The bar for defamation in the United States is very high. You have to prove not only that the statement was a lie, but also that the writer either knew that it was false or had reckless disregard for obtaining the truth.
Libel suits happen frequently. All the major papers are quite versed in dealing with them. They rarely lose these cases.
I did A quick google search and can’t even find a libel case the NYT has lost in the last 30+ years. There was one case in 2003 where media outlets reported incorrectly that the times lost a libel case. In fact, they won the case, even though the jury agreed that the facts reported were false, because the plaintiff failed to prove malice (see https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/2003/05/24/n...).
The reason the NYT wins libel suits is because they have rules about what their journalists are allowed to say, and one of those rules is to make it very clear people only accused/charged with a crime haven't yet been convicted.
The journalist does clearly know that he isn't charged and convicted, and if they did not know that while writing an article about someone's crimes and still printed that assertion, it would qualify as reckless disregard for obtaining truth.
Major papers rarely lose libel cases because they do the obvious thing and avoid publishing libel.
Would calling someone a "crook" even qualify as defamation? That's an opinion I can have about my local grocer because he charges slightly more for a half gallon of milk than Trader Joes does for a gallon. It's still an opinion regardless whether I'm wrong about the price of milk (I haven't checked but according to my buddy who worked at TJs it's a loss leader, so I'm going to recklessly assume the grocer is a crook).
In the US, it would only count as defamation if it were stated as a fact and was untrue, and any reasonable person given the same information would have suspected that it might not be true.
If it's true, there is no defamation. If it was stated as opinion, there is no defamation.
Everyone vaguely informed about this story knows it was a scam. Reporting anything else is untruthful. Why do you defend reporting you know to be untruthful?
No, it’s not. The answer is never — unless that person has been charged with and convicted of a crime.
To do otherwise would expose the reporter to enormous potential civil liability. Defamation is a thing.
Prosecutors charge people with crimes, not reporters.