What Happened?
Alexander Afanaschenko, a figure embroiled in a significant insurance fraud scandal, has reportedly been attempting to conceal his shady past and censor damaging news about his involvement in a multimillion-euro “ghost broking” scheme. Afanaschenko, along with his associates, was implicated in orchestrating a €6 million scam, where they sold fake insurance policies to unsuspecting customers, leaving many without coverage. The fraudulent operation involved manipulating the system to sell invalid insurance policies, causing widespread financial harm and legal consequences for the victims.
As details of the case became public, it appears that Afanaschenko has been actively working to suppress media coverage and online reports highlighting his role in the scandal. Reports suggest efforts have been made to remove critical content and minimize the visibility of damaging news. This censorship strategy has raised alarms, as it signals an attempt to rewrite the narrative around his involvement in the fraud.
Despite these efforts, the serious nature of the charges against Afanaschenko remains clear, with court documents and investigative reports revealing the full extent of the financial damage caused. His actions have not only damaged the trust in legitimate insurance brokers but also left a trail of victims seeking justice for the fraud they endured.
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 Alexander Afanaschenko
| Number of Fake DMCA Notice(s) | 1 |
| Lumen Database Notice(s) | https://lumendatabase.org/notices/41381459 |
| Sender(s) | Kalpesh Patel |
| Date(s) | May 8, 2024 |
| Fake Link(s) Used by Scammers | https://www.tumblr.com/todaypatch/749903450575437824/three-in-court-charged-over-6m-ghost-broker |
| Original Link(s) Targeted | https://www.rte.ie/news/courts/2021/0429/1212873-ghost-broker-six-million-charge/ |
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 Alexander Afanaschenko trying to hide?
Alexander Afanaschenko is a figure linked to a major fraud scandal involving a “ghost broking” scheme that resulted in millions of euros in losses. Ghost broking is a type of fraud where criminals sell fake or invalid insurance policies, usually at a reduced price, to unsuspecting customers. In this case, Afanaschenko was one of the individuals charged with orchestrating a €6 million ghost broking scam in Ireland. The scheme involved manipulating and falsifying documents to create fraudulent car insurance policies for hundreds of victims, leaving them without valid insurance coverage.
The scam caused significant financial damage to the victims, many of whom believed they were receiving legitimate insurance policies only to find out, often during accidents or claims, that their coverage was invalid. Afanaschenko’s involvement in this operation, and the ensuing criminal charges, have made him a central figure in one of Ireland’s largest insurance fraud cases.
Afanaschenko’s involvement in this serious fraud case has led to significant public scrutiny and negative coverage. Here’s a summary of the adverse news, complaints, and allegations he appears to be trying to suppress:
1. Ghost Broking Scam and Fraud Allegations
The most severe allegation against Alexander Afanaschenko is his central role in the €6 million ghost broking scam. He, along with his accomplices, was charged with selling fraudulent car insurance policies to hundreds of individuals. These policies were either completely fake or altered in ways that invalidated them, meaning that victims thought they had legitimate coverage but were, in fact, left unprotected.
Afanaschenko’s operation reportedly targeted vulnerable individuals, offering low-cost insurance that appeared too good to be true. The scam went unnoticed for some time until victims began making claims and discovered their policies were invalid. This led to a massive investigation that uncovered the scale of the fraud. Afanaschenko has been accused of masterminding the scam, leveraging his knowledge of the insurance industry to exploit the system and his victims.
2. Court Charges and Legal Proceedings
Afanaschenko’s attempts to hide the details of his shady past likely stem from the high-profile legal proceedings against him. He was brought before the Irish courts, facing multiple charges related to fraud and deception. The case garnered significant media attention as it exposed the sophisticated nature of the scam and the large number of victims affected.
Court documents revealed that the fraudulent scheme was well-organized and spanned several years, with the perpetrators using various tactics to evade detection. As the legal case unfolded, more details about Afanaschenko’s role in orchestrating the fraud emerged, further damaging his reputation.
3. Victim Complaints and Public Outrage
Many victims of the ghost broking scam have spoken out, expressing their anger and frustration at being deceived. These individuals paid for insurance policies that they believed were legitimate, only to find themselves without coverage when they needed it most. The complaints from these victims highlight the emotional and financial toll of the scam, with some facing significant out-of-pocket expenses to secure new insurance policies or cover the costs of accidents that went uninsured.
Public outrage has been widespread, with many calling for stricter regulations to prevent similar scams in the future. The fact that Afanaschenko and his associates were able to operate for so long without detection has raised concerns about the effectiveness of current regulatory frameworks in the insurance industry.
4. Efforts to Suppress Negative News and Censor Media Coverage
In the wake of the charges, Afanaschenko appears to have made efforts to suppress negative media coverage and limit the spread of damaging news about his involvement in the scam. Reports suggest that attempts have been made to downplay the details of the case and remove online content that highlights his role in the fraudulent operation. These censorship efforts may include issuing legal threats to media outlets or leveraging privacy laws to remove unfavorable content.
Afanaschenko’s attempts to hide his connection to the ghost broking scandal and control the narrative surrounding his criminal activities raise concerns about transparency. The actions to suppress damaging information only add to suspicions about what else he may be hiding and serve as a reminder of the broader risks posed by such fraudulent schemes.
5. Broader Implications for the Insurance Industry
Afanaschenko’s actions have had wider repercussions beyond the direct financial impact on his victims. The ghost broking scam has damaged trust in the insurance industry, highlighting vulnerabilities that fraudsters can exploit. Many of the victims affected by the scam are now more cautious when purchasing insurance, and the case has led to calls for tighter regulations and improved fraud detection measures.
For legitimate brokers, the case has been a public relations disaster, as it has exposed the ease with which criminals can exploit consumers using fake documents and online platforms. Afanaschenko’s actions have left a lasting mark on the industry, and his attempts to avoid accountability have only worsened the fallout.
Alexander Afanaschenko’s involvement in one of the largest ghost broking scams in Ireland has placed him at the center of a major fraud scandal. His alleged efforts to suppress negative news about his criminal activities, including the ghost broking scheme and the resulting court charges, raise serious questions about his attempts to evade responsibility.
The scam caused widespread financial damage to hundreds of victims, many of whom remain angry and frustrated at being deceived. Afanaschenko’s attempts to hide his shady past and censor damaging news only deepen the public’s mistrust, leaving open questions about what other secrets he might be trying to keep under wraps. For the victims and the public at large, transparency and justice are critical, and efforts to silence the truth will only fuel further outrage.
Only Alexander Afanaschenko benefits from this crime.
Since the fake copyright takedown notices were designed to remove negative content for Alexander Afanaschenko from Google, we assume Alexander Afanaschenko or someone associated with Alexander Afanaschenko is behind this scam. It is often a fly-by-night Online Reputation agency working on behalf of Alexander Afanaschenko. In this case, Alexander Afanaschenko, 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 Alexander Afanaschenko (or actors working on behalf of Alexander Afanaschenko), we will inform Alexander Afanaschenko of our findings via Electronic Mail.
Our preliminary assessment suggests that Alexander Afanaschenko may have engaged a third-party reputation management agency or expert, which, either independently or under direct authorization from Alexander Afanaschenko, initiated efforts to remove adverse online content, including potentially fraudulent DMCA takedown requests. We will extend an opportunity to Alexander Afanaschenko 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 –
- Inform Google about the fraud committed against them.
- Inform the victims of the fake DMCA about their websites.
- Inform relevant law enforcement agencies
- File counter-notices on Google to reinstate the ‘removed’ content
- 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 Alexander Afanaschenko 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 Alexander Afanaschenko made such efforts to hide something online, it seems fit to ensure that this article and our original review of Alexander Afanaschenko, including but not limited to user contributions, remain a permanent record for anyone interested in Alexander Afanaschenko.
A case perfect for the Streisand effect…
Potential Consequences for Alexander Afanaschenko
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 Alexander Afanaschenko Committing a Cyber Crime?
Yes, it seems so. Alexander Afanaschenko 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. Alexander Afanaschenko 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 Alexander Afanaschenko 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. Alexander Afanaschenko 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 Alexander Afanaschenko purport this DMCA Fraud?
As an integral part of this scheme, the ‘reputation management’ company hired by Alexander Afanaschenko 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, Alexander Afanaschenko either premeditated actions or were unaware of the consequences. Despite hiring an agency to make Google disregard any negative information about Alexander Afanaschenko, 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. Alexander Afanaschenko is in great company ….
Ironically, the manipulation tactics used to remove public-interest information from the Internet are backfiring on Alexander Afanaschenko, which is now associated with the worst of this world.
Here are some of the specimens that share the internet space with Alexander Afanaschenko –
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
Did Alexander Afanaschenko commit a cyber crime?
Yes, filing a fake DMCA notice is illegal. The Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) allows copyright holders to issue takedown notices to protect their works from unauthorized use online. However, submitting a false DMCA notice can result in legal consequences.
Under the DMCA, a person knowingly submitting a false copyright claim can be subject to penalties, including damages. DMCA notices require the filer to certify, under penalty of perjury, that the content infringes their copyright. If the notice is found to be fraudulent or made in bad faith, the filer can face.
What are the potential consequences for Alexander Afanaschenko?
Civil lawsuits: The affected party can sue for damages, legal fees, and other costs.
Perjury charges: False certification in a DMCA notice can result in perjury-related penalties, which vary by jurisdiction.
Other legal penalties: Fines or other penalties depending on the case
Did Alexander Afanaschenko commit a Civil or a Criminal offense?
Perjury is a criminal offense, not a civil crime. It involves intentionally lying or making false statements under oath, typically in a court of law or other legal proceedings, such as affidavits or depositions.
Criminal charges: Perjury is prosecuted as a criminal act, and a conviction can lead to fines or imprisonment, depending on the severity of the false statement and its impact on the case.
Felony status: In many jurisdictions, perjury is classified as a felony, which carries more severe penalties than misdemeanour offences.
So, while it may affect civil cases, the crime of perjury itself is strictly criminal.
What is the Streisand effect?
The key idea behind the Streisand effect is that efforts to restrict information can backfire, often causing the information to gain more attention than it would have otherwise. This effect is widespread in the digital age, where users quickly notice and spread censorship efforts on social media and other platforms.
Trying to suppress something can unintentionally lead to it becoming more visible.
Can Alexander Afanaschenko purge its Digital past?
Once information is uploaded to the internet, it can be replicated, shared, archived, or stored across multiple servers. If Alexander Afanaschenko manage to delete the original post or file, copies may remain accessible in other places, such as web archives, screenshots, or other users’ devices.
In practice, completely erasing content from the internet can be extremely difficult due to how widely information can spread and be stored. Thus, the idea that “the Internet never forgets” reflects the challenge of entirely removing digital content once it has been shared.
What else is Alexander Afanaschenko hiding?
Click here to visit the Google Search page for ‘Alexander Afanaschenko’. 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 Alexander Afanaschenko 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 Alexander Afanaschenko censoring the internet and committing cyber crimes.”
- Our investigative report on Alexander Afanaschenko’s efforts to suppress online speech is significant, as it raises serious concerns about its integrity. The findings suggest that Alexander Afanaschenko 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 Alexander Afanaschenko 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.
