ExpertOption

A summary of what happened?

ExpertOption is an online trading platform established in 2014, offering services in digital options, forex, stocks, commodities, and cryptocurrencies. The company claims to have over 70 million registered users worldwide and executes more than 30 million deals each month. Despite its extensive user base, ExpertOption has faced several concerns and complaints regarding its regulatory status, operational practices, and customer experiences.

Regulatory Status: ExpertOption is registered in St. Vincent and the Grenadines and is regulated by the Vanuatu Financial Services Commission (VFSC) and the Financial Market Relations Regulation Center (FMRRC). However, these regulatory bodies are not considered top-tier financial regulators, leading to concerns about the level of oversight and investor protection provided. Additionally, ExpertOption is not available in several countries, including the United States, Australia, and those within the European Union, due to regulatory restrictions.

Customer Complaints: Customer reviews of ExpertOption are mixed. Some users report satisfaction with the platform’s user-friendly interface and the variety of assets available for trading. For instance, on Sitejabber, ExpertOption has a rating of 4.6 out of 5 stars based on 63 reviews, indicating general satisfaction among users.

Similarly, on Reviews.io, the platform has an average score of 3.98 out of 5 based on 244 reviews, with 77% of reviewers recommending ExpertOption.

However, there are notable complaints, particularly concerning withdrawal processes and account management. Some users allege that the platform manipulates payout rates, decreasing them when traders are profitable and increasing them when losses occur. Additionally, issues related to bonus terms have been reported, with some traders finding it challenging to meet the conditions attached to bonuses, leading to complications in fund withdrawals.

Operational Practices: ExpertOption offers a proprietary trading platform that is considered user-friendly and suitable for beginners. The platform provides various educational resources, including articles and videos, to assist traders in making informed decisions.

Despite these features, the platform’s asset range is relatively limited, with around 100 assets available, which is fewer than some competitors offering over 1,000 assets.

While ExpertOption has a substantial user base and offers a platform that some traders find satisfactory, concerns about its regulatory oversight, withdrawal processes, and operational transparency persist. Potential users are advised to exercise caution, conduct thorough research, and consider these factors when evaluating the platform for their 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 ExpertOption trying to hide?

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

Investigative Report: ExpertOption – Allegations, Complaints, and Operational Concerns

Introduction

ExpertOption is an online trading platform established in 2014, offering services across digital options, forex, stocks, commodities, and cryptocurrencies. With over 70 million registered users and claims of executing 30 million monthly trades, it has established itself as a significant player in the trading industry. However, ExpertOption has faced criticism and complaints from users and industry analysts concerning its regulatory status, withdrawal processes, and operational transparency. This report delves into these issues, providing an in-depth investigation of the concerns surrounding the platform.

Background and Operations

ExpertOption operates from St. Vincent and the Grenadines and claims regulation by the Vanuatu Financial Services Commission (VFSC) and the Financial Market Relations Regulation Center (FMRRC). The platform markets itself as a user-friendly trading solution, particularly for beginners, offering proprietary software and educational tools.

Despite its global user base, the platform is unavailable in certain jurisdictions, including the United States, Australia, and the European Union, due to regulatory restrictions. These absences raise questions about its ability to comply with stringent international financial standards.

Regulatory Concerns

One of the most prominent issues facing ExpertOption is its regulatory framework.

• Weak Regulatory Oversight: ExpertOption is regulated by VFSC and FMRRC, neither of which are considered top-tier financial regulators. These organizations are known for their lenient oversight compared to entities like the UK’s Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) or the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). The lack of robust oversight raises concerns about investor protection and the platform’s accountability.
• Geographical Restrictions: ExpertOption’s services are unavailable in multiple countries due to regulatory issues, including the United States, Canada, Australia, and those in the European Union. This exclusion suggests difficulties in meeting the rigorous compliance standards required in these jurisdictions, further eroding trust in the platform’s operational legitimacy.

Customer Complaints and Allegations

1. Withdrawal Issues

A significant number of user complaints focus on withdrawal delays or denials.

• Reported Problems: Customers have reported that withdrawing funds from ExpertOption can be a cumbersome process. Some users allege:
  • Arbitrary delays in processing withdrawal requests.
  • Unjustified rejection of withdrawal applications.
  • Difficulties accessing funds after meeting bonus conditions.
• Bonus Complications: ExpertOption offers bonuses to new users, but the terms tied to these bonuses are often criticized as misleading. Users must meet high trading volume thresholds before they can withdraw funds, which many claim is an unfair and opaque practice.

2. Manipulation of Payout Rates

Users have accused ExpertOption of manipulating payout rates to favor the platform.

• Allegations: Some traders allege that:
  • Payout rates decrease when they are profitable, thereby reducing potential earnings.
  • Conversely, payout rates increase during losses, amplifying traders’ risks and detracting from overall profitability.

These allegations, though difficult to verify conclusively, have been reported consistently across multiple review platforms and forums.

3. Customer Support Complaints

Customer service is another area of concern for ExpertOption users.

• Lack of Responsiveness: Users have frequently criticized the platform’s customer support for being unresponsive or slow in resolving disputes.
  • Many complaints allege that support staff provide generic or unhelpful responses rather than addressing specific issues.
  • Disputes regarding withdrawals or account verification processes often go unresolved for extended periods.

4. Transparency Concerns

Transparency in terms of fees, trading conditions, and regulatory compliance has been a recurring issue.

• Opaque Fee Structures: While ExpertOption claims to charge no hidden fees, some users report unexpected charges during withdrawals or account inactivity.
• Regulatory Ambiguity: Despite advertising itself as a regulated platform, ExpertOption’s regulatory status is viewed skeptically due to the lack of oversight from well-recognized financial authorities.

Public Perception and Reviews

ExpertOption has received mixed reviews across platforms, with a sharp divide between positive and negative feedback.

• Positive Reviews:
  • Some users praise the platform’s intuitive design and educational resources, highlighting its accessibility for beginners.
  • ExpertOption’s mobile app receives commendation for its functionality and ease of use.
• Negative Reviews:
  • Sites like SiteJabber and Reviews.io feature numerous complaints about withdrawal issues and lack of transparency.
  • Critics describe the platform as a “scam” or “untrustworthy,” particularly in forums like Trustpilot and DayTrading.com.

Legal and Ethical Concerns

Potential for Exploitation

The lack of stringent regulation opens the door to potential exploitation of users, particularly inexperienced traders. Common ethical concerns include:

• Aggressive Marketing: ExpertOption’s marketing materials often emphasize the ease of making money through trading, which may mislead users about the risks involved.
• Lack of Risk Warnings: While the platform includes disclaimers about trading risks, critics argue these warnings are insufficient given the complexity of digital options and the high likelihood of financial loss.

Lawsuit Risks

Though there are no widely publicized lawsuits against ExpertOption, the accumulation of negative reviews and user complaints could lead to legal challenges in jurisdictions with stricter consumer protection laws.

Conclusion and Recommendations

ExpertOption’s claims of offering a reliable and user-friendly trading experience are overshadowed by significant concerns regarding its regulatory status, operational transparency, and user experiences. Key takeaways from this investigation include:

1. Regulatory Weaknesses: The platform’s reliance on lesser-known regulatory bodies raises questions about its credibility and accountability.
2. User Complaints: Reports of withdrawal issues, alleged payout manipulations, and unresponsive customer support undermine trust in the platform.
3. Transparency Gaps: A lack of clarity regarding fees, bonus terms, and regulatory compliance further damages its reputation.

Recommendations for Potential Users:

• Exercise caution and conduct thorough research before using ExpertOption.
• Be aware of the risks associated with trading on platforms with limited regulatory oversight.
• Avoid relying solely on bonuses or promotions, which may come with restrictive terms.

Final Thoughts: ExpertOption exemplifies the challenges faced by traders in navigating the unregulated and opaque world of online trading platforms. While some users may find value in its services, the numerous complaints and concerns warrant skepticism. As always, prospective traders should prioritize platforms with strong regulatory oversight and a proven track record of transparency and customer satisfaction.

How do we counteract this malpractice?

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

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

Potential Consequences for ExpertOption

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 ExpertOption Committing a Cyber Crime?

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

What else is ExpertOption hiding?

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