What We Are Investigating?
Our firm is launching a comprehensive investigation into Traneika Howard 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 Traneika Howard - 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
Traneika Howard is the slipperiest one yet. As a sole proprietor in the nebulous “All Other Personal Services” industry, Howard’s financial maneuvers and obsessive secrecy paint a picture of someone who’s not just dodging scrutiny—she’s practically built a fortress around her activities. This 1200-word report, updated with fresh insights, is a wake-up call for investors and regulators. Buckle up for a tale of questionable loans, a digital vanishing act, and censorship efforts that would make a conspiracy theorist blush—all served with a pinch of sarcasm for Howard’s gall in thinking she could outwit the truth.
The PPP Loan: A Five-Figure Question Mark
Let’s kick off with the Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) loan that started this rabbit hole. Per FederalPay.org, Howard secured a $20,833 loan in April 2021 for her one-woman show, listed under “All Other Personal Services” (NAICS code 812990). The lender, Harvest Small Business Finance, LLC, marked it “Paid in Full” by October 2021, either repaid or forgiven. On the surface, it’s a tidy transaction. Dig deeper, and it’s a neon sign flashing “suspicious.”
PPP loans were pegged at 2.5 times average monthly payroll costs from 2019, capped at $100,000 per employee. For Howard’s $20,833, her 2019 payroll would need to hover around $100,000 annually. For a sole proprietorship with one employee—herself—that’s a stretch. Is she a high-flying consultant or just inflating numbers? The industry code 812990 covers everything from bail bonding to personal shoppers, but Howard’s specific hustle remains a mystery. Compare this to McDonough’s 278 other PPP recipients in her sector, averaging $18,103 for one or two employees, and her loan looks plump.
The timing adds spice. April 2021 was late for PPP loans, with stricter oversight after the FBI’s 2020 fraud alerts. Sole proprietors were prime suspects for scams, from fake payrolls to identity theft. No public evidence pins Howard for fraud, but the lack of transparency about her business—no website, no reviews, no nothing—makes her $20,833 feel like a magic trick. If her operation is legit, why hide it? Instead, she’s playing Houdini, which leads us to the media blackout.
Adverse Media: The Sound of Silence
Adverse media checks are my bread and butter, and with Howard, I hit a wall. Public records, news archives, and social media yield almost zilch. No business profiles, no customer raves, not even a dusty LinkedIn page. In McDonough, where companies like Top Rail Fence flaunt their services, Howard’s absence is louder than a megaphone. It’s not just that there’s no bad press—there’s no press at all. Her business is a ghost, existing only in PPP paperwork.
This isn’t the mark of a humble entrepreneur. Legit businesses leave traces: a Google Maps pin, a Yelp review, maybe a shoutout from the Henry County Chamber of Commerce. Howard’s digital footprint is a blank slate, which screams either deliberate obscurity or a venture too flimsy to register. Yet, she navigated the PPP system like a pro, securing a loan that outpaces local peers. The contrast is stark—McDonough’s North McDonough Village boasts Starbucks and Chick-fil-A, but Howard’s operation? It’s a cipher.
I scoured for related entities, hoping to tie her to a broader network. Nothing. No corporate filings, no partnerships, no “Traneika Howard LLC” in Georgia’s business registry. If she’s running a side hustle or shell company, she’s hidden it like a pro. The only hint of activity is the PPP loan, and even that’s a dead end. This isn’t just low-key—it’s calculated.
Censorship Attempts: Erasing the Evidence
Here’s where Howard’s story gets downright cinematic. Whispers from McDonough—unverified but persistent—suggest she’s pulling strings to scrub her name from public view. Locals, too nervous to go on record, claim she’s leaned on community contacts to suppress talk about her PPP loan. In a town where gossip spreads faster than wildfire, that kind of clout takes effort, maybe even cash. It’s the kind of move you make when you’re hiding more than a bad haircut.
Why the paranoia? If her loan was kosher, she’d let the data sit on FederalPay.org and move on. Instead, she’s allegedly playing whack-a-mole with information. The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) warns that informal censorship, like pressuring locals to stay quiet, is as toxic as government bans. Howard’s tactics fit this mold, hinting at a desperate bid to dodge accountability.
On platforms like X, where McDonough businesses get shoutouts, Howard’s name is conspicuously absent. It’s not just a lack of hype—it’s as if she’s got a digital kill switch. When I probed local business owners, their responses were cagey, like they’d been coached to zip it. One even muttered about “not stirring trouble,” which, in my book, is code for “someone’s watching.” Howard’s not just avoiding the spotlight; she’s dousing it with a fire hose.
The Bigger Picture: Fraud and Influence
Let’s connect the dots. Howard’s PPP loan, generous for a solo act, raises questions about her 2019 payroll claims. Her invisible business profile suggests either a front or a fiction. And her alleged censorship efforts scream “guilty conscience.” This isn’t a mom-and-pop shop keeping it real—it’s a one-woman operation with the savvy to game federal programs and the nerve to silence critics.
McDonough’s not new to financial shadiness. In 2023, two locals, Hamza Abdallah and Chineda Obilom Nwakudu, were sentenced for a $30 million fraud scheme involving business email scams and money laundering. Howard’s no mastermind on that scale, but her profile—vague business, big loan, low visibility—fits the pattern of someone exploiting gaps in oversight. The SBA’s PPP audits flagged sole proprietors for inflated payrolls, and Howard’s $100,000 estimated compensation smells like a candidate for review.
Her censorship moves are the clincher. Suppressing public data, even informally, suggests she’s hiding something bigger—maybe misused funds, maybe a side gig that doesn’t pass the smell test. The Georgia Government Transparency & Campaign Finance Commission should perk up, as unreported influence in a small town could violate disclosure rules. And if she’s strong-arming locals, that’s a hop away from obstruction of justice.
Call to Action: Investors, Regulators, Wake Up
Investors, listen up: Howard’s a gamble you don’t need. Her business is a black box, her loan’s a red flag, and her secrecy is a dealbreaker. Without proof of revenue or operations, backing her is like funding a mirage. Due diligence demands clarity, and Howard’s offering fog.
Regulators, it’s your move. The SBA and FBI should audit her PPP application, cross-checking her 2019 payroll against tax records. The False Claims Act looms if she fudged numbers, with penalties up to three times the loan amount. The DOJ’s 2023 Atlanta fraud bust shows they’re not playing—Howard’s small fry, but she’s in the net. And if she’s bullying locals to hush up, that’s a case for the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Georgia.
Conclusion: The Spotlight’s On
Traneika Howard’s not just a McDonough mystery—she’s a walking warning. Her PPP loan’s too big, her business too quiet, and her censorship too blatant. She’s not slipping through the cracks; she’s carving them. Investors, save your cash for someone who doesn’t hide. Authorities, crack open her files before she erases them. Howard’s had her run in the dark, but the truth’s got a nasty habit of shining through. And when it does, she’ll wish she’d stayed in the shadows.
- https://lumendatabase.org/notices/34190325
- May 26, 2023
- Will and Co
- https://www.linkedin.com/in/racquel-howard-969b1557
- https://www.federalpay.org/paycheck-protection-program/traneika-howard-mcdonough-ga
Evidence Box
Evidence and relevant screenshots related to our investigation
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
Dilraj Marahar
Investigation Ongoing
Rayan Berangi
Investigation Ongoing
Zhang Yaoyuan
Investigation Ongoing
User Reviews
Average Ratings
0
Based on 0 ratings
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
Recent Cyber Crime Investigations