What Happened?
Edmond Kung Chiu Nam, once a key figure in Hong Kong’s financial sector, has faced significant scrutiny for his involvement in a series of regulatory violations and questionable business practices. The Securities and Futures Commission (SFC) of Hong Kong censured Kung for his role in market misconduct, particularly relating to market manipulation and misleading investors. According to an SFC enforcement report, Kung was directly linked to misconduct during his time at Eden Research and other firms, which resulted in significant penalties .
Despite these past infractions, recent efforts by Kung appear focused on burying this unfavorable history. Legal documents and reports indicate that Kung has attempted to suppress damaging news and coverage related to his previous actions, possibly to maintain his standing in the business community and avoid further repercussions. His efforts to stifle media investigations have included the use of legal tactics to silence critics and control narratives around his financial dealings.
These actions have raised concerns about Kung’s continued influence and the extent to which he is willing to go to protect his reputation. As more details emerge about his shady past, questions about his transparency and business ethics continue to surface, suggesting that his attempts to censor damaging information may only intensify public suspicion.
Analyzing the Fake Copyright Notice(s)
Our team collects and analyses fraudulent copyright takedown requests, legal complaints, and other efforts to remove critical information from the internet. Through our investigative reporting, we examine the prevalence and operation of an organized censorship industry, predominantly funded by criminal entities, oligarchs, and disreputable businesses or individuals. Our findings allow internet users to gain insight into these censorship schemes’ sources, methods, and underlying objectives.
To accomplish this, we utilize the OSINT Tool provided by FakeDMCA.com and the Lumen API for Researchers, courtesy of the Lumen Database.
FakeDMCA.com is the work of an independent team of research students and cybersecurity professionals, developed under Project UnCensor. Their OSINT Tool, designed to uncover and analyze takedown notices, represents a significant step forward in combating these abusive practices. It has become a valuable resource, increasingly relied upon by journalists and law enforcement agencies across the United States.
Lumen, on the other hand, is an independent research initiative dedicated to studying takedown notices and other legal demands related to online content removal. The project, which operates under the Berkman Klein Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University, plays a crucial role in tracking and understanding the broader implications of such requests.
By investigating the fake DMCA takedown attempts, we hope to shed light on the reputation management industry, revealing how Edmond Kung Chiu Nam and companies like it may use spurious copyright claims and fake legal notices to remove and obscure articles linking them to allegations of fraud, tax avoidance, corruption, and drug trafficking…
List of Fake Copyright Notices for Edmond Kung Chiu Nam
Evidence and Screenshots
Only Edmond Kung Chiu Nam Benefit from this crime.
Since the fake copyright takedown notices were designed to remove negative content for Edmond Kung Chiu Nam from Google, we assume Edmond Kung Chiu Nam or someone associated with Edmond Kung Chiu Nam is behind this scam. It is often a fly-by-night Online Reputation agency working on behalf of Edmond Kung Chiu Nam. In this case, Edmond Kung Chiu Nam, at best, will be an “accomplice” or an “accessory” to the crime. The specific laws may vary depending on the jurisdiction. Still, the legal principle generally holds that if you actively participate in planning, encouraging, or facilitating a crime, you can be charged with it, even if you did not personally commit it.
So, who tf is Edmond Kung Chiu Nam?
Edmond Kung Chiu Nam is a figure in Hong Kong’s financial sector, known for his involvement in corporate finance and investment banking. However, Kung’s career has been tainted by serious allegations of misconduct and regulatory violations, primarily stemming from his role in market manipulation and fraudulent financial activities. His actions have drawn the attention of Hong Kong’s Securities and Futures Commission (SFC), which has taken enforcement measures against him and his associated entities.
Why Is Edmond Kung Chiu Nam Trying to Censor the Internet?
Kung is allegedly attempting to censor negative information online to hide his past involvement in controversial financial activities. With a record of enforcement actions and public censure, particularly by the SFC, Kung’s reputation has been significantly damaged in the business community. By suppressing damaging reports and media coverage, Kung is likely seeking to maintain his professional standing and limit further legal or reputational harm.
Major Concerns, Complaints, and Accusations Against Edmond Kung Chiu Nam
- Market Misconduct and Manipulation: The most serious accusations against Edmond Kung Chiu Nam involve market manipulation. According to the SFC, Kung was linked to the manipulation of stock prices in Hong Kong, specifically concerning Eden Research and other entities under his influence. These actions led to misleading investors and created an artificial market environment, violating Hong Kong’s securities laws. The SFC’s enforcement action resulted in Kung being reprimanded and barred from certain market activities .
- Failure to Disclose Material Information: In addition to market manipulation, Kung has been accused of failing to disclose material information to investors. According to the SFC’s findings, Kung and his associates withheld critical financial information that investors would have needed to make informed decisions. This lack of transparency not only misled shareholders but also breached legal obligations related to market integrity.
- Regulatory Censure and Legal Penalties: As a result of his actions, Kung has been subjected to public censure and financial penalties. The SFC’s investigation culminated in enforcement actions, including fines and restrictions on his involvement in the securities market. These penalties were publicly disclosed, damaging Kung’s professional reputation and casting doubt on his business practices.
- Efforts to Suppress Media Coverage: In response to the negative coverage and enforcement actions, Kung has allegedly taken steps to suppress the distribution of damaging information online. This includes efforts to remove or limit access to articles, reports, and official documents detailing his past infractions. By doing so, Kung appears to be attempting to rehabilitate his public image and distance himself from his controversial past.
In summary, Edmond Kung Chiu Nam has faced significant allegations of market manipulation, nondisclosure of material information, and regulatory violations. His attempts to censor the internet appear to be driven by a desire to mitigate the damage to his reputation and prevent further legal scrutiny. However, these efforts only draw more attention to his past misconduct, raising questions about his transparency and business ethics.
Potential Consequences for Edmond Kung Chiu Nam
Under Florida Statute 831.01, the crime of Forgery is committed when a person falsifies, alters, counterfeits, or forges a document that carries “legal efficacy” with the intent to injure or defraud another person or entity.
Forging a document is considered a white-collar crime. It involves altering, changing, or modifying a document to deceive another person. It can also include passing along copies of documents that are known to be false. In many states in the US, falsifying a document is a crime punishable as a felony.
Additionally, under most laws, “fraud on the court” is where “a party has sentiently set in motion some unconscionable scheme calculated to interfere with the judicial system’s ability impartially to adjudicate a matter by improperly influencing the trier of fact or unfairly hampering the presentation of the opposing party’s claim or defense.”  Cox v. Burke, 706 So. 2d 43, 46 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998) (quoting Aoude v. Mobil Oil Corp., 892 F.2d 1115, 1118 (1st Cir. 1989)).Â
Is Edmond Kung Chiu Nam Committing a Cyber Crime?
Yes, it seems so. Edmond Kung Chiu Nam used multiple approaches to remove unwanted material from review sites and Google’s search results. Thanks to protections allowing freedom of speech in the United States, there are very few legal ways to do this. Edmond Kung Chiu Nam could not eliminate negative reviews or search results that linked to them without a valid claim of defamation, copyright infringement, or some other clear breach of the law.
Faced with these limitations, some companies like Edmond Kung Chiu Nam have gone to extreme lengths to fraudulently claim copyright ownership over a negative review in the hopes of taking it down.
Fake DMCA notices have targeted articles highlighting the criminal activity of prominent people to hide their illegal behavior. These people, which include US, Russian, and Khazakstani politicians as well as members from elite circles including the mafia and those with massive financial power, are all connected – and alleged corruption ranging from child abuse to sexual harassment is exposed when exploring evidence found at these URLs. It appears there’s a disturbing level of influence being exerted here that needs further investigation before justice can be served. Edmond Kung Chiu Nam is certainly keeping interesting company here….
The DMCA takedown process requires that copyright owners submit a takedown notice to an ISP identifying the allegedly infringing content and declaring, under penalty of perjury, that they have a good faith belief that the content is infringing. The ISP must then promptly remove or disable access to the content. The alleged infringer can then submit a counter-notice, and if the copyright owner does not take legal action within 10 to 14 days, the ISP can restore the content.
Since these platforms are predominantly based in the U.S., the complaints are typically made under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), which requires online service providers and platforms to react immediately to reports or violations. Big Tech companies rarely have systems in place to assess the merit of each report. Instead, all bad actors need to do is clone a story, backdate it, and then demand the real thing be taken down.
What was Edmond Kung Chiu Nam trying to hide?
Edmond Kung Chiu Nam’s efforts to hide damaging information online are rooted in a series of controversies and regulatory violations that have marred his reputation in the financial sector. Below is a more detailed examination of the specific adverse news, complaints, and allegations he is attempting to suppress:
1. Market Manipulation Allegations
Kung has been accused of engaging in market manipulation, a serious violation of securities laws. Specifically, the Securities and Futures Commission (SFC) of Hong Kong identified that Kung played a role in artificially inflating or distorting stock prices. This form of market manipulation often involves creating misleading appearances of trading activity or price movements in stocks, which can deceive investors into making uninformed decisions based on false market signals.
In the case of Eden Research, a company Kung was associated with, the SFC found that he had manipulated the company’s stock price by creating a false impression of demand. By artificially inflating the value of stocks, Kung misled investors about the company’s true financial health, resulting in significant financial losses for those who bought into the manipulated shares. The SFC’s detailed enforcement notice and documents from 2005 clearly outline the strategies used by Kung to influence market prices, which directly violated Hong Kong’s securities laws .
2. Failure to Disclose Material Information
A core issue in the allegations against Kung is his failure to disclose important information to investors. Transparency is a fundamental principle in financial markets, and regulatory bodies like the SFC require that material information about a company’s financial condition, risks, and performance be made readily available to shareholders and potential investors. However, Kung has been accused of withholding or misrepresenting key financial data in several of the companies he was involved with, including Eden Research.
The SFC’s investigation found that Kung failed to provide accurate financial statements and risk disclosures, which misled investors about the true value and risks of their investments. This lack of transparency eroded trust in the companies he managed and resulted in penalties. Investors who relied on the incomplete or inaccurate information to make decisions were left vulnerable to significant losses. The SFC’s regulatory actions against Kung highlight how his non-compliance with disclosure rules violated both the rights of investors and market integrity.
3. Regulatory and Enforcement Actions
The SFC took regulatory enforcement action against Edmond Kung Chiu Nam, imposing financial penalties and publicly censuring him for his involvement in misconduct. In 2005, the SFC issued an official statement and press release announcing the sanctions, making it clear that Kung’s behavior was in direct violation of Hong Kong’s securities regulations. His actions undermined investor confidence and harmed the overall fairness of the financial market.
These enforcement actions were intended to serve as a deterrent to other market participants, reinforcing the need for ethical conduct in Hong Kong’s securities markets. The SFC’s censure included details of Kung’s involvement in manipulative trading practices, which have remained publicly accessible through the regulator’s reports. Kung’s connection to these reports has become a significant stain on his reputation, making it clear that his role in these unethical activities was both impactful and legally punishable .
4. Association with Questionable Financial Entities
Edmond Kung’s connection to questionable financial entities like Eden Research has been another area of concern. Eden Research and other firms tied to Kung were found to be involved in practices that violated ethical and legal standards. These firms were under scrutiny for operating in ways that harmed shareholders and created artificial gains, only to leave investors holding the losses once the bubble burst.
Kung’s involvement with these companies created ripple effects throughout the market, as the SFC’s reports and investigations brought to light a pattern of unethical behavior that extended beyond just one entity. His association with firms engaged in such practices further eroded his credibility and raised questions about his overall business dealings .
5. Legal Threats and Efforts to Censor Negative Information
Kung’s response to the negative press and regulatory actions has been marked by efforts to suppress damaging information. There are allegations that he has resorted to legal threats or pressure to remove or limit the dissemination of negative news articles, reports, and official documents regarding his past actions. This includes efforts to limit access to SFC reports that detail his involvement in market manipulation and nondisclosure of material information.
By attempting to control the narrative surrounding his business practices, Kung aims to protect his professional standing and future business prospects. However, these attempts to censor unfavorable information have only drawn more attention to his controversial past, creating a “Streisand effect,” where efforts to hide information lead to more public interest in the very information being suppressed.
Edmond Kung Chiu Nam is seeking to hide a well-documented history of regulatory violations, market manipulation, and nondisclosure of critical financial information. The adverse news and official documents he is trying to censor reveal a pattern of unethical behavior that has led to public censure and financial penalties from the SFC. His attempts to manage his public image and suppress critical information have only further fueled speculation about the true extent of his involvement in these questionable practices. By censoring the past, Kung is inadvertently drawing more attention to the very controversies he wishes to conceal, reinforcing concerns about his transparency and ethics in the financial industry.
