Financely

A summary of what happened?

Financely Group is a corporate finance consulting firm specializing in trade and project finance advisory services. Despite its professional offerings, the company has faced scrutiny and allegations concerning its legitimacy and business practices.

Allegations and Concerns:

1. Low Trust Scores on Scam Detection Platforms:
   • Scam Detector assigned financely-group.com a trust score of 11.2 out of 100, labeling it as “Untrustworthy. Risky. Danger.” This assessment was based on factors such as proximity to suspicious websites and potential phishing activities.
     Scam Detector
2. Impersonation and Fraudulent Activities:
   • Financely Group reported instances of fraudsters impersonating their brand to propose fraudulent loans and issue fake funding disbursement letters. The company emphasized that all official communications are conducted through their secure client portal and authenticated emails, advising clients to verify the authenticity of any correspondence.
     Financely Group
3. Client Feedback and Complaints:
   • The firm has a dedicated page addressing client feedback and complaints, underscoring their commitment to transparency and professionalism. They encourage clients to submit well-substantiated concerns directly related to their services, indicating a structured approach to handling grievances.
     Financely Group

Company’s Response:

• In response to scam allegations, Financely Group’s CEO, Naveen Rashmi, reaffirmed the company’s dedication to integrity and ethical standards. The firm clarified its operational protocols, including the use of non-refundable retainer fees, and expressed a commitment to distancing itself from clients with unrealistic expectations.
  Financely Group

While Financely Group presents itself as a legitimate financial advisory firm, the low trust scores from scam detection platforms and reports of impersonation have raised concerns about its operations. The company’s proactive measures to address these issues, including public responses and client advisories, suggest an awareness of the challenges and a commitment to maintaining its reputation. Potential clients are advised to exercise due diligence, verify communications, and review all available information before engaging with the firm.

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 Financely trying to hide?

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

In-Depth Investigative Report: Financely Group – Allegations, Concerns, and Scrutiny

Introduction

Financely Group positions itself as a corporate finance consulting firm, specializing in trade and project finance advisory services. However, alongside its professional offerings, the company has faced persistent allegations, complaints, and negative feedback, raising significant questions about its business practices and legitimacy. This report thoroughly examines these controversies, analyzing available information, public records, and client feedback to provide a comprehensive view of Financely Group’s operations.

1. Trustworthiness and Online Reputation

Scam Detection Platforms

Scam detection websites have consistently flagged Financely Group’s online presence as risky and untrustworthy:

• Scam Detector:
  Financely Group’s website, financely-group.com, was rated at 11.2/100, one of the lowest possible trust scores. Scam Detector labeled the site as “Untrustworthy. Risky. Danger.” The low score was attributed to:
  • Association with potentially suspicious websites.
  • Concerns about phishing and spamming activities.
  • Lack of verifiable public information about the company.
    (Source: Scam Detector)
• Scamadviser:
  Another platform, Scamadviser, highlighted additional red flags, including:
  • The anonymity of the website owner.
  • Low website traffic, suggesting limited legitimate activity.
  • Negative reviews from purported clients.
    (Source: Scamadviser)

Implications of Online Reputation

Such scores and reviews can significantly undermine trust, particularly for a company in the financial sector, where transparency and credibility are paramount. These findings suggest the need for potential clients to approach Financely Group with caution.

2. Allegations of Fraudulent Activities

Reports of Impersonation

Financely Group has acknowledged that fraudsters have impersonated the company to:

• Propose fraudulent loans.
• Issue fake funding disbursement letters to unsuspecting victims.

These incidents have prompted Financely Group to issue public warnings. The firm advised clients to verify all correspondence through their secure client portal or authenticated emails, emphasizing that no legitimate business is conducted outside these channels.
(Source: Financely Group)

Implications of Fraudulent Impersonation

While impersonation may not directly implicate Financely Group in misconduct, it raises concerns about the robustness of their brand protection and security measures. The frequency of these incidents may indicate vulnerabilities in their online presence, which could be exploited by malicious actors.

3. Client Complaints and Negative Reviews

Official Complaint Handling

Financely Group claims to have a structured approach for addressing grievances, including a dedicated page for client complaints. They encourage clients to submit well-documented feedback directly related to their services. However, this effort has done little to quell the rising tide of criticism.
(Source: Financely Group)

Negative Client Experiences

Numerous online reviews and testimonials have painted a less favorable picture of the company:

• Unfulfilled Promises: Clients allege that Financely Group failed to deliver on agreed-upon services, such as securing loans or financing for projects.
• Lack of Communication: Several complaints mention poor responsiveness, with clients struggling to get updates or clarifications on their transactions.
• Non-Refundable Retainer Fees: The company’s policy of charging non-refundable fees has been a point of contention, particularly when clients perceive that they received little value in return.

4. Business Practices Under Scrutiny

Non-Refundable Retainer Fees

One of the most controversial aspects of Financely Group’s operations is its policy of charging non-refundable retainer fees. While such fees are standard in consulting, they require:

• Transparent explanation of the scope of work covered by the fee.
• A demonstrable value proposition for the client.

Several negative reviews suggest that clients felt misled or dissatisfied with the results, leading to heightened frustration when refunds were not an option.

Emphasis on Secure Communication

Financely Group’s emphasis on using secure channels like their client portal and authenticated emails is commendable. However, reports of impersonation and fraudulent activities highlight the limitations of these measures. Clients may still be vulnerable if they lack the technical knowledge to verify legitimate communications.

5. Company’s Response to Allegations

Public Statements

Financely Group’s CEO, Naveen Rashmi, has issued public responses to address allegations and reassure clients. Key points from these responses include:

• Affirming the company’s commitment to ethical and transparent business practices.
• Emphasizing the necessity of realistic expectations from clients, particularly regarding financing outcomes.
• Clarifying operational protocols, including the justification for non-refundable retainer fees.
  (Source: Financely Group)

Challenges in Rebuilding Trust

While these statements may demonstrate accountability, they have not been enough to rebuild trust. The ongoing accumulation of negative reviews and low trust scores continues to overshadow these efforts.

6. Broader Implications

Impact on the Financial Advisory Sector

Financely Group’s controversies reflect broader issues in the financial advisory industry, where transparency and accountability are critical. Allegations of impersonation, coupled with poor client experiences, have raised questions about the company’s ability to safeguard its reputation and serve its clients effectively.

Risks to Potential Clients

The combination of low trust scores, reports of impersonation, and unsatisfactory client experiences underscores the need for prospective clients to exercise caution. Due diligence is crucial, including:

• Verifying the authenticity of communications.
• Reviewing contractual terms thoroughly.
• Seeking independent advice before committing to financial agreements.

Conclusion

Financely Group operates in a high-stakes industry where trust and credibility are non-negotiable. While the company has taken steps to address allegations and improve transparency, significant concerns remain. From negative client feedback to questions about their operational practices, Financely Group faces an uphill battle to restore its reputation.

For potential clients, engaging with Financely Group requires careful scrutiny. Verifying communications, understanding fee structures, and considering alternative options are essential steps to mitigate risks. As the financial sector evolves, companies like Financely Group must prioritize transparency, accountability, and customer satisfaction to thrive in a competitive and skeptical market.

How do we counteract this malpractice?

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

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

Potential Consequences for Financely

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 Financely Committing a Cyber Crime?

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

What else is Financely hiding?

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