<google-sheets-html-origin style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-size: medium;"><table xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" dir="ltr" border="1" data-sheets-root="1" data-sheets-baot="1" style="table-layout: fixed; font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial; width: 0px; border: none;"><colgroup><col width="100"><col width="100"><col width="100"><col width="380"></colgroup><tbody><tr style="height: 21px;"><td rowspan="1" colspan="4" style="border: 1px solid rgb(0, 0, 0); overflow: hidden; padding: 2px 3px; vertical-align: middle; overflow-wrap: break-word;"><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-style: italic;">A balance of probabilities' refers to a burden of proof of 'more likely than unlikely', or 51%. That is in opposition to the burden of "beyond reasonable doubt", sometimes equivocated to 98% likelihood, in which the prosecution ought to prove guilt is overwhelmingly likely. In the status quo, criminal lawsuits require a burden of proof of "beyond reasonable doubt" to end in conviction, whereas civil lawsuits require a 'balance of probabilities'.</span><span style="font-size: 10pt;"><br>In criminal lawsuits against politicians on the grounds of corruption, THW reduce the burden of proof to reach a conviction to a "balance of probabilities" rather than "beyond all reasonable doubt"</span></td></tr></tbody></table></google-sheets-html-origin><p><google-sheets-html-origin style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-size: medium;"></google-sheets-html-origin></p>