False Kamapa Allegations | Debunking the Disinformation of the “DNA” and “Multi-Million Dollar Settlement”
In the article “Clarifying Disinformation about the Karmapa | No Settlement,” we outlined the motivations and agenda behind the German bloggers—Tenzin Peljor (also known as Tenpel or Michael Jackel)—in spreading the misleading narratives around “DNA” and a supposed “multi-million dollar settlement.” However, we did not yet analyze the actual content of the two posts in question.
This article will take a closer look at whether those two posts qualify as rumors or misinformation. It is organized into three parts:
(A) Debunking the Rumors
(B) Addressing the Doubts
(C) Conclusion & the Latest Updates on the False Allegations Against the Karmapa
(A) Debunking the Rumors
Source: International Federation of Library Association and Institutions
“DNA” & “Multi-Million-Dollar Settlement”
from the website TIBETAN BUDDHISM STRUGGLING WITH DIFFICULT ISSUES: Controversies, Cultish Tendencies, and Abuse in Buddhism
【DNA TEST CONFIRMS KARMAPA FATHERED A CHILD, SOURCE SAYS】
Published: July 7, 2022
GUEST POST by a Vetted Contributor
According to a source close to the Karmapa, a court-mandated paternity test has definitively confirmed that the 17th Karmapa, Ogyen Trinley Dorje, fathered a child with a woman. The woman, Vikki Han, alleges that the sexual encounter was non-consensual and has retained a lawyer to pursue a civil rape case. In addition, she is seeking child support and alimony through a separate case in the Canadian courts.
A trial had been scheduled for July 2022 in the Supreme Court of British Columbia, Canada, but has since been postponed. The source claims that this delay was requested by the Karmapa’s legal team after receiving the paternity test results. The test was reportedly conducted in London at the end of January this year. It confirmed that the Karmapa is the biological father of a girl born to Vikki Han on June 19, 2018, in Canada.
The postponement is said to give both parties time to negotiate an out-of-court settlement. If such a settlement is reached, it would allow the paternity test records to remain sealed.
 |
| Source: 「TIBETAN BUDDHISM STRUGGLING WITH DIFFICULT ISSUES」blog |
【KARMAPA AGREES TO MULTIMILLION-DOLLAR SETTLEMENT WITH MOTHER OF HIS CHILD, SOURCE SAYS】
Published: January 9, 2023
GUEST POST by a Vetted Contributor
According to a source close to the 17th Karmapa, Orgyen Trinley Dorje, he has agreed to a multi-million-dollar financial settlement with a woman who alleged that he sexually assaulted and impregnated her in 2017. The woman, Vikki Han, subsequently withdrew both her paternity and child support case in Canada and her civil rape lawsuit in New York, reportedly following the out-of-court agreement.
Several sources claim that before these cases were dropped, a court-mandated DNA test conducted in January 2022 confirmed that the Karmapa was the biological father of Han’s child.
 | |
|
(A) Debunking Rumors
The term “rumor” refers to unverified claims or stories that circulate without credible evidence to support them. Debunking such rumors involves a careful process, including the following steps:
1. Verify the source
False information often originates from unreliable sources—such as anonymous individuals, unverified blogs, or people without professional credentials. Confirming the source is a crucial first step in assessing whether a claim is trustworthy.
Authors:
Both the “DNA” and “Multi-Million-Dollar Settlement” posts were authored by “guest contributors” and published anonymously.
Sources:
- “DNA” post: The phrases used include “source says,” “according to sources,” and “according to a source close to the Karmapa.”
- “Settlement” post: Similar language is used, such as “sources say,” “according to a source close to the Karmapa,” “according to multiple sources,” and “according to reports.”
None of the sources are identified or verifiable. They remain anonymous and untraceable.
2. Confirm the evidence
If a claim lacks concrete evidence, it may well be false. Fact-checking and reviewing related documents or expert opinions help clarify accuracy.
a. DNA claim:
The “Han v. KTD” motion document filed by Han stated that the Karmapa had no assets in Canada. Therefore, she filed a motion in a New York court requesting KTD to disclose its board of directors. She also sought to hold KTD financially liable for alimony. However, the motion contains no mention of any DNA evidence.
b. Settlement claim:
There is no documentation or evidence to support the claim of a multimillion-dollar settlement.
Both posts present no credible evidence.
3. Check for Contradictions
False stories often include inconsistencies. Analyzing internal contradictions and examining the logic of the claims can help reveal falsehoods.
In civil litigation, if a case is dismissed “with prejudice,” it is considered final, and the plaintiff cannot refile it. If dismissed “without prejudice,” the case is withdrawn temporarily and can be reinstated later. (See: “Clarify Disinformation About Karmapa | No Settlement.”)
On September 14, 2022, Han voluntarily withdrew her lawsuit against KTD unconditionally. The dismissal was recorded as “Discontinued without prejudice.” This legal terminology confirms that there was no out-of-court settlement—because such settlements almost always result in dismissal with prejudice.
 |
| Sources: Supreme Court of the state of the New York |
4. Check official records
Consulting official documents and legal records is a reliable method for verifying claims.
a. Family law cases in Canada are typically closed to the public to protect the privacy of both parties. Since Han’s case was filed in a Canadian family court, no public access to trial information exists.
b. Han claimed to have filed a civil rape case in New York. However, there are no court records showing that such a lawsuit ever existed.
5. Search for corroborating reports
If only one source reports a sensational story, it raises red flags. Credible news is usually corroborated by other independent media outlets.
The blog titled “TIBETAN BUDDHISM STRUGGLING WITH DIFFICULT ISSUES: Controversies, cultish tendencies and abuse in Buddhism” was the sole platform to publish these two stories. No mainstream media outlets or independent sources have reported or confirmed them.
Conclusion of Section A:
Based on the above analysis:
- The authors of both the “DNA” and “Multi-Million-Dollar Settlement” posts are anonymous.
- Their sources are unnamed and unverifiable.
- There is no supporting evidence presented in either post.
- Legal documents confirm that no out-of-court settlement occurred.
- No other news outlet or website has reported these claims.
Therefore, the content of both the “DNA” and “Multi-Million-Dollar Settlement” posts is entirely fictitious. These are baseless rumors.
On September 14, 2022, Vikki Han voluntarily withdrew her lawsuit against Karma Triyana Dharmachakra (KTD). The case was marked “discontinued without prejudice”, meaning she reserved the right to refile in the future. This is a critical legal detail that contradicts the blog’s narrative of a final settlement.
- Han’s New York attorney also removed a video and deleted a webpage that had publicly slandered the Karmapa.
- In New York civil procedures, especially for dismissals involving an institution like KTD, the plaintiff simply files a notice of discontinuance using the court’s standard form.
According to The Rothman Law Firm:
“If an action is terminated with prejudice, the case is over and cannot be brought again.
If discontinued without prejudice, the case can be refiled later.”
This distinction is vital. In most settlements, the defendant will insist that the lawsuit be discontinued with prejudice—to prevent the plaintiff from reopening the case after receiving compensation. Any reasonable party involved in a settlement, especially one involving substantial payment, would not agree to let the opposing party retain the right to sue again.
To quote a common legal rationale:
“If A sues B and accepts compensation in a settlement, B will require that all disputes be dismissed with prejudice—otherwise, A could sue again after receiving the money. That would make B look like a fool.”
Thus, if there had truly been a mutual out-of-court settlement, the case would have ended with a stipulated dismissal with prejudice, meaning both parties formally agreed to close the case permanently.
However, Han’s court document reads:
“I, Vikki Hui Xin Han, hereby affirm that the above-entitled action… is hereby discontinued as against Karma Triyana Dharmachakra Monastery, without prejudice and without costs to any party.”
This clearly indicates no final settlement was reached, and no compensation was given. Therefore, the claim of a multi-million-dollar payout is not only unsupported—it directly contradicts the legal record.
Ethics Violation?
In Tricycle (November 18, 2022), Han’s attorney Dr. Ann Olivarius stated:
“I am ethically barred from commenting on the case.”
This is stronger than a simple “no comment.” Who has the authority to bar her from speaking? Possibly the New York Bar Association Ethics Committee or the Attorney Grievance Committee.
It’s also worth noting: her law firm hired a new lawyer with similar credentials during this period, which raises questions. Could it suggest that Dr. Olivarius became ethically entangled in Team Han’s actions? It’s not conclusive—but it’s worth considering.
*********
Criticism by Rob Hogendoorn
Investigative journalist and academic Rob Hogendoorn published three articles criticizing the so-called “DNA” story and the tactics used by blogger Tenzin Peljor:
『Hardly An Elevating Sight, But Quite Enlightening』
Hogendoorn argued that Peljor is neither a journalist nor a scholar and is therefore not bound by professional ethics. He frequently uses unnamed “trusted sources” to spread unverified rumors. He then shifts his narrative to fit the moment.
Hogendoorn accuses Peljor of publishing the DNA post purely for clickbait because “Karmapa Allegations” generate attention. Publishing unverified claims about such a sensitive case is, in his words, “simply unethical.”
(B) Clarifying Doubts
1. “If it’s not true, why doesn’t the person involved come forward and explain?”
For most ordinary people, when we’re wrongly accused or misunderstood, our instinct is to speak up and defend ourselves. That’s a natural response.
But since the rise of the #MeToo movement in 2017, especially in the West, public opinion and media pressure have often judged people before the legal system has a chance to do so. Even when someone is later found innocent, the damage to their reputation is often already done.
Take the example of Asian pop star Leehom Wang in 2021. During his divorce, his ex-wife wrote a long post accusing him of misconduct. The public immediately took sides. Leehom tried to explain his side of the story, but no one believed him. He was attacked online, harshly criticized, and his career collapsed overnight. Eventually, he stopped responding altogether, but even his silence and every move he made were picked apart. Whether he spoke or stayed silent, the result was the same—he was judged and destroyed by public opinion from the very beginning.
In the Karmapa’s case, he foresaw what was coming. As early as 2018, he was aware of plans to attack his reputation and had already made preparations. Before the Jane Huang story broke in Mirror Weekly, the Karmapa had publicly announced that he would enter retreat. He even told his Chinese translator, “I don’t think we can give an official reply—doing so would only help them.”
The Karmapa, with his extraordinary insight and wisdom, knew that the other side was expecting him to deny the accusations. If he had done so, he would have walked right into their trap. The three women behind the allegations, along with the momentum of public opinion, aimed to bring him down in one blow. Instead, the Karmapa chose not to respond in the way they expected. He entered retreat before anyone thought to demand a response from him.
Many people didn’t understand his silence and criticized him further. They turned away, assuming guilt, and repeated slanderous accusations.
But the Karmapa’s decision not to defend himself publicly wasn’t weakness—it was wisdom. While he didn’t respond like an ordinary person might, he approached the situation in a deeper way, beyond conventional means. Over time, the lies of the three women have gradually unraveled, and the truth about these false allegations has become clearer.
It won’t be long before the legal system officially clears the Karmapa’s name.
【The False Karmapa Allegations | The Lies of Vikki Han, Wu Hang Yee, and Jane Huang】
2. “The judge must have believed the evidence and allegations were true, so they accepted the case.”
In law, evidence must meet strict standards—it must be credible and reliable to be considered valid. Before any evidence is officially accepted in court, it typically undergoes a process of scrutiny and review to confirm its authenticity.
Let’s look at the famous case of Amber Heard v. Johnny Depp.
In 2016, during their divorce proceedings, Amber Heard accused Johnny Depp of domestic violence and requested alimony. She submitted various forms of evidence—photos showing bruises, medical records, and witness statements. The court accepted the case, and Depp later settled privately, paying Heard around $14 million. At the time, she was seen as a symbol of the #MeToo movement.
However, in 2022, during the high-profile defamation trial Johnny Depp v. Amber Heard, Depp’s legal team exposed the 2016 evidence as false. The trial revealed that Heard had fabricated her claims and manipulated evidence. Although the earlier case had been accepted by the court, it had not gone through a full trial or deep investigation before the settlement. When the defamation case finally brought everything to light under intense legal scrutiny, Heard’s claims didn’t hold up—and Depp won the case.
This shows that a case being accepted by the court does not mean the judge believes the evidence is necessarily true—it simply means the case has enough grounds to proceed. The real test of truth comes later, through thorough legal procedures and cross-examination.
In the Canadian case Han v. Dorje, the judge clearly stated:
“[6] The allegations by the claimant are presumed to be true for the purposes of this application. Those allegations have not been tested in a court of law.” — Han v. Dorje, 2021 BCSC 939
Like in many civil procedures, the judge only examined whether the lawsuit had legal standing—not whether the evidence was true. Han’s claims and documents were never subjected to a full legal investigation or challenge.
So, the belief that “the judge must have thought the allegations were true just because the case was accepted” is simply incorrect.
3. Han claimed that the Karmapa sent her $700,000 through a third party
Han has stated that between early 2018 and early 2019, she was pregnant and living on the streets. She said a male friend helped her buy a plane ticket back to Canada, helped her rent a place to live, and stayed by her side for prenatal checkups. He also took care of her and her newborn for four months before returning to his job in the U.S.
During that time, according to Han, the Karmapa completely abandoned her and the child, cutting off all contact.
【Canadian woman Vikki Hui Xin Han falsely accused the 17th Karmapa】
 |
| Source: Dazhen Shi(Vikki Han) Facebook page |
3. Han claimed the Karmapa sent her $700,000 through a third party
From early 2018 to early 2019, Han claimed that she and the Karmapa had a relationship like husband and wife, communicating regularly through the messaging app Line and expressing their affection for each other. She also claimed the Karmapa transferred a total of $700,000 USD to her through third parties.
According to court documents:
“[18] Throughout 2018, Mr. Dorje transferred funds in various denominations to Ms. Han through various third parties. Ms. Han deposes that these funds were:
a) $50,000 CDN to deliver the child and for postpartum care she was to receive at a facility in Seattle;
b) $300,000 CDN for the first year of the child’s life;
c) $20,000 USD for a wedding ring, because Ms. Han wrote ‘Even if we cannot get married, you must buy me a wedding ring’;
d) $400,000 USD to purchase a home for the mother and child.”
— Han v. Dorje, 2021 BCSC 939
However, during the exact same period—from early 2018 to early 2019—Han also told a completely different story. So, which version is true? In fact, neither one holds up as entirely credible.
In July 2019, Han filed a child support lawsuit against the Karmapa in Canadian court. The case received no media attention at the time. From early 2019 to May 2021, she posted repeatedly on her Facebook account under the name “Dazhen Shi.” In those posts, she described being sexually assaulted, giving birth to a daughter, being abandoned by the Karmapa, and being supported by her boyfriend—who took her to medical appointments and cared for her and the baby. That was her original storyline.
Then, on May 17, 2021, Han amended her complaint to include a claim for spousal support. At this point, the story changed: now she described her relationship with the Karmapa as a long-term romantic partnership, even resembling marriage. Only after this shift in narrative did the media begin covering the case widely.
It’s clear that the goal behind revising the story was to gain more media traction and destroy the Karmapa’s reputation through public exposure. When the original lawsuit in 2019 gained no attention, Team Han reworked the narrative and timed it with the press in 2021.
Han claimed the $700,000 was transferred to her by three of the Karmapa’s staff members at KTD Monastery. She also submitted bank statements showing three transfers. This evidence—if true—could be a key lead for U.S. law enforcement. By following the money, investigators could potentially trace who was behind it all.
4. DNA Paternity Test
In Han’s Canadian lawsuit, the DNA test is one of the most critical pieces of evidence.
“[25] Ms. Han commenced this family law case on July 17, 2019, seeking child support, a declaration of parentage and a parentage test.”
— Han v. Dorje, 2021 BCSC 939
When Han filed the child support case on July 17, 2019, she submitted a paternity test report. But instead of naming a father or including a DNA sample from the alleged father, the test was based on stained underwear. This kind of evidence cannot conclusively prove parentage.
Despite this, Han insisted that since the court accepted the report she submitted, there was no need to conduct a proper DNA test later in the proceedings.
【Vikki Han’s Daughter & DNA Paternity Test】
 |
Source: Hui Xin Han Facebook page
On May 17, 2021, Han applied to amend her original complaint to add a claim for spousal support. The judge believed that the Karmapa might respond by raising the issue of paternity and adjusting his legal filings accordingly. Because Canadian family court proceedings prioritize the privacy of both parties, most of the trial process is not open to the public. Since Han’s lawsuit is being heard in family court, very little information about the case is accessible to outsiders. This gives Team Han room to fabricate narratives and spread rumors without being publicly scrutinized. It’s likely that the Karmapa’s legal team would request a DNA paternity test. But if that test ends up contradicting Han’s claims, her lawsuit could collapse. Knowing this, Team Han couldn’t afford to wait passively for that to happen. Instead, they struck first—by filing a lawsuit against KTD (Karma Triyana Dharmachakra Monastery), launching a full-scale attack to smear both the Karmapa and his monastic seat in the U.S. Then, on July 7, 2022, an anonymous blog post titled “The Source Says—DNA Confirms that the Karmapa is the Father of the Child” appeared on the site Tibetan Buddhism Struggling with Difficult Issues. The post cited no sources and was written anonymously. This was a sharp departure from Team Han’s usual tactics. Their typical approach is to use high-profile media coverage to amplify allegations against the Karmapa. So why was such a sensational claim—alleged DNA confirmation—quietly buried in a little-known blog, with no author and no source? And why didn’t they publicize the far more scandalous content of the KTD lawsuit through major news outlets? This behavior is suspicious. It suggests they may have been trying to avoid scrutiny from the court or the Karmapa’s legal team. Something about this strategy doesn’t add up. For that reason, we forwarded this information to the Karmapa’s representative handling the Canadian case. |
 |
| Email to the Karmapa representative |
Han should never have been allowed to publicly defame the Karmapa. The lawsuit she filed against KTD contained inappropriate, inflammatory content aimed at slandering him. Team Han then handed those materials to a German blogger, who spread the false “DNA” story across major online platforms in Europe and North America. This was essentially a disguised attempt to publicly defame the Karmapa under the pretense of legal action.
This violated a court injunction. As a result, the judge ordered Han to withdraw or delete all materials that publicly defamed the Karmapa.
On September 14, 2022, Han unconditionally filed to withdraw her lawsuit against KTD as “discontinued without prejudice,” and no out-of-court settlement was reached. Her New York attorney, Dr. Ann Olivarius, also took down all web pages and videos that had defamed the Karmapa. Dr. Olivarius later stated she was ethically barred from discussing the case further. Around the same time, her law firm quietly hired another lawyer with similar qualifications to take over. The timing led many to question whether Dr. Olivarius had been implicated due to Team Han’s unethical conduct.
(C) Conclusion
“There is wisdom in not believing rumors”—meaning that when something lacks a factual basis, the wise will not entertain or spread it. Rumors—whether lies, distortions, or half-truths—cannot withstand verification or scrutiny.
The “DNA” claim and the so-called “million-dollar settlement,” along with the coordinated allegations from the three women, have all fallen apart under closer examination. These were lies. And now, they’ve been exposed for what they are.
“A thousand fools believing a lie doesn’t make it true.”
《Latest on the False Karmapa Allegations》
In early March 2023, the Karmapa held high-level meetings with U.S. law enforcement authorities. The main focus was the false allegations made against him.
It appears that U.S. authorities are now preparing to “settle accounts after the harvest.” The wheels of justice are turning—and the outcome of the legal investigation is close at hand.
The Karmapa once shared a prophetic dream: “The law will prove my innocence.”
That moment is drawing near.
【China's Operation Fox Hunt(Skynet) & False Karmapa Allegations】
