At Trustvisory, we are deeply committed to fostering a transparent and ethical ecosystem for immigration and employment services. Our initiatives aim to protect the public from the detrimental practices of Unauthorized Practitioners (UAPs), Unauthorized Corporates and Entities (UACEs), Human Trafficking Networks (HTNs), Impersonation Scams and Frauds (ISFs) operating various jurisdictions. These actors often exploit regulatory gaps and cross-border complexities, causing harm to vulnerable individuals.

While our efforts prioritize public interest, we recognize the importance of fairness and the right of individuals and entities to address inaccuracies or seek removal of outdated or irrelevant information. To this end, Trustvisory has implemented a Right to Be Forgotten (RTBF) Policy to balance public safety with ethical data governance. This policy aligns with global best practices while considering the unique challenges of addressing cross-jurisdictional activities.

---

Why a Right to Be Forgotten Policy?

Cross-Jurisdictional Challenges

Unauthorized entities and scammers often operate in multiple jurisdictions to evade accountability, exploiting differences in local regulations and oversight. Trustvisory’s database serves as a critical tool for public awareness, but it also requires a mechanism to ensure fairness for those who may be wrongly flagged or who have taken corrective action.

Example: A recruitment agency flagged for advertising unauthorized immigration services in one country demonstrates compliance with local laws after moving operations to another jurisdiction. This case illustrates the need for a transparent process to reassess and, if appropriate, remove outdated or irrelevant information.

Public Interest and Accountability

Trustvisory’s primary focus is protecting consumers from harm. Our database highlights high-risk actors and unethical practices to help individuals make informed decisions. However, we also recognize that individuals and entities have the right to privacy and redress, especially when they have resolved issues or have been flagged erroneously.

Example: A flagged accountant operating in a jurisdiction with weak regulatory oversight later becomes fully compliant by obtaining proper licensure in their home country. Through the RTBF process, Trustvisory can acknowledge their efforts and adjust their status while preserving public trust.

Maintaining Data Integrity and Ethical Practices

The RTBF Policy ensures that our database remains accurate and credible by allowing individuals and entities to challenge decisions or demonstrate compliance. This promotes accountability on both sides—those who use the system and Trustvisory itself.

Example: A flagged high-risk transaction network proves that its flagged transactions were legitimate and compliant with local laws, prompting data correction. This process not only protects the entity but also reinforces the accuracy of Trustvisory’s monitoring systems.

---

Eligibility for RTBF Requests

An RTBF request may be submitted under the following conditions:

Resolved Concerns or Updated Compliance

Flagged entities have rectified non-compliance issues, obtained proper authorization, or taken significant corrective actions.

Example: A UACE flagged for providing unlicensed immigration services submits proof of certification or authorized partnerships.

Erroneous or Inaccurate Information

Data flagged as incorrect, outdated, or misinterpreted can be challenged with supporting evidence.

Outdated or Irrelevant Information

The entity no longer operates in the flagged domain or jurisdiction, and the information is no longer relevant to public interest.

Example: A UAP flagged in Canada has ceased operations and moved to a non-related industry overseas.

Privacy and Reputational Harm

Continued inclusion in the database causes unjustified harm to reputation or privacy, particularly if the entity has reformed or resolved prior issues.

Example: A flagged scammer who has completed legal proceedings and restitution requests record removal to rebuild their reputation.

---

How the RTBF Process Works

Submitting a Request

Individuals or entities submit an RTBF request through our online portal or via email.

Required Information Includes:

• Name or entity details.
• A description of the flagged record.
• Justification for removal.
• Supporting evidence (e.g., licenses, compliance documents, legal judgments).

Preliminary Review

Trustvisory’s team conducts an initial review to verify the validity of the request and ensure it meets eligibility criteria. If additional documentation is required, the requester is notified within 15 business days.

Comprehensive Assessment

A cross-jurisdictional review is conducted where applicable to ensure that removal does not compromise public interest. Relevant authorities or stakeholders may be consulted to verify claims of compliance or corrective actions.

Decision Notification

A final decision is made within 45 business days of receiving complete documentation.

• Approved Requests: Result in immediate removal or anonymization of the flagged record.
• Denied Requests: Include a detailed explanation and guidance on potential next steps.

---

Retention Period for Ceased Operations

Default Retention Period: 3 to 5 Years

Flagged data will be retained for 3 to 5 years after the entity ceases operations. This allows sufficient time for:

• Public Awareness: Ensuring individuals affected by the entity’s prior activities have access to information.
• Investigations: Providing evidence or context if regulatory bodies or victims require historical data.
• Cross-Border Issues: Accounting for the complexities of jurisdictional accountability.

Why 3 to 5 Years?

• A 3-year minimum aligns with common legal or regulatory timelines for claims or disputes.
• Extending to 5 years covers jurisdictions with longer reporting or investigation windows.

Example: If a flagged UACE shuts down operations in 2024, its data will remain in the database until 2029 unless exceptional circumstances arise.

Early Removal on Request

Entities may request early removal if they can demonstrate:

• No pending investigations or liabilities.
• No risk to public interest.
• Clear evidence that the cessation of operations is permanent.

Example: A small immigration consultancy flagged for minor compliance issues proves it permanently ceased operations and requests data removal after 2 years.

Long-Term Retention for Public Interest Cases

For entities flagged as high-risk (e.g., scammers, repeat offenders, or cross-border violators), data may be retained for up to 10 years to ensure public safety.

Example: A scammer operating through shell companies across jurisdictions ceases one operation but may continue through another. Retaining data for 10 years helps deter similar activities and supports enforcement.

How Retention is Implemented

• Transparency: Include clear retention timelines in public policies, such as “Records for ceased operations will be retained for a period of 3 to 5 years unless deemed high-risk.”
• Annual Review: Regularly assess records for relevance, especially those nearing the end of the retention period.
• Anonymization Option: For ceased entities no longer deemed high-risk, consider anonymizing data after the retention period while retaining aggregated insights for historical purposes.

---

Fees and Refunds

Administrative Fees

RTBF requests are subject to administrative or reconsideration fees based on the complexity and risk level of the case.

Full Refund for Errors

If the flagged record is determined to be an error on Trustvisory’s part, all administrative fees will be refunded in full.

Example: A flagged entity demonstrates that their categorization was due to an oversight in Trustvisory’s monitoring system. In such cases, fees are waived, and corrections are made promptly.

---

Public Interest Limitations

While Trustvisory aims to provide fair opportunities for data removal, certain circumstances may require flagged records to remain in the database to serve public interest:

• Repeat Offenders: Entities with a history of unethical practices, scams, or cross-border violations may remain flagged to warn the public.
• Ongoing Investigations: Records tied to active legal cases or investigations will not be removed until the matter is resolved.
• Significant Public Interest: High-profile cases or entities whose activities pose substantial risks to the public will remain in the database to ensure transparency.

Example: A UACE repeatedly flagged for unauthorized immigration services across multiple jurisdictions may remain listed to protect clients and deter potential victims.

---

Appeals Process

If an RTBF request is denied, the requester may appeal the decision within 15 business days. Appeals are reviewed by a senior compliance officer, with a final decision provided within 45 business days.

---

Commitment to Ethical Practices

The RTBF Policy is part of Trustvisory’s broader mission to:

• Safeguard public interest by exposing unethical practices and scams.
• Promote fairness and accountability for entities working to comply with regulations.
• Continuously improve our systems to meet the challenges of a cross-jurisdictional world.

---

Contact Us:

• Email: [email protected]
• Portal: www.trustvisory.com/pages/rtbf

Trustvisory’s RTBF Policy ensures a fair, transparent, and ethical process for managing data, protecting both public interest and individual rights in an interconnected global landscape.