Vic.ai is pioneering the use of autonomy and intelligence to digitally transform accounting and finance processes to improve productivity, decision-making, and ROI. Vic.ai addresses the most manual and inefficient task in accounting – invoice processing – to improve its speed and scalability, and ultimately enable customers to reinvent their accounts payable operations and improve financial management. Accounting tasks have always been managed using legacy systems that are based on predefined, fragile rules and templates. It’s mundane, inefficient, and error-prone work. Vic.ai throws the need for rules and templates out the window. Accounting tasks work autonomously with the Vic.ai platform to minimize the human input and interpretation that legacy, rules-based systems require. Vic.ai’s accounts payable solution uses advanced AI, which gets smarter the more invoices it ingests, and autonomous workflows to automatically process error-free invoices, allowing the team to focus on more important matters than manual data entry. Vic.ai works with finance professionals to give them the tools they need to make everyday operations simpler and more intelligent. From processing invoices to data predictions, the Vic.ai intelligent and autonomous solution gives companies the bandwidth needed to complete higher value tasks often pushed aside in the day-to-day. By processing more than half a billion invoices with up to 99% accuracy, Vic.ai has helped 10,000+ customers achieve nearly $188 million in cost savings and 6 million hours in time savings. Vic.ai is backed by the best VC’s in the world, including Iconic Growth, GGV Capital, Cowboy Ventures and Costanoa Ventures. Vic.ai is jointly headquartered in New York City and Oslo, Norway. For more information, please visit http://www.vic.ai/.

Vic.ai

Food and Flavor: A Gastronomic Guide to Health and Good Living: Chapter IV 

USA v. Samuel Bankman-Fried Court Filing, retrieved on March 15, 2024 is part of . You can jump to any part in this filing . This part is 32 of 33. HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series here III. The Court Should Order Victim Compensation Through Remission as an Alternative to Restitution The Government seeks to return all stolen assets that are finally forfeited to victims of the defendant’s crimes in the most efficient manner possible. Because of the complexity of the case and the number of victims involved, awarding restitution to victims in accordance with 18 U.S.C. § 3663A would be extremely costly and administratively impractical. The cost and time associated with calculating each victim’s loss, determining whether the victim has already been compensated through the pending bankruptcy, and then paying out a percentage of the victim’s losses, will delay payment and diminish the amount of money actually paid to victims. Therefore, consistent with the Government’s frequent approach in complex cases with numerous victims, the Government moves for entry of an order authorizing the United States to compensate victims with finally forfeited assets through a remission process, as restitution would be impracticable in this case. 18 U.S.C. § 3663A(c)(3). As noted in the defendant’s submission, he consents to this request. Restitution to persons “directly and proximately harmed” by fraud and money laundering is ordinarily mandatory. See 18 U.S.C. §§ 3663A(a)(1), (c)(1)(A)(ii). In such a case, the Court is authorized to determine a restitution amount and a schedule of victims and payments. However, an order of restitution is not required when “the number of identifiable victims is so large as to make restitution impracticable,” or when imposing restitution would require “determining complex issues of fact related to the cause or amount of the victim’s losses” which “would complicate or prolong the sentencing process.” Id. § 3663A(c)(3). In those situations, instead of ordering restitution, courts have authorized the Government to compensate victims through the process of remission under the forfeiture statutes and related regulations. See, e.g., United States v. Madoff, 09 Cr. 213 (DC), Dkt. 106 & United States v. Bonventre, 10 Cr. 228, Dkt. 318 (Madoff Ponzi scheme); United States v. Sharma, 18 Cr. 340, Dkt. 407 (multi-million dollar cryptocurrency scheme); United States v. Dos Santos, 20 Cr. 398, Dkt. 283 (multi-million dollar cryptocurrency scheme). The forfeiture statutes authorize the Attorney General to “grant petitions for mitigation or remission of forfeiture, restore forfeited property to victims of a violation of this subchapter, or take any other action to protect the rights of innocent persons which is in the interest of justice and which is not inconsistent with the provisions of this section.” 21 U.S.C. § 853(i)(1). The applicable regulations are set forth in 28 C.F.R. Part 9. In order to qualify for remission, a crime victim must provide information to support specific elements, including that they suffered a specific pecuniary loss directly caused by the criminal offense, that the victim did not contribute to the offense, that the victim has not been in compensated for the loss from another means, and that the victim has no other recourse available. See generally 28 C.F.R. § 9.8(b). It is the policy of the Department of Justice, consistent with the Crime Victims’ Rights Act, to ensure that crime victims receive “full and timely restitution as provided in law.” See 18 U.S.C. § 3771(c)(1). Accordingly, when the Government seizes property in connection with a criminal case, the Government’s goal is to forfeit the property and then, in remission proceedings administered by the Attorney General through his delegee, the Chief of the Money Laundering and Asset Recovery Section of the Department of Justice’s Criminal Division (“MLARS”), to distribute funds to victims. Frequently MLARS will distribute those assets through a remission program by which victims may petition for portions of forfeited property. E.g. United States v. Sharma, 18 Cr. 340 (LGS), 2022 WL 1910026, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. June 3, 2022). In a multi-victim or complex case, the process of notifying potential victims, processing petitions, verifying losses, and recommending a distribution of available funds may be managed on behalf of the Department of Justice by a Special Master or trustee, as authorized by 28 C.F.R. § 9.9(c). While use of such means is common, there are other methods of distribution that the Department has used. In cases that also involve bankruptcy proceedings, the Department has at times worked with the bankruptcy estate to distribute forfeited assets. E.g. United States v. $7,206,157,717 on Deposit at JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., 10 Civ. 9398, Dkt. 2 (S.D.N.Y. December 17, 2010) (stipulation and court ordered settlement whereby the estate of Jeffry Picower, who had received billions of dollars from Bernie Madoff, forfeited more than $7 billion; the Government agreed to credit $5 billion in payment to the bankruptcy estate to be allocated under bankruptcy rules, and then named the trustee as administrator for the remaining funds). Victims’ interests will be best served in this case by ordering remission of finally forfeited funds and by using the remission process. The Government has been in frequent communication with MLARS about the most efficient way to do this, including by retaining a claims administrator or by transferring funds into the FTX bankruptcy estate upon specified conditions.[16] An alternative arrangement whereby restitution is calculated and distributed to victims by the Government and the Court would be nearly impossible administratively, and would come at great expense to victims’ recovery. In order to enter an order of restitution, the Court would need to determine and corroborate each victim’s losses. That would require determining and corroborating for each customer victim both the amount of funds he or she transferred to FTX, and any funds withdrawn. That task, challenging as it would ever be for the global fraud which the defendant led, is compounded here further for victims who transferred funds via cryptocurrencies, given their ever-fluctuating value. There are millions of potential victims and substantial complexity in computing each victim’s investments and withdrawals. Restitution in this case is even more complicated by the different classes of victims: FTX’s dozens of equity investors, and the Alameda lenders who often lent or received funds via cryptocurrency. Instead, a process whereby the Government distributes finally forfeited funds, either through a claims administrator or through a distribution to the bankruptcy estate, will more be efficient, and not “would complicate or prolong the sentencing process.” 18 U.S.C. § 3663A(c)(3). Continue Reading . Here [16] The creditor class in the bankruptcy overlaps substantially but is not a perfect match with the victims of the defendant’s crimes. For example, customers of FTX’s US branch are not victims of the defendant’s crimes as charged in the Indictment, but are expected to recover in the FTX bankruptcy; conversely, equity investors are victims of the charged offenses but may not recover their losses in the bankruptcy. About HackerNoon Legal PDF Series: We bring you the most important technical and insightful public domain court case filings. This court case retrieved on March 15, 2024, from is part of the public domain. The court-created documents are works of the federal government, and under copyright law, are automatically placed in the public domain and may be shared without legal restriction. storage.courtlistener

Proposed Strategy for Compensating Bankman-Fried's Victims: Remission Over Restitution

USA v. Samuel Bankman-Fried Court Filing, retrieved on March 15, 2024 is part of . You can jump to any part in this filing . This part is 16 of 33. HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series here B. The Number of Victims Enhancement Is Applicable Pursuant to Section 2B1.1(b)(2) of the Guidelines, a two-level enhancement is warranted if the offense “involved 10 or more victims” or “resulted in substantial financial hardship to one or more victims.” U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1(b)(2)(A). The PSR concluded that this enhancement applies. Section 2B1.1(b)(2) also provides that where the offense “resulted in substantial financial hardship to 25 or more victims” a six-level enhancement is warranted. U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1(b)(2)(C). Because the offense resulted in substantial financial harm to more than 25 FTX customers, depriving many of them of their life savings, the six-level enhancement is appropriate. More than 25 victims have submitted letters in which they describe such effects as an inability to make their mortgage payments, inability to support family members, and other severe financial effects from the defendant’s fraud, and this is just a small subset of the many thousands of FTX customers who suffered financial hardship as a result of the defendant’s fraud. The defendant objects to any enhancement based on substantial financial hardship to victims, relying on the Sixth Circuit’s decision in United States v. Yagar, 404 F.3d 967, 971 (6th Cir. 2005), which held that victims who “only temporarily lost funds … because their banks reimbursed them for their losses” were not “victims” under the Guidelines. (Def. Mem. at 30). However, as the defendant acknowledges, the Second Circuit has held that “individuals who have been fully reimbursed for their financial losses may be deemed victims for purposes of the sentencing enhancement set forth at U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1(b)(2).” Abiodun, 536 F.3d at 168. Distinguishing Yagar as a case where the loss was “short-lived and immediately covered,” the Second Circuit explained that the victim enhancement applies where the victims “suffered (1) an adverse effect (2) as a result of the defendant’s conduct that (3) can be measured in monetary terms.” Id. 168-69; see also United States v. Smith, 751 F.3d 107, 119 (3d Cir. 2014) (joining the Second, Ninth, and Eleventh Circuits in holding that “individuals who expend time, effort, and money before successfully obtaining reimbursement suffer an actual loss and remain victims under § 2B1.1(b)(2)”). Here, the enhancement plainly applies. None of the victims of the defendant’s fraud have received reimbursement. The defendant’s argument relies on speculation that every victim may someday be made whole through the bankruptcy. But that is not a certainty, and the defendant has not cited any authority for the proposition that the enhancement under Section 2B1.1(b)(2) does not apply when victims may someday be reimbursed. Indeed, this is not a case, as in Yagar, where the loss was “short-lived and immediately covered.” Rather, as of the sentencing, tens of thousands of victims will still be experiencing losses, despite the time, effort, and in some cases money they have spent seeking to recoup their money or file claims in bankruptcy. By cutting off these victims’ access to their life savings for over a year, the defendant has already caused substantial financial hardship to them, even if they receive some measure of reimbursement at some point in the future. Continue Reading . Here About HackerNoon Legal PDF Series: We bring you the most important technical and insightful public domain court case filings. This court case retrieved on March 15, 2024, from is part of the public domain. The court-created documents are works of the federal government, and under copyright law, are automatically placed in the public domain and may be shared without legal restriction. storage.courtlistener

Victims' Financial Hardship at Center of Bankman-Fried's Sentencing Debate

The Noonification: Ponzi Scheme Victims Beware: There Is No Such Thing As Easy Money (11/23/2023)

If something seems too good to be true, then it probably is. All the more so if that something happens to be a get-rich-quick Ponzi scheme. Although Ponzi schemes promise above-average returns, investors often end up losing their entire investment by giving in to their greed to earn higher returns. Swindlers lure unsuspecting people with a promise of higher returns only to eventually abscond with the funds. Ponzi Schemes If something seems too good to be true, then it probably is. All the more so if that something happens to be a get-rich-quick Ponzi scheme. Although Ponzi schemes promise above-average returns, investors often end up losing their entire investment by giving in to their greed to earn higher returns. Swindlers lure unsuspecting people with a promise of higher returns only to eventually abscond with the funds. What Is a Ponzi Scheme? A Ponzi scheme is an investment fraud where a fraudster collects money from people with a promise of higher than the usual market rate returns. A Ponzi scheme involves circulation of the capital instead of the distribution of profits. Such go belly up because there is no profit-making involved. schemes The principal investment by subsequent investors is given as a payout to the old investors. This type of investment is not sustainable because for it to continue to operate, there has to be a constant stream of new investors. Scheme operators often end up using cash reserves to give payouts to existing investors when they don’t find new investors. A Ponzi scheme is an investment fraud because the operators of such schemes don’t actually intend to invest their investors’ money in any legitimate investment option or give long-term payouts to their investors. A Brief History of the Ponzi Scheme: The Ponzi scheme gets its name from , an Italian swindler, who was arrested in August 1920 for several counts of fraud. Ponzi promised investors a 100% return on their investment in 90 days. He convinced people that there was money to be made by taking advantage of fluctuating currency rates post World War I. Charles Ponzi Ponzi convinced people that he would buy postal-reply coupons at a discounted rate in a foreign country and then sell them at face value in the U.S., thereby earning great profits. Postal-reply coupons were coupons that were sent along with a letter from a foreign country, which would enable the recipient of the home country to write back to the sender without having to buy foreign postage stamps. Postal-reply coupons could be exchanged for a foreign stamp without any monetary transaction. This was done to ensure that the person who had to reply to the letter didn’t have to worry about currency exchange rates while buying postage stamps. They simply had to exchange coupons for stamps. The scheme lasted for over a year before falling apart in 1920. His investors lost about  $20 million when an article in the exposed Ponzi and his criminal activities. Charles Ponzi received a 5 years prison sentence for mail fraud in 1920. Post There were several people before Ponzi, like Sarah Howe, William Miller, etc., and several others after him like Ivar Kreuger, Bernard Madoff, etc., who masterminded these schemes that swindled millions of dollars from unsuspecting investors. Ponzi Scheme Vs. Pyramid Scheme: Although a Ponzi scheme is very similar to a Pyramid scheme, the key difference between the two schemes is that in a Pyramid scheme, the existing investors are actively involved in recruiting new investors. In a Ponzi scheme, however, there is no direct participation of old investors in recruiting new investors. In a Ponzi scheme, all transactions are handled by scheme operators. In essence, a Ponzi scheme is an investment fraud and a Pyramid scheme is disguised as a Multi-Level Marketing (MLM) business. Another difference between a Ponzi scheme and a Pyramid scheme is that there is no specific product or service in a Ponzi scheme. However, in a Pyramid scheme, the scheme operators offer either a single product or service or a set of products and services from which they claim to make tremendous profits. The operators lure more and more people with a promise of a profit. However, if the scheme fails to attract new investors, it falls apart leading to people losing all the money they invested. Red Flags to Watch Out For: Here are red flags investors should watch out for: Problematic paperwork: In a Ponzi scheme, the investors aren’t usually given access to any investment-related documentation. Be it prospectus or account statements, investors are usually unaware of what happens to their money or where the operators have invested it. Operators keep investors in the dark about all investment-related decisions. Not registered: Ponzi scheme operators often claim that their investment plan is exempt from registration. An operator who claims that their investment plan doesn’t need to be registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) or other regulators should not be trusted. Pressure tactics: Most of the Ponzi scheme operators can be charismatic charlatans who can convince investors that their scheme is a limited-entry offer reserved only for a select few. They use pressure tactics to convince investors to make up their minds sooner rather than later. Operators usually convince investors that if they make a late decision, then they’ll lose out on the opportunity to make tons of money. This fear often leads people to make uninformed decisions. No risk, high returns: There is always some risk associated with investing. Any investment plan that claims otherwise should not be trusted. Also, it’s practically impossible for investors to gain above-average returns without having to bear any risk. Consistent returns: All investment plans are subject to market risk. If a scheme offers payout or dividend consistently irrespective of market fluctuations, then such a scheme is not sustainable and will fall apart sooner or later. Unclear organizational structure: Most Ponzi schemes don’t have a proper organizational structure. Investors should thoroughly research and enquire about the people operating the scheme and their backgrounds. is a big prospective learning method for the same. They should insist on talking to the board of directors or anyone who is a key member of the board and ask them questions about the investment plan before investing. Observational Learning Steps to Take to Avoid Falling Prey to a Ponzi Scheme: Investors should be extra cautious before trusting someone with their hard-earned money. To avoid walking into a trap, prospective investors should: Not cave in: It’s never wise to fall for pressure tactics. It’s always important to take enough and more time before making any financial decision. Ask questions: It’s important to ask the right questions to people in authority about where they plan to invest their investors’ money. People should ask questions about registration, documentation, and everything else that is necessary to make an investment legitimate. Look for reviews online: With the dawn of the Internet, it’s easier to differentiate a legitimate investment from an illegitimate one. Prospective investors can research an investment scheme on the Internet to check what others are saying about that scheme. If there are more negative reviews than positive, then it makes sense to stay away from such schemes. Consult a financial advisor: It helps to take a second opinion from a financial advisor. Financial advisors have the expertise required to offer appropriate guidance. They also have access to industry inside information which equips them with the necessary knowledge to help investors make a decision. Exercise caution: This can’t be emphasized enough. It’s better to be safe than sorry, always. Investors should exercise caution and not fall for marketing gimmicks. It’s always better to reach out to experts before investing. With the dawn of the Internet, it’s now easier to reach more people to pitch a scheme to. People should be careful about who they give their time to and also discourage internet or telemarketing solicitations. Anyone who is keen to invest should do so through proper channels. It helps to remember that almost all get-rich-quick schemes are a trap irrespective of how appealing they seem to be. References: https://www.hg.org/legal-articles/what-is-a-ponzi-scheme-31483 https://www.acfe.com/ponzi-schemes.aspx https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/in-ponzi-we-trust-64016168/

Ponzi Scheme Victims Beware: There Is No Such Thing As Easy Money

পঞ্জি স্কিমের ভিকটিমরা সাবধান: ইজি মানি বলে কিছু নেই

Opfer des Schneeballsystems aufgepasst: Es gibt kein leichtes Geld

Víctimas del esquema Ponzi: cuidado: no existe el dinero fácil

Attention aux victimes de la chaîne de Ponzi : l’argent facile n’existe pas

पोंजी स्कीम के शिकार सावधान: आसान पैसा जैसी कोई चीज नहीं होती

ねずみ講の被害者は気をつけてください: 簡単にお金が手に入るようなものはありません

폰지 사기 피해자들은 조심하세요: 쉽게 돈을 벌 수 있는 것은 없습니다

Vítimas do esquema Ponzi, cuidado: não existe dinheiro fácil

Жертвы схемы Понци, будьте осторожны: легких денег не бывает

Ponzi Mağdurları Dikkat: Kolay Para Diye Bir Şey Yok

Nạn nhân của kế hoạch Ponzi Hãy cẩn thận: Không có thứ gì dễ kiếm tiền

庞氏骗局受害者当心：世上没有轻松赚钱的事

SCANDAL AND ITS VICTIMS.

“Just like there’s a possibility and time for loss, there’s always time for recovery” - Jenny Brown, head of the Recovery Technical Team at BCA. ALPHARETTA, USA, November 7th, 2023/Chainwire/-- Celebrates 3 Remarkable Years of Helping Victims of Crypto Scams Recover Their Lost Crypto. Broker Complaint Alert (BCA) celebrates 3 years of offering one of the best and most remarkable crypto recovery experiences. Since BCA began operating in December 2020, it has helped over twelve thousand scam victims to recover their lost funds from scammers. Broker Complaint Alert (BCA) BCA introduced a solution that is focused on ensuring that every single scam victim who reports the scam to their platform stands a 94% chance of recovering lost funds. This innovative approach has literally proven itself to be 94% accurate. In other words, roughly 94% of all cases reported to BCA so far were successful. BCA combines the most brilliant minds within the crypto space and the best in terms of blockchain technology to help crypto scam victims recover their lost crypto assets. The BCA solution completely takes the stress off scam victims, especially victims of crypto scams, and puts smiles on their faces once again. How Broker Complaint Alert (BCA) Helps Crypto Scam Victims With Crypto Recovery Users who have lost their crypto assets or other financial assets to any form of scam can relax and put their minds at ease by allowing Broker Complaint Alert (BCA) to lead them on a journey of successfully recovering their lost funds. Broker Complaint Alert (BCA) is a prominent organization dedicated to helping and supporting victims of crypto scams, investment scams, forex scams, or any other form of financial scams to recover their stolen funds from scammers. BCA has a dedicated team of committed online consultants that offer personalized guidance, expert consultation and access to the ebay and most reputable crypto recovery companies and service providers. 5 FAQs About Crypto Recovery Answered There are many questions relating to crypto recovery, and BCA is providing answers to 5 of the most Frequently Asked Questions here; 1.) Are crypto asset recovery companies legit? Yes, crypto asset recovery companies are legit. However, not all crypto asset recovery companies are legit. Just like in every other field, there are some bad players in crypto asset recovery. That is why it is important to conduct proper research before hiring any crypto asset recovery company. 2.) Has anyone ever recovered stolen crypto? Of course, yes! Many people have been able to recover their stolen crypto. Broker Complaint Alert (BCA) has successfully helped over 12,350 people recover their stolen crypto in the last 3 years. 3.) Can a user recover his scammed crypto? Yes, a user can recover his scammed crypto. When it comes to crypto recovery, however, the user has to go about it the right way to be able to achieve success in recovering his scammed crypto. 4.) How can a user find the best crypto recovery service provider? Finding the best crypto recovery company can seem like a daunting task. And it could be, especially if a user is not searching in the right direction. The good news is that BCA saves the stress of having to waste time trying to find the best crypto recovery company alone. Individuals seeking a way to recover stolen crypto can find all the necessary information in this publication. To initiate a successful recovery of their stolen crypto, they simply need to make a report . here How to Recover Stolen Crypto Using Broker Complaint Alert (BCA) Relief Funds The relief process offered by Broker Complaint Alert (BCA) provides hope for victims of crypto scams. With up to $9 billion available for compensation, this initiative aims to bring justice and restitution to those who have suffered financial loss due to fraudulent practices in the crypto world. By understanding the relief process, victims can navigate the application process with confidence, ensuring their eligibility for financial reimbursement. BCA’s commitment to transparency and fairness further establishes them as a trusted entity within the crypto industry. Recover your scammed crypto by reporting any crypto scam to Broker Complaint Alert (BCA). BCA is the source of this content. This Press Release is for informational purposes only. The information does not constitute investment advice or endorsement. ABOUT Broker Complaint Alert (BCA) helps victims of investment fraud, forex scams, crypto scams, and any type of fraud that happened to you. BCA has helped and guided thousands of people over the past 3 years. Broker Complaint Alert (BCA) provides information on financial brokers that scam people in any country. Their online consultants work round the clock to make sure you get the right service from the right fund recovery or lawyer in their field of expertise. Broker Complaint Alert (BCA) Contact Costigliola Romualdo Broker Complaint Alert (BCA) support@brokercomplaintalert.com This story was distributed as a release by Chainwire under HackerNoon’s Business Blogging Program. Learn more about the program . here

Broker Complaint Alert(BCA) Celebrates 3 Years Of Helping Victims Of Crypto Scams

ব্রোকার কমপ্লেইন্ট অ্যালার্ট (বিসিএ) ক্রিপ্টো স্ক্যামগুলির শিকারদের সাহায্য করার 3 বছর উদযাপন করে

Broker Complaint Alert (BCA) feiert 3 Jahre Hilfe für Opfer von Krypto-Betrug

Broker Complaint Alert (BCA) celebra 3 años ayudando a las víctimas de estafas criptográficas

Broker Complaint Alert (BCA) célèbre 3 ans d'aide aux victimes d'escroqueries cryptographiques

ब्रोकर कंप्लेंट अलर्ट (बीसीए) क्रिप्टो घोटाले के पीड़ितों की मदद के 3 साल का जश्न मनाता है

Broker Complaint Alert (BCA) が仮想通貨詐欺の被害者支援 3 周年を祝う

Broker Complaint Alert(BCA)는 암호화폐 사기 피해자를 돕는 3주년을 기념합니다.

Alerta de reclamação de corretor (BCA) comemora 3 anos ajudando vítimas de fraudes criptográficas

Оповещение о жалобах брокеров (BCA) отмечает 3-летие оказания помощи жертвам крипто-мошенничества

Broker Şikayet Uyarısı (BCA), Kripto Dolandırıcılığı Mağdurlarına Yardımın 3. Yılını Kutluyor

Cảnh báo Khiếu nại Nhà môi giới (BCA) kỷ niệm 3 năm giúp đỡ nạn nhân của các vụ lừa đảo tiền điện tử

经纪商投诉警报 (BCA) 庆祝帮助加密诈骗受害者 3 周年

In the world of social media, we expect a certain level of safety and security. We trust platforms like Facebook to provide a space where we can connect with friends, share our lives, and engage with the online community. But what happens when the very platform that's meant to protect us ends up doing just the opposite? Just today, I found myself in a frustrating situation that left me baffled and infuriated. I encountered a on Facebook who was trying to pull off the typical SEO link-building scam, and I took it upon myself to report this individual for their deceptive behavior. scammer He was attempting to sell me a bunch of PBN links via a Facebook group. After checking them, I found they were all penalized domains on sites with no templates, no SSL certificates, full of spammy casino content & links, and not a single article indexed in the search engines. This parasite scammer, flogging these off as “Quality PBNs,” was well aware of what he was selling and that the PBN domains were dead. He was fully aware that he was attempting to pull off a link-building scam and knew the product was defective. Little did I know that this simple act of self-defense would result in Facebook suspending me for seven days while the scammer continued their illicit activities unhindered. Funny that this scummy parasite scam flogs called me dog and son of a bitch. Yet I got banned, and flea lives on. Let me be clear: reporting a scammer should be a no-brainer. It's something that should be encouraged and supported by all social media platforms, including Facebook. Users should feel empowered to speak out against those who are trying to deceive, manipulate, or harm them. So, imagine my shock when I found myself penalized for trying to protect myself and others from a scammer. Not only did I report the scam, but I also had some choice words for the scammer. I called him a "worthless scam beggar" and let them know that their attempts to deceive me were utterly futile. While I understand that maintaining a respectful tone in our online interactions is crucial, it's essential to recognize the intent behind my message. I was trying to protect myself and others from a potential threat. The larger issue here is . They need to invest in better moderation systems, clearer guidelines, and a more transparent reporting process to prevent innocent users from getting caught in the crossfire. Facebook's responsibility to ensure its users' safety It's not about promoting a culture of online negativity but rather about striking a balance between self-defense and community protection. Scammers and fraudsters are persistent, and it's up to social media platforms to keep up with their evolving tactics. The incident I experienced is just one example of the challenges these platforms face when handling scams and fraudulent activities effectively. Facebook, like all social media giants, should continually improve its reporting and enforcement systems to better protect its users and create a safer online environment for everyone. In the end, it's a reminder for all of us to stay vigilant and cautious in the digital world. Trust your instincts and report suspicious activity, but always be mindful of your tone when dealing with potential scammers. (Facebook will always Favour the scammer in this case - tired and proven countless times) Because of Facebook’s deplorable actions, I personally hope for a future where Facebook becomes a mere relic of the past, who can't afford their own internet connections, leeching off their neighbors' Wi-Fi. overrun by scammers It's a vision where a newer, fresher, and more socially acceptable platform takes over, one that genuinely cares about protecting its users from scams and fraudulent activities. Perhaps then, and I hope Facebook will become a digital wasteland, and they would more than deserve that fate, especially given their history with me. Let's hope that Facebook and other social media platforms learn from incidents like these so they can provide the safety and security their users deserve. In my own personal opinion. Facebook is a disgrace and a poor example of current-day social acceptance and online behavior. It protects scammers over potential victims. The platform makes me sick. Long live TikTok & LinkedIn (Where the real people go these days)

Facebook Fiasco: Banning the Victim, Not the Scammer"

VIC.AI

vic.ai

51-200 employees

Since 2017

COMPANY RANKING

VIC.AI

EVERGREEN INDEX #11649

Representing this company? Click here to claim and customize this page!

Vic.ai WIKI

Apply to get your Tech Company News Page live on HackerNoon.com today!

VIC.AI

vic.ai

51-200 employees

Since 2017

COMPANY RANKING

VIC.AI

EVERGREEN INDEX #11649

RELATED COMPANIESRANK

STORIES ABOUT VIC.AI

Representing this company? Click here to claim and customize this page!

Vic.ai WIKI

Apply to get your Tech Company News Page live on HackerNoon.com today!