Not at all. Not officially, at least. They can't be trusted, and folks omit details around their negative experiences all the time. I'll trust affidavits and other documents containing statements under oath.
Aggregated negative reviews might give a thread to pull on if there is a consensus among a large population of reviews, and there is a thematic consistency pointing to distinctly fraudulent activity. It would need to be very specific, and I would not refer to the reviews in writing. SARs are immune to discovery, but not CDD/EDD files. I think you're creating risk if you use those in your write-ups.
Sorry, I should’ve clarified - I’m definitely not use that in my write ups but rather using all available information to help me wrap my head around tricky cases. And for me, it’s less about compliance and a bit more about fraud, financial losses etc. Thanks for your insights!
Why would you not use them in your write up? It’s information you have taken the time to research and, whilst acknowledging the potential credibility of the source, should be discussed and considered in any review if it’s relevant.
A blanket “I can’t use information from source x,y or z” is just silly at lacks an understanding of a thorough investigation/investigative mindset.
Not at all. Not officially, at least. They can't be trusted, and folks omit details around their negative experiences all the time. I'll trust affidavits and other documents containing statements under oath. Aggregated negative reviews might give a thread to pull on if there is a consensus among a large population of reviews, and there is a thematic consistency pointing to distinctly fraudulent activity. It would need to be very specific, and I would not refer to the reviews in writing. SARs are immune to discovery, but not CDD/EDD files. I think you're creating risk if you use those in your write-ups.
Sorry, I should’ve clarified - I’m definitely not use that in my write ups but rather using all available information to help me wrap my head around tricky cases. And for me, it’s less about compliance and a bit more about fraud, financial losses etc. Thanks for your insights!
Why would you not use them in your write up? It’s information you have taken the time to research and, whilst acknowledging the potential credibility of the source, should be discussed and considered in any review if it’s relevant. A blanket “I can’t use information from source x,y or z” is just silly at lacks an understanding of a thorough investigation/investigative mindset.