03948-25 Reynolds v thesun.co.uk

Summary of Complaint

1. Megan Reynolds complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that thesun.co.uk breached Clause 1 (Accuracy), Clause 2 (Privacy) and Clause 9 (Reporting of crime) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an article headlined “'NO REMORSE' We were scammed out of £78K by Tinder Swindler-style conwoman who made sick bogus cancer claims & faked pregnancy scan”, published on 14 September 2025.

2. The article – which appeared online only - reported on allegations about the complainant’s fraudulent activity. It reported she “siphoned off a fortune while working for two unsuspecting firms over two years. She also took out a £1,000 loan in [her partner’s] name without his knowledge”. It then said, after “she was caught, more lies emerged in court - including wild claims that members of her family and her dog had cancer, which she'd concocted in a bid to get time off work, as well as various other health issues. It was also claimed Reynolds faked a pregnancy scan”. It also said the victim – a previous employer of the complainant – “compared Reynolds to […] the Tinder Swindler”. The victim was quoted as having said: “’That is a very sophisticated scam - and then she also lied about cancer, deaths, health problems, being pregnant and many other things.’”

3. The article – which described the complainant as an “office manager” - said the complainant “took on [a] business' bookkeeping, dealing with workers' credit card statements and expenses” and that she “pretended to contact Barclays to report fraud” on behalf of the business. The victim said the complainant “’had patched me into a fake call with Barclays - she must have got a friend to talk to me.’” It also reported the complainant “was partially furloughed, meaning communication was disjointed, which enabled the fraud to go undetected for longer.”

4. Under the heading “Funded own business”, the article described how the complainant had “also launched a side-business, La Crème Gifts. She initially claimed she was just helping with its marketing, before later admitting it was actually her company.” It said the victim “later discovered charges made to her company for La Crème Gifts stock and packaging, which had been cunningly renamed when charged to CSL, as well as purchases to fund Reynolds' lavish lifestyle.” It also quoted the victim as having said you “can change your trading name on a credit card terminal - so she would change it to Wickes, B&Q and other expenses that looked legitimate”. The victim also reportedly said “I realised real transactions from those companies didn’t have ‘SP*’ at the beginning of the charge – which shows she used payment processing service Shopify Payments. Without us realising, we were buying her stock, and so most of that was sold as pure profit.”

5. The article said the victim “recalls having suspicions about her employee’s lifestyle - noting she drove a luxurious Range Rover Sport.” It said: “’We didn’t pull all the pieces together until December 2020,’ [the victim] admits.” It said [w]hen confronted by [the victims] in December 2020, Reynolds denied everything.”

6. The article said the complainant’s former partner “found Reynolds had taken out a financial agreement for £1,465 in his name without his knowledge” and “‘[w]hen they broke up, she sent scan pictures saying she was pregnant,’ [the victim] says.” It said the former partner “rang the hospital. They wouldn’t confirm whether she had been in for a scan, but said the hospital did not use the type of machines for imaging”. The article said the victims felt “both financially and emotionally exploited, having comforted Reynolds during health issues including an alleged IVF battle - and even gave her £1,500 towards treatment, which she later returned. It’s not known whether Reynolds undertook IVF despite taking time off from work for it.”

7. The article said: “[d]espite being charged in 2021, it would take four years for Reynolds to accept a plea deal, just two weeks before her trial. She accepted three of six charges” and that “she was spared jail, receiving a 24-month suspended sentence after making a plea deal which saw her confess to three of six fraud offences”. It reported: “In his remarks, the judge said the three offences were examples of ‘persistent dishonesty’.” The article also included the victim’s comments in response to the judge’s comments: “It’s a kick in the teeth that the judge showed such leniency for a notorious liar, who played a victim narrative throughout, displayed absolutely no remorse, and never apologised.”

8. The article also said: “To add insult to injury, ahead of sentencing Reynolds tried to get her own back on [the victim] by reporting her to the police after she shared articles related to the crimes on Facebook.”

9. The article included several photographs of the complainant.

10. On the day of the article’s publication, the complainant complained to the newspaper. She said that, while she had been convicted and sentenced, the article reported inaccurate financial figures, inaccurate claims about medical scans and exaggerated and sensationalist claims that were not part of the court findings. She also said the headline inaccurately compared her to the Tindler Swindler, and requested an apology from the newspaper.

11. Two weeks later, the complainant complained to IPSO. She said the article said she showed “no remorse” which was inaccurate as she apologised in writing via the court to the victims.

12. The complainant further said the article alleged she had purchased a Range Rover with the victims’ money. However, the car was purchased in 2017, prior to her employment with the victims.

13. The complainant said the article inaccurately said she’d taken out a loan for her former partner without his knowledge. She said he had full knowledge of this.

14. The complainant also said the article implied she had fabricated a family illness. She said her grandmother had died from cancer.

15. She also said the article inaccurately stated she had a dog; however, she had never owned a dog. She said it was not heard in court that members of her family or her dog had cancer.

16. The complainant said the article alleged she had faked a pregnancy. She said she had suffered a miscarriage.

17. She also said it was inaccurate to describe her as a bookkeeper.

18. The complainant said the article alleged she was confronted by her employer in 2020, but she said the confrontation occurred in February 2021.

19. The complainant said the article claimed she funded her own business with the victims’ money. However, she said it was self-funded and it was not established in court that her previous employer’s funds or credit cards were used for stock or wrapping for La Crème Gifts.

20. The complainant then said the article alleged she had been working at the time of the alleged fraudulent activity. However, she said she had been placed on furlough.

21. She said the article claimed she had undergone IVF treatment. She said she had never had or claimed she had this treatment.

22. She then said the article inaccurately claimed the company’s bank statements’ transactions included payments with “SP*” in the description.

23. The complainant also said the article inaccurately stated she had patched the victim into a call, during which she had recruited a friend to pretend to be the bank. She said this never happened.

24. The complainant also said the article omitted to report that several charges against her were dropped, and allegations she had made about her former employer to the police.

25. The complainant said the article breached Clause 2, as it included photographs of her which had been taken from her private Facebook and Instagram pages without her consent. She said her Facebook had approximately 800 friends and her Instagram had approximately 2000 followers.

26. She also said the article breached Clause 9 as the article had impacted her child’s time at nursery.

27. The publication did not accept a breach of the Code. Turning to the process by with the article had been prepared and published, it said a reporter did not attend court on its behalf; however, its reporting was based on two articles published by a local news provider. It said the complainant had not produced any evidence to suggest the original news reports of the legal proceedings against her were inaccurate.

28. The newspaper said the reference to the complainant showing no remorse appeared within inverted commas in the article, denoting that it was a claim or opinion. It said this was the view of one of her victims, who told the newspaper she “displayed absolutely no remorse and never apologised”. It argued that the complainant’s decision to not plead guilty in April 2023 before later changing her plea two years later reflected this.

29. The newspaper said the article did not report the complainant had purchased a Range Rover with the victims’ money. Rather, it set out the victim’s recollection that she was initially suspicious that the complainant could afford a Range Rover, given her salary at the firm.

30. Regarding the loan which had been taken out in the name of the complainant’s former partner, the publication provided an “evidence log” document, which referred to transactions linked to the complainant via a finance agreement registered in the name of her partner. It also provided a WhatsApp conversation in which the complainant’s ex-partner’s mother said he had left the complainant after learning of the loans.

31. The publication also said the claims about the loans had been heard in court, as reported by the local newspaper. It provided the article in question, which said: “The court heard how Reynolds had also been deceiving her former partner [named individual] from February 2019 until they split in October 2021. The night before he left he found a letter for a financial agreement from [a named loan company] in his name for over £1,000 that he had never taken on. He rang the company and found out Reynolds’ mobile number was linked to the loan.”

32. In regard to the claims regarding the alleged cancer, the publication again referenced the other news organisation’s coverage. This said that the "the prosecutor explained how Reynolds had often told lies in the past, such as pretending a family member had cancer to get time off work, telling [her former partner] she was pregnant by providing a fake scan, and lying about her dog having cancer.” The publication also cited the judge’s comments in the other news organisation’s article which referenced the complainant pretending a family member had cancer to get time off work, telling her former partner she was pregnant by providing a fake scan, and lying about her dog having cancer as examples of her “persistent dishonesty”.

33. The publication also said that the victim confirmed the above was heard in court, as she had been present. The publication also provided various screenshots to support its position. This included a message from the complainant’s former colleague, which said the complainant had claimed her mother had cancer and died.

34. The publication also said a former childhood friend told its reporter the complainant “claimed her mum got cancer and that she was dying [...] Her nan was called up to the school to ask if they could offer her any support and it emerged that she didn’t have cancer.”

35. The newspaper also provided a screenshot of a pregnancy scan, which the ex-partner had allegedly been provided by the complainant – this included the name of a scan clinic. It also provided an email which the ex-partner’s mother had received from the same clinic, confirming it had not issued that scan.

36. In regard to the article’s claim that the complainant had claimed her dog had cancer, the publication said it had been told by the ex-partner she owned two dogs with him. It also said that the dogs in question had Instagram page, which was operated by the complainant. It also provided screenshots of messages, which showed the former partner and his mother received confirmation from an animal centre that one of the dogs was surrendered by the complainant, as well as a message from an animal centre confirmed the complainant was the previous owner of the dog. It also provided screenshots of a WhatsApp conversation, in which the complainant’s former partner had said that they shared two dogs, and that the complainant had lied about the dog having cancer.

37. The newspaper said that – contrary to the complainant’s assertion - the article did not describe the complainant as a bookkeeper but rather stated she “took on the business' book-keeping”.

38. Turning to when the confrontation between the complainant and the victim occurred, the publication said the article set out the victim’s recollection that she put the pieces together in December 2020, and had subsequently confronted the complainant about the suspicious credit card spending. It said the exact date of the confrontation was not significant in this particular context.

39. The publication provided credit card statements from the victim, which appeared to show that money had been transferred from the company account to the complainant’s business, as well as payments with “SP*” in the description. The publication said it had seen the victim’s statement to the police where she had referenced these “SP*” transactions.

40. The publication explained that Shopify can change the name that appears on invoices after “SP*”. Therefore, the victim alleged that the complainant used Shopify to pose as other companies.

41. In regard to the alleged faked bank call, the publication said this appeared in the Victim Impact statement. It did not provide IPSO with this statement.

42. Regarding the article’s claim that the complainant had claimed she was having IVF treatment, the newspaper said the victim had confirmed that the complainant had said this. It provided a screenshot of a WhatsApp conversation between the complainant and the victim, in which the complainant confirmed she was going to a clinic which performed IVF. It also provided screenshots of conversations where they discussed the complainant’s fertility treatment.

43. In relation to Clause 2, the publication said the photographs of the complainant were in the public domain and were not private. It provided a link to three news articles - all published prior to the article under complaint - which included the photographs.

44. The publication said no details about the complainant’s child were published and Clause 9 was not engaged.

45. The complainant said the newspaper did not contact her – either directly or via her legal representative - prior to the article’s publication to seek comment on the allegations against her. She said the newspaper acknowledged no reporter attended court, yet presented the disputed claims as though they were formally established.

46. The complainant said the newspaper repeatedly referred to allegations regarding her use of PayPal and Shopify. However, she said these allegations had been dropped by the court as part of her plea deal, meaning these allegations had· not been accepted by the court and not proven. She said therefore they could not be presented as fact, as the article did.

47. The complainant said both dogs belonged to her partner, and that she had cared for one of the dogs temporarily. She said that this was the dog who was alleged to have cancer.

48. She said the publication’s evidence consisted of statements from her ex-partner and his mother who were not independent or impartial. She also said the newspaper had based allegations on information from an unnamed childhood source.

49. The complainant also disputed that the pregnancy scan – provided by the newspaper to IPSO – had been sent by her to her ex-partner. She also said the newspaper did not have sufficient evidence to prove she had pretended to undergo IVF. She said the screenshots provided did not demonstrate she had undergone IVF treatment. Rather, they referred to fertility clinics and medication. She said this reflected that she had previously undergone medical investigations into her reproductive health.

50. She also said the various screenshots provided by the publication had been faked.

51. The publication said the complainant had provided no evidence the screenshots were fabricated, and confirmed its journalist had not fabricated any of the material it had provided to IPSO. It said it had no reason to believe that any evidence provided by the various parties it cited were fabricated.

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.

Clause 9 (Reporting of Crime)*

i) Relatives or friends of persons convicted or accused of crime should not generally be identified without their consent, unless they are genuinely relevant to the story.

ii) Particular regard should be paid to the potentially vulnerable position of children under the age of 18 who witness, or are victims of, crime. This should not restrict the right to report legal proceedings.

iii) Editors should generally avoid naming children under the age of 18 after arrest for a criminal offence but before they appear in a youth court unless they can show that the individual’s name is already in the public domain, or that the individual (or, if they are under 16, a custodial parent or similarly responsible adult) has given their consent. This does not restrict the right to name juveniles who appear in a crown court, or whose anonymity is lifted.

Findings of the Committee

52. The Committee acknowledged that, while the article discussed the complainant’s conviction, it was not a dispassionate court report of the case against the complainant. Rather, the article was clearly distinguished as an interview with one of the victims, setting out her experiences and perspective of the complainant’s conduct. The Committee took the clearly subjective nature of the article into account when considering whether the Code had been breached.

53. The Committee first considered the complainant’s concern that the headline inaccurately compared her to the “Tindler Swindler”, and that she showed “no remorse”. It noted that the article set out the basis for these claims, as the victim had “compared Reynolds to […] the Tinder Swindler”, and said that she showed “no remorse” As such, it was not inaccurate for the headline, which was written from the perspective of the victim, to refer to the complainant in this manner. There was no breach of Clause 1 on this point.

54. The article did not claim the Range Rover had been bought with the victim’s money – rather, it simply set out the victim’s recollection of being “suspicious about her employee’s lifestyle” on the basis she drove the car. Therefore, the Committee did not consider that the article was inaccurate on this point in the manner alleged by the complainant. There was no breach of Clause 1 on this point.

55. In regard to the complainant’s concern that the article had said she had taken out a loan in the name of her partner without his knowledge, the Committee noted that publication had provided screenshots of a conversation with the former partner’s mother about the loans, and the evidence log had also referred to a finance agreement registered in the partner’s name. The publication had also provided a court report which referenced that this had been heard in court. The Committee was satisfied the publication had taken care not to publish inaccurate or misleading information over this reference where it had provided evidence of such claims and provided a news article that indicated it had been heard in court. For the same reason, the Committee was satisfied that, it was not significantly inaccurate to report the victim’s claims the complainant had taken out a loan in the former partner’s name without his knowledge. There was no breach of Clause 1 on this point.

56. The Committee next considered the complainant’s concern that the article implied she had fabricated a family illness. Where the publication had provided several screenshots of individuals alleging the complainant had fabricated a family illness, the Committee did not consider it was inaccurate to report these claims in the context of an article clearly setting out the victim’s perceptions and experiences of the complainant’s conduct, and where it was not alleged the complainant had been charged with any criminal conduct in relation to such allegations. There was no breach of Clause 1 on this point.

57. The Committee noted that the complainant clearly had caring responsibilities for a dog, who allegedly had cancer – this did not appear to be in dispute. As such, it did not consider it was inaccurate to claim it was her dog, or that she had claimed it had cancer. There was no breach of Clause 1 on this point.

58. The Committee considered the article’s allegation that the complainant had faked a pregnancy. It noted that the newspaper provided a screenshot of the alleged fake scan, as well as an email from the clinic confirming it had not performed this scan. It also noted that the publication had provided a news article, which said the court heard how she told “a former boyfriend she was pregnant by providing a fake scan" and that “the prosecutor explained how Reynolds had often told lies in the past, such as […] telling [her former partner] she was pregnant by providing a fake scan”. The article also made clear this was a claim heard in court, and did not adopt it as fact. As such, the Committee considered that the newspaper had taken care over the accuracy of this allegation, and that it was not significantly inaccurate. There was no breach of Clause 1 on this point.

59. The Committee noted the article did not claim she was a bookkeeper, and made clear she was an office manager. There was, therefore, no breach of Clause 1 on this point.

60. The Committee did not consider it was significantly inaccurate to state the confrontation occurred in December 2020 where it occurred at the beginning of 2021: the key point being made by the article was that the complainant’s conduct had culminated in a confrontation, and whether this occurred in late 2020 or early 2021 was immaterial to the overall point being made. There was no breach of Clause 1 on this point.

61. The Committee turned to the complaint that the article alleged the complainant funded her own business with the victims’ money. The Committee noted that the publication had provided credit card statements from the victim, which appeared to show that money had been transferred from the company account to the complainant’s business and that she had made further unapproved purchases. Further, the Committee noted the complainant had pleaded guilty to having defrauded the organisation out of £78,000. It was therefore satisfied the newspaper had taken care over this reference, where it had provided credit card statements and information regarding her conviction. There was no breach of Clause 1 (i) on this point.

62. The Committee next considered whether it was inaccurate to report the complainant “funded own business”. The Committee noted this was a heading in the article above a section, which reported the victim’s account that her business had unknowingly bought the complainant’s stock and therefore the complainant could sell this as “pure profit”. Given this was presented in the context of the victim’s account, and the complainant had been found guilty of defrauding the victim, the Committee did not consider that the article was significantly inaccurate on this point. There was no breach of Clause 1 (ii).

63. The Committee noted that, regardless of whether the complainant had been furloughed, she was still employed. Therefore, it was not inaccurate to claim she was working for the employer at the time of the offences. There was no breach of Clause 1 on this point.

64. The Committee noted the article reported on the victim’s claims that the complainant had claimed she had IVF. Firstly, the Committee noted that the article was presented as the victim’s account of the events. The victim believed the complainant had claimed she was having IVF, and the publication provided various screenshots which suggested the complainant had told the victim she was having fertility treatment. As such, the Committee was content the publication had taken care to present this as the victim’s account and had provided sufficient evidence to support this claim. There was, therefore, no failure to take care over the accuracy of this claim, and the Committee did not consider it had been presented in a manner which rendered it significantly misleading. There was no breach of Clause 1.

65. The Committee considered the complainant’s claim that none of the transactions included “SP*”, as reported in the article. The Committee noted the publication had provided bank transactions which showed transactions with “SP*” appended to them. It also set out the victim’s interpretation on these payments. Where the publication had demonstrated that the transactions did include this reference, the Committee did not consider the claim was inaccurate. There was no breach of Clause 1 on this point.

66. Next, the Committee considered the complainant’s concern that it was inaccurate to state she patched the victim into a friend’s call, pretending to be the bank. The Committee noted that this was presented as the victim’s claim: “It was so cunning because she had patched me into a fake call with Barclays - she must have got a friend to talk to me”; and "I spoke to Barclays and they said no fraud had ever been reported by Reynolds.” The Committee was satisfied this was distinguished as the victim’s allegation where it included first person speech and a statement “she must have”, and that the article made clear the nature of the allegation – namely, that it was the victim’s supposition. As such, there was no breach of Clause 1 on this point.

67. The Committee next considered the complainant’s concern that the article omitted to report that several charges were dropped, and that she had reported the victim to the police. It noted that the article made clear that there were six charges against her, and that she pleaded guilty to three of these charges after a plea deal. As such, the Committee was satisfied it had accurately reported on the number of charges she had pleaded guilty to, and made clear that some of the charges against her had not been pursued. In addition, the Committee noted the article had made clear the complainant had reported the victim to the police. As such, there was no breach of Clause 1 on these points.

68. The Committee also considered the complainant’s concern that the newspaper did not contact her prior to the article’s publication. The Committee noted Clause 1 does not require newspapers to contact complainants prior to the publication of articles unless this is necessary in order to take care the article is accurate. Where the Committee did not identify any significant inaccuracies, there was no obligation to contact the complainant or her solicitor and there was no breach of Clause 1 on this point.

69. The Committee considered the complaint under Clause 2. The publication had provided articles which contained the same photographs, which showed that the photographs were already in the public domain prior to the article’s publication. Given this, the Committee did not consider that the photographs were private, or that publishing them represented an intrusion into the complainant’s private and family life. As such, there was no breach of Clause 2.

70. With regard to Clause 9, the Committee noted that the article did not identify the complainant’s child or indicate that the child was a witness to the crime. This Clause was therefore not engaged.

Conclusions

71. The complaint was not upheld

Remedial action required

N/A

Date complaint received: 28/09/2025

Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 13/04/2026