Sergey Kondratenko

A summary of what happened?

Sergey Kondratenko is known for his involvement with the online betting company 1xBet and various financial and regulatory controversies associated with his business practices. He has been trying to censor the internet primarily to suppress damaging news about his activities, which include serious allegations of financial misconduct and illegal operations.

Three major concerns, complaints, and accusations against Sergey Kondratenko include:

1. Financial Fraud and Money Laundering: Kondratenko has been implicated in large-scale financial fraud, particularly through his association with Royal Pay Europe and other companies he controls. These entities are reported to facilitate the transfer and laundering of significant sums of money, often routed through European banks to offshore accounts in places like Cyprus, drawing international scrutiny and regulatory action.
2. Involvement in Organized Crime and Corruption: His operations extend beyond mere financial misdeeds; there are allegations that he has been involved in organized crime and has utilized his businesses, including 1xBet, as fronts for a global scamming network. This network is said to engage in various illegal activities, including the operation of mirror sites that continue to function despite legal bans.
3. Aggressive Censorship and Reputation Management: Kondratenko has reportedly engaged in aggressive tactics to manage his reputation online, including using fraudulent DMCA notices to remove legitimate content from the internet. These actions are part of broader attempts to manipulate public perception and suppress information about his illicit activities.

These actions have drawn significant legal and media attention, contributing to Kondratenko’s controversial and dubious public profile.

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 Sergey Kondratenko trying to hide?

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

Here are up to ten adverse news items, allegations, lawsuits, sanctions, complaints, and negative reviews against Sergey Kondratenko, based on various sources:

1. Financial Fraud and Money Laundering: Sergey Kondratenko has been linked to extensive money laundering operations, using entities like Royal Pay Europe to transfer large sums to offshore accounts, which drew international investigations and sanctions, particularly from Ukraine​ – (Intelligence Line).
2. Sanctions by Ukraine: Due to his involvement in suspicious financial transactions, Kondratenko faced sanctions from the Ukrainian government, which included asset freezes and operational restrictions within the country​ – Intelligence Line.
3. Illegal Gambling Operations: Kondratenko’s association with 1xBet led to accusations of operating without the necessary licenses, particularly highlighted during the enforcement of new gambling laws in Russia in 2014​ – Net Factual.
4. Connection to Organized Crime: Allegations have been made about Kondratenko’s connections to organized crime through his business operations, extending his influence into illegal activities across borders​ – Net Factual , Intelligence Line.
5. Use of Mirror Sites to Evade Law: After 1xBet was banned in Russia, Kondratenko allegedly set up numerous mirror sites to continue the operation, effectively bypassing legal restrictions and continuing to engage in dubious online betting activities​ – Net Factual, Intelligence Line.
6. Censorship and Suppression of Information: He has been accused of using aggressive reputation management tactics, including filing fraudulent DMCA notices to remove damaging online content and suppress free speech regarding his business practices​ – Intelligence Line ,
7. Exploitation of International Sports Sponsorships: Kondratenko purportedly misused sports sponsorships to lend legitimacy to 1xBet, misleading millions of users about the nature of his operations and masking the fraudulent activities of his enterprise​ – Net Factual.
8. Negative Customer Reviews and Complaints: His businesses, particularly those in financial services, have received numerous complaints regarding poor customer service, delayed transactions, and lack of transparency​ – Fraud Adviser .
9. Legal and Regulatory Issues: Kondratenko has faced multiple legal challenges and regulatory scrutiny for failing to adhere to international banking regulations and for the operations of his financial networks that are alleged to facilitate criminal activities​ – Net Factual
10. Public and Legal Repercussions: The extensive nature of his alleged crimes has led to ongoing legal battles and significant public backlash, impacting his businesses and personal reputation across various regions​ – Net Factual.

These points reflect a pattern of alleged illegal activities and unethical business practices associated with Sergey Kondratenko, drawing significant attention from regulators, legal bodies, and the media.

How do we counteract this malpractice?

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

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

Potential Consequences for Sergey Kondratenko

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 Sergey Kondratenko Committing a Cyber Crime?

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

What else is Sergey Kondratenko hiding?

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