Let the evidence talk louder than the accusation.

The internet keeps an accusation alive long after its context is gone.

A lawsuit gets reported, its dismissal does not. A criminal charge stays online, the acquittal never follows it. A company gets linked to another one with no evidence of what the link actually means.

The reverse happens too. Real court cases, regulator actions and company connections behind a scam can be scattered across states, countries, databases and filings that are hard to find and harder to read together.

USA Scammers was built to keep a more disciplined record. We bring the relevant evidence together, say where it came from and what stage it has reached, and never blur an allegation into a finding.

An investigation should never start from the answer we want.

Our researchers may look at court records, company structures, directorships, ownership details, regulator and agency activity, sanctions lists, government databases, documents people send us, and other lawfully available material.

Where it is appropriate, investigators may use lawful open-source research (OSINT), interview people and make inquiries in person. Important evidence is checked for authenticity, origin, context and relevance before we rely on it.

If the evidence contradicts the idea we started with, that matters. The point is to establish the record — not to protect a theory.

Material investigations go through several stages before publication.

1. 01ResearchResearchers build the evidence file first.
2. 02VerificationSources and important claims are checked and, where appropriate, corroborated.
3. 03Legal reviewWhere the matter needs it, material may be reviewed by legal professionals — in the United States and, depending on the issues, the United Kingdom and relevant Asian jurisdictions.
4. 04Editorial reviewThe evidence is prepared for publication under our editorial standards.

None of this makes USA Scammers a court, a regulator or a prosecutor. Legal review does not turn an allegation into a finding.

Our research can go well beyond what is indexed on the web.

It may involve company and ownership research, analysis of lawsuits and court files, lawful OSINT, document verification, developing sources, interviews and — where justified — inquiries on the ground.

Investigators must work within the law and our standards. We never authorise hacking, bribery, theft, unlawful access to computers, trespass, unlawful surveillance or invented evidence.

We do not give anyone a character score saying they are “good,” “bad,” “safe” or “a scammer.” We classify evidence by what it actually establishes.

• A pending case stays pending.
• An allegation stays an allegation unless and until its status changes.
• A finding is credited to the authority that made it.
• An acquittal, dismissal, reversal or delisting is recorded just as seriously as the accusation that came before it.

That is why every record separates allegations, proceedings, findings and resolutions. How evidence is classified

Where it is reasonably practicable and appropriate, anyone facing material adverse reporting is offered the chance to respond before publication. Their reply is weighed alongside the evidence.

Declining to reply, or not replying, is not evidence of wrongdoing.

If someone sends reliable documents that materially contradict our evidence, we must consider them before the record is finalised. Rights of people named

We welcome good-faith challenges to the accuracy of anything we publish.

If reliable evidence shows an important statement is wrong, we may correct it. If later events change an earlier accurate record, we may update it. If a grade no longer reflects where a case stands, we may change it.

Nobody has to buy a membership to challenge our reporting. Accuracy is not a paid service. Corrections Policy

We do not accept payment, gifts, favours or anything else in return for hiding, removing, delaying or materially changing accurate reporting.

Research Membership and our professional research services are kept apart from editorial decisions.

A member can send evidence. A lawyer can challenge a record. A subject can ask for a correction. Each request is judged on the evidence.

Nobody buys control of the record. Independence Policy

We also build research tools for professionals whose work needs a deeper look at legal and investigative records.

Approved Research Members may get permission-based access to The Scanner, our internal research resources, entity research and professional support. Access is restricted and reviewed.

The Scanner is an investigative research tool. It does not decide guilt, liability or legal status, and everything it returns must be checked against the underlying sources. Research Membership

USA Scammers is built for people who need to understand the underlying record rather than rely on search results or unsupported claims. That may include:

Different services and information can have different access controls.

One matter can involve a company registered in one place, directors living in another, a court case in a third and money held somewhere else.

We are set up to follow those connections without pretending different legal systems are the same. Our review can draw on legal perspectives from the United States, the United Kingdom and relevant jurisdictions in Asia where they apply.

The law we consider is the law of the place actually involved. “Asia” is not one legal system. Browse by jurisdiction

Our standards, evidence method, correction procedure, subject rights, independence policy and conflict rules are public, so our own process can be examined.

Where it is appropriate, we may also publish transparency information about corrections, editorial conflicts and other parts of how we operate.

We cannot publish everything we hold. Protecting sources, legal privilege, privacy, confidentiality, safety and live investigations can mean some information stays restricted.

Transparency means explaining the process without breaking the obligations that make responsible investigation possible.