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

Order ID: 22940071501224439808

I am including the Order ID in case Binance help or the group staff sees this publish and is able to escalate the case internally.

I am posting this mainly as a result of I need to understand whether I am lacking one thing about how Binance P2P protection truly works.

I have used Binance for years, though I had not actively used P2P for fairly some time.

I made a P2P buy for about 35,500 UAH. The cost was sent very near the expiration of the order, and the order was mechanically cancelled earlier than the cost could possibly be correctly marked as completed.

What occurred next is the part I find regarding.
The seller themselves immediately 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 despatched the money or whether or not the vendor acquired it.

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

I was also informed that, if vital, I ought to contact regulation enforcement and Binance would cooperate with them and provide related KYC/investigation info.
That is the place I am struggling to know the actual purchaser safety.

I'm 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 makes use of a disposable account or a money mule, receives the fiat cost, after which merely refuses to approve the refund, what significant leverage is left?

An individual operating a disposable account might not care about dropping access to Binance. Regulation enforcement might determine the account holder, but when that individual has no recoverable belongings or the cash has already moved elsewhere, figuring out them does not necessarily get well the customer’s funds.

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

I subsequently asked Binance a quite simple question:
Is the quantity related to my disputed transaction truly secured/frozen, in order that my recovery 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.

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

So as a buyer I presently haven't any method of figuring out whether or not:

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

or

B) the seller can refuse to cooperate indefinitely, while 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 seller receives the money, the platform can finally implement the transaction.

Apparently, no less than as soon as an order enters this cancelled-but-paid state, that is probably not the case.
If anyone has experienced the similar specific state of affairs — cancelled order, fiat cost acquired by vendor, vendor acknowledged receiving it, vendor then refused or did not refund — I might really respect hearing how it finally ended.

Did Binance ultimately recuperate the funds with out the vendor’s cooperation?

Did regulation enforcement involvement truly change anything?

Or did the refund request merely stay open?

I'm not posting this to attack Binance. I genuinely need to perceive what safety exists in this specific edge case, because proper now the method seems to rely heavily on cooperation from the very counterparty that the dispute is towards.