Evidence over outrage
Every named entity is backed by primary documents — filings, receipts, screenshots, domain records, and on-the-record interviews. Our editorial standard is courtroom-grade, not click-driven.
We are an independent consumer-protection desk that documents scams, traces fraudulent operators, and publishes evidence-based case files so that consumers can recognize red flags before they become victims.
Du Deceptions began in 2021 as a personal log of consumer complaints that nobody else seemed to be connecting. A retired forensic accountant and a cybercrime journalist pooled a decade of notes, court filings, and pattern data on fraudulent online retailers, investment schemes, and impersonation scams. The first case file — a multi-vendor gift card laundering ring — attracted more than 40,000 readers in its first week.
Today, the project is a small, fully independent desk. We do not accept paid placements, sponsored content, or takedown fees. Every case file is verified against primary sources: court records, WHOIS history, business filings, payment-processor complaints, and victim testimony. When we name a company or individual, we publish the evidence behind that name.
Fraud thrives in silence. Our role is to translate scattered complaints and technical evidence into a single, readable record that consumers, journalists, and regulators can actually use.
Every named entity is backed by primary documents — filings, receipts, screenshots, domain records, and on-the-record interviews. Our editorial standard is courtroom-grade, not click-driven.
We accept no payment from the operators we investigate, no referral fees from law firms, and no sponsored editorial. Operating costs are covered by reader memberships and grants.
Fraudsters rely on jargon and confusion. We translate technical evidence into language a first-time reader can act on, in under five minutes, before they click "send."
Our four-stage review process is built to slow us down, not speed us up. A case file only goes live when it has cleared every gate.
Reader submissions, regulator feeds, and our own monitoring pool into a private tracker. A lead editor triages within 72 hours and assigns a confidence score.
We cross-check WHOIS, business filings, payment-processor complaints, court records, and at least two independent victim testimonies before drafting.
Named parties receive a written summary of our findings and a 14-day window to respond. Their reply is published alongside the case file, in full.
Case files are versioned, dated, and never silently edited. Corrections and new evidence are appended with a visible change log, so the record stays honest over time.
A small core desk, supported by a rotating bench of forensic specialists, former prosecutors, and academic researchers. Biographies are kept current on each contributor's byline.
Former cybercrime desk at a national daily. 14 years covering consumer fraud, with a focus on cross-border e-commerce schemes and payment-processor abuse.
Retired forensic accountant with a 22-year career tracing shell-company structures, crypto on-ramps, and the financial plumbing behind consumer-facing scams.
Former assistant state attorney specializing in financial-crime prosecution. Leads our right-of-review process and coordinates with regulators on enforcement referrals.
Builds the open-source tooling that powers our domain, hosting, and ad-network pattern detection. Publishes methodology notes alongside each technical case file.
We respond to every verified reporter, researcher, and consumer submission. For active scams in progress, contact your local consumer protection agency or law enforcement first.
Our scam alerts desk publishes short, evidence-backed warnings on newly observed fraud patterns. No hype, no referral links — just the operational details consumers need to stay ahead of the next scheme.
Open Scam Alerts