[superuser2]

Try to create a list of necessary and sufficient conditions for something to be considered fraud, without invoking the concept of reasonable or relying on the contents of the alleged perpetrator's mind.

Human judgement turns out to be pretty important in deciding whether or not something is a crime. That judgement is influenced by argument, guided by precedent, and reviewable by higher authorities, but it is ultimately judgement. It's somewhere between very, very hard and impossible to write laws that catch the edge cases without ensnaring innocent people or being subject to human interpretation.

[IanCal]

While true, I think there could be significant merit in defining one where no complex decision is made by a machine at all. When trying to read these legal documents I struggle a bit with holding all the various bits in my head, a section only applies if A and B are true, and C is over 16, but not if ...

Those same definitions will be used several times. Could they be extracted out? Could we have something that we're able to turn into a series of questions that a lay person could have at least a crack at? I've seen some of those done for tax law in the UK and it really simplifies things (although these are made manually).

Basically, keep humans making those decisions of what is malicious or wilful, and have the law written in such a way as to allow (but not require) a computer to take and combine those decisions.