Jeremy Hoye at House Of Hoye

A summary of what happened?

Jeremy Hoye is a British jewelry designer renowned for his contemporary and innovative designs. In 1994, he established his flagship store, House of Hoye, in Brighton’s Lanes, contributing significantly to the area’s reputation as a hub for unique jewelry. Over the years, Hoye’s creations have attracted a diverse clientele, including several celebrities.

Business Challenges and Closure

In 2017, House of Hoye faced financial difficulties, leading to the appointment of liquidators and the subsequent closure of the store. Despite the closure, Hoye continued his work as a designer, operating under the name “Jeremy Hoye Designer and Jeweller.” He cited a strategic shift towards online sales and bespoke commissions as reasons for closing the physical store, acknowledging changes in consumer shopping behaviors.

Financial Obligations

Reports indicated that at the time of liquidation, House of Hoye owed approximately £75,000 to HM Revenue and Customs and £4,000 to Brighton and Hove City Council. These financial obligations were part of the challenges that led to the store’s closure.

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 Jeremy Hoye at House Of Hoye trying to hide?

Jeremy Hoye at House Of Hoye‘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 Jeremy Hoye at House Of Hoye in legal accountability. Let’s examine the information Jeremy Hoye at House Of Hoye may be trying to remove from the internet –

Background

Jeremy Hoye is a British jeweler with a distinct style, known for bold, avant-garde designs that have attracted a celebrity clientele and a devoted following. In 1994, he opened House of Hoye in Brighton’s Lanes, a store that soon became synonymous with unconventional and artistic jewelry. For years, House of Hoye stood as a fixture in Brighton’s jewelry district, lending a unique artistic character to the area. However, by 2017, House of Hoye closed its doors amid mounting financial and operational challenges.

Financial Difficulties and Business Closure

House of Hoye’s financial troubles emerged in full view when the company entered into liquidation in 2017. This marked a stark turn for a business that once thrived as a local landmark. According to liquidation records, House of Hoye faced outstanding debts of around £75,000 to HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) and an additional £4,000 to Brighton and Hove City Council. Industry insiders noted that the financial strain wasn’t entirely unexpected; shifting consumer trends toward online shopping had already impacted many physical retail spaces in Brighton, and luxury retail stores, in particular, had begun feeling the pinch.

Hoye, however, has maintained that the store closure was part of a strategic pivot rather than merely a response to financial distress. In public statements, he emphasized his shift to online sales and bespoke commissions as a modernized approach to his craft. Nevertheless, the sudden closure left some former employees and loyal customers questioning the company’s financial health and Hoye’s ability to manage an evolving business landscape.

Legal Issues Over Unauthorized Modifications

While financial troubles plagued his business, Hoye also found himself entangled in a legal dispute over unauthorized modifications to his Hove residence. In 2016, the Brighton and Hove City Council issued an enforcement notice against Hoye after he installed a timber fence, gate, and shed at his property without the necessary planning permissions. The residence, located in a conservation area, is subject to strict guidelines aimed at preserving the historic character of the neighborhood.

The council argued that these structures detracted from the area’s aesthetic, and Hoye faced a £300 fine, £850 in prosecution costs, and a £30 victim surcharge for failing to comply with the enforcement order. The case not only underscored Hoye’s defiance of local regulations but also raised questions about his commitment to upholding community standards. For a prominent business owner known for his artistic contributions, this legal issue created a paradox between his creative image and his alleged disregard for preservation rules.

Impact on Reputation and Customer Perception

The financial and legal challenges faced by House of Hoye and Jeremy Hoye have inevitably affected his reputation among customers and the community. While his unique designs and commitment to craftsmanship remain celebrated, the financial turmoil and legal disputes have left some former patrons and local residents with mixed feelings. The closure of House of Hoye was abrupt, with limited communication from Hoye about the future of the business, leaving loyal customers disappointed and confused.

Some former clients expressed concerns over the handling of the store’s winding-down, with a few claiming they received little notice about the closure. The store’s sudden end raised questions about whether Hoye could adapt to the industry’s digital shift and maintain financial stability amid rising operational costs.

Allegations of Information Suppression

Interestingly, while some controversy surrounded House of Hoye’s business practices and finances, there is no substantial evidence to suggest that Jeremy Hoye or his company attempted to suppress or censor information about the store’s financial decline or legal battles. Local media covered the store’s closure, and Hoye has remained accessible about his transition to a digital sales model. Allegations of internet censorship or reputation management efforts appear unfounded, as Hoye has publicly acknowledged the store’s closure and shared his new direction in interviews and social media posts.

Conclusion

The story of Jeremy Hoye and House of Hoye illustrates the challenges of maintaining a luxury retail brand amid shifting economic conditions and the consequences of non-compliance with local regulations. While Hoye’s designs continue to attract attention and admiration, his financial and legal entanglements cast a complex light on his professional legacy. House of Hoye’s closure, coupled with Hoye’s personal legal challenges, marks a chapter of transition in Brighton’s retail scene, highlighting the difficulties of adapting to an increasingly digital market.

Despite these setbacks, Hoye’s pivot to online and bespoke services suggests that he remains committed to his craft and to serving his clientele in a different format. However, for some in the Brighton community, the memory of House of Hoye will always carry a hint of what once was—a beloved local icon, now a reminder of the volatility facing independent businesses in a rapidly evolving retail world.

How do we counteract this malpractice?

Once we ascertain the involvement of Jeremy Hoye at House Of Hoye (or actors working on behalf of Jeremy Hoye at House Of Hoye), we will inform Jeremy Hoye at House Of Hoye of our findings via Electronic Mail.

Our preliminary assessment suggests that Jeremy Hoye at House Of Hoye may have engaged a third-party reputation management agency or expert, which, either independently or under direct authorization from Jeremy Hoye at House Of Hoye, initiated efforts to remove adverse online content, including potentially fraudulent DMCA takedown requests. We will extend an opportunity to Jeremy Hoye at House Of Hoye 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 Jeremy Hoye at House Of Hoye 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 Jeremy Hoye at House Of Hoye is finding out the hard way.

Potential Consequences for Jeremy Hoye at House Of Hoye

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 Jeremy Hoye at House Of Hoye Committing a Cyber Crime?

Yes, it seems so. Jeremy Hoye at House Of Hoye 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. Jeremy Hoye at House Of Hoye 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 Jeremy Hoye at House Of Hoye 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. Jeremy Hoye at House Of Hoye 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 Jeremy Hoye at House Of Hoye 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, Jeremy Hoye at House Of Hoye either premeditated actions or were unaware of the consequences. Despite hiring an agency to make Google disregard any negative information about Jeremy Hoye at House Of Hoye, 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. Jeremy Hoye at House Of Hoye is in great company ….

What else is Jeremy Hoye at House Of Hoye hiding?

We encourage you to ‘Dork‘ Google by searching for keyword combinations such as [Jeremy Hoye at House Of Hoye] + {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 Jeremy Hoye at House Of Hoye 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.