How website offering $100 articles put a UAE-India maritime firm’s reputation at risk

Dubai: These attacks often follow a simple template. A story making serious allegations against a business appears online. It uses genuine details, such as the company's name, owners, locations or business history, and builds an unverified or misleading claim around them. Then the same story is published across several unrelated websites in different countries, often under slightly altered headlines with no bylines. To a reader, it can look like independent confirmation.

That is what Dubai-based Best Oasis, which is a leading cash buyer of ships and energy assets worldwide, and India’s largest green ship recycling yard Priya Blue Industries, which runs ship-recycling yards in Alang, Gujarat, faced. Articles alleging money laundering and sanctions breaches named the firms and their owners, and a Gujarat police report that examined 14 websites, and was reviewed by Gulf News, describes the articles as false and defamatory.

When the companies challenged the reports through their lawyers and police complaints, one website replied to a legal notice with a price list: $100 for a guest post, or $120 for a link inserted into an existing article. Their efforts went beyond denying the accusations: they sought to identify who supplied the material, obtain supporting evidence and have false information corrected or removed.

The response began after the articles reached the companies through industry contacts. Gaurav Mehta, CEO/Director of Best Oasis and SPM Shipping, told Gulf News in written responses that the businesses regularly monitor coverage and maintain alerts, but first learnt of these reports through word of mouth and private messages circulating within the industry.

They began an internal review to establish where the allegations originated and involved legal advisers. They also contacted key stakeholders to explain that they disputed the reports and were taking legal action.

"We reached out to our key stakeholders, informed them about the defamatory publications and made it clear that we were pursuing legal action to address the allegations," Mehta said.

Mehta said some business dealings faced delays and additional compliance scrutiny. In an industry where bids and decisions need to move quickly, such delays can mean lost opportunities, he said, adding that the concerns were eventually resolved with the support of their existing relationships and legal response.

Mehta said the articles appeared across unrelated websites with virtually identical allegations, text and photographs, often with only the headlines changed. The publications named real businesses and referred to their ship-recycling activities, but those identifiable details did not themselves establish the accusations attached to them.

Legal notices, lawyers' confirmations, publishing correspondence and the police progress report provide a record of the companies' response. The report, dated October 4, 2025, says five of the 14 websites examined had removed the articles and records efforts to establish what evidence supported the reports and who supplied them.

Mehta said the companies' own count had risen from nine websites initially to 14 and eventually 22. He said 12 were now inaccessible and 10 remained online; these figures are the companies' tally, separate from the police report's October 2025 findings.

Mehta described some remaining sites as counterfeit versions of established news platforms and said the companies had encountered domains with no identifiable owners, editors or functioning contact details. He also said some domains were reportedly created shortly before the articles appeared and that emails seeking responses had gone unanswered.

Some publishers removed the material after receiving the companies' rebuttal, Mehta said. He also alleged that a few websites subsequently demanded payment to keep the articles offline.

"We refused to entertain such demands," Mehta said. He said the companies were pursuing legal channels and attributed the continued availability of certain articles partly to their refusal to pay.

The correspondence shows how one website responded when the family's lawyers challenged the reporting. On August 8, 2025, Crawford Bayley & Co. emailed a legal notice concerning its clients to an account identifying itself as Tech K Times.

The reply that day offered a guest post for $100 or a link inserted into an existing article for $120. It advertised instant publishing, permanent "do-follow" links and Google indexing, and said sponsor or "no-follow" tags would not be used.

The response was an offer to sell publishing services. It did not establish whether anyone had paid for the disputed article, what any such placement cost or who supplied the material.

HFW, another law firm acting for Best Oasis, also demanded the removal of an article from Seekers Time. Priya Blue subsequently pursued a police complaint in Gujarat.

According to the police progress report, Priya Blue's authorised representative lodged the complaint at Ghogha Road Police Station in Bhavnagar on September 2, 2025. Police registered non-cognizable case No. 03/2025 under the defamation provision of India's Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, the country's criminal code.

Police obtained the magistrate's permission to investigate. They issued notices seeking the sources of the articles, supporting evidence and identifying details of their authors and publishers.

The report says the websites did not provide the substantiation sought. The companies also questioned the identities and credentials of supposed experts quoted in the articles, saying they had been unable to verify them independently.

One publisher, PressMagazine.co.uk, told police that a third-party contributor had mistakenly published an article about the family and that its editorial team removed it after learning of the issue. According to the report, PressMagazine said it had no knowledge or evidence of criminal involvement by the family.

It identified the contributor as Qamer Javed but did not provide further identifying details, the report says. By October 2025, articles had been removed from NewsDataFacts, Tech K Times, PressMagazine, The American Reporter and TechBullion.

The investigating officer attributed malicious intent to the publications. The report describes them as an effort to harm Priya Blue and its directors' reputation.

Alongside the efforts to remove the articles, the family obtained lawyers' confirmations addressing specific allegations. A September 2025 letter from HFW says its Dubai Courts searches found no criminal record or ongoing criminal investigation in Dubai against Sanjay Mehta, Gaurav Mehta and Trupti Mehta.

HFW also confirmed that the attached Dubai Police clearance certificates were validly issued. Its findings cover those named individuals, Dubai and the search dates specified in the letter.

Separately, Crawford Bayley said its searches with India's Ministry of Corporate Affairs found that the family members were neither shareholders nor directors or key managerial personnel in four specified ship-recycling businesses. That confirmation concerns their recorded roles in those entities.

In its August 2025 legal notice to Seekers Time, HFW said on Best Oasis's behalf that ships acquired and processed undergo due diligence, flag-state approvals and statutory certification from authorities including the Gujarat Maritime Board and Central Pollution Control Board. It also said financial transactions take place through regulated banking channels in accordance with Indian and UAE laws.

Crawford Bayley separately confirmed that the recycling of Blue Lady and Oriental Nicety, two vessels referenced in the allegations, had permissions from India's Supreme Court and relevant statutory authorities. These included the Gujarat Maritime Board, Gujarat Pollution Control Board and Atomic Energy Regulatory Board.

Mehta described checks on vessels, their ownership structures and other parties involved before a purchase. He also said the companies coordinate with banking partners on applicable regulatory and banking requirements.

"We conduct thorough due diligence before every vessel transaction, using established platforms such as World-Check, OFAC and Lloyd's Intelligence to screen vessels, ownership structures and relevant stakeholders," Mehta said.

Mehta also said the companies had recently received a specific licence from the US Office of Foreign Assets Control, or OFAC, authorising transactions involving sanctioned vessels within its approved scope. He said it was granted after publication of the disputed article and that every transaction is assessed against applicable legal and regulatory requirements.

The companies describe the publications as a coordinated effort to damage their reputation. Mehta said the companies were pursuing leads they believe point to a competitor, while continuing efforts to substantiate those leads and establish who was responsible.

Although the supplied police report attributes malicious intent to the articles, it does not identify anyone who commissioned or funded a campaign or provide a payment trail linking the publications. As of November 2026, the investigation remained ongoing, the company confirmed.