Editorial Standards

Every material factual claim needs an evidence base we can point to.

Writers must describe the substance, status and context of a source accurately. Quotes are never trimmed in a way that changes what they mean.

If a fact can’t reasonably be verified, it is not presented as established.

A sentence can be technically true and still mislead if important context is left out. So accuracy applies to the overall impression a piece leaves — not just to each line.

We never use wording that turns an allegation into a fact. Someone who has been:

• accused is not necessarily liable;
• sued has not necessarily lost;
• charged has not been convicted;
• investigated has not necessarily done anything wrong.

If a case is still open, we say so clearly and where readers will see it.

Headlines, page titles, search snippets, social posts and image captions must fairly reflect the record underneath them.

A careful sentence further down doesn’t fix a misleading headline.

We don’t use sensational wording just to win attention, clicks or search ranking.

Words like fraudster, criminal, scammer, corrupt or thief — or anything similar — are never used as statements of fact about a named person or company unless the law and the evidence justify it in that specific context, such as a decided case.

When information comes from a complaint, indictment, regulator, litigant, witness or other source, we make clear where it came from whenever readers need that to judge how strong it is. For example:

We never strip out attribution just to make a sentence punchier.

Adverse information comes with the context needed to stop it giving a distorted picture. That can include:

Old allegations aren’t presented as live if the record shows they have been resolved.

Before publishing, where it is reasonably practical and appropriate, we give the subject enough detail to understand the main adverse allegations and a fair chance to respond.

How long they get depends on how complex and urgent the matter is.

We consider relevant responses and supporting evidence before publishing. A response doesn’t have to be accepted just because it was sent.

And no response is not an admission.

We may shorten responses for length, relevance, repetition, legal risk, privacy or clarity rather than printing them word for word.

We never cut a response in a way that misrepresents the subject’s position.

If documents sent with a response change the record in a material way, we assess them before publishing.

A name appearing in a document isn’t enough reason to publish it. Before naming someone, editors weigh:

• the person’s role in the matter;
• whether naming them genuinely serves the public interest;
• how strong the evidence is;
• their privacy;
• any vulnerability;
• foreseeable harm;
• any reporting restrictions;
• whether readers need the name to understand the record.

We are especially careful with private individuals whose part in a matter is minor.

We take extra care with children, victims, witnesses and vulnerable people.

We don’t publish their names, photos, addresses or identifying details just because they can be found elsewhere.

Court restrictions, privacy rules and protections for victims and minors are always respected.

We may hold information that has no business being public.

Home addresses, private phone numbers, personal emails, ID numbers, bank details, information about children and other sensitive data are normally left out — unless publishing is lawful, necessary and justified by a substantial public interest.

The public record should hold what people need to understand the matter, not everything our researchers found.

Photos, screenshots, diagrams and other visuals must not imply anything the evidence doesn’t support.

Images are never altered in ways that change what they show as evidence.

Stock or illustrative images are never presented so that they could be mistaken for documentary evidence.

Captions describe accurately what an image does and doesn’t establish.

Our journalists and investigators may lawfully use:

We never authorise hacking, unlawful computer access, theft, bribery, trespass, unlawful surveillance, unlawful impersonation or fabricated evidence.

Any unusual technique that raises serious legal or ethical questions must be reviewed before it is used.

Once investigation and checking reach the right stage, the writer receives the evidence needed to prepare the record.

The writer’s job is not to make the evidence more dramatic. It is to explain accurately:

• what happened;
• what is alleged;
• what is documented;
• what has been decided;
• what the subject says; and
• what is still unknown or disputed.

The story stays inside those limits.

Material investigations may, where required, be reviewed by lawyers before publication under our internal procedures — including legal professionals in the United States, the United Kingdom and relevant Asian jurisdictions. Review can cover:

Legal review never replaces editorial judgment.

Writers, researchers, editors and reviewers must declare any personal, financial, professional or other conflict involving a subject.

If a conflict could reasonably make people doubt the independence of the work, that person steps aside or the conflict is otherwise properly managed.

When a source has a business or personal dispute with a subject, we factor that into how much we rely on them.

See the conflict register

We take no payment, gifts, favours or anything else from a subject in return for:

Research Membership gives no editorial control. A paying member’s evidence is judged exactly like anyone else’s.

When we find that a material factual statement is wrong, we correct it promptly.

When new evidence changes the record rather than disproving it, we update it.

Material corrections are made openly where appropriate.

A correction exists to give readers the most accurate record available — not to play down that we made a mistake.

Automated tools and AI can help with organising documents, searching, translating, matching names to entities or spotting possible leads.

Something an AI system produced is not evidence just because a system produced it.

Any material fact surfaced by automated tools is checked against reliable sources before publication.

AI is never used to invent quotes, evidence, sources, interviews or documents.

People, not software, are responsible for what we publish.

We may structure pages so records are easy to find and understand in search engines and elsewhere.

Search optimisation is never an excuse to exaggerate.

Page titles, metadata, structured data and summaries meet the same accuracy and attribution rules as the record itself.

Material records can show a publication date, a last-reviewed date and a version history.

When later events materially affect a record, the record is reviewed.

An older statement that was accurate isn’t left standing without explanation once later events have changed what it means.