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

Order ID: 22940071501224439808

I am together with the Order ID in case Binance help or the group workforce sees this submit and is able to escalate the case internally.

I'm posting this mainly as a result of I need to perceive whether I am missing something about how Binance P2P safety truly works.

I've used Binance for years, though I had not actively used P2P for quite some time.

I made a P2P purchase for about 35,500 UAH. The cost was sent very near the expiration of the order, and the order was routinely cancelled earlier than the cost might be properly marked as accomplished.

What occurred next is the half I find concerning.
The vendor themselves instantly opened an attraction and explicitly said that that they had acquired my cost but that the order had been cancelled.

So there's successfully no dispute about whether I sent the cash or whether the vendor acquired it.

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

I used to be also informed that, if essential, I ought to contact regulation enforcement and Binance would cooperate with them and supply related KYC/investigation info.
This is where I'm struggling to know the actual buyer protection.

I'm not accusing this specific seller of being a money mule, as a result of I can't show that.

But think about the apparent danger state of affairs:

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

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

I work in Finance, and sadly we see variations of this drawback frequently: identifying 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 quantity related to my disputed transaction truly secured/frozen, in order that my recovery doesn't rely solely on the seller voluntarily cooperating?

Help understandably refused to disclose details about another consumer’s account because of privacy requirements.

That's truthful.

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

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

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

or

B) the vendor 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 simple: if the customer proves cost and the vendor receives the cash, the platform can finally enforce the transaction.

Apparently, no less than once an order enters this cancelled-but-paid state, that will not be the case.
If anyone has skilled the similar specific state of affairs — cancelled order, fiat cost acquired by seller, seller acknowledged receiving it, vendor then refused or did not refund — I might actually respect hearing how it finally ended.

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

Did regulation enforcement involvement truly change something?

Or did the refund request simply stay open?

I am not posting this to assault Binance. I genuinely need to perceive what safety exists on this specific edge case, as a result of right now the method appears to rely heavily on cooperation from the very counterparty that the dispute is towards.