12.9.1 As Distinguished from Aiding and Abetting.

• Jurisdiction: Arizona

12.9.1 As Distinguished from Aiding and Abetting. “There is a quail-tative difference between proving an agreement to participate in a tort, i.e., a civil conspiracy, and proving knowing action that substantially aids another to commit a tort,” which is all that is required to prove aiding and abetting.¹⁶³ For example, in Wells Fargo Bank, the court held that even though legitimate fact questions existed on the claim of aiding and abetting, it was unreasonable to infer a conspiratorial agreement.¹⁶⁴

Moreover, unlike aiding and abetting, which only requires proof by a preponderance of the evidence,¹⁶⁵ a...