Independent legal information. This website is not affiliated with LSEG, World-Check, Refinitiv, LexisNexis or any screening provider. Eligibility, remedies and outcomes depend on law and evidence.
Typical factual errors in a World-Check profile
Common examples include a discontinued investigation still described as ongoing, an acquittal missing from a historic allegation, incorrect ownership of a company or a reference to a different person with a similar name. Records of past events may still be accurate if clearly dated and properly contextualised.
Comparing profile assertions with primary evidence
The case begins with a line-by-line comparison of the profile, its cited sources and the documents available. We would prepare a change log that distinguishes objectively wrong fields from disputed characterisations or requests to append later developments.
Proof for a targeted correction submission
| Document or record | Why it may help |
|---|---|
| Current profile or data-access response | Establishes the relevant dates and identities |
| Published source material | Tests what the decision-maker actually recorded |
| Dated court or regulatory outcome | Supports an objective factual comparison |
| Company and identity records | Shows a later event or possible consequence |
Why a precise amendment may work better than a blanket request
Not every disputed opinion constitutes inaccurate personal data. Correction may mean adding context rather than removing the historic entry.
Build a field-by-field correction schedule
| Profile field | Current wording | Requested amendment | Supporting source |
|---|---|---|---|
| Person identifier | Wrong date of birth | Correct date or disambiguation | Official identity document |
| Legal status | 'Under investigation' | Updated procedural status | Final authority communication |
| Company link | Former director labelled current | Correct historic relationship | Official corporate register |
The correction schedule is a working example, not a form for publishing personal data. Sensitive documents should be reviewed privately.
Two different decisions may need attention
A screening data provider can review the accuracy of its own record. A bank or regulated institution makes a separate decision about its customer relationship. The first outcome does not automatically determine the second.
Factual correction usually starts at the sentence level
A profile may contain several correct facts and one consequential mistake. The most focused challenge identifies that mistake without asking a provider to suppress verified material unrelated to it. Examples include incorrect dates, mixed identities, mischaracterised proceedings, company affiliations that ended years earlier, or a later official decision omitted from the summary.
Evidence-to-correction worksheet
| Disputed profile field | Question to verify | Preferred evidence |
|---|---|---|
| Identity, date of birth or alias | Is the record actually about the data subject? | Official identity or registry records, provided securely |
| Allegation and procedural status | What was alleged, charged, dismissed or finally decided? | Court docket and final operative decision |
| Company directorship or UBO | Was the role current at the cited date? | Official corporate registry extracts |
| PEP position | Is a past role presented as ongoing? | Appointment and departure records |
| Reported adverse media | Has the original publication been corrected? | Publisher correction and primary-source response |
Drafting a request that can be evaluated
The submission should state the exact data field, current wording, reason it is incorrect or incomplete, proposed accurate wording, evidence references and relevant legal basis. If part of the entry is a historic public fact, the request can distinguish preserving the history from presenting the misleading implication that the allegation remains unresolved.
Before sending the correction
- Confirm which entity is responsible for the processing at issue.
- Compare the report to its cited primary sources.
- Reconcile dates, transliterations and jurisdictions.
- Obtain current documentary evidence rather than relying on unsigned statements.
- Avoid attaching unrelated confidential information.
After a correction
Save the provider's written confirmation and examine whether it identifies the field actually changed. Ask whether any further clarification is needed. Do not assume an amendment propagates immediately to every customer system or that a bank must alter its customer-risk assessment. Where the client has been denied services, a separate explanation should connect the corrected fact to the bank's decision without assuming it was the only cause.
Frequently asked questions
What if a case was dismissed?
A dismissal may justify updating a record that incorrectly suggests a live or proven case; the historic event may remain relevant.
Can I challenge a translation error?
Yes, a verifiable original source and reliable translation can clarify factual inaccuracies.
What if the original news article is still online?
A record can sometimes be updated with verified later developments without requiring removal of the original article.
Can an opinion be corrected as a fact?
An attributed opinion requires different analysis from an objectively incorrect date, identity or procedural outcome.
Will the vendor inform its users?
Any notification duty depends on applicable law, the controller and the circumstances; it should be asked about rather than assumed.
Related reading
Primary sources and verification
Discuss your situation
Please describe the jurisdiction, the decision-maker, what happened and whether you have received a written screening record or bank notice. Do not upload highly sensitive personal or financial data into an unverified form.