AMarkets

A summary of what happened?

AMarkets is an online brokerage firm established in 2007, offering a range of trading instruments including forex, commodities, cryptocurrencies, indices, and stocks. The company operates through platforms like MetaTrader 4 and MetaTrader 5. While AMarkets has built a reputation for providing diverse trading services, several concerns and complaints have been raised regarding its regulatory status and business practices.

1. Regulatory Status and Investor Protection

• Offshore Registration: AMarkets is registered in Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, a jurisdiction known for its lenient regulatory framework. This offshore registration has raised concerns about the level of oversight and investor protection provided by the company.
  NetFactual
• Membership with The Financial Commission: The company is a certified member of The Financial Commission, an independent mediator in the financial services industry. This membership offers a compensation fund of up to €20,000 per trade claim.
  AMarkets

2. Allegations of Suppressing Negative Information

• Efforts to Suppress Negative Reports: AMarkets has been linked to various negative reports and allegations, which the company appears to be actively trying to suppress.
  NetFactual

3. Client Complaints and Negative Reviews

• Mixed Customer Feedback: While some clients appreciate AMarkets’ services, others have reported issues such as wider spreads compared to competitors and limited educational materials.

4. Association with Misleading Affiliates

• Misleading Advertising: There are claims that AMarkets collaborates with affiliates that use misleading advertising to lure clienromises. Such associations not only damage the credibility of AMarkets but also expose traders to additional risks when relying on inaccurate information from these affiliates.
  NetFactual

While AMarkets offers a variety of trading instruments and platforms, its offshore registration, efforts to suppress negative information, and associations with misleading affiliates raise concerns about its transparency and commitment to ethical practices. Potential clients are advised to conduct thorough due diligence and consider these factors when evaluating the suitability of AMarkets 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 AMarkets trying to hide?

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

Investigative Report: Scrutinizing AMarkets—Allegations, Complaints, and Regulatory Concerns

Introduction

AMarkets, established in 2007, is an online brokerage firm offering a diverse range of trading instruments, including forex, commodities, cryptocurrencies, indices, and stocks. Operating through platforms like MetaTrader 4 and MetaTrader 5, the company has expanded its services to clients across over 100 countries. Despite its global reach and extensive service offerings, AMarkets has been the subject of various allegations, complaints, and regulatory concerns. This report delves into these issues, providing a comprehensive analysis of the controversies surrounding the firm.

1. Regulatory Status and Oversight

AMarkets’ regulatory standing has been a focal point of criticism, primarily due to its offshore registration and the nature of its regulatory affiliations.

• Offshore Registration: The company is registered in Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, a jurisdiction often criticized for its lenient regulatory framework. This registration has raised concerns about the level of oversight and investor protection provided by AMarkets. Critics argue that such offshore registrations may not offer the same level of security as brokers regulated by more stringent authorities.
• Membership with The Financial Commission: AMarkets is a certified member of The Financial Commission, an independent self-regulatory organization that offers dispute resolution services and a compensation fund of up to €20,000 per client. While this membership provides a layer of protection, it does not equate to the comprehensive oversight offered by major financial regulators like the UK’s Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) or the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC).
  FX Leaders

2. Allegations of Suppressing Negative Information

There have been reports suggesting that AMarkets actively attempts to suppress negative information and unfavorable reviews.

• Efforts to Suppress Negative Reports: Investigations indicate that AMarkets has been linked to various negative reports and allegations, which the company appears to be actively trying to suppress. Such actions include attempting to remove or bury unfavorable content online, potentially misleading prospective clients about the company’s reputation.

3. Client Complaints and Negative Reviews

Client feedback on AMarkets has been mixed, with some traders expressing satisfaction and others voicing significant concerns.

• Mixed Customer Feedback: While some clients appreciate AMarkets’ services, others have reported issues such as wider spreads compared to competitors and limited educational materials. These complaints suggest that the company’s offerings may not consistently meet client expectations.
• Delayed Responses and Withdrawal Issues: Some clients have reported delayed responses from the support service and occasional problems with the withdrawal of funds. These issues raise concerns about tional efficiency and commitment to customer satisfaction.
  Revieweek

4. Association with Misleading Affiliates

AMarkets has faced criticism for its associations with affiliates that allegedly engage in misleading advertising practices.

• Misleading Advertising: There are claims that AMarkets collaborates with affiliates that use misleading advertising to lure clients with false promises. Such associations not only damage the credibility of AMarkets but also expose traders to additional risks when relying on inaccurate information from these affiliates.
  NetFactual

5. Legal Actions and Sanctions

As of the latest available information, there are no public records of lawsuits or regulatory sanctions imposed directly against AMarkets. However, the company’s offshore registration and the concerns raised by various reviews and reports suggest that potential clients should exercise caution and conduct thorough due diligence.

Conclusion

AMarkets presents itself as a comprehensive brokerage firm with a wide array of trading instruments and platforms. However, its offshore registration, efforts to suppress negative information, mixed client reviews, and associations with misleading affiliates raise significant concerns about its transparency and commitment to ethical practices. Potential clients are advised to carefully consider these factors and conduct thorough research before engaging with AMarkets for their trading needs.

Recommendations for Potential Clients

• Verify Regulatory Status: Ensure that the broker is regulated by reputable financial authorities to guarantee a higher level of investor protection.
• Conduct Thorough Research: Review multiple sources of client feedback and be wary of brokers associated with misleading advertising practices.
• Assess Customer Support: Test the responsiveness and effectiveness of the broker’s customer support before committing significant funds.

By adhering to these guidelines, traders can make more informed decisions and mitigate potential risks associated with engaging with brokerage firms like AMarkets.

How do we counteract this malpractice?

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

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

Potential Consequences for AMarkets

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 AMarkets Committing a Cyber Crime?

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

What else is AMarkets hiding?

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