What burden of proof must be met to establish fraud in a legal setting?

To establish fraud in a legal setting, the burden of proof that must be met is "clear and convincing evidence." This standard requires that the evidence presented be more than just a preponderance, or more likely than not, but also show a higher level of certainty that the fraud actually occurred.

In the context of fraud, this means that the evidence must be strong enough to lead a reasonable person to have a firm belief or conviction in its truth. This heightened standard is particularly important in fraud cases because they often involve serious allegations that can impact reputations and livelihoods.

The concept of "beyond a reasonable doubt" is reserved for criminal cases, where the stakes are higher, as it requires the prosecution to eliminate any reasonable doubt as to the defendant's guilt. Similarly, "preponderance of evidence" is a lower standard typically used in civil cases, where the evidence must simply demonstrate that something is more likely true than not. "Substantial evidence" is a term often used in administrative law and does not apply to the context of proving fraud. Thus, "clear and convincing evidence" is the proper standard to meet when addressing allegations of fraud in a civil legal context.