Search a new client’s name in the news, and the first results are rarely about them. They might show a namesake’s court case and a local sports report. An old press release has the right name but the wrong city.
Somewhere further down, there may be one report that does matter. It looks much like the rest of the page.
Someone on your team has to decide what each result means before onboarding can continue. The headlines and a few lines of text are often all they have to go on.
A bad review or an angry blog post is usually not what compliance teams look for. Adverse media is published information that links a person or company to financial crime or other serious wrongdoing.
Adverse media screening is the search for that information about a client and the people behind it. Many teams call it negative news screening, and the reports themselves negative media or adverse news.
What matters is whether a report could change how you see the client’s risk, not whether it is unflattering.
Useful reports usually come from three kinds of sources: news outlets, court and regulator publications, and enforcement announcements. For EU banks and other financial institutions, the European Banking Authority (EBA) sets the test in its risk factor guidelines (EBA/GL/2021/02).
Firms should judge whether allegations are credible by “the quality and independence of the source of the data and the persistence of reporting”, among other things (guideline 2.5). In practice, a named reporter at an independent outlet counts for more than an anonymous blog. Several outlets reporting the same facts over time weigh more than a single post.
The Financial Action Task Force (FATF) covers internet and media searches in its guidance on politically exposed persons (PEPs). It warns that what these searches find “may not in all cases be comprehensive or reliable” (paragraph 60).
Neither EU law nor US federal rules spell out adverse media screening requirements. EU guidelines name the practice, and US rules ask for information it can supply. Even the EU’s AML Regulation, which applies from 10 July 2027, never uses the term.
The EBA’s guidelines treat adverse media reports as a sign of a client’s reputation risk. They also list adverse media searches among the enhanced due diligence measures firms may apply (guidelines 4.64 and 9.13). These guidelines still apply until AMLA, the EU’s anti-money laundering authority, issues its own on the same subject.
US federal regulations never mention adverse media or negative news. They do require banks to build a customer risk profile and keep customer information current on a risk basis (31 CFR 1020.210(a)(2)(v)). A news search is one way to feed both.
There is no official adverse media list to check against. Instead, you design the search once and run it the same way each time. That way, your adverse media screening process treats every client alike, so the results can be compared.
For a company client, search the company, its directors and its beneficial owners, as in a KYB check. Include former names and the spelling used in the client’s own country. The same FATF guidance suggests searching media in the client’s country of origin (paragraph 60).
A negative news search pairs each name with words for the crimes that matter:
Add terms that fit the client’s sector, such as public contracts for a construction company. Run the terms in the local language too. Screening databases and open web searches find different things, so your procedure should name the ones you use.
Clustdoc’s AML screening includes adverse media, alongside the sanctions and PEP checks.
A hit is a report that may be about your client. It is not a finding until someone has read it and checked it. Three questions turn it into a finding or rule it out, and the answers go in the file.
News reports rarely print a date of birth. Compare the details they do give: age, city, employer, job title or any relatives named. For a company, check its address, line of business and any company number in a court notice.
A shared name alone does not prove it is your client. If the details are too thin to tell, look for a second report before deciding. A sanctions alert is cleared the same way, by comparing details such as date of birth and nationality.
Trusting an unreliable report has a cost too. It can hold up a sound client for no good reason.
Weigh each hit against the EBA test, starting with the source’s quality and independence and whether the reporting persists. One anonymous post that no outlet repeats carries little weight.
Then check that the report is relevant. A traffic fine or a public dispute over a faulty product usually says nothing about financial crime. Note how old the report is and what has happened since, such as charges dropped or a case closed.
Your policy should set how far back you look. If an older report still matters, the file should explain why.
A report can describe a rumor, an investigation, a hearing or a verdict, and each weighs differently. Under the EBA’s guidelines, the absence of a conviction alone may not be enough to dismiss an allegation (guideline 2.5).
From 10 July 2027, the AML Regulation sets conditions for using data about crimes and convictions (Regulation (EU) 2024/1624, Article 76(2) and (3)). Among them, the data must relate to money laundering, the underlying crimes or terrorist financing. It must also come from reliable sources and be accurate and up to date.
Your procedures will then need to tell allegations, investigations, proceedings and convictions apart. They must take into account the right of defense and the presumption of innocence.
Record the stage, and update it if the case moves on. Use neutral words, such as “charged, case pending”, not “fraudster”. A credible allegation can raise the client’s risk rating without proving anything.
Write down what you searched, what you found and why you decided what you did. For each search and hit, the file should show:
A reviewer should own the decision. The GDPR already restricts decisions based solely on automated processing that significantly affect a person (Article 22).
From 10 July 2027, the AML Regulation also requires meaningful human intervention when an automated process makes that call. That covers whether to take on or keep a client, and how far to check them (Regulation (EU) 2024/1624, Article 76(5)).
Reports linking an individual to a crime are personal data that EU law handles with extra care (GDPR, Article 10).
Under AML rules, personal data may be used only to prevent money laundering and terrorist financing. Commercial use is already banned (Directive (EU) 2015/849, Article 41(2)). The AML Regulation keeps both rules from 10 July 2027 (Regulation (EU) 2024/1624, Article 76(4)).
A clean search at onboarding says nothing about what is reported later. The EBA expects firms to review media reports on their sectors and countries regularly, to spot new risks (guideline 1.9).
Search again at each periodic review, and more often for higher-risk clients. Compare the results with the last search, so the file shows what has changed. Any new report goes through the same three questions.
A new owner or director is one of the signs that a client file needs an early update. Run a fresh news search as part of that update.
Book a demo call and we will show how a reviewer’s note about a news report stays private to your team.
An adverse media check searches for published reports linking a client to financial crime or other serious wrongdoing. Typical sources are news outlets, court records and regulator notices. For a company, the check also covers its directors and beneficial owners.
A reviewer then judges each report, and the file records the decision.
It is not a stand-alone duty under EU law or US federal rules. In the EU, the EBA's guidelines for banks and other financial institutions treat adverse media reports as a risk factor. Adverse media searches appear among their enhanced due diligence measures.
In the US, it can feed the customer risk profile banks must build.
A criminal record check relies on official records, mostly court convictions. Adverse media can also show allegations and investigations that never reached a court. So the file should note each case's stage.
From 10 July 2027, firms covered by the EU AML Regulation need procedures before using data about crimes. Those procedures must tell allegations, investigations, proceedings and convictions apart.
EU law and US federal rules do not set a period. Choose one in your policy and apply it to every client, so results stay comparable.
Older reports can still matter, for example one about an unresolved fraud case. When you rely on one, note in the file why it still counts.
Still stitching emails, files, and approvals together?
Clustdoc gives teams one place to run client-facing work, boost customer engagement and increase compliance.
Claire writes about customer onboarding, digital processes, and the day-to-day challenges faced by operations teams. At Clustdoc, she focuses on practical insights: how organizations collect information, guide customers through complex steps, and improve service delivery with automation.
