How does GoFundMe define 'violent crime' in its enforcement decisions?

1. What the written rules actually say

GoFundMe’s published Terms of Service explicitly forbid raising money for the legal defense of “financial and violent crimes,” and the company enumerates categories that include money laundering, murder, robbery, assault, battery, sex crimes and crimes against minors as examples of barred legal-defense fundraising ^[1]. The platform’s public posts and help pages repeat that policy point: fundraisers intended to cover legal defense for alleged violent crimes are not permitted on the site ^[3].

2. The examples that shape enforcement

The clearest evidence of how GoFundMe interprets “violent crime” is in the examples it supplies in its Terms of Service—murder, robbery, assault, battery and sexual offenses—words that align with common criminal-law categories rather than a single legal definition supplied by statute ^[1]. Those examples serve as operational anchors for enforcement, signaling to moderators and users the kinds of allegations that will trigger removal, rather than presenting a technical legal definition such as that found in penal codes ^[1].

3. Enforcement discretion: no charge required

GoFundMe revised its rules in 2018 to make enforcement possible even without formal criminal charges, empowering the company to remove campaigns tied to alleged “violent, hateful, sexual or discriminatory acts” or other “heinous” conduct based on campaign content and community-safety judgments rather than waiting for courts to act ^[2]. That policy change means the platform treats “violent crime” as a content category for community-safety moderation, enabling proactive takedowns when campaigns explicitly promote or defend violent acts, regardless of whether prosecutors have filed charges ^[2].

4. Transparency, cooperation with authorities, and public scrutiny

The company’s law-enforcement and legal policies make clear it will cooperate with valid legal requests and may disclose campaign data to authorities when required or reasonably necessary, which intersects with enforcement decisions when platforms investigate misuse or criminality ^[5]. At the same time, outside reporting has accused GoFundMe of uneven application—keeping some law‑enforcement-defense fundraisers live while removing others—raising questions about how discretionary judgments are made and whether external pressures or public attention influence outcomes ^{[4] [3]}.

5. What the record does not resolve

Available public materials document the prohibition and give illustrative examples, but they do not provide a single, authoritative statutory definition of “violent crime” or a detailed rubric moderators must follow when deciding whether a specific campaign crosses the line; enforcement is intentionally discretionary and contextual ^{[1] [2]}. Because company statements and third‑party reporting describe outcomes rather than a line‑by‑line legal definition, the precise boundary between permissible and prohibited fundraisers in borderline cases remains an internal enforcement judgment not fully disclosed in the sources reviewed ^{[2] [4]}.

6. Competing interpretations and incentives

Advocates for stricter platform moderation view the prohibition as necessary to avoid enabling harm or glorifying violence, while critics point to selective enforcement and potential bias when GoFundMe applies the rule unevenly, which can reflect hidden institutional incentives to avoid controversy or legal entanglements ^{[2] [4]}. GoFundMe’s own legal and privacy policies emphasize both a duty to protect the community and a willingness to cooperate with authorities—an operational stance that privileges risk‑avoidance and legal compliance over providing a fully transparent taxonomy of offenses ^{[5] [6]}.