Xpoken

A summary of what happened?

Xpoken is an online brokerage firm offering trading services across various financial instruments, including forex, commodities, indices, and cryptocurrencies. Despite its professional appearance, Xpoken has been the subject of numerous concerns and complaints, primarily due to its lack of regulatory oversight and alleged fraudulent activities.

Regulatory Status and Oversight

• Lack of Regulation: Xpoken is not regulated by any recognized financial authority. Analysts emphasize that engaging with unregulated brokers exposes investors to significant risks, as there is no governing body to ensure compliance with financial standards or to protect client interests.
  BrokerChooser
• Offshore Registration: The company claims to be registered in St. Vincent and the Grenadines, a jurisdiction known for lenient financial regulations. Such offshore registrations often allow firms to operate with minimal oversight, raising concerns about their legitimacy and operational transparency.
  Brokers Exchange

Client Complaints and Allegations

• Withdrawal Issues: Numerous clients have reported significant difficulties in withdrawing their funds. Complaints include prolonged delays, unresponsive customer service, and, in some cases, complete denial of withdrawal requests. These practices suggest potential fraudulent intent, as legitimate brokers typically facilitate prompt and transparent withdrawal processes.
  Scam Brokers Reviews
• Aggressive Marketing and Misrepresentation: Xpoken has been accused of employing high-pressure sales tactics, including unsolicited calls and emails promising high returns with minimal risk. Such aggressive marketing strategies often target inexperienced investors, leading them to make uninformed decisions.
  Scam Brokers Reviews
• Misleading Information: Investigations reveal that Xpoken’s website lacks essential legal documents and provides limited information about its corporate structure. This lack of transparency is a red flag, as reputable brokers are typically forthcoming about their regulatory status, company information, and terms of service.
  The Forex Review

Regulatory Warnings and Industry Reviews

• Financial Regulators’ Warnings: The Financial Services and Markets Authority (FSMA) has included Xpoken in its list of fraudulent trading platforms, advising investors to exercise caution. Such warnings from regulatory bodies underscore the potential risks associated with dealing with unregulated entities.
  FSMA
• Negative Industry Reviews: Independent reviews have consistently rated Xpoken poorly, citing concerns over its unregulated status, lack of transparency, and numerous client complaints. Experts advise against engaging with Xpoken, recommending that investors seek brokers regulated by top-tier financial authorities to ensure the safety of their investments.
  BrokerChooser

The combination of Xpoken’s unregulated status, offshore registration, numerous client complaints, and warnings from financial authorities paints a concerning picture. Potential investors are strongly advised to exercise caution and consider engaging with brokers that are fully licensed and have established reputations for transparency and client protection.

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 Xpoken trying to hide?

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

Investigative Report: Xpoken – Allegations, Complaints, and Risks

Introduction

Xpoken, an online brokerage platform, claims to provide trading services in forex, commodities, indices, and cryptocurrencies. While the company markets itself as a reliable and innovative broker, a growing number of complaints, negative reviews, and warnings from financial regulators suggest otherwise. This in-depth report examines Xpoken’s operations, regulatory status, client complaints, and allegations, providing a comprehensive view of the risks associated with this platform.

1. Regulatory and Operational Background

Lack of Regulation

• Xpoken is not regulated by any major financial authority such as the FCA (UK), ASIC (Australia), or CySEC (Cyprus).
• Unregulated brokers lack oversight, leaving clients vulnerable to unethical practices and financial risks.

Offshore Registration

• The company claims to be registered in St. Vincent and the Grenadines, a jurisdiction notorious for its lax financial regulations.
• Brokers registered in such jurisdictions are not held to stringent financial or operational standards, allowing them to operate with minimal accountability.

Lack of Transparency

• Xpoken’s website fails to disclose essential legal information, including:
  • Its corporate structure.
  • Physical office locations.
  • Ownership details.
• This opacity raises concerns about the broker’s legitimacy and accountability.

2. Allegations and Complaints

Withdrawal Issues

One of the most frequently reported complaints against Xpoken involves withdrawal delays or denials:

• Prolonged Delays:
  • Clients report waiting weeks or even months to access their funds, often with no resolution.
• Complete Denial of Requests:
  • Many users allege that withdrawal requests were outright ignored or rejected without explanation.
• Opaque Terms:
  • Withdrawal fees and conditions are not clearly outlined, leading to confusion and unexpected charges.

Case Example:

A client deposited $5,000 into their trading account, initially encouraged by promises of quick profits. When they attempted to withdraw their funds, customer support repeatedly delayed the process, citing vague technical issues. Eventually, their account was locked, and all communication ceased.

Aggressive Marketing and High-Pressure Tactics

Xpoken has been accused of employing high-pressure sales tactics to lure clients into depositing funds:

• Unsolicited Calls and Emails:
  • Representatives allegedly cold-call potential clients, often using misleading claims of guaranteed profits.
• Push for Larger Deposits:
  • Clients report being pressured to increase their deposits, with promises of access to exclusive trading opportunities or higher returns.
• Targeting Inexperienced Investors:
  • Many victims are novice traders, drawn in by the platform’s assurances of safety and simplicity.

Misleading Advertising and False Claims

Xpoken’s marketing materials and website contain several discrepancies and unverified claims:

• False Guarantees:
  • The broker advertises high returns with minimal risks, which is unrealistic in financial trading.
• Unsubstantiated Performance Metrics:
  • Claims of success rates and profitability are not backed by evidence or verified statistics.
• Lack of Legal Disclosures:
  • The absence of standard legal documents, such as terms and conditions or risk disclaimers, further undermines the platform’s credibility.

3. Regulatory Warnings and Sanctions

Warnings from Financial Authorities

• FSMA (Belgium):
  • The Financial Services and Markets Authority (FSMA) listed Xpoken among fraudulent trading platforms, warning investors against engaging with the broker.
• Global Fraud Protection:
  • Independent watchdogs have flagged Xpoken as a potential scam, advising clients to avoid depositing funds with the platform.

Absence of Licenses

• Xpoken does not hold any licenses from recognized regulatory bodies, meaning clients lack the protections afforded by regulated brokers, such as access to compensation schemes or dispute resolution services.

4. Online Reviews and Client Feedback

Overwhelmingly Negative Reviews

• Xpoken has received consistently poor reviews across multiple platforms, with users labeling it a scam.
• Common complaints include:
  • Inability to withdraw funds.
  • Unresponsive customer support.
  • Misleading advertising and promises.

Trust Scores

• ScamAdviser:
  • The platform assigns Xpoken a low trust score, citing:
    • Lack of transparency.
    • Negative user feedback.
    • Unregulated status.
• Global Fraud Protection:
  • Describes Xpoken as an untrustworthy broker with a high risk of financial fraud.

5. Technical and Operational Red Flags

Website Security Issues

• Xpoken’s website lacks standard security protocols, such as HTTPS encryption, exposing users to data breaches and phishing attacks.

Payment Methods

• The broker heavily relies on cryptocurrency transactions, which are irreversible and difficult to trace. This tactic is commonly used by fraudulent brokers to evade accountability.

Unverified Trading Platform

• Clients report issues with Xpoken’s proprietary trading platform, citing frequent technical glitches and discrepancies in trade execution.

6. Broader Implications for Investors

Financial Risks

• The combination of withdrawal challenges, unregulated operations, and aggressive marketing makes Xpoken a high-risk platform for investors.

Erosion of Trust

• Cases like Xpoken’s contribute to a broader distrust of online trading platforms, particularly among novice investors.

Impact on Victims

• Many clients report significant financial losses, with little to no recourse due to the broker’s offshore status and lack of regulation.

7. Recommendations for Potential Clients

1. Verify Regulatory Status:
   • Engage only with brokers licensed by reputable authorities such as the FCA, ASIC, or CySEC.
2. Research Thoroughly:
   • Check independent reviews and client feedback before depositing funds.
3. Start Small:
   • Test withdrawal processes with minimal deposits to ensure reliability.
4. Avoid High-Pressure Tactics:
   • Be cautious of unsolicited calls or aggressive sales pitches.
5. Use Secure Payment Methods:
   • Avoid brokers that rely exclusively on cryptocurrency transactions, as these are difficult to dispute.

Conclusion

Xpoken’s unregulated status, combined with a litany of client complaints and warnings from financial authorities, paints a troubling picture. The broker’s alleged practices, including withdrawal delays, aggressive marketing, and lack of transparency, suggest a high risk of financial fraud.

Potential investors are strongly advised to avoid Xpoken and instead seek brokers that are fully licensed and transparent in their operations. The case of Xpoken serves as a cautionary tale, emphasizing the importance of due diligence and regulatory compliance in the volatile world of online trading.

How do we counteract this malpractice?

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

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

Potential Consequences for Xpoken

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 Xpoken Committing a Cyber Crime?

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

What else is Xpoken hiding?

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