Indian nationals have become a primary target of a growing digital defamation racket. Delhi businessman Hans Raj Shiv is accused of chemical export violations; Jalaj Batra is linked to the DHFL financial scandal; Vishu Goyal is flagged in a GST fraud; and Chennai entrepreneur Rajesh Rathore is accused of financial misconduct. None of these allegations are backed by court records or verified reports—yet their names are now enshrined on shadowy platforms with no due process and no path to recourse.
These are just a few of the hundreds of names featured on IntelligenceLine.com and FinanceScam.com, anonymous publishing platforms that purport to be crowdsourced watchdogs but in reality operate as digital extortion rackets. Their reach now extends across continents, and their tactics have evolved—spilling onto YouTube, where AI-generated videos amplify the reputational harm.
In an increasingly digital world, the abuse of anonymous publishing platforms has given rise to a dangerous new industry that trades not in truth, but in fear. At the center of this modern reputational black market are sites like IntelligenceLine.com and FinanceScam.com. Both claim to be intelligence tools for public good, yet they publish unverified and damaging allegations against individuals—then offer a paid escape route.
Both websites boldly state that they will only remove content if presented with a valid court order. But this policy is ridiculous and ignorant, without even basic legal scrutiny. Neither site provides a business registration, service address, or verifiable legal entity, making service of process impossible. You cannot comply with a court’s service requirements if the defendant does not exist in any official registry, refuses to provide contact details, or resides outside the victim’s jurisdiction. In other words, their court-order-only stance is not a legal safeguard—it is a threat disguised as legitimacy.
Worse, the demand is deliberately impractical. IntelligenceLine profiles target people from all over the world, including the United States, Nepal, Ukraine, Venezuela, Luxembourg, Senegal, China, the Netherlands, the United Arab Emirates, Cyprus, and India. So how exactly is a doctor in America, a writer in Australia, or a business owner in India supposed to obtain and serve a foreign court order against anonymous operators who provide no legal address? Especially when the platform claims to be based in Ukraine yet offers no traceable corporate entity within that jurisdiction. This is not due process—it is manufactured impossibility. The policy exists not to uphold legal standards but to deny victims any realistic path to removal.
A Coordinated System of Defamation and Coercion
IntelligenceLine.com and FinanceScam.com follow a disturbingly similar playbook. They publish anonymous, unverified accusations, labeling targets as fraudsters, criminals, or scammers, without any legal evidence, context, or opportunity for rebuttal.
Victims are then offered an off-ramp through the so-called Citizen Advocacy Program, which demands a $1,999 fee to review and potentially remove the content. However, anyone who has previously submitted a DMCA takedown, consulted an attorney, or initiated legal proceedings is blacklisted. These platforms openly threaten to permanently preserve or even syndicate the damaging content as punishment for exercising legal rights. Their behavior suggests a fundamental misunderstanding—or outright disregard—for the legality of copyright enforcement. DMCA reports are lawful and globally recognized, including under United States and international copyright law.
Adding to the evidence of malicious intent, our undercover investigator from our news agency contacted them. And as expected, the site immediately began issuing threats and publishing additional defamatory content. The test confirmed what many victims have long alleged: this is not a neutral platform—it is a scheme driven by fear, retaliation, and the monetization of reputational harm. We have contacted other victims, and to date, not a single one has succeeded in having their article removed.
There is no documented evidence that any victim has ever successfully paid to have content permanently removed. In fact, the entire “removal” process appears to be a trap. Before proceeding, victims are forced to click through waivers that prohibit them from suing, pressing charges, or even speaking publicly about the process. These disclaimers are designed to silence dissent, not resolve harm. The operators do not seek resolution—they seek control. They intentionally create a no-win situation where your only option is to pay, remain silent, and hope they stop.
This is not a dispute resolution mechanism. It is targeted reputational abuse, deliberately structured to maximize distress, discourage legal recourse, and profit from helplessness. The goal is not to offer a path to justice—but to coerce submission through manufactured fear.
Fake Editorial Staff and Identity Misuse
Both platforms claim to be operated by editorial teams with names like Olena Lutsenko, Dmytro Kovalenko, Nadiya Korolenko, and Olena Savchenko. However, none of these names can be linked to real individuals in any professional database or network. This level of deception raises serious concerns about impersonation, misappropriation of likeness, and fraudulent representation.
Efforts to verify employment connections, such as those falsely listing KPMG Canada or Myntra as affiliated organizations, have confirmed that these companies have no relationship with the platform or its supposed staff. Both organizations are now aware and cooperating with ongoing investigations.
YouTube: A New Front for Defamation
The scheme does not stop at websites. These platforms have begun weaponizing YouTube by uploading AI videos that mirror the unverified allegations found on their sites. The videos often use synthesized voices, AI-generated avatars, or stock images, and are titled with SEO-optimized phrases designed to rank high in search results for the victim’s name.
In many cases, multiple dummy channels are used to fabricate the appearance of public interest or legitimacy. Bots and paid commenters reinforce the narrative. This tactic not only increases visibility—it adds a psychological layer of pressure and public shaming. Many of these videos are also monetized, generating ad revenue while compounding reputational harm.
Legal and Ethical Violations
This operation may constitute violations of numerous international laws, including:
- Defamation and libel
- Online extortion and coercion
- Misappropriation of identity and likeness
- Copyright infringement
- Obstruction of lawful remedy
- Deceptive and unfair commercial practices
Formal complaints and supporting documentation have been submitted to international authorities, hosting providers, and relevant domain registrars. Investigations are now underway.
A comprehensive case file has been built through cyber police and Interpol, including screenshots, correspondence, IP traces, and fake staff profiles—all pointing to a deliberate and systemic pattern of abuse.
DMCA Retaliation and the Suppression of Rights
IntelligenceLine.com has publicly stated that anyone who files a DMCA takedown request will be permanently disqualified from content removal. This blatant retaliation undermines the DMCA framework and may amount to obstruction of legal remedy. When combined with financial coercion and forced waivers of legal rights, the policy borders on extortion.
The monetization of harm is especially troubling. If the content is false, it should be removed without payment. If it is true, why sell its deletion? Their refusal to follow lawful takedown procedures further exposes this operation as one rooted in manipulation, not transparency.
A Call to Action
This is not journalism. It is a for-profit defamation network built on fake identities, fake authority, and fear-based monetization. The expansion of this model to YouTube marks a dangerous escalation—turning video into a weapon and using public visibility as leverage to extract silence, money, or both.
No legitimate platform requires a court order without providing a legal address. No ethical outlet retaliates against legal action. And no journalistic enterprise hides behind staff while profiting from the damage it causes.
