I really hate making narratives about race and class and privilege, rather than just sticking to the general concept of rights we should uniformly enjoy, but that is an example of one of the major reasons police cannot be universally counted on to help.
You yourself admit this when you throw out the following, as if it is a correct and just answer:
> They do that by checking the other party of the transfers, if its known scammers, then in both cases you get your money back. If not... tough luck for both check and payment.
So if you appear to be more dodgy than the account opened by whomever defrauded you, you're just out of luck? And that's a sensible outcome?
> more difficult if not impossible to fall victim with alternatives
You continue to say this as if it's an unquestionable benefit, when the point of this entire thread is there is a downside to people generally thinking things like this.
> and easy to set up on your phone
A phone? One of the least secure types of devices, that's easily lost or stolen due to carrying it everywhere? That's really your suggestion?
Envision this scenario - you are walking down the street, get jumped, your attackers force to you transfer a decent sum to them, authenticating the transaction using your bank's most advanced anal probe technology. You go to the police, they actually do the work of questioning the person whose account the money went to, who says that the payment was for buying a used phone from them on Craigslist. The police think this sounds an awful lot like a euphemism for drugs, but don't have any evidence to investigate further, so they just conclude they'd rather not help you rip off your dealer and send you on your way. You talk to your bank who says the transaction looks fully authorized, the police don't think there has been a crime, and oh by the way even if you were jumped you still shouldn't have pressed send if you didn't want to lose the money. This is the type of bureaucratic nightmare that's created when a model becomes unassailable.