Between a tip and a published entry.

UK Scam works with legal reviewers who know the law of England and Wales and, where a matter reaches further, Scotland, Northern Ireland or other countries involved.

They may be asked about the status of evidence, court and regulatory proceedings, attribution, defamation, privacy, data protection, confidentiality, contempt of court and reporting restrictions, and any other legal question a publication raises.

A case that crosses borders may need more than one legal view. We apply the law of the places genuinely involved, and never treat one legal system as a stand-in for another.

Significant investigations may be legally reviewed before publication, especially when an entry deals with alleged fraud, scams, criminal conduct, corruption, financial wrongdoing, sanctions, regulatory breaches, litigation or other serious adverse matters.

A reviewer may ask whether each key statement is properly supported, whether each allegation is attributed to the right source, whether the stage of a case is described accurately, and whether defamation, privacy, data protection, contempt or reporting restrictions mean the wording has to change.

Legal review protects how we publish. It is not a ruling, and it establishes no guilt, liability or wrongdoing.

A person may live in one country, run a company registered in England, face a claim in another country and move money through a third.

We therefore consider the legal setting of every jurisdiction genuinely connected to the matter. Where appropriate, material may go to a legal professional who knows that jurisdiction before anything is published.

Each question is answered under the law of the place it concerns, never by assuming that the rules elsewhere are the same.

Significant investigations may go through several rounds of research, editing and legal review. At each stage, reviewers ask whether:

• the evidence is genuine and reliable enough;
• allegations and decisions have been kept apart;
• evidence pointing the other way has been weighed;
• the people named had a fair chance to respond; and
• the final wording goes further than the evidence allows.

If a reviewer finds a real weakness, publication waits while we obtain more evidence, a clarification or legal advice.

Review exists to test an investigation, not to approve it by default.

Editors turn complicated evidence into an entry that says plainly what is known, what is alleged, what is disputed and what has been formally decided.

Headlines, summaries and short descriptions are held to the same standard as the full text.

An allegation does not become a “scam” or a “fraud” because the stronger word reads better. An investigation is not a finding. A civil claim is not a criminal conviction. A dismissal or acquittal is never buried because it spoils an earlier story.

We owe readers the whole record. Read the editorial standards

Researchers may work with court files, judgments, regulator decisions, Companies House records, the FCA register, Insolvency Service notices, sanctions lists, material sent in by readers and other lawfully obtained documents.

Wherever reasonably possible, key claims are traced back to the original. The task is to establish what a document actually proves, not to repeat someone else’s description of it.

When credible evidence undermines the starting point of an investigation, it goes into the file all the same.

Investigators may carry out lawful open-source research, speak to sources, research companies and the people behind them, examine documents and, where justified, make enquiries in person.

They keep three things apart: what they saw for themselves, what they were told, and what they are inferring from the evidence.

UK Scam never authorises hacking, bribery, theft, unauthorised access to computers, trespass, unlawful surveillance, impersonation for unlawful purposes or fabricated evidence.

How a fact was obtained matters as much as the fact itself.

Before a matter reaches an editor, the research may be organised into an evidence file containing:

Keeping these stages apart is deliberate. A writer should never have to build a serious allegation out of unchecked fragments. Research comes first and sets the limits of what can be said.

1. IGatherCollect the documents that exist and note the gaps.
2. IIInvestigateAsk the next questions, and obtain further information where that is justified.
3. IIIVerifyTest authenticity, origin, corroboration, the stage any case has reached, and anything that points the other way.
4. IVLegal checkConsider the legal and jurisdictional issues the matter raises.
5. VEditMake sure the headline, summary, grades and context fairly reflect the evidence.
6. VIHear the subjectWeigh any reply or documents from the person or company named, where a reply was sought.
7. VIIPublishOnly once the people responsible are satisfied that the entry meets UK Scam's standards.

The exact route depends on the nature, urgency, jurisdiction and legal circumstances of each matter.

Where reasonably possible and appropriate, anyone facing serious adverse reporting is offered the chance to respond before publication.

A response might point out an error, add documents, dispute an allegation, explain a payment or show that a case has been dismissed, overturned or changed. We weigh it on its merits.

Silence does not make an allegation true. A denial does not cancel evidence we have independently verified.

Evidence that points the other way must be considered.

If someone was charged, what happened next matters. If a source alleges a scam but official records contradict it, that matters. If the person named sends genuine documents disproving a key claim, we cannot set them aside because they weaken the story.

Dismissals, acquittals, successful appeals, corrected records and other developments in someone’s favour are given proper weight. The aim is an accurate record, not keeping an accusation alive.

Reviewers, editors, researchers and investigators must declare any relationship or interest that could reasonably cause someone to doubt their independence.

A conflict can lead to recusal, reassignment, an additional independent review or another safeguard. Someone with a real financial, personal or professional stake in the outcome should not normally decide a matter alone.

Conflicts are handled under our independence policy and logged in the conflict register.

UK Scam may charge for Research Membership, access to Tracer and other professional research services. Those arrangements are kept away from editorial decisions.

No member, subject, sponsor, contributor or business partner can suppress evidence, approve an investigation, change a grade, block publication or pay to have accurate reporting removed.

Anyone can send evidence in support of a correction without paying anything. Money never decides what an entry says.

When reliable new evidence appears, a case moves on, an allegation is withdrawn, a judgment is overturned, a subject shows us a genuine error, or something else significant happens, the entry may be reviewed.

Genuine errors are corrected. Genuine developments are added.

Where an entry still holds up after review, pressure or payment alone is no reason to change it. Read the corrections policy

We may use technology, Tracer included, to search documents, match names to the right person or company, translate, compare records and keep sources in order.

Output from automated or AI tools is not evidence just because a system produced it. Every important factual statement must lead back to a reliable underlying source.

The decision to publish always rests with the people doing the research, verification, legal review and editing.

Solicitors, barristers and other legal professionals who work with UK Scam remain bound by the rules of their own regulators and the law of their own jurisdictions.

Nothing in our internal process overrides their duties on conflicts, confidentiality, privilege, independence or anything else that applies to them.

Where a legal professional cannot properly take part in a matter, another qualified reviewer is brought in if needed.

Readers should be able to see how our review works and who is accountable for it. That is why the roles, the order of review and the rules each person follows are all set out on this page.

People who work on fraud investigations can face harassment, intimidation, unwanted surveillance and other real risks. UK Scam does not currently publish the names, photographs, contact details or locations of its researchers, investigators, editors or legal reviewers. Editorial responsibility sits with UK Scam, and you can reach us through the contact page.

If we name a reviewer in future, their title, qualification and jurisdiction will be stated exactly and will be checkable. We will never invent or inflate a credential.