Ruchi Rathor of Payomatix Technologies

A summary of what happened?

Ruchi Rathor is an Indian entrepreneur known for her involvement in the high-risk payment processing industry. She has been associated with several payment processing companies, including iPayTotal, Payomatix, and OpenUp. These ventures have faced significant scrutiny and criticism due to various allegations and complaints.

Major Concerns and Accusations Against Ruchi Rathor:

1. Association with High-Risk Payment Processors: Rathor has been linked to multiple high-risk payment processing companies. These firms have been criticized for their involvement in facilitating transactions for businesses operating in sectors prone to fraud and chargebacks. Such associations have raised concerns about the ethical practices of these companies and their compliance with financial regulations.
2. Use of Fake Identities and Profiles: Reports indicate that Rathor’s network of companies has employed fake identities and profiles, particularly on professional platforms like LinkedIn. This practice includes creating fictitious employee profiles and using stock photos to mislead clients and partners about the company’s size, expertise, and credibility.
3. Manipulation of Online Reviews: There have been allegations that Rathor’s companies have engaged in manipulating online reviews to enhance their reputations. This includes posting fake positive reviews on platforms like Trustpilot to create a false impression of customer satisfaction and reliability.
4. Financial Misconduct and Fraud Allegations: Whistleblowers and former employees have accused Rathor’s companies of engaging in financial misconduct, including money laundering, falsifying financial documents, and other fraudulent activities. These serious allegations have led to increased scrutiny from financial watchdogs and regulatory bodies.
5. Employee Exploitation and Unethical Practices: There are reports of unethical treatment of employees within Rathor’s network of companies. This includes allegations of bullying, coercion to participate in fraudulent activities, and creating a toxic work environment. Such practices have contributed to high employee turnover and numerous complaints.

Efforts to Suppress Negative Information:

Rathor and her associated companies have been reported to employ various tactics to suppress negative information and criticism. These efforts include:

• Legal Threats: Issuing legal threats against whistleblowers, former employees, and journalists to intimidate them into silence.
• Online Reputation Management: Engaging in aggressive online reputation management strategies, such as flooding review sites with fake positive reviews to overshadow negative feedback.
• Use of Fake Profiles: Creating fake online profiles to disseminate positive information and counteract negative publicity.

These actions have raised concerns about transparency and accountability within Rathor’s business operations. Clients, partners, and employees are advised to exercise caution and conduct thorough due diligence when engaging with companies associated with Ruchi Rathor.

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 Ruchi Rathor of Payomatix Technologies trying to hide?

Ruchi Rathor of Payomatix Technologies‘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 Ruchi Rathor of Payomatix Technologies in legal accountability. Let’s examine the information Ruchi Rathor of Payomatix Technologies may be trying to remove from the internet –

Investigative Report: Ruchi Rathor and the High-Risk Payment Processing Industry

Introduction

Ruchi Rathor, an Indian entrepreneur, has made a name for herself in the high-risk payment processing sector, an industry known for providing payment services to businesses that operate in areas prone to fraud and chargebacks. Rathor is connected to several companies, including iPayTotal, Payomatix, and OpenUp. However, her involvement has attracted substantial scrutiny, with various allegations and complaints pointing to unethical practices, financial misconduct, and attempts to manipulate public perception. This report takes an in-depth look at the allegations and controversies surrounding Ruchi Rathor, revealing a complex web of questionable business practices, ethical violations, and attempts to silence criticism.

1. Association with High-Risk Payment Processors

Ruchi Rathor’s business ventures revolve around high-risk payment processing, a niche sector within finance known for serving industries that traditional financial institutions avoid. High-risk processors often work with industries such as adult entertainment, online gambling, CBD products, and other businesses prone to high chargeback rates and potential fraud. While this service is legitimate, Rathor’s companies have faced criticism for reportedly working with businesses known for deceptive practices, contributing to concerns about their compliance with financial and ethical standards.

The firms Rathor is associated with—including iPayTotal, Payomatix, and OpenUp—have all been flagged for providing services that some argue indirectly facilitate fraudulent transactions. Critics suggest that these companies have prioritized profits over ethical considerations, turning a blind eye to the reputational risks associated with their clientele. Moreover, the companies’ lack of transparency in their client onboarding processes has raised further concerns about the due diligence and compliance measures employed.

2. Alleged Use of Fake Identities and Online Profiles

One of the most troubling practices reported in connection with Rathor’s companies is the alleged use of fake identities and fictitious employee profiles, particularly on professional networking platforms like LinkedIn. Reports indicate that Rathor’s companies created fake profiles with generic names and stock photos, aiming to present an image of a well-staffed, reputable organization.

Former employees and investigative reports have revealed that these profiles were used to falsely inflate the companies’ size, reach, and expertise, misleading potential clients and partners into thinking they were engaging with a stable and experienced firm. Such practices are a form of corporate deception and have been known to erode trust among clients and partners once exposed. The widespread use of fabricated profiles has cast doubt on the company’s intentions and practices, suggesting an organized attempt to mislead the public.

3. Manipulation of Online Reviews and Reputation Management

Another significant allegation against Rathor and her network involves manipulation of online reviews and feedback. Her companies have been accused of posting fake positive reviews on platforms like Trustpilot to create an artificial image of customer satisfaction. This tactic, known as review manipulation, is often used to bolster a company’s credibility and mask underlying issues.

Clients who have posted negative reviews detailing poor experiences have reported seeing these reviews buried under a flood of generic, positive testimonials, leading to suspicions that the company actively seeks to suppress criticism. Additionally, some clients claim that their negative reviews were reported and removed, potentially due to pressure from the companies. This aggressive approach to online reputation management further raises questions about the transparency and accountability of Rathor’s companies.

4. Allegations of Financial Misconduct and Fraud

Perhaps the most severe accusations involve allegations of financial misconduct and fraud within Rathor’s companies. Several former employees and industry watchdogs have reported instances of questionable financial practices, including money laundering, falsified financial statements, and facilitation of fraudulent transactions. Insiders allege that Rathor’s companies processed payments for businesses that engaged in deceptive tactics, charging clients hidden fees, and imposing unexpected costs under the guise of “compliance” or “processing” charges.

These accusations have led to increased scrutiny from financial watchdogs, who are concerned about the lack of transparency in Rathor’s business dealings. Allegations of money laundering and fraud indicate potential legal risks for clients and associates, as working with firms involved in illicit financial practices could expose them to reputational damage and legal consequences.

5. Employee Exploitation and Unethical Work Environment

Rathor’s companies have faced repeated complaints regarding their treatment of employees. Former staff members have reported a toxic work environment characterized by coercion, high-pressure tactics, and a culture that allegedly promotes unethical behavior. Employees have claimed that they were pressured into participating in activities that skirted legal boundaries, such as helping to obscure company practices from regulators or managing client complaints in ways that minimized transparency.

High employee turnover has been a consistent feature in Rathor’s businesses, with many former employees citing unethical practices and poor working conditions as reasons for leaving. Reports indicate that employees were often disillusioned by the lack of integrity within the company and the management’s disregard for ethical business standards. Such practices contribute to a negative perception of Rathor’s companies and hint at broader organizational issues.

6. Legal Threats and Efforts to Suppress Negative Information

In an effort to control public perception, Rathor’s companies have allegedly employed various tactics to suppress negative information, including issuing legal threats to journalists, whistleblowers, and former employees. Reports suggest that Rathor and her associates have used intimidation tactics to prevent critics from speaking out, creating a chilling effect that limits transparency.

Additionally, her companies have reportedly engaged in aggressive online reputation management tactics, such as generating positive content to overshadow negative press and creating fake profiles to promote favorable narratives. This combination of legal intimidation and digital manipulation has raised ethical concerns about the lengths Rathor’s companies are willing to go to maintain a positive image, even at the expense of transparency and accountability.

Conclusion

The allegations surrounding Ruchi Rathor and her network of high-risk payment processing companies paint a concerning picture. From facilitating high-risk, potentially fraudulent transactions to creating fake profiles, manipulating reviews, and suppressing criticism, Rathor’s companies appear to operate in a manner that prioritizes profit over ethical responsibility. The lack of regulatory oversight, combined with accusations of financial misconduct and employee exploitation, suggests a pattern of behavior that places clients and associates at significant risk.

For prospective clients and partners, the controversies surrounding Ruchi Rathor serve as a stark warning. The high-risk payment processing industry can be a valuable service for legitimate businesses that struggle to find support from traditional institutions. However, the practices alleged in this report highlight the importance of thorough due diligence and caution when engaging with companies in this sector.

As regulatory scrutiny increases and more former employees and clients come forward with information, Rathor’s businesses may face further legal and reputational challenges. The persistence of these allegations underscores the need for transparency, ethical business practices, and compliance in an industry that remains largely underregulated. For now, the controversies surrounding Ruchi Rathor serve as a reminder of the potential dangers associated with high-risk financial services, especially when conducted in an environment where accountability is limited.

How do we counteract this malpractice?

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

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

Potential Consequences for Ruchi Rathor of Payomatix Technologies

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 Ruchi Rathor of Payomatix Technologies Committing a Cyber Crime?

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

What else is Ruchi Rathor of Payomatix Technologies hiding?

We encourage you to ‘Dork‘ Google by searching for keyword combinations such as [Ruchi Rathor of Payomatix Technologies] + {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 Ruchi Rathor of Payomatix Technologies 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.