Taking into account all relevant information ascertained from the investigation, is there reasonable evidence of corruption, and, if so, against which participants?

Have the parties admitted to the corrupt act, or are there sufficiently credible witnesses who can attest to the corrupt act, or is there sufficient documentary evidence to enable a prosecution?

If not, is there sufficient evidence to enable the guilt of the corrupt party to be inferred from the circumstances (i.e. that the only reasonable interpretation you can give to the facts is that the parties were acting corruptly).

If there is reasonable evidence, is there any further detailed investigation which needs to be undertaken to establish such corruption to the standard of proof required for a conviction?

(Note:  Separate online modules cover how corruption takes place in the procurement and construction phases, how to prevent corruption in the procurement and construction phases, and how to investigate corruption in the construction phase).