Every record has to survive scrutiny.

Before publishing, we ask whether the record helps the public understand something that matters: court and regulatory cases, how companies behave, money flows, public office, fraud, corruption, sanctions, who owns what, and similar questions of public significance.

Where the law of England and Wales governs a publication, we take account of Section 4 of the Defamation Act 2013, which covers publishing on matters of public interest where the publisher reasonably believed publication was in the public interest.

Reference: Defamation Act 2013, s.4 — publication on a matter of public interest.

We keep these stages apart and name each one for what it is:

Under Section 1 of the Defamation Act 2013, a statement is only defamatory in England and Wales if it has caused, or is likely to cause, serious harm to reputation — and for a business trading for profit, that means serious financial loss or the likelihood of it. We apply our own verification standard whether or not that legal threshold would be met.

Our research can draw on court records and judgments, indictments, regulator decisions, government records, company filings, sanctions lists, authenticated documents, interviews, open-source research and lawful visits in person.

Wherever we reasonably can, we corroborate material claims.

A source existing does not make everything in it true. So we always separate:

• what a source claims,
• what a document actually proves, and
• what a court or other competent authority has decided.

Where UK data-protection law applies, we work within the UK GDPR and the Data Protection Act 2018.

Schedule 2, Part 5, paragraph 26 of the Data Protection Act 2018 sets out special provisions for processing for journalism, where we reasonably believe publication is in the public interest and applying certain UK GDPR provisions would be incompatible with that journalism.

That is not a blanket exemption. The UK Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) is clear that media organisations remain bound by data-protection law and can rely on the journalism exemption only when its legal conditions are met.

Before publication, material investigative records may, where required, go through our internal review with legal professionals in the regions the matter touches:

Depending on the matter, the review looks at:

This review is an internal safeguard. It is not a court ruling or an independent certification of the facts.

Where it is reasonably practical, any person or company facing material adverse reporting is given the chance to respond before publication.

We test the response against the evidence.

Saying nothing is not evidence of guilt.

Refusing to comment, not replying, or denying without documents does not, on its own, prove or disprove the allegation.

We do not take payment, gifts, favours or anything else in return for removing, hiding, delaying, softening or materially changing what we publish.

Anyone named can still ask for a correction or update by sending relevant evidence. We consider requests on their merits, including:

Paying for membership or research services gives no right to any particular editorial result.

Investigators may use lawful open-source research, public registries, court databases, company and regulatory records, interviews, field work and other legitimate methods.

We never authorise hacking, impersonation, bribery, theft of records or any other unlawful way of getting information.

When confidential material reaches us, we check where it came from, whether it is genuine and why it matters before relying on or publishing any of it.

Something being in our research file does not mean it belongs on the public record.

We publish personal information only when it is relevant and legally supportable in the circumstances.

We take particular care with sensitive and special-category data, criminal-offence data, home addresses, family details and anything that could put someone at needless risk.

UK law has specific rules on special-category and criminal-offence data, including where journalism and substantial public interest are involved.

Until a competent authority decides, an allegation stays an allegation and an open case stays open.

We never treat an indictment, complaint, regulatory investigation or lawsuit as proof that what it alleges is true.

If a matter ends in dismissal, acquittal, reversal, settlement, delisting or another important outcome, the record is updated to say so.

Advertisers, members, subjects, complainants, sources and business partners get no contractual or editorial right to decide what an investigation concludes.

A paid USA Scammers membership can give access to research tools, databases or professional services. It never buys better coverage, removal, suppression, edits or a particular evidence grade.

If the evidence shows an allegation, we call it an allegation. If a case is still open, we say so.

If an authority has made a finding, we name the authority and the finding. If someone was cleared, acquitted or a decision was overturned, that goes on the record too.

The goal is not the harshest possible conclusion. It is the most defensible account of the evidence we have.