LBLV

A summary of what happened?

LBLV is an offshore forex and CFD broker established in 2017, headquartered in Seychelles. The firm offers a range of financial instruments, including currencies, commodities, indices, and shares, primarily through the MetaTrader 5 platform. Despite its global reach, LBLV has been the subject of significant concerns and allegations:

Regulatory Status and Warnings

LBLV operates under the regulation of the Seychelles Financial Services Authority (FSA), a jurisdiction often criticized for its lenient oversight compared to top-tier regulators. Notably, the UK’s Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) has issued warnings against LBLV, stating that the firm is not authorized to provide financial services in the UK.

Similarly, the Financial Markets Authority (FMA) of New Zealand has cautioned investors about LBLV, highlighting issues such as withholding funds and suspicions of fraudulent activities.

Client Complaints and Withdrawal Issues

Numerous clients have reported difficulties in withdrawing funds from their LBLV accounts. Complaints include delayed or denied withdrawal requests, with some users alleging that the broker imposes unreasonable fees and taxes as prerequisites for fund release. These practices have led to suspicions of LBLV operating as a scam broker, preying on unsuspecting traders.

High Minimum Deposit Requirements

LBLV requires a minimum deposit of $5,000 to open an account, a threshold significantly higher than industry standards. This high entry barrier has been criticized for potentially exploiting novice traders, compelling them to commit substantial funds without adequate assurance of the broker’s reliability.

LBLV’s operations have raised multiple red flags, including regulatory warnings, client complaints about fund withdrawals, and high minimum deposit requirements. Prospective investors are advised to exercise caution and conduct thorough due diligence before engaging with LBLV, considering the serious concerns and allegations associated with the broker.

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 LBLV trying to hide?

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

LBLV: A Forex Broker Under Fire – An Investigative Report on Allegations, Client Complaints, and Regulatory Warnings

LBLV, an offshore forex and CFD broker established in 2017, has attracted substantial attention, both from clients and regulatory bodies worldwide. Although based in the Seychelles, LBLV markets itself as a global broker, offering access to a range of financial instruments including currency pairs, commodities, indices, and shares, primarily through the MetaTrader 5 platform. However, a series of controversies involving regulatory concerns, client grievances, and allegations of questionable practices have cast a long shadow over its operations.

Overview of LBLV’s Operations

LBLV operates under the regulation of the Seychelles Financial Services Authority (FSA), a jurisdiction known for its light regulatory requirements. This regulatory framework offers certain flexibilities to brokers, such as lower capital requirements and fewer compliance checks, which can be attractive to financial service providers. However, for clients, this can mean reduced protections, limited recourse in disputes, and higher risk if the broker’s conduct comes into question.

LBLV’s operations focus primarily on attracting clients through high-leverage trading, which is riskier but can be highly appealing to novice traders lured by promises of high returns. The broker’s minimum deposit requirement stands at $5,000, a threshold significantly higher than industry standards, which often range between $100 and $500. Critics argue that this high minimum deposit targets inexperienced traders who may not realize the inherent risks of trading on leverage with a relatively unknown offshore broker.

Regulatory Warnings and Red Flags

LBLV has faced multiple warnings from financial authorities, including the UK’s Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) and New Zealand’s Financial Markets Authority (FMA). In 2019, the FCA issued a formal warning against LBLV, explicitly noting that the broker was not authorized to provide financial services within the UK. The FCA urged potential clients to exercise extreme caution, noting that unauthorized firms often engage in misleading practices and frequently have ties to fraudulent activities.

Similarly, the FMA in New Zealand has flagged LBLV as a broker of concern, citing cases of clients being unable to withdraw funds, complaints of unexplained account restrictions, and difficulties in obtaining assistance from the broker’s customer service. These warnings by established regulatory authorities reflect broader concerns about LBLV’s practices and the high level of risk associated with trading through a broker based in a lenient regulatory environment.

Client Complaints: Withholding Funds and Account Restrictions

One of the most significant complaints from LBLV clients is the difficulty they face when trying to withdraw funds. Numerous reports from former clients describe prolonged delays in processing withdrawal requests, while others allege that withdrawal requests are outright denied without explanation. In some cases, clients report that LBLV imposes exorbitant fees or additional taxes as prerequisites for accessing their funds. Such requirements are often seen as tactics used by questionable brokers to retain client funds under false pretenses.

Clients have also reported unexplained account restrictions, with some traders alleging that their accounts were frozen after profitable trades. These restrictions, which often lack transparent explanations, prevent traders from accessing their capital, with customer support providing limited or no clarification. Such complaints have led to suspicions that LBLV is engaging in “stop-out” tactics, where brokers restrict or close accounts to avoid fulfilling withdrawal requests.

High Minimum Deposit Requirements and Alleged Pressure Tactics

Another area of concern is LBLV’s unusually high minimum deposit requirement of $5,000. For comparison, the industry average is far lower, and brokers with reliable regulatory oversight typically allow clients to open accounts with less than $1,000. This high minimum deposit serves as a significant barrier to entry and is particularly risky for novice traders who may lack experience in high-stakes forex and CFD trading.

Former clients and whistleblowers have reported that LBLV’s representatives use high-pressure sales tactics to persuade potential clients to deposit large sums, often highlighting the broker’s high leverage offerings while downplaying the risks involved. Some clients have alleged that after opening an account, they were encouraged to deposit even larger amounts by account managers who promised high returns, only to face significant losses. These tactics have led to accusations that LBLV preys on vulnerable clients, exploiting their lack of experience and understanding of the high risks involved in leveraged trading.

Accusations of Unethical Sales Tactics and Misleading Marketing

LBLV has also been criticized for its aggressive marketing campaigns and alleged use of deceptive sales tactics. According to reports, LBLV representatives reach out to potential clients through cold calls, social media advertising, and emails, often presenting the broker as a highly profitable investment opportunity. Clients have alleged that LBLV’s marketing materials downplay the risks associated with forex and CFD trading, creating the impression that returns are virtually guaranteed.

Furthermore, former clients claim that LBLV’s sales representatives often use vague or misleading language to obscure the broker’s offshore status and the implications of trading with a lightly regulated entity. This lack of transparency has been criticized as deceptive, as traders who are not familiar with the risks of offshore brokers may be unaware of the limited protections available to them in case of disputes.

Unsubstantiated Allegations of Internet Censorship

While there are no verifiable reports of LBLV attempting to censor the internet directly, the firm’s aggressive approach to dealing with negative reviews and critical content has raised questions. Multiple complaints and negative reviews of LBLV have surfaced on forex and financial review websites, detailing clients’ struggles with account restrictions, withdrawal issues, and poor customer service. Some users have claimed that their negative reviews were flagged or removed after alleged interference by LBLV, though these claims remain unverified.

LBLV’s tactics for handling negative press may not equate to outright internet censorship, but their response to unfavorable reviews and the efforts to control their online reputation suggest a level of concern with managing public perception. This behavior, if true, is part of a broader trend where companies attempt to shape their digital footprint to suppress criticism.

Summary: A Broader Pattern of Controversy and Risk

The allegations against LBLV represent a range of concerning behaviors that reflect poorly on its practices as a financial broker. Between regulatory warnings, client complaints, and the reported use of high-pressure tactics, LBLV appears to engage in practices that benefit the firm while imposing significant risks on its clients. The broker’s high minimum deposit requirement and offshore regulatory status add to the perception that LBLV is a high-risk option, especially for inexperienced traders.

As of now, there are no substantiated reports of LBLV directly engaging in internet censorship, but its tactics for managing online reviews and negative press suggest a focus on reputation control. For prospective clients, the controversies surrounding LBLV underscore the importance of researching and choosing a broker with a transparent track record, clear regulatory oversight, and a commitment to ethical practices. In a field where oversight is already limited, brokers like LBLV raise significant red flags for those considering engaging in high-stakes forex and CFD trading.

How do we counteract this malpractice?

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

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

Potential Consequences for LBLV

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 LBLV Committing a Cyber Crime?

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

What else is LBLV hiding?

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