Alpho

A summary of what happened?

Alpho, established in 2016 and operated by Gulf Brokers Ltd., is a forex and CFD broker registered in Seychelles. Despite its offerings, the company has faced significant scrutiny over its regulatory status, business practices, and attempts to suppress negative information.

1. Regulatory Concerns

• Offshore Registration: Alpho is registered under the Seychelles Financial Services Authority (FSA), a jurisdiction noted for its lenient regulatory environment. This has raised concerns about the broker’s credibility and the level of investor protection it offers. Critics argue that such offshore registrations may not provide the same safeguards as brokers regulated by more stringent authorities in Europe or the U.S.

2. Allegations of Information Suppression

• Fake Copyright Notices: Investigations have revealed that Alpho attempted to suppress negative online content by filing fraudulent Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) takedown notices. These notices aimed to remove or obscure articles linking the company to allegations of fraud and other misconduct. Such actions suggest efforts to manipulate public perception and hide unfavorable information.

3. Customer Complaints

• Withdrawal Issues: Users have reported difficulties in withdrawing funds, citing delays and unresponsive customer support. Some traders have accused Alpho of manipulating trading conditions to their disadvantage, such as causing slippage during crucial trades.
• Unfair Fees: Clients have expressed concerns over unexpected charges and fees, which were not clearly disclosed upfront. These practices have led to dissatisfaction and mistrust among traders.

4. Negative User Reviews

• Trust Issues: Some users have reported that Alpho’s activities are not licensed in the EU, with licenses only offshore in Seychelles—a known haven for financial scammers. This has led to accounts being blocked and funds appropriated without recourse.
  Forex Ratings

5. Association with Misleading Affiliates

• Aggressive Marketing Tactics: Alpho has been linked to affiliates employing misleading advertising to attract clients with false promises. Such associations damage the broker’s credibility and expose traders to additional risks when relying on inaccurate information from these affiliates.

Alpho’s offshore registration, attempts to suppress negative information, and numerous customer complaints raise significant concerns about its transparency and reliability. Potential clients are advised to exercise caution, conduct thorough due diligence, and consider these factors when evaluating Alpho for their trading needs.

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 Alpho trying to hide?

Alpho‘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 Alpho in legal accountability. Let’s examine the information Alpho may be trying to remove from the internet –

Investigative Report: An In-Depth Analysis of Alpho’s Operations, Allegations, and Controversies

Introduction

Alpho, a forex and CFD broker established in 2016 and operated by Gulf Brokers Ltd., offers trading services across various financial instruments. Registered under the Seychelles Financial Services Authority (FSA), the firm primarily targets clients seeking leveraged trading opportunities. While Alpho markets itself as a reliable and cutting-edge broker, its reputation has been marred by allegations of fraudulent practices, customer complaints, and attempts to suppress negative publicity. This report provides a detailed analysis of the major concerns surrounding Alpho, examining its regulatory status, business practices, and the experiences of its clients.

1. Regulatory Concerns: A Questionable Framework

A. Offshore Registration

Alpho is registered under the Seychelles FSA, a jurisdiction that has long been criticized for its lax regulatory standards.

• Implications of Offshore Regulation:
  The FSA does not impose strict oversight on brokers, leaving clients vulnerable to unethical practices. Unlike major regulators such as the FCA (UK) or ASIC (Australia), the FSA does not require brokers to segregate client funds or adhere to strict operational standards.
• Lack of Investor Protection:
  Alpho’s offshore registration means clients have limited recourse in disputes, as they are not protected by compensation schemes like the Financial Services Compensation Scheme (FSCS).

B. False Perception of Regulation

Alpho promotes its association with the Seychelles FSA as a mark of legitimacy. However, critics argue that this creates a false sense of security, as the FSA does not provide the same level of consumer protection as regulators in Europe or North America.

2. Allegations of Information Suppression

Alpho has faced allegations of attempting to suppress negative press and online criticism through fraudulent means.

A. Fraudulent Copyright Takedown Notices

Reports suggest that Alpho has filed fake Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) takedown notices to remove unfavorable content from search engines.

• Manipulating Public Perception:
  By removing critical articles and reviews, Alpho allegedly aims to obscure information that could deter potential clients.
• Impact on Transparency:
  Such practices undermine trust and make it difficult for prospective clients to access unbiased information.

B. Censorship and Intimidation

Critics accuse Alpho of employing reputation management tactics to silence dissent. This includes attempts to intimidate reviewers or bloggers who expose the company’s alleged misconduct.

3. Customer Complaints and User Experiences

Numerous complaints from clients raise concerns about Alpho’s operational integrity and customer service.

A. Withdrawal Issues

One of the most frequent complaints against Alpho involves difficulties with withdrawing funds.

• Delays and Denials:
  Clients report long delays in processing withdrawal requests, with some alleging outright denial of access to their funds.
• Unclear Justifications:
  Traders have shared experiences where Alpho cited vague terms and conditions to justify withholding withdrawals.

B. Unexpected Fees and Charges

Clients have expressed frustration over hidden fees that were not disclosed upfront.

• Unfair Deductions:
  Some users allege that Alpho imposes arbitrary charges during withdrawals, significantly reducing the amounts received.
• Opaque Fee Structure:
  The lack of transparency in Alpho’s fee policies has led to accusations of deceptive practices.

C. Manipulation of Trades

Several clients accuse Alpho of manipulating trading conditions to their disadvantage.

• Slippage and Requotes:
  Traders claim that Alpho intentionally delays trade execution or applies excessive slippage, leading to losses during volatile market conditions.
• Questionable Price Movements:
  Allegations include price discrepancies that appear designed to trigger stop-loss orders, further eroding trader confidence.

4. Negative Reviews and Reputation Concerns

Alpho has garnered mixed feedback on various review platforms, with a significant portion of users sharing negative experiences.

A. Wikifx and Other Platforms

• Ratings:
  Alpho has a low rating on platforms like Wikifx, where users highlight concerns about transparency, withdrawal issues, and hidden fees.
• Recurring Complaints:
  Themes such as unresponsive customer support and aggressive marketing tactics dominate user feedback.

B. Allegations of Scam-Like Behavior

Some reviews outright label Alpho as a scam, citing patterns of withholding funds, manipulating trades, and failing to honor withdrawal requests.

5. Association with Misleading Affiliates

Alpho’s marketing efforts have come under scrutiny for involving affiliates that allegedly employ deceptive advertising tactics.

A. Aggressive Marketing

• False Promises:
  Affiliates promoting Alpho often lure clients with promises of guaranteed profits or risk-free trading, which are unrealistic in the highly volatile world of forex and CFDs.
• Targeting Vulnerable Traders:
  Critics argue that these tactics prey on inexperienced traders who may not fully understand the risks involved.

B. Impact on Credibility

Alpho’s association with such affiliates damages its reputation, as clients who fall victim to these tactics may perceive the broker as complicit.

6. Lack of Accountability

Despite numerous allegations and complaints, Alpho has yet to face significant legal or regulatory action.

A. Limited Recourse for Clients

As an offshore broker, Alpho operates outside the jurisdiction of major regulatory bodies. This limits the options available to clients seeking redress for grievances.

B. Absence of Legal Proceedings

While there are no public records of lawsuits or sanctions against Alpho, the company’s practices have drawn the attention of consumer advocacy groups and financial watchdogs.

Conclusion

Alpho markets itself as a reliable forex and CFD broker, but its operations reveal a pattern of troubling behavior. From withdrawal issues and hidden fees to allegations of information suppression and manipulative trading practices, Alpho’s actions raise serious doubts about its transparency and reliability. Furthermore, its offshore registration and lenient regulatory oversight exacerbate concerns about the safety of client funds.

Recommendations for Traders

1. Exercise Caution:
   Avoid brokers registered in offshore jurisdictions with weak regulatory oversight.
2. Verify Regulatory Credentials:
   Only trade with brokers regulated by top-tier authorities such as the FCA, ASIC, or CySEC.
3. Research Thoroughly:
   Review client feedback from multiple sources and identify recurring complaints.
4. Test with Small Investments:
   Before committing significant funds, test the broker’s trading platform and withdrawal processes with a small deposit.

By adhering to these guidelines, traders can protect themselves from the risks associated with unregulated or poorly regulated brokers like Alpho.

Sources

• FraudAdviser.com: Alpho Allegations
• Wikifx: User Reviews on Alpho
• Forex-Ratings: Alpho Review
• User Feedback and Expert Opinions from Financial Review Platforms

How do we counteract this malpractice?

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

Our preliminary assessment suggests that Alpho may have engaged a third-party reputation management agency or expert, which, either independently or under direct authorization from Alpho, initiated efforts to remove adverse online content, including potentially fraudulent DMCA takedown requests. We will extend an opportunity to Alpho 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 Alpho 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 Alpho is finding out the hard way.

Potential Consequences for Alpho

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 Alpho Committing a Cyber Crime?

Yes, it seems so. Alpho 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. Alpho 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 Alpho 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. Alpho 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 Alpho 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, Alpho either premeditated actions or were unaware of the consequences. Despite hiring an agency to make Google disregard any negative information about Alpho, 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. Alpho is in great company ….

What else is Alpho hiding?

We encourage you to ‘Dork‘ Google by searching for keyword combinations such as [Alpho] + {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 Alpho 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.