Two in five adults would fake a sick day if they needed a day off, a Com Res survey for the BBC suggests.
When questioned on their morals and values, people admitted to lying about sickness, stealing and taking credit for other people's work.
While younger staff lied more often than their elders, they were more willing to stand up for colleagues.
The average worker takes around four sick days a year, according to the Office for National Statistics.
The most common reasons for calling off work in 2018 were the common cold, musculoskeletal problems (like back pain), mental health conditions and "other" problems.
Sickness due to fibbing was unsurprisingly not included in the government's statistics.
The UK-wide survey questioned 3,655 adults aged over 16.
Cover for colleagues
The findings are part of a larger survey about what people in the UK find right and wrong.
As well as faking sickies, employees are often also prepared to cover for colleagues who they know might be faking it.
The survey found that 66% would not tell bosses if they knew their colleagues were absent, but not ill.
Hayley Lewis, an occupational psychologist, said it takes confidence to tell your boss you need a break, and if the relationship is bad, employees will tend to be less truthful.
"'People don't leave an organisation - they leave their boss' goes the saying," says Ms Lewis.
Also, people can be influenced by their boss' behaviour, she adds.
"We look to role models. If the boss is dragging themselves in, not taking breaks, eating lunch at their desk, it reinforces the message that it is not okay to take a break," she says.
That often leaves employees only one option, Ms Lewis says - to ring up sick.
Men were almost twice as likely as women to say they would accept praise from a boss for work that someone else had done.
And almost a third said they stole work supplies like staplers and notebooks.
Standing up for women
The younger the employee, the more likely they were to speak up for women in the workplace.
Workers under 34 were more than twice as likely than older colleagues to turn to senior managers, or intervene. if they saw a male boss touch a female employee on the back during a meeting.
Only 16% of workers aged over 55 agreed.
While 70% of younger adults would report or intervene if a senior figure in a company made sexual comments towards a younger colleague, less than half of people over 55 would do the same.
Have you ever pulled a sickie or covered for a colleague who has? Have you ever been caught out? Share your experiences by emailing haveyoursay@bbc.co.uk.
Please include a contact number if you are willing to speak to a BBC journalist. You can also contact us in the following ways:
Two in five adults would fake a sick day if they needed a day off, a Com Res survey for the BBC suggests.
When questioned on their morals and values, people admitted to lying about sickness, stealing and taking credit for other people's work.
While younger staff lied more often than their elders, they were more willing to stand up for colleagues.
The average worker takes around four sick days a year, according to the Office for National Statistics.
The most common reasons for calling off work in 2018 were the common cold, musculoskeletal problems (like back pain), mental health conditions and "other" problems.
Sickness due to fibbing was unsurprisingly not included in the government's statistics.
The UK-wide survey questioned 3,655 adults aged over 16.
Cover for colleagues
The findings are part of a larger survey about what people in the UK find right and wrong.
As well as faking sickies, employees are often also prepared to cover for colleagues who they know might be faking it.
The survey found that 66% would not tell bosses if they knew their colleagues were absent, but not ill.
Hayley Lewis, an occupational psychologist, said it takes confidence to tell your boss you need a break, and if the relationship is bad, employees will tend to be less truthful.
"'People don't leave an organisation - they leave their boss' goes the saying," says Ms Lewis.
Also, people can be influenced by their boss' behaviour, she adds.
"We look to role models. If the boss is dragging themselves in, not taking breaks, eating lunch at their desk, it reinforces the message that it is not okay to take a break," she says.
That often leaves employees only one option, Ms Lewis says - to ring up sick.
Men were almost twice as likely as women to say they would accept praise from a boss for work that someone else had done.
And almost a third said they stole work supplies like staplers and notebooks.
Standing up for women
The younger the employee, the more likely they were to speak up for women in the workplace.
Workers under 34 were more than twice as likely than older colleagues to turn to senior managers, or intervene. if they saw a male boss touch a female employee on the back during a meeting.
Only 16% of workers aged over 55 agreed.
While 70% of younger adults would report or intervene if a senior figure in a company made sexual comments towards a younger colleague, less than half of people over 55 would do the same.
Have you ever pulled a sickie or covered for a colleague who has? Have you ever been caught out? Share your experiences by emailing haveyoursay@bbc.co.uk.
Please include a contact number if you are willing to speak to a BBC journalist. You can also contact us in the following ways:
A former employee of the UK's Hong Kong consulate has told the BBC that he was tortured in China and accused of inciting political unrest in the city.
Simon Cheng, a Hong Kong citizen who worked for the UK government for almost two years, was detained for 15 days on a trip to mainland China in August.
"I was shackled, blindfolded and hooded," the 29-year-old tells me.
UK government sources say they believe his claims - of being beaten and forced to sign confessions - are credible.
Following our interview, the British Foreign Secretary Dominic Raab has summoned the Chinese ambassador.
"We are outraged by the disgraceful mistreatment that Mr Cheng faced when he was in detention in mainland China... and we've made clear that we expect the Chinese authorities to review and hold to account those responsible," Mr Raab told the BBC.
But on Wednesday a Chinese foreign ministry spokesperson told the BBC they would "definitely not accept" the summons - and would instead summon the UK ambassador to "express their indignation".
"We hope the UK will be prudent and stop interfering in Hong Kong and in China's domestic affairs because it will, eventually, only harm the UK's own interests," the spokesperson added.
Mr Cheng's raises questions for both the Chinese and the UK governments.
The claims he makes - including that he saw other Hongkongers in Chinese custody - are likely to fuel protesters' fears that their city's freedoms are being eroded under Chinese rule.
"They said they work for the secret service and that there are no human rights," he tells me. "Then they started the torture."
Who is Simon Cheng?
As a trade and investment officer at the UK consulate, Simon Cheng's particular brief was to drum up interest in investing in Scotland among the Chinese business community.
It required him to travel frequently to mainland China.
But in June, with Hong Kong engulfed in mass demonstrations, Mr Cheng volunteered for an additional role.
"The British Consulate instructed staff to collect information about the status of the protests," he says.
As a supporter of the pro-democracy movement he found it easy to blend in and, with the consent of the consulate, he signed up to some of the social media groups through which the protesters co-ordinated their actions.
Paid overtime for the information he gathered, he began reporting back what he saw to his colleagues.
His task, both Mr Cheng and UK government sources insist, was not to direct events in any way but to purely observe - the kind of civil society monitoring work many embassies do.
But China had already begun to accuse the UK of meddling in Hong Kong, with British politicians becoming increasing vocal in their support for the protesters.
On 8 August, with emails still on his phone linking him to that work observing the protests, he was sent by the consulate to a business conference in the Chinese city of Shenzhen.
He didn't know it, but his life was about to change forever.
How did he disappear?
Although China has ruled Hong Kong for more than 20 years, the border between the city and the mainland still looks and feels like an international boundary.
The "one country two systems" principle - that the protesters say they are fighting to preserve - is meant to ensure that Hong Kong retains control over most of its affairs, including its borders.
But Simon Cheng was about to discover for himself the blurred edges of that legal and political framework.
Since the opening of the Hong Kong-Shenzhen high-speed rail link last year, a new border post has been placed inside West Kowloon station, in the heart of Hong Kong.
It is deeply controversial: Hong Kong's pro-democracy movement views the presence of the Chinese police, manning the Chinese side, as an unwelcome extension of Chinese authority.
It was here they stopped Simon Cheng, returning from his business trip.
He was put on a train, transported back to Shenzhen and handed over, he says, to three plainclothes officers from China's National Security Police.
How does he describe his ordeal?
Raising his arms above his head Mr Cheng shows me how he was hung up from the chain linking the handcuffs on his wrists.
The questions focused on his involvement in the protests with the aim, he says, of forcing him to confess to fomenting unrest on behalf of the British state.
"They wanted to know what role the UK had in the Hong Kong protests - they asked what support, money and equipment we were giving to the protesters."
He says he was made to hold stress positions - squatting against a wall for example - for hours on end, and beaten if he moved.
"They would beat the bony parts, like my ankles... or any vulnerable part."
He claims he was subjected to sleep deprivation, with his interrogators forcing him to sing the Chinese national anthem to keep himself awake.
And, he believes, he was not the only Hongkonger undergoing such treatment.
"I saw a bunch of Hong Kong people getting arrested and interrogated. I heard someone speak in Cantonese saying: 'Raise your hands up - you raised the flags in the protest didn't you?'"
Background to the Hong Kong protests
From a large pile of more than 1,000 photographs of Hong Kong protesters, he says, he was told to jot down the names and political affiliations of anyone he recognised.
"The secret police clearly stated that batches after batches of Hong Kong protesters had been caught, delivered and detained in mainland China."
Strapped to a chair and held by his hair, he says they tried to force him to open his mobile phone using the facial recognition function.
Once they'd gained access, they printed off the emails detailing the information he'd passed to the UK consulate about the protests.
"I told them I want to make it 100% clear, the UK didn't assign resources or help with the protests," he tells me.
But it was no use. Eventually, they made him record two video confessions, he says, one for the "betrayal of the motherland" and another for "soliciting prostitution".
Why was he detained?
The detention of a local employee of a foreign embassy or consulate is a relatively rare event.
The last high-profile case involving the UK was the arrest in 2009 of a number of Iranian employees at the British embassy in Tehran. They were accused of playing a significant role in that year's violent demonstrations - an accusation that finds echoes in Simon Cheng's account.
As in his own case, locally-employed staff usually have no diplomatic protection, potentially making them soft targets for intelligence gathering.
But Mr Cheng may have been targeted for other reasons.
He tells me he had a mainland Chinese friend who'd been arrested for taking part in the Hong Kong protests and was now on bail there.
During his business trip to Shenzhen, without the knowledge of the UK consulate, Mr Cheng had met the relatives of this friend to collect money for his living expenses.
Any mainlander known to have joined the pro-democracy demonstrations would be at risk of being placed under Chinese surveillance.
Although collecting money for a friend in legal difficulty is unlikely to constitute a crime, even in China, it could well have placed Mr Cheng under suspicion too.
I ask him what he thinks is the most likely reason for his detention - his position at the UK consulate, or his friendship with this mainland Chinese protester?
"Until now I have no idea," he replies. "But I think both factors could be part of the reason."
In it, he says that on the 11th day of his detention his treatment suddenly improved, a date that he says coincides with the first international media reports about his disappearance.
UK government sources say that, behind the scenes, intense diplomatic activity was already under way to try to secure his release.
Of China's only public version of events - the allegation that he was placed in 15 days administrative detention for soliciting prostitution - Mr Cheng is dismissive.
"It was a tactic for secretly and arbitrarily incarcerating me for an even longer period, without interference from third parties."
In China, administrative detention is a penalty that can be imposed by the police, acting with no judicial oversight. And, he suggests, the circumstances of his arrest appear unusual.
Allegations of soliciting prostitution are normally dealt with in China as a routine matter by the local police. They are far less likely to be the concern of the Chinese border authorities in West Kowloon station.
Mr Cheng's written statement also mentions that, before his arrest, he stopped in Shenzhen for a massage.
I ask him directly if he paid for sex.
"I don't want to focus on the question of whether I solicited a prostitute, because that's exactly what they want," he replies.
"So, I just want to state clearly that I did nothing regrettable to the people I cherish and love."
Whatever the reasons behind the decision to release him, he says it came with a warning.
"They stated that if I receive media interviews and speak out [about] anything other than 'soliciting prostitution' publicly, I will be taken back to mainland China from Hong Kong."
The UK's Hong Kong consulate has since reviewed, and tightened up, its guidelines for local staff travelling on work trips to the Chinese mainland.
What will Simon Cheng do now?
Simon Cheng has told the BBC that he believes it is too dangerous for him to return to Hong Kong.
Initially, he was so concerned about his safety, he refused to allow the UK government to issue a statement condemning the way he'd been treated.
More personal stories from Hong Kong
And, as a result of his long interrogation at the hands of the Chinese secret police, the UK now sees him as a security risk.
He was asked to resign from his post, although UK sources say he was provided with support, including a two-year working visa for the UK.
"Our hearts are with Simon Cheng and his family," Dominic Raab, the British Foreign Secretary, told the BBC.
"From the outset my overriding concern has been to make sure that he's taken care of properly and he gets the support that he needs."
But Mr Cheng's written statement suggests he does not see the protection he's being offered as adequate and, he says, he's now seeking asylum anywhere he can feel safe.
While he faces an uncertain future, the political and diplomatic ramifications of his extraordinary testimony are likely to be significant.
The claims he makes will feed into the already frayed relations between the UK and China over the subject of Hong Kong.
China will face questions about the use of torture in its headlong search for proof of foreign interference.
The British government will face questions about whether it could have done more to protect Mr Cheng as well as its treatment of him since.
As for Hong Kong's protesters - who began their fight against an extradition bill that would have allowed suspects to be sent to China - Simon Cheng's story will confirm one thing above all else: that there is indeed much to fear from a justice system so at odds with their own.
A former employee of the UK's Hong Kong consulate has told the BBC that he was tortured in China and accused of inciting political unrest in the city.
Simon Cheng, a Hong Kong citizen who worked for the UK government for almost two years, was detained for 15 days on a trip to mainland China in August.
"I was shackled, blindfolded and hooded," the 29-year-old tells me.
UK government sources say they believe his claims - of being beaten and forced to sign confessions - are credible.
Following our interview, the British Foreign Secretary Dominic Raab has now summoned the Chinese ambassador.
"We are outraged by the disgraceful mistreatment that Mr Cheng faced when he was in detention in mainland China... and we've made clear that we expect the Chinese authorities to review and hold to account those responsible," Mr Raab told the BBC.
The Chinese authorities have not responded to the BBC's request for comment, although state media have previously suggested that Mr Cheng was detained for soliciting a prostitute.
His account now challenges that version of events and raises questions for both the Chinese and the UK governments.
The claims he makes - including that he saw other Hongkongers in Chinese custody - are likely to fuel protesters' fears that their city's freedoms are being eroded under Chinese rule.
"They said they work for the secret service and that there are no human rights," he tells me. "Then they started the torture."
Who is Simon Cheng?
As a trade and investment officer at the UK consulate, Simon Cheng's particular brief was to drum up interest in investing in Scotland among the Chinese business community.
It required him to travel frequently to mainland China.
But in June, with Hong Kong engulfed in mass demonstrations, Mr Cheng volunteered for an additional role.
"The British Consulate instructed staff to collect information about the status of the protests," he says.
As a supporter of the pro-democracy movement he found it easy to blend in and, with the consent of the consulate, he signed up to some of the social media groups through which the protesters co-ordinated their actions.
Paid overtime for the information he gathered, he began reporting back what he saw to his colleagues.
His task, both Mr Cheng and UK government sources insist, was not to direct events in any way but to purely observe - the kind of civil society monitoring work many embassies do.
But China had already begun to accuse the UK of meddling in Hong Kong, with British politicians becoming increasing vocal in their support for the protesters.
On 8 August, with emails still on his phone linking him to that work observing the protests, he was sent by the consulate to a business conference in the Chinese city of Shenzhen.
He didn't know it, but his life was about to change forever.
How did he disappear?
Although China has ruled Hong Kong for more than 20 years, the border between the city and the mainland still looks and feels like an international boundary.
The "one country two systems" principle - that the protesters say they are fighting to preserve - is meant to ensure that Hong Kong retains control over most of its affairs, including its borders.
But Simon Cheng was about to discover for himself the blurred edges of that legal and political framework.
Since the opening of the Hong Kong-Shenzhen high-speed rail link last year, a new border post has been placed inside West Kowloon station, in the heart of Hong Kong.
It is deeply controversial: Hong Kong's pro-democracy movement views the presence of the Chinese police, manning the Chinese side, as an unwelcome extension of Chinese authority.
It was here they stopped Simon Cheng, returning from his business trip.
He was put on a train, transported back to Shenzhen and handed over, he says, to three plainclothes officers from China's National Security Police.
How does he describe his ordeal?
Raising his arms above his head Mr Cheng shows me how he was hung up from the chain linking the handcuffs on his wrists.
The questions focused on his involvement in the protests with the aim, he says, of forcing him to confess to fomenting unrest on behalf of the British state.
"They wanted to know what role the UK had in the Hong Kong protests - they asked what support, money and equipment we were giving to the protesters."
He says he was made to hold stress positions - squatting against a wall for example - for hours on end, and beaten if he moved.
"They would beat the bony parts, like my ankles... or any vulnerable part."
He claims he was subjected to sleep deprivation, with his interrogators forcing him to sing the Chinese national anthem to keep himself awake.
And, he believes, he was not the only Hongkonger undergoing such treatment.
"I saw a bunch of Hong Kong people getting arrested and interrogated. I heard someone speak in Cantonese saying: 'Raise your hands up - you raised the flags in the protest didn't you?'"
Background to the Hong Kong protests
From a large pile of more than 1,000 photographs of Hong Kong protesters, he says, he was told to jot down the names and political affiliations of anyone he recognised.
"The secret police clearly stated that batches after batches of Hong Kong protesters had been caught, delivered and detained in mainland China."
Strapped to a chair and held by his hair, he says they tried to force him to open his mobile phone using the facial recognition function.
Once they'd gained access, they printed off the emails detailing the information he'd passed to the UK consulate about the protests.
"I told them I want to make it 100% clear, the UK didn't assign resources or help with the protests," he tells me.
But it was no use. Eventually, they made him record two video confessions, he says, one for the "betrayal of the motherland" and another for "soliciting prostitution".
Why was he detained?
The detention of a local employee of a foreign embassy or consulate is a relatively rare event.
The last high-profile case involving the UK was the arrest in 2009 of a number of Iranian employees at the British embassy in Tehran. They were accused of playing a significant role in that year's violent demonstrations - an accusation that finds echoes in Simon Cheng's account.
As in his own case, locally-employed staff usually have no diplomatic protection, potentially making them soft targets for intelligence gathering.
But Mr Cheng may have been targeted for other reasons.
He tells me he had a mainland Chinese friend who'd been arrested for taking part in the Hong Kong protests and was now on bail there.
During his business trip to Shenzhen, without the knowledge of the UK consulate, Mr Cheng had met the relatives of this friend to collect money for his living expenses.
Any mainlander known to have joined the pro-democracy demonstrations would be at risk of being placed under Chinese surveillance.
Although collecting money for a friend in legal difficulty is unlikely to constitute a crime, even in China, it could well have placed Mr Cheng under suspicion too.
I ask him what he thinks is the most likely reason for his detention - his position at the UK consulate, or his friendship with this mainland Chinese protester?
"Until now I have no idea," he replies. "But I think both factors could be part of the reason."
In it, he says that on the 11th day of his detention his treatment suddenly improved, a date that he says coincides with the first international media reports about his disappearance.
UK government sources say that, behind the scenes, intense diplomatic activity was already under way to try to secure his release.
Of China's only public version of events - the allegation that he was placed in 15 days administrative detention for soliciting prostitution - Mr Cheng is dismissive.
"It was a tactic for secretly and arbitrarily incarcerating me for an even longer period, without interference from third parties."
In China, administrative detention is a penalty that can be imposed by the police, acting with no judicial oversight. And, he suggests, the circumstances of his arrest appear unusual.
Allegations of soliciting prostitution are normally dealt with in China as a routine matter by the local police. They are far less likely to be the concern of the Chinese border authorities in West Kowloon station.
Mr Cheng's written statement also mentions that, before his arrest, he stopped in Shenzhen for a massage.
I ask him directly if he paid for sex.
"I don't want to focus on the question of whether I solicited a prostitute, because that's exactly what they want," he replies.
"So, I just want to state clearly that I did nothing regrettable to the people I cherish and love."
Whatever the reasons behind the decision to release him, he says it came with a warning.
"They stated that if I receive media interviews and speak out [about] anything other than 'soliciting prostitution' publicly, I will be taken back to mainland China from Hong Kong."
The UK's Hong Kong consulate has since reviewed, and tightened up, its guidelines for local staff travelling on work trips to the Chinese mainland.
What will Simon Cheng do now?
Simon Cheng has told the BBC that he believes it is too dangerous for him to return to Hong Kong.
Initially, he was so concerned about his safety, he refused to allow the UK government to issue a statement condemning the way he'd been treated.
More personal stories from Hong Kong
And, as a result of his long interrogation at the hands of the Chinese secret police, the UK now sees him as a security risk.
He was asked to resign from his post, although UK sources say he was provided with support, including a two-year working visa for the UK.
"Our hearts are with Simon Cheng and his family," Dominic Raab, the British Foreign Secretary, told the BBC.
"From the outset my overriding concern has been to make sure that he's taken care of properly and he gets the support that he needs."
But Mr Cheng's written statement suggests he does not see the protection he's being offered as adequate and, he says, he's now seeking asylum anywhere he can feel safe.
While he faces an uncertain future, the political and diplomatic ramifications of his extraordinary testimony are likely to be significant.
The claims he makes will feed into the already frayed relations between the UK and China over the subject of Hong Kong.
China will face questions about the use of torture in its headlong search for proof of foreign interference.
The British government will face questions about whether it could have done more to protect Mr Cheng as well as its treatment of him since.
As for Hong Kong's protesters - who began their fight against an extradition bill that would have allowed suspects to be sent to China - Simon Cheng's story will confirm one thing above all else: that there is indeed much to fear from a justice system so at odds with their own.
The UK government and armed forces have been accused of covering up the killing of civilians by British troops in Afghanistan and Iraq.
An investigation by BBC Panorama and the Sunday Times has spoken to 11 British detectives who said they found credible evidence of war crimes.
Soldiers should have been prosecuted for the killings, say insiders.
The Ministry of Defence (MoD) said it rejected the unsubstantiated allegation of a pattern of cover-ups.
Foreign Secretary Dominic Raab told the BBC "all of the allegations, that had evidence, have been looked at".
He said "the right balance" had been struck over decisions whether or not to investigate alleged war crimes.
The new evidence has come from inside the Iraq Historic Allegations Team (IHAT), which investigated alleged war crimes committed by British troops during the occupation of Iraq, and Operation Northmoor, which investigated alleged war crimes in Afghanistan.
The government decided to close IHAT and Operation Northmoor, after Phil Shiner, a lawyer who had taken more than 1,000 cases to IHAT, was struck off as a solicitor following allegations he had paid fixers in Iraq to find clients.
But former detectives from IHAT and Operation Northmoor said Phil Shiner's actions were used as an excuse to close down criminal investigations. None of the cases investigated by IHAT or Operation Northmoor resulted in a prosecution.
One IHAT detective told Panorama: "The Ministry of Defence had no intention of prosecuting any soldier of whatever rank he was unless it was absolutely necessary, and they couldn't wriggle their way out of it."
Another former detective said the victims of war crimes had been badly let down: "I use the word disgusting. And I feel for the families because... they're not getting justice. How can you hold your head up as a British person?"
Panorama has re-examined the evidence in a number of alleged war crimes cases. One such case investigated by IHAT was the shooting of an Iraqi policeman by a British soldier on patrol in Basra in 2003.
Raid al-Mosawi was shot in an alleyway as he left his family home, and later died from his wounds. The incident was investigated at the time by the British soldier's commanding officer, Maj Christopher Suss-Francksen.
Within 24 hours, Maj Suss-Francksen concluded the shooting was lawful because the Iraqi police officer had fired first and the soldier had acted in self-defence.
His report said another British soldier had seen the shooting and confirmed the Iraqi had fired first.
IHAT detectives spent two years investigating the case and interviewed 80 British soldiers, including the soldier who had supposedly witnessed the shooting. But he told detectives he was not in the alleyway.
In his statement to IHAT, this soldier directly contradicted Maj Suss-Francksen's report: "This report is inaccurate and gives the impression that I was an eyewitness. This is not true."
The soldier said he had only heard one shot, which suggested the policeman had not fired at all. This was confirmed by other witnesses interviewed by IHAT.
Detectives concluded the soldier who shot Raid should be prosecuted for killing the Iraqi police officer and Maj Suss-Francksen should be charged with covering up what happened. But military prosecutors have not taken anyone to court.
Maj Suss-Francksen's lawyer said: "My client has not seen the IHAT material and is unable to offer any comment on the quality or reliability of the evidence gathered by the IHAT investigators or why it was insufficient to satisfy a prosecution of any soldier under UK law."
Operation Northmoor was set up by the government in 2014 and looked into 52 alleged illegal killings.
Its closure was announced by the government before Royal Military Police detectives even had a chance to interview the key Afghan witnesses.
One Northmoor detective said: "I wouldn't write off a job until I have spoken to both parties. If you are writing off a job and the only thing you have got is the British account, how is that an investigation?
"My view is that every one of those deaths deserved to be examined and due process of law to take place."
The MoD said military operations are conducted in accordance with the law and there had been an extensive investigation of allegations.
"Investigations and decisions to prosecute are rightly independent from the MoD and have involved external oversight and legal advice," a spokesperson told the BBC.
"After careful consideration of referred cases, the independent Service Prosecuting Authority decided not to prosecute."
"The BBC's claims have been passed to the Service Police and the Service Prosecuting Authority who remain open to considering allegations."
Quizzed about the allegations on the Andrew Marr Show on Sunday, Mr Raab said the UK wanted "to have accountability where there's wrongdoing".
He said: "What we're quite rightly doing is making sure spurious claims or claims without evidence don't lead to the shadow of suspicion, the cloud of suspicion hanging over people who have served their country for years on end - and we've got the right balance."
Mr Raab refused to be drawn on whether these claims were new to him, and said that prosecuting authorities for the British armed forces are "some of the most rigorous in the world".
Meanwhile, a lawyer who has represented several soldiers investigated by IHAT, dismissed the claims of war crimes as "flawed, baseless and biased".
Hilary Meredith, chair of Hilary Meredith Solicitors, said the claims were a "witch hunt against our brave servicemen" which "had no credibility whatsoever".
She added: "Solicitor Phil Shiner, who masterminded countless false claims, was struck off the role of solicitors for good reason - he was found guilty of charges including dishonesty over false witness accounts about UK soldiers' actions."
Panorama, War Crimes Scandal Exposed is on BBC One at 21:00 GMT on Monday 18 November.
The UK government and armed forces have been accused of covering up the killing of civilians by British troops in Afghanistan and Iraq.
An investigation by BBC Panorama and the Sunday Times has spoken to 11 British detectives who said they found credible evidence of war crimes.
Soldiers should have been prosecuted for the killings, say insiders.
The Ministry of Defence (MoD) said it rejected the unsubstantiated allegation of a pattern of cover-ups.
Foreign Secretary Dominic Raab told the BBC "all of the allegations, that had evidence, have been looked at".
He said "the right balance" had been struck over decisions whether or not to investigate alleged war crimes.
The new evidence has come from inside the Iraq Historic Allegations Team (IHAT), which investigated alleged war crimes committed by British troops during the occupation of Iraq, and Operation Northmoor, which investigated alleged war crimes in Afghanistan.
The government decided to close IHAT and Operation Northmoor, after Phil Shiner, a lawyer who had taken more than 1,000 cases to IHAT, was struck off as a solicitor following allegations he had paid fixers in Iraq to find clients.
But former detectives from IHAT and Operation Northmoor said Phil Shiner's actions were used as an excuse to close down criminal investigations. None of the cases investigated by IHAT or Operation Northmoor resulted in a prosecution.
One IHAT detective told Panorama: "The Ministry of Defence had no intention of prosecuting any soldier of whatever rank he was unless it was absolutely necessary, and they couldn't wriggle their way out of it."
Another former detective said the victims of war crimes had been badly let down: "I use the word disgusting. And I feel for the families because... they're not getting justice. How can you hold your head up as a British person?"
Panorama has re-examined the evidence in a number of alleged war crimes cases. One such case investigated by IHAT was the shooting of an Iraqi policeman by a British soldier on patrol in Basra in 2003.
Raid al-Mosawi was shot in an alleyway as he left his family home, and later died from his wounds. The incident was investigated at the time by the British soldier's commanding officer, Maj Christopher Suss-Francksen.
Within 24 hours, Maj Suss-Francksen concluded the shooting was lawful because the Iraqi police officer had fired first and the soldier had acted in self-defence.
His report said another British soldier had seen the shooting and confirmed the Iraqi had fired first.
IHAT detectives spent two years investigating the case and interviewed 80 British soldiers, including the soldier who had supposedly witnessed the shooting. But he told detectives he was not in the alleyway.
In his statement to IHAT, this soldier directly contradicted Maj Suss-Francksen's report: "This report is inaccurate and gives the impression that I was an eyewitness. This is not true."
The soldier said he had only heard one shot, which suggested the policeman had not fired at all. This was confirmed by other witnesses interviewed by IHAT.
Detectives concluded the soldier who shot Raid should be prosecuted for killing the Iraqi police officer and Maj Suss-Francksen should be charged with covering up what happened. But military prosecutors have not taken anyone to court.
Maj Suss-Francksen's lawyer said: "My client has not seen the IHAT material and is unable to offer any comment on the quality or reliability of the evidence gathered by the IHAT investigators or why it was insufficient to satisfy a prosecution of any soldier under UK law."
Operation Northmoor was set up by the government in 2014 and looked into 52 alleged illegal killings.
Its closure was announced by the government before Royal Military Police detectives even had a chance to interview the key Afghan witnesses.
One Northmoor detective said: "I wouldn't write off a job until I have spoken to both parties. If you are writing off a job and the only thing you have got is the British account, how is that an investigation?
"My view is that every one of those deaths deserved to be examined and due process of law to take place."
The MoD said military operations are conducted in accordance with the law and there had been an extensive investigation of allegations.
"Investigations and decisions to prosecute are rightly independent from the MoD and have involved external oversight and legal advice," a spokesperson told the BBC.
"After careful consideration of referred cases, the independent Service Prosecuting Authority decided not to prosecute."
"The BBC's claims have been passed to the Service Police and the Service Prosecuting Authority who remain open to considering allegations."
Quizzed about the allegations on the Andrew Marr Show on Sunday, Mr Raab said the UK wanted "to have accountability where there's wrongdoing".
He said: "What we're quite rightly doing is making sure spurious claims or claims without evidence don't lead to the shadow of suspicion, the cloud of suspicion hanging over people who have served their country for years on end - and we've got the right balance."
Mr Raab refused to be drawn on whether these claims were new to him, and said that prosecuting authorities for the British armed forces are "some of the most rigorous in the world".
Meanwhile, a lawyer who has represented several soldiers investigated by IHAT, dismissed the claims of war crimes as "flawed, baseless and biased".
Hilary Meredith, chair of Hilary Meredith Solicitors, said the claims were a "witch hunt against our brave servicemen" which "had no credibility whatsoever".
She added: "Solicitor Phil Shiner, who masterminded countless false claims, was struck off the role of solicitors for good reason - he was found guilty of charges including dishonesty over false witness accounts about UK soldiers' actions."
Panorama, War Crimes Scandal Exposed is on BBC One at 21:00 GMT on Monday 18 November.
The UK government and armed forces have been accused of covering up the killing of civilians by British troops in Afghanistan and Iraq.
An investigation by BBC Panorama and the Sunday Times has spoken to 11 British detectives who said they found credible evidence of war crimes.
Soldiers should have been prosecuted for the killings, say insiders.
The Ministry of Defence (MoD) said it rejected the unsubstantiated allegation of a pattern of cover-ups.
The new evidence has come from inside the Iraq Historic Allegations Team (IHAT), which investigated alleged war crimes committed by British troops during the occupation of Iraq, and Operation Northmoor, which investigated alleged war crimes in Afghanistan.
The government decided to close IHAT and Operation Northmoor, after Phil Shiner, a lawyer who had taken more than 1,000 cases to IHAT, was struck off as a solicitor following allegations he had paid fixers in Iraq to find clients.
But former detectives from IHAT and Operation Northmoor said Phil Shiner's actions were used as an excuse to close down criminal investigations. None of the cases investigated by IHAT or Operation Northmoor resulted in a prosecution.
One IHAT detective told Panorama: "The Ministry of Defence had no intention of prosecuting any soldier of whatever rank he was unless it was absolutely necessary, and they couldn't wriggle their way out of it."
Another former detective said the victims of war crimes had been badly let down: "I use the word disgusting. And I feel for the families because... they're not getting justice. How can you hold your head up as a British person?"
Panorama has re-examined the evidence in a number of alleged war crimes cases. One such case investigated by IHAT was the shooting of an Iraqi policeman by a British soldier on patrol in Basra in 2003.
Raid al-Mosawi was shot in an alleyway as he left his family home, and later died from his wounds. The incident was investigated at the time by the British soldier's commanding officer, Maj Christopher Suss-Francksen.
Within 24 hours, Maj Suss-Francksen concluded the shooting was lawful because the Iraqi police officer had fired first and the soldier had acted in self-defence.
His report said another British soldier had seen the shooting and confirmed the Iraqi had fired first.
IHAT detectives spent two years investigating the case and interviewed 80 British soldiers, including the soldier who had supposedly witnessed the shooting. But he told detectives he was not in the alleyway.
In his statement to IHAT, this soldier directly contradicted Maj Suss-Francksen's report: "This report is inaccurate and gives the impression that I was an eyewitness. This is not true."
The soldier said he had only heard one shot, which suggested the policeman had not fired at all. This was confirmed by other witnesses interviewed by IHAT.
Detectives concluded the soldier who shot Raid should be prosecuted for killing the Iraqi police officer and Maj Suss-Francksen should be charged with covering up what happened. But military prosecutors have not taken anyone to court.
Maj Suss-Francksen's lawyer said: "My client has not seen the IHAT material and is unable to offer any comment on the quality or reliability of the evidence gathered by the IHAT investigators or why it was insufficient to satisfy a prosecution of any soldier under UK law."
Operation Northmoor was set up by the government in 2014 and looked into 52 alleged illegal killings.
Its closure was announced by the government before Royal Military Police detectives even had a chance to interview the key Afghan witnesses.
One Northmoor detective said: "I wouldn't write off a job until I have spoken to both parties. If you are writing off a job and the only thing you have got is the British account, how is that an investigation?
"My view is that every one of those deaths deserved to be examined and due process of law to take place."
The MoD said military operations are conducted in accordance with the law and there had been an extensive investigation of allegations.
"Investigations and decisions to prosecute are rightly independent from the MoD and have involved external oversight and legal advice," a spokesperson told the BBC.
"After careful consideration of referred cases, the independent Service Prosecuting Authority decided not to prosecute."
"The BBC's claims have been passed to the Service Police and the Service Prosecuting Authority who remain open to considering allegations."
Panorama, War Crimes Scandal Exposed is on BBC One at 21:00 GMT on Monday 18 November.
