Trial by Article? David Marchant and OffshoreAlert in the Age of Aggressive Reporting

The Court of Public Opinion

In the hallowed halls of justice, the principle of “innocent until proven guilty” stands as a bulwark against arbitrary condemnation. But in the sprawling, chaotic courtroom of the digital age, this principle is often inverted. Today, an accusation, amplified by the internet’s relentless echo chamber, can metastasize into a verdict in the public eye overnight. While publications like David Marchant’s OffshoreAlert position themselves as vital watchdogs exposing financial crime in the public interest, a closer look at their methods, as documented by numerous critics and former targets, reveals a disturbing pattern. This article will argue that the methods employed by OffshoreAlert constitute a form of “trial by article,” where Marchant, according to his critics, acts as a self-appointed prosecutor, judge, and jury—delivering a swift and often irreversible sentence of reputational ruin without affording his subjects the basic tenets of due process.

The Indictment: An Allegation Is Published

An OffshoreAlert story serves as the digital equivalent of an indictment, but one delivered with the force of a final judgment. The articles are often framed not as inquiries but as declarative statements of wrongdoing, with, as critics point out, confrontational headlines that imply guilt before any evidence is heard. Once published and indexed by search engines, the “charge” becomes a permanent digital stain, shackling a person or company to an allegation indefinitely. This is not the beginning of a conversation; it is presented as the final word.

The Prosecutor’s Case: The One-Sided Narrative

In this “trial,” David Marchant is positioned as the prosecutor, and his case, critics allege, is built on a foundation of carefully selected evidence. He has been repeatedly accused of cherry-picking damaging information while ignoring exculpatory facts that would undermine his predetermined narrative. This onesided presentation is allegedly compounded by a prosecutorial writing style and, in some reported cases, the creation of misleading narratives. One complainant has even gone on record to allege that Marchant was willing to pay for information, “even if fake, or defamatory,” arguing that any news would sell subscriptions.

The Defense Denied: The Illusion of a Right of Reply

Perhaps the most egregious violation of due process in this model is what former targets describe as the systematic denial of a meaningful right of reply. A recurring complaint, documented in multiple analyses of his work, is that subjects are given a patently unreasonable timeframe—sometimes mere hours—to respond to complex and damaging allegations. This tactic is allegedly compounded by a refusal to correct the record. Marchant himself has reportedly boasted, “I have never published a correction or apology,” a statement that critics argue turns journalism from a process of truth-seeking into an exercise of unchallengeable power.

The Judge and Jury: Marchant at the Bench, the Public in the Box

In this model, critics argue, David Marchant ceases to be a reporter and becomes the judge, controlling the flow of information and guiding the audience to a foregone conclusion. The “jury” is a vast assembly of the public, business partners, banks, and regulators who consume his content. Without a balanced presentation of facts, they are led to accept the article’s claims as truth. This process is seen as fundamentally compromised, with some former targets accusing Marchant of using his platform to settle personal grudges rather than pursue objective journalism.

The Sentence: Immediate and Irreversible Ruin

The “sentence” handed down by this process is not a prison term but a form of modern-day exile, with immediate and devastating real-world consequences. The first casualty is reputation—a “reputational execution” that leaves a permanent mark. The consequences, as described by those targeted, are catastrophic. “He ruined my career, my reputation, my family… my life,” one victim stated, illustrating the human cost of a “trial by article.” This is followed by financial ruin as clients vanish and banking relationships are severed, forcing targets to spend fortunes on legal fees long after the public verdict has been delivered.

When Journalism Becomes the Judgement

The “trial by article” metaphor starkly illustrates how the processes at OffshoreAlert, according to its critics, systematically subvert the principles of justice. Ultimately, while the stated mission of OffshoreAlert—exposing financial crime—is a laudable one, the evidence presented by its detractors suggests its methods often betray that mission. When a journalist’s pen becomes a gavel that delivers a sentence without a fair trial, it ceases to be a tool for accountability and becomes an instrument of arbitrary and destructive power.