Easy Trading Online

A summary of what happened?

Easy Trading Online (ETO) is an online trading platform headquartered in Australia, offering services in Contracts for Difference (CFDs) across various financial instruments. The platform provides access to the MetaTrader 5 (MT5) trading platform and supports multiple languages, including English, Chinese (Simplified and Traditional), Thai, and Vietnamese.

Regulatory Status:

ETO claims to be an Authorized Representative under the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) with license number 001304951. However, this claim requires further verification, as ASIC does not disclose the licensee’s website address, making it challenging to confirm the association between ETO and the ASIC license.

Concerns and Complaints:

As of now, there is limited information available regarding specific complaints or accusations against Easy Trading Online. The platform has received a user rating of 7.0 out of 10 on BrokersView, based on one review, indicating a generally positive reception. The review highlights ETO as a suitable platform for beginners, noting its user-friendly interface, diverse asset selection, and low trading fees. However, it also mentions limited risk management tools, occasional technical issues, and slower customer support response times.

Awards and Recognition:

ETO has been recognized within the industry, receiving the “Most Trusted Forex Broker” award at the 2024 Award for Brokers with Outstanding Assessment Ceremony.

While Easy Trading Online presents itself as a legitimate trading platform with industry recognition, potential users should exercise caution due to the unverified regulatory status and limited availability of user feedback. It’s advisable to conduct thorough research and consider reaching out to regulatory bodies directly to confirm the platform’s legitimacy before engaging in any trading activities.

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 Easy Trading Online trying to hide?

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

Investigative Report: The Shadowy Operations of Easy Trading Online (ETO)

Introduction

Easy Trading Online (ETO) is a trading platform that positions itself as a gateway to global financial markets, offering Contracts for Difference (CFDs) on instruments like forex, indices, cryptocurrencies, and commodities. While its marketing emphasizes accessibility and user-friendliness, closer scrutiny reveals a murkier side. Questions about its regulatory claims, operational transparency, and user experiences have cast doubt on its credibility.

This report delves deeply into the controversies surrounding ETO, examining allegations, regulatory concerns, user complaints, and potential red flags.

Background of Easy Trading Online

Easy Trading Online claims to be headquartered in Australia, leveraging the reputation of the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC), a globally respected regulatory body, to attract clients. The platform advertises support for the MetaTrader 5 (MT5) trading platform, a feature often associated with reliable trading platforms. Furthermore, ETO claims to cater to a diverse clientele by offering services in multiple languages, including English, Chinese, Thai, and Vietnamese.

However, beyond this polished exterior lies a series of discrepancies and concerning patterns.

Regulatory Claims: Fact or Fiction?

ETO prominently asserts its regulatory status, stating that it operates as an Authorized Representative (AR) under ASIC license number 001304951. While ASIC is a rigorous regulator, publicly accessible records do not link this license to the company’s website or operations. This creates a significant challenge for potential clients who wish to verify the legitimacy of the platform.

Key Issues:

1. Unverified License: The lack of a direct association between ETO and the cited ASIC license raises questions about its claims. In the absence of clear evidence, this could potentially mislead users into believing the platform is fully regulated.
2. Implications of Misrepresentation: If ETO’s claims are found to be false, this would constitute a breach of financial regulations and consumer protection laws in jurisdictions like Australia.

User Complaints and Negative Feedback

ETO’s public reviews are sparse, with only one user review on the platform BrokersView giving it a rating of 4.5 out of 5. While this review describes ETO as beginner-friendly with a wide range of trading assets and low fees, it also highlights several concerns:

• Technical Glitches: Users have reported issues with platform stability, leading to interruptions in trading activities.
• Slow Customer Support: Delays in resolving client issues have been noted, which can be particularly detrimental in fast-paced financial markets.
• Limited Risk Management Tools: The platform lacks advanced features to help traders manage their risks effectively, which is critical in volatile markets.

Further searches and investigations have not uncovered substantial user feedback on platforms like Trustpilot or Forex Peace Army, which raises concerns about the platform’s overall visibility and track record.

Lack of Transparency in Operations

The financial trading sector is rife with scams and fraudulent operations, making transparency a critical factor in assessing a platform’s reliability. Easy Trading Online exhibits several red flags:

1. Absence of Financial Disclosures: No verifiable information is available regarding the company’s financial health or ownership structure.
2. Unclear Business Practices: The platform’s operational methods and the jurisdictions it serves are not clearly outlined.
3. Offshore or Unregulated Elements: If ETO is found to be operating without proper regulation, it may be considered an offshore or “shadow broker,” avoiding oversight.

Industry Recognition: Credibility or Whitewashing?

Despite these concerns, ETO was awarded the “Most Trusted Forex Broker” at the 2024 Award for Brokers with Outstanding Assessment Ceremony. This accolade may lend credibility but must be viewed critically. Industry awards can sometimes be influenced by financial contributions or promotional partnerships rather than genuine assessments of quality and compliance.

Global Regulatory Environment and Potential Implications

The financial trading industry has seen an increasing crackdown on unregulated platforms. Regulatory bodies worldwide, including the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) and the UK’s Financial Conduct Authority (FCA), have issued warnings against fraudulent brokers misrepresenting their credentials.

Key Risks for Users:

1. Fraudulent Activity: Without proper regulatory oversight, users risk falling victim to scams, including unauthorized fund withdrawals and manipulated trades.
2. Data Security: Platforms operating without compliance may not adhere to data protection laws, exposing clients to potential identity theft or financial fraud.

Red Flags for Potential Investors

1. Unverified Claims of Regulation: Regulation is the backbone of trust in financial markets. ETO’s inability to verifiably link its operations to ASIC is a significant concern.
2. Opaque Corporate Structure: A lack of information about ETO’s ownership and financial practices suggests potential risks of offshore evasion or unethical conduct.
3. Limited User Feedback: The absence of detailed and diverse user experiences limits the ability to gauge ETO’s credibility and performance.

Conclusion and Recommendations

Easy Trading Online operates in a space that demands high levels of trust and transparency. While the platform markets itself as a credible and beginner-friendly option, significant gaps in its regulatory claims, operational transparency, and user engagement raise critical concerns.

For Potential Clients:

• Verify Regulatory Claims: Directly contact ASIC or other regulatory bodies to confirm ETO’s licensing status.
• Exercise Caution: Start with small deposits and test withdrawal processes before committing significant funds.
• Research Alternative Platforms: Consider established, well-reviewed brokers with verifiable regulatory oversight.

For Regulatory Authorities:

• Investigate Claims: Authorities should scrutinize ETO’s operations to determine if it is misleading clients about its regulatory status.
• Enhance Public Awareness: Increased public warnings and consumer education about recognizing legitimate trading platforms can reduce exposure to fraudulent schemes.

Ultimately, the case of Easy Trading Online serves as a stark reminder that investors must remain vigilant in an industry where opportunities and risks often coexist.

How do we counteract this malpractice?

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

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

Potential Consequences for Easy Trading Online

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 Easy Trading Online Committing a Cyber Crime?

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

What else is Easy Trading Online hiding?

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