As I have explained other times the “innocent until proven guilty” to which we could add “beyond a reasonable doubt” is joined in criminal cases, where sentencing someone to 30 years in prison or the death penalty for a murder is very serious. However in civil cases this does not apply and probability is used more. I believe that forum cases are more similar to civil cases, and that negative feedback for a short period until things are clarified generally doesn't hurt.
Unlike the obvious case where one who shares phishing links, defaulted a loan or tried to promote a Ponzi schemes can get tagged immediately, I believe it's important to give the accused party time to prove that they are not scammers. As far as I know, even civil courts that handle civil cases give the accused time to defend themselves.
Poker Player if you are to go by the assumption that it's OK to tag any profile her based on any scam accusation that comes up because you are using a "preventive approach", then at least 80% of the service actively advertising themselves here should have already been tagged by DT members. Just look at the first page of the scam accusations board.
This would make the Red trust way useless. It would be reds everywhere and people would even stop believing in the feedback system and it's accuracy