Twelve clauses, applied to every entry.

The first question is always the same: would a reasonable reader be better protected, or better informed, because this is published? Fraud, scams, enforcement action, the conduct of firms that handle other people’s money, sanctions and hidden ownership usually pass that test. Gossip does not.

Section 4 of the Defamation Act 2013 gives a defence for statements on a matter of public interest where the publisher reasonably believed publication was in the public interest. We apply our own test first, and we expect to meet it whether or not that defence would ever be needed.

Each of these is a distinct point in the life of a case, and an entry names the one that applies:

In England and Wales, defamation is governed by the Defamation Act 2013. A statement is not defamatory unless it has caused, or is likely to cause, serious harm to reputation — for a business trading for profit, serious financial loss. Truth (section 2) and honest opinion (section 3) are defences. Our verification standard applies to every entry wherever that legal line sits.

We work from judgments and court files, regulator notices and warning lists, Companies House and other registries, the Insolvency Service, sanctions lists, authenticated documents, interviews, open-source research and lawful visits.

Material claims are corroborated independently wherever we reasonably can, and three questions are kept apart throughout:

• What does the source say?
• What does the document itself prove?
• What, if anything, has a court or competent authority decided?

We process personal data in line with the UK General Data Protection Regulation and the Data Protection Act 2018. The regulator is the Information Commissioner’s Office (ico.org.uk).

The Act contains an exemption for journalistic purposes (Schedule 2, Part 5). We rely on it only where its conditions are actually met for a particular piece of processing, never as a blanket cover.

Material investigative entries may, where required, be reviewed under the law of England and Wales and of any other jurisdiction involved, following our internal procedures:

Depending on the matter, the review can cover:

It is a check within our own process. It is not a court ruling and not an independent certificate that the facts are true.

Where it is reasonably practicable, the person or business concerned is told the substance of what we intend to publish and given a fair chance to respond beforehand.

Their answer is tested against the evidence in the same way as everything else.

Silence proves nothing. A refusal to comment, a missed deadline or a bare denial is not evidence either way.

We accept no payment, gift, favour or other benefit for removing, hiding, delaying, softening or materially altering an entry.

Anyone named can ask for a correction or update by sending relevant evidence. Grounds we act on include:

A Research Membership or any other paid service gives no right to a particular editorial result.

Our researchers use public registers, court and company records, regulator databases, open-source research, interviews, field visits and other legitimate techniques.

We never authorise unauthorised computer access (an offence under the Computer Misuse Act 1990), bribery (an offence under the Bribery Act 2010), impersonation, theft of documents or any other unlawful way of obtaining material. We do not pay sources for information.

Leaked or confidential material is examined for origin, authenticity and relevance before any part of it is relied on.

What sits in a research file is not automatically fit for publication.

Personal information appears only where it is relevant to the matter and lawful to publish. Special category data, criminal offence data, home addresses, family details and anything that could expose a person to avoidable risk receive extra scrutiny.

Until a competent court or authority decides, an allegation is described as an allegation. A complaint, arrest, charge, Action Fraud report, regulatory inquiry or claim form is never treated as proof of what it alleges.

When criminal proceedings are active, we observe the strict liability rule in the Contempt of Court Act 1981 and any reporting restriction the court has made.

When a matter ends — discontinuance, acquittal, a successful appeal, a settlement, removal from a list or another significant outcome — the entry says so.

Members, subjects, complainants, sources, advertisers and partners have no contractual or editorial power over what an investigation concludes.

A paid UK Scam membership can open research tools, databases or professional services. It never buys gentler coverage, a takedown, an edit or a different evidence grade.

An allegation is called an allegation. Proceedings in progress are called proceedings in progress.

A finding is reported together with the body that made it. An acquittal, a discontinuance or a reversal is reported just as clearly.

The aim is not the most damaging reading of the documents. It is the account we can best defend from them.