明白消费+严管反诈：指控美个朋友公司诈骗难以成立

Core Viewpoint - The trial of "Meige Friends Company" for alleged fraud has garnered significant media attention, with the prosecution's claims being challenged by evidence presented in court, suggesting that the company does not constitute fraud and operates within legal boundaries [1][3]. Group 1: Allegations and Defense - The prosecution accuses the company's founder of operating with the intent to defraud, claiming that the company developed a dating app to lure male users into making payments, resulting in over 320 million yuan in fraudulent charges [3]. - The defense argues that the company cannot be proven to have had fraudulent intent or actions, as the app's paid chat feature is a common practice in the industry, representing legitimate business operations rather than fraud [4][5]. - The court revealed that the app's payment structure is transparent, with clear pricing and confirmation steps for users, which aligns with standard practices in social networking platforms [5]. Group 2: Company Operations and Compliance - The company has implemented a robust regulatory framework to combat fraud, exceeding the compliance measures of some competitors, and has established a refund mechanism for users who report fraudulent behavior by female users [7][9]. - The platform does not directly recruit female hosts for the app; instead, it collaborates with "unions" that manage recruitment, with strict agreements prohibiting fraudulent practices [9]. - The company actively monitors and penalizes accounts for violations, having permanently banned numerous accounts for inappropriate conduct, demonstrating a commitment to maintaining a safe user environment [8][12][15]. Group 3: User Data and Legal Implications - The prosecution's claim that all male users' payments amounting to 320 million yuan are fraudulent is criticized for lacking evidence, as only a small number of female users have been implicated in fraud [16][17]. - The company serves approximately 400 million male users and 250,000 female users, with the majority engaging in legitimate paid interactions, contradicting the prosecution's broad allegations of fraud [17][19]. - The legal standards for criminal fraud require substantial evidence, and the prosecution's approach raises questions about the validity of their claims against the company and its employees [19].