|Sherlock Holmes, drawn by Sidney Paget|
(Photo credit: Wikipedia)
A: Acme XYZ is a scam because of ____, ____, and ____
B: That's not conclusive proof! I demand to see CONCLUSIVE proof!This is sometimes also known as "demand for smoking gun".
Not all crimes are solved by "smoking gun" evidence. Indeed, it was a Sherlock Holmes story that gave us the expression, and none of Sherlock Holmes' cases have a "smoking gun"... Crimes are solved MOSTLY via deduction. Demand for "smoking gun" proof of fraud is just... idiotic.
Sometimes B will even specify what s/he considers to be conclusive proof, and it may not be "smoking gun", but certain amount of circumstantial proof. However, often the type of proof demanded does not exist (yet).
For example, if the scam is a pyramid / Ponzi scheme, the demand is often "I want to see convictions! investigations!" or sometimes, "I want to see alleged victims telling me it's a scam and they've been cheated out of their money!"
Frankly that's just as idiotic. Investigations are almost always conducted in secret, and fraud victims remain ignorant that they are a victim UNTIL the day either they realized it's a scam, or the government stepped in a shut the whole scam down. Just look at Zeek Rewards... People were lined out outside their office day after day... Until one day US Secret Service showed up and changed their door locks, shutting the whole operation down and froze all related funds. Even a year later, some people can't believe they were scammed by Zeek, and rather believe government ruined a money-making opportunity.
A financial crime that had not been shut down or collapsed will have few if any visible and self-aware victims. Thus, demand for such is about as useful as demanding a sign from God (whatever his name) that the scam is indeed a scam.