Evidence Standards

We don’t score anyone’s guilt, innocence, honesty or character. Our grades describe one thing: where the evidence stands.

A complaint shows an allegation was formally made. It does not, on its own, show the allegation is true.

An indictment shows charges were brought. It does not show guilt.

A judgment shows what a court found — within the limits of that judgment and subject to any appeal.

Every record has to keep these differences visible.

We judge each source by where it came from, whether it is genuine, how close it is to the facts, and its legal or official standing.

Where it fits, primary material gets more weight, such as:

• Court judgments and orders
• Official regulator decisions
• Government records
• Statutory filings
• Authenticated company records
• Official sanctions records
• Original contracts and documents

Secondary sources include reputable journalism, professional research, interviews and other published material.

A news report can show that something was reported. It does not automatically prove what was reported.

We describe each court document by what it does in the case.

An allegation in a pleading does not become a fact just because it sits in an official court file.

Regulatory notices, enforcement actions, government statements and administrative cases are attributed to the body that issued them.

If an authority alleges misconduct and the case is still open, we call it an allegation or a proceeding.

If the authority has made a final decision, we state the finding and its status.

Settlements are described by their actual terms — including, where it matters, whether liability was admitted, denied, or neither admitted nor denied.

Where we reasonably can, we back up material adverse allegations with independent evidence, such as:

Counting sources isn’t enough. Ten outlets repeating one original allegation are not ten independent confirmations.

We may use lawful open-source intelligence to find and analyse information that is public or lawfully available.

That can include company databases, public registries, websites, archived web pages, social platforms, domain records and public documents.

Before relying on digital material, we check that it is genuine, where it came from, when it dates from, its context, and whether it could have been manipulated.

A screenshot with no reliable origin is not conclusive proof.

Where it is appropriate, our investigators may lawfully visit places to check addresses, businesses, operations or events.

What they observe is recorded accurately and kept separate from any inference.

They must obey the law and must never gather evidence by trespass, unlawful surveillance, bribery, theft, hacking or other prohibited means.

Some sources ask us to keep their identity private.

Before leaning on what a confidential source says, we weigh how they know it, how credible they are, any conflicts or motives, and whether the information can be checked independently.

We will not normally publish a serious allegation as fact only because an unnamed source said so.

Where the law allows and it is editorially justified, we may protect a source’s identity.

Sending something to us does not make it genuine, accurate or relevant.

Documents from complainants, subjects, members, lawyers, companies, whistleblowers and anyone else go through the same checks.

Being a member does not give your evidence extra weight. Payment has no bearing on whether evidence is accepted, rejected, published or relied on.

Submit evidence for review

We never set aside the subject’s evidence just because it cuts against an existing investigation.

If a subject sends a judgment, dismissal, acquittal, corrected filing, transaction record or other reliable evidence that materially affects the record, we assess it on its merits.

Our job is an accurate record — not defending an earlier conclusion.

When credible evidence points in different directions, we don’t hide it. The record may set out:

• what each source shows;
• where they disagree;
• whether one carries more weight; and
• what is still unresolved.

If the evidence can’t responsibly settle an important point, the record says so.

A documented link between people or companies does not, without more evidence, show knowledge of, involvement in, control over or responsibility for someone else’s conduct.

The same name does not mean the same person.

We take reasonable steps to confirm identity before attaching adverse information to anyone.

Our investigators are never authorised to obtain information through unlawful computer access, theft, bribery, impersonation, trespass or other unlawful means.

Material handed to us by others raises its own legal and editorial questions, which we assess before holding, using or publishing it.

Information being newsworthy doesn’t settle whether it can lawfully be obtained, kept or published.

Before we publish material adverse allegations, the subject normally gets a fair chance to respond, where that is practical and appropriate.

We assess any relevant evidence they send before publishing.

Equally, a denial alone does not outweigh reliable evidence to the contrary.

The record reflects what the evidence finally supports.

Evidence doesn’t stand still.

• A documented allegation can turn into a formal case.
• A case can end in a finding.
• A conviction can be overturned.
• A regulatory listing can be withdrawn.
• A lawsuit can be dismissed.

When a verified development changes the legal or evidentiary position, we update the record and, where appropriate, its grade.

We work across several jurisdictions, so the rules on collecting, handling and publishing information can differ from case to case.

Depending on the matter, relevant law can include:

In the United States, publications can involve federal constitutional protections and state law on defamation, privacy, anti-SLAPP, court records and newsgathering.

Publications governed by the law of England and Wales can involve the Defamation Act 2013 — including its rules on serious harm, truth and public-interest publication — as well as the Data Protection Act 2018 and UK GDPR.

Matters involving Asian jurisdictions are assessed under the law of the particular country concerned.