In the context of the Certified Fraud Examiner (CFE) curriculum, understanding the civil burden of proof is essential because fraud examiners frequently support non-criminal actions such as civil lawsuits, administrative proceedings, and internal disciplinary matters. The burden of proof refers to the obligation a party has to prove its allegations to the trier of fact, whether a judge or jury. In civil cases, this burden is significantly lower than in criminal prosecutions, where guilt must be established beyond a reasonable doubt.

The standard most commonly applied in civil actions is the preponderance of the evidence. Under this standard, the plaintiff must demonstrate that it is more likely than not, meaning greater than fifty percent probability, that the defendant committed the alleged wrongdoing. Put simply, the evidence must tip the scales in the plaintiff's favor, even slightly. This lower threshold explains why a defendant acquitted in a criminal trial can still be found liable in a related civil suit based on the same conduct.

In certain civil matters, particularly those involving allegations of fraud, courts may require a heightened standard known as clear and convincing evidence. This standard sits between preponderance and beyond a reasonable doubt, requiring that the evidence produce a firm belief or conviction in the mind of the fact finder that the allegations are true. Many jurisdictions apply this standard to fraud claims because fraud is a serious accusation that can damage reputations and carry punitive consequences.

For the CFE, these standards shape how an investigation is planned, documented, and presented. Because civil remedies often aim to recover losses, obtain injunctions, or terminate employment rather than impose imprisonment, the examiner must gather sufficient relevant and reliable evidence to meet the applicable standard. Recognizing which burden applies allows the fraud examiner to advise counsel effectively, assess litigation risk, and ensure findings withstand scrutiny in a civil forum.

In the Certified Fraud Examiner (CFE) context, a litigation hold (also called a legal hold or preservation order) is a formal directive issued by an organization to suspend the routine destruction, alteration, or deletion of documents and electronically stored information (ESI) that may be relevant to pending or reasonably anticipated litigation, government investigations, or audits. The duty to preserve arises not when a lawsuit is filed, but when litigation becomes reasonably foreseeable—for example, when a fraud examination begins, a whistleblower complaint is received, or a demand letter arrives. In non-criminal (civil) actions, this duty is especially critical because discovery rules, such as the U.S. Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, require parties to produce relevant evidence, and failure to preserve it can lead to sanctions.

A proper litigation hold typically involves: (1) identifying custodians—employees, departments, and third parties likely to possess relevant information; (2) issuing a written hold notice describing the matter, the categories of information to preserve, and the consequences of noncompliance; (3) suspending automatic deletion policies, such as email purging and backup tape rotation; (4) collecting and securing data in a forensically sound manner to maintain chain of custody; and (5) periodically reissuing reminders and documenting compliance.

Evidence preservation for fraud examiners means maintaining the integrity and authenticity of both physical and digital evidence. This includes creating forensic images of hard drives, using write-blockers, hashing files to prove they are unaltered, logging every transfer of custody, and storing originals in secure locations. These steps ensure evidence will be admissible and credible in civil proceedings.

The consequences of failing to preserve evidence—known as spoliation—can be severe. Courts may impose monetary sanctions, issue adverse inference instructions (allowing a jury to presume destroyed evidence was unfavorable), exclude evidence, or even enter default judgment. For a CFE, understanding litigation holds protects the client's legal position, supports recovery of losses, and upholds the examiner's professional and ethical obligations.

In the CFE curriculum, the civil lawsuit process is a key non-criminal remedy that fraud victims use to recover losses from perpetrators. Unlike criminal prosecution, which is initiated by the government to punish wrongdoers, a civil action is brought by a private party (the plaintiff) against the defendant to obtain monetary damages or other relief such as an injunction or restitution. The standard of proof is lower: in most civil fraud cases the plaintiff must prove the case by a 'preponderance of the evidence' (or 'clear and convincing evidence' for some fraud claims), rather than 'beyond a reasonable doubt.' The process generally unfolds in stages. First, the plaintiff files a complaint (or petition) with the court, setting out the facts, legal theories (such as fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, or conversion), and the relief sought. The defendant is served and must file an answer, possibly with counterclaims or a motion to dismiss. Next comes discovery, often the longest phase, where both sides gather evidence through interrogatories, requests for production of documents, requests for admission, and depositions. Fraud examiners frequently assist here by analyzing financial records, tracing assets, and preparing expert reports. Parties may also seek provisional remedies such as temporary restraining orders or asset freezes to prevent dissipation of funds. Pretrial motions, including motions for summary judgment, may narrow or resolve the issues. Many cases settle through negotiation or alternative dispute resolution, such as mediation or arbitration. If the case proceeds to trial, it may be heard by a judge or jury; the CFE may testify as a fact or expert witness. After a verdict, the court enters judgment, which the losing party may appeal. Finally, the winning plaintiff must enforce the judgment through collection methods like garnishment, liens, or asset seizure. Understanding this process helps CFEs support counsel, preserve evidence, and maximize recovery for victims.

Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) refers to methods of resolving legal disputes outside of traditional courtroom litigation. For Certified Fraud Examiners, ADR is highly relevant in non-criminal actions because organizations harmed by fraud often prefer private, faster, and less costly routes to recover losses or settle claims rather than pursuing lengthy civil trials. The two primary forms of ADR are arbitration and mediation. In arbitration, the parties present their evidence and arguments to one or more neutral arbitrators who render a decision. Arbitration can be binding, meaning the award is final and enforceable in court with very limited grounds for appeal, or non-binding, where parties may still proceed to litigation if dissatisfied. Arbitration clauses are commonly found in employment agreements, vendor contracts, and commercial transactions, so a fraud examiner may find that a dispute arising from an investigation must be arbitrated rather than litigated. In mediation, a neutral mediator facilitates negotiation between the parties but has no authority to impose a resolution; any settlement is voluntary and reached by mutual agreement. Mediation is confidential, preserves business relationships, and allows creative remedies such as restitution schedules or policy changes. Other ADR forms include negotiation, mini-trials, and summary jury trials. Key advantages of ADR include lower cost, speed, confidentiality (which protects reputation and sensitive financial information), flexibility in procedure, and the ability to select decision-makers with relevant expertise, such as forensic accounting knowledge. Disadvantages include limited discovery, which can hinder a fraud examiner's ability to gather evidence, restricted appeal rights in binding arbitration, and the possibility that a wrongdoer avoids public accountability. Fraud examiners frequently participate in ADR as expert witnesses, consultants, or by preparing damage calculations and investigative reports that support a party's position. Understanding ADR helps CFEs advise clients on remedies, evaluate contractual dispute provisions, and present findings effectively in less formal yet consequential settings.

In the CFE body of knowledge (Law section), non-criminal actions are remedies available to government agencies and other entities to address fraud without pursuing criminal prosecution. Administrative actions are measures taken by a government agency, under its own regulatory or contracting authority, against individuals or organizations that have engaged in misconduct such as fraud, false claims, or violations of program rules. These actions are typically faster and require a lower burden of proof (usually preponderance of the evidence) than criminal cases, and they may be pursued in parallel with, or instead of, criminal or civil litigation. Common administrative remedies include civil monetary penalties, recoupment of improperly paid funds, license revocation, termination of contracts, and exclusion from government programs.

Suspension and debarment are two of the most significant administrative tools, particularly in government procurement and federal assistance programs. Suspension is a temporary exclusion of a contractor, grantee, or individual from participating in government contracts or programs. It is generally imposed when there is adequate evidence of wrongdoing (such as an indictment) and immediate action is needed to protect the government's interests while an investigation or legal proceeding is pending. Suspensions are usually limited in duration, often up to 12 months, with possible extension.

Debarment is a longer-term exclusion, typically lasting up to three years, imposed after a finding, based on a preponderance of the evidence, that the party committed offenses such as fraud, embezzlement, bribery, false statements, tax evasion, or serious contract performance failures. Debarred parties are listed in the System for Award Management (SAM) exclusions database, and agencies are generally prohibited from awarding them new contracts. Both actions are intended to be protective, not punitive: they safeguard public funds by ensuring the government deals only with responsible parties. Affected parties are entitled to notice and an opportunity to respond, and mitigating factors such as cooperation, remediation, and compliance programs may reduce or avoid exclusion. CFEs should understand these remedies because they often supplement or substitute for criminal and civil recovery options.

In the CFE curriculum, 'Non-Criminal Actions' refers to the civil and administrative remedies that can be pursued against fraudsters apart from criminal prosecution. One major category is regulatory and licensing action, which depends on the concept of regulatory and licensing jurisdiction. This jurisdiction is the legal authority granted to government agencies and professional bodies to oversee, investigate, and discipline individuals or entities operating in a regulated industry or holding a professional license. Examples include securities regulators (such as the SEC), banking and insurance regulators, tax authorities, environmental agencies, medical and legal licensing boards, and accounting oversight bodies. Their authority comes from the statutes that create them and the rules they promulgate; unlike criminal prosecutors, they do not need to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Instead, they apply administrative standards of proof, usually a preponderance of the evidence or substantial evidence, which makes regulatory action an attractive and often faster route to sanction wrongdoing. Regulators typically hold broad investigative powers: they can demand records, compel testimony, conduct examinations and audits, and issue subpoenas within their field. Once a violation is found, available sanctions include fines and civil penalties, disgorgement of ill-gotten gains, cease-and-desist orders, restitution to victims, mandatory compliance programs, and, most significantly, suspension or revocation of licenses, registrations, or the right to participate in an industry. Proceedings generally occur before an administrative law judge or the agency itself, with the possibility of appeal to the courts. For a fraud examiner, understanding regulatory jurisdiction is important for several reasons. It identifies which agency has authority over a particular matter, so findings can be referred appropriately. It shapes how evidence should be gathered and documented, since regulatory inquiries often run parallel to or precede criminal referrals. Finally, it offers victims and organizations a practical remedy: even when criminal charges are impractical, a regulator can remove a fraudster's ability to continue operating, protecting the public and deterring future misconduct.