Independent public-interest investigationsEvidence before accusation · Updated research, not rumor
EXPOSING CORRUPTIONFollow the evidence Read investigations ↗
Power · Money · Accountability

Follow the money.
Find the facts.

Investigating corruption, illicit finance, sanctions evasion, and the systems that allow public wealth to be abused. We ask hard questions—and follow the evidence wherever it leads.

Explore investigations How we verify claims
● Public records. Reliable sources. Clear distinctions between fact and allegation.
Our central questionWho benefits, where did the money come from, and what evidence can independently verify the answer?
Start here

Investigate the system,
not just the headline.

Financial misconduct can be difficult to trace. These guides explain the mechanisms and point readers toward records and institutions that can verify claims.

ExplainerStart here

How money laundering works

A plain-language guide to placement, layering, and integration—and why those stages are not always neat or visible.

Financial crime6 min read
Read the explainer →
Investigation guideEvidence-led

Following public money

How budgets, procurement notices, audit reports, company records, and court documents can illuminate suspicious spending.

Public finance5 min read
Read the guide →
AccountabilityEssential

Allegation is not a verdict

How to distinguish an allegation, an investigation, a charge, a court finding, and a final conviction.

Our standards4 min read
Read our standards →
Our approach

Accountability starts with verifiable facts.

We focus on systems, documents, and decisions—not unsupported accusations. Our aim is to make complex financial issues understandable and useful to the public.

Read our editorial standards →
01

Start with primary records

Seek court judgments, official audits, public procurement data, sanctions notices, and company filings where available.

02

Corroborate independently

Compare sources, check dates and jurisdictions, and avoid treating a single unverified claim as proof.

03

Give context and right of reply

Explain what is known, what remains uncertain, and include relevant responses or corrections when available.

Research desk

Investigations & explainers

Explore the methods, institutions, and evidence behind public-interest financial investigations. This starter library contains explainers, not accusations against named individuals.

6 research guidesBrowse by topic
Financial crimeExplainer

How money laundering works

Understand common stages and why tracing the beneficial owner and source of funds matters.

Basics6 min read
Read article →
Public financeGuide

Following public money

A practical map of budget documents, tender notices, audit reports, and court records.

Research methods5 min read
Read article →
SanctionsExplainer

Sanctions and hidden ownership

How ownership, control, intermediaries, and jurisdiction can complicate sanctions enforcement.

International law7 min read
Read article →
AccountabilityStandards

From allegation to verdict

Why accurate legal language matters when reporting on people and institutions.

Editorial practice4 min read
Read standards →
Public financeChecklist

Reading a public contract

Questions to ask about tender competition, contract amendments, beneficial ownership, and audit findings.

Documents5 min read
Read guide →
Research skillsToolkit

Verify before you publish

A source-checking workflow for documents, claims, images, and online information.

Verification4 min read
Read standards →
No matching guides. Try another search term or topic.
Understand the mechanisms

How corruption and illicit finance can intersect

These patterns can be warning signs, but no single pattern proves criminal conduct. Evidence, context, and lawful investigation matter.

The basics

Follow the transaction. Identify the control.

Money laundering is generally about concealing the criminal origin of assets. Corruption can generate proceeds through bribery, embezzlement, procurement fraud, or abuse of office. The offences are related but not identical.

A suspicious transaction is a reason to ask questions—not, by itself, proof that a crime occurred.
01

Possible proceeds of corruption

Bribes, diverted public funds, or fraud can generate illicit proceeds. Investigators seek the underlying decision, payment, beneficiary, and documentary trail.

02

Obscured ownership or origin

Complex company structures, nominees, or cross-border transfers can make it harder to identify who ultimately owns or controls an asset.

03

Use of the assets

Assets may be invested or spent through property, businesses, luxury goods, or other channels. The meaning of a transaction depends on evidence and context.

04

Detection and enforcement

Auditors, financial intelligence units, law enforcement, courts, journalists, and civil society can each contribute different pieces of the picture.

Questions for every case

What would establish the facts?

Who controls the asset?

Look for reliable beneficial-ownership records, corporate filings, declarations of interest, and verified links—not assumptions based on a name alone.

Where did the money originate?

Compare payment records, budgets, contracts, audit findings, bank or court evidence where lawfully available, and the timeline of events.

What do authorities actually say?

Read the full official notice or judgment. Check whether a matter is an allegation, an active investigation, a charge, or a final finding.

Editorial policy

Strong claims need strong evidence.

Our credibility depends on accuracy, transparency, fairness, and clear corrections. We do not label a person a criminal simply because an allegation exists.

1. Separate facts from allegations

We describe what records establish and attribute allegations to the person or institution making them. We distinguish allegations, investigations, charges, court findings, convictions, appeals, and acquittals.

2. Prefer primary sources

Where possible, we consult original judgments, official audit reports, government procurement records, regulatory notices, sanctions lists, company registries, and original datasets. Secondary reporting can provide context and leads, but important claims should be corroborated.

3. Verify independently

We check names, dates, amounts, jurisdictions, translations, and document provenance. Similar names do not establish identity. A suspicious pattern is not enough to establish intent or guilt.

4. Be fair and contextual

We seek meaningful responses to serious allegations when feasible and include relevant denials, explanations, case outcomes, and material uncertainty. We avoid implying guilt from association, political affiliation, nationality, or sanctions status alone.

5. Correct errors visibly

If a material error is identified, we review the evidence, correct the text, and explain significant changes. Readers should be able to contact us about factual concerns.

6. Protect sources

Do not send confidential, classified, illegally obtained, or personally sensitive material through an ordinary web form. This demo site does not provide secure or anonymous whistleblower submission. Consult a qualified lawyer or an established secure reporting organization if you face risk.

Legal note: This website is an educational prototype, not legal advice. Legal definitions, access to records, privacy rules, and defamation law vary by jurisdiction.
Research desk

Start with the source.

Use official documents and established research organizations to verify claims. Always check publication dates, methodology, jurisdiction, and the original underlying record.

These are starting points, not proof of any specific allegation. For a case study, link to the precise judgment, official notice, audit, dataset, or original report supporting each material claim.
Contact the editorial desk

Have a lead or a correction?

Share a public source, suggest a topic, or flag a possible factual error. Please read the privacy and security notice before sending anything.

Demo behavior: your text stays in this browser and is formatted for you to copy. Nothing is sent or stored by this page.

Message prepared.

Explainer · Financial crime

How money laundering works

A practical overview of the concepts investigators use to understand how criminal proceeds may be concealed.

Money laundering generally refers to processes intended to conceal the criminal origin of assets so they can be used or presented as legitimate. The exact legal definition differs by jurisdiction.

Three commonly described stages

Placement

Illicit cash or assets enter the financial system or economy. Investigators may examine deposits, cash-intensive businesses, or unusual payments—but each transaction needs context.

Layering

Transactions or structures may be used to make the origin or ownership of funds harder to trace. Cross-border transfers, corporate structures, and intermediaries can complicate the picture, but legitimate businesses also use complex structures.

Integration

Assets may appear to be held or spent through apparently legitimate investments or purchases. Establishing whether assets are criminal proceeds requires evidence about the source of funds and the relevant underlying offence.

Where corruption can enter the picture

Corruption may generate illicit proceeds through bribery, embezzlement, procurement fraud, or abuse of office. Money laundering can then involve concealing those proceeds. A corrupt act and a laundering offence are distinct legal questions, even when they occur in the same case.

What investigators look for

  • Inconsistencies between declared income, known assets, and documented transactions.
  • Company ownership or control that is unclear or misrepresented.
  • Payments that appear inconsistent with a contract, service, or stated business purpose.
  • Audit findings, court evidence, or official records connecting funds to a suspected offence.
Red flags are leads for further review, not standalone proof of criminality. Responsible reporting must state the limits of the available evidence.

Further reading

Consult the FATF and UNODC resources listed on our Sources page and check the relevant law in the jurisdiction involved.

Investigation guide · Public finance

Following public money

A document-led approach to researching how public money is allocated, spent, reviewed, and challenged.

Start with the decision

Identify the public body, budget line, contract, grant, or project in question. Record the date, amount, decision-maker, stated purpose, and legal framework. Avoid starting from a conclusion and searching only for facts that support it.

Build a document trail

  • Budget and spending records: what was approved, what was paid, and when.
  • Procurement notices: tender criteria, number of bidders, award decisions, and amendments.
  • Audit reports: documented weaknesses, unsupported expenses, or recommendations.
  • Company records: legal entities, directors, and beneficial ownership where public and lawfully accessible.
  • Court and regulator documents: findings, charges, orders, settlements, and appeal outcomes.

Check alternative explanations

Single-bid contracts, cost overruns, late payments, or links between people can warrant questions, but they do not automatically prove corruption. Consider emergency procurement rules, market conditions, legal exceptions, and the full record.

Make a timeline

Arrange decisions, contracts, payments, company changes, audits, and official statements chronologically. A timeline can expose contradictions and show which questions remain unanswered.

Write a fair finding

For each key statement, record the source and what it actually establishes. Separate documented facts from inference. Seek a response from relevant parties before publishing serious allegations and include material responses fairly.

Never publish private personal information simply because it is available. Consider privacy, public interest, safety, and applicable law before disclosure.

Use the Sources page for starting points, then cite the exact documents that support the article.

Explainer · International law

Sanctions and hidden ownership

Why identifying who owns or controls an asset can matter when restrictive measures apply.

What sanctions do

Sanctions are legal restrictions adopted by states or international bodies for specified foreign-policy, security, or legal purposes. They can target individuals, companies, sectors, transactions, or assets. Their scope and legal effect depend on the exact measure and jurisdiction.

Ownership and control are not always simple

Assets may be held through companies, trusts, or intermediaries. Investigators and compliance professionals may need to determine who ultimately owns or controls an entity, while respecting the legal definitions and evidence standards that apply.

What a careful investigation checks

  • The exact legal instrument and current official listing.
  • The identity of the person or entity, taking care with similar names and transliterations.
  • Relevant ownership and control tests under the applicable rules.
  • The dates on which transactions occurred and restrictions took effect.
  • Official guidance, licences, exceptions, delisting decisions, and subsequent legal developments.

A listing is not a universal conclusion

Sanctions status does not by itself prove money laundering or every other crime. Likewise, allegations of evasion need specific evidence. Report the precise legal status and avoid treating association or nationality as proof of wrongdoing.

Sanctions change. Always verify current status with the relevant official authority and consult qualified legal advice for a specific transaction or case.

For EU measures, begin with the official information linked on our Sources page.