The allegation appears to be that the club has acted in bad faith, that the audited accounts are wrong (not accidentally), for 9 years and material transactions were concealed from the PL. On any basis, that is an allegation amounting to dishonesty and very serious.
As it was at CAS: "The Adjudicatory Chamber found that ADUG entered into “arrangements ” and/or a “scheme” to make payments through Etisalat (for the 2011/12 and 2012/13 seasons) and Etihad (for the 2012/13, 2013/14 and 2015/16 seasons) that were, in fact, “disguised equity payments ”. The true nature of these payments is said to have been deliberately concealed and improperly reported by MCFC under the CLFFPR. These very serious allegations necessarily involve a conspiracy on the part of MCFC, its shareholder and these two sponsors."
Later these were described as "charges for dishonest concealment."
So the PL can try and sugar coat it but City will double down on it and say the charges are allegations of dishonesty and therefore require a more cogent level of evidence alongside the relevant standard of proof (balance of probabilities).
In short, the allegation of civil "fraud", false accounting and dishonesty is absolutely relevant here. City will no doubt refer to the English Law equivalent of this from CAS "MCFC also refers to the arbitral award issued in CAS 2017/A/5379, where the CAS panel, inter alia, held that "inherent within [the comfortable satisfaction] standard is a requirement that the more serious the allegation, the more cogent the supporting evidence must be in order for the allegation to be found proven”