Craig Smith

A summary of what happened?

Craig Smith, a businessman and student landlord from Brighton and Hove, England, was convicted in 2009 for drug-related offenses. At the time of his arrest, Smith owned 39 properties in the area and was married with three children.

Major Concerns and Accusations:

1. Possession with Intent to Supply:
   • In June 2008, Sussex Police conducted surveillance operations that led to the discovery of nearly 200 kilograms of cannabis resin in a lock-up garage on Lyndhurst Road, Hove. The seized drugs had an estimated street value of £848,000. Smith admitted to two counts of possession of cannabis with intent to supply.
2. Sentencing:
   • In May 2009, Hove Crown Court sentenced Smith to five and a half years in prison. Judge Austin Issard-Davies remarked that such a substantial quantity of drugs indicated an established distribution network and suggested that Smith was holding the drugs for further distribution and substantial profit.
3. Financial Investigations:
   • The court described Smith’s financial arrangements as “extremely complex and extensive.” Subsequently, proceedings under the Proceeds of Crime Act were initiated to recover any profits derived from his criminal activities.
4. Community Impact:
   • Despite his criminal activities, Smith was known in the community for funding rehabilitation courses for drug addicts. Notably, businessman Mike Holland testified on Smith’s behalf, expressing disbelief in his guilt and highlighting his contributions to drug rehabilitation efforts.

These events underscore the complexities of Smith’s character, juxtaposing his criminal involvement in drug distribution with his philanthropic efforts in supporting rehabilitation programs.

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 Craig Smith trying to hide?

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

Investigative Report: Craig Smith – The Brighton Landlord and His Double Life

Introduction

Craig Smith, a student landlord from Brighton and Hove, was a prominent figure in his community before his arrest in 2008 for possession of a substantial quantity of cannabis. Known for owning an extensive property portfolio and funding rehabilitation programs for drug addicts, Smith’s dual life as a businessman and drug dealer shocked the local community. This report delves into the allegations, legal proceedings, and the broader implications of his actions.

1. Background and Business Ventures

Craig Smith was a well-established landlord in Brighton and Hove, owning 39 properties in the region. His business primarily involved renting accommodations to students, a lucrative enterprise given the area’s demand for housing.

• Community Presence:
  • Smith was perceived as a successful businessman who contributed positively to the community.
  • He financially supported rehabilitation courses for drug addicts, an effort that earned him praise from certain quarters.
• Personal Life:
  • Smith was married with three children, projecting an image of a family-oriented individual with strong community ties.

Reputation Before Arrest: Smith’s standing in Brighton’s business and social circles made his subsequent arrest all the more shocking, as it revealed a hidden side to his seemingly respectable persona.

2. The Arrest and Drug Operation

In June 2008, Sussex Police arrested Craig Smith following surveillance operations that uncovered a massive stash of cannabis resin.

Discovery of Drugs

• Location: The drugs were stored in a lock-up garage on Lyndhurst Road in Hove, an area associated with Smith’s business operations.
• Quantity: Police seized nearly 200 kilograms of cannabis resin, with a street value estimated at £848,000.
• Intent: Smith admitted to charges of possession with intent to supply, a crime indicative of large-scale drug distribution.

Police Surveillance

• Authorities conducted extensive surveillance leading up to the arrest, tracking Smith’s movements and operations.
• Evidence suggested Smith was involved in the storage and potential distribution of the drugs, raising questions about how deeply he was embedded in the drug trade.

Analysis: The scale of the operation indicated Smith was not a casual participant but a key player in a sophisticated drug distribution network.

3. Legal Proceedings and Sentencing

In May 2009, Smith faced sentencing at Hove Crown Court, where Judge Austin Issard-Davies presided over the case.

Prosecution Case

• The prosecution emphasized the quantity of drugs found, arguing it represented a significant portion of the regional drug trade.
• They highlighted the profitability of Smith’s operation, suggesting he was holding the cannabis for further distribution and substantial financial gain.

Defense Arguments

• Smith’s defense team pointed to his contributions to drug rehabilitation programs as evidence of his character.
• Businessman Mike Holland testified on Smith’s behalf, expressing disbelief in the charges and portraying him as a benefactor rather than a criminal.

Verdict and Sentencing

• Smith pleaded guilty to two counts of possession with intent to supply.
• He was sentenced to five and a half years in prison.
• The judge noted that the quantity of drugs and complexity of financial arrangements pointed to an organized, large-scale operation.

Key Quote from the Judge: “This is no minor operation. The scale of the drugs found indicates an established network and a clear intent for significant profit.”

4. Financial Investigations

Smith’s financial dealings came under intense scrutiny during the legal proceedings. The court described his financial arrangements as “extremely complex and extensive”, prompting a separate investigation under the Proceeds of Crime Act.

Proceeds of Crime Act Proceedings

• The aim of the investigation was to determine whether Smith had profited from illegal activities and recover any such proceeds.
• This added a layer of complexity to the case, as authorities sought to untangle Smith’s legitimate business earnings from potential drug trade profits.

Community Impact of Financial Disputes

• The seizure of Smith’s properties or earnings could have had cascading effects on his tenants, particularly students who depended on his accommodations.

5. Community Reactions

Smith’s arrest and conviction elicited mixed reactions from the Brighton community:

Shock and Betrayal

• Many residents expressed disbelief that a respected businessman and landlord was involved in drug trafficking.
• His philanthropic contributions to drug rehabilitation were seen as ironic, given his simultaneous role in facilitating drug distribution.

Support from Allies

• Figures like Mike Holland defended Smith, arguing his charitable work demonstrated genuine concern for societal issues.

Victim or Perpetrator?

• Some argued that Smith’s arrest highlighted the broader issue of financial strain leading individuals into illegal activities, while others saw him as an opportunist exploiting the drug trade for personal gain.

6. Ethical and Social Implications

Smith’s case raises significant ethical and social questions about the intersection of legitimate business and criminal activity.

Ethical Contradictions

• Smith’s support for drug rehabilitation programs contrasted starkly with his involvement in drug trafficking, suggesting a complex moral ambiguity.
• The scale of his operations implies a conscious decision to engage in illegal activity, despite his outward philanthropic efforts.

Impact on Brighton’s Reputation

• Brighton, known for its vibrant community and student population, faced reputational damage from the revelations of a major drug operation linked to a prominent local figure.

Legal and Financial Precedents

• The case underscored the importance of financial transparency among business leaders, particularly those with significant community influence.

7. Broader Implications for Drug Enforcement

The arrest and conviction of Craig Smith reflect broader challenges in combating organized drug crime:

Use of Legitimate Businesses as Fronts

• Smith’s extensive property portfolio may have served as a cover for his illicit activities, highlighting a common tactic among drug traffickers.
• This raises questions about the adequacy of regulatory oversight in detecting and preventing such schemes.

Need for Comprehensive Surveillance

• The successful surveillance operation by Sussex Police demonstrates the importance of targeted investigations in uncovering high-level drug operations.

Conclusion

Craig Smith’s dual identity as a respected businessman and a convicted drug dealer has left an indelible mark on Brighton and Hove. While his contributions to the community and philanthropic efforts painted a picture of a benevolent entrepreneur, his involvement in a large-scale drug operation exposed a troubling reality.

Key Findings

1. Large-Scale Drug Operation: The quantity of cannabis and complexity of Smith’s financial arrangements indicate his involvement in a sophisticated distribution network.
2. Moral Ambiguity: Smith’s support for drug rehabilitation programs contrasts starkly with his criminal activities, reflecting a complex ethical landscape.
3. Financial Investigations: Proceedings under the Proceeds of Crime Act highlight the challenges of distinguishing legitimate earnings from illegal profits.
4. Community Impact: Smith’s actions have tarnished his reputation and raised concerns about the broader social and economic effects of his activities.

Recommendations

1. Enhanced Financial Oversight:
   • Authorities should implement stricter regulations to monitor landlords and business owners with significant assets.
2. Community Rehabilitation Efforts:
   • Increased investment in education and community outreach can help address the root causes of drug trafficking.
3. Transparency in Philanthropy:
   • Organizations should ensure that individuals involved in philanthropic efforts are subject to scrutiny to prevent misuse of their influence.

Craig Smith’s story serves as a cautionary tale about the dangers of unchecked ambition and the dual lives that some individuals lead. His actions remind us of the importance of vigilance and accountability in both business and community leadership.

How do we counteract this malpractice?

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

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

Potential Consequences for Craig Smith

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 Craig Smith Committing a Cyber Crime?

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

What else is Craig Smith hiding?

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