What We Are Investigating?
Our firm is launching a comprehensive investigation into Mustafa Dervish 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 Mustafa Dervish - 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
Mustafa Dervish a name that once adorned the letterheads of Bentley Leek Financial Management now serves as a cautionary tale in the annals of financial misconduct. When I first delved into the case, I was struck by the audacity of the promises made: guaranteed returns of 6% to 18%, with some clients enticed by the prospect of up to 50% gains. It sounded too good to be true, and, unsurprisingly, it was. Alongside his business partner, Mark Bentley-Leek, Dervish orchestrated a scheme that saw over 300 clients invest more than £35 million into risky property developments, many of which they had direct interests in. The duo’s failure to disclose these conflicts of interest, coupled with their continued promotion of these investments even as the market soured, culminated in substantial losses for their clients and a decisive response from the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) .
The Grand Illusion: Guaranteed Returns and Concealed Conflicts
Between March 2004 and November 2010, Dervish, alongside his co-director Mark Bentley-Leek, advised clients to invest over £35 million in a series of property developments both in the UK and abroad. The allure? Promises of guaranteed returns ranging from 6% to 18%, with some clients being tantalized with potential returns of up to 50%.
However, these promises were built on a foundation of sand. The investments were inherently risky, a fact conveniently omitted during client consultations. Moreover, Dervish and Bentley-Leek failed to disclose a glaring conflict of interest: they were directors and owners of some of the very property development companies they were steering their clients toward. This omission not only breached ethical standards but also violated regulatory mandates designed to protect investors from such duplicitous conduct.
Ignoring the Writing on the Wall: A Timeline of Deception
By June 2009, the property market was in turmoil. The economic downturn had led to plummeting property values and a tightening of bank lending. Dervish and Bentley-Leek were acutely aware of these challenges, recognizing that their property investment companies were floundering. Yet, in a move that can only be described as reckless endangerment, they continued to advise clients to pour money into these sinking ventures. Within a mere 17 months, BLFM succumbed to its financial maladies, entering administration and eventually insolvency by November 2011.
The Regulatory Hammer Falls
The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) was not blind to these transgressions. In a decisive move, the FCA imposed substantial fines on both directors: £525,000 for Bentley-Leek and £360,000 for Dervish. These figures underscore the gravity of their misconduct. Furthermore, both individuals were banned from holding any position in a financial firm, a move aimed at preventing future malfeasance.
Tracey McDermott, the FCA’s director of enforcement and financial crime, encapsulated the sentiment succinctly:
“Many consumers committed their life savings or their pensions to these property investments as they trusted Mr. Bentley-Leek and Mr. Dervish’s advice. The least consumers should expect from those they turn to for investment advice is honesty and integrity.”
The Aftermath: Investors Left in the Lurch
The repercussions of Dervish’s actions were devastating. Clients who had entrusted their life savings and pensions faced substantial losses. The Financial Services Compensation Scheme (FSCS) stepped in, paying out over £3 million in claims related to BLFM. While this provided some relief, it scarcely covered the total losses incurred by the victims.
Lessons Unlearned: A Cautionary Tale
The saga of Mustafa Dervish serves as a stark reminder of the perils that lurk in the financial advisory landscape. It underscores the imperative for investors to exercise due diligence, to question too-good-to-be-true promises, and to remain vigilant about potential conflicts of interest.
For regulatory bodies, this case highlights the necessity for proactive oversight and swift action to deter and penalize unethical behavior. While the FCA’s sanctions were significant, they came after irreparable damage had been done. The challenge remains to identify and address such malpractices before they wreak havoc on unsuspecting investors.
Conclusion
Mustafa Dervish’s actions, as uncovered by the FCA, underscore a profound breach of trust and integrity in financial advising. By prioritizing personal gain over client welfare, and by obfuscating the inherent risks and conflicts of interest in their investment recommendations, Dervish and his partner not only jeopardized their clients’ financial futures but also eroded confidence in the financial advisory profession. The substantial fines and lifetime bans imposed by the FCA serve as a stark reminder of the consequences of such misconduct. For investors, this case reinforces the imperative of due diligence and the need to remain vigilant against advisors who promise the improbable. As for Dervish, his legacy stands as a testament to the perils of unchecked ambition and the importance of regulatory oversight in safeguarding investor interests .
- https://lumendatabase.org/notices/23334300
- March 24, 2021
- Nikhil Rathi
- https://www.fca.org.uk/news/press-releases/two-financial-advisers-banned-and-fined-after-investors-lose-out
- https://citywire.co.uk/wealth-manager/news/fca-bans-and-fines-two-advisers-885000-for-misleading-clients/a710485?ref=wealth_manager_all_stories_list
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
0
Based on 0 ratings
by: Chloe Sharp
Attempting to erase unfavorable news through fraudulent means?
by: Lucas Palmer
Dervish's alleged misuse of DMCA takedown notices to suppress unfavorable content is deeply troubling.
Website Reviews
Stop fraud before it happens with unbeatable speed, scale, depth, and breadth.
Recent ReviewsCyber 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 LoginTrending Suspicious Websites
Cyber Crime Wall of Shame
Featured Threat Alerts and Cyber Intel