A quick google search for difference between civil and criminal fraud has explained some things.

A) you can't be tried for one then the other. The prosecutor has to pick one or the other. Often in these cases, the prosecutor can try to press both charges simultaneously, in the same trial, but the jury would only be able to convict on 1 of them.
This can vary widely state by state.

B) The civil charge doesn't even care about guilt. It only cares that harm was done. The defendant in a civil case cannot see personal punishment under the law, per se. The law is only there to determine if a fraud was committed and what appropriate compensation shall be awarded to the defrauded parties. (They may deem this a punishment, but legally, it's not classified that way.) Financial remuneration is the only expected outcome of a civil fraud case. The defendant cannot face prison time or any other legal punishment.

C) The lack of criminal punishment removes the state's requirement to prove "beyond a reasonable doubt" that the defendant committed fraud. Instead, the prosecution only needs to show that the defendant "more than likely" did the fraud.

D) Civil fraud can be levied against someone who doesn't themself commit fraud, but whom has others commit fraud for them.


That's the main differences I gleaned, anyway.