Evidence Standards

LegalEvidence does not assign guilt, innocence, integrity or character scores to individuals or organisations. Our classifications concern the status of the evidence.

A complaint may establish that an allegation was formally made. It does not, by itself, establish that the allegation is true.

An indictment may establish that charges were brought. It does not establish guilt.

A judgment may establish findings made by a court, subject to the scope of that judgment and any subsequent appeal.

Every record must preserve these distinctions.

LegalEvidence uses defined classifications to communicate how far a matter has progressed and what the available record establishes.

LegalEvidence evaluates sources according to their origin, authenticity, proximity to the underlying facts and legal or institutional status.

Where appropriate, greater weight may be given to primary materials such as:

• Court judgments and orders
• Official regulatory decisions
• Government records
• Statutory filings
• Authenticated corporate records
• Official sanctions records
• Original contracts and documents

Secondary sources may include reputable journalism, professional research, interviews and other published material.

Secondary reporting may establish that something has been reported. It does not automatically establish the underlying allegation as fact.

Court documents are described according to their procedural function.

• A complaint contains allegations made by a claimant or plaintiff.
• An indictment or criminal information contains accusations brought by prosecuting authorities.
• A defence filing contains the position advanced by the responding party.
• A judgment or order records determinations made by the court within its stated scope.

LegalEvidence should not convert allegations contained in pleadings into statements of established fact merely because those allegations appear in an official court document.

Regulatory notices, enforcement actions, government statements and administrative proceedings are attributed to the issuing authority.

Where an authority alleges misconduct but proceedings remain unresolved, LegalEvidence identifies the matter as an allegation or proceeding.

Where an authority has made a final determination, the record identifies the finding and its status.

Settlements are described according to their actual terms, including whether liability was admitted, denied or neither admitted nor denied where materially relevant.

Material adverse allegations should ordinarily be corroborated through independent evidence where reasonably possible. Corroboration may include:

The number of sources alone does not determine reliability. Multiple sources repeating the same original allegation do not necessarily constitute independent corroboration.

LegalEvidence may use lawful open-source intelligence to identify, locate and analyse publicly or lawfully accessible information.

This may include corporate databases, public registries, websites, historical web records, social platforms, domain information, public documents and other open sources.

Digital material should be assessed for authenticity, provenance, date, context and potential manipulation before substantive reliance.

A screenshot without reliable provenance should not automatically be treated as conclusive evidence.

Where appropriate, LegalEvidence investigators may conduct lawful on-site research to verify locations, businesses, operations, events or other relevant circumstances.

Observations should be documented accurately and separated from inference.

Investigators must comply with applicable law and must not obtain evidence through trespass, unlawful surveillance, bribery, theft, hacking or other prohibited conduct.

LegalEvidence may receive information from sources who request confidentiality.

Before materially relying on confidential-source information, consideration should be given to the source’s basis of knowledge, credibility, potential conflicts, motivation and whether the information can be independently corroborated.

A serious allegation should not ordinarily be published as established fact solely because an unidentified source asserted it.

LegalEvidence may protect a source’s identity where legally permissible and editorially justified.

Submission does not establish authenticity, accuracy or relevance.

Documents submitted by complainants, subjects, members, lawyers, companies, whistleblowers or other third parties are subject to the same verification principles.

Membership does not increase the evidentiary weight of a submission. Payment does not affect whether evidence is accepted, rejected, published or relied upon.

Submit evidence for review

Evidence supplied by the subject of a record must not be disregarded merely because it conflicts with an existing investigation.

If a subject provides a judgment, dismissal, acquittal, corrected filing, transaction record or other reliable evidence materially affecting the record, it should be evaluated on its merits.

LegalEvidence’s purpose is to maintain an accurate record — not to preserve an earlier conclusion.

Where credible evidence materially conflicts, LegalEvidence should not conceal the conflict. The record may state:

• what each source establishes;
• where the sources disagree;
• whether one source carries greater evidentiary weight;
• and what remains unresolved.

Where the available evidence cannot responsibly resolve a material issue, the record should say so.

A documented connection between individuals or entities does not, without additional evidence, establish knowledge, participation, control or responsibility for another person’s conduct.

Likewise, matching names do not establish matching identities.

Reasonable steps should be taken to resolve identity before adverse information is attributed to a person or organisation.

LegalEvidence does not authorise investigators to obtain information through unlawful computer access, theft, bribery, impersonation, trespass or other unlawful means.

Material received from third parties presents separate legal and editorial questions and should be assessed before possession, use or publication.

The fact that information may be newsworthy does not automatically determine whether it may lawfully be obtained, retained or published.

Before publication of material adverse allegations, the subject should ordinarily be given a reasonable opportunity to respond where practicable and appropriate.

Relevant evidence supplied in response should be assessed before publication.

A denial is likewise not automatically sufficient to displace reliable contrary evidence.

The record should reflect what the evidence ultimately supports.

Evidence is not static.

• A documented allegation may later become a formal proceeding.
• A proceeding may result in a finding.
• A conviction may be overturned.
• A regulatory designation may be withdrawn.
• A civil claim may be dismissed.

When a verified material development changes the legal or evidentiary status of a matter, LegalEvidence should update the record and, where appropriate, its classification.

LegalEvidence operates across multiple jurisdictions. The legal significance and permissibility of collecting, processing and publishing information may therefore differ according to the circumstances.

Relevant considerations may include, as applicable, laws concerning:

For example, publications governed by the law of England and Wales may engage the Defamation Act 2013, including its provisions concerning serious harm, truth and publication on matters of public interest, as well as applicable provisions of the Data Protection Act 2018 and UK GDPR.

U.S. publications may engage federal constitutional protections and applicable state defamation, privacy, anti-SLAPP, court-record and newsgathering laws.

Matters involving Asian jurisdictions are assessed under the laws applicable to the particular jurisdiction concerned.

Before a material assertion is published, the responsible team should be able to answer:

1. What exactly are we asserting?
2. What evidence supports it?
3. Is the source authentic and accurately represented?
4. Are we describing an allegation as an allegation and a finding as a finding?
5. Is contrary or exculpatory evidence material?
6. Has the subject been given an appropriate opportunity to respond?
7. Is the wording proportionate to what the evidence actually establishes?

If those questions cannot be answered satisfactorily, the material should not be published in its proposed form.