Blitz responds to UK legal notice over report on Grameen–Jameel links
In an unexpected escalation following Blitz’s November 27, 2025 investigative report examining historical controversies surrounding international microfinance networks, the London-based law firm Hamlins LLP – acting on behalf of Mohammed Abdul Latif Jameel KBE – issued a formal legal notice challenging portions of the article.
The notice, delivered with marked urgency, seeks retractions and apologies relating to references drawn from historic media reporting and public-domain litigation involving microfinance-linked institutions. As a newspaper with a 22-year record of rigorous investigative journalism, Blitz has initiated a structured editorial and legal review while reaffirming its commitment to accuracy, transparency, and responsible public-interest reporting.
Blitz reiterates that it does not allege, assert, or imply that Mr. Mohammed Abdul Latif Jameel has engaged in any wrongdoing, and that any references to him in previous reporting were based entirely on archived public-domain sources.
On November 30, 2025, Blitz formally received this legal notice, in which Hamlins LLP challenged aspects of the article and raised allegations of defamation relating to references to historic litigation and media reporting.
In the notice, Hamlins LLP stated:
This firm has been instructed on behalf of our client, Mohammed Jameel KBE, with reference to your articles published (1) on the Blitz website on 27 November under the heading The Grameen-Al Qaeda nexus: Unmasking the financiers behind the Nobel Laureate’s empire and (2) on the Pressenza website today under the heading Microcredit Operators Accused of Pumping Cash to Terrorists, Running Human Organ Trade.
Your articles, which expressly accuse our client of being “one of the key funders” of Osama bin Laden, “the notorious mastermind behind the September 11 terrorist attacks,” are plainly seriously defamatory of our client and their publication will have caused and are likely to cause serious harm to our client’s reputation, both in England where he has substantial personal, charitable and business connections, and elsewhere.
The specific allegation you have made is that our client’s name “appeared prominently” on a “list of Al Qaeda donors based on CIA information” published in The Wall Street Journal in March 2003. This statement is entirely false, as is a matter of public record. Our client’s name did not appear anywhere on the manuscript list which was published, by way of a hyperlink, to a Wall Street Journal online article dated 18 March 2003.
The manuscript list of names has been the subject of careful scrutiny in both the US and the English courts. Not only is our client not named on the list, but it has been clearly established, as is a matter of public record, that it constitutes no evidence that anyone named on it provided funding to Osama bin Laden or Al Qaeda.
Accordingly, it is not only false for you to allege that our client’s name appeared on a list of Al Qaeda donors but it is also the case that there is no foundation for you to allege that anyone in fact named on the list had funded Osama bin Laden or Al Qaeda. This would have been clear to you if you had undertaken the most elementary, basic research to be expected of any journalist, or if you had complied with accepted journalistic standards by seeking comment from our client before you went ahead with publication.
We are instructed to require you without delay to take down your articles in their entirety and to publish a full and unqualified apology to our client in a form, manner and terms to be agreed with ourselves. Our client also requires you to ensure that your articles are removed from any other website or social media where they have been published with your permission or authority, whether express or implied.
Image of the letter from London-based law firm Hamlins LLP
Blitz’s initial response to Hamlins LLP (sent on December 1, 2025)
Upon receipt of the notice from Hamlins LLP, the Editor of Blitz responded with the following points:
Blitz acknowledged receipt of the correspondence dated November 30, 2025.
The concerns raised were referred to the newspaper’s editorial and legal review processes.
Blitz reiterated that it relies on publicly available information — historical reporting, court documents, media archives, regulatory filings, and materials already in the public domain.
The article was prepared within the framework of public-interest journalism, examining issues related to transnational financial networks, nonprofit governance, and past litigation documented extensively in Western media.
Blitz invited Mr. Jameel, through his legal representatives, to provide any documentation, factual clarification, or public statements for review.
The Editor clarified that the requests for removal and apology remain under consideration pending the completion of the internal review.
Blitz confirmed it had made no final determination regarding amendments or clarifications and reserved all rights.
Second communication from Hamlins LLP (December 2, 2025)
On December 2, 2025, Mr. Andrew Stephenson, consultant of Hamlins LLP sent a follow-up email, reiterating their client’s position and expanding on historic legal cases in the UK and the United States involving the so-called “Golden Chain” document and subsequent litigation. Here is the email:
We appreciate the courtesy of your prompt response to our client’s complaint.
We note, but do not accept, your contention that your articles “were prepared within the framework of public interest journalism.” Public interest journalism requires the exercise of due diligence in checking facts in accordance with established professional standards. In a case such as this, among other matters, this would include the responsibility to seek comment from our client prior to the publication of such a serious allegation against him. Further, to state the obvious, as Lord Hobhouse put it in the House of Lords case of Reynolds v Times Newspapers [1999] UKHL 45:
“No public interest is served by publishing or communicating misinformation. The working of a democratic society depends on the members of that society being informed not misinformed.”
Your letter states that you would welcome “any documentation, factual clarification, or public statements” that our client wishes to provide. It is extremely regrettable that you made no such request prior to publication of your articles. Had you done so, our client would have been pleased to oblige.
The allegation you have published is that our client “was one of the key funders of Osama bin Laden, the notorious mastermind behind the September 11 terrorist attacks.” It is apparent that your allegation was based on the falsehood that our client’s name appeared on a list, said by the Wall Street Journal to be “among the first financial supporters of Osama bin Laden,” which it published in March 2003. As we have made clear, our client’s name was not on the list, and it is incomprehensible to us how, with even the most elementary research, you came to claim otherwise.
Further, as explained in our letter to you yesterday, the list of names, which has been referred to as the “Golden Chain,” has since 2003 been the subject of examination in both the US and the English courts.
In a defamation claim brought in England by our client’s brother, Yousef Jameel, against the publishers of the Sunday Times, Mr Justice Gray on 15 June 2005 delivered a judgment in which he stated:
“Mr Price [counsel for the claimant] submits that the case on justification [i.e defence of truth] turns on the Golden Chain list. He accepts that the list was one of a number of documents contained in a file which was seized by Bosnian police during searches in the offices of an organisation called Benevolence International Foundation in Sarajevo in March 2002. But Mr Price submits that I was correct in my earlier judgment dated 7 November 2003 to conclude that the list “falls well short of establishing the existence of sufficient grounds for an inquiry or investigation”. The reasons which I gave in paragraph 35 of that judgment for that conclusion were:
“The list is in manuscript, its author is unknown, as is the source of the author’s information; there is nothing in the list to suggest that the individuals named have made donations, rather than that they are potential donors; the list has been dated by Mr Brisard, the lead investigator in the Burnett case, to 1988 at which time OBL was engaged in resisting the Soviet incursions into Afghanistan with the approval of western governments; there is nothing to link the list to Al Qaeda; any money which was donated was apparently to be applied to fund fighters in Chechnya and Bosnia and not the atrocities which took place many years later in New York. It is true that the Golden Chain list was attached to an Evidentiary Proffer filed in the US criminal proceedings against Mr Arnaout in support of the admissibility of co-conspirator statements. But the Evidentiary Proffer was ruled inadmissible. In any event Mr Arnaout was not convicted of any offence implicating him in terrorist activities on the part of Al Qaeda or OBL in the US; he pleaded guilty to defrauding donors by using their donations without their knowledge to fund activities for which they were unaware.”
Mr Price makes the further point that there is nothing whatever to suggest that the Claimant donated money subsequently, when Al Qaeda was formed and became known as a terrorist organisation. He submits that there is no basis at all laid in the particulars of justification for asserting any connection between the Claimant and training the terrorists who carried out the 9/11 atrocities. Yet that is what the caption to the photograph of the exploding twin towers states the allegation against the Claimant to be.”
The case was settled on the same day that this judgment was issued. Counsel for the Sunday Times told the court:
“…It was not the intention of the Sunday Times to give credence to the claim against Mr [Yousef] Jameel. The Sunday Times has never sought to maintain that Mr [Yousef] Jameel had financially supported Osama bin Laden in connection with terrorism or that he helped fund the training of the terrorists who carried out the 11 September attacks.
The Sunday Times accepts that the claimant is not a supporter of Osama bin Laden or al-Qaida and regrets if the article may have given readers a different impression.”
In US litigation brought by the families of victims of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, District Judge Richard C. Casey on 18 January 2005, dismissing claims against two individuals named on the list, stated:
“…Plaintiffs claim the “Golden Chain” contains a list of early direct donors to al Qaeda…Their theory of jurisdiction rests almost entirely on a document with serious foundational flaws. Even assuming, as the court must that the “Golden Chain” refers to [name redacted], with no indication of who wrote the list, when it was written, or for what purpose, the Court cannot make the logical leap that the document is a list of early al Qaeda supporters…The “Golden Chain” does not say what the Plaintiffs argue it says. It is only a list of names found in a charity’s office. It does not establish [name redacted] involvement in a terrorist conspiracy resulting in the September 11 attacks…”
In dismissing a claim against Yousef Jameel on 17 June 2010 District Judge George B Daniels stated:
“Plaintiffs…also claim that defendant [Yousef] Jameel provided direct material support to al Qaeda. Defendant’s name appears on a document referred to as the “Golden Chain,” which purportedly lists the names of early direct donors to al Qaeda…In addressing the evidentiary weight of the Golden Chain, Judge Casey concluded that, “with no indication of who wrote the list, when it was written, or for what purpose, the Court cannot make the logical leap that the document is a list of early al Qaeda supporters”…Yousef Jameel’s alleged role as an al Qaeda supporter, as purportedly evidenced by his inclusion on the Golden Chain list, does not demonstrate that he expressly aimed tortious conduct at the United States which resulted in, or relates to, the injuries suffered by the Plaintiffs…”
The judgments dismissing the 9/11 claims against 75 defendants (including Yousef Jameel) were made final by Order of the US District Court (Southern District of New York) dated 13 July 2011.
On 16 April 2013 the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit finally dismissed the Plaintiffs’ appeals, and affirmed the District Court’s judgment dismissing the 9/11 claims against Yousef Jameel (and others).
All the above information is freely available as a matter of public record. Accordingly, as we have stated, it is not only false for you to allege that our client’s name appeared on a list of Al Qaeda donors but it is also the case that there is no foundation for you to allege that anyone in fact named on the list had funded Osama bin Laden or Al Qaeda. This would have been clear to you if you had undertaken the most elementary, basic research to be expected of any journalist, or if you had had the courtesy of seeking comment from our client before you went ahead with publication.
We trust therefore that you will now comply with our client’s request that you take down your articles in their entirety, wherever they appear, and agree to publish a full and unqualified
apology to our client. Any further delay in doing so would cause further and continuing harm to our client’s reputation, to which our client reserves all his rights.
Blitz position
Blitz believes Hamlins LLP may have issued a similar notice to Pressenza regarding the article titled “Microcredit Operators Accused of Pumping Cash to Terrorists, Running Human Organ Trade”, authored by Mr. Salah Uddin Shoaib Choudhury, as that platform removed the content without consultation with the author. We assume this was an editorial decision made independently by Pressenza.
Regarding the report published in Blitz, we reaffirm the following:
Blitz, during its 22-year history, has maintained a consistent commitment to responsible journalism, including:
Accurate reporting
• Fair and balanced analysis
• Respect for individual rights
• Transparency in sourcing
• Compliance with national and international media standards
All investigative articles rely on sources available in the public domain, including judicial records, historical media coverage, corporate filings, and reports issued by governments and international organizations.
Many elements referenced in the November 27 report were drawn from historic media publications, publicly filed court cases, and corporate or nonprofit records concerning entities associated – directly or indirectly – with microfinance initiatives operating in Europe, the Middle East, and South Asia.
Prior to publication, Blitz attempted to contact Grameen-Jameel Microfinance for comment. The organization could not be reached as its website was inactive and its Facebook page had been deactivated.
Correction and clarification
As Hamlins LLP has asserted that Mr. Mohammed Abdul Latif Jameel’s name did not appear on the list referenced by the Wall Street Journal, Blitz has reviewed that specific claim.
Following its internal review, Blitz retracts this singular aspect of the report and extends an apology solely for this unintended factual error.
Following a detailed internal review prompted by the correspondence from Hamlins LLP, Blitz has determined that one factual reference – specifically, the assertion that Mr. Mohammed Abdul Latif Jameel’s name appeared on a list reproduced by The Wall Street Journal in March 2003 – was incorrect. Blitz retracts this singular point and extends an apology solely for this unintended error in interpretation of a historic source document.
This correction does not affect the remainder of the report, which drew on a wide range of publicly available archival materials, including legacy media coverage, publicly filed court cases, and regulatory records concerning entities associated directly or indirectly with microfinance initiatives. These broader contextual references remain part of the public record and were included only to illuminate historical reporting, not to allege current or personal wrongdoing by Mr. Jameel.
However, the article referenced other publicly documented historical litigation and reporting involving members of the Jameel family and international media organizations. The relevant paragraphs included:
On July 21, 2004, Jameel and others filed an appeal with the British Court of Appeal following the publication of a Sunday Times report titled “Car tycoon ‘linked’ to Bin Laden” on June 8, 2003. The report claimed that Jameel had been sued by families of the victims of the 9/11 attacks.
On February 3, 2005, Dow Jones & Co., the parent of The Wall Street Journal, filed its own appeal against Yousef Abdul Latif Jameel.
In a landmark ruling on October 11, 2006, the highest court in Britain sided with The Wall Street Journal, affirming the importance of investigative journalism. The ruling highlighted that the article was published as part of a legitimate public-interest inquiry into terror financing.
The court record stated:
“Above the article and headline were photographs of the claimant Mr. Jameel, his company Hartwell PLC, and the Twin Towers burning on 11 September 2001, with the following words: ‘Accused: Yousef Jameel’s family firm bought the British car dealer Hartwell in 1990. Now he is alleged to have helped fund training for the terrorists who carried out the September 11 attacks’”.
Despite these allegations, Jameel has long been regarded as a successful entrepreneur and “generous philanthropist”. He has contributed significant funding to programs at MIT aimed at reducing poverty and improving water and food security. For his philanthropic commitments and contributions to arts and culture in the United Kingdom, Mohammed Abdul Latif Jameel received an honorary knighthood from Queen Elizabeth II. The honor was announced by the British Embassy in Riyadh.
However, The Guardian later reported that a group of wealthy Saudi businessmen – including individuals close to Jameel – were suing for libel in the High Court over allegations that they may have financed Osama bin Laden’s Al Qaeda network. They chose London because of its reputation as a claimant-friendly environment for defamation cases.
At a time when investigative journalism faces increasing pressure from transnational legal actions, Blitz remains fully committed to fairness, accuracy, and transparency. While we acknowledge and correct the singular factual error identified through this exchange, the broader historical context referenced in the report remains grounded in publicly available archival material, judicial records, and legacy media reporting. Blitz will continue to assess any credible documentation provided by relevant parties and will update its coverage where appropriate. Our 22-year editorial record is clear: we neither bend to pressure nor hesitate to correct the record. Upholding responsible journalism requires both – and these principles will continue to guide this publication.
Blitz ,Bangladesh
