AMarkets
We are investigating AMarkets for allegedly attempting to conceal critical reviews and adverse news from Google by improperly submitting copyright takedown notices. This includes potential violations such as impersonation, fraud, and perjury.
PARTIES INVOLVED : AMarkets
ALLEGATIONS : Perjury, Fraud, Impersonation
INCIDENT DATE : 26 Aug 2024
INVESTIGATED BY : Ethan Katz
TOOLS USED : Lumen, SecurityTrails
CASE NO : 6956/A/2024
CRIME TYPE : Intellectual Property Scam
PUBLISHED ON : 22 Nov 2024
Is This About You?
What We Are Investigating?
Our firm is launching a comprehensive investigation into AMarkets over allegations that it has been suppressing critical reviews and unfavorable Google search results by fraudulently misusing DMCA takedown notices. These actions, if proven, could constitute serious legal violations—including impersonation, fraud, and perjury.
We conducted comprehensive analyses of fraudulent copyright takedown requests, meritless legal complaints, and other unlawful efforts to suppress public access to critical information. Our reporting sheds light on the prevalence and modus operandi of a structured censorship network, often funded and used by criminal enterprises, oligarchs and criminal entities seeking to manipulate public perception and bypass AML checks conducted by financial organisations.
The fake DMCA notices in this investigation appears to have been strategically deployed to remove negative content from Google search results illegally. Based on this pattern, we have reasonable grounds to infer that AMarkets - or an entity acting at its behest - is directly or indirectly complicit in this cyber crime.
In most such cases, such ops are executed by rogue, fly-by-night 'Online Reputation Management' agencies acting on behalf of their clients. If evidence establishes that the subject knowingly benefited from or facilitated this scam, it may be deemed an 'accomplice' or an 'accessory' to the crime.
What are they trying to censor
Investigative Report: Unpacking the Controversies Surrounding AMarkets
AMarkets, a brokerage firm operating in the forex and CFD trading space, has been the subject of numerous allegations and red flags over the years. These issues, ranging from regulatory warnings to customer complaints, have cast a shadow over the company’s reputation. This report delves into the key controversies, their implications, and why a company might go to extreme lengths—even illegal ones—to suppress such damaging information.
Key Allegations and Concerns
- Regulatory Scrutiny and Warnings
AMarkets has been flagged by multiple financial regulators for operating without proper authorization. For example, the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) in the UK and the Cyprus Securities and Exchange Commission (CySEC) have issued public warnings against the firm, stating that it lacks the necessary licenses to offer services in their jurisdictions. Such warnings are a significant red flag, as they suggest that the firm may not adhere to the stringent standards required to protect investors. - Customer Complaints and Unethical Practices
A recurring theme in client feedback is the allegation of unfair trading practices. These include:
-
- Platform Manipulation: Traders have reported instances of slippage, requotes, and sudden spread widening, which often lead to unexpected losses.
- Withdrawal Problems: Many clients have faced delays or outright denials when attempting to withdraw their funds, a common issue in the forex industry that raises questions about the firm’s financial stability and integrity.
- Misleading Promotions: AMarkets has been accused of using aggressive marketing tactics that overstate potential profits while downplaying the risks involved in trading.
Opaque Corporate Structure
AMarkets operates through entities registered in offshore jurisdictions like St. Vincent and the Grenadines, which are known for their lenient regulatory environments. This lack of transparency makes it difficult for clients to hold the firm accountable and raises concerns about its commitment to ethical business practices.
Association with High-Risk Affiliates
The firm has been linked to introducing brokers (IBs) and affiliate marketers who employ questionable tactics to recruit clients. These practices, which often target inexperienced traders, further damage AMarkets’ credibility and contribute to its negative reputation.
Reputational Damage and Its Consequences
The allegations against AMarkets have significantly harmed its reputation. Regulatory warnings and customer complaints create a perception of a company that prioritizes profit over client welfare. The lack of transparency and association with high-risk affiliates only exacerbate these concerns, making it difficult for potential clients to trust the firm. In an industry where reputation is everything, such issues can lead to a loss of clients, reduced revenue, and even legal challenges.
Why a Company Might Resort to Cybercrime to Suppress Information
For a company like AMarkets, negative publicity can be devastating. Allegations of unethical practices and regulatory non-compliance can deter potential clients and erode trust among existing ones. In such a scenario, the firm might feel compelled to take drastic measures to protect its image, even if it means engaging in illegal activities. These could include:
- Hacking Websites: To remove negative reviews, investigative articles, or regulatory warnings.
- Intimidation Tactics: Targeting journalists, whistleblowers, or dissatisfied clients to silence criticism.
- Disinformation Campaigns: Spreading false narratives to discredit critics or divert attention from the allegations.
While these actions might provide temporary relief, they are ultimately counterproductive. Cybercrime not only carries significant legal risks but also further damages the company’s reputation if exposed. It underscores the importance of addressing underlying issues through transparency and ethical conduct rather than resorting to illicit measures.
Conclusion
The controversies surrounding AMarkets highlight the challenges faced by firms operating in the largely unregulated forex industry. While suppressing negative information might seem like a quick fix, it is a dangerous and unsustainable strategy. Companies like AMarkets would be better served by addressing the root causes of these issues, fostering transparency, and rebuilding trust with their clients. Anything less risks further reputational damage and potential legal consequences.
- https://lumendatabase.org/notices/44120157
- Aug 26, 2024
- SynergyCore Labs
- https://www.fxempire.com/brokers/amarkets
- https://www.daytrading.com/amarkets
Evidence Box
Evidence and relevant screenshots related to our investigation
Targeted Content and Red Flags
About the Author
The author is affiliated with TU Dresden and analyzes public databases such as Lumen Database and
Maltego to identify and expose online censorship. In his personal capacity, he and his
team have been actively investigating and reporting on organized crime related
to fraudulent copyright takedown schemes.
Additionally, his team provides
advisory services to major law firms and is frequently consulted on matters
pertaining to intellectual property law.
Escalate This Case
Learn All About Fake Copyright Takedown Scam
Or go directly to the feedback section and share your thoughts
How This Was Done
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
What Happens Next?
Based on the feedback, information, and requests received from all relevant parties, our team will formally notify the affected party of the alleged infringement. Following a thorough review, we will submit a counter-notice to reinstate any link that has been removed by Google, in accordance with applicable legal provisions. Additionally, we will communicate with Google’s Legal Team to ensure appropriate measures are taken to prevent the recurrence of such incidents.
You are Never Alone in Your Fight.
Generate public support against the ones who wronged you!
Recent Investigations
Carl Koenemann
Investigation Ongoing
Vitaly Abasov
Investigation Ongoing
Samir Tabar
Investigation Ongoing
User Reviews
Average Ratings
2
Based on 13 ratings
by: Riley Hayes
I don’t trust AMarkets one bit. They trick you with high promises, but then you can’t even get your money back when you ask for it. They’re probably doing shady things behind the scenes, like taking down bad reviews.
by: Quincy Rhodes
AMarkets is nothing but a scam! I couldn't get my withdrawal out, and they constantly manipulate the platform. Don't trust them with your money, it's a total rip-off!
by: Tatiana Morozov
I told my cousin not to invest here but he did and now he's crying they just vanish with your funds, no proper support or nothin.
by: Bogdan Ionescu
Waited 3 weeks for withdrawl… still nothing 😤 they keep giving excuse like "technical glitch"... total fraud
by: Yara Mansour
This feels like scam all over again, can’t trust these kinda markets anymore.
by: Matthew Gray
The firm's opaque corporate structure, characterized by its offshore registration, complicates efforts to hold it accountable and raises red flags about its commitment to ethical business practices.
by: Ella Morgan
Absence of stringent regulatory supervision raises serious concerns about the safety and security of client investments.
by: Jack Foster
AMarkets, a brokerage firm in the forex and CFD trading sector, has been mired in significant controversies that cast doubt on its legitimacy and reliability.
by: Rohan Gupta
Customer support is useless!!!.. They don’t even bother solving issues. Very bad experience...big regret joining amarkets
by: Ananya Reddy
Guyss, this Amarkets site is total fraud, they took my money and didn't even reply! So frustrating.????????
by: Jack Harris
This company fails to process genuine withdrawals. Despite claiming to send a refund, I never received my money and they provided no compensation. They repeatedly asked for the same documents without resolving the issue. Beware!
Cons
by: Grace Wilson
I am extremely dissatisfied with this broker. My stop was activated for an order, and although my stop limit was set at $16 or lower, the transaction was closed at $50, resulting in a significant loss. This experience feels unfair...
Pros
Cons
by: Charlie Brown
This broker is incredibly disappointing! They lack transparency and have a shady reputation for deleting negative reviews to cover up the unethical practices they’ve carried out, especially with clients in Vietnam. Their behavior raises serious concerns about their credibility and...
Cons
by: Amelia Garcia
Beware of this platform! They're clearly manipulating data, and if they can alter commissions, they might be mishandling your orders and funds as well. Avoid this scam at all costs!
Cons
by: Olivia White
Honestly, this is one of the worst trading experiences I had. I was promised a return but after depositing, I couldn’t even get my account verified properly.
by: Shruti Mehta
Withdrawal process is so difficult... they just keep blocking me... Worst trading platform ever..!!!
Domain Check
Stop fraud before it happens with unbeatable speed, scale, depth, and breadth.
Recent ChecksCyber Investigation
Uncover hidden digital threats and secure your assets with our expert cyber investigation services.
Recent InvestigationThreat Alerts
Stay ahead of cyber threats with our daily list of the latest alerts and vulnerabilities.
Threat AlertsClient Dashboard
Your trusted source for breaking news and insights on cybercrime and digital security trends.
Client LoginExplore Cyber Crime By Location
Explore Cyber Crime By Type
Explore Cyber Crime By Profiles