Topic: Report scam (free of charge) and support investigations (Read 282 times)

Of course, exact results were calculated.
However, the calculation of these results is based, at least in part, on heuristics.
Therefore, even if the values are accurate, they may not be one hundred percent correct.

It is perhaps best explained like a weather forecast.
This also calculates a temperature for the next day.
However, there is no guarantee that this temperature will occur exactly.

The results could therefore all be correctly marked with an ~ (approx).

Here is some more information on heuristics:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heuristic_(computer_science)

First, "heuristics" is a bio term; computer algorithms do not use mental processes (yet - see Elon).

Second, you contradicted yourself in your next post, by providing the exact results you could not calculate.  

 

BTW, on screenshot number 3 on:
https://web.archive.org/web/20210630052410/https://www.cryptorensics.com/en/projects/ponzi-scheme/
image in full size:
https://web.archive.org/web/20210630052416im_/https://www.cryptorensics.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/deposit_vs_withdraw_2.png
you can see the exact amount of BTC.

And here once again in detail:

Deposits
Input BTC (total): 42511.22633490
Output BTC (total): 42511.19109140
Balance BTC (total): 0.03524350
Transactions: 660968
BTC Adresses: 326952

Withdrawals
Input BTC (total): 21131.33891676
Output BTC (total): 21129.57464535
Balance BTC (total)   1.76427141
Transactions: 247455
BTC Adresses: 35

Difference
Difference BTC (Deposit Input - Withdraw Output): 21381.65168955

Thank you for looking into our report.

There are several reasons for our "vague" information on this case.
I will only discuss the two most important ones here.

1. this is a rather complex case for which we have analyzed thousands of transactions. In addition, parts of the analyses are based on so-called "heuristics". Here, results that cannot be calculated exactly are estimated as accurately as possible by an algorithm. Therefore, no one can simply "look up" our analysis in the blockchain.

2 Of course, we do not want our publications to hinder investigations by the authorities or warn suspects in advance. This is another reason why the information is always quite vague.

As the U.S. DOJ has already brought charges in this case, I will link to them here.
The DOJ published the indictment on November 21, 2022.
Our case study on our website was published almost a year earlier and our investigation into it is of course even older.

Our case report (on archive.org, dated June 30, 2021):
https://web.archive.org/web/20210630052410/https://www.cryptorensics.com/en/projects/ponzi-scheme/

DOJ publication (dated November 21, 2022):
https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/two-estonian-citizens-arrested-575-million-cryptocurrency-fraud-and-money-laundering-scheme

I was looking at your ponzi case study.


Why so vague?   Why not post the exact numbers of bitcoin?   Then your potential clients could find it on the blockchain and verify your words.

Just a quick note @Op, merge all your recent posts together you’re making your thread look messy…

We do not publish our detailed reports and the associated analysis data / software.
We only make these available to investigating authorities or our clients.
However, you can get an overview of our work in the case studies.
As already mentioned in the reply to blckhawk, these will be updated soon.


The description in "how we work" refers only to cases that we investigate on behalf of our clients.
There are no costs for submissions via the "report scam" function, ever.

The description in "how we work" refers only to cases that we investigate on behalf of our clients.
There are no costs for submissions via the "report scam" function, ever.


Don't take the statistical values from the "fancy counters" too seriously.
Our results (see case studies) should be much more decisive.

Our case analyses sometimes take years of work. And of course, working on our investigations has absolute priority. This means that other things can sometimes be neglected.
Of course, this does not apply to cases in which we investigate directly on behalf of clients, in which case client contact/support also has a very high priority.

You are right in assuming that we do not want to publish too much data.
On the one hand, this has to do with our security, and on the other hand, of course, with the fact that the data can also be accessed by criminals we are investigating.

Our case studies are probably much more meaningful than the data and statistics, more on this in our previous answer to blckhawk.


Cryptorensics belongs to the company you mentioned.

Thank you for your input.
In order to keep my answer short, I refer you to my previous answer to blckhawk, in which our approach was described and references to cases that have already been closed can be found.

With regard to your question, when we carry out investigations on our own initiative, we forward the results to the investigating authorities if they are successful.


Of course, we reserve the right to choose exactly which cases we investigate. As we only have limited resources at our disposal, we must of course use them as effectively as possible. Therefore, the most important factors for our decision on an investigation are probably the prospects of success and the scope of the fraud case.

Thanks for this suggestion, I will post there as well.


I cannot publish the names of the current cases. Probably the most important reason for this is the fact that I could jeopardize any investigations by the authorities that might be taking place or warn the perpetrators in advance. And of course it is also a security risk on our part.

But on https://www.cryptorensics.com there are two case studies (Insider Hack and Ponzi scheme) which describe cases that have already been closed or that happened a long time ago. However, both case descriptions, which have so far been anonymized, are not up to date and will soon be completely revised. The company names and websites will then also be mentioned. I will publish these exclusively here in advance.
The insider hack refers to the NiceHash hack of 2017 (which was not a hack).
The Ponzi scheme describes the case of HashFlare.

For tactical reasons, I cannot describe exactly how we work here.
However, since it is mentioned below, here is a note on our approach and the description under "how we work" on our website.
The description on the website describes the procedure when we carry out investigations on behalf of clients. We also carry out investigations on our own initiative, for which we use the "report scam" function, which is of course completely free of charge.

No, I would explicitly say so.   However, if this turns out to be real, I can add it to the list.

Based on Whois the platform was created in 2020 but like what joniboini stated there's nothing on the site that can prove your reliability or reputation because there are no reports to access and verify


There are no testimonials neither to support how good you are.

One thing I noticed Your report is free but the result is not and you did not mention it here in your announcement, it's quite deceptive not putting this here in your announcement.

None of your competitors also charge for receiving reports, but you do charge a certain amount when you've succeeded in those cases: HOW WE WORK

Did some digging and it appears none of those stats changed in the past two years ^{[June 27, 2021]}, so I'm pretty sure they're all fake ^{[unfortunately]}!

They have not tried to log in since the date the topic was created, so the technical support for such services may be horrible, but given the design of the site, I think it is the developer’s address and it has been forgotten to modify it, or the site is not yet complete, and sometimes some developers may leave their address at the bottom of the site.

Your site shows some statistics but I can't check the details. While the sats look impressive, it is hard not to be skeptical if there is nothing available to verify. The cooperation part is also just too broad, I guess you don't want to provide all the details publicly?

What do you mean by wallets found? Does it refer to lost wallets or something else? I think it is misleading if it just refers to a list of address that belongs to one seed/private key since tools like wallet explorer is available.

What is your relation to this company btw[1]? The address that you used is their office address. As far as I can tell they are a website developer. Do you share the same building or are you a branch of them?

[1] http://www.friedlein-webentwicklung.de/

Does that mean you can vouch for the OP website?
It sounds like a good initiative but I've never heard of them personally

Litigation trends take years, if not more, with many costs, and with the multiplicity of nationalities and the lack of an agreed-upon regulatory framework among all countries, it will be difficult to recover the money. The best that will happen is a platform with such influence that any negative trust will push everyone to ignore your service, and thus the service provider will try to return the money to you, or at least scam will be severely reduced.
There are actually services like ScamAdviser.com, but they do not provide much information, and some of them are wrong about the service not being a scam because it relies mainly on reports after scam happen.

Lost not in a direct way, but yeah I have lost a lot of good opportunities due to bullying and harassment from a few abusers, but it won't make a good case for that type of lawsuit. Unless there is a rule for online bullying which I could hire a lawyer to make it happen? I don't think US justice system is interested for the rights of other country's citizens. There is no justice, only money.