?
4. Are they all connected?
By checking these 4 points,
you can judge the strength of the evidence.
[Articles that are easy to understand if read next]
After understanding the strength of evidence,
"how to organize and convey that evidence"
becomes important.
Depending on how you organize it,
the way the same evidence is conveyed changes significantly.
▶ [🧭 Practical Guide]
"How to create evidence of fraud | Points for organizing and submitting documents to police and lawyers"
(⚠️ This is an article currently being written)
[For those reading this note for the first time]
If you have been a victim of fraud,
it is important to first organize "where to start."
The overall structure of this note and
where you should start reading from are organized in the following article.
If you are unsure, please check here.
▶︎ [Fraud Structure Research Institute | Roadmap]
"How to read this note"
If you would like to know the reason and background behind creating this media, please see here.
▶︎ [Fraud Structure Research Institute]
"A research media that unravels fraud from its structure"
[Finally]
Even if you feel your evidence is weak,
that does not mean it is meaningless.
Evidence becomes stronger through organization and combination.
First, grasping the current situation and
understanding what is missing
will lead to the next step.
I hope my experience
will serve as a
"small guidepost"
for those who are lost in the same place.
I will continue to organize and write information useful for fraud victimization and fraud prevention
as clearly as possible.
(Please refer to other articles as well)
Researcher | Keisuke
Fraud Structure Research Institute