Evidence Standards

Nothing on this site scores a person’s honesty, character, guilt or innocence. A grade answers one narrow question: how far has the evidence gone?

A complaint tells you an allegation was formally made — not that it is correct. A charge tells you a prosecutor acted — not that anyone is guilty. A judgment tells you what a court decided — within its limits and subject to appeal.

Every record must keep those distinctions in plain sight.

We weigh each source by its origin, its authenticity, how close it sits to the events, and any legal or official standing it has.

Where it is appropriate, original material carries the most weight:

• Judgments and court orders
• Decisions and notices from regulators
• Government and free-zone records
• Statutory filings
• Authenticated company documents
• Official sanctions lists
• Original contracts and paperwork

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

We describe each court paper by the job it does in the case:

An allegation in a pleading stays an allegation, however official the folder it sits in.

Warnings, enforcement notices, official statements and administrative cases are attributed to the authority behind them.

If an authority alleges wrongdoing and the matter is still open, we report an allegation or a proceeding. If it has reached a final decision, we report the decision and where it stands.

Settlements are described on their actual terms, including — where it matters — whether liability was admitted, denied or left unaddressed.

Where we reasonably can, material adverse allegations are confirmed by independent evidence, for example:

Volume is not confirmation. Ten sites repeating one original claim are still one claim.

We use lawful open-source methods to find and analyse information that is public or lawfully available — registries, websites, archived pages, social platforms, domain data and published documents.

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

A screenshot of unknown origin settles nothing.

Where it is appropriate, investigators may lawfully visit addresses, premises or events to see things for themselves.

What they observe is written down accurately and kept apart from any conclusion drawn from it.

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

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

Before relying on them we weigh how they know what they say, how credible they are, what they might 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 private.

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

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

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

Send us evidence to review

We do not discount a subject’s evidence because it undercuts work already done.

A judgment, dismissal, acquittal, corrected filing, payment record or other reliable document that materially affects a record is assessed on its merits.

The goal is a correct record — not protecting an earlier conclusion.

Where credible evidence points different ways, the record may set out:

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

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

A documented link between people or companies does not, without more, show that anyone knew about, took part in, controlled or is responsible for another’s conduct.

Shared names are common, especially across languages and spellings. We take reasonable steps to confirm identity before attaching anything adverse to a person.

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

Material that others hand 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 normally gets a fair opportunity to respond where that is practical and appropriate.

We assess any evidence they send before publication. A denial on its own does not outweigh reliable evidence the other way — the record reflects what the evidence finally supports.

Cases develop. A documented allegation can become a formal case; a case can end in a ruling; a conviction can be overturned; a listing can be lifted; a claim can be thrown out.

When a verified development changes the legal or evidential position, we update the record and, where appropriate, its grade.

Our records often cross borders, so the rules on gathering, holding and publishing information differ from one matter to the next. Relevant areas can include:

For matters connected to the UAE, the relevant law includes [APPLICABLE DEFAMATION LAW] and [APPLICABLE DATA PROTECTION LAW]. Matters involving other countries are assessed under the law of each country concerned.