CyberCriminal.com

Sean Kirtz

We are investigating Sean Kirtz 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 : Sean Kirtz

ALLEGATIONS : Perjury, Fraud, Impersonation

INCIDENT DATE : 03 January 2025

INVESTIGATED BY : Ethan Katz

TOOLS USED : Lumen, SecurityTrails

CASE NO : 3229/A/2025

CRIME TYPE : Intellectual Property Scam

PUBLISHED ON : 28 March 2025

Sean Kirtz
Due Diligence
Get everything we know about Sean Kirtz in one downloadable PDF document
Is This About You?
We encourage you to share details of the actual perpetrators and get your story straight.

What We Are Investigating?

Our firm is launching a comprehensive investigation into Sean Kirtz 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 Sean Kirtz - 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

Sean Kirtz from orchestrating alleged fraudulent Initial Coin Offerings (ICOs) to facing legal battles and public outcry, Kirtz’s narrative serves as a cautionary tale for investors and a clarion call for regulatory bodies.

The Rise of CLOUT

In the burgeoning era of cryptocurrency, ICOs emerged as the Wild West of fundraising—a frontier teeming with promise and peril. Enter Sean Kirtz, a self-proclaimed crypto expert who, in late 2017, introduced the world to CLOUT, a new cryptocurrency he touted as revolutionary. Positioning himself as the founder, Kirtz embarked on an aggressive campaign to attract investors, leveraging his purported expertise to instill confidence. The pitch was enticing: participate in the pre-ICO at $1.00 per token and reap substantial rewards as CLOUT’s value soared. Kirtz’s company, ICO Services, Inc., reportedly amassed approximately $2 million during this phase, with the subsequent ICO allegedly raising an additional $2.6 million.

The Unraveling

However, the glittering facade of CLOUT began to tarnish as investors noticed discrepancies between Kirtz’s grandiose promises and the cryptocurrency’s actual performance. Despite the initial hype, CLOUT’s value plummeted, rendering investments virtually worthless. By July 2018, the token’s value had dwindled to a mere fraction of its initial price, leaving investors disillusioned and seeking answers.

Legal Entanglements

The fallout culminated in a lawsuit filed in August 2018 by investor Andrew Johnsen in the Southern District of Florida. The suit alleged securities fraud and violations of the Texas Securities Act, accusing Kirtz and ICO Services of fraudulent misrepresentation in the sale of CLOUT tokens. The complaint highlighted that neither Kirtz nor CLOUT were registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) or the Texas Securities Board, raising significant questions about the legitimacy of their operations. Despite Kirtz’s attempts to dismiss the case on jurisdictional grounds, the court denied his motion in October 2018, allowing the case to proceed.

Public Outcry and Reputation

Beyond the courtroom, Kirtz’s reputation took a nosedive in the court of public opinion. Social media platforms buzzed with warnings and condemnations. For instance, a Twitter user highlighted Kirtz as a prime example of the perils within the crypto community, urging others to research the “Clout ICO SCAM.” Such sentiments were echoed across various forums, painting a picture of widespread disillusionment and mistrust.

A Pattern of Behavior?

Compounding concerns are allegations suggesting that Kirtz’s questionable activities weren’t confined to the CLOUT debacle. Discussions on platforms like DailyFunder.com linked him to other ventures, such as Palm Beach Funding, with users alleging a history of scams and even animal abuse. One user cautioned, “Look up Sean Kirtz. Ran a crypto scam and abused dogs. That’s who runs it.” While such claims warrant further investigation, they contribute to the cloud of suspicion surrounding Kirtz.

The Broader Implications

Kirtz’s saga underscores the vulnerabilities inherent in the cryptocurrency landscape. The decentralized and relatively unregulated nature of the crypto market creates fertile ground for opportunists to exploit unsuspecting investors. The CLOUT case serves as a stark reminder of the due diligence required when navigating this volatile terrain.

Regulatory Response and Investor Vigilance

In response to such incidents, regulatory bodies have intensified efforts to scrutinize ICOs and crypto ventures. The SEC, for instance, has ramped up enforcement actions against fraudulent crypto schemes, emphasizing the need for transparency and investor protection. However, regulation alone isn’t a panacea. Investors must cultivate a healthy skepticism, thoroughly researching ventures and remaining wary of promises that seem too good to be true.

Conclusion

The tale of Sean R. Kirtz and the CLOUT cryptocurrency serves as a cautionary chronicle in the annals of digital finance. It highlights the perils of unchecked ambition, the consequences of deception, and the imperative for vigilance in the crypto realm. As the digital currency landscape continues to evolve, let this story be a beacon, illuminating the path for investors and regulators alike, and reminding us all that in the world of cryptocurrency, not all that glitters is gold.

  • https://lumendatabase.org/notices/47724298
  • 03 January 2025
  • Crypto News Global
  • https://www.tumblr.com/cryptonews-global/768202986753327104/crypto-scammer-sean-kirtz-arrested-for-animal?source=share
  • https://bocanewsnow.com/2022/02/17/crypto-scammer-sean-kirtz-arrested-for-animal-torture-in-boca-raton/

Evidence Box

Evidence and relevant screenshots related to our investigation

Targeted Content and Red Flags

bocanewsnow.com

Crypto Scammer Sean Kirtz Arrested For Animal Torture In Boca Raton

  • Adverse News
Visit Link

bocapost.com

Boca Man Unfit To Own Animals Arrested For Animal Abuse

  • Adverse News
Visit Link

westbocanews.com

Sean Kirtz was charged with Domestic Battery

  • Adverse News
Visit Link

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
Please enable JavaScript in your browser to complete this form.
Checkboxes

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!

User Reviews

Domain Check

Stop fraud before it happens with unbeatable speed, scale, depth, and breadth.

Recent Checks

Cyber Investigation

Uncover hidden digital threats and secure your assets with our expert cyber investigation services.

Recent Investigation

Threat Alerts

Stay ahead of cyber threats with our daily list of the latest alerts and vulnerabilities.

Threat Alerts

Client Dashboard

Your trusted source for breaking news and insights on cybercrime and digital security trends.

Client Login