Cryptograph Limited

A summary of what happened?

Cryptograph Limited is an offshore brokerage firm offering trading services across various financial instruments, including forex, commodities, indices, and cryptocurrencies. Despite its service offerings, the firm has attracted significant scrutiny and criticism concerning its regulatory status, operational transparency, and overall trustworthiness.

Key Concerns and Complaints:

1. Lack of Regulatory Oversight:
   • Cryptograph Limited is not regulated by any top-tier financial authority. This absence of stringent regulation raises concerns about the safety and security of client funds.
     BrokerChooser
2. Investor Alerts:
   • The International Organization of Securities Commissions (IOSCO) has issued alerts indicating that Cryptograph Limited is not authorized to provide investment services in certain jurisdictions. Such warnings suggest potential risks associated with the firm’s operations.
     IOSCO
3. Unverified Company Information:
   • Analyses indicate that Cryptograph Limited’s company information is either absent or unreliable, making it difficult for potential clients to assess the firm’s legitimacy.
     Traders Union
4. Negative User Experiences:
   • Some users have reported issues such as difficulties in fund withdrawals and unresponsive customer support, raising concerns about the firm’s operational practices.
5. Potential Red Flags:
   • The lack of transparency, combined with the absence of regulatory oversight, presents significant red flags. Such deficiencies can indicate potential fraudulent schemes, as legitimate brokers typically provide detailed information about their services, regulatory status, and terms of operation.

Cryptograph Limited presents several concerning aspects, including a lack of proper regulatory oversight, investor alerts from reputable organizations, unverified company information, and negative user experiences. Potential investors are advised to exercise caution and conduct thorough due diligence before engaging with Cryptograph Limited. Opting for brokers with robust regulatory frameworks and transparent operations is crucial to ensure the safety and security of investments.

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 Cryptograph Limited trying to hide?

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

Investigative Report: Cryptograph Limited – Allegations, Complaints, and Regulatory Concerns

Cryptograph Limited is an offshore brokerage firm offering trading services in forex, commodities, indices, and cryptocurrencies. Positioned as a provider of access to global financial markets, the company has attracted scrutiny and criticism for its lack of transparency, regulatory concerns, and negative client feedback. This report investigates the various allegations and complaints against Cryptograph Limited, offering a detailed look at the risks and controversies surrounding its operations.

1. Overview of Cryptograph Limited

A. Company Profile

• Cryptograph Limited claims to offer trading services globally through its online platform, enabling access to multiple asset classes.
• Its services target retail investors and traders looking to capitalize on forex and cryptocurrency markets, two sectors often associated with high volatility and significant risks.

B. Registration and Jurisdiction

• The company operates out of Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, a jurisdiction notorious for its lenient regulatory environment.
• Offshore registration often appeals to brokers seeking to avoid strict oversight but raises red flags for potential investors due to the lack of accountability and client protection.

2. Major Concerns and Allegations

A. Lack of Regulatory Oversight

1. Unregulated Status:
   • Cryptograph Limited is not registered with or regulated by any Tier-1 financial authority such as the FCA (UK), ASIC (Australia), or CySEC (Cyprus).
   • The firm operates under the Financial Services Authority (FSA) of Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, which explicitly states that it does not regulate forex or CFD trading.
2. Implications of Unregulated Operations:
   • Investors dealing with unregulated brokers face significant risks, including the potential for fraudulent activities, lack of fund segregation, and no access to compensation schemes in case of insolvency.

B. Investor Alerts and Warnings

1. IOSCO Alerts:
   • The International Organization of Securities Commissions (IOSCO) has flagged Cryptograph Limited, warning that the firm is not authorized to provide investment services in certain jurisdictions.
   • Such alerts are often issued in response to complaints or suspected violations, further casting doubt on the broker’s legitimacy.
2. Regional Restrictions:
   • Despite claiming global operations, the firm’s lack of compliance with local regulations has resulted in restrictions in multiple jurisdictions.

C. Transparency Issues

1. Unverified Company Information:
   • Cryptograph Limited provides minimal information about its management, ownership, and operational policies.
   • The absence of verifiable contact details, including physical office addresses and a lack of clear legal documentation, raises suspicions about the company’s authenticity.
2. Opaque Fee Structure:
   • Clients have reported a lack of transparency regarding trading fees, spreads, and withdrawal charges.
   • Hidden fees often emerge post-deposit, leaving traders frustrated and disillusioned.

D. Negative User Experiences

1. Withdrawal Difficulties:
   • Numerous complaints highlight delays or outright denials of withdrawal requests. Clients report being ignored or given vague explanations when attempting to access their funds.
   • Such practices are consistent with fraudulent schemes designed to trap client deposits.
2. Unresponsive Customer Support:
   • Many users have expressed dissatisfaction with Cryptograph Limited’s customer service, citing unresponsiveness and unhelpful interactions.
3. Allegations of Misconduct:
   • Some users allege price manipulation, with claims that stop-loss orders were triggered artificially to close trades at unfavorable prices.
   • Others have accused the broker of account freezes and sudden changes in trading conditions, making it impossible to execute profitable trades.

E. Potential for Fraudulent Practices

1. Red Flags for Ponzi-Like Schemes:
   • The broker’s aggressive marketing tactics, including promises of high returns and lucrative bonuses, mirror the characteristics of Ponzi schemes.
   • The absence of transparency and regulatory oversight adds to the suspicion of fraudulent activities.
2. Domain and Platform Concerns:
   • Reports indicate that the Cryptograph Limited website and platform lack proper encryption and security measures, exposing users to risks of data breaches and phishing attacks.

3. Broader Industry and Regulatory Context

A. Offshore Brokers and Risks

• Saint Vincent and the Grenadines has become a haven for unregulated brokers due to its lack of enforcement mechanisms.
• Many such brokers exploit this jurisdiction to operate in legal gray areas, evading the scrutiny and requirements imposed by stricter financial regulators.

B. Role of Regulatory Authorities

1. Lack of Oversight:
   • Cryptograph Limited’s operations highlight the challenges regulators face in monitoring and policing offshore brokers.
2. Investor Protections:
   • Regulators in countries such as the UK and Australia have issued warnings to potential investors about the dangers of dealing with unregulated brokers.

4. Client Impact and Fallout

A. Financial Losses

• Clients report losing significant amounts of money due to delayed withdrawals, hidden fees, and manipulated trading conditions.
• The absence of fund segregation means that client deposits are at risk in the event of bankruptcy or fraud.

B. Emotional and Psychological Toll

• Many clients express feelings of betrayal and helplessness, particularly when they realize they have little recourse to recover lost funds.
• Such experiences erode trust in the broader online trading industry.

5. Media and Public Perception

A. Negative Media Coverage

• Cryptograph Limited has been the subject of investigative reports highlighting its unregulated status, lack of transparency, and troubling user experiences.
• Media outlets warn potential investors to exercise caution and avoid engaging with the platform.

B. Reputational Damage

• The firm’s reputation within the trading community is overwhelmingly negative, with user reviews and professional evaluations highlighting consistent patterns of malpractice.

6. Recommendations for Potential Clients

A. Conduct Thorough Research

1. Verify the broker’s regulatory status with recognized financial authorities.
2. Examine user reviews and professional evaluations for red flags.

B. Avoid High-Risk Brokers

• Opt for brokers regulated by Tier-1 authorities such as the FCA, ASIC, or CySEC, which offer stronger protections and oversight.

C. Exercise Caution with Promotions

• Be wary of brokers offering high bonuses or guaranteed returns, as these are often tactics used to lure unsuspecting investors.

7. Conclusion

Cryptograph Limited presents significant risks to potential investors due to its lack of regulatory oversight, transparency issues, and troubling patterns of user complaints. Operating in a jurisdiction known for minimal enforcement, the firm exploits regulatory gaps to attract clients while offering little in terms of protection or accountability.

Key Takeaways:

1. Unregulated Operations: The absence of meaningful oversight leaves clients vulnerable to fraud and financial losses.
2. Transparency Concerns: The lack of clear information about the company’s ownership, operations, and terms undermines its credibility.
3. Negative Client Experiences: Complaints about withdrawal issues, unresponsive support, and allegations of misconduct highlight serious operational flaws.

Final Word:

Potential investors are strongly advised to avoid Cryptograph Limited and seek brokers with robust regulatory credentials and proven track records of transparency and reliability. The risks associated with engaging with such platforms far outweigh any potential benefits.

How do we counteract this malpractice?

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

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

Potential Consequences for Cryptograph Limited

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 Cryptograph Limited Committing a Cyber Crime?

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

What else is Cryptograph Limited hiding?

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