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.
When a removal request may have a legal basis
The underlying source may be an old news report, enforcement record, sanctions notice, PEP classification or a mistaken identity match. The provider may have a legal basis to retain accurate information even if it is inconvenient. A broad deletion demand that ignores this distinction is unlikely to be the strongest submission.
Choosing between erasure and factual correction
We would first establish whether a World-Check profile exists, examine the available record and source material, then identify a specific remedy: correction, completion, annotation, restriction, objection or erasure where legally justified. If a bank has already acted, its decision should be reviewed separately.
Evidence relevant to an erasure request
| Document or record | Why it may help |
|---|---|
| Copy of World-Check disclosure if available | Establishes the relevant dates and identities |
| Final judgments and case closures | Tests what the decision-maker actually recorded |
| Proof of mistaken identity or date discrepancies | Supports an objective factual comparison |
| Bank letters showing practical impact | Shows a later event or possible consequence |
No guaranteed deletion of accurate records
LSEG states that requests are considered individually and that it may decline deletion where the information remains accurate and relevant or other lawful grounds apply. We cannot guarantee removal or control bank decisions.
What the request should actually establish
| Possible defect | Stronger response |
|---|---|
| Another person has been matched to your identity | Identity comparison and disambiguating documents |
| A historic allegation lacks subsequent outcome | Certified court outcome and requested contextual update |
| PEP category does not reflect your present status | Appointment and departure evidence plus applicable PEP analysis |
| Material is incorrectly translated or attributed | Original-language source and authenticated translation |
| Report is factual but adverse | Assessment of retention, proportionality and completeness; not a promise of deletion |
Why parallel bank work matters
A bank may rely on its own compliance records, independent adverse-media searches or other screening vendors. Even a successful change to World-Check does not oblige the bank to open an account. Where financial access is the actual objective, the bank correspondence and its available complaint or review process must be assessed alongside the data request.
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.
When asking for removal may be legally justified
A request to erase a World-Check profile needs a concrete basis. Relevant questions include whether the data are objectively inaccurate, whether the personal information is no longer necessary for the applicable purpose, whether processing is unlawful, and whether a specific statutory right applies. The mere fact that an entry is inconvenient, historic or commercially damaging does not by itself satisfy the test.
An evidence-led decision tree
| Evidence reviewed | Possible issue | Practical remedy to evaluate |
|---|---|---|
| A record is about a different person | Incorrect identification | Correct or separate identities; consider removal of misattributed data |
| Record omits an acquittal or discontinuance | Incomplete criminal-procedure context | Add verified final outcome and assess ongoing necessity |
| Old role incorrectly described as current | Outdated personal data | Correct dates, position and contextual status |
| Entry derives from an official active sanctions list | Accurate government designation | Challenge the designation through the competent authority, not only the vendor |
| Report reflects a verifiable historical event | Information may remain relevant | Evaluate proportionality, accuracy, context and available legal rights |
The documentation we would organise
The strongest bundle normally begins with a precise table of contested sentences, not a long autobiographical explanation. For each statement, record the source URL or issuing authority, the original date, the current status, the proposed correction and the evidence supporting it. Translation should preserve the exact disposition of a criminal or regulatory case. "Case closed," "charges dismissed" and "acquitted" are not interchangeable legal outcomes.
A request may be supported by certified final court orders, regulator notices, proof of company ownership, appointment records or identity documents. Only documents relevant to the disputed fact should be shared, through a secure channel.
What happens after the provider responds?
An update, annotation, restricted use, partial correction or refusal are all possible outcomes. We would evaluate the actual response against the request and applicable law. If information remains inaccurate, the next step may involve clarification, internal escalation, the competent data protection authority or legal proceedings, depending on the case. It is not sound practice to promise success or to initiate parallel complaints before reviewing the response.
Important distinction: record removal versus banking access
Banks may use multiple providers, retain historic internal files and conduct their own reviews. After any database update, a bank may still request lawful source-of-funds information or decline a relationship. Where the client's practical goal is access to banking, the provider challenge and bank complaint should be separately planned and evidenced.
Frequently asked questions
Can anyone request removal?
Individuals can ask LSEG to consider their data rights, but acceptance depends on applicable law and the facts.
Does removal erase a real sanctions designation?
No. Official sanctions records require separate action with the relevant authority.
How long does it take?
LSEG publishes a typical initial listing-check response of around 10 business days after identity verification, but a contested correction can follow a different timeline.
Is World-Check removal guaranteed if I was acquitted?
No. An acquittal is important evidence but the provider may lawfully retain contextual information. Its presentation and purpose require individual review.
Is the official LSEG request free?
LSEG says it charges no fee for the data-subject requests described on its official information page. Independent professional advice may carry its own fee.
Can a lawyer remove a government sanctions listing via LSEG?
No. A government designation must be addressed through the competent sanctions authority and applicable legal procedures.
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.