Is it due to the severity of the fraud.that is to say the amount of money lost? Is it measured by the depth of the deception? Is it defined by the frequency of fraudulent actions?
Or is the test, the burden of proof, that a situation is tried as civil fraud (preponderance of evidence) because it is too hard to prove criminally ("guilty beyond a reasonable doubt")? Is there an analogy between this and OJ Simpon's acquittal for criminal murder and a conviction on a civil charge?
A civil fraud is one pursued by a private plaintiff against the defendant and must be proved on the balance of probabilities. Success by the plaintiff results in restitution in the form of damages being payable from the defendant to the plaintiff.
A criminal fraud is one pursued by the state against the defendant and must be proved beyond reasonable doubt. Success by the state results in punishment of the defendant by fine, community service, imprisonment etc.
The same fraud may result in a civil case, a criminal case, both or neither.
Fraud is both a tort and a crime. This is not unusual. Assault and battery are examples of torts that are crimes.
It is a civil fraud when a party files a civil suit alleging another party has committed fraud.
It is a criminal fraud when the government brings a criminal suit alleging a party of committing fraud.
The elements for civil and criminal fraud may differ in a jurisdiction. The burden of proof in a tort (normally preponderance of the evidence) is lower than in a criminal case (beyond reasonable doubt).
