John Terry is expected to learn by the weekend whether he is to be sanctioned by the Football Association for the use of racially abusive language during Chelsea's defeat at Queen's Park Rangers last October.

The England defender was acquitted of a racially aggravated public order offence at Westminster magistrates court earlier this month because it had not been proven beyond reasonable doubt that the 31-year-old had racially insulted the QPR defender Anton Ferdinand.

The FA has since resumed its original inquiry, which had been suspended after the police became involved and Terry was prosecuted, into the incident with an independent QC overseeing the case. Terry was interviewed by the FA's head of off-field regulation, Jenni Kennedy, five days after the game on 23 October, and no new interviews are being undertaken now with the FA close to concluding its inquiries.

Despite Terry being found not guilty of any offence by the chief magistrate, Howard Riddle, the likelihood of an FA charge for the racial element of what Terry said in his confrontation with Ferdinand rests on the distinction between the required degree of evidence to support a criminal conviction – proven beyond reasonable doubt – and an FA guilty decision, proven on the balance of probabilities.

The likeliest charge the FA will consider is a breach of its rule E3, which prohibits improper conduct including "indecent or insulting words or behaviour". A reference to a person's ethnic origin, colour or race is an aggravating factor. Should Terry – who is in Philadelphia with Chelsea for a pre-season tour – be found guilty, a fine and suspension would follow.

Last December, a three-man FA panel had found Liverpool's Luis Suárez guilty of abusing Manchester United's Patrice Evra with a racial element, although there was no film or recording of the words spoken and no independent witnesses who heard them. The panel decided Evra had been consistent in maintaining that Suárez had referred to his colour in the two players' heated argument during the draw at Anfield on 15 October and found Suárez's account not credible. Suárez was banned for eight matches and fined £40,000.

There remains the distinct possibility that Ferdinand could also be punished for bringing the game into disrepute, also as a breach of rule E3, after the court case revealed the level of swearing used by the pair in their dispute at Loftus Road.

The FA could also write to Rio Ferdinand, Anton's brother, over his tweeted response to a message posted on the social network site that referred to Ashley Cole as a "choc ice".

The Manchester United defender appeared to endorse the remark about Cole, who had appeared in court as a witness for the defence.

Terry claimed he believed Anton Ferdinand had accused him on the pitch of using the offensive words as an insult, with the Chelsea defender maintaining throughout the process that he was repeating them only to deny he had said them. The chief magistrate had expressed scepticism in his 13-page written judgment on the case: "Mr Terry's explanation is, certainly under the cold light of forensic examination, unlikely." About Terry's case that he repeated the words back to deny having said them, Riddle went on: "It is not the most obvious response. It is sandwiched between other undoubted insults."

Yet, with the film of the incident obscured, the evidence of lip readers inconclusive and no independent witnesses who heard what Terry said, Riddle concluded that the evidence left sufficient doubt and acquitted the former England captain.