FTC Sues Operator of Sextortion Relief Scheme for Misleading Consumers into Believing it Would Identify Criminals and End Sextortion Attacks

A federal court has granted the Federal Trade Commission’s request to temporarily halt the activities of Digital Forensics Corporation LLC and its CEO for allegedly defrauding consumers out of millions of dollars using false and deceptive promises relating to “sextortion assistance services.”

Sextortion is a rapidly growing threat to Americans, routinely carried out by foreign scammers who threaten to publish a nude or sexual image of the victim unless the victim pays the criminal. 

In a complaint the FTC alleges that Digital Forensics, along with its owner Dmitry Belkin and several affiliated companies, misled victims of sextortion into paying at least $60 million by falsely claiming that it would provide sextortion assistance services.

“Digital Forensics preys on consumers already in crisis, exploiting victims of sextortion by using fear to pressure them into paying thousands of dollars for services that are never provided,” said Christopher Mufarrige, Director of the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection. “The FTC is committed to protecting consumers from sextortion and other crimes involving non-consensual intimate visual images. That includes taking action against companies that take advantage of consumers experiencing a crisis and engage in deceptive practices that prey on victims’ vulnerability and use abusive tactics that exacerbate the harm.”

The FTC alleged that Digital Forensics pushed victims to purchase a “Phase 1” package of sextortion assistance services, which was supposed to include tracking the sextortionist’s location, communicating with the sextortionist, producing a detailed investigative report and reporting the crime to law enforcement. Despite charging consumers between $1,499 and $20,000, as alleged in the complaint, Digital Forensics, in numerous instances, did not perform the promised services. 

After collecting payment for Phase 1, Digital Forensics then pressured victims to pay for “Phase 2” services, which supposedly would include ongoing monitoring of the victims’ accounts and reporting sextortion attacks to law enforcement. The FTC alleges Digital Forensics did not follow through on its promises. To hide these failures and maintain its public reputation, Digital Forensics suppressed negative reviews by its customers and generated thousands of fake positive online reviews, according to the complaint.   

The FTC’s complaint alleges that Digital Forensics uses advertisements on search, video sharing and social media platforms such as Google, YouTube and X to target sextortion victims looking for help. The company allegedly advertises that it can “track down cyber criminals across the world [and] beat them” and “identify [perpetrators] with a high degree of success [and] give law enforcement the evidence they need to make arrests.” Instead, Digital Forensics often simply blocked the sextortionist on the victims’ social media accounts—which victims can do themselves—created fake chat transcripts, used made-up investigative information and did not contact law enforcement, according to the complaint.

Consumers are told, the FTC alleges, not to pay the sextortionist but instead to contact Digital Forensics “right away” to let the experts “fight back.” Digital Forensics also allegedly tells consumers not to block sextortionists online and instead let the company handle it by continuing to communicate with the sextortionist, which is contrary to the advice of the FBI and other law enforcement experts.

Specifically, the FTC alleges Digital Forensics unlawfully: 

• Made false promises about its sextortion assistance services: Digital Forensics made false promises including that it would communicate with sextortionists on behalf of the consumer, conduct a “tracking campaign” to gather accurate details on the sextortionist and report the sextortionist’s illegal activity to law enforcement to stop the sextortion attack. But the company routinely took little or no action to stop the sextortion attack and faked the data reported to consumers in its “report.” When consumers demanded a refund, Digital Forensics failed to honor its own refund policy.   
• Conducted a telemarketing campaign that preyed on victims of sextortion: On phone calls with consumers, Digital Forensics’ telemarketers use scare tactics tailored to consumers’ “pain points” to pressure consumers into paying exorbitant prices for services the company routinely does not deliver. For example, if the victim is a military servicemember, telemarketers warn that the sextortion attack can result in a dishonorable discharge, or if the victim is married, they claim that the sextortionist will target the victim’s spouse and in-laws.
• Collected financial information using false statements: Defendants obtained consumers’ financial information using false statements about their services and charged consumers for services they never completed. 
• Generated fake positive consumer reviews: Defendants misled consumers by using employees based in India to write fake reviews, purchasing positive reviews from Uber drivers who had never bought or used Defendants’ services and coercing customers into posting positive reviews before they had actually received any services from Digital Forensics.  

The FTC alleges that Belkin, Digital Forensics and affiliated companies violated the FTC Act, the Telemarketing Sales Rule, the Reviews and Testimonials Rule and the Gramm-Leach- Bliley Act.

The Commission vote authorizing the staff to file the complaint was 2-0. The complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio against Belkin, Digital Forensics, 1^st All Data Recovery LLC, 1st All File Recovery USA Inc., I & D Belkin LLC, Remote Backup Corp LLC, Digital Cyber Forensics Investigations LLC, Cyber Digital Forensics Response LLC, 1st All Investments LLC, Salon Place LLC, VPR Academy LLC, 21111 Chagrin Investments LLC and 4350 Renaissance LLC.

The FTC thanks the Better Business Bureau Serving Greater Cleveland and the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children for their assistance in this investigation.

NOTE: The Commission files a complaint when it has “reason to believe” that the named defendants are violating or are about to violate the law and it appears to the Commission that a proceeding is in the public interest. The case will be decided by the court.