keV from #877
Proof is proof. If you hand an investigator proof of fraud, he has no problem with pursuing it even when he's busy with other cases because it is PROOF. So what you're saying is that the evidence in Rossi vs. Darden is NOT proof of fraud. If it's anything, it is proof he is NOT a fraud, and by your own admission it's not enough evidence for a busy investigator to take up in his busy caseload, so at the very least it is weak sauce.
That is just false. Civil proof is a much lower bar than criminal proof. IH stood a good chance of winning the civil case of fraud.
Also the trial, though Civil, carries certain criminal risks. Rossi risked, giving testimony under cross-examination and in the context of contrary evidence, his deceits being judged as perjury (I'm not sure what the chances of that are, but were I him what i said about the heat exchanger under oath would weigh on me).
Whereas when the case goes away that risk vanishes.
In the US, civil trials require a preponderance of the evidence or in other words it is more likely than not that you are correct. Criminal trials require proof beyond a reasonable doubt or in other words proof that would convince any ordinary reasonable person that the person is guilty and that there are no reasonable explanations that the person is innocent.