This industry has a reputation problem, and it is largely earned. These are the rules we work to. They are published so you can hold us to them.
1. Professional methods, without exception
We work only within the law. No call records, no banking data, no account or device access, no access to government databases, no recording inside private premises, no trespass, no impersonation of police or public officials. Where a question can only be answered unproperly, we say so and decline. We do not make an exception because a client's situation is sympathetic — and many of them are.
2. Honest scoping, including when it costs us the work
If a question cannot be answered with the identifiers available, or the budget does not match what the case genuinely requires, the client is told during the free scoping call rather than after payment. We decline assignments we do not believe are worth running.
3. No guarantees, and no outcome-based fees
Nobody has seen the facts before the work is done, so nobody can honestly guarantee a finding. We do not price on success, because an investigator who earns more for finding a particular result has a financial interest in that result. Our fee is fixed before work begins and does not change with the outcome.
4. Fact separated from inference
Reports distinguish what was directly observed, what was corroborated, what was contradicted and what could not be established. We do not pad a report to justify a fee, and we do not present inference as conclusion — including when the inference is the one the client hopes for.
5. Minimum data, agreed contact
We collect only what the assignment needs. Contact happens through the channel and within the hours the client sets, and we will not leave material that could expose an enquiry to someone else in their household.
6. Proportionality
Methods are proportionate to the question. We do not run surveillance where a record check would answer it, and we do not extend an enquiry that has already produced its answer. Where further work is unlikely to add anything, we say so rather than continuing to bill.
7. Assignments we refuse
- Locating a person who appears to have left an abusive or threatening situation
- Anything that reads as stalking, harassment or coercive control
- Investigating a person on the basis of a protected characteristic
- General monitoring of an adult exercising a professional private choice
- Cases where the client requires a predetermined conclusion
- Any assignment whose evident purpose is to cause harm
Where we decline, we say why.
8. Accountability
Where fieldwork is carried out by an investigator outside Rajasthan, the responsibility remains ours. The client deals with us, the report is written by us, and any failure is ours to answer for.
Holding us to this
If you believe we have fallen short of any of the above, write to kishorenagi@gmail.com marked for the attention of Kishore Kumar Nagi, and it will be answered personally.