A record built to be checked, not just believed.

Online, a claim outlasts its context. A complaint gets shared; the decision that threw it out does not. A charge stays searchable long after the acquittal. Two companies get linked with nothing to show what the link really means.

It cuts the other way too. The real judgments, regulator actions and company ties behind a scam can be spread across emirates, free zones, countries and registries that are hard to find and harder to read side by side.

Dubai Scammers exists to keep a more careful record. We gather the evidence that matters, show where each piece came from and how far its case has got, and never let an allegation pass for a finding.

An investigation should never begin with the conclusion we would like to reach.

Our researchers may examine court records, mainland and free-zone company structures, managers and shareholders, ownership details, regulator activity, sanctions lists, official databases, material people send us and other lawfully available sources.

Where it fits the matter, investigators may use lawful open-source research, interview people and make inquiries on the ground. Key evidence is tested for authenticity, origin, context and relevance before we lean on it.

If the evidence knocks down our starting idea, that is a result too. The aim is an accurate record — not a theory to defend.

Material investigations move through several checks before publication.

1. 1ResearchThe evidence file is built first, gaps included.
2. 2VerificationSources and key claims are tested and, where possible, corroborated.
3. 3Legal reviewWhere a matter needs it, lawyers look at the material — in the UAE and in any other jurisdiction involved.
4. 4Editorial reviewEditors shape the record under our editorial standards and check every grade.

None of this makes Dubai Scammers a court, a regulator or a prosecutor. A lawyer reading a draft does not turn a claim into a ruling.

Our research often goes well past what is indexed online.

It can mean tracing companies and their owners, reading case files, lawful open-source work, checking documents, developing sources, interviews and — where it is justified — inquiries in person.

Investigators must stay within the law and our standards. We never sanction hacking, bribery, theft, unauthorised computer access, trespass, unlawful surveillance or made-up evidence.

Nobody gets a label from us saying they are “trustworthy,” “dangerous” or “a scammer.” We classify the evidence by what it actually establishes.

• An open case is shown as open.
• A claim stays a claim until its status changes.
• A decision is credited to the authority that made it.
• An acquittal, dismissal, reversal or delisting gets the same weight as the accusation before it.

That is why every record separates allegations, proceedings, findings and resolutions. How evidence is classified

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

Choosing not to reply, or not replying in time, is not evidence of wrongdoing.

If someone sends reliable documents that seriously contradict our evidence, we must 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 can correct it. If later events change an accurate record, we can update it. If a grade no longer fits where a case stands, we can change it.

You do not need a membership to challenge our reporting. Getting it right is not a paid extra. Corrections Policy

We take no money, gifts, favours or anything else in exchange for hiding, removing, delaying or materially changing accurate reporting.

Research Membership and our professional research services sit apart from editorial decisions.

A member may send evidence. A lawyer may challenge a record. A person named may ask for a correction. Every one of those requests is judged on its evidence.

No one 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 receive permission-based access to Lens, our internal research resources, company and person research and professional support. Access is restricted and reviewed.

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

Dubai Scammers is built for anyone who needs the underlying record rather than search results or unsupported claims, including:

Some services and some information carry their own access controls.

One matter can involve a company licensed in a free zone, managers living abroad, a case heard in another country and funds held somewhere else again.

We are set up to follow those threads without pretending different legal systems work the same way. Where it applies, our review can draw on legal views from the UAE and the other jurisdictions involved.

The law we consider is the law of the place actually concerned. Browse by jurisdiction

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

Where it is 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 transparent means explaining the process without breaking those duties.