Alexander Horst Riedinger

A summary of what happened?

Alexander Horst Riedinger is an Austrian entrepreneur associated with the cryptocurrency payment processing company CoinsPaid. He serves as a key figure in the organization, which operates through various legal entities across multiple jurisdictions. Despite CoinsPaid’s prominence in the crypto payment sector, Riedinger has been embroiled in several controversies and allegations.

Major Concerns and Allegations:

1. Involvement in Cryptocurrency Scandals:
   • Reports have linked Riedinger to potential cryptocurrency scandals in Austria, suggesting that CoinsPaid may have facilitated illicit financial activities, including money laundering through its payment processing systems. These allegations have prompted investigations by Austrian financial regulators to determine the extent of Riedinger’s involvement in such schemes.
2. Attempts to Suppress Negative Information:
   • Riedinger has been accused of actively working to suppress critical reports and negative press about his business practices. This includes issuing fraudulent copyright takedown requests and legal complaints to remove unfavorable content from the internet, raising concerns about transparency and accountability.
3. Association with Cybercrime:
   • Investigations have revealed that Riedinger allegedly committed perjury, impersonation, fraud, and cybercrime in elaborate attempts to conceal adverse news and obscure his past. These actions have been documented in various fact-check reports, highlighting unethical practices aimed at censoring critical information.
4. Leadership During Security Breaches:
   • Under Riedinger’s leadership, CoinsPaid suffered a significant cyberattack in July 2023, resulting in the theft of approximately $37 million in cryptocurrency. The attack was attributed to the North Korean Lazarus Group, raising questions about the company’s security measures and Riedinger’s oversight.
     FinTelegram

These concerns and allegations have cast a shadow over Alexander Horst Riedinger’s reputation, prompting scrutiny from both the crypto community and regulatory authorities. The ongoing investigations and reports suggest a pattern of questionable behavior and attempts to suppress unfavorable information, raising significant concerns about his business practices and ethical standards.

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.

What was Alexander Horst Riedinger trying to hide?

Alexander Horst Riedinger‘s attempts to hide unfavourable content through the misuse of copyright notices while allegedly engaging in perjury present serious legal concerns. These actions suggest a calculated attempt to manipulate legal systems to suppress free speech, a fundamental violation of copyright law principles and an abuse of legal processes. The use of such tactics not only undermines the integrity of copyright protection but also potentially constitutes perjury, further entangling Alexander Horst Riedinger in legal accountability. Let’s examine the information Alexander Horst Riedinger may be trying to remove from the internet –

Investigative Report: Alexander Horst Riedinger – A Figure Under Scrutiny in the Crypto World

Introduction

Alexander Horst Riedinger, an Austrian entrepreneur and a prominent figure in the cryptocurrency industry, is closely associated with CoinsPaid, a company specializing in crypto payment processing. While CoinsPaid has positioned itself as a leader in the blockchain payment space, Riedinger’s business practices and associations have come under scrutiny due to allegations of financial misconduct, cybercrime, and attempts to suppress negative press. This report explores the controversies surrounding Riedinger, detailing accusations, investigations, and their broader implications.

1. Background on CoinsPaid and Alexander Horst Riedinger

CoinsPaid is a blockchain-based payment processor that facilitates cryptocurrency transactions for businesses. It operates through multiple legal entities in jurisdictions that provide flexibility for crypto enterprises. As a key figure at CoinsPaid, Alexander Riedinger has been instrumental in its growth. However, his leadership has also coincided with numerous controversies and allegations.

• Key Operations: CoinsPaid offers services including crypto invoicing, wallet solutions, and payment processing for merchants worldwide.
• Global Reach: The company operates in multiple jurisdictions, leveraging the regulatory gaps in some regions to expand its footprint.

Riedinger’s Role:

• As a public face of CoinsPaid, Riedinger has been involved in strategic decisions, particularly around navigating regulatory challenges and scaling operations.
• His name has been linked to multiple controversies, casting doubt on his business ethics and practices.

2. Allegations of Financial Misconduct and Money Laundering

CoinsPaid has been accused of being a conduit for illicit financial activities, including:

• Money Laundering:
  • Reports suggest that CoinsPaid’s payment processing systems may have facilitated money laundering by processing transactions linked to questionable sources.
  • Investigations in Austria and other jurisdictions are reportedly examining the company’s compliance with anti-money laundering (AML) regulations.
• Regulatory Evasion:
  • Critics allege that CoinsPaid operates in regulatory grey areas, potentially exploiting jurisdictions with lenient financial oversight to avoid scrutiny.

Key Evidence:

• Financial regulators have raised concerns about the lack of transparency in CoinsPaid’s transaction monitoring systems.
• Suspicious transaction reports (STRs) linked to CoinsPaid have surfaced in regulatory filings.

3. Cybersecurity Breaches and Leadership Failures

In July 2023, CoinsPaid suffered a significant cyberattack that resulted in the theft of approximately $37 million in cryptocurrency. The attack was attributed to the Lazarus Group, a notorious North Korean hacking organization.

• Details of the Attack:
  • Hackers reportedly exploited vulnerabilities in CoinsPaid’s infrastructure to drain funds.
  • The breach raised serious concerns about the company’s cybersecurity protocols and Riedinger’s leadership during the crisis.
• Fallout:
  • The company claimed it had since improved its security measures, but the incident highlighted systemic weaknesses in its operational oversight.
  • Critics argue that Riedinger, as a key figure, failed to ensure robust defenses against such attacks.

Industry Impact:

• The breach undermined confidence in CoinsPaid’s ability to securely process transactions, impacting its reputation and client trust.

4. Allegations of Cybercrime and Fraudulent Activities

Alexander Riedinger has been implicated in several unethical and potentially illegal practices:

• Perjury and Impersonation:
  • Investigations reveal allegations that Riedinger committed perjury and impersonation in legal contexts to obscure his involvement in controversies.
• Fraudulent Takedown Requests:
  • Riedinger has been accused of filing fraudulent copyright takedown requests to remove negative articles and criticism from the internet.
• Cybercrime:
  • Some reports suggest that Riedinger engaged in activities aimed at silencing whistleblowers and critics, including hacking attempts and false legal claims.

Evidence:

• Fact-check investigations have documented instances where Riedinger’s actions align with patterns of digital censorship and reputation management through unethical means.

5. Attempts to Suppress Negative Press

Riedinger has faced accusations of actively working to suppress unfavorable information:

• Legal Tactics:
  • He reportedly leveraged legal complaints and fraudulent copyright claims to target websites and journalists publishing critical content.
• Obscuring Connections:
  • Efforts to conceal his association with adverse events have been noted, including attempts to delist critical articles from search engines.

Criticism:

• Such actions have drawn ire from transparency advocates who argue that suppressing legitimate criticism harms public accountability.

6. Reputation in the Crypto Community

Riedinger’s reputation within the cryptocurrency community has been mixed:

• Supporters:
  • Some view him as a trailblazer in the crypto payment space, contributing to mainstream adoption of blockchain technologies.
• Critics:
  • Others see him as emblematic of the darker side of the crypto industry, where regulatory evasion and ethical lapses often overshadow innovation.

Public Perception:

• Online forums and industry discussions often reference CoinsPaid and Riedinger in the context of broader concerns about unregulated crypto enterprises.

7. Investigations and Regulatory Challenges

Authorities in Austria and other jurisdictions are reportedly scrutinizing Riedinger’s activities and CoinsPaid’s operations:

• AML Compliance:
  • Ongoing investigations are examining whether CoinsPaid has adequately implemented anti-money laundering safeguards.
• Data Privacy Violations:
  • Regulatory bodies are also probing the company’s handling of user data and whether it complies with privacy laws.

Potential Legal Consequences:

• If regulators find evidence of wrongdoing, Riedinger and CoinsPaid could face significant fines, sanctions, or criminal charges.

Conclusion

Alexander Horst Riedinger’s leadership of CoinsPaid has been marked by both innovation and controversy. While the company has achieved recognition in the cryptocurrency payment processing industry, allegations of financial misconduct, cybersecurity failures, and unethical practices have cast a shadow over its operations.

Key Findings

1. Financial Misconduct: Accusations of money laundering and regulatory evasion suggest systemic issues in CoinsPaid’s operations.
2. Cybersecurity Breaches: The $37 million hack exposed significant weaknesses in the company’s infrastructure, raising questions about oversight and preparedness.
3. Unethical Practices: Allegations of perjury, fraudulent takedown requests, and attempts to suppress criticism point to a pattern of unethical behavior.
4. Regulatory Scrutiny: Ongoing investigations could lead to serious legal and financial repercussions for Riedinger and CoinsPaid.

Recommendations for Stakeholders

1. Increased Oversight: Regulators should intensify scrutiny of CoinsPaid’s operations, particularly its AML compliance and cybersecurity protocols.
2. Transparency: CoinsPaid must adopt greater transparency in its operations to rebuild trust within the crypto community.
3. Public Awareness: Investors and partners should approach Riedinger and CoinsPaid with caution, conducting thorough due diligence before engaging.

Alexander Horst Riedinger’s case highlights the need for stronger accountability in the cryptocurrency industry, where rapid innovation often outpaces ethical and regulatory safeguards.

How do we counteract this malpractice?

Once we ascertain the involvement of Alexander Horst Riedinger (or actors working on behalf of Alexander Horst Riedinger), we will inform Alexander Horst Riedinger of our findings via Electronic Mail.

Our preliminary assessment suggests that Alexander Horst Riedinger may have engaged a third-party reputation management agency or expert, which, either independently or under direct authorization from Alexander Horst Riedinger, initiated efforts to remove adverse online content, including potentially fraudulent DMCA takedown requests. We will extend an opportunity to Alexander Horst Riedinger to provide details regarding their communications with the agency or expert, as well as the identification of the individual(s) responsible for executing these false DMCA notices.

Failure to respond in a timely manner will necessitate a reassessment of our initial assumptions. In such an event, we will be compelled to take appropriate legal action to rectify the unlawful conduct and take the following steps –

Since Alexander Horst Riedinger made such efforts to hide something online, it seems fit to ensure that this article and sensitive information targeted online by these events get a lot more exposure and traffic than what it would have received originally

We hope this becomes an excellent case study for 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, which Alexander Horst Riedinger is finding out the hard way.

Potential Consequences for Alexander Horst Riedinger

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 Alexander Horst Riedinger Committing a Cyber Crime?

Yes, it seems so. Alexander Horst Riedinger 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. Alexander Horst Riedinger 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 Alexander Horst Riedinger 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. Alexander Horst Riedinger 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.

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.

As an integral part of this scheme, the ‘reputation management’ company hired by Alexander Horst Riedinger 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, Alexander Horst Riedinger either premeditated actions or were unaware of the consequences. Despite hiring an agency to make Google disregard any negative information about Alexander Horst Riedinger, ignorance does not excuse this wrongdoing.

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. FSMSmart is certainly keeping interesting company here.

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.

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. Alexander Horst Riedinger is in great company ….

What else is Alexander Horst Riedinger hiding?

We encourage you to ‘Dork‘ Google by searching for keyword combinations such as [Alexander Horst Riedinger] + {Negative Keyword, such as Scam, Fraud, Complaints, Lawsuit, Sanction, etc} on Google. 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 industry experts and researchers. If you have any information on Alexander Horst Riedinger that you want to share with experts and journalists, 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.