Adverse media screening is the process of finding and assessing negative news and other public information that may affect the risk of a customer or business relationship. Also called negative news screening, it supports know your customer (KYC) and anti-money laundering (AML) work by identifying information that may need further investigation when you assess a new customer or review an existing relationship.

A useful check produces more than a collection of links. It establishes what you searched, which information matters to the relationship and what remains unresolved.

What information counts as adverse media?

In a financial crime review, relevant information might concern fraud, money laundering, bribery, corruption or terrorist financing. News reports are one source; public court records, regulatory findings and penalty notices can also provide information relevant to the check.

Reporting may describe an allegation, an investigation, charges or a conviction. Information does not need to concern a conviction to warrant assessment. Equally, an allegation does not establish wrongdoing, and negative publicity alone does not establish the risk of your particular relationship.

Define relevance by the risks you are assessing. An unfavourable product review may matter to a communications team without being relevant to a financial crime check. General media monitoring follows coverage of a brand, topic or market; adverse media screening asks whether information about a particular party changes the basis for a risk decision.

This also explains why media screening supplements politically exposed person (PEP) and sanctions checks. PEP screening concerns the person’s status linked to important public functions; list-based sanctions screening looks for matches against relevant sanctions lists. An absence of negative news cannot answer either question.

Set the scope before you start searching

Start with the relationship and the reason for the check. Decide which risks and event stages matter, who should be included and how much information is needed. An initial customer review and a focused update following a known event may require different searches.

The Wolfsberg Group’s Negative News Screening FAQs (2022), industry guidance for financial institutions, treats scope, timing and sources as risk-based choices. The method below follows that approach. Applicable rules and your organisation’s policies determine the requirements for your own checks; there is no single search depth or review interval prescribed here.

1. Identify the customer first, then decide whether beneficial owners, representatives or other connected parties need to be searched. Include former roles where the relationship or event makes them relevant. A connection tells you why to examine a party; it does not establish that the customer was involved in the reported conduct.
2. Prepare the registered name, previous names, trading names and relevant spelling variants. Keep company identifiers and location information available for checking results. For individuals, a date of birth, occupation or company role may help distinguish the subject from someone with the same name.

Choose sources and languages that reflect where the parties operate or have relevant connections. A search confined to English may leave a gap when the underlying reporting is in another language. Consider local reporting and names in the original script, as well as any transliterated forms you use.

Set a look-back period that fits the risk question and the relationship’s history. Record both the publication date and the date of the reported event. For a repeat check, specify whether you are looking for new information since the last review or reassessing earlier events too.

Carry out the search and understand its limits

You can search manually, use a screening service or combine the two. Before relying on a service, establish which parties, sources, languages and historical periods it covers. Check whether the original information is available for review and what happens when a source cannot be accessed.

For example, Roaring Adverse Media helps identify relevant negative news and provides data for Sweden. Assess that scope against the countries and parties your own check needs to cover.

Nordic Issuing combines Adverse Media with Roaring’s AML report in its customer reviews. The customer case in Swedish shows how media checks can sit alongside other due diligence controls.

1. For a manual search, first search the subject’s name without risk terms to orient yourself and identify relevant name variants. Then combine those names with terms linked to the risks in scope. For a fictitious business, searches might include "Example Company Ltd" fraud and "Example Company Ltd" bribery. These illustrate the method; they are not an exhaustive search list.
2. Run relevant name variants separately. Exact phrases can reduce irrelevant results, while a broader search may capture different spellings or word order. Add a location or company role when it helps distinguish the subject, but check that filters do not exclude information you still need. Apply the same reasoning to search terms in other languages.
3. Read the original material behind relevant results. A headline or search snippet cannot show the full context. If a report refers to a court decision or regulatory finding, consult the underlying document where available. Look for later reporting, corrections and developments in the same matter. Several copies of one story do not provide independent corroboration.

Record the names, terms, sources, languages and date filters you used. Search engines rank and filter content, and publishers can change, archive or remove it. Results may therefore change between searches. Completing a search does not establish that all relevant public information has been captured.

Check the identity, source and context

Make an initial assessment before treating a result as relevant:

• Identity: compare details beyond the name, such as location, company role and other available identifiers
• Source: identify who published the information, what it relies on and whether an original document or independent reporting supports it
• Context: establish the subject’s role, the event date and whether the report describes an allegation, investigation or finding
• Relevance: explain how the reported conduct could affect a risk within the scope of this relationship

A correctly identified customer may only be mentioned as a witness or another party to the story. A recent article may concern conduct from before a person joined the company. These details can change what needs to be investigated and how the information should be used.

Where the initial review cannot resolve an important point, state the question and refer it to the appropriate reviewer. Uncertain identity calls for different evidence from uncertainty about a confirmed subject’s role. Detailed match adjudication should follow your own review and escalation procedures.

Connect the findings to customer due diligence

Compare relevant reporting with what you know about the customer’s business, ownership structure, source of funds or wealth where relevant, and the purpose of the relationship. Ask what the information confirms, contradicts or leaves unexplained. A report about a beneficial owner’s previous business needs a clear link to the current relationship before you can assess its significance.

The result may support further enquiries, enhanced review or a change in the customer risk assessment. It may also support a reasoned conclusion that the information is not material to this relationship. Keep the source’s account separate from your own assessment, and record the evidence and reasoning behind the next action.

Distinguish no relevant results from a search gap

A completed check with no relevant results means you did not identify relevant information in the documented search. Read that outcome alongside the scope of the check: the parties searched, sources consulted, languages used and period covered. It does not establish that the customer presents no risk or that adverse information does not exist elsewhere. Record the outcome as “no relevant results within the documented scope”, rather than an unqualified clearance.

A search gap means part of the intended check is still missing. You may have been unable to search a relevant language, read an important source or complete a search for one of the parties in scope. Record that limitation explicitly and identify the information or alternative source needed. Do not describe the missing part as a search that found nothing.

Decide who will assess whether the gap needs further work before a customer decision. Its significance depends on the risk question and what other evidence is available. This distinguishes an adequately completed search from an unresolved information need without treating either outcome as proof of safety.

Record the assessment and plan the next review

Keep a record that another reviewer can follow:

• Scope and rationale: the parties, risks, sources, languages and period included, with material exclusions
• Search performed: the date, search terms or tool settings used, and any coverage or access gaps
• Information assessed: source links, publication and event dates, and the facts you could verify
• Assessment and ownership: the conclusion, supporting reasoning, link to other due diligence and responsible role
• Further work: outstanding questions, the person or function responsible, and a date or event for follow-up

Adapt the retained material to your organisation’s record-keeping and data protection procedures. Note the policy or procedure version used, so that a later reviewer can understand the basis for the assessment.

Review timing can follow a planned customer review or a relevant event, such as an ownership change, new reporting or other information that changes the risk picture. Define the trigger and responsibility when you close the check. The next review should show what has changed and whether the earlier assessment still holds.