FxRevenues

A summary of what happened?

FxRevenues is an online trading platform that offers services in forex and cryptocurrency markets. However, it has been the subject of numerous concerns and complaints, primarily due to its lack of regulatory oversight and allegations of fraudulent activities.

Regulatory Status:

• Lack of Regulation: FxRevenues is not regulated by any recognized financial authority. It claims to be registered in St. Vincent and the Grenadines, a jurisdiction known for not regulating forex trading. This absence of regulation raises significant concerns about the platform’s legitimacy and the safety of client funds.
• Warnings from Financial Authorities: The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) in the UK has issued warnings against FxRevenues, stating that the firm operates without authorization and targets individuals in the UK. The FCA cautions that clients of such unauthorized firms are not protected by the Financial Ombudsman Service or the Financial Services Compensation Scheme, making the recovery of funds unlikely if issues arise.
  FCA

Client Complaints and Allegations:

• Misappropriation of Funds: Clients have reported issues such as blocked withdrawals and interference with trading activities, suggesting potential misappropriation of funds.
  Traders Union
• Intrusive Services: There are reports of unsolicited investment advice and aggressive marketing tactics, which have raised red flags among users.
  Traders Union
• High Trading Expenses and Hidden Fees: Users have complained about unexpected costs, including high trading expenses and undisclosed fees, which have negatively impacted their investments.
  Traders Union

Customer Reviews:

• Negative Feedback: Platforms like reviews.io feature numerous customer reviews describing experiences of financial loss and labeling FxRevenues as a scam. Some users have reported losing substantial amounts of money, with the company allegedly disappearing without a trace.
  Reviews.io
• Recovery Services: Some reviews mention third-party services that assist in fund recovery from fraudulent platforms like FxRevenues, indicating a pattern of financial disputes involving the company.
  Reviews.io

Operational Concerns:

• Opaque Operations: FxRevenues operates without transparency regarding its management and corporate structure, making it difficult for clients to assess the company’s credibility.
  Traders Union
• Questionable Trading Platform: The platform reportedly requires referral codes for registration, a tactic often associated with illegitimate operations. Additionally, the trading software’s reliability and competitiveness have been called into question.

The combination of regulatory warnings, client complaints, and negative reviews suggests that FxRevenues operates without proper oversight and may engage in practices detrimental to its clients. Potential investors are strongly advised to exercise caution and consider dealing with brokers that are fully regulated by reputable financial authorities to ensure the safety of their investments.

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 FxRevenues trying to hide?

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

Investigative Report: FxRevenues – A Deep Dive into Allegations and Controversies

Introduction

FxRevenues is an online trading platform that advertises services for trading in forex, cryptocurrencies, and other financial instruments. The company claims to provide innovative trading tools and expert guidance to help clients succeed in financial markets. However, beneath the glossy marketing lies a troubling trail of allegations, regulatory warnings, and complaints that paint a starkly different picture.

This investigation compiles and examines the adverse news, complaints, and accusations against FxRevenues to provide a comprehensive view of the controversies surrounding the platform.

Background and Operational Structure

FxRevenues lists its headquarters in St. Vincent and the Grenadines, a jurisdiction known for its lax regulations regarding financial services. The company is not licensed or regulated by any major financial authority, which raises immediate red flags for potential investors. The lack of transparency about its ownership, leadership, and operations compounds concerns about its credibility.

Key Features Claimed:

1. Forex and cryptocurrency trading.
2. Access to high-leverage trading.
3. Expert trading advice and management services.

Reality Check:

The promises made by FxRevenues are common in the industry, but the absence of regulatory oversight undermines the legitimacy of these claims.

Allegations and Complaints Against FxRevenues

Regulatory Concerns and Warnings

FxRevenues has attracted the attention of multiple regulatory bodies due to its unauthorized operations:

• Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) Warning: The FCA has issued a warning against FxRevenues, stating that the platform operates without authorization and targets UK residents. According to the FCA, clients engaging with unlicensed brokers like FxRevenues risk losing their investments as they lack protection under UK financial regulations.
• Lack of Licensing: Despite operating globally, FxRevenues is not registered or licensed with any major financial regulatory authority. This absence of regulation makes it difficult for clients to seek recourse in cases of disputes or financial loss.

Client Allegations

Numerous users have accused FxRevenues of unethical practices, fraudulent behavior, and mismanagement. Key allegations include:

1. Blocked Withdrawals:
   • Many clients report that FxRevenues denied their withdrawal requests, effectively locking them out of accessing their funds.
   • Some claim that after depositing significant amounts, the company ceased communication entirely.
2. Misappropriation of Funds:
   • Users allege that FxRevenues uses deceptive practices to convince clients to deposit more money, only to disappear or refuse to process withdrawals later.
   • Reports suggest that client funds are often diverted for purposes other than trading.
3. Aggressive Sales Tactics:
   • FxRevenues has been criticized for employing high-pressure sales tactics, including unsolicited calls and persistent attempts to convince clients to invest larger sums of money.
   • There are also reports of the company offering “bonus funds” that come with hidden conditions, effectively trapping clients into investing more.
4. Hidden Fees and Unfair Practices:
   • Clients frequently complain about unexpected fees and charges that erode their investments.
   • High spreads and commissions have also been cited as tactics used to siphon money from users.
5. Manipulation of Trading Platforms:
   • Some users accuse FxRevenues of manipulating its trading platform to create artificial losses, ensuring clients cannot recover their investments.

Customer Feedback and Online Reviews

A review of user feedback across platforms like ForexBrokerz, WikiFX, and TradersUnion reveals a pattern of negative experiences:

• Lack of Transparency: Clients often describe FxRevenues as opaque, with unclear policies and vague communication regarding withdrawals and account terms.
• Allegations of Fraud: Many users explicitly label the platform a “scam,” with some sharing detailed accounts of how they were misled and lost substantial sums.
• Low Trust Ratings: FxRevenues consistently scores poorly on review sites, reflecting widespread dissatisfaction among its client base.

Investigative Findings from Media and Watchdog Reports

1. WikiFX Report:
   • WikiFX classifies FxRevenues as a “high-risk” broker due to its unregulated status and history of complaints.
   • The platform has been flagged for suspicious activity and is listed among brokers with warnings issued by multiple financial watchdogs.
2. ForexBrokerz Review:
   • ForexBrokerz has criticized FxRevenues for its lack of regulation and unethical business practices.
   • The review highlights the company’s aggressive marketing and failure to honor withdrawal requests.
3. Truth in Advertising:
   • Reports suggest FxRevenues misleads clients by overstating its success rates and offering services that fail to deliver promised outcomes.

Legal Challenges and Sanctions

While no formal lawsuits have been widely reported, FxRevenues’ operational practices place it in violation of several international financial standards:

• Potential Money Laundering Risks: The lack of regulatory oversight raises concerns about the platform being used for illicit financial activities.
• Consumer Fraud Violations: Allegations of blocked withdrawals and deceptive marketing could potentially lead to legal action under consumer protection laws in various jurisdictions.

Expert Opinions

Industry experts and regulatory authorities advise extreme caution when dealing with unregulated brokers like FxRevenues. Key risks include:

• Loss of funds with no recourse.
• Exposure to fraudulent schemes.
• Vulnerability to aggressive sales and marketing tactics.

Conclusion

The evidence against FxRevenues paints a clear picture of a platform that operates with little regard for ethical or regulatory standards. The combination of regulatory warnings, blocked withdrawals, hidden fees, and overwhelmingly negative reviews suggests that FxRevenues poses significant risks to potential investors. Clients are strongly advised to avoid unregulated brokers and to conduct thorough due diligence before investing in any financial platform.

Recommendations for Potential Investors:

1. Verify Regulation: Only engage with brokers licensed by reputable regulatory bodies such as the FCA, SEC, or ASIC.
2. Research Reviews: Examine third-party reviews and ratings for insight into user experiences.
3. Avoid High-Pressure Sales: Be wary of platforms that employ aggressive tactics to secure deposits.

FxRevenues exemplifies the dangers of entrusting funds to unregulated platforms, highlighting the importance of investor vigilance in the digital age.

How do we counteract this malpractice?

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

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

Potential Consequences for FxRevenues

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 FxRevenues Committing a Cyber Crime?

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

What else is FxRevenues hiding?

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