Arjuna Samarakoon

A summary of what happened?

Arjuna Samarakoon is an Australian entrepreneur and former managing director of Melbourne-based accounting and IT outsourcing firms, BPO Connect and IT Connect. In October 2017, he was sentenced to 29 months in prison for defrauding the Australian government of approximately $550,000 through fraudulent claims under the Research and Development (R&D) Tax Incentive program.

Key Allegations and Legal Actions:

1. Tax Fraud: Samarakoon fraudulently claimed R&D tax refunds on two occasions in 2013, totaling $549,719, and transferred $380,000 of these funds into his personal account.
2. Money Laundering: He was charged with money laundering offenses after transferring funds from company accounts to his personal account.
3. Disqualification as SMSF Auditor: In March 2018, the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) disqualified Samarakoon from being an approved self-managed superannuation fund (SMSF) auditor due to his criminal convictions, deeming him not fit and proper for the role.

Concerns and Complaints:

• Abuse of Government Programs: Samarakoon’s actions undermined the integrity of the R&D Tax Incentive, a program designed to encourage genuine research and development activities among Australian businesses.
• Professional Misconduct: His fraudulent activities and subsequent disqualification as an SMSF auditor raised concerns about his professional conduct and trustworthiness in the financial services industry.

Regarding the claim that Arjuna Samarakoon is attempting to censor the internet, there is no publicly available information or credible sources that support this allegation. The concerns and complaints against him predominantly focus on his fraudulent activities and professional misconduct rather than any efforts to control or censor online content.

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 Arjuna Samarakoon trying to hide?

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

Investigative Report: The Downfall of Arjuna Samarakoon

Introduction

Arjuna Samarakoon, once a respected figure in Melbourne’s accounting and IT outsourcing sectors, saw his career unravel due to fraudulent practices and professional misconduct. As the managing director of BPO Connect and IT Connect, Samarakoon aimed to offer cost-effective services leveraging offshore resources. However, allegations of fraud and unethical conduct eventually led to legal consequences and professional disqualification.

Key Allegations and Legal Proceedings

1. Fraudulent R&D Tax Incentive Claims
   • Arjuna Samarakoon exploited the Australian government’s Research and Development (R&D) Tax Incentive program by submitting false claims totaling over half a million dollars. This program, designed to support genuine innovation, was misused to enrich his personal finances.
   • A significant portion of the funds claimed through the program, approximately $380,000, was transferred directly into Samarakoon’s personal bank account. This act of misappropriation demonstrated a clear intent to defraud.
2. Money Laundering
   • In addition to fraudulent claims, Samarakoon was charged with transferring the illicit funds from his company accounts to personal accounts. This activity formed the basis of money laundering charges, compounding his legal troubles.
3. Legal Outcomes
   • Samarakoon was convicted and sentenced to nearly two and a half years in prison, with a minimum term to be served. His conviction underscored the seriousness of his offenses, as they not only defrauded the government but also betrayed public trust.
   • Following his criminal conviction, he was disqualified from serving as an auditor for self-managed superannuation funds, a role requiring high levels of trust and ethical integrity.

Broader Implications and Industry Impact

• Erosion of Trust in Government Programs
  • The fraudulent use of public funds undermined the credibility of initiatives designed to foster innovation. Businesses benefiting from the R&D Tax Incentive faced increased scrutiny as a direct consequence of his actions.
• Professional Accountability
  • The case highlighted the need for stringent regulatory oversight in the accounting and financial services industry. It served as a reminder of the potential for abuse when professionals in positions of trust act unethically.
• Increased Regulatory Oversight
  • In the aftermath of the case, authorities ramped up audits and compliance checks on companies claiming tax incentives, creating a more challenging environment for legitimate claimants.

Conclusion

The story of Arjuna Samarakoon is a cautionary tale about the consequences of unethical behavior in the corporate world. His deliberate exploitation of government programs for personal gain not only led to his downfall but also cast a long shadow over the industries in which he operated. His actions serve as a stark reminder of the importance of transparency, accountability, and ethical conduct in maintaining trust within professional and public spheres.

How do we counteract this malpractice?

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

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

Potential Consequences for Arjuna Samarakoon

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 Arjuna Samarakoon Committing a Cyber Crime?

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

What else is Arjuna Samarakoon hiding?

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