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?