What would be the specifics used to determine what is fraud and what is not? Would they have to confess?
I would imagine that the usual standard of reasonable doubt would apply. Unless there is some pretty heavy circumstancial evidence used through tracking backing Yahoo profiles as we did in the Shapeshifter controversy, I imagine that confession is the only manner of proof possible.
I would like to ask that a "conspiracy" clause gets added to this: Basically anybody who knowingly aids a fraudsters or is complicit in trying to cover it up, is also guilty of a crime.
