How does Binance P2P actually protect buyers in a cancelled-but-paid order if the seller refuses to refund?

Order ID: 22940071501224439808

I'm together with the Order ID in case Binance help or the group staff sees this submit and is ready to escalate the case internally.

I am posting this primarily because I need to perceive whether I'm lacking something about how Binance P2P protection truly works.

I've used Binance for years, although I had not actively used P2P for fairly some time.

I made a P2P purchase for about 35,500 UAH. The cost was despatched very close to the expiration of the order, and the order was routinely cancelled earlier than the cost might be correctly marked as completed.

What occurred subsequent is the part I discover concerning.
The seller themselves immediately opened an attraction and explicitly said that that they had acquired my cost however that the order had been cancelled.

So there's successfully no dispute about whether I despatched the money or whether or not the seller acquired it.

Binance then created a refund/recovery course of.
Nevertheless, help subsequently defined to me that the counterparty has to approve the refund request, and that if they don't achieve this, the refund request might stay open indefinitely.

I was also advised that, if vital, I should contact regulation enforcement and Binance would cooperate with them and provide relevant KYC/investigation info.
That is where I am struggling to know the precise buyer safety.

I am not accusing this specific vendor of being a cash mule, because I can't show that.

But contemplate the apparent danger state of affairs:

If a seller intentionally uses a disposable account or a cash mule, receives the fiat cost, and then merely refuses to approve the refund, what meaningful leverage is left?

A person operating a disposable account might not care about dropping access to Binance. Regulation enforcement might determine the account holder, but if that individual has no recoverable belongings or the money has already moved elsewhere, figuring out them does not necessarily recuperate the customer’s funds.

I work in Finance, and sadly we see variations of this drawback often: figuring out the recipient of fraudulent funds and truly recovering the funds are two utterly different things.

I subsequently asked Binance a very simple query:
Is the amount related to my disputed transaction truly secured/frozen, in order that my restoration does not depend completely on the seller voluntarily cooperating?

Help understandably refused to reveal information about another consumer’s account because of privateness requirements.

That's truthful.

However additionally they wouldn't affirm, even at a case degree, whether my declare itself is secured.

So as a buyer I at present haven't any means of understanding whether:

A) the disputed crypto is secured and this is simply a sluggish procedural course of,

or

B) the seller can refuse to cooperate indefinitely, whereas Binance sends reminders and ultimately refers the customer to regulation enforcement.

Before this happened, my understanding of P2P escrow was easy: if the customer proves cost and the vendor receives the money, the platform can finally implement the transaction.

Apparently, a minimum of as soon as an order enters this cancelled-but-paid state, that is probably not the case.
If anybody has skilled the similar specific state of affairs — cancelled order, fiat cost acquired by seller, vendor acknowledged receiving it, seller then refused or did not refund — I might really recognize hearing the way it finally ended.

Did Binance ultimately get well the funds without the seller’s cooperation?

Did regulation enforcement involvement truly change anything?

Or did the refund request merely remain open?

I'm not posting this to assault Binance. I genuinely need to perceive what protection exists in this specific edge case, because right now the process appears to rely closely on cooperation from the very counterparty that the dispute is towards.