The revelation has raised fears about whether US military secrets could have fallen into the wrong hands.

“I’m sure you are familiar with how information like that would be used,” said Mr Herzinger of the kompromat claims.

But he said that those involved may have a vested interest in keeping the details secret that goes beyond national security implications: “If you are more afraid of your home life being detonated by the revelation that you have been patronising prostitutes for however many years, then what would you give up to keep that a secret?”

He added: “We allowed this cancer to grow in the Navy and we may have excised it but what are the longer lasting ramifications? What other cultural rot exists around that piece that we have excised? I don’t think we have interrogated that very well at all.”

The US Navy said it would be “inappropriate to comment” on what may have been stored on the Chinese server “due to the “ongoing nature of this investigation, and to protect the integrity of the Department of Justice and Department of the Navy process.” 

Rear Admiral Charlie Brown, US Navy Chief of Information, said after the Navy suspended Glenn Marine Group (Asia) and its affiliates from government contracting and existing contracts, it “also made changes to the husbanding contract process in how it screens and reviews prospective companies.”

He added that the Secretary of the Navy introduced department-wide changes to reinforce ethics and contracting and accountability to the Navy’s core values, including prior, written approval from superior officers and an ethics counselor before receiving “meals or entertainment in foreign areas.”

“The Navy continues to educate Sailors about ethics and legal regulations. Of note, Flag Officers and Senior Executive Service are required to complete additional training and receive annual Ethics training,” he said. 

“The Navy expects every service member to uphold the highest standards of conduct and professionalism,” he said.

In the GDMA case, decisions about particular allegations were made on “the advice of senior legal advisors and based on the specific evidence available in each case and the relevant rules and regulations pertaining to the individual allegation.”