00326-26 Singh v dailyrecord.co.uk

Summary of Complaint

1. Sandeep Singh complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that dailyrecord.co.uk breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) and Clause 2 (Privacy) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an article headlined “Scots entrepreneur who made £100k in a day says money doesn't buy happiness”, published on 23 November 2025.

2. The article reported on the complainant’s investment career. It said the “biggest trade he has made in one day was around £100,000, but he says it took 17 years of practice”. It also reported that the complainant “who made £100,000 in one day says ‘money doesn't buy happiness’ despite his fortune.” It also quoted the complainant, who reportedly said: "There was a trade only a few weeks ago which cleared over £100,000. This is after 17 years of trading, so please don't take this as though it can happen overnight.”

3. The complainant said the article was inaccurate in breach of Clause 1, as it reported he made £100,000 a day. He said the statement was presented prominently as a statement of fact, and gave a misleading impression of his earnings.

4. He also said the article breached Clause 2 as it disclosed personal financial information including specific earnings – the 100,000 figure. He said this information was not in the public domain and he had an expectation of privacy in respect of his earnings. He said he had not consented to this information being published and the interview which he had given - in relation to his career - did not constitute a waiver of privacy rights. He added that there was no public interest in publishing the information under complaint.

5. The newspaper did not accept a breach of the Code, and said the article was an accurate report of information put into the public domain by the complainant in an interview he did with a news agency. It said the content was approved by a third-party public relations agency, which had commissioned the news agency to conduct the interview with its client. The publication provided a screenshot of a WhatsApp conversation between the news agency and a representative from the third-party agency, in which the representative approved the interview copy.

6. The newspaper also provided the transcript of the interview, which had also been approved by the PR agency. This showed the complainant had said the following: “There was a trade only a few weeks ago which cleared over $100k. This is after 17 years of trading so please don’t take this as though it can happen overnight.”

7. The complainant said that whether the copy was approved by a news agency or a PR agency was irrelevant, given the information was false and intrusive. He said he had never spoken directly to the news agency and had not made the statement attributed to him in the article suggesting that he earned £100,000 from a trade in an interview or elsewhere.

8. On 9 March, the complainant raised a further concern that the quote he had allegedly made – as detailed in the transcript – referred to $100k, rather than £100k as reported in the article. The complainant said the difference was not trivial. He also said this figure appeared in the headline and was central to the article.

9. The complainant also pointed out that in the transcript he had said “That’s something I prefer to keep private” when he was asked “How much do you earn now monthly or yearly?” He said this indicated he considered his earnings were private.

10. On 11 March, the newspaper offered to amend the article to instead refer to $100,000. However, it maintained it was not a significant inaccuracy, considering 100,000 in either pounds or dollars would be large sum of money, and where the thrust of the article was to advise and educate individuals going into the investment business.

11. The newspaper also provided the news agency copy which used pounds when referring to the 100,000 figure: “‘There was a trade only a few weeks ago which cleared over £100,000.’”.

Relevant Clause Provisions

Clause 1 (Accuracy)

i) The Press must take care not to publish inaccurate, misleading or distorted information or images, including headlines not supported by the text.

ii) A significant inaccuracy, misleading statement or distortion must be corrected, promptly and with due prominence, and — where appropriate — an apology published. In cases involving IPSO, due prominence should be as required by the regulator.

iii) A fair opportunity to reply to significant inaccuracies should be given, when reasonably called for.

iv) The Press, while free to editorialise and campaign, must distinguish clearly between comment, conjecture and fact.

Clause 2 (Privacy)*

i) Everyone is entitled to respect for their private and family life, home, physical and mental health, and correspondence, including digital communications.

ii) Editors will be expected to justify intrusions into any individual's private life without consent. In considering an individual's reasonable expectation of privacy, account will be taken of the complainant's own public disclosures of information and the extent to which the material complained about is already in the public domain or will become so.

iii) It is unacceptable to photograph individuals, without their consent, in public or private places where there is a reasonable expectation of privacy.

Findings of the Committee

12. The newspaper had provided a transcript of the interview and evidence it had been approved by the PR agency. It also provided the copy it had received from the new agency. Both these documents attributed a quote to the complainant in which he said he had made 100,000 in one day However, the Committee noted that in the interview transcript, the 100,000 figure had been given in dollars, whereas the copy provided by the news agency had recorded this figure in pounds.

13. While the Committee noted there was a discrepancy in the currencies, it noted that the copy it had received from the news agency referred to £100,000.The Committee considered the publication was entitled to rely on copy provided by a news agency as an accurate record of the interview and therefore the newspaper had taken care to accurately report the content of the interview, particularly in circumstances where the PR agency also appeared to have approved the copy in question. There was no breach of Clause 1 (i) on this point.

14. Next, the Committee considered whether the reference to £100,000 was significantly inaccurate. The Committee appreciated that £100,000 and $100,000 were not equivalent figures. However, the Committee did not consider that the difference between the two figures rendered the article significantly inaccurate: regardless of whether the amount made was £100,000 or $100,000, this was a large sum to be made in a single day.

15. Given the complainant had disputed having made any such claim in an interview, but the publication had been able to provide several documents which indicated he had, the Committee was not in a position to resolve this discrepancy. Given this, it was also not in a position to state whether the article was significantly inaccurate in how it reported the complainant’s comments. There was, therefore, no breach of Clause 1 (ii).

16. Neither the headline nor article stated the complainant received 100,000 every day. Rather, it was claimed he had made this sum in a day. It also noted that the article included the following quote from the complainant: “This is after 17 years of trading, so please don't take this as though it can happen overnight”. The Committee considered this made clear the large trade was a one-time event, which had come after 17 years of trading. The Committee did not consider the article was inaccurate on this point, and there was no breach of Clause 1.

17. The Committee considered whether reporting the amount the complainant had said he had earned in a day was an intrusion into his expectation of privacy. The Committee acknowledged that the complainant had denied making this claim in an interview. However, it was not in dispute the complainant had been interviewed in relation to his trading career and successes, and had willingly divulged some information about his working life and practices. Given this, and where the article did not disclose the complainant’s precise income, but rather reported on an alleged one-off event, the Committee considered he did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy over this figure. As such, there was no breach of Clause 2.

Conclusions

The complaint was not upheld.

Remedial action required

N/A

Date complaint received: 27/01/2026

Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 06/05/2026