Normas editoriales

We publish a broker registry, case studies, and educational essays. Each carries weight for the people who read them, often crypto-fraud victims trying to decide what to do next. We hold the publishing process to a standard that we publish, here, openly. Hold us to it.

Sourcing

Every broker registry entry is built from at least one of the following:

• A first-hand victim report submitted to us with supporting evidence
• A public regulator alert (IC3, FTC, FCA, BaFin, MAS, ASIC, or equivalent)
• Court records or published civil-action filings
• On-chain forensic evidence we have collected directly

We do not publish entries based solely on Reddit posts, Trustpilot reviews, competitor lists, or other secondary sources. Where secondary sources are referenced, they are cited as additional context, not as the basis for the verdict.

Verification

Before an entry is published with a "Confirmed Scam" verdict, we verify at least two of:

• Multiple independent victim reports describing the same pattern
• On-chain evidence of the documented modus operandi
• Regulator action or court filing naming the platform
• Operator attribution via OSINT (registration data, infrastructure, named individuals)

Entries that meet only one criterion are published with an "Under Investigation" verdict.

AI-drafted content

We use AI tools to assist with research and drafting. Every AI-drafted entry is reviewed and edited by a human before it goes live. We will not publish unreviewed AI output. The Sanity Studio workflow enforces this with a two-field gate (`aiDrafted` and `humanReviewed`), only entries with `humanReviewed: true` appear on the live site.

Corrections

If you believe a registry entry is inaccurate, misattributed, or unfairly characterises a legitimate business, email editorial@cryptoleek.com with the entry URL and the documented evidence supporting your correction. We respond within 14 days. Substantiated corrections are applied within 7 days of confirmation; if we cannot substantiate the correction we explain why in writing.

What we will not do

• We do not accept payment for placement, removal, or modification of any registry entry. This is the single most important rule we have.
• We do not list businesses based on competitor complaints alone.
• We do not republish content from competitor recovery firms or scam-list aggregators. Where we have used a third-party source, we cite it and contribute our own analysis on top.
• We do not publish identifying information about individual victims. Names, amounts, and locations are anonymised or paraphrased in case studies.
• We do not publish predictive or speculative claims about future recovery odds for specific cases. We give probability assessments only after our own investigation.

Conflicts of interest

CryptoLeek represents fraud victims exclusively. We do not act for the platforms or operators we list. We do not have undisclosed commercial relationships with any platform we cover. Where we receive a referral fee for introducing a client to partner counsel, this is disclosed in writing at engagement.

Editorial responsibility

Final editorial responsibility for every published item rests with our editor. Disagreements about a specific entry should be addressed first to editorial@cryptoleek.com; unresolved disputes can be escalated to a senior partner.

Why we publish this

Most of the recovery industry operates with no published standards. Holding ourselves to a written, public commitment makes us a harder target for legitimate complaints and a more credible source for everyone else. If we ever fail to meet a commitment listed above, you have written grounds to challenge us.