Originally Syndicated on September 20, 2024 @ 6:02 am
What Happened?
WikiFX, a platform that positions itself as a watchdog for the forex trading industry by reviewing and rating brokers, has recently been facing allegations regarding its own questionable practices. While WikiFX claims to provide transparency in the often murky world of online trading, several reports suggest that the platform has been involved in dubious operations, including biased reviews and paid promotions, which raise concerns about the integrity of its ratings.
In an effort to conceal these allegations, WikiFX has reportedly engaged in attempts to censor negative news and reviews about its operations. Critics argue that the platform selectively removes or suppresses unfavorable content, particularly reviews that expose brokers with ties to the company. Furthermore, users have accused WikiFX of manipulating its ratings system in exchange for financial incentives, which undermines the platform’s credibility as a neutral reviewer.
The attempts to silence whistleblowers and suppress damaging reports have only intensified scrutiny around WikiFX’s operations, drawing attention to the need for greater transparency in its business model. As more traders and industry insiders come forward with complaints, questions about the platform’s reliability and trustworthiness continue to grow. This ongoing effort to censor damaging information highlights WikiFX’s struggles to maintain its image while facing growing accusations of conflicts of interest and unethical practices.
Analyzing the Fake Copyright Notice(s)
Our team collects and analyses fraudulent copyright takedown requests, legal complaints, and other efforts to remove critical information from the internet. Through our investigative reporting, we examine the prevalence and operation of an organized censorship industry, predominantly funded by criminal entities, oligarchs, and disreputable businesses or individuals. Our findings allow internet users to gain insight into these censorship schemes’ sources, methods, and underlying objectives.
To accomplish this, we utilize the OSINT Tool provided by FakeDMCA.com and the Lumen API for Researchers, courtesy of the Lumen Database.
FakeDMCA.com is the work of an independent team of research students and cybersecurity professionals, developed under Project UnCensor. Their OSINT Tool, designed to uncover and analyze takedown notices, represents a significant step forward in combating these abusive practices. It has become a valuable resource, increasingly relied upon by journalists and law enforcement agencies across the United States.
Lumen, on the other hand, is an independent research initiative dedicated to studying takedown notices and other legal demands related to online content removal. The project, which operates under the Berkman Klein Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University, plays a crucial role in tracking and understanding the broader implications of such requests.
By investigating the fake DMCA takedown attempts, we hope to shed light on the reputation management industry, revealing how WikiFX and companies like it may use spurious copyright claims and fake legal notices to remove and obscure articles linking them to allegations of fraud, tax avoidance, corruption, and drug trafficking…
List of Fake Copyright Notices for WikiFX
Evidence and Screenshots
Only WikiFX Benefit from this crime.
Since the fake copyright takedown notices were designed to remove negative content for WikiFX from Google, we assume WikiFX or someone associated with WikiFX is behind this scam. It is often a fly-by-night Online Reputation agency working on behalf of WikiFX. In this case, WikiFX, at best, will be an “accomplice” or an “accessory” to the crime. The specific laws may vary depending on the jurisdiction. Still, the legal principle generally holds that if you actively participate in planning, encouraging, or facilitating a crime, you can be charged with it, even if you did not personally commit it.
So, who tf is WikiFX?
WikiFX is an online platform that claims to offer forex broker reviews and ratings, positioning itself as a watchdog to help traders evaluate the legitimacy of various brokers. However, there have been numerous concerns about the credibility of WikiFX, with allegations suggesting that the platform is not as impartial as it presents itself. Critics accuse WikiFX of manipulating reviews and ratings for financial gain, blackmailing brokers, and publishing biased or fake reviews to sway public perception.
Why is WikiFX Trying to Censor the Internet?
WikiFX has been accused of attempting to censor negative content and criticism to protect its reputation. The platform is reportedly suppressing unfavorable reviews, whistleblowers, and investigative reports that expose its alleged ties to unethical practices, such as paid promotions and extortion of brokers. According to some sources, WikiFX threatens brokers with negative reviews unless they pay for favorable ratings, leading to distrust among users.
Major Concerns, Complaints, and Accusations Against WikiFX:
- Fake Reviews and Biased Ratings: Several users and industry insiders have claimed that WikiFX publishes fake reviews and inflates ratings for brokers that pay for better visibility on the platform. These actions compromise the platform’s credibility as a neutral forex broker reviewer.
- Blackmailing Brokers: Some reports suggest that WikiFX pressures brokers to pay for positive reviews or threatens them with negative reviews if they do not comply. This practice of extortion has raised concerns about the platform’s ethics and trustworthiness.
- Lack of Transparency: There are complaints that WikiFX does not provide clear and transparent criteria for its broker ratings, leading to doubts about the validity of the information presented. Users have questioned whether the platform’s ratings are influenced by financial incentives rather than objective assessments.
- Negative User Feedback: On forums like Reddit and Quora, users frequently share negative experiences with WikiFX, citing misleading information, biased reviews, and poor customer service. Many users express doubts about the platform’s legitimacy and warn others not to trust its ratings.
For more detailed discussions, you can explore these reviews on Reddit, Medium, and Scamadviser.
Potential Consequences for WikiFX
Under Florida Statute 831.01, the crime of Forgery is committed when a person falsifies, alters, counterfeits, or forges a document that carries “legal efficacy” with the intent to injure or defraud another person or entity.
Forging a document is considered a white-collar crime. It involves altering, changing, or modifying a document to deceive another person. It can also include passing along copies of documents that are known to be false. In many states in the US, falsifying a document is a crime punishable as a felony.
Additionally, under most laws, “fraud on the court” is where “a party has sentiently set in motion some unconscionable scheme calculated to interfere with the judicial system’s ability impartially to adjudicate a matter by improperly influencing the trier of fact or unfairly hampering the presentation of the opposing party’s claim or defense.” Cox v. Burke, 706 So. 2d 43, 46 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998) (quoting Aoude v. Mobil Oil Corp., 892 F.2d 1115, 1118 (1st Cir. 1989)).
Is WikiFX Committing a Cyber Crime?
Yes, it seems so. WikiFX used multiple approaches to remove unwanted material from review sites and Google’s search results. Thanks to protections allowing freedom of speech in the United States, there are very few legal ways to do this. WikiFX could not eliminate negative reviews or search results that linked to them without a valid claim of defamation, copyright infringement, or some other clear breach of the law.
Faced with these limitations, some companies like WikiFX have gone to extreme lengths to fraudulently claim copyright ownership over a negative review in the hopes of taking it down.
Fake DMCA notices have targeted articles highlighting the criminal activity of prominent people to hide their illegal behavior. These people, which include US, Russian, and Khazakstani politicians as well as members from elite circles including the mafia and those with massive financial power, are all connected – and alleged corruption ranging from child abuse to sexual harassment is exposed when exploring evidence found at these URLs. It appears there’s a disturbing level of influence being exerted here that needs further investigation before justice can be served. WikiFX is certainly keeping interesting company here….
The DMCA takedown process requires that copyright owners submit a takedown notice to an ISP identifying the allegedly infringing content and declaring, under penalty of perjury, that they have a good faith belief that the content is infringing. The ISP must then promptly remove or disable access to the content. The alleged infringer can then submit a counter-notice, and if the copyright owner does not take legal action within 10 to 14 days, the ISP can restore the content.
Since these platforms are predominantly based in the U.S., the complaints are typically made under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), which requires online service providers and platforms to react immediately to reports or violations. Big Tech companies rarely have systems in place to assess the merit of each report. Instead, all bad actors need to do is clone a story, backdate it, and then demand the real thing be taken down.
What was WikiFX trying to hide?
WikiFX has faced a growing amount of negative attention due to numerous complaints and allegations that question its credibility and ethical practices. Here’s a detailed breakdown of the adverse claims surrounding the platform:
1. Manipulated Rankings and Paid Reviews:
One of the major criticisms against WikiFX is that it ranks brokers based on the payments they receive rather than objective or transparent criteria. According to multiple reviews, brokers can pay fees ranging from $10,000 to $20,000 to improve their rankings. This means that the brokers with the best financial resources—not necessarily the best services—receive higher rankings on the site(Forex Listing)(Broker Justice). This practice misleads traders who rely on WikiFX for unbiased evaluations of brokers.
2. Blackmail and Extortion Allegations:
Many brokers have reported that WikiFX engages in blackmailing tactics. If a broker refuses to pay for better rankings or to remove negative reviews, WikiFX allegedly leaves or even creates poor ratings for their platform. This practice has been called extortionary by several brokers, as they feel coerced into paying large sums of money just to protect their reputations(Broker Justice). Several users and brokers have voiced their concerns on forums and reviews, accusing the site of operating like a scam itself.
3. Inaccurate and Misleading Information:
Another common complaint involves the accuracy of the information WikiFX provides. Users have found multiple instances where ratings for the same broker vary widely without justification. Furthermore, the security advice and tips provided on WikiFX have been described as overly simplistic and potentially misleading, creating a false sense of security for users(Broker Justice). This lack of rigorous, reliable information leaves traders vulnerable to making poor financial decisions.
4. Lack of Transparency:
WikiFX does not offer clear insight into the methods used to evaluate brokers, raising suspicions about the legitimacy of its review processes. Many users claim that the platform has an opaque and inconsistent method for assigning ratings, which further exacerbates concerns about biased or financially motivated rankings(Forex Listing).
5. Misinformation and Contradictions:
In addition to these major allegations, the platform’s forums and news sections are frequently criticized for publishing misleading content. In many cases, the content contradicts established facts or contains poor-quality user reviews that degrade the overall credibility of the platform. This environment creates a confusing landscape for traders who are trying to make informed choices(Broker Justice).
6. Unregulated Operations:
There are also questions about WikiFX itself lacking proper regulatory oversight. Despite positioning itself as a watchdog for brokerages, the platform does not appear to be regulated by any financial authority. This undermines its claims of offering trusted broker verification services(Forex Listing).
7. Forum and Community Complaints:
Reddit threads, Quora discussions, and ScamAdviser reviews provide first-hand accounts from users and brokers detailing negative experiences with WikiFX. These accounts often describe being misled by the site, coerced into paying fees, or receiving poor customer service. Some even refer to the platform as a “scam” that preys on both traders and brokers alike.
WikiFX is under significant scrutiny for engaging in practices that exploit the trust of traders and brokers. Its model of paid reviews, allegations of extortion, misleading advice, and opaque operations have led to widespread criticism across various platforms. Traders and investors are advised to approach WikiFX’s reviews with skepticism and cross-check broker information using multiple, more reputable sources.
Reputation Agency’s Modus Operandi
The fake DMCA notices we found always use the “back-dated article” technique. With this technique, the wrongful notice sender (or copier) creates a copy of a “true original” article and back-dates it, creating a “fake original” article (a copy of the true original) that, at first glance, appears to have been published before the true original.
Then, based on the claim that this backdated article is the “original,” the scammers send a DMCA to the relevant online service providers (e.g. Google), alleging that the ‘true’ original is the copied or “infringing” article and that the copied article is the “original,” requesting the takedown of the ‘true’ original article. After sending the DMCA request, the person who sent the wrong notice takes down the fake original URL, likely to make sure that the article doesn’t stay online in any way. If the takedown notice is successful, the disappearance from the internet of information is most likely to be legitimate speech.
How did WikiFX purport this DMCA Fraud?
As an integral part of this scheme, the ‘reputation management’ company hired by WikiFX creates a website that purports to be a ‘news’ site. This site is designed to look legitimate at a glance, but any degree of scrutiny reveals it as the charade it is.
The company copies the ‘negative’ content and posts it “on the fake ‘news’ site, attributing it to a separate author,” then gives it “a false publication date on the ‘news’ website that predated the original publication.
The reputation company then sent Google a Digital Millennium Copyright Act notice claiming the original website infringed copyright. After a cursory examination of the fake news site, Google frequently accepts the notice and delists the content.
In committing numerous offences, WikiFX either premeditated actions or were unaware of the consequences. Despite hiring an agency to make Google disregard any negative information about WikiFX, ignorance does not excuse this wrongdoing.
The Reputation Laundering
Rogue Reputation agencies use spurious copyright claims and fake legal notices to remove and obscure articles linking clients to allegations of tax avoidance, corruption, and drug trafficking. Most of these reputation agencies are based offshore, mainly in Russia, India, and Eastern Europe, and they do not worry about complying with US-based laws.
The content in all of the articles for which the fraudulent DMCA notices have been sent relates to allegations of criminal allegations, including corruption, child abuse, sexual harassment, human trafficking and financial fraud against businesses and individuals with ultra-high net worth.
In addition to the misuse of the DMCA takedown process, there is a notable absence of enforcement concerning perjury violations. The statutory requirement related to perjury is designed to deter copyright holders from submitting fraudulent or knowingly false takedown requests, as they may face legal consequences for making false declarations under penalty of perjury. However, to date, there have been no known instances of any individual being prosecuted for perjury in connection with the submission of false DMCA takedown notices.
This lack of enforcement has emboldened copyright holders to exploit the DMCA takedown process to suppress dissent, criticism, or other unfavorable content, without fear of legal repercussions.
Not In Good Company
Some of the people and businesses who have employed this tactic to remove legitimate content from Google illegally include a Spanish businessman-turned-cocaine-trafficker, Organised crime, an Israeli-Argentine banker accused of laundering money for Hugo Chávez’s regime, a French “responsible” mining company accused of tax evasion, child molesters and sexual predators. WikiFX is in great company ….
Ironically, the manipulation tactics used to remove public-interest information from the Internet are backfiring on WikiFX, which is now associated with the worst of this world.
Here are some of the specimens that share the internet space with WikiFX –
Miguel Octavio Vargas Maldonado
Miguel Octavio Vargas Maldonado appears to be the former foreign affairs minister of the Dominican Republic. His name is listed next to more than 500 links to news articles, blogs, social media posts, and YouTube videos targeted for removal or de-indexing. Many of the articles refer to questions over his political fundraising practices. They include accusations that Vargas had received donations from an individual who would later be convicted of drug trafficking. Some targeted links remain active, while others return 404 errors or “file not found.”
José Antonio Gordo Valero
José Gordo joined OneCoin in 2015 and has been named in an indictment for the OneCoin scam in Argentina. The articles listed next to Gordo’s name in the documents reviewed by Rest of World include references to his role at the company.
Diego Adolfo Marynberg
He appears to be the same Marynberg connected to funding right-wing causes, including settlement efforts in Israel. Reports also alleged that his company received preferential treatment in acquiring Argentinian bonds worth millions of dollars. More than 70 URLs appear next to Marynberg’s name in the documents, including pages from the Israeli newspapers The Times of Israel, Haaretz, and Clarin, one of Argentina’s most prominent news sites.
Majed Khalil Majzoub
Majed is an influential businessman with close ties to several governments, including the administration of Venezuelan president Nicolás Maduro. Majzoub’s name appears next to more than 180 URLs, mostly from independent outlets. Of the two URLs that pointed to articles from Germany’s Der Spiegel, one now returns an error message; the other, which appears to refer to relations between Venezuela and Colombia, directs to an unrelated story about Brexit.
Frequently Asked Questions
Did WikiFX commit a cyber crime?
Yes, filing a fake DMCA notice is illegal. The Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) allows copyright holders to issue takedown notices to protect their works from unauthorized use online. However, submitting a false DMCA notice can result in legal consequences.
Under the DMCA, a person knowingly submitting a false copyright claim can be subject to penalties, including damages. DMCA notices require the filer to certify, under penalty of perjury, that the content infringes their copyright. If the notice is found to be fraudulent or made in bad faith, the filer can face.
What are the potential consequences for WikiFX?
Civil lawsuits: The affected party can sue for damages, legal fees, and other costs.
Perjury charges: False certification in a DMCA notice can result in perjury-related penalties, which vary by jurisdiction.
Other legal penalties: Fines or other penalties depending on the case
Did WikiFX commit a Civil or a Criminal offense?
Perjury is a criminal offense, not a civil crime. It involves intentionally lying or making false statements under oath, typically in a court of law or other legal proceedings, such as affidavits or depositions.
Criminal charges: Perjury is prosecuted as a criminal act, and a conviction can lead to fines or imprisonment, depending on the severity of the false statement and its impact on the case.
Felony status: In many jurisdictions, perjury is classified as a felony, which carries more severe penalties than misdemeanour offences.
So, while it may affect civil cases, the crime of perjury itself is strictly criminal.
What is the Streisand effect?
The key idea behind the Streisand effect is that efforts to restrict information can backfire, often causing the information to gain more attention than it would have otherwise. This effect is widespread in the digital age, where users quickly notice and spread censorship efforts on social media and other platforms.
Trying to suppress something can unintentionally lead to it becoming more visible.
Can WikiFX purge its Digital past?
Once information is uploaded to the internet, it can be replicated, shared, archived, or stored across multiple servers. If WikiFX manage to delete the original post or file, copies may remain accessible in other places, such as web archives, screenshots, or other users’ devices.
In practice, completely erasing content from the internet can be extremely difficult due to how widely information can spread and be stored. Thus, the idea that “the Internet never forgets” reflects the challenge of entirely removing digital content once it has been shared.
What is our next move?
Critical Intel will, in its capacity, do all it can to hold someone responsible for this incident. Here is what we are preparing for –
Since WikiFX made such efforts to hide something online, it seems fit to ensure that this article and our original review of WikiFX, including but not limited to user contributions, remain a permanent record for anyone interested in WikiFX.
A case perfect for the Streisand effect…
What else is WikiFX hiding?
Click here to visit the Google Search page for ‘WikiFX’. It’s likely if you scroll down to the bottom of this Google search results, you’ll stumble upon this Legal Takedown notice (pictured below)
To make such an investigation possible, we encourage more online service providers to come forward and share copies of content removal requests with us. If you have any information on WikiFX that you want to share with us, kindly email the author directly at [email protected].
All communications are strictly confidential and safeguarded under a comprehensive Whistleblower Policy, ensuring full protection and anonymity for individuals who provide information.
References and Citations Used
Over thirty thousand DMCA notices reveal an organized attempt to abuse copyright law.
Reputation Management, or Internet Conspiracy
Exposed documents reveal how the powerful cleaned up their digital past using a reputation laundering firm.
Companies Use Fake Websites and Backdated Articles to Censor Google’s Search Results.
Bad Reviews: How Companies Are Using Fake Websites to Censor Content
How fake copyright complaints are muzzling journalists
Many thanks to FakeDMCA.com and Lumen for providing access to their database.
Photos and Illustrations provided by DALL-E 3 – “a representation of WikiFX censoring the internet and committing cyber crimes.”
- Our investigative report on WikiFX’s efforts to suppress online speech is significant, as it raises serious concerns about its integrity. The findings suggest that WikiFX has engaged in questionable practices, including potential perjury, impersonation, and fraud, in a misguided attempt to manage or salvage its reputation.
- We intend to file a counternotice to reinstate the removed article(s). While this particular instance is relatively straightforward, it is important to note that, in other cases, the overwhelming volume of automated DMCA takedown notices can significantly hinder the ability of affected parties to respond—especially for those not large media organizations.
- You need an account with fakeDMCA.com and Lumen to access the research data. However, accounts are not widely available since these non-profit organisations manage large databases that could be susceptible to misuse. Nevertheless, they do offer access to non-profits and researchers.
- It’s unclear why U.S. authorities have yet to act against these rogue reputation agencies, whose business model seems rooted in fraudulent practices.
- We’ve reached out to WikiFX for a comment or rebuttal regarding this investigation. It will strongly suggest they were behind the takedown attempt if they remain silent.
About the Author
The author is affiliated with Harvard University and serves as a researcher at both Lumen and FakeDMCA.com. In his personal capacity, he and his team have been actively investigating and reporting on organized crime related to fraudulent copyright takedown schemes. Additionally, his team provides advisory services to major law firms and is frequently consulted on matters pertaining to intellectual property law. He can be reached at [email protected] directly.
