Having a Wikipedia page is one of those strange milestones you never really plan for. It isn’t something you wake up chasing — but when your work takes you into the world of Ponzi schemes, crypto fraud, and organised criminal networks, suddenly the documentation of your journey becomes important. Not for ego, but for accountability, credibility, and transparency.
My Wikipedia Page now reflects the core of what I’ve built my life around: exposing criminals, protecting everyday people, and using OSINT to shine light on the dark corners of the internet. But getting a public biography on a platform like Wikipedia comes with its own challenges. Just like the scammers I expose, there are always bad actors trying to twist the narrative.
This blog explains what’s on my page, how Wikipedia actually works behind the scenes, why it’s important, and why I want supporters and long-term followers to help keep the page factual and safe from manipulation.
Wikipedia Is Public — And That Means It’s a Battlefield
Wikipedia is not controlled by one person. It’s a collaborative, publicly-editable platform governed by volunteer editors, community policies, and constant policing by people who care about accuracy.
That openness is both a strength and a weakness.
For people like me — someone who has exposed multi-million-dollar Ponzi schemes, helped bring fraudsters to justice, and publicly challenged sophisticated criminal networks — Wikipedia becomes a target. I’ve already experienced attempts by bad actors to:
- Insert false information
- Remove accurate reporting
- Downplay investigations
- Misrepresent legal cases
When you expose criminals, they look for new ways to discredit you. Editing your Wikipedia page is one of the easiest tools they have.
That’s why having a community of editors, supporters, and OSINT-minded readers keeping an eye on the page is invaluable. Wikipedia works only when good people show up to maintain the truth.
What My Wikipedia Page Actually Shows
The content currently published gives a surprisingly accurate snapshot of my work:
Early Life and Background
The page openly states that I’m dyslexic, that I grew up in a religious cult, and that I left school at fourteen. It covers the early years of mowing lawns, hands-on work, retail roles, and then eventually moving into the early internet era, building cafés, websites, and businesses in Christchurch during the 1990s.
That’s an important part of the story. My background wasn’t privileged. It was built on hustle, adaptability, and curiosity — the same things that eventually made me effective at exposing scams.
How I Became a Scam-Buster
My investigative journey started with a simple email:
an “investment opportunity” that didn’t smell right.
That one moment sent me down a path of:
- Investigating Ponzi schemes
- Joining scam Zoom calls undercover
- Documenting criminals on YouTube
- Building public awareness so victims could avoid losing money
Wikipedia highlights that by 2023, I had published more than 130 investigative videos exposing crypto-related frauds.
It also documents the major turning points — the investigations that made international headlines, the legal retaliation from scammers, and the global networks that tried to shut my website down.
Major Investigations and Global Impact
The page covers three significant investigative areas:
- Pakistan-based networks (Intersys / Abtach) — including fentanyl-analog trafficking, ghostwriting scams, publishing fraud, and call-centre exploitation
- The Goliath Ventures crypto Ponzi scheme — a US$500 million fraud spanning Orlando, Ontario, and the UAE
- HyperVerse and Sam Lee — a US$2 billion global Ponzi scheme now prosecuted in the United States
Wikipedia documents how my investigations contributed to:
- A Pakistani government crackdown called Operation Grey
- Dozens of arrests
- International reporting by journalists like Brian Krebs
- Legal action filed against me in Pakistan
- A 124-page lawsuit filed against me in Florida
- Attempts to silence my website through coordinated takedowns
These details matter because they show the real-world consequences of exposing criminal operations.
Defamation Suits Designed to Silence Me
My page highlights a key example:
the NZ$3.8 million lawsuit filed by Stephen Andrew McCullah in New Zealand’s High Court.
The court later described it as a “gagging writ.”
Another attempt to shut me up.
The case was withdrawn, and he was ordered to pay costs.
Not everyone understands the pressure investigators face. Having this documented on a platform like Wikipedia helps anchor the truth in a neutral, public space.
Attacks on My Website
When Shavez Ahmed Siddiqui successfully had my website taken offline, it showed just how far scammers will go. Wikipedia documents this — and the fact that the site is now protected by Google Project Shield, a tool used to defend journalists from DDoS-style attacks.
Again: transparency matters.
When criminals try to erase your work, Wikipedia becomes part of the defence.
Why Having a Wikipedia Page Helps the Anti-Scam Community
For me, the value of Wikipedia isn’t ego — it’s credibility, protection, and public record.
1. It establishes a neutral, factual history.
Scammers love to rewrite history.
Wikipedia makes that harder.
2. It helps victims understand who’s behind the investigations.
People want to know if they can trust the information.
A well-maintained page provides context.
3. It documents the retaliation.
Every lawsuit, takedown attempt, attack, or smear campaign is part of the story.
Having it published makes it harder for scammers to weaponise misinformation.
4. It encourages transparency.
Everything I do is public, documented, sourced, and referenced.
That’s how investigative journalism should be.
5. It invites community involvement.
Wikipedia works when many people watch over a page, correct inaccuracies, and protect it from malicious edits.
Why I’m Inviting My Supporters to Help Police the Page
People who have followed my journey — whistleblowers, victims, supporters, and fellow investigators — understand the scope of my work better than anyone else.
If you see something inaccurate or malicious on the page, you can:
- Correct it
- Flag it for editors
- Add reliable references
- Report vandalism
- Restore removed factual content
The more eyes on the page, the safer it is from interference.
This isn’t about controlling a narrative.
It’s about protecting the truth.
The Wikipedia Journey Is Part of the Anti-Scam Fight
My page is not just a biography.
It’s a record of how far scammers will go and how far I’ve gone to stop them.
It covers:
- OSINT investigations
- Global criminal networks
- Court battles
- International media coverage
- Website takedowns
- Attempts to silence me
- The impact of exposing multimillion-dollar fraud
And it documents it all in one place, publicly, where anyone can verify it.
For a scam-buster, that visibility matters.
It creates accountability.
It builds trust.
And it makes it harder for scammers to bury the truth.
About the Author
I’m DANNY DE HEK, a New Zealand–based YouTuber, investigative journalist, and OSINT researcher. I name and shame individuals promoting or marketing fraudulent schemes through my YOUTUBE CHANNEL. Every video I produce exposes the people behind scams, Ponzi schemes, and MLM frauds — holding them accountable in public.
My PODCAST is an extension of that work. It’s distributed across 18 major platforms — including Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Amazon Music, YouTube, and iHeartRadio — so when scammers try to hide, my content follows them everywhere. If you prefer listening to my investigations instead of watching, you’ll find them on every major podcast service.
You can BOOK ME for private consultations or SPEAKING ENGAGEMENTS, where I share first-hand experience from years of exposing large-scale fraud and helping victims recover.
“Stop losing your future to financial parasites. Subscribe. Expose. Protect.”
My work exposing crypto fraud has been featured in:
- Bloomberg Documentary (2025): A 20-minute exposé on Ponzi schemes and crypto card fraud
- News.com.au (2025): Profiled as one of the leading scam-busters in Australasia
- OpIndia (2025): Cited for uncovering Pakistani software houses linked to drug trafficking, visa scams, and global financial fraud
- The Press / Stuff.co.nz (2023): Successfully defeated $3.85M gag lawsuit; court ruled it was a vexatious attempt to silence whistleblowing
- The Guardian Australia (2023): National warning on crypto MLMs affecting Aussie families
- ABC News Australia (2023): Investigation into Blockchain Global and its collapse
- The New York Times (2022): A full two-page feature on dismantling HyperVerse and its global network
- Radio New Zealand (2022): “The Kiwi YouTuber Taking Down Crypto Scammers From His Christchurch Home”
- Otago Daily Times (2022): A profile on my investigative work and the impact of crypto fraud in New Zealand
I think what bothers people is that you appear to be censoring your Wikipedia page, which is hypocritical. Anyone can look at the ‘talk’ section of your page and see contributions that other users have made. While some of these additions portray you in a negative light, they in no way violate Wikipedia’s standards or constitute a breach. That’s the problem, Danny – you’re showing us that you are no better than the people you purport to ‘bust.’ The purpose of Wikipedia is free and open information, yes of course it must be truthful backed by credible sources, but that doesn’t give others carte-blanche to chop and change it in order to fit their own narrative. That’s the opposite of Wikipedia’s intended purpose! In any event, everything on the talk pages and archived copies of every revision are permanent – not much you can do about that one! Looks like you’ve dug yourself quite the hole this time, Danny.
And yes, of course I’m using an anonymous email address. I’d be moronic not to.
Ah, John Citizen — back again, still clinging to whatever email address hasn’t been suspended yet. How’s the recovery going after ProtonMail, Gmail, Hotmail and Yahoo all showed you the exit? You must be running out of free trials.
Let’s clear this up for you, since accuracy clearly isn’t your strong suit. I don’t need to “edit” my own Wikipedia page — the truth stands on its own. It doesn’t need aliases, burner accounts, or sock-puppet commentary to survive. The only thing being “censored” here is your access to yet another inbox.
While you’re busy lecturing me on “free and open information,” maybe take a breath and notice the irony: you hide behind fake names, fake emails, and fake outrage, yet somehow think you’re the moral compass of Wikipedia.
But I do have to thank you. Every time you crawl back under a new username, it reminds everyone watching exactly how deep this obsession runs. I’m over here doing journalism — you’re over there creating Gmail accounts like it’s an Olympic sport.
Anyway, good luck with the next one, John. Maybe try AOL this time — they might be the last provider left willing to host your misery.
Its a shame that we can’t have a rational discussion, and that you have to resort to sarcasm and insults. Do you agree that Wikipedia. Surely you agree that Wikipedia articles should be balanced. I agree that harassment and mistruth are bad, but you need to accept that there is a large volume of work online (from high quality, credible sources) that critique your methods. In the interests of public awareness and fairness, people are free to add these to the Wikipedia page, so long as they don’t violate Wikipedias policies. Whether you or one of your team is deleting such posts – even after they have been independently approved by Wikipedia’s admin – is very concerning. If there’s nothing to hide, and truth is the most important thing…why does your Wiki page keep being censored/washed? And please, don’t send another silly sarcastic AI generated reply, lets discuss this as adults.
John, you’ve turned up here under more identities than a badly written spy novel. Gmail, Hotmail, Yahoo, ProtonMail, and now AOL — which I’m guessing was the only provider left that hasn’t blocked you yet. So forgive me if your sudden appeal for “rational adult discussion” rings a little hollow.
Let’s address the Wikipedia point you’re clinging to:
I haven’t deleted anything. I don’t control Wikipedia. Edits go through their moderation system, not mine. If certain edits don’t meet their sourcing or neutrality criteria, that’s between the editor and Wikipedia — not me.
What you call “washing,” Wikipedia calls enforcing policy. And the only person who’s been obsessively pushing one narrative day after day… is you, under five different email addresses.
You keep claiming to want “fairness,” yet you show up anonymous every time, rewrite your personality with each new inbox, and then accuse me of hiding something. That’s not a discussion — that’s projection.
And as for your request not to receive another “sarcastic AI reply,” I’ll take that onboard.
But let’s be honest, John — sarcasm isn’t the problem.
Your problem is that you keep writing the same message from a new email every day and hoping nobody notices.
When you’re ready to speak under one name like an adult, I’ll happily have an adult conversation. Until then, enjoy your new AOL account. Try not to burn through this one quite so fast.