When the UK government recently ordered the shutdown of a courts reports archive, affecting millions of historical cases, it later had to U-turn because of a fierce backlash. Such a move shows how the need for transparency and due diligence can clash with a "right to be forgotten" or, more neutrally, the right to privacy.

The following article touches on a topic that the editors of this news service are keenly aware of – what happens when access to information about criminal and civil legal proceedings are made more difficult to obtain? Transparency around such matters is part of what living in a liberal order requires. That said, privacy is important – this news service hasn’t been shy to assert a need for privacy in financial matters. (Too many campaigners assume that one’s financial information ought to be in the public domain, but that surely depends on circumstances, such as whether a public figure’s personal finances are a legitimate issue, for example.) The boundaries between privacy and transparency aren’t always easy to define and navigate. Digital technology, including AI, throws its own challenges. 

Topics such as the “right to be forgotten” and other issues are set out in the following article by Matt Mills (pictured below the article), CEO of Ripjar, which is an AI-native provider of smarter screening solutions. The editors hope this article clarifies some of the topics and stimulates conversations. The usual editorial disclaimers apply. To comment, email tom.burroughes@wealthbriefing.com and amanda.cheesley@clearviewpublishing.com

The Ministry of Justice ordered of the Courtsdesk archive to be deleted, removing millions of historical cases from public access but subsequently withdrew its demand following intense backlash. Courtsdesk, which contains an extensive database of UK court records, has become a critical resource for journalists needing to search, verify and report on criminal cases. Access to court details ahead of time has enabled media outlets to physically attend hearings and increase coverage and exposure of otherwise obscure criminal cases, including financial offences.  

The decision sparks an important debate and a tension between the right for privacy and the need for transparent public information to serve society’s best interests. This is critical when it comes to fighting financial crime, such as money laundering, as criminals continue to exploit loopholes in the system. 

When the media loses access to important records such as Courtsdesk, their ability to report criminal proceedings is reduced. This has a ripple effect on anti-money laundering efforts across the UK’s financial system. By limiting media reporting, it limits the information available to businesses and financial institutions that need accurate data on potentially high-risk individuals. 

The right to be forgotten

In its Courtsdesk ruling, the Ministry of Justice cited concerns about data protection and the risk of unauthorised information sharing. By deleting the archive, the decision strengthens privacy safeguards by cutting media reporting at its source. Naturally, with less source data available, fewer related articles can be produced.

Beyond this specific case, there is a wider issue around privacy and media reporting across other publicly accessible sources, where an individual wishes not to be featured or for content to be removed. Clearly, data protection rights and the right to be forgotten are important in an era when data is so prevalent. 

While many articles are published for entertainment purposes, there is a legitimate argument, potentially grounded in data privacy principles, for restricting or removing certain content when individuals choose to exercise their right to privacy. This is particularly relevant when considering that, in the digital age, media records of individuals can exist long after the reported incident took place. The removal of that data would prevent an individual’s public profile from being forever tarnished. 

The need to tackle financial crime

However, the right to be forgotten must be balanced against society’s need to combat financial crime. Financial institutions and businesses, which are on the frontline of defences, rely on media reporting as a key component of their anti-money laundering (AML) screening processes and due diligence. This includes reporting on specific court cases but extends to a vast range of potentially adverse media references that collectively inform an individual’s risk profile. 

These businesses need to make the best possible decisions about the people they are transacting with. This need is particularly heightened in the current geopolitical landscape. Sophisticated organisations depend on adverse media screening to proactively ensure that they are conducting business in the safest way possible and to identify early warning signals in public information so that they can avoid doing business with entities that might become sanctioned tomorrow. 

Removing or limiting access to this publicly accessible information, including the deletion of important already published articles, becomes problematic in the current environment of dynamically changing sanctions. Ultimately, it weakens the customer screening process and undermines efforts to safeguard the integrity of the financial system. Without transparency, there is a risk that the growing economy of financial crime and money laundering will go unchecked. 

Technology and AI

This removal or suppression of articles, whether for privacy or other reasons, exacerbates a common challenge. When conducting media screening on customers, financial institutions and businesses must be able to detect, filter and assess a vast, intricate media landscape.

On the one hand, technology adds another layer of complexity to an already vast mesh of sources. AI is now enabling anyone to produce compelling content, such as written articles, images or videos, which can appear authentic and almost impossible to spot as fake. 

According to McAfee, the number of AI-powered fake news sites surpassed the number of real local newspaper sites in the US in 2024 – and that trend is only set to accelerate. Without quality, independent and credible journalism to counter the proliferation of unreliable sources, the principle of “garbage in, garbage out” becomes a real problem.

On the other hand, technology is also helping businesses uncover hard-to-find information when the right to be forgotten in the media has been exercised. Historically, many financial institutions and enterprises would rely on manual searches to identify adverse media reports on an individual. One of the many shortfalls of this approach is that it rarely picks up articles that have been removed or that have been suppressed to appear further down search engine rankings. 

There will always be some element of media articles being removed or suppressed – and for legitimate, valid reasons – so compliance teams need to come prepared. It is here that AI is helping by enabling screening processes that can surface otherwise untraceable articles. 

Finding the balance

Regardless of what tools firms have in place, it’s imperative to strike the right balance between the right to be forgotten and the need for transparency. This means having a clear distinction between private personal data and information that needs to be made available to help prevent criminal activity. That’s because, fundamentally, the right to financial privacy should not outweigh the right to due diligence.

When banks are making critical decisions on hiring people or bringing new clients on board, based on publicly available information, there is a law of unintended consequences. Of course, the removal of public information on individuals is not without merit but the execution, when it doesn’t consider the impact on organisations working hard to stop financial crime, becomes problematic.

The entire world of fraud, financial crime and compliance is a balancing act. In the case of adverse media screening, that balance is between a legitimate data protection request to remove publicly available content and the need for banks and other firms to have access to information that enables them to make smart decisions to defend themselves and society. 

Any framework that protects individuals is vital. However, it must do so without undermining the ability for financial institutions and businesses to uphold the integrity of the financial system and disrupt the economy of crime.

About the author

Matt Mills

Matt Mills is CEO of Ripjar, the AI-native provider of smarter screening solutions. He has more than 15 years’ experience scaling high-growth technology companies in banking, payments, automation and security. 

Previously, Mills spent a decade at Featurespace as chief commercial officer and general manager, where he helped grow the organisation from 12 to more than 400 employees before the company’s acquisition by Visa in 2024. Mills also led Innovation, Sales and Partnerships for Aurasma, later acquired by HP, where he expanded the business to more than 10,000 commercial customers and partners during his three-year tenure.