Commingling occurs when a corporation's owner fails to keep the company's money and property meaningfully separate from their own — paying personal expenses from a corporate account, depositing corporate revenue into a personal account, or otherwise treating corporate assets as interchangeable with personal wealth. Courts treat it as strong evidence that the corporate entity is not being respected as a genuinely separate legal person.

The evidence is typically drawn from bank records, accounting entries, and transaction histories rather than testimony alone, which makes commingling one of the more concretely provable veil-piercing factors — either the money moved between accounts in a way inconsistent with corporate separateness, or it did not. That documentary nature also makes it one of the harder factors to explain away once established.

Because commingling evidence is largely transactional and documentary, Juricratic represents it in a matter's evidence record as a discrete, sourced finding rather than an inferred impression, and weights its contribution to the overall veil-piercing composite accordingly — a well-documented pattern of commingling moves the projected exposure more than an isolated, ambiguous transaction would.

Plaintiffs building a veil-piercing case subpoena bank and accounting records specifically to trace personal and corporate funds moving back and forth without a legitimate business purpose. Corporate owners and their counsel defend by showing that transactions were properly documented, reimbursed, or booked as loans or distributions through recognized corporate accounting channels rather than treated as informally interchangeable.