Bargain Hunt expert jailed after selling art to suspected Hezbollah financier
Oghenochuko Ojiri, who also appeared on Antiques Road Trip, pleaded guilty to eight offences under section 21A of the Terrorism Act 2000.
The 53-year-old, who ran an art gallery in east London, admitted failing to disclose information about sales he made to Beirut-based Nazem Ahmad.
Ahmad was sanctioned by the US and UK authorities on suspicion that he was money laundering and financing the Iran-backed terror group Hezbollah.
New money laundering regulations were introduced in January 2020, bringing the art market under HMRC supervision and putting a responsibility on dealers to ensure they were following the rules.
The Old Bailey heard Ojiri had discussed the changes with a colleague in the US over email, indicating he was aware of his responsibilities.
Evidence recovered from his phone also showed he had downloaded a New York Times article about Ahmad, indicating he knew of the suspicions surrounding his activities.
But on eight occasions between October 2020 and December 2021, he sold works of art to Ahmad worth £140,000.
He disguised his name in his telephone and claimed the works were being sold to a different person.
Ojiri was arrested in April 2023 in north Wales while filming a show for the BBC.
He admitted the offences when he appeared at Westminster magistrates' court last month.
Gavin Irwin, representing Ojiri, said the art expert and married father's 'humiliation is complete' having lost 'his good name' and the 'work he loves'.
Appearing at the Old Bailey for sentencing, Ojiri was given a three and a half year sentence comprising two and a half years in jail and another year on licence.
Mrs Justice Cheema-Grubb said: 'Mr Ojiri, your hard work, talent and charisma has brought you a great deal of success.
'But working in a regulated sector carries significant responsibility. You knew you should not be dealing with this man. I do not accept that you were naive.
'Rather, it benefitted you to close your eyes to what you believed he was. You knew it was your duty to alert the authorities. Instead you elected to balance the financial profit and commercial success of your business against Nazem Ahmad's dark side.'
Commander Dominic Murphy, head of the Met's Counter Terrorism Command, said: 'This case is a great example of the work done by detectives in the National Terrorist Financial Investigation Unit (NTFIU), based in the Met's Counter Terrorism Command.
'The prosecution, using specific Terrorism Act legislation is the first of its kind, and should act as a warning to all art dealers that we can, and will, prosecute those who knowingly do business with people identified as funders of terrorist groups.
'Oghenochuko Ojiri wilfully obscured the fact he knew he was selling artwork to Nazem Ahmad, someone who has been sanctioned by the UK and US Treasury and described as a funder of the proscribed terrorist group Hezbollah.
'Financial investigation is a crucial part of the counter terrorism effort. A team of specialist investigators, analysts and researchers in the NTFIU work all year round to prevent money from reaching the hands of terrorists or being used to fund terrorist attacks.'
This is a breaking news story. More follows
Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
USA Today
33 minutes ago
- USA Today
Jane's Addiction's concert brawl turns into a legal fight: Reports
Members of Jane's Addiction entangled themselves in a legal tug-of-war this week, with several members of the rock band suing the lead singer, who retaliated with a lawsuit of his own. The lawsuits surround an onstage fight between guitarist Peter Navarro and frontman Perry Farrell at a 2024 concert in Boston, which resulted in the cancellation of both remaining tour dates and an upcoming album, The New York Times and Associated Press report. USA TODAY has reached out to lawyers for both sides of the dispute for comment. Navarro, along with drummer Stephen Perkins and bassist Eric Avery, filed a suit against Farrell in Los Angeles Superior Court this week, alleging the lead singer had behaved erratically throughout the tour, in a troubling pattern that culminated in the 2024 assault, according to the outlets. The complaint, filed July 16, alleged Farrell punched Navarro both on and off stage and seeks $10 million in damages. Jane's Addiction concert ends after Perry Farrell punches guitarist Dave Navarro In response, Farrell, along with his wife Etty Lau Farrell, filed a dueling lawsuit, accusing the remaining members of the band of a campaign of bullying that included playing their instruments too loud on stage, making it hard to hear himself sing, the outlets report. Farrell and his wife also contend that it was Navarro who initiated the assault, according to the outlets, mirroring his bandmates' claims of emotional distress and breach of contract, but reversing the blame. "This is yet another clear example of the group uniting to isolate and bully frontman Perry Farrell," Farrell's legal tream wrote in a statement to USA TODAY July 18. "The timing of this baseless lawsuit is no coincidence — it was filed only after they caught wind of legal action coming from our side. It's a transparent attempt to control the narrative and present themselves as the so-called 'good guys' — a move that's both typical and predictable. "Just like when they released a defamatory and entirely unfounded statement about Perry's mental health and unilaterally canceled the remaining tour dates without his input, they're once again scrambling to get ahead of the truth in a desperate effort to save face," the statement continued. At the time of the original assault, the Los Angeles-based rock group, which formed in 1985 and became an essential part of the local alt-rock scene, was on a reunion tour. Dave Navarro on reuniting with Jane's Addiction after Perry Farrell fight: 'No chance' In an interview with the magazine Guitar Player in May, Navarro blamed the altercation for the forever breakup of the band. "There was an altercation onstage, and all the hard work and dedication and writing and hours in the studio and picking up and leaving home and crisscrossing the country and Europe and trying to overcome my illness — it all came to a screeching halt and forever destroyed the band's life," he told the outlet. "And there's no chance for the band to ever play together again." Shortly after the assault, Navarro, Perkins and Avery issued a joint statement, cancelling remaining shows and citing "concern for his (Farrell's) personal health and safety as well as our own." "We hope that he will find the help he needs," they wrote. "We can see no solution that would either ensure a safe environment onstage or reliably allow us to deliver a great performance on a nightly basis." At the time, Farrell offered an apology to Navarro and his bandmates in a statement shared with USA TODAY, writing in September: "Unfortunately, my breaking point resulted in inexcusable behavior, and I take full accountability for how I chose to handle the situation." Contributing: Jay Stahl and Taijuan Moorman, USA TODAY
Boston Globe
33 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
Democracy dies on the shadow docket
The shadow docket is the term I and other legal analysts — most notably Stephen Vladeck, who These issues are usually resolved in an expedited way, usually with minimal filings and no oral arguments. The resulting written orders are often unsigned, if there is any written order at all. Advertisement Contrast that to the merits docket, where issues are decided after the parties brief their arguments, friend-of-the-court briefs are filed, and arguments are set. Then the court issues an opinion that clearly shows how each justice voted. The reason: These opinions create precedent that the court and lower courts must follow, whereas shadow docket rulings are meant to pertain only to the case in which it arises. But that distinction has become blurred, and the result has been astonishing. Consider this week's shadow docket order allowing the Trump administration to move forward with its plan to decimate the Department of Education by firing thousands of its employees. President Trump and Education Secretary Linda McMahon that limit. Unfortunately, by then, the department will probably already have been destroyed. That reality is one reason Boston-based US District Judge Myong J. Joun We don't know, and that is a major problem with such consequential decisions on the shadow docket. The majority Advertisement 'When the Executive publicly announces its intent to break the law, and then executes on that promise, it is the Judiciary's duty to check that lawlessness, not expedite it,' Sotomayor wrote in her 19-page dissent. In it, she called the majority's ruling 'indefensible.' She's right, because this is 'It's really not acceptable that this Court is allowing Trump to dismantle the federal government without even a hint of legal reason or explanation,' UCLA law professor Blake Emerson 'The Court's Republican majority gave the thumbs up to mass firings, without any explanation whatsoever,' I previously Advertisement I can only guess that that is the point. This is an excerpt from , a newsletter about the Supreme Court from columnist Kimberly Atkins Stohr. Kimberly Atkins Stohr is a columnist for the Globe. She may be reached at
Business Wire
an hour ago
- Business Wire
Temu Under Fire: Nachawati Law Group Aids Kentucky in Consumer Protection Lawsuit
DALLAS--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Dallas-based Nachawati Law Group is working with Kentucky Attorney General Russell Coleman's Office in a lawsuit against Temu, the Chinese-owned shopping app accused of sweeping users' personal data, violating consumer privacy laws and selling counterfeit goods. Through promises of bargain-basement prices on a dizzying array of consumer and household goods, the Temu shopping app has become one of the most popular apps in the United States. However, the app also collects massive amounts of information about its customers. 'This app was designed to get data from the customers who use it, and the owners use it as a lure for that purpose,' said firm founder Majed Nachawati. 'The worst part is that these breaches of privacy are all being done without the customers' knowledge or consent.' Kentucky consumers are among the millions who have been exploited, which is why the Attorney General's office there decided to enlist the services of Nachawati Law Group to take action against the company for allegedly violating the Kentucky Consumer Protection Act (KCPA), violating the common law of that state, and profiting from unlawful acts. 'Violation of customer privacy is just one concern with this app,' said Nachawati Law Group trial lawyer Brian McMath. 'It is a hub for consumer fraud – from advertising items that look nothing like what eventually arrives, to faking customer reviews, to using consumer payment information to order items the customer never asked for.' Further, the lawsuit details how Temu routinely takes advantage of storied Kentucky brands by advertising and selling counterfeit products, from fake Louisville Slugger bats to imitation University of Louisville merchandise. The AG says the sale of these counterfeit goods harms Kentucky's economy and erodes trust in its greatest companies. The state is seeking civil penalties and restitution of up to $2,000 per violation of the KCPA, as well as any further relief the court deems appropriate. The case is Commonwealth of Kentucky vs. PDD Holdings Inc. et al., cause no. 25-CI-00232 in the Commonwealth of Kentucky Woodford Circuit Court. Nachawati Law Group represents individuals in mass tort litigation, businesses and governmental entities in contingent litigation and individual victims in complex personal injury litigation. For more information, visit
