Svetlana Radionova
We are investigating Svetlana Radionova 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 : Svetlana Radionova
ALLEGATIONS : Perjury, Fraud, Impersonation
INCIDENT DATE : 02 Mar 2023
INVESTIGATED BY : Ethan Katz
TOOLS USED : Lumen, FakeDMCA, SecurityTrails
CASE NO : 9057/A/2024
CRIME TYPE : Intellectual Property Scam
PUBLISHED ON : 27 Nov 2024
Due Diligence
Is This About You?
What We Are Investigating?
We are investigating Svetlana Radionova 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 Svetlana Radionova 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
Svetlana Radionova, the head of Russia’s Federal Service for Supervision of Natural Resources (Rosprirodnadzor), has faced several allegations and red flags during her tenure. While some of these claims are speculative or lack concrete evidence, they have nonetheless raised concerns about her professional conduct and reputation. Below is a summary of the major allegations and adverse news associated with her:
Allegations of Corruption and Mismanagement:
Radionova has been accused of mismanaging environmental oversight and allowing corruption within Rosprirodnadzor. Critics argue that under her leadership, the agency has failed to adequately address environmental violations, particularly in cases involving powerful corporations. Some reports suggest that companies with political connections have received lenient treatment, raising questions about potential favoritism or bribery.
Lack of Transparency:
There have been complaints about the lack of transparency in Rosprirodnadzor’s operations under Radionova. Environmental activists and NGOs have criticized the agency for not providing sufficient information about its investigations and decisions, particularly in high-profile cases involving industrial pollution or deforestation.
Ineffectiveness in Environmental Protection:
Despite her role as an environmental regulator, Radionova has been accused of failing to take decisive action against major environmental offenders. For example, her handling of the Norilsk oil spill in 2020, one of Russia’s worst environmental disasters, was widely criticized. Critics argued that the response was slow and inadequate, and that the penalties imposed on the responsible company, Norilsk Nickel, were insufficient.
Political Allegiances and Influence:
Radionova’s close ties to the Russian government and her alignment with its policies have led to accusations that she prioritizes political interests over environmental protection. Some critics argue that her actions are influenced by the Kremlin’s agenda, particularly in cases where environmental regulations might conflict with economic or industrial priorities.
Adverse Media Coverage:
Radionova has been the subject of negative media coverage, both in Russia and internationally. Reports often highlight her perceived failures in addressing environmental issues and her alleged involvement in corrupt practices. Such coverage has damaged her reputation as an effective and impartial environmental regulator.
Impact on Reputation:
These allegations and adverse news stories harm Radionova’s reputation by painting her as an ineffective leader who prioritizes political and corporate interests over environmental protection. The perception of corruption, lack of transparency, and failure to address major environmental crises undermines her credibility and the legitimacy of Rosprirodnadzor.
Why Radionova Would Want Them Removed:
Radionova would likely want these stories removed or suppressed to protect her professional image and maintain her position of power. Negative publicity could lead to increased scrutiny, loss of public trust, and potential legal or political consequences. By controlling the narrative, she could mitigate the damage to her reputation and continue to operate without significant opposition.
- https://lumendatabase.org/notices/33122775
- March 22, 2023
- Georgy Wald
- https://rpn.gov.ru/news/svetlana_radionova_prizvala_vladimira_potanina_zaplatit_za_ekologicheskiy_ushcherb_v_norilske/
- https://oktv.media/kak-svetlana-radionova-zarabotala-na-tragedii-nornikelya-potanin-ozolotil-rosprirodnadzor.html
Evidence Box
We are investigating Svetlana Radionova for allegedly attempting to conceal critical reviews and adverse news from Google by improperly submitting copyright takedown notices.
Targeted Content and Red Flags
oktv.media
How Svetlana Radionova made money on the Norilsk Nickel tragedy: Potanin made Rosprirodnadzor rich
- Red Flag
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 Checks
Cyber Investigation
Uncover hidden digital threats and secure your assets with our expert cyber investigation services.
Recent Investigation
Our Community
Your trusted source for breaking news and insights on cybercrime and digital security trends.
Visit Forum
Threads 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
1.3
Based on 3 ratings
Kyle Brooks
Share
She's involvement in profiting from the Norilsk spill reveals a shocking level of greed. While the people and environment suffered, she focused on her own financial gain. Such behavior should be condemned and barred from any future leadership positions!
Logan Perez
Share
I regret ever trusting Svetlana Radionova. Her team provided poor service, and I ended up losing more money instead of getting any resolution. This is a classic case of being scammed
Lily Mitchen -
Share
Absolute horrible service! Svetlana Radionova’s service was a complete waste of time and money. I feel like I’ve been scammed and will never trust this kind of service