Author: tio

Speaking privately with their bankers in February 2023, two associates of India’s Adani family confirmed that they held billions of dollars worth of stock in their conglomerate, Adani Group, through several hedge funds.

Their admission, found in banking documents obtained by OCCRP, had a direct bearing on a scandal that was roiling the country. Just weeks earlier, American short seller Hindenburg Research had published an explosive report claiming that the Adani Group’s decade-long stock rally had been improperly driven by insiders through “brazen” manipulation.

The affair made headlines across the world, in part because of the Adani Group’s widely perceived closeness to Prime Minister Narendra Modi. But after plummeting for a time, Adani’s stock recovered. The company issued a lengthy response denying all wrongdoing and decrying the report as an “attack on India.” And after a lengthy investigation, the country’s market regulator, SEBI, released two orders that found no violations in two aspects of the case, essentially ruling in favor of the Adani Group. No findings from its many other strands of investigation have ever been publicly aired.

In the meantime, OCCRP and its reporting partners, the Financial Times and the Guardian, had revealed the names of two men who had spent years secretly trading Adani stock: Nasser Ali Shaban Ahli, a citizen of the United Arab Emirates, and Chang Chung-Ling, a Taiwanese citizen. Both men’s ties to the Adani family have been widely reported over the years, and both held positions in affiliated companies. The Adani Group again denied all allegations of impropriety, pursuing journalists in court and accusing them of representing “Soros-funded interests.”

But now, internal documents from REYL Intesa Sanpaolo, a Swiss banking group headquartered in Geneva, reveal that Ahli and Chang’s investments in the Adani Group were much larger and more recent than was publicly known. While previous reporting revealed investments in the hundreds of millions between 2013 and 2018, the documents show they held about $3 billion in Adani stock through several hedge funds as recently as 2023 through accounts with Reyl Finance (MEA) Ltd., a Dubai-based subsidiary of REYL Intesa Sanpaolo.

According to an internal report, Ahli and Chang confirmed this to their bank in writing, explaining that they had made these investments because they had personal and professional relationships with members of the Adani family and trusted their business acumen. In their statement to the bank, Ahli and Chang denied the allegations made by Hindenburg Research.

The internal report also refers to inquiries about Ahli and Chang that the bank received from Swiss authorities. According to an August 2024 court ruling, prosecutors in the country were conducting a criminal investigation into Chang, suspecting him of acting as a “front man” for Adani Group investments, and froze over $310 million in assets. No charges have been brought. Asked about the status of the case, the Federal Prosecutor’s Office did not comment on Chang’s identity, but confirmed that a criminal investigation into money laundering and forgery of documents was underway. The bank did not respond to requests for further detail. The Adani Group has denied any involvement.

The Swiss case, which closely tracks OCCRP’s previous reporting on the affair, is just one of the legal challenges the Adani Group has faced in recent years. In November 2024, U.S. federal prosecutors indicted the group’s founder Gautam Adani and his nephew for allegedly promising to pay hundreds of millions of dollars in bribes to Indian officials. A spokesman for the Eastern District of New York declined a request to comment on the status of the case. The Securities and Exchange Commission filed a parallel civil complaint, which is ongoing. The group has called the accusations “baseless” and said it would pursue “all possible legal recourse.”

In response to requests for comment, an Adani Group spokesperson wrote that any alleged “front men” for the Adani family are in fact “public shareholders.”

“Under Indian law, a listed company neither controls nor directs who purchases publicly traded shares, nor does it have visibility into or responsibility for the source of funds of public shareholders beyond disclosures mandated by regulators,” the spokesperson wrote. “Any suggestion that promoter shareholding has been misstated or concealed is incorrect and contrary to disclosures made in accordance with applicable law.”

The allegations found in the Hindenburg Report “have been adequately addressed by us and already examined at the highest levels of India’s regulatory and judicial framework, including the Supreme Court of India,” the spokesperson wrote. “The Adani portfolio of companies remain fully compliant with all laws and disclosure requirements across jurisdictions and continues to have complete faith in due process and the rule of law.”

Ahli and Chang did not respond to requests for comment. In a short statement, a representative of Intesa Sanpaolo wrote that the bank “is not in a position to comment, as any disclosure is not permitted by law in Italy, the United Arab Emirates and Switzerland.”

Billions invested through the British Virgin Islands

The new revelations about Ahli and Chang appear in documents that detail their bank’s response to the Hindenburg Research report and ensuing scandal.

According to these documents, after becoming aware of the allegations, the Italy-based Fideuram Intesa Sanpaolo Private Banking carried out an internal investigation into whether anyone connected to the Adani Group held any accounts with its private banking units.

That investigation identified three relevant accounts, holding just over $3 billion in assets, at Reyl MEA, a Dubai subsidiary of the Swiss REYL Intesa Sanpaolo:

• Nasser Ali Shaban Ahli held $2.02 billion through his BVI-based company, Gulf Asia Trade & Investment Ltd. Almost the entire amount was invested in hedge funds which had seen “significant increases in value over the last 3 years” and were “likely” invested in Adani Group companies.

• Chang Chung-Ling held $1.02 billion through his BVI-based company, Lingo Investment Ltd. Almost the entire amount was invested in the same hedge funds, again with the note that they were “probably being invested in Adani Group companies.”

• Vinod Adani, the elder brother of the Adani family, held $6.5 million through his UAE-registered company, Kommerce Trade & Services. Most of this was invested in a pharmaceutical company, though investigators noted some loan-related transactions “of a not particularly significant amount” between his company and Chang’s. Adani did not respond to requests for comment.

Afterwards, Intesa Sanpaolo’s Chief Audit Officer and anti-financial-crime team requested that Ahli and Chang be called in for a meeting to explain their investments and their stance on the Hindenburg Research allegations.

At that meeting, held in February 2023 with the CEO and a board member of Reyl MEA, both men signed a written statement confirming that the accounts were theirs and stating that they had made their investments in Adani stock because they had personal and business relationships with the family and trusted their business acumen. They denied any wrongdoing and promised to diversify their holdings “in the short term.”

The bank also took additional measures, blocking any transactions on their accounts without specific authorization from an anti-money laundering officer. 

It did not respond to reporters’ questions about its client relationship with Chang and Ahli.

Swiss Investigations 

The documents obtained by reporters also add new details to what is known about Swiss law enforcement attention to Ahli and Chang.

According to the internal report from Fideuram Intesa Sanpaolo Private Banking, half-a-year before the Hindenburg report was published, Swiss “judicial authorities” sent “specific information requests” to REYL Intesa Sanpaolo about accounts held by Ahli and Chang. Subsequently, the bank submitted suspicious transaction reports to the Swiss Financial Intelligence Unit relating to both men, as well as Vinod Adani. The relevant accounts were closed at the end of December 2022 due to a lack of activity, and they are not the same accounts later found to hold the $3 billion.

The Swiss information requests came as the authorities were looking into Chang for “suspicion of money laundering and forgery of documents” in an investigation that has been ongoing since 2021, according to an August 2024 decision by the Swiss Federal Criminal Court. (As reported at the time by Gotham City and the Financial Times, though Chang’s name does not appear in the decision, he can be identified by the information provided.)

In that investigation, which was begun by prosecutors in Geneva but later taken over by the Federal Prosecutor’s Office, Chang is suspected of being a “front man” for the Adani group as part of a scheme to enable insiders to own a larger share of its stock than is permitted by law — exactly as he was described in previous reporting by OCCRP and the Financial Times. In connection with the case, Swiss prosecutors have frozen $311 million held by Chang in five bank accounts. 

In the August 2024 decision, the Swiss Federal Criminal Court rejected an appeal by Chang’s company — the very same Lingo Investment Ltd that held his $1 billion — to unfreeze the money. 

“The prosecuting authority must have time to conduct its investigation,” the court ruled. “It should be noted that the appellant is clearly unable to provide [prosecutors] with the explanations — in the form of supporting documents — which it should be able to provide in order to dispel the doubts legitimately raised.”

Asked about the status of the case, the Federal Prosecutor’s Office did not comment on Chang’s identity, but confirmed that a criminal investigation into money laundering and forgery of documents was underway.

The EU Delegation to the United Nations in Geneva on Monday commemorated the Russian opposition leader Alexei Navalny, marking two years since his death in custody as European officials pointed to new laboratory findings they say strengthen evidence he was poisoned.

Diplomats gathered at a memorial in Geneva, laying flowers and holding photographs before observing a minute of silence. In remarks, the EU ambassador, Deike Potzel, said several European governments had concluded that Navalny’s death was the foreseeable outcome of a political system designed to silence dissent, noting that Russia holds more than 2,000 political prisoners, including journalists, lawyers and rights advocates.

Her comments came days after the United Kingdom, Germany, France, the Netherlands and Sweden said analyses by their national laboratories had “conclusively confirmed” the presence of epibatidine — a rare, highly toxic alkaloid associated with South American poison dart frogs — in biological samples linked to Navalny. The governments said the substance is not found naturally in Russia and that poisoning was therefore “highly likely” to have caused his death.

Speaking in Bratislava, Marco Rubio said the United States had “no reason” to doubt the European findings, calling the report troubling, though he stopped short of announcing any formal U.S. action.

The announcement coincided with international security meetings in Munich attended by Navalny’s widow, Yulia Navalnaya, who said the laboratory conclusions confirmed what she had long alleged: that President Vladimir Putin bore responsibility for her husband’s death.

European officials described the findings as significant because they link Navalny’s death to a specific toxin identified by multiple laboratories, potentially strengthening grounds for international action. The five governments said they had notified the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, signaling a possible violation of the Chemical Weapons Convention.

Members of the Russian opposition platform at the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe said the report confirmed long-standing accusations that Russian authorities were responsible and called for an international tribunal to investigate Navalny’s death and other alleged crimes.

Russian officials have denied involvement and dismissed the accusations as propaganda.

How does someone end up giving millions of dollars to a scammer impersonating a famous Dubai prince? 

Our recent investigation looked at one such case, but research shows this type of fraud is far from unique.

There is a blueprint for pulling off what has come to be known as the “Fake Dubai Prince” scam, and it often involves a meticulous, months-long effort to gain a victim’s trust before robbing them of their savings.

Drawing on our own investigation and other reported cases of the scheme, plus insights from a fraud expert, we’ve broken down the scammer’s playbook to understand how it works, why it is so dangerous, and how to spot the red flags.

What is the Fake Dubai Prince Scam?

The Fake Dubai Prince scam is just one variation of the classic romance scam, in which an impersonator cultivates an online relationship with a victim with the goal of milking them for as much money as possible before they realize they’ve been swindled.  

“They are perpetrated usually by organized criminals, and they use sophisticated social engineering and manipulation techniques based on psychological assessments to essentially create and deepen trust with individuals,” said Andrei Skorobogatov, the director of policy at the Global Anti-Scam Alliance (GASA).

In this version, perpetrators pose as the real-life Crown Prince of Dubai in an attempt to woo victims with their alleged status and power.  

A 43-year-old popularly known as “Fazza,” Sheikh Hamdan bin Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum is a globe-trotting celebrity. Crucially, his large online presence —  including 17 million Instagram followers — provides ample content for fraudsters to draw from. (Numerous examples of scams using his likeness have been documented).

Yet what starts as a whirlwind romance with the Dubai prince steadily turns into financial pressure. 

How Does It Work?

It typically begins online, with victims contacted on social media by a person with a handsome avatar who claims to be a member of Dubai’s royal family. Only, as OCCRP’s recent investigation exposed, this so-called prince is usually a scammer in a different country.

Fraudsters are known to identify potentially vulnerable people — such as the elderly or those in financial distress — by harvesting data from breaches or public profiles. They may also join interest groups on social media platforms as a plausible pretext to chat. 

Once the conversation gets going, scammers often insist on moving the back-and-forth off of a dating site or social media platform to private, encrypted messaging apps. 

The reasons why the crown prince — a billionaire — may claim he needs to borrow money from his new lover can be due to any number of bureaucratic or diplomatic hurdles, such as frozen assets or needing help bypassing foreign banking restrictions. In some cases, victims have reported being told they needed to purchase a “Dubai Royal Membership Card” in order to meet the prince, even though such an accreditation does not exist. 

The swindle may also involve other characters. The case covered by OCCRP saw a collaborator pose as Fazza’s financial manager and meet with the victim in-person to bolster the ruse. 

To downplay fears that they are seeking to steal, the scammers may make it appear as if they’ve sent large sums of money to the victim’s accounts, though in reality such deposits are often fake. In some cases, victims are tricked into becoming “money mules” for the scammers and end up unknowingly laundering illicit funds. 

“These are criminal networks and gangs. These are not people working by themselves. And they will use whatever tools and requirements they need to make themselves more legitimate,” said Skorobogatov.

Even after victims of a romance scam have started to catch on, they may find themselves losing even more money in a second stage of the scheme known as the “asset recovery” scam. This phase sees scammers pose as representatives of banks, authorities or asset recovery companies and promise victims they can recover their funds — by paying even more. 

The Fazza persona is just one of the more recent vehicles for this kind of fraud. Fraudsters tend to use whatever is popular, current, and attractive, says Skorobogatov.

They want to use “something recognizable enough that you trust it in principle, but distant enough that you don’t actually know anything about it and you’re not going to question anything.” 

“Whether in this case it’s a Crown Prince of Dubai, a Nigerian prince, or a prominent Hollywood celebrity… it really doesn’t matter. Fraud fundamentally is a crime of abuse of trust.”

Why Does It Matter?

The Dubai Prince scam is part of a larger ecosystem of fraud that plays on people’s hearts, and targets their wallets. GASA estimates that in 2025, $442 billion was lost to scams around the world. 

In the context of the broader global fraud industry, romance scams are low in frequency but extremely high in impact, says Skorobogatov. 

Scammers are adept at putting people under their spell, which can be extremely hard to break, even after repeated warnings from loved ones or authorities. 

There is also often a level of self-denial that prevents victims from realizing what is happening, combined with the belief that “I wouldn’t get scammed,” even when others do.  

Anyone can fall victim to a romance scam, but people may be more vulnerable if they are feeling lonely or going through an emotional transition in their life, such as divorce or grief, or are less familiar with how to stay safe online. 

How To Spot Red Flags

Here are some of the red flags to look out for when it comes to online romance, according to anti-fraud organizations GASA and the internet safety group Global Cyber Alliance:

• They are unable to meet you in person. Various excuses can be given for this. Even be wary of video calls now – scammers can take advantage of AI or deepfakes to mimic a stranger’s face during brief calls.

• A claim to prestige. This is often used to make the prospect of a relationship with the figure seem especially alluring. 

• “Love-bombing.” The relationship escalates quickly, despite never having met one another in-person. There may be elaborate gifts, early proclamations of love, and even marriage offers. 

• Being redirected to other platforms. Be wary if a person is quick to ask you to leave a social media or dating platform to communicate directly on messaging apps. 

• Isolation. Scammers are often keen to distance you from friends and family. 

• Financial asks. It can start with small amounts for innocuous reasons, tied to displays of their own wealth through fabricated bank accounts or similar techniques. Watch out for requests to move money or open accounts on their behalf, which could implicate you in financial crimes. 

• Detailed payment instructions. The perpetrator or their associates will have ready answers to any questions of how to transfer them money, often through obscure means like crypto exchanges.  

The Tawila camp for internally displaced in Sudan’s war-torn Darfur region is home to more than half a million people who live in makeshift huts of sticks, hay and plastic sheeting.

As Ukraine prepares to enter the fifth year of the full-scale Russian invasion on 24 February, UN monitors say harm to civilians has “demonstrably worsened”, while energy attacks and freezing temperatures are making it harder for displaced families to return.

UN Secretary-General António Guterres has condemned Israel’s decision to resume land registration procedures in a large part of the occupied West Bank, his Spokesman said on Monday.