CyberCriminal.com

DeltaStock

We are investigating DeltaStock for allegedly attempting to conceal critical reviews and adverse news from Google by improperly submitting copyright takedown notices. This includes potential violations such as impersonation, fraud, and perjury.

DeltaStock

PARTIES INVOLVED: DeltaStock

ALLEGATIONS: Perjury, Fraud, Impersonation

INCIDENT DATE: 19 August 2024

INVESTIGATED BY: Ethan Katz

TOOLS USED: Lumen, FakeDMCA, SecurityTrails

CASE NO: 2804/A/2024

CRIME TYPE: Intellectual Property Scam

PUBLISHED ON: 21 Nov 2024

REPORTED BY: FakeDMCA.com

JURISDICTION: USA

A summary of what happened?

DeltaStock is a financial brokerage firm offering trading services across various financial instruments, including forex, indices, commodities, and shares. The company provides its proprietary trading platform, Delta Trading, and also supports MetaTrader 4 for forex trading.

Major Concerns and Complaints:

  1. Slow Order Execution:
    • Users have reported issues with the speed of order execution, particularly on the MetaTrader 4 platform. A review from October 2015 highlighted “very slow order execution in mt4,” which can negatively impact trading outcomes.
  2. Customer Service Challenges:
    • Some clients have expressed dissatisfaction with customer service responsiveness. For instance, a user in June 2011 mentioned concerns about the company’s customer service, stating, “one thing that Deltastock IS VERY good at (and is KNOWN for) is Customer Service so, as I say, I find it odd but will attempt to ‘get to the bottom of it’.”
  3. Platform Complexity:
    • While Delta Trading is praised for its features, some traders find it complex and challenging to navigate. A review noted that “it takes a bit of getting used to at first because of all of the features,” indicating a steep learning curve for new users.

It’s important to note that these concerns are based on user reviews and may not represent the experiences of all traders. Prospective clients should conduct thorough research and consider both positive and negative feedback when evaluating DeltaStock’s services.

 

DeltaStock Fake DMCA

 

 

 

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 DeltaStock trying to hide?

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

Investigative Report: DeltaStock – An In-Depth Analysis of Controversies and Client Concerns

Introduction

DeltaStock, founded in 1998 and headquartered in Sofia, Bulgaria, is one of the more established brokerage firms in the European financial markets. Offering services across forex, indices, commodities, and shares, it operates under the regulation of Bulgaria’s Financial Supervision Commission (FSC). However, despite its longevity, DeltaStock has faced its fair share of criticism, ranging from platform inefficiencies to allegations of misleading information. This investigative report delves into the complaints, allegations, and controversies surrounding DeltaStock, aiming to uncover the reasons behind its mixed reputation.


Regulatory Oversight and Concerns

DeltaStock is regulated by the Financial Supervision Commission (FSC) of Bulgaria, which provides some level of oversight. However, industry critics have raised concerns about the FSC’s regulatory rigor, arguing that it may not enforce the same high standards as regulatory bodies such as the FCA (UK), CySEC (Cyprus), or ASIC (Australia). This has led to skepticism about the robustness of investor protections offered by DeltaStock.

International Reach with Regional Regulatory Limitations

While DeltaStock markets itself as a globally accessible broker, its reliance on FSC regulation limits its ability to build trust in regions where stricter regulatory compliance is a prerequisite. Potential clients in jurisdictions with stringent standards may hesitate to engage with a broker that does not meet their local regulatory expectations.


Client Complaints and Concerns

1. Withdrawal Issues

One of the most frequent complaints about DeltaStock revolves around fund withdrawals:

  • Delayed or Blocked Withdrawals: Multiple users have reported significant delays in withdrawing their funds. In some cases, clients claim that withdrawal requests were denied without sufficient explanation.
  • Lack of Transparency: Traders have alleged that DeltaStock provides vague or inadequate reasons for withdrawal issues, leaving clients frustrated and uncertain about the status of their funds.
  • Impact on Trust: Withdrawal issues are particularly damaging for a brokerage’s reputation, as they cast doubt on the firm’s liquidity and financial stability.

2. Platform Performance and Technical Challenges

DeltaStock offers its proprietary platform, Delta Trading, alongside the widely-used MetaTrader 4 (MT4). However, user feedback indicates a range of technical issues:

  • Slow Execution Times: Traders have reported delayed order executions, particularly on the MT4 platform. In fast-moving markets, even slight delays can result in substantial financial losses.
  • Platform Freezes: During periods of high market volatility, users have experienced platform freezes and disconnections, severely impacting their ability to trade effectively.
  • Steep Learning Curve: While Delta Trading is praised for its features, its complexity can overwhelm novice traders. Many users find it challenging to navigate, creating barriers to entry for less-experienced clients.

3. Customer Service Complaints

Customer service is a critical aspect of any financial service provider, and DeltaStock has faced notable criticism in this area:

  • Unresponsiveness: Some clients have reported long wait times or outright unresponsiveness from DeltaStock’s customer support team, especially during times of technical issues or disputes.
  • Lack of Resolution: Even when support teams engage with clients, there are claims that their responses are generic and fail to resolve the underlying issues effectively.
  • Discrepancy in Service Quality: Users have noted inconsistency in customer service quality, suggesting that the firm’s support infrastructure may not be adequately equipped to handle a diverse and global client base.

4. Misleading Marketing Practices

DeltaStock has faced allegations of overstating its capabilities in marketing materials:

  • Exaggerated Claims: Some users believe the firm misrepresents the advantages of its trading conditions, including spreads, fees, and platform functionality.
  • Lack of Clarity: Information on critical trading terms and conditions, such as withdrawal policies and bonus requirements, has been described as vague or buried in fine print, leading to disputes once clients begin trading.

5. Hidden Fees

Another common complaint pertains to unexpected charges that are not clearly outlined during account setup:

  • High Spreads: Users have reported that the spreads offered by DeltaStock are higher than industry standards, particularly for smaller accounts. This can significantly erode profit margins, making it less competitive compared to other brokers.
  • Undisclosed Charges: Complaints about hidden fees, particularly related to dormant accounts and withdrawal transactions, have also surfaced, further damaging trust.

Allegations of Mismanagement and Operational Transparency

Liquidity and Financial Stability

DeltaStock’s alleged withdrawal delays and technical issues have led some clients to speculate about the firm’s liquidity. If a broker struggles to process withdrawals promptly, it may indicate internal financial challenges that could compromise client funds.

Lack of Transparency

Transparency remains a persistent concern for DeltaStock. The firm’s lack of open communication about regulatory compliance, operational protocols, and dispute resolution mechanisms has created skepticism about its internal governance.


Legal and Ethical Concerns

DeltaStock has not faced significant legal actions or sanctions to date. However, persistent client complaints, coupled with the firm’s FSC regulation, have raised concerns about its ability to uphold ethical standards and regulatory compliance on a global scale.

Potential Legal Vulnerabilities

Should client disputes escalate or evidence emerge of non-compliance with international financial standards, DeltaStock may face legal scrutiny, particularly in jurisdictions with stringent consumer protection laws.


Public Reviews and Perceptions

Reviews on platforms like MyFXBook and other trading forums provide valuable insights into client experiences:

  • Mixed Reviews: While some users praise DeltaStock for its range of trading instruments and platform features, the majority of complaints center around withdrawal delays, platform inefficiencies, and poor customer support.
  • Recurring Themes: Commonly cited issues include technical glitches during high-volatility periods and dissatisfaction with the responsiveness of the support team.

Recommendations for Prospective Clients

  1. Conduct Thorough Research:
    • Prospective clients should read reviews and evaluate both positive and negative feedback to make an informed decision.
  2. Test the Platform:
    • New traders are advised to start with a demo account or minimal deposits to assess platform performance and withdrawal processes before committing significant funds.
  3. Prioritize Regulated Brokers:
    • Clients seeking higher levels of security should consider brokers regulated by stricter authorities, such as the FCA or CySEC.
  4. Monitor Fee Structures:
    • Understanding all costs associated with trading, including spreads, commissions, and withdrawal fees, is crucial to avoid surprises.

Conclusion

DeltaStock’s long-standing presence in the financial industry is tempered by recurring complaints and controversies. Issues related to withdrawal delays, platform inefficiencies, customer service shortcomings, and allegations of misleading information have tarnished its reputation among traders.

While the firm offers a range of trading instruments and proprietary technology, its regulatory limitations and operational transparency remain points of concern. For prospective clients, DeltaStock represents a mixed proposition—its features may appeal to some, but the persistent issues and complaints suggest caution is warranted. As the trading landscape evolves, DeltaStock must address these criticisms to maintain credibility and competitiveness in a highly scrutinized industry.

 

 

 

How do we counteract this malpractice?

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

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

Potential Consequences for DeltaStock

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 DeltaStock Committing a Cyber Crime?

Faced with these limitations, some companies like DeltaStock 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. DeltaStock is certainly keeping interesting company here….

CompanyNames Fake DMCA

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

What else is DeltaStock hiding?

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

Authorities we may contact and share this report with for further actions

GOOGLE LEGAL HEAD

Halimah DeLaine Prado

NEWS DESK

Washington Post & NY Times

The above decision-makers and authorities will be provided a comprehensive dossier of our findings, including anonymously submitted evidence and tips. We invite journalists to contact us to receive a copy of our complete investigation here

Credits and Acknowledgement

16/10/2024

Many thanks to FakeDMCA.com and Lumen for providing access to their database.

Photos and Illustrations provided by DALL-E 3 – “a representation of DeltaStock censoring the internet and committing cyber crimes.”

  • We’ve reached out to DeltaStock for a comment or rebuttal regarding this investigation. It will strongly suggest they were behind the takedown attempt if they remain silent.

    • Our investigative report on DeltaStock‘s efforts to suppress online speech is significant, as it raises serious concerns about its integrity. The findings suggest that DeltaStock has engaged in questionable practices, including potential perjury, impersonation, and fraud, in a misguided attempt to manage or salvage its reputation.

    • We intend to file a counternotice to reinstate the removed article(s). While this particular instance is relatively straightforward, it is important to note that, in other cases, the overwhelming volume of automated DMCA takedown notices can significantly hinder the ability of affected parties to respond—especially for those not large media organizations.

    • You need an account with fakeDMCA.com and Lumen to access the research data. However, accounts are not widely available since these non-profit organisations manage large databases that could be susceptible to misuse. Nevertheless, they do offer access to non-profits and researchers.

    • It’s unclear why U.S. authorities have yet to act against these rogue reputation agencies, whose business model seems rooted in fraudulent practices.

  • We’ve reached out to DeltaStock for a comment or rebuttal regarding this investigation. It will strongly suggest they were behind the takedown attempt if they remain silent.

About the Author

16/10/2024

The author is affiliated with Harvard University and serves as a researcher at both Lumen and FakeDMCA.com. In his personal capacity, he and his team have been actively investigating and reporting on organized crime related to fraudulent copyright takedown schemes. Additionally, his team provides advisory services to major law firms and is frequently consulted on matters pertaining to intellectual property law. He can be reached at [email protected] directly.

USER FEEDBACK ON DeltaStock

2.2/5

Based on 3 ratings

Trust
20%
Risk
80%
Brand
34%
by: Gabriella Reed
December 9, 2024 at 11:08 am

Be cautious and don't trust these scammers with your hard-earned money – once it's gone, you won't get it back. It's shocking how they're still operating with such skillful deception.

by: Chloe Walker
December 9, 2024 at 10:56 am

Avoid this site at all costs—it’s unregulated, unreliable, and uses fake information to appear legitimate. My mum got scammed, but thankfully, she reported it to the bank to recover her money.

by: Xena Russell
December 9, 2024 at 10:41 am

I was scammed by this company after they convinced me to deposit $1,400 into an atomic wallet and share personal details like my passport and accounts. I feel violated and fear they might take more money. Avoid them at all...

Add Reviews

  • Trust
  • Risk
  • Brand

PROS

+
Add Field

CONS

+
Add Field
Choose Image
Choose Video

Leave feedback about this

  • Trust
  • Risk
  • Brand

PROS

+
Add Field

CONS

+
Add Field
Choose Image
Choose Video

WEBSITE AUDITS

Stop fraud before it happens with unbeatable speed, scale, depth, and breadth.

RECENT AUDITS

INVESTIGATIONS

Uncover hidden digital threats and secure your assets with our expert cyber investigation services.

RECENT CASES

THREAT ALERTS

Stay ahead of cyber threats with our daily list of the latest alerts and vulnerabilities.

THREAT ALERTS

LATEST NEWS

Your trusted source for breaking news and insights on cybercrime and digital security trends.

LATEST NEWS