Research Process

Our methodology follows a strict four-step process to ensure accuracy, transparency, and reliability in documenting alleged corruption cases:

1

Source Monitoring

We continuously monitor major news organizations with established editorial standards, including The New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Reuters, Associated Press, and other reputable outlets. Our team reviews breaking news, investigative reports, and official documents daily.

2

Verification & Cross-Reference

Every potential case undergoes rigorous verification. We require at least one credible source from established media organizations. When possible, we cross-reference reports across multiple outlets and check primary sources such as court documents, financial disclosures, and government records.

3

Documentation & Calculation

Each verified case is documented with a clear description, date, source link, and financial impact. When exact figures aren't available, we use the most conservative reasonable estimate based on available information, always erring on the side of caution.

4

Categorization & Publication

Cases are assigned to specific categories based on the type of alleged corruption. We then publish the information to our live tracker with full transparency, including all source links and calculations, allowing users to verify our work independently.

Inclusion Criteria

To maintain the highest standards of accuracy and credibility, we follow strict criteria for including cases in our database:

Credible Reporting: The case must be reported by at least one major news organization with professional editorial standards and fact-checking processes.
Documented Evidence: Reports must be based on documented evidence such as financial records, government documents, court filings, or credible whistleblower testimony.
Direct Connection: There must be a clear, direct connection between the alleged corrupt act and personal financial benefit or attempted benefit.
Quantifiable Impact: The financial impact must be quantifiable or reasonably estimable based on available information.
Verification Possibility: The information must be verifiable through public records or multiple independent sources.
No Speculation: We do not include rumors, unverified claims, or speculative reports without substantial evidence.

⚠️ Important Note on Allegations

All cases in our database are based on allegations reported by credible news sources. We use terms like "alleged" and "reportedly" to indicate that these are accusations that may not have been proven in court. Our role is to aggregate and track these reports, not to make legal determinations of guilt or innocence.

Corruption Categories

We classify corruption cases into six main categories to help users understand the nature and patterns of alleged corruption:

Foreign Bribe

Payments, gifts, or benefits from foreign governments, entities, or individuals that appear designed to influence official actions or gain favor.

Examples: Accepting luxury items from foreign leaders, payments to businesses from foreign entities

Quid Pro Quo

Exchange of favors where official actions appear linked to personal benefits or contributions, suggesting a "this for that" arrangement.

Examples: Regulatory decisions following large donations, policy changes benefiting major contributors

Pardons for Sale

Presidential pardons or commutations that appear connected to financial contributions, payments, or access to the president.

Examples: Pardons following large donations or expensive event attendance

Pocket Lining

Direct personal enrichment through abuse of presidential position, including self-dealing and profiting from official activities.

Examples: Directing government spending to personal businesses, monetizing presidential influence

Extortion

Using presidential powers or influence to extract payments, concessions, or benefits through implicit or explicit threats.

Examples: Threatening regulatory action unless demands are met, withholding approvals for leverage

Graft

Illicit gains through abuse of official position, including accepting bribes for government contracts or influence over policy.

Examples: Steering contracts to donors, accepting payments for policy influence

Data Sources & Verification

We rely exclusively on established news organizations and official sources with strong editorial standards and fact-checking processes:

Source Type	Examples	Verification Standard
Major National Newspapers Primary Sources	New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Washington Post, USA Today	Professional newsroom with editorial standards and corrections policy
Wire Services Primary Sources	Associated Press, Reuters, Bloomberg	International news agencies with rigorous fact-checking
Broadcast Networks Primary Sources	NBC News, ABC News, CBS News, CNN, NPR	Established broadcast news organizations with investigative teams
Business Publications Specialized Sources	Forbes, Fortune, Financial Times, CNBC	Financial journalism with expertise in business dealings
Government Documents Primary Documents	SEC filings, Court records, Congressional reports	Official government sources and public records

Cross-Verification Process

When multiple sources report on the same case with different details or amounts, we use the most conservative figure that can be substantiated. If sources conflict significantly, we note this in our documentation and may exclude the case until clearer information emerges.

Financial Calculations

Accuracy in financial reporting is crucial to our mission. Here's how we handle different scenarios:

Exact Figures: When reliable sources report specific dollar amounts, we use those figures directly.
Ranges: If sources provide a range, we use the lower bound to maintain conservative estimates.
Market Values: For assets or gifts, we use fair market value at the time of the transaction as reported by credible sources.
Foreign Currency: We convert foreign currency to USD using exchange rates from the date of the transaction.
Ongoing Benefits: For continuing arrangements, we calculate based on reported or estimated annual values.
Zero Dollar Cases: Some cases involve corruption without immediate quantifiable benefit; these are included with $0 value but full documentation.

📊 Conservative Estimation Policy

When exact figures are unavailable, we always choose the most conservative reasonable estimate. Our goal is to track the minimum provable impact rather than speculate on potential maximum values. This approach ensures our data remains credible and defensible.

Updates & Corrections

Transparency includes acknowledging when updates or corrections are needed. Our commitment to accuracy means we continuously monitor our cases for new information:

Regular Reviews: All cases are periodically reviewed for updates or new developments.
Correction Policy: If we discover an error, we correct it immediately and note the correction in our changelog.
New Information: When new facts emerge about existing cases, we update descriptions and amounts accordingly.
Case Removal: If credible evidence disproves a case, we remove it and document the reason for removal.
Version History: We maintain a complete history of all changes for transparency.
User Reports: We investigate all credible error reports from users and respond within 48 hours.

Limitations & Disclaimers

⚖️ Legal Disclaimer

CorruptionCounter is a journalistic endeavor that aggregates publicly reported allegations of corruption. We do not make legal determinations or accusations. All cases represent allegations as reported by credible news sources. Individuals and entities mentioned are presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty in a court of law.

Important limitations of our work:

We can only track corruption that has been reported by credible media sources
The true extent of corruption may be larger than what we can document
Some cases may involve complex legal questions beyond our scope
Financial calculations are estimates based on available information
We cannot independently investigate claims beyond published reports
Our work does not constitute legal advice or formal accusations

Academic & Research Use

Researchers, journalists, and academics are welcome to use our data with proper attribution. We provide CSV exports for analysis and maintain our methodology transparency for peer review. Please cite CorruptionCounter.com when using our data in published work.

Questions About Our Methodology?

We welcome questions, suggestions, and feedback about our methodology. Transparency and continuous improvement are core to our mission.

Contact Our Research Team