Editorial Policy
Effective Date: March 1, 2025
Our Mission
ReportingScams.com is an independent investigative journalism and consumer protection publication dedicated to exposing scams, financial fraud, deceptive business practices, cryptocurrency risks, corporate misconduct, and other matters of public interest.
Our purpose is to help consumers, investors, businesses, and the public make better-informed decisions by publishing fact-based reporting supported by publicly available evidence.
We believe transparency, accountability, and access to reliable information are among the most effective tools for preventing fraud and reducing consumer harm.
Our Editorial Principles
Everything we publish is guided by the following principles:
Accuracy
We strive to verify information before publication using reliable and publicly available sources. While no reporting process is perfect, accuracy remains our highest priority.
Fairness
We seek to present information fairly and provide appropriate context. We avoid deliberately misleading readers through selective reporting or omission of material facts.
Public Interest
Our reporting focuses on issues that may affect consumers, investors, businesses, regulators, or the wider public.
Editorial Independence
Our editorial decisions are made independently and are never influenced by payments, commercial relationships, political interests, or outside pressure.
Transparency
Whenever possible, we identify the sources used in our reporting so readers can independently verify the information.
What We Publish
ReportingScams.com covers a broad range of topics relating to fraud, scams, financial misconduct, and consumer protection, including:
- Scam investigations
- Cryptocurrency risk reports
- Ponzi and pyramid scheme analysis
- Fraud alerts
- Consumer protection news
- Corporate misconduct
- Regulatory enforcement actions
- Market manipulation
- Public sentiment analysis
- Company reviews
- Financial crime reporting
- Cyber-enabled fraud
- Digital asset investigations
Our editorial focus may evolve as new risks emerge.
Our Sources
We rely primarily on information that is lawfully available to the public.
Depending on the subject, our reporting may reference:
- Court records
- Regulatory filings
- Government publications
- Law enforcement announcements
- Corporate registrations
- Company disclosures
- Securities filings
- Bankruptcy records
- Official press releases
- Consumer complaints
- Academic research
- Industry reports
- Archived web pages
- Public interviews
- Public social media posts
- Public discussion forums
- News organizations
- Public blockchain records
- User-submitted documentation that can be reasonably verified
Whenever practical, we link to original source material so readers can examine the evidence for themselves.
Investigative Methodology
Every investigation is different.
Depending on the circumstances, our editorial process may include:
- Collecting publicly available documentation.
- Reviewing regulatory actions.
- Examining legal filings.
- Comparing historical records.
- Reviewing archived websites.
- Analyzing corporate structures.
- Examining public blockchain transactions.
- Reviewing consumer complaints.
- Comparing multiple independent sources.
- Evaluating official company statements.
- Monitoring developments after publication.
Not every article involves every step. The depth of our reporting depends on the availability of reliable evidence.
Fact-Checking Standards
Before publication, we make reasonable efforts to verify factual statements using credible sources.
Our fact-checking process may include:
- Reviewing original documents.
- Comparing multiple independent sources.
- Confirming dates, names, and public records.
- Verifying regulatory actions.
- Confirming legal filings.
- Reviewing historical versions of websites.
- Checking publicly available company statements.
Where facts cannot be independently confirmed, we make reasonable efforts to clearly distinguish verified information from allegations, opinions, or publicly reported claims.
Publicly Available Information
Many of our investigations rely on publicly available information.
Public availability does not automatically establish the accuracy of every statement contained within a source.
Accordingly, we evaluate sources for credibility, context, relevance, and consistency before relying upon them.
Readers should understand that some information may later change due to new evidence, regulatory decisions, judicial findings, or company responses.
Reviews and Public Sentiment Analysis
ReportingScams.com publishes reviews and public sentiment analyses designed to help readers better understand how companies, products, or services are discussed in publicly available sources.
Our reviews may consider information from:
- Reddit discussions
- Trustpilot reviews
- Google Reviews
- Quora discussions
- YouTube videos
- Consumer complaint websites
- News reporting
- Public forums
- Public social media discussions
We do not rely solely on numerical ratings.
Instead, we examine recurring themes, customer experiences, recurring complaints, documented praise, patterns of behaviour, publicly reported issues, and other relevant information available at the time of publication.
Reviews represent an editorial assessment of publicly available information and should not be interpreted as definitive statements of fact regarding any person, company, or organization.
Opinion and Analysis
Some articles contain editorial analysis.
Analytical reporting may include commentary regarding:
- Business practices.
- Consumer risk.
- Regulatory developments.
- Investment risks.
- Market behaviour.
- Public trends.
Opinion and analysis are based on the information reasonably available at the time of publication and should not be interpreted as legal findings or official determinations.
Allegations and Ongoing Matters
Reporting often involves matters that remain under investigation or are the subject of ongoing legal or regulatory proceedings.
When reporting on such matters, we aim to make clear when information relates to:
- Allegations.
- Pending litigation.
- Regulatory investigations.
- Public complaints.
- Statements made by third parties.
The existence of an allegation should not be interpreted as proof of wrongdoing.
Similarly, the absence of regulatory action should not necessarily be interpreted as confirmation that no misconduct occurred.
Right of Reply
Where appropriate and reasonably practical, ReportingScams.com supports the principle that individuals and organizations who are the subject of significant reporting should have an opportunity to provide clarification, additional context, or factual corrections.
Responses received before publication may be reflected in the article where relevant.
Responses received after publication may be incorporated into updates where appropriate and supported by evidence.
Corrections Policy
Accuracy is more important than speed.
If we discover a factual error, we will review it promptly.
Where appropriate, we may:
- Correct the article.
- Update information.
- Add clarification.
- Include additional context.
- Publish an editorial note.
Not every disagreement constitutes a factual error.
We generally do not remove truthful reporting solely because it is unfavorable or damaging to someone’s reputation.
Updating Published Articles
Investigations frequently evolve.
Articles may be updated to reflect:
- New regulatory actions.
- Court decisions.
- Official statements.
- Additional evidence.
- Company responses.
- Corrections.
- Changes in circumstances.
Unless substantial editorial reasons require otherwise, we may retain the publication date while updating the content to improve accuracy and completeness.
User Submitted Information
Readers may submit:
- Scam reports.
- Supporting documents.
- Consumer experiences.
- Tips.
- Research material.
- Public records.
- Other relevant evidence.
Submission does not guarantee publication.
Our editorial team may independently verify submitted information before relying upon it.
We reserve the right to decline publication where information cannot be reasonably verified.
Anonymous Sources
In limited circumstances, we may receive information from anonymous or confidential sources.
We carefully evaluate the credibility of such information before relying upon it.
Whenever possible, anonymous-source information is corroborated using independent documentation or publicly available evidence.
We do not publish anonymous allegations solely because they have been submitted.
Editorial Independence
ReportingScams.com operates independently.
We do not sell editorial coverage.
We do not accept payment in exchange for:
- Positive reviews.
- Better rankings.
- Favorable reporting.
- Removal of legitimate editorial content.
- Investigative findings.
Commercial relationships do not influence editorial decisions.
Conflicts of Interest
Editors, researchers, and contributors are expected to avoid conflicts that could compromise objective reporting.
Where a material conflict exists, appropriate editorial safeguards may be implemented, including reassignment of the reporting or additional editorial review.
Sponsored Content
ReportingScams.com does not permit advertisers, sponsors, or commercial partners to influence investigative reporting or editorial conclusions.
If sponsored or promotional material is ever published, it will be clearly identified so readers can distinguish it from independent editorial content.
Artificial Intelligence
Artificial intelligence tools may occasionally assist with administrative tasks such as research organization, grammar review, formatting, or summarizing publicly available information.
However, editorial decisions, fact-checking, investigative conclusions, and publication approval remain under human editorial control.
No investigation is published solely on the basis of AI-generated content.
Editorial Updates
Because scams, investigations, and regulatory actions evolve, articles may be revised over time to improve accuracy or reflect new developments.
Readers are encouraged to consult the most recent version of an article where updates have been made.
Requests for Corrections
If you believe an article contains a factual inaccuracy, omits material context, or relies on information that has since changed, you may submit a correction request.
To help us evaluate your request, please include:
- The article title or URL.
- A description of the alleged error.
- Supporting documentation.
- Official records where available.
- Contact information for follow-up if required.
Every legitimate request is reviewed individually.
Submitting a correction request does not guarantee that content will be modified or removed.
Transparency Commitment
We believe investigative journalism carries significant responsibility.
Our goal is not to damage reputations or promote particular interests.
Our responsibility is to publish accurate, evidence-based reporting that serves the public interest.
We encourage readers to review original documents, examine cited sources, consider multiple perspectives, and make their own informed decisions.
Transparency, accountability, and responsible journalism remain the foundation of everything we publish.
Contact Our Editorial Team
Questions regarding our editorial standards, correction requests, source material, or investigative methodology may be sent to:
Email: [email protected]
We welcome constructive feedback, credible evidence, and information that helps improve the quality, fairness, and accuracy of our reporting.