BitInka

A summary of what happened?

BitInka, established in 2013, positioned itself as a pioneering cryptocurrency exchange in Latin America, facilitating transactions across multiple fiat currencies and digital assets. Despite its initial promise, the platform has been embroiled in numerous controversies, leading to significant concerns among its user base.

1. Withdrawal Issues and Allegations of Fraud

Users have reported persistent difficulties in withdrawing funds from BitInka, with some alleging that the platform has effectively frozen their assets. A notable case involves an Argentine investor who, after accumulating approximately $180,000 through Bitcoin trading on BitInka, found himself unable to access his funds. Despite multiple attempts and assurances from the company regarding internal audits, the issue remained unresolved, leading to suspicions of fraudulent activity.

2. Legal Complaints and Regulatory Scrutiny

In 2018, two users in Argentina filed lawsuits against BitInka, seeking the return of $417,000 in allegedly misappropriated funds. Additionally, in October 2018, a U.S. user lodged complaints with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and the FBI’s Internet Crime Complaint Center, accusing BitInka and its CEO, Roger Gabriel Benites Quijano, of illegal activities related to fund withdrawals.

3. Customer Support and Communication Failures

Numerous users have expressed frustration over BitInka’s unresponsive customer support, particularly concerning withdrawal delays. Reports indicate that support tickets often go unanswered, and the company has been accused of deleting negative comments on its social media platforms, further eroding user trust.

4. Negative User Reviews and Reputation

The platform has garnered predominantly negative reviews, with users labeling it a scam due to the inability to withdraw funds and the lack of effective communication. Some users have reported losses exceeding $200,000, attributing their experiences to deceptive practices by BitInka.

5. Security and Regulatory Concerns

BitInka operates without clear regulatory oversight, raising questions about its adherence to financial standards and the security of user data. The absence of regulation increases the risk of data breaches and other security issues, leaving users vulnerable.

BitInka’s trajectory from a leading Latin American cryptocurrency exchange to a platform fraught with allegations of fraud, legal challenges, and widespread user dissatisfaction underscores significant operational and ethical shortcomings. Potential users are advised to exercise caution and conduct thorough due diligence before engaging with the platform.

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 BitInka trying to hide?

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

Investigative Report: BitInka – From Promise to Controversy

Introduction

BitInka, founded in 2013, emerged as one of Latin America’s first cryptocurrency exchanges. Designed to facilitate transactions across multiple fiat currencies and digital assets, the platform quickly gained traction among users in Argentina, Venezuela, Colombia, and other Latin American nations. However, beneath its promising exterior, BitInka has faced a series of allegations and complaints ranging from withdrawal issues to accusations of fraud and regulatory violations. This investigative report explores the major controversies surrounding BitInka, detailing the legal battles, user grievances, and systemic failures that have plagued the company.

1. Withdrawal Issues and Allegations of Mismanagement

The most pervasive issue reported by BitInka users is the inability to withdraw funds from the platform. This has led to accusations of mismanagement and even outright fraud.

A. High-Profile Cases of Blocked Funds

One of the most publicized cases involves an Argentine investor who accumulated $180,000 through Bitcoin trading on BitInka. Despite multiple withdrawal attempts, the user was unable to access his funds. BitInka cited internal audits and compliance checks as reasons for the delay, but months passed without resolution. (Infobae)

B. User Allegations of Fraud

Several users have accused BitInka of intentionally freezing accounts to prevent withdrawals. These allegations are often accompanied by reports of inadequate or non-existent responses from the company’s customer service team.

• Pattern of Complaints:
  Users report that withdrawal requests are often met with vague explanations about compliance checks or technical errors, which can last months or indefinitely.

2. Legal Actions and Regulatory Scrutiny

BitInka has faced multiple lawsuits and regulatory complaints, particularly in Argentina and the United States.

A. Lawsuits in Argentina

In 2018, two users in Argentina filed lawsuits against BitInka, demanding the return of $417,000. The lawsuits accused the platform of withholding funds without valid justification.

• Outcome:
  The legal outcomes remain unclear, but the cases underscore widespread dissatisfaction among users in Argentina, one of BitInka’s key markets.

B. U.S. Regulatory Complaints

A U.S.-based user lodged formal complaints with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and the FBI’s Internet Crime Complaint Center (IC3) in October 2018. The complaints accused BitInka and its CEO, Roger Gabriel Benites Quijano, of engaging in illegal activities related to fund withdrawals.

• Impact on Operations:
  These regulatory complaints have yet to result in publicized sanctions, but they highlight significant concerns about BitInka’s transparency and compliance with international financial laws.

3. Customer Support and Communication Failures

One of the most frequent criticisms of BitInka is its lack of effective customer support.

A. Unresponsiveness

Users frequently report that support tickets go unanswered for weeks or months. This lack of communication exacerbates frustrations over withdrawal delays and increases suspicions of unethical practices.

B. Social Media Manipulation

BitInka has been accused of deleting negative comments on its social media platforms, further alienating its user base. Such actions create a perception of censorship and erode trust among current and potential clients.

4. Negative User Reviews and Reputation

BitInka’s reputation has been severely impacted by the sheer volume of negative reviews across various platforms.

A. Trustpilot and Wikifx

• Trustpilot Rating:
  BitInka holds a low rating on Trustpilot, with users frequently describing the platform as unreliable or labeling it a scam. Complaints often center on withdrawal issues, unresponsive support, and hidden fees.
• Wikifx Comments:
  On Wikifx, BitInka has garnered negative feedback, with users highlighting concerns over the platform’s lack of transparency and operational inefficiencies. (Wikifx)

B. Allegations of Scamming

Several users have reported losing substantial sums—ranging from hundreds to tens of thousands of dollars—due to BitInka’s alleged failure to process withdrawals. Some accounts claim that the platform appropriated funds outright.

5. Security and Regulatory Oversight

BitInka operates without clear regulatory oversight in many of the regions it serves, raising questions about the safety of user funds and data.

A. Lack of Transparent Regulation

While BitInka is registered in Peru, its operations span multiple countries, many of which have stricter financial regulations. The absence of robust oversight exposes users to increased risks.

B. Security Vulnerabilities

Critics have also raised concerns about the platform’s cybersecurity measures, though there are no documented cases of major data breaches. Nonetheless, the lack of transparency regarding its security protocols adds to user apprehensions.

6. Allegations of Fraudulent Practices

BitInka’s failure to process withdrawals, coupled with its poor communication, has led to accusations of fraudulent behavior.

A. Misappropriation of Funds

Users allege that BitInka may be deliberately misappropriating client funds by freezing accounts and blocking withdrawals. This pattern of behavior has drawn comparisons to past cases of fraudulent crypto platforms.

B. Deceptive Marketing

BitInka has been accused of misleading users with claims of being a secure and reliable exchange while failing to deliver on these promises. Critics argue that the platform’s marketing materials are inconsistent with the actual user experience.

7. Impact on the Crypto Community

The controversies surrounding BitInka have broader implications for the cryptocurrency ecosystem in Latin America.

A. Loss of Trust

BitInka’s issues contribute to a lack of trust in crypto platforms, particularly in regions where financial literacy and regulatory frameworks are still developing.

B. Damaging the Industry’s Reputation

Cases like BitInka’s undermine public confidence in cryptocurrency as a legitimate financial tool, deterring potential adopters and slowing industry growth.

Conclusion

BitInka, once a promising platform in the Latin American cryptocurrency market, has been mired in allegations of fraud, legal disputes, and operational inefficiencies. The inability to process withdrawals, coupled with poor customer service and accusations of information suppression, has significantly damaged its reputation. While the company continues to operate, its controversies serve as a cautionary tale for investors and traders.

Recommendations for Current and Potential Users

1. Avoid Unregulated Platforms:
   Engage only with exchanges that are regulated by reputable financial authorities.
2. Conduct Thorough Research:
   Review user feedback and verify the platform’s track record before committing significant funds.
3. Diversify Investments:
   Avoid concentrating funds on a single platform to mitigate risks.
4. Test Withdrawals:
   Make small deposits and test the withdrawal process before committing larger sums.

Sources:

• Infobae: The Desperate Story of an Investor Stuck on BitInka
• FraudAdviser on BitInka
• Wikifx: User Comments on BitInka
• User Reviews on Trustpilot, Wikifx, and Social Media Feedback

How do we counteract this malpractice?

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

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

Potential Consequences for BitInka

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 BitInka Committing a Cyber Crime?

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

What else is BitInka hiding?

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