Shimon Yehuda Hayut, who operated under the alias Simon Leviev, announced plans to launch a dating application called Safe Love, prompting strong opposition from the online dating industry. Hayut gained international attention after a 2022 Netflix documentary detailed his conviction for defrauding multiple women of an estimated $10 million (approximately £7 million) between 2017 and 2019. He posed on dating platforms as an heir to a diamond fortune, using luxury trips and gifts to build trust before fabricating emergencies that convinced victims to provide money and open credit lines. Each victim's funds supported the next deception in a scheme resembling a Ponzi operation.

In 2019, Hayut was arrested in Greece and extradited to Israel, where he was sentenced to 15 months in prison for theft, fraud, and document forgery, serving only five months during the coronavirus pandemic. Despite his criminal history, he appeared on the UK television program This Morning to discuss his new venture, stating that his past experiences give him unique insight into manipulation tactics. During the interview, he acknowledged his convictions but described his skills in deception as assets, saying, "I do know how to lie, I do know how to cheat and I do know how to manipulate."

The hosts of This Morning expressed strong disapproval of Hayut's comments and his decision to enter the dating industry. One host interrupted him, suggesting that Hayut appeared proud of his criminal history rather than remorseful. The discussion became heated when Hayut referred to the Netflix documentary as a "nice story," prompting the host to call the description "really distasteful" and emphasize that the experiences of the victims were anything but nice.

The controversy has drawn attention from the Online Dating and Discovery Association, which has written to Apple and Google requesting that they block any dating app associated with Hayut. The trade group argues that his involvement undermines industry efforts to combat fraud and creates risks for both platforms and users. Association chief Simon Newman stated that a convicted fraudster participating in the dating industry creates negative consequences for both platforms and users.

Hayut has publicly described himself as rehabilitated and a father of two, claiming his past experience helps him understand how to protect others from similar scams. He told British and Israeli media that his history with fraud gives him unique insight into manipulation tactics. Dating scam expert Becky Holmes criticized these claims, expressing concern that victims would be forced to see Hayut's presence in media and online spaces.

Some of the women featured in the documentary have themselves moved into fraud prevention work. Pernilla Sjöholm has worked on identity-verification technology for dating platforms, while Cecilie Fjellhøy has become an advocate for romance-fraud awareness and prevention. Ayleen Charlotte has also worked on scam-awareness initiatives. Their efforts focus on helping potential victims recognize manipulation and improving safeguards around online identities.

The planned app has not yet been established as a functioning service, and it remains unclear whether Apple or Google would approve it for their app stores. Legal consequences for Hayut have remained limited due to jurisdictional challenges and statute of limitation concerns. In September 2025, Hayut was arrested in Batumi, Georgia, but was released unconditionally by November 2025 after German prosecutors dropped cases.

The controversy centers on whether someone with a documented history of romance fraud should be permitted to create or operate a platform designed to address dating safety.

Original Sources/Tags: fashiontimes.co.uk, newsnationnow.com, ibtimes.co.uk, chewy93.substack.com, yahoo.com, uniladtech.com, icij.org, unilad.com, (simon), (netflix), (tinder), (safe), (love), (finland), (israel), (europe), (apple), (google), (online), (discovery), (association), (verification), (artificial), (intelligence), (moderation), (fraud), (deception), (manipulation), (safeguards), (documentary), (convicted), (accused), (promotion), (platform), (women), (risk), (users), (request), (response), (app), (industry), (systems), (interview), (trust), (product), (quality), (listing), (removal), (tools), (warnings)

The article provides no actionable information for a normal person. It reports that Shimon Hayut is promoting a dating app called Safe Love, but gives no steps, choices, or tools a reader can use. There are no links, resources, or practical moves available to anyone outside the dating app industry.

The article offers no educational depth. It states that Hayut was accused of deceiving women out of $10 million and was convicted in Finland and Israel, but gives no explanation of how the fraud worked, why the courts convicted him, or what factors led to those decisions. The numbers and names appear without context about the legal system or fraud prevention, leaving readers with surface facts and no understanding of the underlying systems.

The personal relevance is extremely limited. The information affects only users of dating apps, their parents, and industry regulators who must evaluate whether to list or remove apps associated with Hayut. Most readers have no stake in dating app policy decisions, and the content does not connect to safety, money management, health, or daily responsibilities in any meaningful way.

The article does not serve the public. It recounts a story about a convicted fraudster launching a new app without offering warnings, safety guidance, or responsible information. It appears designed for attention and engagement rather than public service, providing no context that helps people act responsibly or make informed decisions about their own lives.

There is no practical advice in this article. It gives no steps or tips that an ordinary reader can realistically follow. The guidance is entirely absent, and the content remains purely informational about a niche entertainment and technology topic.

The article has no long term impact. It focuses exclusively on a short term news story about a new app launch that affects a specific group of people in a particular industry. It offers no lasting benefit for planning, safety, habit improvement, or future decision making.

The emotional impact is neutral to mildly distracting. The article does not create fear or shock, but it also does not offer clarity or constructive thinking. It simply reports entertainment news without helping readers process or respond to the information in any meaningful way.

The language is not clickbait, but it does emphasize dramatic elements like fraud, deception, and a Netflix documentary to maintain reader interest without adding substance. The focus on legal arguments and industry disputes serves to keep readers engaged rather than provide genuine insight.

The article misses opportunities to teach or guide. It presents information about a fraudster launching an app but fails to provide context about how to evaluate the credibility of app developers, how to recognize red flags in dating platforms, or how to protect oneself from online scams. A person could learn more by comparing independent reviews of dating apps, examining how other platforms handle user verification, or considering general principles of digital safety and privacy protection.

Even though this article offers no help, a person can still make better choices when evaluating online services and platforms. Start by limiting how much time you spend following celebrity news and entertainment stories, since most have no impact on your daily life. Keep your attention focused on information that supports your real goals, such as understanding how to protect your personal data, recognizing common online scams, or staying informed about matters that directly affect your community. If you choose to follow entertainment news, do so as a form of casual awareness rather than a source of stress or decision making. Before making any choices based on app launches or platform changes, understand the risks and only act within your capacity to respond. Build habits that reduce distraction, such as setting time limits for reading news and turning off notifications for non-essential updates. These steps require no special knowledge and can help anyone stay grounded while still remaining informed about important social developments.

The real value in any news coverage lies not in the details of who launched what app, but in understanding the broader principles that apply to decision making in any complex situation. Whether evaluating a new service, a workplace tool, or a community resource, the same questions matter. What are the stated goals of this service? Who does it affect and how? What alternatives are available? How transparent are the providers about their reasoning? These are universal tools for judgment that no news article can provide, but that every reader can apply immediately to their own life.

When evaluating any online platform or service, start by checking who is behind it and what their track record looks like. Look for clear information about how the service protects user data and prevents fraud. If a company is vague about its safety measures or refuses to explain how it verifies user identities, that is a warning sign. Trust your instincts if something feels off, and remember that you always have the right to choose a different service. Take basic steps to protect your personal information online, such as using strong passwords and enabling two-factor authentication. If you ever feel uncertain about a service, pause before signing up and take time to research other options. Your safety and peace of mind are worth that extra effort.

The text calls Hayut a "fraud" and "con artist" many times. These words make him sound very bad. The text does not say he was found guilty in court for the big European case. It only says he was accused. This makes him look guilty before a trial. The words push the reader to think he is evil.

The text says Hayut was "accused of deceiving women across Europe out of an estimated $10 million." The word "estimated" shows this number is a guess. The text does not say how this number was found. It sounds like a fact but it is only a guess. This makes the story seem bigger and worse.

The text says Hayut was "convicted in Finland in 2015 and in Israel in 2019 on fraud-related charges." This makes it sound like he was a real criminal. But the text does not say what he was really convicted for. It only says "fraud-related charges." This hides the real facts. The reader thinks he is a big criminal.

The text says Hayut claims his "understanding of deception and manipulation can be used to design protections." This makes him sound smart and helpful. But the text does not say how he will do this. It hides the real plan. The reader may think he is trying to fix his past.

The text says the app is a "safer space for women." This makes the app sound good and kind. But the text does not say how it will be safer. It hides the real details. The reader may trust the app without proof.

The text says "specific details about its verification, moderation, or anti-fraud systems have not been publicly disclosed." This shows the app has no real proof yet. But the text still says it is safer. This is a trick. It makes the app sound good without facts.

The text says Hayut "acknowledged having no public trust." This makes him sound honest. But the text does not say he is sorry for what he did. It hides his real feelings. The reader may feel bad for him.

The text says the Online Dating and Discovery Association wrote to Apple and Google. This makes the association sound powerful. But the text does not say if Apple or Google will listen. It hides the real result. The reader thinks the app will be blocked.

The text says the association argues "allowing him to operate a dating platform poses a real risk to users." This makes the risk sound real and big. But the text does not say what the risk is. It hides the real danger. The reader may fear the app.

The text says the dating industry "has already implemented safeguards such as verification systems, artificial intelligence tools, and in-app warnings." This makes the industry sound safe. But the text does not say if these tools work. It hides the real proof. The reader may trust the industry.

The text says Apple and Google "have not yet announced their response." This makes them sound neutral. But the text does not say if they will act. It hides the real choice. The reader may think they are waiting.

The text says Hayut is "promoting a new dating application called Safe Love." The name "Safe Love" sounds kind and good. But the text does not say if the app is really safe. It hides the real truth. The reader may trust the name.

The text says Hayut is "positioning his history of fraud as relevant experience." This makes him sound clever. But the text does not say if this is true. It hides the real plan. The reader may think he is smart.

The text says the documentary is "The Tinder Swindler." This makes the story sound exciting. But the text does not say if the film is fair. It hides the real view. The reader may trust the film.

The text says Hayut was "convicted in Finland in 2015." This makes him sound like a real criminal. But the text does not say what he did in Finland. It hides the real facts. The reader may think he is very bad.

The text carries a quiet sadness that begins with the description of how Hayut deceived women across Europe, where words like "deceiving" and "estimated $10 million" paint a picture of people who suffered financial and emotional harm for a long time, and this sadness deepens when the text lists his past convictions in Finland and Israel, which make the reader feel that real damage was done and that some form of justice eventually came through the courts, though the harm to the victims remains. Anger appears in the plain statement that Hayut is "promoting a new dating application called Safe Love, positioning his history of fraud as relevant experience," a phrase that assigns blame directly and makes the reader feel that someone who caused pain is now trying to profit again, while the detail that he claims to understand deception and manipulation to build protections sharpens this anger by showing how he turns his crimes into a sales pitch. Fear emerges subtly when the text mentions that the Online Dating and Discovery Association wrote to Apple and Google, creating a sense that powerful people might be protected by the system, and this fear makes readers worry about fairness in how laws are applied when someone with a criminal past can still launch a business. Relief enters when the text says Hayut acknowledged having no public trust and stated that he would need to prove himself through the quality of the product, a sequence that moves the reader from worry to cautious hope through clear action words that show he is aware of his reputation and wants to earn it back. Satisfaction follows in the association's request that Apple and Google refuse to list any app associated with Hayut, where the court's decision is described as welcomed by the association, a phrase that signals justice has been done and invites the reader to agree that protecting users is more important than giving second chances.

These emotions guide the reader by first opening a space for sympathy through the measurable suffering of the victims, then turning that sympathy into outrage at Hayut's actions, then offering concern about whether the system will protect people, then confirming that groups are trying to act, and finally planting a warning that the law will step in if needed. The sadness makes the reader care about the victims. The anger makes the reader want accountability. The fear makes the reader worry about fairness. The relief makes the reader trust that voices are being raised. The satisfaction makes the reader feel the outcome is fair. Together they move the reader from concern to confidence in the process and the result.

The writer persuades by choosing words that carry emotional weight while sounding factual. The phrase "positioning his history of fraud as relevant experience" sounds more extreme than "using his past as experience" and carries professional authority. "Deceiving women across Europe out of an estimated $10 million" replaces vague descriptions with precise evidence that feels undeniable. The passive construction "has not been publicly disclosed" hides the people who acted and keeps focus on the lack of proof. The contrast between the normal ranges and the actual measurements makes the neglect visible without accusation. The final declaration that the association argues the app "poses a real risk to users" uses absolute language that leaves no room for exception. These choices make the text appear neutral while steering the reader's feelings toward sympathy, outrage, relief, approval, and caution, all in service of showing that the law protects people and will enforce that protection.

The writer uses several tools to make these emotions stronger. Repeating the idea that Hayut was "convicted" and "accused" makes the problem feel real and measurable rather than abstract, which deepens concern. Describing the harm with exact numbers such as "$10 million" makes the neglect feel undeniable, while the repeated refusal to disclose verification systems makes the protection feel intentional. The contrast between examining 22 accused but not Hayut creates a sense of unfairness that makes readers feel uneasy about the court's choices. All of these techniques steer the reader's attention toward questions of fairness and accountability, making the legal outcome feel like a moral issue rather than just a procedural decision.

The text also uses comparison to increase emotional impact. It compares Hayut's past fraud to his new app, making it seem like he is trying to profit from the same behavior that hurt people. This comparison makes the reader feel that his actions were unfair. The writer also makes the situation sound more extreme by saying he is "positioning his history of fraud as relevant experience," which makes the reader think the problem is very serious and that Hayut did something very wrong. These tools help the writer control how the reader feels and thinks about the case. The emotions and writing tricks work together to make the reader believe that the victims are the good guys and Hayut is the bad guy. This makes the message more convincing and helps the writer get the reader to agree with the association's side.