What type of evidence standard is used to determine if a violation was intentional?

The standard of "preponderance of the evidence" is used to establish whether a violation was intentional because it requires that the evidence presented shows that it is more likely than not that the violation occurred. This standard is commonly used in civil cases and certain administrative proceedings, where the goal is to determine the likelihood of an event’s happening rather than reaching a level of certainty.

In this context, a finding of intentionality relies on the evidence tipping the scales towards a conclusion that the individual acted with intent, meaning that there is a greater than 50% chance that such intent existed based on the evidence provided. This standard strikes a balance that is less stringent than "beyond a reasonable doubt," which is typically reserved for criminal cases where the stakes are higher, and the implications of a wrongful conviction can be severe.

The "clear and convincing evidence" standard provides a higher degree of certainty than preponderance but is not typically used in cases dealing specifically with establishing intent in the same way. "Substantial evidence" refers more to the amount of evidence needed to support a conclusion rather than proving intent. Therefore, the "preponderance of the evidence" standard is most appropriate for determining intentional violations.