Global financial institutions rely on risk intelligence databases such as World-Check and Dow Jones to meet their anti-money laundering (AML) and counter-terrorist financing (CTF) obligations. These tools compile information from sanctions lists, regulatory announcements, company registries, and media reports into structured profiles of individuals and entities.
For family offices and high-net-worth individuals (HNWIs), being inaccurately listed in one of these systems can lead to severe consequences: frozen accounts, cancelled relationships with banks, reputational damage, and delayed transactions. Understanding how these databases operate and how to correct mistakes is essential for protecting both access and reputation.
Why Risk Databases Matter
Over the past decade, compliance obligations have intensified. Financial institutions conduct rigorous KYC and AML checks not only at onboarding but throughout every client relationship. A single high-risk flag can quickly cascade through banks, custodians, insurers, and financial platforms.
For high-net-worth individuals, false links to adverse media or an incorrect “politically exposed person” (PEP) categorisation can disrupt business, philanthropy, and travel. As information circulates across multiple systems, a single inaccurate record can persist for years. Robust oversight has therefore become essential to responsible family office governance.
How These Systems Work
World-Check and Dow Jones dominate the private market for risk intelligence data. World-Check states that forty-nine of the world’s fifty largest banks use its database, highlighting its global influence. These platforms draw on a wide range of sources, including sanctions lists issued by OFAC, OFSI, and the EU, as well as regulatory bodies such as the FCA, SEC, and politically exposed person (PEP) registers; corporate filings, and adverse media reports.
Each profile is built around identifiers – names, aliases, nationalities, and dates of birth, and may include PEP classification, ownership links, or media summaries. While these profiles appear authoritative, they often mix verified facts with disputed or outdated material.
World-Check operates a subscription-based system that provides access to a vast database of individual profiles. Subscribers can view and download records to see what information is held about them. It is not uncommon for solicitors to be approached by clients whose reputations have been damaged due to inaccurate data relied upon by World-Check. These reports often draw on outdated or politicised sources, and oftentimes these errors arise from mistaken identities (both individual and corporate), translation issues, or the retention of PEP statuses long after an individual has left public office. In addition to this, the risk is amplified by the speed at which such misleading reports can circulate globally, sometimes within hours.
Legal Framework in the United Kingdom
UK data protection law grants individuals clear rights to challenge inaccurate information. The UK General Data Protection Regulation (UK GDPR) requires that personal data be accurate and kept up to date (Article 5(1)(d)) and provides individuals with the right to rectification (Article 16). Under Article 15, individuals may also submit a Subject Access Request (SAR) to obtain a copy of the data held about them and details of its sources. Data controllers must respond within one month, or within three months in complex cases.
If a data controller refuses or unduly delays correction, individuals may lodge a complaint with the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO). The ICO has the authority to order rectification or impose penalties on the organisation concerned. Because risk databases sell compliance tools rather than engage in journalism, they cannot rely on the journalistic exemption.
Additionally, individuals may seek damages under the Data Protection Act 2018 or pursue defamation claims if inaccurate or harmful statements have been disseminated to subscribers or the public.
How to Find Out if You Are Listed
Financial institutions rarely disclose the reasons behind sudden account freezes or service refusals. However, repeated due diligence requests, blocked transactions or a refusal to open bank accounts may indicate that an individual has been flagged in a risk database. To confirm whether they are listed, individuals can submit SARs directly to World-Check, Dow Jones, or other relevant providers and can have legal representations made to these to understand the data held on them and to assess the potential consequences of disseminating such false and damaging information. These requests or correspondence should seek to obtain copies of any profiles held, along with the underlying sources, to understand the scope and potential impact on the client’s reputation and day-to-day activities, including banking and luxury purchases.
Because banks and intermediaries often retain archived copies of media publications, family offices should adopt a coordinated strategy, engaging both the database providers and financial institutions to ensure that any corrections or updates are properly reflected across all systems. Acting promptly is crucial: the sooner an issue is identified and addressed, the less reputational and operational impact it is likely to have. It will also require less work later down the line to correct inaccurate or damaging allegations.
Correcting and Removing Entries
Rectification should follow a clear and structured process. Begin by collecting reputable evidence: official identification, regulator letters, court judgments, or statements disproving the allegations. Prepare a an appropriate rectification request that identifies the inaccuracies included in the individual’s profile and attach any relevant documentation that would dispel the myths that circulate in the media.
Submit this request to the provider, insisting on confirmation that relevant corrections be made and all false information be deleted. Oftentimes, it has been the case that our clients’ profiles on World-Check have been erased entirely as a result of disputing a single allegation. World-Check frequently extrapolates negative search terms against an individual without having a complete understanding of the relevant facts. As a result, clients are often attributed to Special Interest Categories that are wholly unreflective of their true circumstances. For this reason, even one representation accompanied by a correction request can make a significant difference to the accuracy and overall content of the profile, which may otherwise contain ambiguous or misleading allegations about the individual.
When submitting such a request to the provider, it is essential to insist on confirmation that the necessary corrections will be made and that all false or inaccurate information will be deleted. Should the provider resist, the matter can be escalated to the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) or referred to legal representatives to issue a pre-action letter. Legal oversight of the process ensures that corrections are handled comprehensively and that all relevant parties update their records accordingly.
Prevention and Governance
Prevention is always preferable to remediation. Family offices should conduct annual screening exercises, ideally supervised by legal counsel, to detect issues early. When an individual leaves public office, database providers should be notified to ensure timely removal of PEP status. In addition, regular media monitoring can help detect and manage adverse coverage before it gains wider traction. Establishing clear internal governance protocols and documenting all compliance measures further demonstrate a proactive risk management approach. Ultimately, with the right legal oversight and a clear channel of communication with data providers you can reduce the likelihood of reputational harm.
Conclusion
Risk intelligence databases are indispensable for global financial compliance but can cause serious harm when they contain errors. Fortunately, UK law provides robust rights to access, rectify, and challenge inaccurate personal data. For family offices, the key is proactive oversight: detecting problems early, documenting evidence, and pursuing structured correction. With the right legal support, even entrenched errors can be resolved effectively. In an era of automated compliance, disciplined governance protects not only assets but the reputation that sustains them.
