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?

QUESTION PRESENTED 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 evidence that 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 non dischargeable in bankruptcy?