John Monarch at ShipChain

A summary of what happened?

Background

John Monarch is the co-founder and former CEO of ShipChain, a blockchain-based logistics company established to enhance transparency and efficiency in the shipping industry. Under his leadership, ShipChain aimed to integrate blockchain technology into supply chain management, offering end-to-end visibility of shipments.

Major Concerns and Accusations Against John Monarch and ShipChain:

1. Unregistered Securities Offering:
   • Initial Coin Offering (ICO): In 2018, ShipChain conducted an ICO, raising approximately $27.6 million through the sale of SHIP tokens. The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) later determined that these tokens were sold as unregistered securities, violating federal securities laws. Consequently, ShipChain agreed to a settlement with the SEC, which included a $2.05 million penalty and the cessation of its operations.
2. Cease-and-Desist Orders:
   • State-Level Actions: Prior to the SEC’s involvement, the South Carolina Attorney General’s Office issued a cease-and-desist order against ShipChain, alleging that the company was offering unregistered securities within the state. This action highlighted concerns about the company’s compliance with state securities regulations.
3. Defamation Lawsuit:
   • Legal Disputes: John Monarch faced a defamation lawsuit filed by Richard Gorman, a competitor in the online marketing industry. The lawsuit alleged that Monarch and an associate orchestrated a smear campaign against Gorman, including false accusations and online harassment. The case attracted significant attention due to its severity and the tragic suicide of Monarch’s co-defendant following a substantial judgment against him.
4. Business Practices and Transparency:
   • Operational Concerns: Critics have raised issues regarding ShipChain’s business model and transparency. Some investors and industry observers questioned the company’s revenue model and the practical utility of its SHIP tokens. Additionally, there were reports of heavy-handed moderation on ShipChain’s online forums, where individuals raising concerns or seeking information were allegedly censored or banned, leading to accusations of attempting to suppress dissenting opinions.
5. Previous Business Ventures:
   • Direct Outbound: Before founding ShipChain, John Monarch operated Direct Outbound, a logistics company involved in fulfillment services. The company faced criticism for its association with controversial “free trial” marketing tactics, where consumers were charged substantial amounts if they did not return products promptly. This association raised questions about Monarch’s business ethics and practices.

In summary, John Monarch’s tenure at ShipChain was marred by legal challenges, regulatory scrutiny, and concerns over business practices. The unregistered securities offering, coupled with allegations of defamation and questionable operational transparency, contributed to the company’s eventual shutdown and left a lasting impact on its reputation in the blockchain and logistics sectors.

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 John Monarch at ShipChain trying to hide?

John Monarch at ShipChain‘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 John Monarch at ShipChain in legal accountability. Let’s examine the information John Monarch at ShipChain may be trying to remove from the internet –

John Monarch co-founded ShipChain, a blockchain-based logistics startup, with the goal of enhancing transparency and efficiency in supply chain management. Launched during the height of cryptocurrency’s rise, ShipChain positioned itself as a transformative player, utilizing blockchain to provide end-to-end visibility in shipping processes. However, under Monarch’s leadership, ShipChain became embroiled in legal battles, regulatory issues, and public controversies that ultimately led to its shutdown.

Key Controversies and Allegations Against John Monarch and ShipChain

1. Unregistered Securities Offering and SEC SanctionsAt the core of ShipChain’s troubles was its Initial Coin Offering (ICO) in 2018. ShipChain raised approximately $27.6 million by selling SHIP tokens to investors globally. However, as the blockchain and cryptocurrency markets began facing scrutiny from regulatory bodies, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) deemed SHIP tokens an unregistered security. By law, securities must be registered to protect investors and ensure transparency in financial disclosures, which ShipChain allegedly neglected.The SEC’s investigation culminated in a $2.05 million settlement, with ShipChain agreeing to cease all operations and refund investors. This action signaled a significant violation of securities laws, drawing attention to the risks and regulatory gaps in ICOs. For ShipChain, this effectively marked the beginning of the end, as its primary funding and business model became unsustainable under regulatory pressure. This event contributed to the broader skepticism toward ICOs and raised questions about Monarch’s due diligence in complying with financial regulations.
2. State-Level Cease-and-Desist Orders and Compliance IssuesEven before the SEC’s involvement, ShipChain faced legal action at the state level. The South Carolina Attorney General issued a cease-and-desist order against ShipChain, citing its ICO as an unregistered securities offering within the state. This order underscored the company’s challenges in meeting regulatory requirements across jurisdictions and highlighted concerns over the legality of its business practices.This state-level scrutiny compounded ShipChain’s troubles, signaling that Monarch and his team may have failed to navigate or prioritize regulatory compliance. For investors, this reinforced concerns about the company’s legitimacy and the soundness of its operational strategy.
3. Defamation Lawsuit and Allegations of HarassmentBeyond the financial and regulatory realms, John Monarch faced personal legal challenges, including a high-profile defamation lawsuit. Richard Gorman, a competitor in the online marketing industry, filed a lawsuit alleging that Monarch had orchestrated a smear campaign against him. The lawsuit accused Monarch and an associate of initiating false accusations and engaging in online harassment tactics that severely damaged Gorman’s reputation.This defamation case was marked by intense legal battles and took a tragic turn when one of Monarch’s associates committed suicide after a judgment against him. This incident cast a shadow over Monarch’s professional conduct, bringing into question his methods and ethical boundaries when dealing with competitors. The lawsuit amplified the negative perception of Monarch and raised serious concerns about his involvement in unethical practices.
4. Questionable Business Practices and Transparency Concerns at ShipChainShipChain’s operational model and transparency faced scrutiny as well. Industry insiders and investors raised concerns about the legitimacy and utility of ShipChain’s SHIP tokens, which were integral to its ICO. Critics questioned whether the tokens had practical use within the supply chain ecosystem or if they were primarily designed as a fundraising tool with limited real-world applicability.In addition, ShipChain reportedly managed its online presence with an iron fist. Community members and critics who raised concerns on online forums were allegedly met with heavy-handed censorship. Reports surfaced that ShipChain’s moderators would ban or silence users who asked probing questions about the company’s financial stability or business model. This approach to managing public discourse led to accusations that ShipChain was attempting to suppress dissent, fostering a culture of secrecy rather than transparency.
5. Prior Business Ventures and Ethical ConcernsPrior to his involvement with ShipChain, Monarch operated a logistics company named Direct Outbound, which provided fulfillment services. However, Direct Outbound faced criticism for its association with controversial “free trial” marketing tactics, where consumers were automatically enrolled in paid subscriptions after free trial periods. These practices often resulted in unexpected charges for customers, raising ethical concerns about Direct Outbound’s business methods.Monarch’s previous experiences with Direct Outbound fueled skepticism about his leadership style and ethical standards, which some felt carried over into ShipChain’s operations. This history of questionable business practices cast a long shadow over his reputation, as investors and industry observers doubted the authenticity and ethical foundation of ShipChain’s mission.

Conclusion

The case of John Monarch and ShipChain reflects the volatile mix of innovation, regulatory challenges, and ethical questions that often surround blockchain-based startups. While ShipChain initially promised a transformative approach to supply chain transparency, its trajectory was marred by legal and ethical challenges, ultimately leading to its closure. For Monarch, these events collectively contribute to a complex and controversial legacy, marked by unresolved questions about regulatory compliance, professional integrity, and transparency. The case serves as a cautionary tale for investors and entrepreneurs in the blockchain industry, highlighting the critical importance of regulatory adherence, ethical leadership, and transparent business practices.

How do we counteract this malpractice?

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

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

Potential Consequences for John Monarch at ShipChain

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 John Monarch at ShipChain Committing a Cyber Crime?

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

What else is John Monarch at ShipChain hiding?

We encourage you to ‘Dork‘ Google by searching for keyword combinations such as [John Monarch at ShipChain] + {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 John Monarch at ShipChain 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.