Evidence Standards

Nothing on this site measures anyone’s honesty, character, guilt or innocence. A grade answers one narrow question: how far has the evidence travelled?

A complaint shows that an allegation was made, not that it is right. A charge shows that a prosecutor acted, not that anyone is guilty. A judgment shows what a court decided, within its limits and subject to appeal.

Every entry keeps those differences in plain view.

Each source is weighed by its origin, its authenticity, how close it is to the events, and any legal or official standing it has.

Where appropriate, primary material carries the most weight:

• Judgments and court orders
• Decisions, final notices and warnings issued by regulators
• Companies House filings and other statutory records
• Insolvency and disqualification records
• Official sanctions lists
• Authenticated company documents
• Original contracts and correspondence

Reputable journalism, professional research, interviews and other published work are secondary. A newspaper report proves that something was reported; it does not, by itself, prove what was reported.

Each court document is described by the job it does in the case:

An allegation in a statement of case stays an allegation, however official the court bundle it sits in.

Warnings, final notices, enforcement action, official statements and administrative cases are attributed to the authority behind them, for example the Financial Conduct Authority, the Insolvency Service, the Serious Fraud Office or the Gambling Commission.

Where an authority alleges wrongdoing and the matter is open, we report an allegation or proceedings. Where it has reached a final decision, we report the decision and its status.

Settlements are described on their actual terms, including, where relevant, whether liability was admitted, denied or not addressed.

Where we reasonably can, material adverse allegations are confirmed by independent evidence, such as:

Repetition is not confirmation. Twenty review sites repeating one original complaint are still one complaint.

We use lawful open-source methods to find and analyse information that is public or lawfully available: registers, websites, archived pages, social platforms, domain records and published documents. Tracer, our research system, helps organise that work.

Before relying on anything digital, we check whether it is genuine, where it came from, when it was made, its context, and whether it could have been altered.

A screenshot of unknown origin proves nothing.

Where appropriate, researchers may lawfully visit addresses, premises or events to see for themselves, for example whether a registered office is a real place of business.

What they observe is recorded accurately and kept separate from any conclusion drawn from it.

They stay within the law: no trespass, unlawful surveillance, bribery, theft, hacking or other prohibited conduct.

Some people can speak to us only if their identity is protected.

Before relying on them we weigh how they know what they say, how credible they are, what they may stand to gain, and whether their account can be checked another way.

We do not normally present a serious allegation as fact on the word of an unnamed source alone. Where the law allows and it is justified, we may keep a source’s identity confidential.

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

Material from victims, subjects, members, solicitors, companies, whistleblowers and the public goes through the same checks.

A paying member’s evidence carries no extra weight. Money plays no part in whether evidence is accepted, rejected, relied on or published.

Send us evidence to review

A subject’s evidence is not discounted because it undercuts work already done.

A judgment, discontinuance, acquittal, corrected filing, proof of payment or other reliable document that materially affects an entry is assessed on its merits.

The aim is a correct entry, not the defence of an earlier conclusion.

Where credible evidence points in different directions, the entry may set out:

• what each source shows;
• where they differ;
• whether one is more reliable; and
• what remains unresolved.

If the evidence cannot responsibly settle an important point, we say so.

A documented link between people or companies does not, without more, show that anyone knew of, took part in, controlled or is responsible for someone else’s conduct. Sharing a registered office or a formation agent is common and usually innocent.

Shared names are common too. We take reasonable steps to confirm identity, for example by date of birth, directorship history or address, before attaching anything adverse to a person.

Our researchers may never obtain information through unauthorised computer access, theft, bribery, impersonation, trespass or similar means.

Material that others pass to us raises its own legal and editorial questions, which we work through before keeping, using or publishing it.

Before material adverse allegations are published, the subject is normally given a fair opportunity to respond where that is practicable and appropriate.

Any evidence they send is assessed before publication. A bare denial does not outweigh reliable evidence to the contrary; the entry reflects what the evidence finally supports.

Matters develop. A documented allegation can become a prosecution; a prosecution can end in a verdict; a conviction can be quashed; a warning can be withdrawn; a claim can be struck out.

When a verified development changes the legal or evidential position, the entry is updated and, where appropriate, regraded.

Entries often cross borders, and even within the United Kingdom, Scotland and Northern Ireland have their own legal systems. Relevant areas can include:

For England and Wales, the main statutes are the Defamation Act 2013, the UK General Data Protection Regulation with the Data Protection Act 2018, and the Contempt of Court Act 1981. Matters involving other countries are assessed under the law of each country concerned.