PeakMetrics / Fact Checks
Crime & justice fact checks
Explore claims publishers have checked about crime & justice. Read their original ratings and follow the evidence.
Search fact checks
Search by text or image6,837 published reviews in this topic
ప్రభుత్వ ఉద్యోగులు లంచం డిమాండ్ చేయడం నేరం కాదని కేరళ హైకోర్టు ఇటీవల సంచలన వ్యాఖ్యలు చేసింది
Publisher’s rating: MISLEADING
Le ministre ukrainien de la Justice utilise une Mercedes-Benz qui a été volée en Allemagne en 2010.
Publisher’s rating: L’affaire est avérée, mais ne s’inscrit pas dans un contexte actuel. Il s’agit d’une histoire vieille de plusieurs années. Oleksandr Lavrynovych n’occupe plus les fonctions de ministre de la Justice depuis 2013.
The review addresses reports that Oleksandr Lavrynovych, then Ukraine’s justice minister, used a Mercedes-Benz GL 420 that had been stolen in Germany. It concludes that the underlying car story is real, but that posts circulating in late November 2022 presented an old event as current. Lavrynovych had not been justice minister since 2013. [S1]
गुजरात में रिक्शाचालक को डंडा मारते पुलिसकर्मी का वीडियो
Publisher’s rating: FALSE
இஸ்லாமிய நாடுகளில் பெண்களை சங்கிலியால் பூட்டி சந்தையில் விற்பனைச் செய்ய இழுத்து வரும் காட்சி.
Publisher’s rating: Fake
Presídio de Bangu 1, RJ em dia de visitação. Já que os "semi-deuses" do STF proibiram a revista para não "constranger os inocentes visitantes", a Administração do presídio usou um cão farejador. Vejam o resultado! VIRALIZEM. REPASSEM.
Publisher’s rating: Falso
The claim combines two assertions: that the video shows a sniffer dog finding three revolvers at Bangu 1 during visiting hours, and that the STF had prohibited prison searches to avoid embarrassing visitors. The review says neither assertion matches the evidence it examined. It notes that the message gives no reliable source for either the supposed court decision or the video’s location, and describes the video’s Bangu 1 attribution as false. [S1: “O texto que circula com o vídeo é, assim como uma fake news clássica, vago, alarmista, tem erros de português e não cita qualquer fonte confiável que comprove a decisão do STF ou que o vídeo é de Bangu 1.”] The review distinguishes the court case from the claim about a ban: the STF was considering the validity of evidence obtained through intimate searches in prisons, but the review says that proceeding did not prohibit prison searches and had not concluded. It reports that the vote stood at three to one in favor of the rapporteur’s position. [S1: “É fato que o STF está julgando a validade de provas obtidas durante revista íntima em presídios. Porém, isso não significa que as revistas estão proibidas em presídios.”] [S1: “Além disso, o julgamento não foi concluído. Está em 3 a 1 a favor do voto do relator.”] For the video’s provenance, the review says it used a police officer’s jacket in the footage to identify the unit as Senarc, of the Civil Police, and traced that unit to Maranhão. It reports that the footage was recorded in February 2021 and showed a woman arrested with three firearms at the Ponta de Espera terminal in São Luís, with a sniffer dog involved in the seizure. [S1: “Como mostra o casaco de um policial, quem fez a apreensão foi a ‘Senarc, da Polícia Civil’. Ao buscar pela divisão, chegamos ao estado do Maranhão.”] [S1: “O vídeo foi gravado em fevereiro de 2021. Na ocasião, a Polícia Civil do Maranhão prendeu uma mulher com as três armas de fogo no terminal de Ponta de Espera, em São Luís.”]
Gerald Bantag has been reinstated as Bureau of Corrections chief
Publisher’s rating: False
Recent visuals of a person dragging an old woman and throwing her in front of a tractor
Publisher’s rating: MISLEADING
Claim: Brazil bike theft video being shared as it happened in goa
Publisher’s rating: Missing Context
De Oekraïense minister van justitie rijdt rond in een gestolen auto
Publisher’s rating: Dit verhaal is al zo’n tien jaar oud en gaat niet over de huidige minister van Justitie. Lavrinovitsj bekleedt die rol al sinds 2013 niet meer.
The claim concerned Alexander Lavrinovitsj, who was alleged to be driving a Mercedes reported stolen in Germany. The article traces the social-media version to an auto.de article dated 31 December 2011, and says Ukrainian media had reported the stolen official car earlier that month. It identifies the vehicle as a Mercedes GL 420 and says it had been reported stolen in Stuttgart in January 2010. The account describes a legal route by which the vehicle could become a ministerial car: under a Ukrainian law then in force, vehicles of this kind could be designated state property. The article also reports that Der Spiegel said the car’s original owners had themselves smuggled it east and were arrested in Germany. Thus the reporting described an old case involving a car that had been reported stolen, not evidence that the officeholder at the time of the renewed social-media posts was using it. The key distinction is the date and identity of the minister. The article says Lavrinovitsj had not been justice minister since 2013, and names Denis Maljuska as the minister since August 2019. The allegation therefore relates to a former minister and an old vehicle story, not the current minister.
කොටුව දුම්රිය පොළ අසල ATM භාවිතා කරන මගීන් ඉලක්ක කරගනිමින් මේ දිනවල සිදුවන විශේෂ මුදල් මංකොල්ලකෑම් පිලිබඳ සටහන් නොමගයවන සුලුයි !
Publisher’s rating: Misleading
The claim concerned a specific alleged method of robbery near Colombo Fort Railway Station: people leaving ATMs were supposedly stopped by individuals claiming to check whether they were absent from the military, then had their wallets snatched when they took out identity cards. The review reports that this warning was circulating on social media and WhatsApp, and says it investigated whether that specific pattern was happening at the station. S1 describes the allegation as one that “ATM යන්ත්ර අසල සිට එලියට එන මගීන් නවතා” and then says the purported offenders took wallets “ID එක පෙන්වීමට මුදල් පසුම්බිය එලියට ගත් විගසම එය උදුරාගෙන පළායාමේ සිද්ධි වාර්තාවී ඇත.” The investigation says it first looked for reports of such incidents in mainstream media and then checked whether police had issued a warning about them. It found neither. The police spokesperson, Superintendent Nihal Thalduwa, also said he had asked the Fort police station’s officer in charge. According to the review, the station had received no complaints about wallets being snatched from people using ATMs near the railway station in the manner described in the social-media posts. S1 states, “කොටුව දුම්රිය ස්ථානය අසළින් වාර්තා නොවුණ” such organized robberies and that “මුදල් පසුම්බි පැහැරගෙන යාමේ සිදුවීමක් සම්බන්ධ කිසිදු පැමිණිල්ලක් කොටුව පොලිස් ස්ථානයට මෙතක් ලැබී නොමැත.” The review also includes an important qualification: the spokesperson said police had received some complaints about thefts of money from people who came from rural areas to the area near Fort Railway Station. That does not establish the specific ATM-side scheme described in the warning, but it means the article did not claim there had been no thefts in the wider area. Its conclusion was that there was insufficient evidence for the alleged organized ATM robbery operation, while advising people to safeguard their belongings. S1 summarizes this distinction: “සංවිධානාත්මක මංකොල්ලකෑම් පිලිබඳ කොටුව දුම්රිය ස්ථානය අසළින් වාර්තා නොවුණ ද” thefts in the busy area had been reported “කාලයක සිට.”
Staring at a woman for more than 14 seconds is a serious crime and can lead to jail under sections 294 and 509 of IPC
Publisher’s rating: MISLEADING
FACTLY investigated a social-media post attributed to the National Crime Investigation Bureau (NCIB), which asserted that staring at a woman for over 14 seconds is a serious crime punishable under IPC sections 294 and 509. The review reports that it searched online using relevant keywords, identified the tweet as an NCIB post, and examined the text of those two IPC sections. Its central finding is that neither section specifies a 14-second threshold, so the post’s fixed-duration rule is unsupported by the provisions described in the review. The review explains that section 294 concerns obscene acts or obscene songs or words in public places that cause annoyance. It describes section 509 as addressing words, gestures, acts or intrusions intended to insult a woman’s modesty. These provisions may be relevant to conduct involving a stare when the required circumstances are present, but the review does not say that looking for a particular length of time alone automatically satisfies them. It also reports that section 354D may apply to staring with explicit sexual intent bordering on voyeurism or stalking, and says sections 354 and its subsections contain no minimum duration for when staring becomes an offence. The review therefore distinguishes the absence of a special “14-second rule” from the possibility that conduct involving staring could be offensive or actionable in context. It adds that a woman need not wait 14 seconds to decide that someone’s presence makes her uncomfortable. The evidence presented supports rejecting the post’s categorical claim about a fixed time limit; it does not establish that every stare is lawful or unlawful regardless of intent and circumstances.