Binomo’s Sinister Fraud: How They Use Perjury to Suppress the Truth – Part 1

What Happened?

Binomo, a well-known online trading platform that offers binary options trading, has been facing growing criticism for allegedly trying to cover up its questionable past and censor negative news. Despite marketing itself as a user-friendly platform for both beginners and experienced traders, Binomo has attracted a series of complaints over the years, including accusations of unfair trading practices, withdrawal issues, and questionable regulatory status.

Traders have voiced concerns about the platform’s opaque operations, with some alleging that their accounts were manipulated, resulting in unexpected losses. Additionally, there have been numerous reports of withdrawal delays and difficulties in accessing funds, raising doubts about the platform’s financial integrity.

What further fuels the controversy is Binomo’s alleged attempts to suppress unfavorable reviews and complaints. Several users and industry insiders claim that negative feedback about the platform has been systematically removed or hidden, particularly on social media and review websites. This effort to control the narrative has cast doubt on Binomo’s transparency and credibility, urging potential traders to proceed with caution.

For those considering trading with Binomo, it’s important to thoroughly research user experiences and be aware of the platform’s history of controversies. A comparison with other platforms, such as Binance, reveals significant differences in transparency and reputation, further highlighting the need for caution.

Analyzing the Fake Copyright Notice(s)

Our team collects and analyses fraudulent copyright takedown requests, legal complaints, and other efforts to remove critical information from the internet. Through our investigative reporting, we examine the prevalence and operation of an organized censorship industry, predominantly funded by criminal entities, oligarchs, and disreputable businesses or individuals. Our findings allow internet users to gain insight into these censorship schemes’ sources, methods, and underlying objectives.

List of Fake Copyright Notices for Binomo

Number of Fake DMCA Notice(s)	1
Lumen Database Notice(s)	https://lumendatabase.org/notices/44120189
Sender(s)	LuminaSphere Systems ltd
Date(s)	Aug 26, 2024
Fake Link(s) Used by Scammers	https://sourceforge.net/software/compare/Binance-vs-Binomo/
Original Link(s) Targeted	https://www.daytrading.com/binomo-vs-binance

Evidence and Screenshots

How do we investigate fake DMCA notices?

To accomplish this, we utilize the OSINT Tool provided by FakeDMCA.com and the Lumen API for Researchers, courtesy of the Lumen Database.

FakeDMCA.com is the work of an independent team of research students and cybersecurity professionals, developed under Project UnCensor. Their OSINT Tool, designed to uncover and analyze takedown notices, represents a significant step forward in combating these abusive practices. It has become a valuable resource, increasingly relied upon by journalists and law enforcement agencies across the United States.

Lumen, on the other hand, is an independent research initiative dedicated to studying takedown notices and other legal demands related to online content removal. The project, which operates under the Berkman Klein Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University, plays a crucial role in tracking and understanding the broader implications of such requests.

What was Binomo trying to hide?

Binomo is an online trading platform that primarily focuses on binary options trading, catering to a broad audience that ranges from beginner to advanced traders. Launched in 2014, the platform allows users to speculate on the price movements of various financial assets, such as currencies, commodities, and stocks, with relatively low minimum deposit requirements. Binomo markets itself as a user-friendly and accessible platform, offering educational resources and tools for traders.

Despite its growing popularity, Binomo operates under an offshore license from the Financial Commission, a self-regulatory organization that offers less stringent oversight compared to major regulatory bodies like the SEC or FCA. This lack of a well-recognized regulatory framework has raised concerns about the platform’s transparency and security, prompting numerous complaints and negative feedback from users.

---

While Binomo has attracted a significant user base, the platform has also been the subject of numerous controversies and complaints. Here’s a detailed breakdown of the adverse news, bad reviews, complaints, and allegations Binomo is reportedly trying to conceal from public view:

1. Unfair Trading Practices and Account Manipulation Allegations

One of the most troubling complaints against Binomo involves allegations of unfair trading practices. Multiple users have reported incidents where their trades appeared to be manipulated, with sudden price changes occurring just before the expiration of binary options contracts, often leading to unexpected losses. These traders claim that the price charts provided by Binomo differ from official market data, suggesting potential manipulation by the platform to skew results in its favor.

Such allegations have raised doubts about the fairness of Binomo’s trading environment. Traders suspect that the platform may be deliberately engineering price movements to ensure users lose trades, ultimately benefiting Binomo.

2. Withdrawal Delays and Fund Access Issues

Another major concern for users of Binomo is the difficulty in withdrawing funds. Several traders have complained about delays in processing withdrawal requests, with some claiming that their withdrawals were rejected without valid explanations. This issue has sparked fears that Binomo may be facing liquidity problems or that it is intentionally making it hard for users to access their money after successful trades.

For any trading platform, the ability to withdraw funds quickly and without complications is a key indicator of trustworthiness. Binomo’s reported withdrawal issues have led to numerous bad reviews, with many traders expressing frustration and a lack of confidence in the platform.

3. Offshore Regulation and Lack of Transparency

Binomo’s regulatory status is another point of contention. The platform is licensed by the Financial Commission, which is a self-regulatory body that provides far less oversight than major financial regulators. This has led critics to question Binomo’s commitment to transparency and the security of user funds.

Traders often prefer to use platforms that are regulated by recognized authorities, such as the FCA or CySEC, because these entities require strict compliance with industry standards. Binomo’s offshore regulation does not provide the same level of accountability or protection, leaving users vulnerable in case of disputes or platform misconduct.

4. Censorship of Negative Reviews and Feedback

Binomo has reportedly engaged in efforts to censor or hide negative feedback from users. Many traders claim that their negative reviews, which detail their bad experiences with the platform, have been removed or blocked on certain review websites and forums. This attempt to control the narrative and suppress damaging information has led to further suspicions about Binomo’s practices.

By allegedly scrubbing negative reviews and complaints from public platforms, Binomo creates the illusion of a more reputable and problem-free service than the reality experienced by many of its users. This tactic of hiding critical feedback prevents potential traders from seeing the full picture of the risks involved in using the platform.

5. Comparisons to More Reputable Platforms Like Binance

In comparison to more established and transparent platforms such as Binance, Binomo falls short in several key areas, including regulatory oversight, withdrawal processes, and user trust. Binance, being a widely recognized cryptocurrency exchange with strict regulatory compliance in certain jurisdictions, provides a higher level of transparency, liquidity, and user protection than Binomo.

Users who have traded on both platforms often highlight the vast difference in reliability, with Binance offering a more secure and legitimate trading environment, while Binomo struggles with persistent complaints about manipulation, withdrawal problems, and poor customer service.

6. Accusations of Being a Scam

Given the growing number of complaints, some users have gone as far as to label Binomo as a scam. These accusations are mainly based on the platform’s alleged manipulation of trades, its offshore regulatory status, and the difficulties traders face in withdrawing funds. While labeling a platform as a scam can sometimes be an exaggeration, the consistency and volume of these complaints warrant serious concern.

The fact that Binomo is reportedly trying to hide or suppress these accusations only adds to the skepticism surrounding the platform. A legitimate company would address these issues head-on rather than censor them, making Binomo’s tactics even more alarming for potential users.

---

Binomo’s attempts to hide bad reviews, complaints, and damaging news suggest that the platform may not be as reliable or transparent as it claims. Allegations of unfair trading practices, withdrawal delays, offshore regulation, and censorship efforts raise significant red flags for traders. These concerns have led to a loss of trust among many users, with some even accusing the platform of being a scam.

For prospective traders, it is essential to conduct thorough research before using Binomo, especially considering the negative feedback that the platform appears to be trying to suppress. With better-regulated and more transparent platforms like Binance available, traders should exercise caution before committing their funds to Binomo.

Only Binomo benefits from this crime.

Since the fake copyright takedown notices were designed to remove negative content for Binomo from Google, we assume Binomo or someone associated with Binomo is behind this scam. It is often a fly-by-night Online Reputation agency working on behalf of Binomo. In this case, Binomo, at best, will be an “accomplice” or an “accessory” to the crime. The specific laws may vary depending on the jurisdiction. Still, the legal principle generally holds that if you actively participate in planning, encouraging, or facilitating a crime, you can be charged with it, even if you did not personally commit it.

How do we counteract this malpractice?

Once we ascertain the involvement of Binomo (or actors working on behalf of Binomo), we will inform Binomo of our findings via Electronic Mail.

Our preliminary assessment suggests that Binomo may have engaged a third-party reputation management agency or expert, which, either independently or under direct authorization from Binomo, initiated efforts to remove adverse online content, including potentially fraudulent DMCA takedown requests. We will extend an opportunity to Binomo to provide details regarding their communications with the agency or expert, as well as the identification of the individual(s) responsible for executing these false DMCA notices.

Failure to respond in a timely manner will necessitate a reassessment of our initial assumptions. In such an event, we will be compelled to take appropriate legal action to rectify the unlawful conduct and take the following steps –

1. Inform Google about the fraud committed against them.
2. Inform the victims of the fake DMCA about their websites.
3. Inform relevant law enforcement agencies
4. File counter-notices on Google to reinstate the ‘removed’ content
5. Publish copies of the ‘removed’ content on our network of 50+ websites

By investigating the fake DMCA takedown attempts, we hope to shed light on the reputation management industry, revealing how Binomo and companies like it may use spurious copyright claims and fake legal notices to remove and obscure articles linking them to allegations of fraud, tax avoidance, corruption, and drug trafficking…

Since Binomo made such efforts to hide something online, it seems fit to ensure that this article and our original review of Binomo, including but not limited to user contributions, remain a permanent record for anyone interested in Binomo.

A case perfect for the Streisand effect…

Potential Consequences for Binomo

Under Florida Statute 831.01, the crime of Forgery is committed when a person falsifies, alters, counterfeits, or forges a document that carries “legal efficacy” with the intent to injure or defraud another person or entity.

Forging a document is considered a white-collar crime. It involves altering, changing, or modifying a document to deceive another person. It can also include passing along copies of documents that are known to be false. In many states in the US, falsifying a document is a crime punishable as a felony.

Additionally, under most laws, “fraud on the court” is where “a party has sentiently set in motion some unconscionable scheme calculated to interfere with the judicial system’s ability impartially to adjudicate a matter by improperly influencing the trier of fact or unfairly hampering the presentation of the opposing party’s claim or defense.”  Cox v. Burke, 706 So. 2d 43, 46 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998) (quoting Aoude v. Mobil Oil Corp., 892 F.2d 1115, 1118 (1st Cir. 1989)). 

Is Binomo Committing a Cyber Crime?

Yes, it seems so. Binomo used multiple approaches to remove unwanted material from review sites and Google’s search results. Thanks to protections allowing freedom of speech in the United States, there are very few legal ways to do this. Binomo could not eliminate negative reviews or search results that linked to them without a valid claim of defamation, copyright infringement, or some other clear breach of the law.

Faced with these limitations, some companies like Binomo have gone to extreme lengths to fraudulently claim copyright ownership over a negative review in the hopes of taking it down.

Fake DMCA notices have targeted articles highlighting the criminal activity of prominent people to hide their illegal behavior. These people, which include US, Russian, and Khazakstani politicians as well as members from elite circles including the mafia and those with massive financial power, are all connected – and alleged corruption ranging from child abuse to sexual harassment is exposed when exploring evidence found at these URLs. It appears there’s a disturbing level of influence being exerted here that needs further investigation before justice can be served. Binomo is certainly keeping interesting company here….

The DMCA takedown process requires that copyright owners submit a takedown notice to an ISP identifying the allegedly infringing content and declaring, under penalty of perjury, that they have a good faith belief that the content is infringing. The ISP must then promptly remove or disable access to the content. The alleged infringer can then submit a counter-notice, and if the copyright owner does not take legal action within 10 to 14 days, the ISP can restore the content.

Since these platforms are predominantly based in the U.S., the complaints are typically made under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), which requires online service providers and platforms to react immediately to reports or violations. Big Tech companies rarely have systems in place to assess the merit of each report. Instead, all bad actors need to do is clone a story, backdate it, and then demand the real thing be taken down.

Reputation Agency’s Modus Operandi

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.

Then, based on the claim that this backdated article is the “original,” the scammers send a DMCA to the relevant online service providers (e.g. Google), alleging that the ‘true’ original is the copied or “infringing” article and that the copied article is the “original,” requesting the takedown of the ‘true’ original article. After sending the DMCA request, the person who sent the wrong notice takes down the fake original URL, likely to make sure that the article doesn’t stay online in any way. If the takedown notice is successful, the disappearance from the internet of information is most likely to be legitimate speech.

How did Binomo purport this DMCA Fraud?

As an integral part of this scheme, the ‘reputation management’ company hired by Binomo creates a website that purports to be a ‘news’ site. This site is designed to look legitimate at a glance, but any degree of scrutiny reveals it as the charade it is.

The company copies the ‘negative’ content and posts it “on the fake ‘news’ site, attributing it to a separate author,” then gives it “a false publication date on the ‘news’ website that predated the original publication.

The reputation company then sent Google a Digital Millennium Copyright Act notice claiming the original website infringed copyright. After a cursory examination of the fake news site, Google frequently accepts the notice and delists the content.

In committing numerous offences, Binomo either premeditated actions or were unaware of the consequences. Despite hiring an agency to make Google disregard any negative information about Binomo, ignorance does not excuse this wrongdoing.

The Reputation Laundering

Rogue Reputation agencies use spurious copyright claims and fake legal notices to remove and obscure articles linking clients to allegations of tax avoidance, corruption, and drug trafficking. Most of these reputation agencies are based offshore, mainly in Russia, India, and Eastern Europe, and they do not worry about complying with US-based laws.

The content in all of the articles for which the fraudulent DMCA notices have been sent relates to allegations of criminal allegations, including corruption, child abuse, sexual harassment, human trafficking and financial fraud against businesses and individuals with ultra-high net worth.

In addition to the misuse of the DMCA takedown process, there is a notable absence of enforcement concerning perjury violations. The statutory requirement related to perjury is designed to deter copyright holders from submitting fraudulent or knowingly false takedown requests, as they may face legal consequences for making false declarations under penalty of perjury. However, to date, there have been no known instances of any individual being prosecuted for perjury in connection with the submission of false DMCA takedown notices.

This lack of enforcement has emboldened copyright holders to exploit the DMCA takedown process to suppress dissent, criticism, or other unfavorable content, without fear of legal repercussions.

Not In Good Company

Some of the people and businesses who have employed this tactic to remove legitimate content from Google illegally include a Spanish businessman-turned-cocaine-trafficker, Organised crime, an Israeli-Argentine banker accused of laundering money for Hugo Chávez’s regime, a French “responsible” mining company accused of tax evasion, child molesters and sexual predators. Binomo is in great company ….

Ironically, the manipulation tactics used to remove public-interest information from the Internet are backfiring on Binomo, which is now associated with the worst of this world.

Here are some of the specimens that share the internet space with Binomo –

Miguel Octavio Vargas Maldonado

Miguel Octavio Vargas Maldonado appears to be the former foreign affairs minister of the Dominican Republic. His name is listed next to more than 500 links to news articles, blogs, social media posts, and YouTube videos targeted for removal or de-indexing. Many of the articles refer to questions over his political fundraising practices. They include accusations that Vargas had received donations from an individual who would later be convicted of drug trafficking. Some targeted links remain active, while others return 404 errors or “file not found.”

José Antonio Gordo Valero

José Gordo joined OneCoin in 2015 and has been named in an indictment for the OneCoin scam in Argentina. The articles listed next to Gordo’s name in the documents reviewed by Rest of World include references to his role at the company. 

Diego Adolfo Marynberg

He appears to be the same Marynberg connected to funding right-wing causes, including settlement efforts in Israel. Reports also alleged that his company received preferential treatment in acquiring Argentinian bonds worth millions of dollars. More than 70 URLs appear next to Marynberg’s name in the documents, including pages from the Israeli newspapers The Times of Israel, Haaretz, and Clarin, one of Argentina’s most prominent news sites.

Majed Khalil Majzoub

Majed is an influential businessman with close ties to several governments, including the administration of Venezuelan president Nicolás Maduro. Majzoub’s name appears next to more than 180 URLs, mostly from independent outlets. Of the two URLs that pointed to articles from Germany’s Der Spiegel, one now returns an error message; the other, which appears to refer to relations between Venezuela and Colombia, directs to an unrelated story about Brexit. 

Frequently Asked Questions

What else is Binomo hiding?

Click here to visit the Google Search page for ‘Binomo’. It’s likely if you scroll down to the bottom of this Google search results, you’ll stumble upon this Legal Takedown notice (pictured below)

To make such an investigation possible, we encourage more online service providers to come forward and share copies of content removal requests with us. If you have any information on Binomo that you want to share with us, kindly email the author directly at [email protected].

All communications are strictly confidential and safeguarded under a comprehensive Whistleblower Policy, ensuring full protection and anonymity for individuals who provide information.

---

References and Citations Used

Over thirty thousand DMCA notices reveal an organized attempt to abuse copyright law.

Reputation Management, or Internet Conspiracy

Exposed documents reveal how the powerful cleaned up their digital past using a reputation laundering firm.

Companies Use Fake Websites and Backdated Articles to Censor Google’s Search Results.

Bad Reviews: How Companies Are Using Fake Websites to Censor Content

How fake copyright complaints are muzzling journalists

---

Many thanks to FakeDMCA.com and Lumen for providing access to their database.

Photos and Illustrations provided by DALL-E 3 – “a representation of Binomo censoring the internet and committing cyber crimes.”

• Our investigative report on Binomo’s efforts to suppress online speech is significant, as it raises serious concerns about its integrity. The findings suggest that Binomo has engaged in questionable practices, including potential perjury, impersonation, and fraud, in a misguided attempt to manage or salvage its reputation.
• We intend to file a counternotice to reinstate the removed article(s). While this particular instance is relatively straightforward, it is important to note that, in other cases, the overwhelming volume of automated DMCA takedown notices can significantly hinder the ability of affected parties to respond—especially for those not large media organizations.
• You need an account with fakeDMCA.com and Lumen to access the research data. However, accounts are not widely available since these non-profit organisations manage large databases that could be susceptible to misuse. Nevertheless, they do offer access to non-profits and researchers.
• It’s unclear why U.S. authorities have yet to act against these rogue reputation agencies, whose business model seems rooted in fraudulent practices.
• We’ve reached out to Binomo for a comment or rebuttal regarding this investigation. It will strongly suggest they were behind the takedown attempt if they remain silent.

---

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.