Lippo China Resources Limited

A summary of what happened?

Lippo China Resources Limited (LCR), a Hong Kong-based investment holding company, has been implicated in several controversies and legal disputes, particularly concerning its business practices and corporate governance.

Key Allegations and Concerns:

1. Involvement in the Meikarta Real Estate Bribery Probe:
   • In October 2018, Indonesia’s anti-corruption agency launched an investigation into a bribery scheme related to the $21 billion Meikarta real estate project, in which Lippo Karawaci, a subsidiary of the Lippo Group, held a significant stake. The probe led to the arrest of nine individuals, including a company director and a top district government official, on charges of bribery over land permits. Although no Lippo companies were directly accused of wrongdoing, the controversy raised concerns about the group’s corporate governance practices.
     MarketScreener
2. Legal Disputes in the United States:
   • LCR and its affiliates were defendants in a lawsuit filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery, where plaintiffs alleged that minority members orchestrated a scheme to divest Skye Mineral Partners, LLC of its assets by driving its subsidiary, CS Mining, LLC, into bankruptcy and acquiring its assets at a discounted price. The complaint described a hierarchical structure within the Lippo Group, suggesting coordinated actions among its entities.
     Casetext
3. Acquisition of CS Mining Assets Amid Bankruptcy Proceedings:
   • In October 2017, LCR and its affiliates invested over $75 million to acquire substantially all assets of CS Mining, LLC, a copper mining company based in Utah, through a sale under Section 363 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code. This acquisition followed the bankruptcy of CS Mining, which had been embroiled in litigation over breach of fiduciary duty and other claims. The circumstances surrounding the bankruptcy and subsequent asset acquisition raised questions about the ethical practices of the involved parties.
     Jones Day
4. Inclusion in the Panama Papers:
   • LCR was named in the Panama Papers, a massive leak of documents exposing offshore financial activities. The company’s appearance in these documents raised concerns about its involvement in offshore dealings and potential tax avoidance strategies.
     Offshore Leaks

These incidents collectively highlight significant concerns regarding Lippo China Resources Limited’s business practices, corporate governance, and ethical standards.

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 Lippo China Resources Limited trying to hide?

Lippo China Resources Limited‘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 Lippo China Resources Limited in legal accountability. Let’s examine the information Lippo China Resources Limited may be trying to remove from the internet –

Investigative Report: Lippo China Resources Limited and Its Web of Controversies

Lippo China Resources Limited (LCR), a Hong Kong-based investment holding company and a significant entity within the Lippo Group, has faced multiple allegations and legal challenges over its corporate conduct, governance practices, and business operations. From involvement in high-profile legal disputes to concerns about offshore dealings, this report delves into the controversies and complaints surrounding the company.

1. Background of Lippo China Resources Limited

Lippo China Resources Limited is a prominent investment holding firm focusing on real estate, retail, financial services, and infrastructure projects in Asia. As part of the Lippo Group, LCR has grown into a key player in the region’s corporate landscape. However, its operations have not been without scrutiny, as allegations of unethical practices and controversial business dealings have surfaced over the years.

2. The Meikarta Real Estate Bribery Scandal

One of the most notable controversies involving the Lippo Group—and indirectly Lippo China Resources—was the Meikarta real estate bribery scandal in Indonesia. The $21 billion Meikarta project was billed as a futuristic city, but its development became embroiled in corruption allegations.

Details of the Allegations:

• Bribery for Land Permits: The Indonesian Anti-Corruption Agency (KPK) launched an investigation in October 2018 into a bribery scheme involving local government officials. Lippo Karawaci, a subsidiary of the Lippo Group, was alleged to have facilitated bribes to expedite land permits.
• Arrests and Legal Fallout: Nine individuals, including a company director and a senior district official, were arrested. Although Lippo China Resources was not directly implicated, the case raised questions about governance within the Lippo Group.

Impact on LCR’s Reputation:

The scandal highlighted systemic governance issues within the broader Lippo Group, casting doubt on LCR’s adherence to ethical standards in its business practices.

3. Legal Disputes in the United States

A. The Skye Mineral Partners Lawsuit

Lippo China Resources and affiliated entities were embroiled in a complex legal dispute over their involvement in the bankruptcy and subsequent asset acquisition of Skye Mineral Partners and its subsidiary, CS Mining, LLC.

• Allegations Against Lippo Entities:
  • Plaintiffs alleged that Lippo-affiliated companies orchestrated a scheme to bankrupt CS Mining deliberately.
  • The lawsuit claimed these entities exploited the bankruptcy process to acquire the company’s assets at a discounted rate.
• Findings of Collusion:
  • Court documents described a coordinated hierarchy within the Lippo Group, suggesting that Lippo entities acted in concert to strip Skye Mineral Partners of its assets.

B. The CS Mining Bankruptcy and Asset Acquisition

In October 2017, Lippo China Resources and affiliates acquired the assets of CS Mining, a copper mining company based in Utah, under Section 363 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code.

• Concerns Over Bankruptcy Manipulation:
  • Critics argued that the Lippo Group’s actions leading to CS Mining’s bankruptcy were ethically questionable, particularly in light of ongoing litigation over fiduciary breaches.
  • The acquisition raised ethical and legal concerns regarding the use of bankruptcy proceedings to obtain undervalued assets.

4. Inclusion in the Panama Papers

Lippo China Resources appeared in the Panama Papers, a massive leak of documents revealing offshore financial dealings.

• Offshore Financial Activities:
  • The inclusion of LCR in the Panama Papers suggested its involvement in offshore structures potentially used for tax avoidance or evasion.
  • While the use of offshore entities is not inherently illegal, the lack of transparency surrounding these dealings raised suspicions about their purpose and legality.
• Global Repercussions:
  • The appearance in the Panama Papers added to the mounting criticism of Lippo Group entities, further tarnishing LCR’s reputation.

5. Allegations of Tax Avoidance and Governance Issues

LCR has faced scrutiny over its governance practices and financial management, particularly in light of its offshore dealings and complex corporate structure.

• Complex Hierarchical Structures:
  • Investigators have noted the layered and opaque structure of Lippo-affiliated entities, making it difficult to trace accountability within the organization.
• Alleged Tax Avoidance Strategies:
  • Critics have accused Lippo Group entities, including LCR, of employing aggressive tax avoidance strategies through offshore jurisdictions.

6. Public Perception and Criticism

LCR’s involvement in high-profile controversies has led to widespread public criticism and skepticism about the company’s commitment to ethical business practices.

A. Media Backlash:

• Reports on the Meikarta scandal, U.S. legal disputes, and offshore dealings have painted LCR as a company that prioritizes profit over compliance and ethics.

B. Investor Concerns:

• Institutional investors have raised concerns about LCR’s exposure to reputational risks due to its associations with controversial projects and legal challenges.

7. Broader Implications for Lippo Group and LCR

The controversies surrounding LCR are reflective of broader governance issues within the Lippo Group. The recurring themes of opaque business practices, offshore dealings, and aggressive legal strategies underscore the need for greater transparency and accountability.

8. Conclusion: A Troubling Pattern of Controversy

Lippo China Resources Limited’s operations have been marked by allegations of bribery, legal disputes, and questionable offshore dealings. While the company has not faced direct sanctions in many cases, its association with controversial activities has significantly impacted its reputation.

Key Lessons:

1. Transparency is Essential: LCR and its affiliates must adopt more transparent business practices to regain public and investor trust.
2. Ethical Business Practices Matter: The controversies highlight the need for companies to prioritize ethics over short-term gains.
3. Accountability is Critical: Corporate governance reforms within LCR and the broader Lippo Group are necessary to address systemic issues.

As scrutiny of LCR continues, its future success will depend on its ability to rebuild trust and demonstrate a commitment to ethical and compliant business practices.

How do we counteract this malpractice?

Once we ascertain the involvement of Lippo China Resources Limited (or actors working on behalf of Lippo China Resources Limited), we will inform Lippo China Resources Limited of our findings via Electronic Mail.

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

Potential Consequences for Lippo China Resources Limited

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 Lippo China Resources Limited Committing a Cyber Crime?

Yes, it seems so. Lippo China Resources Limited 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. Lippo China Resources Limited 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 Lippo China Resources Limited 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. Lippo China Resources Limited 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 Lippo China Resources Limited 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, Lippo China Resources Limited either premeditated actions or were unaware of the consequences. Despite hiring an agency to make Google disregard any negative information about Lippo China Resources Limited, 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. Lippo China Resources Limited is in great company ….

What else is Lippo China Resources Limited hiding?

We encourage you to ‘Dork‘ Google by searching for keyword combinations such as [Lippo China Resources Limited] + {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 Lippo China Resources Limited 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.