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

Upon receipt of the notice from Hamlins LLP, the Editor of Blitz responded with the following points:

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........

© Blitz