A file kept to be checked, not simply believed.

Online, an accusation travels further than its outcome. A complaint is shared widely; the decision that dismissed it is read by almost no one. A charge stays at the top of a search long after an acquittal. Two businesses are said to be connected with nothing to show what the connection is.

The opposite problem is just as real. The judgments, regulator notices and company records behind a genuine fraud are often scattered across Companies House, court lists, the FCA register and overseas registries, and they are hard to read together.

UK Scam keeps a careful file. We collect the evidence that matters, show where each item came from and how far its matter has progressed, and never let an allegation be read as a finding.

No investigation starts from the conclusion we would like to reach.

Our researchers may look at court records, Companies House filings, directors and persons with significant control, the FCA register and warning list, Insolvency Service notices, sanctions lists, material sent to us by readers and other lawfully available sources.

Where the matter calls for it, we may also carry out lawful open-source research, interview people and make enquiries in person. Important evidence is tested for authenticity, origin, context and relevance before we rely on it.

If the evidence knocks down the idea we started with, that is still a result. We are after an accurate record, not a theory to defend.

Significant investigations go through these stages, in this order.

1. IResearchThe evidence file is assembled first, including what is missing.
2. IIVerificationSources and key claims are tested and, where possible, corroborated.
3. IIILegal reviewWhere a matter needs it, lawyers in England and Wales, and in any other jurisdiction involved, read the material.
4. IVEditorial reviewEditors shape the record under our editorial standards and check each grade.

None of this makes UK Scam a court, a regulator or a prosecutor. A lawyer reading a draft does not turn an allegation into a ruling.

A good deal of our research goes beyond what a search engine has indexed.

It can mean tracing companies and the people behind them, reading case files, lawful open-source work, examining documents, developing sources, interviews and, where justified, enquiries made in person.

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

We do not call anyone “trustworthy”, “dangerous” or “a scammer”. We classify evidence by what it actually establishes.

• An open case is shown as open.
• An allegation stays an allegation until its status changes.
• A decision is attributed to the body that made it.
• An acquittal, dismissal, successful appeal or removal from a list carries the same weight as the accusation that came before it.

That is why every entry keeps allegations, proceedings, findings and resolutions apart. How evidence is classified

Where it is reasonably possible and appropriate, anyone facing serious adverse reporting is invited to respond before publication, and their response is weighed with the rest of the evidence.

Declining to respond, or not responding in time, is not evidence of wrongdoing.

If someone sends reliable documents that seriously contradict our evidence, we deal with them before the record is final. Your rights if you are named

We welcome good-faith challenges to anything we publish.

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

You do not need to be a member to challenge our reporting. Accuracy is not a paid extra. Corrections policy

We accept no money, 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 separate from editorial decisions.

A member may send evidence. A solicitor may challenge an entry. A person we name may ask for a correction. Each request is judged on its evidence.

Nobody can buy control of a record. Independence policy

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

Approved Research Members may be given permission-based access to Tracer, our internal research system, along with person and company research and professional support. Access is restricted and reviewed.

Tracer is a research aid. It does not decide guilt, liability or legal status, and anything it returns must be checked against the underlying sources. Research Membership

UK Scam is for anyone who needs the underlying record rather than search results or unsupported claims, including:

Consumers and small businesses

checking a trader, landlord, recruiter or investment before paying.

Solicitors and barristers

preparing cases and carrying out legal research.

Investigators

tracing people, companies and the links between them.

Journalists and researchers

working on matters of public interest.

Compliance and risk teams

carrying out lawful due diligence.

Public bodies and law enforcement

using approved research resources.

Some services and some information have their own access controls.

One matter can involve a company registered in England, directors living overseas, proceedings in another country and money held somewhere else again.

We are set up to follow those threads without pretending that different legal systems work the same way. England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland each have their own courts and procedures, and we say which one a record comes from.

Where it applies, our review draws on legal advice from the jurisdictions actually involved. Browse by jurisdiction

Our standards, evidence method, corrections process, subject rights, independence rules and conflict rules are all published, so our own process can be examined.

• Standards→
• Evidence standards→
• Editorial standards→
• Source and verification→
• Corrections policy→
• Subject rights→
• Independence policy→
• Conflict register→
• Transparency report→

Where appropriate, we may also publish figures on corrections, editorial conflicts and other parts of how we work.

We cannot publish everything we hold. Protecting sources, legal privilege, privacy, confidentiality, safety and live investigations means some material stays restricted. Being open about our process does not mean breaking those duties.