To the contrary, the facts in that case are a slam dunk. You have a box full of hard evidence, and the crime of selling counterfeit goods has no particularly onerous intent requirement. The crime is predicated on an objectively verifiable fact: are the goods licensed or not? Meanwhile, what's the difference between a legitimate financial transaction and a fraudulent one? You can't tell just by reading the deal documents. Ideally someone slips up in an email that reveals their knowledge and intent, but usually you're stuck building a case on circumstantial evidence.