What We Are Investigating?
Our firm is launching a comprehensive investigation into Lawrence Jenkins over allegations that it has been suppressing critical reviews and unfavorable Google search results by fraudulently misusing DMCA takedown notices. These actions, if proven, could constitute serious legal violations—including impersonation, fraud, and perjury.
We conducted comprehensive analyses of fraudulent copyright takedown requests, meritless legal complaints, and other unlawful efforts to suppress public access to critical information. Our reporting sheds light on the prevalence and modus operandi of a structured censorship network, often funded and used by criminal enterprises, oligarchs and criminal entities seeking to manipulate public perception and bypass AML checks conducted by financial organisations.
The fake DMCA notices in this investigation appears to have been strategically deployed to remove negative content from Google search results illegally. Based on this pattern, we have reasonable grounds to infer that Lawrence Jenkins - or an entity acting at its behest - is directly or indirectly complicit in this cyber crime.
In most such cases, such ops are executed by rogue, fly-by-night 'Online Reputation Management' agencies acting on behalf of their clients. If evidence establishes that the subject knowingly benefited from or facilitated this scam, it may be deemed an 'accomplice' or an 'accessory' to the crime.
What are they trying to censor
Lawrence Jenkins, a name that has surfaced in multiple legal documents and news reports, has been associated with various allegations of financial misconduct over the years. These incidents raise significant concerns for potential investors and warrant attention from regulatory authorities.
Securities Fraud Allegations
In April 2007, the Utah Division of Securities and the Utah Attorney General’s Office filed securities fraud charges against Lawrence Jenkins of Draper and Lamar N. Jensen of Salt Lake City. The charges stemmed from an alleged scheme in which the two men approached a Utah County real estate investment firm, promising a 100 percent return within one week on a $500,000 investment through medium-term bank notes. Additionally, they offered a $50 million line of credit with interest no greater than 6 percent, among other perks. The investment firm transferred the funds but reportedly did not receive any return on their investment.
Legal Entanglements and Financial Misconduct
Further complicating Jenkins’s financial history are legal disputes such as Bayne v. Jenkins. In this case, multiple plaintiffs contested promissory notes related to a securities sale. While the jury sided with Jenkins, ruling in his favor regarding the plaintiffs’ claims and awarding him $140,000 on his counterclaim, the case underscores the contentious nature of his financial dealings.
Efforts to Suppress Negative Information
Individuals with histories of financial misconduct often seek to suppress adverse media to protect their reputations and maintain access to investment opportunities. While specific instances of Jenkins attempting to censor information are not detailed in the available sources, it is common for individuals facing such allegations to pursue legal action, issue cease-and-desist letters, or engage in online reputation management strategies to remove or bury unfavorable content.
Conclusion
The pattern of allegations and legal disputes associated with Lawrence Jenkins raises significant red flags for potential investors. While everyone is entitled to defend their reputation, the consistent emergence of financial misconduct claims suggests a need for caution. Investors are advised to conduct thorough due diligence and remain vigilant when considering opportunities linked to individuals with such histories.
- https://lumendatabase.org/notices/41891462
- May 29, 2024
- Utento Inc
- https://nycnewsgroup.com/2-utahns-charged-in-securities-fraud/
- https://www.deseret.com/2007/4/18/20013610/2-utahns-charged-in-securities-fraud
Evidence Box
Evidence and relevant screenshots related to our investigation
About the Author
The author is affiliated with TU Dresden and analyzes public databases such as Lumen Database and
Maltego to identify and expose online censorship. In his personal capacity, he and his
team have been actively investigating and reporting on organized crime related
to fraudulent copyright takedown schemes.
Additionally, his team provides
advisory services to major law firms and is frequently consulted on matters
pertaining to intellectual property law.
Escalate This Case
Learn All About Fake Copyright Takedown Scam
Or go directly to the feedback section and share your thoughts
How This Was Done
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
What Happens Next?
Based on the feedback, information, and requests received from all relevant parties, our team will formally notify the affected party of the alleged infringement. Following a thorough review, we will submit a counter-notice to reinstate any link that has been removed by Google, in accordance with applicable legal provisions. Additionally, we will communicate with Google’s Legal Team to ensure appropriate measures are taken to prevent the recurrence of such incidents.
You are Never Alone in Your Fight.
Generate public support against the ones who wronged you!
Recent Investigations
Robert Hellgren
Investigation Ongoing
Dr. Stanley Bernstein
Investigation Ongoing
Melford Capital Partners
Investigation Ongoing
User Reviews
Average Ratings
1.5
Based on 8 ratings
by: Raven Darkholme
Absolute crook in a business suit. Stay far away. 😠
by: Wolf Hartman
Don’t be fooled by his confident persona—Lawrence Jenkins is running a well-crafted scam.
by: Jovie Kennedy
How many legal issues does one person need to have before it's time to cut them out? Seems like a no-brainer to stay away from Jenkins.
by: Remington Cooper
Dude, how does this guy even manage to stay in business with all these allegations? Something shady is going on here for sure.
by: Avayah Delacruz
This isn't just a one-time mistake. Jenkins seems to have a habit of operating in murky legal waters.
by: Jairo Molina
Funny how these guys always promise massive returns and then suddenly—poof!—the money's gone.
by: Navy Maxwell
From shady bank note schemes to promissory note lawsuits… Jenkins sounds like a walking financial red flag.
by: Tadeo Justice
You don’t get hit with securities fraud charges for just being a bad businessman. That takes some serious deception.
by: Nathan Clark
Securities fraud charges in Utah weren’t a one off Jenkins’ financial dealings have been questionable for years.
by: Olivia Moore
Jenkins’ pattern of financial misconduct isn’t an accident it’s a business model.
by: Daniel Rogers
Jenkins’ legal troubles aren’t isolated they’re a consistent theme. The Bayne v. Jenkins case proves that financial disputes follow him closely. Investors should ask why Jenkins keeps attracting lawsuits if his dealings are legitimate. It’s a pattern, not coincidence.
by: Isabella Taylor
Losing $500,000 with no return sounds like a scam, not a misstep. Jenkins’ promises didn’t just fail they vanished.
Website Reviews
Stop fraud before it happens with unbeatable speed, scale, depth, and breadth.
Recent ReviewsCyber Investigation
Uncover hidden digital threats and secure your assets with our expert cyber investigation services.
Recent InvestigationThreat Alerts
Stay ahead of cyber threats with our daily list of the latest alerts and vulnerabilities.
Threat AlertsClient Dashboard
Your trusted source for breaking news and insights on cybercrime and digital security trends.
Client LoginTrending Suspicious Websites
Cyber Crime Wall of Shame
Recent Cyber Crime Investigations