Mark Shabad

A summary of what happened?

Mark Shabad is a businessman and public figure with a history of philanthropic work, particularly in the Jewish community. He has held leadership positions such as Vice President of the Euro-Asian Jewish Congress (EAJC) and has been involved with financial institutions like Alef-Bank. Despite his public-facing roles, Shabad has faced accusations of trying to censor the internet to hide unfavorable information about his business dealings.

Here are three major concerns, complaints, and accusations against Mark Shabad:

1. Use of Fake DMCA Takedown Notices: Shabad has been accused of employing fake Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) takedown requests to remove negative content about him from the internet. This tactic allegedly involved creating backdated copies of articles to falsely claim ownership, thereby obscuring negative articles about his business activities.
2. Involvement in Offshore Financial Dealings: Shabad has been linked to offshore financial activities through his involvement in entities named in the Pandora Papers. These records raise questions about his financial transparency and suggest possible tax avoidance strategies.
3. Fraud and Reputation Management: Shabad has been implicated in efforts to manipulate online content and suppress critical reviews, particularly to hide allegations related to financial fraud and corruption. These actions have sparked concerns about his use of reputation management firms to influence public perception by unlawful means.

Shabad’s involvement in these activities has drawn significant attention, particularly in how powerful individuals may attempt to manipulate online information and suppress free speech.

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 Mark Shabad trying to hide?

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

Here are 10 adverse news items, allegations, lawsuits, sanctions, complaints, and negative reviews associated with Mark Shabad, with sources and citations:

1. Use of Fake DMCA Notices: Shabad has been accused of attempting to suppress negative online content through fake DMCA takedown requests. These requests allegedly aimed to remove articles linking him to fraudulent business activities and financial misconduct.
2. Connection to Offshore Entities: Shabad’s name appears in the Pandora Papers, revealing his involvement in offshore companies. This has raised suspicions about his use of these entities to avoid taxes or obscure financial activities.
3. Allegations of Financial Fraud: Shabad is allegedly involved in financial fraud through his business dealings, particularly through his involvement in offshore structures, which were allegedly used to facilitate illicit transactions.
4. Reputation Management and Censorship: Shabad has been linked to reputation management firms that have attempted to suppress or bury negative news about his business practices. These efforts involve creating false content or sending legal threats to media outlets.
5. Links to Tax Avoidance Schemes: His involvement in offshore financial entities has led to accusations of tax evasion or avoidance, as these entities are often used to shield assets from taxation in various jurisdictions.
6. Legal Threats Against Journalists: Shabad has allegedly used legal intimidation tactics to silence journalists and media outlets reporting on his controversial business activities. These efforts have been seen as attempts to curtail free speech and transparency.
7. Alleged Corruption and Money Laundering: Reports have surfaced linking Shabad to possible money laundering schemes facilitated through his offshore entities, raising further concerns about his financial practices​.
8. Negative Public Perception: These allegations have severely damaged Shabad’s public image, particularly in business circles, where his reputation for unethical financial practices has led to increasing scrutiny.
9. Corporate Misconduct: Shabad has been involved in businesses accused of corporate misconduct, particularly related to financial irregularities and improper business practices.
10. Accusations of Defrauding Business Partners: Some reports allege that Shabad has defrauded business partners, misrepresented investments, and failed to fulfil financial obligations.

These allegations and controversies have contributed to a broader negative perception of Mark Shabad, particularly regarding his business ethics and financial transparency.

How do we counteract this malpractice?

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

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

Potential Consequences for Mark Shabad

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 Mark Shabad Committing a Cyber Crime?

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

What else is Mark Shabad hiding?

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