I. For a debt arising out of unlawful conduct to be
considered non-dischargeable in bankruptcy
pursuant to Kawaauhau v. Geiger, 523 U.S. 57
(1998), what should constitute sufficient evidencethat a wrongdoer intended the consequences of the
wrongful act and not merely the wrongful act itself?

II. What party should bear the burden of proving that
a wrongdoer intended the 'the consequences of the
wrongful act' and not merely the wrongful act itself,for a debt associated with the wrongdoing to be nondischargeable in bankruptcy?

What evidence is required to show that a wrongdoer intended the consequences of a wrongful act, rather than just the act itself, for a debt to be considered non-dischargeable in bankruptcy?