Priven Reddy

A summary of what happened?

Priven Reddy, a South African technology entrepreneur, is the founder and CEO of Kagiso Interactive, a leading software development company. Despite his success, Reddy has faced several legal challenges and controversies.

Failed Web Project Lawsuit:

In August 2020, Reddy was sued by an investor over a failed partnership to develop an “influencer platform” application. The investor claimed to have transferred R200,000 to Reddy’s company, Kagiso Interactive, but alleged that Reddy failed to fulfill his part of the agreement and did not refund the investment. Reddy’s legal team contended that the application was completed according to the service level agreement and that the investor had received its benefits.

Kryptoro Insolvency Proceedings:

In August 2019, Reddy’s cryptocurrency firm, Kryptoro, faced insolvency proceedings initiated by investors seeking to recover a R1.2 million debt. The investors alleged that the company failed to pay quarterly profit dividends as agreed. Reddy contested the claims, and the legal proceedings were ongoing at the time.

Lamborghini Arson Incident:

In September 2017, Reddy’s Lamborghini was set on fire in an arson attack. Speculation suggested that the perpetrator was a man who believed Reddy was dating his ex-girlfriend, a local actress and model. Reddy expressed his desire for the law to take its course, emphasizing the seriousness of the crime.

While Priven Reddy has achieved significant success in the technology sector, he has also encountered legal disputes and controversies, particularly concerning business dealings and personal incidents. These challenges highlight the complexities and risks associated with entrepreneurial ventures in emerging industries like cryptocurrency and technology.

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 Priven Reddy trying to hide?

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

Comprehensive Investigation: Priven Reddy and His Controversies

1. Legal Dispute Over Failed Web Project

In 2020, Priven Reddy and his company, Kagiso Interactive, faced a lawsuit filed by advertising executive Poobie Pillay. The dispute centered around an “influencer platform” application project, which was meant to be delivered by Kagiso Interactive. Pillay alleged that after transferring R200,000 to Reddy’s company, the project was never completed, and no refunds were issued.

• Allegations by the Plaintiff:
  • The application, which Pillay described as vital for his business, was either incomplete or nonfunctional.
  • Pillay sought either the delivery of the promised application or the return of his investment.
• Reddy’s Defense:
  • Reddy and his legal team contended that the application was completed per the agreed-upon specifications outlined in the service level agreement.
  • They argued that the plaintiff had derived benefits from the application, nullifying any claims of breach.
• Broader Implications: This lawsuit highlighted potential issues with Kagiso Interactive’s client relations and project management. Critics questioned whether Reddy’s company had appropriate mechanisms in place to address client grievances effectively.

2. Insolvency Proceedings Involving Kryptoro

In 2019, Reddy’s cryptocurrency firm, Kryptoro, faced insolvency proceedings initiated by investors alleging unpaid dividends.

• Background of Kryptoro: Kryptoro was promoted as a cutting-edge cryptocurrency trading platform designed to simplify digital asset trading. Reddy touted the platform as a major innovation in the crypto space.
• Investor Allegations:
  • A group of investors claimed that they were owed R1.2 million in unpaid quarterly profit dividends, as stipulated in their agreements with Kryptoro.
  • They also alleged that the company’s financial health was misrepresented, leading to their investment.
• Reddy’s Response:
  • Reddy disputed the claims and argued that the company’s financial situation was consistent with industry challenges faced by emerging cryptocurrency platforms.
  • He characterized the legal action as an overreaction and expressed confidence in Kryptoro’s eventual recovery.
• Outcome and Industry Reaction: The case tarnished Kryptoro’s reputation and raised concerns about transparency and accountability within Reddy’s ventures. Critics highlighted how the volatile nature of cryptocurrency investments could be exacerbated by poor governance.

3. Lamborghini Arson Incident

In September 2017, a personal incident brought Reddy into the spotlight when his Lamborghini was set ablaze in what authorities confirmed as an act of arson.

• Details of the Incident:
  • The car, valued at approximately R3 million, was destroyed outside Reddy’s residence.
  • Surveillance footage showed an unidentified individual approaching the vehicle and igniting it.
• Speculated Motive:
  • Reports suggested that the perpetrator was a man who believed Reddy was romantically involved with his ex-girlfriend, a prominent actress and model.
  • While no direct evidence tied Reddy to the alleged love triangle, the incident drew significant media attention.
• Reddy’s Reaction:
  • Reddy publicly condemned the act, describing it as dangerous and reckless.
  • He expressed confidence in law enforcement to apprehend the arsonist.
• Public Perception: The incident portrayed Reddy as a polarizing figure whose personal life often intersected with his public image. Critics argued that such controversies detracted from his professional credibility.

4. Domain Dispute Over ‘WeTransfer.co.za’

In 2015, Reddy was involved in a legal dispute with the global file-sharing service WeTransfer regarding the registration of the domain name ‘wetransfer.co.za.’

• Nature of the Dispute:
  • Reddy registered the domain, which mirrored WeTransfer’s trademark, leading the company to file a complaint with the South African Institute of Intellectual Property Law.
  • WeTransfer argued that the domain was registered in bad faith to leverage the brand’s global reputation.
• Outcome:
  • The adjudicating body ruled in favor of WeTransfer, finding that Reddy had no legitimate rights or interests in the domain.
  • The domain was transferred to WeTransfer, and Reddy faced criticism for what was perceived as cybersquatting.
• Broader Implications: The case underscored ethical concerns surrounding Reddy’s business practices, particularly in leveraging intellectual property for potential financial gain.

5. Criticism Over Leap Aerospace Claims

Leap Aerospace, a venture founded by Reddy, aimed to develop a supersonic, zero-carbon, vertical take-off and landing (VTOL) airliner. While the project’s vision was ambitious, it faced significant skepticism.

• Key Claims:
  • Reddy promised a revolutionary aircraft that would redefine air travel, boasting features such as zero emissions and unmatched speed.
  • The project gained initial attention due to its lofty goals and futuristic appeal.
• Criticism and Challenges:
  • Aviation experts questioned the technical feasibility of the project, given the absence of prototypes or demonstrable progress.
  • Financial transparency was another concern, as investors sought clearer timelines and deliverables.
• Public Response:
  • Critics accused Reddy of overhyping the project without substantial backing.
  • The project faded from the public eye, leading to doubts about its viability.

6. Negative Public Perception and Media Scrutiny

As Reddy transitioned from a car guard to a multimillionaire entrepreneur, his meteoric rise attracted both admiration and scrutiny.

• Media Coverage:
  • Outlets often highlighted his success story, but these narratives were frequently juxtaposed with legal disputes and controversies.
  • Detractors labeled Reddy’s ventures as opportunistic, suggesting that his focus on high-profile projects came at the expense of transparency and accountability.
• Impact on Reputation:
  • While Reddy’s supporters lauded his resilience and vision, critics argued that his business practices often bordered on unethical.
  • The combination of legal challenges, unfulfilled promises, and public scandals has left Reddy’s reputation divided.

Conclusion

Priven Reddy’s entrepreneurial journey has been marked by innovation and controversy in equal measure. From legal battles over failed projects and unpaid dividends to personal scandals and ambitious ventures, his career encapsulates the complexities of modern entrepreneurship. While Reddy’s supporters view him as a visionary, his critics highlight the need for greater transparency and accountability in his business practices. Moving forward, addressing these issues will be critical to rebuilding trust and ensuring the sustainability of his ventures.

How do we counteract this malpractice?

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

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

Potential Consequences for Priven Reddy

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 Priven Reddy Committing a Cyber Crime?

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

What else is Priven Reddy hiding?

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