> If Bob was a fraudster, any records kept by Bob would also be fraudulets, so he can't use them as evidence.

Would that really be true? In a trial, I would expect part of the proceedings to include arguing to the jury that these records or those records are more reliable. Just because Bob is accused of fraud shouldn't automatically make his records inadmissable...

Well they could likely be admitted, depending on the context that they were admitted, this is where shit gets complex in legal matters, if there is a legal expert they maybe able to field this better

I probably shouldn't have said the word evidence, but I didn't mean as evidence as a part of his defense, but to justify further investigation.