Fernando Martinho – Nimbus

A summary of what happened?

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 Fernando Martinho - Nimbus trying to hide?

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

Investigative Report: The Controversial Legacy of Fernando Martinho and Nimbus Platform

Introduction

Fernando Martinho is a tech entrepreneur whose tenure as CEO of Nimbus Platform, a blockchain-based fintech venture, has been fraught with allegations of fraud, mismanagement, and unethical practices. Nimbus Platform, which positioned itself as a revolutionary decentralized finance (DeFi) project, has faced accusations of operating as a Ponzi scheme. This report delves into the controversies surrounding Martinho’s leadership, the platform’s alleged fraudulent operations, and the broader implications for investors and the cryptocurrency ecosystem.

Part 1: Overview of Nimbus Platform

Nimbus Platform launched in August 2020, advertising itself as a cutting-edge financial ecosystem offering tools for crowdfunding, crypto arbitrage, and decentralized investment opportunities. The platform attracted users with promises of:

• High Returns: Initial claims included up to 0.5% daily returns through its proprietary NMBT token.
• DeFi Innovation: Nimbus marketed itself as a hub for decentralized finance, incorporating staking, lending, and investment products.
• User Accessibility: Aimed at democratizing investment opportunities, Nimbus targeted novice investors seeking passive income.

However, soon after its launch, red flags emerged, leading to growing skepticism about the platform’s legitimacy.

Part 2: Transition of Leadership and Fernando Martinho’s Role

Initial Leadership and Rebranding

Nimbus Platform initially operated under Andrea Zanon, who left amid mounting criticism about the platform’s structure and promises. In September 2020, Fernando Martinho stepped in as CEO, bringing with him a background in blockchain technology.

Short Tenure and Abrupt Exit

Martinho’s leadership was marked by significant changes, including:

1. Introduction of NBU Tokens: As the original NMBT token model collapsed due to unsustainable returns, Martinho oversaw the transition to NBU tokens, which promised lower but still significant returns of 7% annually.
2. Evasion of Transparency: Martinho’s sudden removal from the Nimbus website and public-facing leadership in early 2021 raised serious questions. No official explanation was provided, leaving stakeholders speculating about internal instability and mismanagement.

Efforts to Suppress Information

In July 2023, reports surfaced that Martinho attempted to remove negative content about his tenure at Nimbus Platform. These actions included:

• Cease-and-Desist Notices: Martinho allegedly targeted websites and individuals critical of Nimbus, citing legal threats.
• GDPR Claims: He invoked privacy regulations like the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) to request takedowns of content linking him to Nimbus. These actions were widely interpreted as attempts to distance himself from the platform’s controversies and ongoing investigations.

Part 3: Ponzi Scheme Allegations Against Nimbus

Structure of Alleged Ponzi Scheme

Investigators and financial watchdogs have described Nimbus Platform as a Ponzi scheme, characterized by:

1. Unsustainable Returns: Promising returns of up to 100% annually, Nimbus relied on the influx of new investors’ funds to pay earlier participants, a hallmark of pyramid schemes.
2. Misuse of Tokens: The introduction of NMBT and later NBU tokens was criticized as a way to obscure the flow of funds and delay the platform’s eventual collapse.

Rebranding to Mask Failures

After the collapse of the NMBT token scheme, the platform rebranded as Nimbus 2.0, with revised tokenomics and a reduced return promise. However, the fundamental business model reportedly remained unchanged, perpetuating fraudulent practices under a new guise.

Investor Losses

Thousands of investors across Europe and beyond reported significant financial losses when the platform failed to deliver promised returns or process withdrawals. The lack of transparency and vague responses from the company further fueled allegations of fraud.

Part 4: Legal and Regulatory Actions

Criminal Investigations

Nimbus Platform has faced criminal investigations in Spain and other jurisdictions. Key developments include:

• Frozen Assets: Funds associated with Nimbus were frozen by Binance at the request of Spanish authorities, following evidence of fraudulent activity.
• Litigation: Victims have filed lawsuits seeking restitution, accusing the platform of defrauding investors through false advertising and misleading financial projections.

Fernando Martinho’s Involvement

While Martinho’s leadership tenure was relatively short, his association with Nimbus during a critical period has placed him under scrutiny:

• Accountability: Critics argue that as CEO, Martinho bears responsibility for the platform’s operations and the losses suffered by investors.
• Departure Timing: His abrupt exit coincided with the platform’s transition to NBU tokens, raising questions about whether he anticipated the platform’s eventual collapse.

Part 5: Complaints and Investor Sentiment

Recurring Complaints

1. Non-Processing of Withdrawals: Investors reported difficulties withdrawing funds, with delays often spanning weeks or months.
2. Opaque Business Practices: Nimbus failed to provide clear communication about its operations, including the mechanisms behind its promised returns.
3. Misleading Marketing: The platform’s promotional materials heavily emphasized high returns while downplaying risks, misleading novice investors.

Negative Reviews

Numerous online forums and reviews highlight widespread dissatisfaction among Nimbus users. Common criticisms include:

• Accusations of outright fraud.
• Disappointment with the platform’s lack of transparency.
• Frustration over Martinho’s and other executives’ failure to address concerns directly.

Part 6: Broader Implications for the Cryptocurrency Industry

Impact on Investor Trust

The Nimbus case exemplifies the risks associated with investing in unregulated or poorly-regulated cryptocurrency platforms. High-profile collapses like Nimbus damage trust in legitimate DeFi projects, making it harder for ethical platforms to attract users.

Need for Stronger Oversight

The allegations against Nimbus highlight gaps in regulatory oversight, particularly in the fast-evolving world of blockchain and cryptocurrency. Stricter regulations and more aggressive enforcement could help prevent similar schemes.

Conclusion

Fernando Martinho’s tenure at Nimbus Platform remains a controversial chapter in his career. While his time as CEO was brief, it coincided with significant developments, including the platform’s rebranding, its continued use of allegedly fraudulent practices, and growing dissatisfaction among investors. His subsequent attempts to suppress information about his involvement suggest an awareness of the reputational damage associated with Nimbus.

For investors and industry observers, the Nimbus case serves as a cautionary tale about the dangers of high-return promises and the importance of due diligence. As criminal investigations and lawsuits continue, the full scope of responsibility—both of Martinho and other executives—may come to light, offering further clarity into one of the cryptocurrency industry’s more troubling scandals.

How do we counteract this malpractice?

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

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

Potential Consequences for Fernando Martinho - Nimbus

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 Fernando Martinho - Nimbus Committing a Cyber Crime?

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

What else is Fernando Martinho - Nimbus hiding?

We encourage you to ‘Dork‘ Google by searching for keyword combinations such as [Fernando Martinho – Nimbus] + {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 Fernando Martinho – Nimbus 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.