body: Why do some people that commit fraud is not in jail?
  
  
  In [How would the law in US handles private investigation like this?](https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/31104/how-would-the-law-in-us-handles-private-investigation-like-this/31108?noredirect=1#comment56209_31108) there is obviously plenty of evidence that a fraud has occured.
  
  
  I check [What crime is commited when a mechanic charges for an unneeded or non-existent service?](https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/16773/what-crime-is-commited-when-a-mechanic-charges-for-an-unneeded-or-non-existent-s)
  
  
  And it fits fraud
  
  
  I asked around how the law treats cases like that in [How would the law in US handles private investigation like this?](https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/31104/how-would-the-law-in-us-handles-private-investigation-like-this/31108?noredirect=1#comment56209_31108)
  
  
  Many said it's a crime.
  
  
  Yet the person doesn't go to jail.
  
  
  This is the discussion in the comment section
  
  
  
  > 
  > So tell me why a company can be caught red handed like this and not
  > get charged ?
  > 
  > 
  > Its not
  > illegal to me dishonest, theres no law against liars. You simply
  > punish them by not doing business with them..
  > 
  > 
  > thought most fraud
  > cases were considered felonies.
  > 
  > 
  > they're selling services
  > they never supplied. That's fraud, which is illegal.
  > 
  > 
  > I imagine that the only
  > way it would be worth the effort for this kind of situation would be
  > through a class action lawsuit. And most people who get scammed
  > aren't even aware they are getting scammed.
  > 
  > 
  > 6 days ago to convict them some one need to sue them and spend
  > a lot of time and money at the end if he can't get a lot of people to
  > class action law suit which most lawers are not intrested to do so
  > 
  > 
  > Actually, yeah it's called fraud and there are
  > definitely laws against it. It can be hard to prove, but it's still
  > illegal/stealing.
  > 
  > 
  > 
  
  
  Notice how some people say that the victim got to sue first. Not really. It's a crime. You don't sue for criminal law. You sue for civil violation. So that doesn't really explain it.
  
  
  Lack of evidence? Really? C'mon. We got video over there.
  
  
  Why?
  
  
  The question is different than
  
  
  [How would the law in US handles private investigation like this?](https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/31104/how-would-the-law-in-us-handles-private-investigation-like-this/31108?noredirect=1#comment56209_31108)
  
  
  In the former question, I ask how the laws handle this in general. In particular, I am asking if it is legal to video tape someone committing a possible crime without consent. **Obviously the fraudster doesn't consent**. I read sources where it may not be. <https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/04/14/crime-for-high-school-student-to-secretly-audio-record-his-tormentors-in-the-classroom/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.4d7c9b9023ae>
  
  
  This question however is very specific. This question actually ask a question inspired by the former question. You can think of this question as derivative or child question of the former question rather than "copy"
  
  
  This is an obvious case of fraud. If this case is not fraud, then what is fraud? What sort of lie people do to count as "fraud"
  
  
  The evidence is beyond any doubt. I mean, the only way a DA can't convict with evidence like this what more evidence do we have?
  
  
  It's not just this case. I've been victim of fraud so many times only to hear latter that it's "civil".
  
  
  Why is a fraud as obvious as this, not a crime?
  
  
  So why isn't this guy on jail?
  
  
  
title: Why are some obvious fraudster not in jail?