[kbenson]

> Criminal fraud is something like "they said they were going to sell me something, but just took my money instead." Civil fraud might be something like "they sold me 10-inch sandwiches as 12-inch sandwiches."

Is it purely a matter of partial delivery, or does magnitude matter? What if it's "they sold me 10 tons of gold as 12 tons of gold?" Because that's a big difference.

Then again, 10 inch sandwhiches sold as 12 inch sandwhiches allows you to save over 15% of materials, which if you're a nationwide chain could be quite a lot of money as well.

[rayiner]

Civil fraud versus criminal fraud is very fuzzy. it often comes down to what you think you can prove about fraudulent intent. I gave the sandwich example because you can create “reasonable doubt” by saying the mistake was due to bad QA, rather than fraudulent intent. The fact that the sandwiches are shorter, by itself, does not prove fraudulent intent.

The mortgages are even harder. The banks are accused of lying about whether borrowers could pay. The fact they couldn’t pay doesn’t prove that. The fact that the banks ignored warning signs doesn’t prove that. The fact they knew about underwriting failures doesn’t prove that. Not beyond a reasonable doubt.

[kbenson]

Thanks, that makes sense. It's less of a it broke these specific laws" and more "can you prove intent" (IIUC).