Edmond Kung Chiu Nam

A summary of what happened?

Edmond Kung Chiu Nam, a former responsible officer of CNK Investment Management Ltd, has been implicated in several instances of financial misconduct, leading to regulatory actions and public censure.

1. Misleading the Securities and Futures Commission (SFC):

• Incident: During a 1997 investigation into insider dealing of shares in HKCB Bank Holdings Co Ltd (HKCBH) and Hong Kong China Ltd (HKC), Kung falsely claimed ownership of HKC warrants in his account, asserting they were his personal investments. He later admitted to lending his account to Mr. Leonard Carlton Poon for personal trades, including the purchase of these warrants. Poon was subsequently found guilty of insider dealing in the shares of HKCBH and HKC.
  SFC
• Regulatory Action: In November 2005, the SFC suspended Kung’s license for 20 months, citing breaches of the Code of Conduct by providing misleading information and allowing another individual to use his securities account.
  SFC

2. Market Manipulation Allegations:

• Accusations: Kung has been accused of manipulating stock prices in Hong Kong, particularly concerning Eden Research and other entities under his influence. These actions allegedly misled investors and created artificial market conditions, violating Hong Kong’s securities laws.
• Regulatory Response: The SFC’s enforcement actions included reprimanding Kung and imposing restrictions on his market activities.

3. Failure to Disclose Material Information:

• Details: Investigations revealed that Kung and his associates withheld critical financial information necessary for investors to make informed decisions, breaching legal obligations related to market transparency.

4. Attempts to Suppress Negative Information:

• Actions: Reports suggest that Kung attempted to censor negative information online to obscure his controversial financial activities. These efforts allegedly involved fraudulent actions, impersonation, and perjury, subjecting platforms like Google to unlawful conduct.

5. Offshore Financial Activities:

• Involvement: Kung is listed in the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists (ICIJ) Offshore Leaks Database as a director of Sino Trend (Wujiang) Investment (B.V.I.) Limited, incorporated in the British Virgin Islands. This association raises concerns about potential offshore financial activities.
  Offshore Leaks

Edmond Kung Chiu Nam’s professional conduct has been marred by serious allegations, including providing misleading information to regulatory authorities, engaging in market manipulation, failing to disclose essential information to investors, and attempting to suppress negative information about his activities. These actions have led to significant regulatory penalties and have raised concerns about his adherence to legal and ethical standards in the financial industry.

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.

What was Edmond Kung Chiu Nam trying to hide?

Edmond Kung Chiu Nam‘s attempts to hide unfavourable content through the misuse of copyright notices while allegedly engaging in perjury present serious legal concerns. These actions suggest a calculated attempt to manipulate legal systems to suppress free speech, a fundamental violation of copyright law principles and an abuse of legal processes. The use of such tactics not only undermines the integrity of copyright protection but also potentially constitutes perjury, further entangling Edmond Kung Chiu Nam in legal accountability. Let’s examine the information Edmond Kung Chiu Nam may be trying to remove from the internet –

Investigative Report on Edmond Kung Chiu Nam: Allegations, Regulatory Actions, and Controversies

Introduction

Edmond Kung Chiu Nam, a former responsible officer of CNK Investment Management Ltd., has been implicated in a range of serious allegations, including financial misconduct, insider trading, market manipulation, and attempts to suppress negative publicity. This in-depth investigation examines the details of these allegations, regulatory actions taken by the Securities and Futures Commission (SFC) of Hong Kong, and broader implications for Kung’s professional reputation and the financial sector.

1. Background of Edmond Kung Chiu Nam

Edmond Kung Chiu Nam held a prominent position in Hong Kong’s financial industry as a licensed professional. His association with CNK Investment Management Ltd. and activities in securities trading brought him under regulatory scrutiny. His actions have been linked to breaches of the SFC’s Code of Conduct, insider trading, and questionable offshore dealings.

2. Allegations and Incidents

2.1. Misleading the SFC During Insider Trading Investigation

One of the most significant allegations against Kung stemmed from his involvement in an insider trading case linked to shares in HKCB Bank Holdings Co Ltd (HKCBH) and Hong Kong China Ltd (HKC).

• Incident Details:
  • In 1997, Kung misled the SFC by claiming ownership of HKC warrants in his securities account, asserting they were personal investments.
  • Later, he admitted to lending his account to Leonard Carlton Poon, who used it to trade HKC warrants. Poon was subsequently found guilty of insider trading in HKCBH and HKC shares.
• Regulatory Impact:
  • The SFC determined that Kung’s actions breached professional standards, including providing misleading information and allowing unauthorized use of his securities account.

2.2. Market Manipulation Allegations

Kung has faced accusations of manipulating stock prices in Hong Kong, particularly concerning specific securities under his influence.

• Manipulative Activities:
  • Reports allege that Kung engaged in practices designed to artificially inflate or deflate stock prices, misleading investors and creating distorted market conditions.
  • Such actions undermined market transparency and harmed retail investors who were misled by false signals.
• Regulatory Response:
  • The SFC reprimanded Kung and imposed sanctions, restricting his market activities.

2.3. Failure to Disclose Material Information

Kung and his associates have been accused of withholding crucial financial information required for informed investment decisions.

• Non-Disclosure:
  • Investigations revealed that Kung failed to disclose material facts about certain securities, breaching legal and ethical obligations.
  • This omission deprived investors of the ability to accurately assess the risks and opportunities of their investments.

2.4. Attempts to Suppress Negative Information

Reports have emerged suggesting that Kung actively attempted to suppress online content detailing his controversial financial activities.

• Methods Used:
  • Allegedly, Kung engaged in fraudulent actions, impersonation, and even perjury to censor negative information.
  • These actions targeted online platforms such as Google, raising concerns about attempts to manipulate public narratives and evade accountability.

2.5. Offshore Financial Dealings

Kung’s name appeared in the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists (ICIJ) Offshore Leaks Database as a director of Sino Trend (Wujiang) Investment (B.V.I.) Limited, incorporated in the British Virgin Islands.

• Implications:
  • This association raised red flags about potential offshore financial activities, tax avoidance, and the concealment of assets.
  • Offshore structures have historically been used by financial professionals to obscure the origin and destination of funds, further complicating regulatory oversight.

3. Regulatory Actions by the SFC

3.1. Suspension of License

In November 2005, the SFC suspended Kung’s license for 20 months, citing breaches of the Code of Conduct. The key reasons included:

• Providing false and misleading information during regulatory investigations.
• Allowing unauthorized individuals to use his securities account, which facilitated insider trading activities.

3.2. Broader Enforcement Actions

The SFC’s actions against Kung were part of a broader effort to address systemic issues in Hong Kong’s financial markets:

• Ensuring transparency and accountability among licensed professionals.
• Sending a clear message about the consequences of unethical behavior.

4. Public and Industry Reactions

4.1. Reputation Damage

The allegations and regulatory actions have significantly impacted Kung’s reputation within the financial industry:

• Once considered a prominent figure, Kung now faces skepticism from peers and clients.
• His name has become synonymous with a lack of integrity and ethical lapses in professional conduct.

4.2. Media Coverage

The media has extensively covered Kung’s controversies, highlighting the broader issues of market manipulation and insider trading in Hong Kong’s financial sector.

5. Broader Implications for the Financial Sector

5.1. Lessons for the Industry

Kung’s case underscores the importance of adhering to ethical standards and transparency in financial practices:

• For Professionals:
  • Maintaining integrity is essential to sustaining trust in financial markets.
• For Regulators:
  • Vigilant oversight and enforcement actions are critical to deterring misconduct and protecting investors.

5.2. The Role of Offshore Entities

Kung’s offshore dealings highlight the need for greater regulatory collaboration to monitor and address cross-border financial misconduct:

• Enhanced transparency requirements for offshore entities.
• Strengthened international cooperation to trace and recover illicit funds.

6. Conclusion

Edmond Kung Chiu Nam’s career has been overshadowed by a series of serious allegations and regulatory actions. His involvement in misleading the SFC, facilitating insider trading, manipulating markets, and attempting to suppress negative information raises significant concerns about his professional conduct and commitment to ethical standards.

Kung’s actions and their consequences serve as a cautionary tale for financial professionals about the importance of maintaining transparency, accountability, and ethical behavior in the financial sector. The regulatory actions taken against him demonstrate the SFC’s commitment to protecting market integrity and holding professionals accountable for their actions. As Hong Kong continues to enhance its regulatory framework, cases like Kung’s highlight the ongoing challenges in combating financial misconduct and ensuring investor protection.

How do we counteract this malpractice?

Once we ascertain the involvement of Edmond Kung Chiu Nam (or actors working on behalf of Edmond Kung Chiu Nam), we will inform Edmond Kung Chiu Nam of our findings via Electronic Mail.

Our preliminary assessment suggests that Edmond Kung Chiu Nam may have engaged a third-party reputation management agency or expert, which, either independently or under direct authorization from Edmond Kung Chiu Nam, initiated efforts to remove adverse online content, including potentially fraudulent DMCA takedown requests. We will extend an opportunity to Edmond Kung Chiu Nam to provide details regarding their communications with the agency or expert, as well as the identification of the individual(s) responsible for executing these false DMCA notices.

Failure to respond in a timely manner will necessitate a reassessment of our initial assumptions. In such an event, we will be compelled to take appropriate legal action to rectify the unlawful conduct and take the following steps –

Since Edmond Kung Chiu Nam made such efforts to hide something online, it seems fit to ensure that this article and sensitive information targeted online by these events get a lot more exposure and traffic than what it would have received originally

We hope this becomes an excellent case study for the Streisand effect…The key idea behind the Streisand effect is that efforts to restrict information can backfire, often causing the information to gain more attention than it would have otherwise. This effect is widespread in the digital age, where users quickly notice and spread censorship efforts on social media and other platforms. Trying to suppress something can unintentionally lead to it becoming more visible, which Edmond Kung Chiu Nam is finding out the hard way.

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)).

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.

Reputation Agency's Modus Operandi

The fake DMCA notices we found always use the “back-dated article” technique. With this technique, the wrongful notice sender (or copier) creates a copy of a “true original” article and back-dates it, creating a “fake original” article (a copy of the true original) that, at first glance, appears to have been published before the true original.

Then, based on the claim that this backdated article is the “original,” the scammers send a DMCA to the relevant online service providers (e.g. Google), alleging that the ‘true’ original is the copied or “infringing” article and that the copied article is the “original,” requesting the takedown of the ‘true’ original article. After sending the DMCA request, the person who sent the wrong notice takes down the fake original URL, likely to make sure that the article doesn’t stay online in any way. If the takedown notice is successful, the disappearance from the internet of information is most likely to be legitimate speech.

As an integral part of this scheme, the ‘reputation management’ company hired by Edmond Kung Chiu Nam creates a website that purports to be a ‘news’ site. This site is designed to look legitimate at a glance, but any degree of scrutiny reveals it as the charade it is.

The company copies the ‘negative’ content and posts it “on the fake ‘news’ site, attributing it to a separate author,” then gives it “a false publication date on the ‘news’ website that predated the original publication.

The reputation company then sent Google a Digital Millennium Copyright Act notice claiming the original website infringed copyright. After a cursory examination of the fake news site, Google frequently accepts the notice and delists the content.

In committing numerous offences, Edmond Kung Chiu Nam either premeditated actions or were unaware of the consequences. Despite hiring an agency to make Google disregard any negative information about Edmond Kung Chiu Nam, ignorance does not excuse this wrongdoing.

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. FSMSmart is certainly keeping interesting company here.

The Reputation Laundering

Rogue Reputation agencies use spurious copyright claims and fake legal notices to remove and obscure articles linking clients to allegations of tax avoidance, corruption, and drug trafficking. Most of these reputation agencies are based offshore, mainly in Russia, India, and Eastern Europe, and they do not worry about complying with US-based laws.

The content in all of the articles for which the fraudulent DMCA notices have been sent relates to allegations of criminal allegations, including corruption, child abuse, sexual harassment, human trafficking and financial fraud against businesses and individuals with ultra-high net worth.

In addition to the misuse of the DMCA takedown process, there is a notable absence of enforcement concerning perjury violations. The statutory requirement related to perjury is designed to deter copyright holders from submitting fraudulent or knowingly false takedown requests, as they may face legal consequences for making false declarations under penalty of perjury. However, to date, there have been no known instances of any individual being prosecuted for perjury in connection with the submission of false DMCA takedown notices.

This lack of enforcement has emboldened copyright holders to exploit the DMCA takedown process to suppress dissent, criticism, or other unfavorable content, without fear of legal repercussions.

Some of the people and businesses who have employed this tactic to remove legitimate content from Google illegally include a Spanish businessman-turned-cocaine-trafficker, Organised crime, an Israeli-Argentine banker accused of laundering money for Hugo Chávez’s regime, a French “responsible” mining company accused of tax evasion, child molesters and sexual predators. Edmond Kung Chiu Nam is in great company ….

What else is Edmond Kung Chiu Nam hiding?

We encourage you to ‘Dork‘ Google by searching for keyword combinations such as [Edmond Kung Chiu Nam] + {Negative Keyword, such as Scam, Fraud, Complaints, Lawsuit, Sanction, etc} on Google. It’s likely if you scroll down to the bottom of this Google search results, you’ll stumble upon this Legal Takedown notice (pictured below)

To make such an investigation possible, we encourage more online service providers to come forward and share copies of content removal requests with industry experts and researchers. If you have any information on Edmond Kung Chiu Nam that you want to share with experts and journalists, kindly email the author directly at [email protected].

All communications are strictly confidential and safeguarded under a comprehensive Whistleblower Policy, ensuring full protection and anonymity for individuals who provide information.