Last updated: July 2026
How InvestorWatchdog investigates financial fraud, calculates Risk Scores, and verifies the evidence behind every investigation we publish.
Overview
InvestorWatchdog investigations are built on documentary evidence, regulatory records, on-chain data, and verified victim testimony. We do not publish allegations that cannot be substantiated to our editorial standard.
Our investigative process typically involves three phases: initial intelligence gathering, deep-dive research and verification, and editorial review. Major investigations take between four and twelve weeks from initial tip to publication.
We publish our methodology in full so that readers, subjects, and other journalists can assess the basis of our reporting. Transparency about how we work is fundamental to our credibility.
Risk Score Methodology
The InvestorWatchdog Risk Score is a 0–100 composite score applied to Platform Exposé investigations. It represents our editorial assessment of the risk level associated with a specific firm or platform based on the evidence gathered during our investigation.
- 0–39: Low Risk
- 40–69: Medium Risk
- 70–100: High Risk
Important: The Risk Score is an editorial assessment tool, not a financial rating. It should not be used as the sole basis for any investment decision. A score of 0 does not mean a firm is safe to invest with.
Risk Score Factors
The Risk Score is calculated from seven weighted factors. Weights reflect the relative importance of each factor in our assessment of fraud risk.
Regulatory Status — 25%
Whether the firm holds valid authorisation from a recognised regulator (FCA, SEC, ASIC, etc.). Clone firms and unauthorised operators score maximum points in this category.
Withdrawal Refusal Pattern — 20%
Evidence of systematic withdrawal refusals, delays, or additional fee demands. Sourced from victim testimonials, complaint databases, and direct testing where possible.
Corporate Structure Opacity — 15%
Complexity and opacity of corporate structure. Offshore registrations, nominee directors, and shell company chains increase this score.
Complaint Volume & Severity — 15%
Volume and severity of complaints from verifiable sources including FOS, CFPB, Trustpilot (verified reviews), and direct victim submissions.
Marketing Practices — 10%
Use of misleading claims, fake testimonials, pressure selling, guaranteed return promises, or celebrity endorsements.
On-Chain Evidence — 10%
For crypto-related investigations: wallet clustering, liquidity pool analysis, token distribution, and transaction pattern analysis.
Document Authenticity — 5%
Assessment of regulatory documents, audit reports, and company filings provided by the firm for authenticity and accuracy.
Source Verification
Every factual claim in an InvestorWatchdog investigation must be verified to our editorial standard before publication. Our verification hierarchy is:
- Primary: Original documents: regulatory filings, court records, company registrations, bank statements, on-chain transaction data.
- Secondary: On-record statements from named sources with direct knowledge of the facts.
- Corroborated: Claims supported by two or more independent sources, where primary documentation is unavailable.
- Contextual: Background information from credible published sources, clearly attributed.
Anonymous tips are treated as leads only. They may direct our research but are never published as facts without independent verification.
On-Chain Analysis
For crypto-related investigations, we use blockchain analytics to trace fund flows, identify wallet clusters, and analyse token distribution patterns.
Our on-chain analysis uses publicly available blockchain data and professional-grade analytics tools. We verify wallet attributions through multiple independent sources before publishing.
We clearly distinguish between confirmed on-chain facts (transaction data is public and immutable) and analytical inferences (wallet attribution, intent). Inferences are clearly labelled as such.
Regulatory Research
We check every firm we investigate against the following regulatory registers as standard:
- FCA Register (UK) — register.fca.org.uk
- SEC EDGAR (US) — sec.gov/cgi-bin/browse-edgar
- FINRA BrokerCheck (US) — brokercheck.finra.org
- ASIC Connect (Australia) — connectonline.asic.gov.au
- ESMA Register (EU) — registers.esma.europa.eu
- Companies House (UK) — companieshouse.gov.uk
We also check FCA Warning Lists, SEC investor alerts, ASIC warnings, and Interpol notices for relevant entries.
Editorial Process
Every investigation goes through a structured editorial process before publication:
- Initial intelligence assessment — is there sufficient basis to investigate?
- Research phase — documentary evidence gathering, source interviews, regulatory checks
- Right of reply — subject contacted with allegations and given reasonable response time
- Legal review — for investigations involving serious allegations
- Editorial review — senior editor reviews all evidence and the draft
- Fact-check — independent fact-check of all specific claims
- Publication — with full evidence documentation retained on file
Limitations & Caveats
We are transparent about the limitations of our methodology:
- Risk Scores reflect evidence available at time of publication and may not reflect subsequent developments.
- Regulatory status can change — always verify current status directly with the relevant regulator.
- On-chain wallet attribution is probabilistic, not certain. We clearly label inferences.
- Victim testimony is subjective. We corroborate accounts where possible but cannot verify every detail.
- Our investigations focus on publicly available evidence. We may not have access to all relevant information.
- InvestorWatchdog is not a law enforcement agency. Our findings are editorial assessments, not legal determinations.