What We Are Investigating?
We are investigating Cryptograph Limited 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
We are investigating Cryptograph Limited 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
What are they trying to censor
Cryptograph Limited, a company operating in the cryptocurrency and blockchain space, has faced a series of allegations and adverse news reports that have raised significant concerns about its operations and credibility. These allegations, ranging from financial misconduct to regulatory violations, have cast a shadow over the company’s reputation. Below is a summary of the major allegations, red flags, and adverse news associated with Cryptograph Limited, along with an analysis of why the company might seek to suppress this information, potentially resorting to cybercrime.
Major Allegations and Red Flags
Misleading Investors: Cryptograph Limited has been accused of making false or exaggerated claims about its products, services, and investment opportunities. Reports suggest that the company misled investors by overstating potential returns and downplaying risks associated with its cryptocurrency offerings. This has led to accusations of fraudulent marketing practices.
Regulatory Violations: The company has faced scrutiny from financial regulators in multiple jurisdictions for operating without proper licenses or compliance with anti-money laundering (AML) and know-your-customer (KYC) regulations. These violations have resulted in fines and warnings, further damaging its credibility.
Ponzi Scheme Allegations: Cryptograph Limited has been linked to allegations of operating a Ponzi or pyramid scheme, where returns to earlier investors were allegedly paid using funds from new investors rather than legitimate profits. Such schemes are illegal and have led to investigations by law enforcement agencies.
Security Breaches: The company has been criticized for poor cybersecurity practices, resulting in multiple high-profile hacks and thefts of customer funds. These breaches have raised questions about its ability to safeguard user assets, a critical requirement for any cryptocurrency-related business.
Lack of Transparency: Cryptograph Limited has been accused of operating opaquely, with limited disclosure about its leadership, financials, and operational practices. This lack of transparency has fueled suspicions about the company’s legitimacy and intentions.
Customer Complaints: Numerous customers have reported difficulties withdrawing funds, unresponsive customer support, and unexplained account closures. These complaints have led to accusations of unethical business practices and financial mismanagement.
Reputation Damage and Motives for Suppression
The allegations against Cryptograph Limited have severely harmed its reputation, making it a controversial player in the cryptocurrency industry. Misleading investors and Ponzi scheme accusations undermine trust in the company, while regulatory violations suggest a disregard for legal and ethical standards. Security breaches and poor customer service further erode confidence in its ability to operate responsibly.
For Cryptograph Limited, the stakes are high. Negative publicity can lead to lost business, regulatory crackdowns, and legal consequences. The company’s desire to remove or suppress damaging stories is driven by the need to protect its image, maintain investor confidence, and avoid further scrutiny. In extreme cases, this could lead to attempts to commit cybercrimes, such as hacking into media platforms, deleting negative reviews, or orchestrating disinformation campaigns to discredit critics.
Conclusion
Cryptograph Limited’s alleged involvement in misleading investors, regulatory violations, and unethical business practices has tarnished its reputation and raised serious questions about its operations. While the company may seek to suppress negative information to protect its image, resorting to cybercrime would only deepen its ethical and legal troubles. This report underscores the importance of transparency and accountability in the cryptocurrency industry, where trust is paramount. As investigations continue, the full extent of Cryptograph Limited’s actions and their consequences remain to be seen.
- https://lumendatabase.org/notices/44029151
- Aug 22 2024
- NovaVista Labs co.ltd
- https://tradersunion.com/scam-or-safe/cryptograph-limited-review/
- https://brokerchooser.com/safety/cryptograph-limited-broker-safe-or-scam
Evidence Box
We are investigating Cryptograph Limited for allegedly attempting to conceal critical reviews and adverse news from Google by improperly submitting copyright takedown notices.
Targeted Content and Red Flags
About the Author
The author is affiliated with Harvard University and serves as a researcher at both Lumen and FakeDMCA.com. 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.
He can be reached at [email protected] directly.
Many thanks to FakeDMCA.com and Lumen for providing access to their database
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?
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.
You are Never Alone in Your Fight.
Generate public support against the ones who wronged you!
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 InvestigationOur Community
Your trusted source for breaking news and insights on cybercrime and digital security trends.
Visit ForumThreads Alert
Stay ahead of cyber threats with our daily list of the latest alerts and vulnerabilities.
Threads Alert
Recent Investigations
Aaron Sansoni Group
Investigation Ongoing
DX Exchange
Investigation Ongoing
Finxflo
Investigation Ongoing
Average Ratings
2.2
Based on 5 ratings
Sandeep Bansal
Share
This fraud is out of control, and the way they treat customers makes me so angry they deserve to be exposed!It’s clear now, Cryptograph Limited is a scam
Nitin Kumar
Share
They think they can get away with scamming people, but it’s all coming out now. Fraud like this can’t be hidden forever.
Priya Desai
Share
I can’t believe people are still falling for this scam,.... with all the red flags everywhere....
Radhika Gupta
Share
Cryptograph Limited is a complete fraud, scamming innocent investors with fake promises!
Vikas Mehta
Share
Such a Big Scam, dont fall for it