Fraud Journalism: Why David Marchant's

OffshoreAlert Lies is a Virus that we

Played Host
Journalism and digital media have become complicit in spreading falsehood and various conspiracy
theories in the recent past. With the growing trend of independent journalism, mainstream media face
an epistemic crisis, where specific individuals and websites often spread fabricated information.

One such media outlet is OffshoreAlert, owned by David Merchant. OffshoreAlert has mastered the art
of embarrassing and fawning individuals or companies- all because of the fame and money he gets from
collusion.

OffshoreAlert is meant to advance partisan agenda by exposing individuals and companies across the
U.S. and other parts of the world. In contrast, the majority of what it reveals often indicates shadowy
entitlement that masquerades the legitimacy of mainstream or local news media.

Various findings on the website's credibility from non-partisan engagements indicate the entity has
unreliable news sources to purvey misleading information.

The following are key reasons why David Marchant is a fraud to journalism and is set out to destroy
people's identities or defame companies by spreading false information about them:

First, David Marchant is the owner of a Sleazy Paid Blog, Making Money by Ruining People's Reputation.
While reputation precedes their investments or opportunities for other journalists, Marchant's interest
in money supersedes any form of reputation management.

When someone is building their business, the first thing they look at is providing customers with stellar
services or products. When the company operates at high standards, they receive a reputation, and
other people can duly trust and rely on its services. However, the online reviews by customers of
OffshoreAlert indicate how David Merchant's website continues to swindle people's money in the name
of subscriptions for news updates.

For instance, in the case of TimF. Of Denver, US, in 2011, who responded to services received from the
website by indicating that "The publisher of the Offshore Alert Newsletter, David Marchant, claims to be
a journalist exposing wrong-doers, when in fact he is TOTAL FRAUD himself. I signed up/paid to receive
his newsletter (yes, me and about 25 other people, total) only to find out that Mr. Marchant makes up
crap about successful businessmen and organizations, seemingly to make their lives difficult."

Another review on the website from Mosad of U.S. on May 05, 2020, indicates that "I was approached
by David Marchant, the owner of Offshore Alert, at their last conference. He said he was willing to pay
for information on company activity, trading, news, etc., even if fake, or defamatory. I asked why he
wanted news of this nature, he said that any news would sell and bring revenue! True or fake. What
about the victims I asked, he said he does not care about them, "he can make money from their misery"
he said."
As a business owner, you will be concerned with building a reputation by engaging in effective deals and
not by fraudulent means. However, this is not who David Marchant's- his target is ruining other people's
lives by spreading unverified information, provided he earns some pennies from that information.

Secondly, David Marchant is not a real journalist; he is not registered in any journalists' body such as the
Society of Professional Journalists in the USA and does not respect any ethical rules or code of ethics.

Any ethical journalist in America has responsibility and rights in their journalism life. An excellent place
to understand what this means for most of them is through the Society of Professional Journalists' codes
of ethics. Thousands of them have voluntarily subscribed and embraced these codes in the U.S.

Unfortunately, David Marchantis not one of them, giving us the reason to believe his approach to
journalism is based on dishonesty and unfair gatherings, interpretation, and reporting of untrue and
unjust information.

An even nefarious example of this can be in comments by JRBAILEY of Eustis, US, on September 09,
2011, who noted that "David Marchant IS a" journalist." I say that with conviction because all you need
to do to qualify as a journalist in this country is to publish a "newsletter" on the web. There is no
necessity to study, there are no exams, no criteria, no checks and balances... and short of a law suit for
libel, there is no recourse to address the crap a "journalist" can publish."

Similarly, David Marchant has shown obstruction of justice by escaping potential arrest in previously
resided countries. He moved to Miami from England only to escape prosecution by his victims.

David Marchant has constantly used his news channel to humiliate anyone worldwide. Having started
his work in the United Kingdom, he moved to Bermuda after facing multiple defamation charges in
England, Canada, and the Cayman Islands. Unfortunately, he has never been able to pay the costs or
damages caused by disinformation, apologize, or even retract information after losing these cases.

He's now moved to Miami, where he purports to investigate various financial frauds in the U.S. The
biggest question remains, why did Marchant flee England and Bermuda without first clearing with his
plaintiffs?

There will always be doubts about where David Marchant resides as long as he keeps moving after
crossing with the authorities. Although we understand he currently lives in the U.S, his address cannot
be ascertained, and we don't know where he might be moving next based on previous experiences. A
comment by JRBAILEY in 2011 notes that "Mr. Marchant does not have an office in Miami - that is a
figment of his imagination. The address he provides is a re-mail address in Miami. He actually lives
somewhere else. If you would like his home address and phone number I can provide it."

Also, David Marchant has a bad reputation, particularly from internet reviews on the OffshoreAlert.com
website. Customer rating plays a vital role in telling us the kind of person or business in question in the
current internet world.

For the past few years, customers have relied on reviews to rank the legitimacy and reputation of the
OffshoreAlert website. Ignoring these reviews in the present world can dent your business.
Unfortunately, customer reviews in this space show consumers were dissatisfied with the kind of
services they got from David Marchant.
While reviewing the website, one customer named Dishonest Publications writes, "January 15/2015 -
Hello Complaints Board. Well, I accidentally found your website. I can see you have an excellent service.
As to your "Category of Complaint" I could not find a title to fit. To clarify, I have a serious complaint
against Offshore alert publication - owner David Marchant. I am presently working on all of the papers
and evidence I need to send to you for publication. This is complex and this is going to take several
weeks to get everything in logical order."

If this were an issue from one customer rating the website negatively, we would have no issue with the
Merchant's way of doing this. Still, negativity is filled across the website, indicating who David Marchant
is in the business world.

Consequently, any blogs' credibility would be taken as a critical element for the success or failure of a
business. David Marchant and his blog have no credibility. His news is never picked up by serious
newspapers but at most by some of his henchmen.
The primary desire of any serious newspaper or media source is to access fact-based and honest
journalism that can never be questioned. Previous engagements with David Marchant's coverage show a
downward spiral in ascertaining their credibility on cases they covered.
For instance, Dale Peters writes to OffshoreAlert, " To suggest, as you have done, that companies
based in the TCI are crooked until proven otherwise is totally misleading and demonstrably and
palpably false … If the balance of your efforts bear no more resemblance to reality than those
with respect to the TCI I suggest the existence of [OffshoreAlert] will be brief and its demise
swift, just and certain."
No media house would want to associate themselves with this kind of news headline where there
is no truth and could lead to a more severe crisis.
Another issue is that David Marchant peddles ultimate lies about his might to win any case inside the
legal systems. He claims to have never lost a lawsuit against the victims of his articles, but it is not valid.
The Libel Complaint involving Timothy Schools V. David Marchant et al. at the British High Court on
November 22, 2012, is one of such cases he lost and left OffshoreAlert highly exposed for their massive
claims on damages.
With the majority of the financial cases still pending in court, more than 90%, Merchant cannot take
credit for never losing a case when there is still much to come. There is also a need to make these
documents public and not just say he has won all of his claims without any absolute truth.
While objectivity in journalism is a vital element as it helps audiences make up their minds about a
particular story or idea, Marchant's posts do not objectively represent the facts. He deliberately casts
the victims of his articles in a false light, creating sensationalism with catchy headlines to generate an
audience, attract new visitors to his blog, and induce them to subscribe.
The media outlet ignores most facts and conflicts in modern society by giving negligible coverage to
financial matters. It is the work of David Marchant to reflect his audiences in his posts accurately.
Instead, he gets a negative spiral of criticisms from his clients that does not indicate accuracy and
objectivity.
Furthermore, any accused person should get a chance to respond to claims made against them. The
right to reply is critical in offering individuals unfairly criticized or defamed the right to respond and their
response published in the same media outlet.
While other media outlets follow this rule strictly, David Marchant's outlet does not grant an effective
right of reply. He writes an email to his victims warning them that he will publish a post and ask them to
answer his questions in a couple of hours (!)
The purpose is obvious: he is not interested in his victims' version, and he is not interested in accurately
reconstructing the facts. In short: he is not interested in the truth but only in making money in people's
lives. On the other hand, one wonders how much confidence a victim can have in telling a similar figure
his version of the facts, knowing that everything he says will be misrepresented and used to further fuel
media looting.
Moreover, we live in an online environment, where there is a constant deluge of information from
different sources; it is wise to verify their content. By his admission, he never rectifies his articles. On the
contrary, if his victims write to him to ask him to correct or delete articles because they contain false or
inaccurate information, he takes the opportunity to publish their request by putting them in the pillory,
increasing the number of articles.
Since no one is perfect in their work, we expect someone dealing with such high-value financial claims
with the capability of defaming other people's lives to admit to mistakes whenever an investigation is
complete, and no proof is gathered to support their case. However, David Marchant arrogantly notes
that "David and/or OffshoreAlert have been sued multiple times for defamation in the Cayman Islands,
Canada, England, Grenada, Panama and the USA and have never paid one cent in costs or damages to
the plaintiffs and never published an apology or retraction regarding articles being complained about."
In addition to this, Marchant understands what false attacks on an individual or company can do to
affect their identity severely. However, he never shows concern about that; even when the case of his
victims evolves positively, he minimizes the facts, making malicious allusions about how they have
resolved their problems and still leaving the previous articles intact. 
Nevertheless, David Marchant constantly shows lack of respect for the presumption of innocence and
does not give any benefit of the doubt. In contemporary society, the idea of innocence is an integral part
of the laws. If there is a doubt in a particular case, David Marchant should allow the accused parties a
benefit of the doubt and clear them on the burden of proof.
However, this is not the case for almost all his subjects. He has no sensitivity to the judicial ordeal of
people who may be innocent. It is not even a question of bias; he is interested in having discovered a
new victim to put in the pillory. If this was the perfect person, as he claims, he should understand the
importance of refraining from prejudging the outcomes of his trials to allow the accused a fair trial.
Instead, he is all over the media making public statements to affirm his clients' guilt when the cases have
not yet been determined.
To add to that, Marchant doesn't care about the right to privacy, the respect of the private sphere, the
protection of the personality of his victims, the personal, family, and economic consequences of his
articles. People's lives don't matter to him. The only thing that counts is the number of subscribers he
gets to his channel.
Yes, everyone can agree there are scraps of evidence against the accused, but his approach to
unraveling the truth translates to a game of gaining more subscribers to his media channel than guided
by the rule of law.
As much as David Marchant is a specialist in tracking financial fraudsters, he constantly displays
negligence, incompetence, and dishonesty when dealing with individuals. He has no scruples about
ruining other people's reputations. Not once or twice has David Marchant found his way into the
corridors of the legal system for defamatory and false statements intended to harm other people's
reputations.
A good example is Kellermann, who has struggled to restore his reputation since the Ponzi claims hit his
back. To this, Cobus Kellermann admits that "He ruined my career, my reputation, my family, my
balance sheet ... my life."

Lest investigations are done, and there is definitive proof to associate a suspect with schemes of such
magnitude as the Ponzi scheme; media reporters cannot instigate investigations and run defamatory
statements on a suspect as OffshoreAlert did. And even when the case has been positively determined
in favor of the accused, David Marchant claimed he could not own up to the defamatory claims and give
an apology.

It is also a grave concern that OffshoreAlert fabricates and spreads false information for political
mileage. David Marchant has applied a hypocritical ethic against the whole offshore world without
distinction and insight.
A seemingly fraudulent entity, 'Offshore Alert' with its roots in Britain, purports to investigate all
commercial enterprises and groups from different parts of the world. Then, how are we expected to
believe in its intellectual expression if there is no sign of identity in other offshore countries? David
Marchant should make a recognizable distinction in his 'offshore' expression.
Nevertheless, there should be a reason for someone of David Marchant's stature to understand the
essential elements of the economy between countries before exposing specific schemes to the public.
The economic approach in some of these countries is highly dependent on the rich and developed
countries. However, his reports have no sympathy for any developing countries that seek to attract
investment to improve the conditions of their people. Some information need to be verified and
distinguished before it makes its way to the media and public.
In addition, David Marchant's's criticisms to other countries do not consider what is happening at home.
Like an old saying goes, “charity begins at home.” Marchant focuses heavily on other countries fragility,
conflict, and fraud across the borders without setting his eyes on what is happening in his home country.
Some structures and frameworks in the U.S. sanitize fraud he purports to investigate on offshore
countries.
As if this isn't enough, David Marchant's portrayal of himself seems like he is the world's savior, as the
purest of the pure, believing that he is invested with a moralizing mission. No, this is not the case! His
deceit and connections to love for money by his subscribers show the behavior of an identity scammer,
turning his tactics to unsuspecting parties in the name of instigating standards.

For Marchant, everything is about money, and it's not always business as usual when his blogs are not
earning him more every day. For that reason, he organizes conventions of exalted people like himself
with speeches that reach sectarian levels. But this is the extreme brutality against audiences expecting
the ideologies of these conventions to be bound by truth and law.

Conclusion:

Is all this journalism? No, it is simply trash! Indeed, more, it is vulgar looting.
What credibility can such a person have? What respect can we have for such a person? Absolutely none.
Claims by OffshoreAlert are outlandish, but many could consider them blatant fraud. But the damage
they are causing right now is cumulative. Allowing Offshore to continue pretending to be a legitimate
news source casts doubt on the trustworthiness and integrity of other sources, to a large extent, will
result in most extraordinary apathy and mistrust in journalism.