Insert the missing words:

There tend to be two main results from fraud investigations. One is a referral to the police who will place a case before the Crown Prosecution Service with a view to bringing criminal proceedings against the parties in question. The other is that internal disciplinaries will be held against any employee where evidence points to their guilt in connection with the fraud. The first occurrence, requires a prosecution where the court will determine whether the defendant is guilty ‘ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ’, based on the evidence presented to it (and assuming the defendant pleads innocent). The second scenario requires the organization to bring charges of gross misconduct in front of a panel supported by evidence relating to these charges. The panel will judge on the less severe test of

‘ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ’ whether there has been a breach of internal discipline and then agree on a suitable remedy, which may result in dismissal.

a. ‘‘beyond reasonable doubt’’ and ‘‘balance of probability’’ (respectively)

b. ‘‘balance of probability’’ and ‘‘beyond reasonable doubt’’ (respectively)

c. ‘‘beyond some doubt’’ and ‘‘balance of probability’’ (respectively)

d. ‘‘beyond reasonable doubt’’ and ‘‘balance of 50% probability’’ (respectively)