Alexander Horst Riedinger’s Fraud Exposed: Manipulating the System to Conceal the Truth – Part 1

0 News

September 30, 2024

What Happened?

Alexander Horst Riedinger, a name recently tied to a potential cryptocurrency scandal in Austria, has come under scrutiny for allegedly attempting to conceal a questionable past and censor damaging news. Riedinger, associated with the company CoinsPaid, has been accused of being involved in dubious activities within the crypto sector. Reports indicate that CoinsPaid, which presents itself as a payment gateway for cryptocurrency transactions, may have ties to illicit operations, casting doubt on Riedinger’s business dealings.

In response to these allegations, it appears that Riedinger has been actively working to suppress critical reports and negative press. Media outlets have highlighted attempts to remove unfavorable content or discredit sources that publish damaging information about his past and business practices. This strategy of censorship raises concerns about the extent of Riedinger’s involvement in the alleged misconduct and suggests that more may be hidden beneath the surface.

For potential investors and the broader crypto community, Riedinger’s actions highlight the importance of transparency. His reported efforts to hide negative press only fuel speculation about his role in the ongoing controversy, urging caution for anyone considering engagement with CoinsPaid or related ventures.

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 Horst Riedinger


Number of Fake DMCA Notice(s)	1
Lumen Database Notice(s)	https://lumendatabase.org/notices/43858296
Sender(s)	FinTelegram
Date(s)	Aug 16, 2024
Fake Link(s) Used by Scammers	https://fintelegram.com/investigative-report-allegations-of-money-laundering-tax-fraud-and-compliance-issues-against-crypto-payment-processor-coinspaid/
Original Link(s) Targeted	https://wienerzocker.com/2024/05/09/potenzieller-krypto-skandal-in-osterreich-oder-wer-kennt-coinspaid-und-alexander-horst-riedinger/

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 Horst Riedinger trying to hide?

Alexander Horst Riedinger is a figure associated with the cryptocurrency space, most notably linked to the company CoinsPaid, a payment processing service for digital currencies. CoinsPaid allows businesses and individuals to process crypto transactions securely and efficiently, positioning itself as a key player in the growing crypto ecosystem. However, Riedinger’s reputation has recently come under fire due to his alleged involvement in suspicious activities within the cryptocurrency world. While he has kept a relatively low profile, Riedinger has become the subject of controversy, particularly in Austria, where his business dealings are being scrutinized.

Riedinger’s association with CoinsPaid has been tainted by accusations of misconduct and concerns over his business practices. Below is a breakdown of the adverse news, bad reviews, complaints, and allegations that he is reportedly trying to keep from public view:

1. Alleged Involvement in a Crypto Scandal in Austria

Recent reports, particularly those from Austrian media outlets like WienerZocker, have tied Riedinger to a potential cryptocurrency scandal. While the full extent of his involvement remains unclear, the articles suggest that CoinsPaid may be involved in illicit financial activities, including the facilitation of money laundering through its payment processing system. These allegations have prompted investigations, as Austria’s financial regulators seek to uncover whether CoinsPaid and Riedinger are involved in illegal schemes.

The scandal paints a troubling picture of how CoinsPaid may have been used as a vehicle for criminal enterprises, enabling them to launder money through cryptocurrency. This involvement, if proven, could not only tarnish Riedinger’s reputation but also impact the legitimacy of CoinsPaid within the broader cryptocurrency industry.

2. Attempts to Censor Damaging News

In response to these allegations, Riedinger has reportedly made concerted efforts to suppress negative press and censor damaging information. According to sources, Riedinger and his team have sought to remove or silence critical reports that delve into his questionable business dealings. This strategy appears to include the issuing of legal threats to media outlets and journalists who have reported on the ongoing investigations.

The effort to control the narrative and minimize public scrutiny of his actions suggests that Riedinger is keen to avoid further damage to his reputation. The active attempts to censor media coverage raise serious concerns about transparency and accountability, leading some to question what else might be hidden.

3. Regulatory Concerns and Lack of Transparency

The lack of transparency surrounding Riedinger’s business operations is another significant issue. CoinsPaid, though a growing player in the cryptocurrency world, operates in a highly unregulated market. Reports suggest that Riedinger has used this lack of regulation to his advantage, potentially engaging in practices that would not withstand scrutiny in more regulated financial sectors.

Critics have pointed to the lack of oversight as a key factor that allowed questionable transactions to occur through CoinsPaid’s platform. Furthermore, there are suspicions that Riedinger has made little effort to comply with international anti-money laundering (AML) and know-your-customer (KYC) regulations, which are crucial for any legitimate financial operation. This disregard for proper compliance raises red flags about the ethical standards of Riedinger’s businesses.

4. Complaints from Users and Partners

In addition to the regulatory concerns, several users and partners of CoinsPaid have lodged complaints regarding the platform’s operations. Some have reported unexpected transaction delays and inconsistencies in the company’s services, which they claim resulted in financial losses. These complaints suggest that the problems within CoinsPaid may go beyond simple mismanagement and could point to deeper systemic issues under Riedinger’s leadership.

These grievances have not only appeared on social media but have also found their way onto various review platforms. However, there are claims that efforts have been made to suppress these negative reviews, with reports that some critical user feedback has been removed or buried, limiting the visibility of the complaints.

5. Legal and Financial Allegations

There are also allegations regarding Riedinger’s possible involvement in other financial misconduct beyond the CoinsPaid scandal. Some reports suggest that he may have engaged in tax evasion or other forms of financial fraud through his businesses. These allegations remain speculative, but they add to the growing cloud of suspicion surrounding Riedinger’s activities. If these claims hold weight, they could result in legal action or further regulatory investigations, compounding the already troubling situation.

These allegations point to a pattern of questionable behavior that Riedinger seems eager to hide from public view. By limiting access to critical information and avoiding transparency, he may be attempting to prevent these legal and financial issues from coming to light.

Alexander Horst Riedinger’s involvement with CoinsPaid and his alleged attempts to suppress negative news raise significant concerns about his business practices. From potential ties to a cryptocurrency scandal in Austria to accusations of financial misconduct, Riedinger’s actions have come under increased scrutiny. His reported attempts to censor damaging news only further suggest that there may be more troubling issues lurking behind the scenes.

For investors, partners, and users of CoinsPaid, these developments are cause for caution. The growing number of complaints, regulatory concerns, and efforts to hide unfavorable information make it clear that there are serious questions surrounding Riedinger’s leadership and the integrity of his operations. Transparency is a critical component in the cryptocurrency space, and Riedinger’s reported efforts to avoid it suggest that the full truth may still be hidden.

Only Alexander Horst Riedinger benefits from this crime.

Since the fake copyright takedown notices were designed to remove negative content for Alexander Horst Riedinger from Google, we assume Alexander Horst Riedinger or someone associated with Alexander Horst Riedinger is behind this scam. It is often a fly-by-night Online Reputation agency working on behalf of Alexander Horst Riedinger. In this case, Alexander Horst Riedinger, 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 Horst Riedinger (or actors working on behalf of Alexander Horst Riedinger), we will inform Alexander Horst Riedinger of our findings via Electronic Mail.

Our preliminary assessment suggests that Alexander Horst Riedinger may have engaged a third-party reputation management agency or expert, which, either independently or under direct authorization from Alexander Horst Riedinger, initiated efforts to remove adverse online content, including potentially fraudulent DMCA takedown requests. We will extend an opportunity to Alexander Horst Riedinger 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 Horst Riedinger 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 Horst Riedinger made such efforts to hide something online, it seems fit to ensure that this article and our original review of Alexander Horst Riedinger, including but not limited to user contributions, remain a permanent record for anyone interested in Alexander Horst Riedinger.

A case perfect for the Streisand effect…

Potential Consequences for Alexander Horst Riedinger

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 Horst Riedinger Committing a Cyber Crime?

Yes, it seems so. Alexander Horst Riedinger 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 Horst Riedinger 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 Horst Riedinger 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 Horst Riedinger 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 Horst Riedinger purport this DMCA Fraud?

As an integral part of this scheme, the ‘reputation management’ company hired by Alexander Horst Riedinger 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 Horst Riedinger either premeditated actions or were unaware of the consequences. Despite hiring an agency to make Google disregard any negative information about Alexander Horst Riedinger, 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 Horst Riedinger is in great company ….

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

Here are some of the specimens that share the internet space with Alexander Horst Riedinger –

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 Horst Riedinger 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 Horst Riedinger?

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 Horst Riedinger 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 Horst Riedinger purge its Digital past?

Once information is uploaded to the internet, it can be replicated, shared, archived, or stored across multiple servers. If Alexander Horst Riedinger 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 Horst Riedinger hiding?

Click here to visit the Google Search page for ‘Alexander Horst Riedinger’. 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 Horst Riedinger 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.

Send Anonymous Tip Here

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 Horst Riedinger censoring the internet and committing cyber crimes.”

Our investigative report on Alexander Horst Riedinger’s efforts to suppress online speech is significant, as it raises serious concerns about its integrity. The findings suggest that Alexander Horst Riedinger 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 Horst Riedinger 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.

What Happened?

Alexander Horst Riedinger, a figure once known for his entrepreneurial ventures, now finds himself entangled in a web of controversy. His attempts to bury the darker chapters of his past have only drawn more attention to his questionable dealings. Allegations of fraud, misleading investors, and unethical business practices have surfaced, damaging his reputation. Rather than addressing these concerns, Ordodary has reportedly taken aggressive legal action to suppress critical news articles and censor damaging online discussions.

These efforts to erase negative press have backfired, triggering what’s known as the “Streisand Effect”—where attempts to hide information only amplify it. As more details about his shady financial dealings and legal disputes come to light, Ordodary’s carefully crafted public image continues to unravel, exposing a legacy of controversy that’s difficult to bury. This article delves into the tactics he’s employed to control the narrative and the scandals he’s so desperately trying to keep under wraps.

Analyzing the Fake Copyright Notice(s)