Bargain Hunt star appears in court today for terror offence sentencing
Ojiri, also known by his full name of Oghenochuko Ojiri, plead guilty to eight counts under the Terrorism Act 2000 of failing to disclose during the course of business within the regulated sector, following an investigation into alleged "terrorist financing" on May 9.
Ojiri confirmed in court last month his plea of guilty was for all eight counts. The prosecution was the first of its kind.
The Metropolitan Police stated that these offences are believed to have taken place between October 2020 and December 2021.The Metropolitan Police said the investigation into Ojiri related to his dealings with a suspected funding source for Hezbollah, Nazem Ahmad.
When making the deals, Ojiri knew Ahmad was sanctioned by the US as a suspected financier for Hezbollah, a prescribed terror organisation by the UK. The Bargain Hunt star at first denied knowing about Ahmad's notoriety but later admitted he had made the deals for 'excitement and kudos'.
In a statement, the Metropolitan Police said: "Oghenochuko Ojiri, 53 (05.05.72), of west London, has been charged following an investigation into terrorist financing by officers from the National Terrorist Financial Investigation Unit (NTFIU), part of the Met's Counter Terrorism Command.
"Following authorisation from the Crown Prosecution Service, he has been charged with eight counts of failing to make a disclosure during the course of business within the regulated sector, contrary to section 21A of the Terrorism Act 2000. The charges relate to a period from October 2020 to December 2021."
A CPS summary presented to the court last month stated: "Nazem Ahmad is a suspected terrorist financier and at the time of the business relationship between them it was directly within the knowledge of the defendant that Ahmad had been sanctioned as a terrorist financier of Hezbollah by the United States.
'At the time of the transactions there was a significant amount of material available capable of being obtained through internet searches showing that Ahmad was a person with links to the 'blood diamond' trade and terrorist financing of Hezbollah."
The Court heard the arts dealer sold art to a known Hezbollah financier for a value of £138,150. The Metropolitan Police said the investigation into Ojiri related to his dealings with a suspected funding source for Hezbollah, Nazem Ahmad.
When making the deals, Ojiri knew Ahmad was sanctioned by the US as a suspected financier for Hezbollah. The Bargain Hunt star at first denied knowing about Ahmad's notoriety but later admitted he had made the deals for "excitement and kudos".
As he appeared at Westminster Magistrates' Court in London on May 9, Ochuko Ojiri pleaded guilty to charges realted to "terrorist financing".
He was charged with eight charges of "failing to make a disclosure during the course of business within the regulated sector". When asked in court to provide a plea, Ojiri said: "Guilty" quietly, before he was asked if he pleaded guilty to all eight counts, which he confirmed he had.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
STV News
33 minutes ago
- STV News
BBC reportedly calls in police to investigate fresh Strictly allegations
The BBC has asked the police to investigate fresh allegations involving hit show Strictly Come Dancing, after claims two of its stars used cocaine, reports have said. According to the Sun On Sunday, the BBC has alerted the Metropolitan Police to new allegations about the show – but the details have not been specified. A BBC spokesperson said on Saturday the corporation does not comment on police investigations. 'We have clear protocols and policies in place for dealing with any serious complaint raised with us,' the statement added. 'We would always encourage people to speak to us if they have concerns. It would not be appropriate for us to comment further.' Earlier this month, reports in The Sun alleged two Strictly cast members' drug use was discussed on the BBC dancing show, and said that the corporation had appointed law firm Pinsent Masons to lead the investigation. The scandal-hit show was also the subject of a review in 2024, when the BBC looked into allegations of bullying and harassment against former professional dancer Giovanni Pernice, made by his former dance partner Amanda Abbington. The corporation upheld some, but not all, of the complaints made – and introduced a series of new measures aimed at improving welfare. This included the introduction of a chaperone who is present 'at all times' during training room rehearsals. EastEnders star James Borthwick was also suspended from the BBC after a video emerged of the actor using a disabled slur on the set of the dance programme. The cocaine use allegations were reportedly made in a legal submission by law firm Russells in March on behalf of former contestant Wynne Evans, who was dropped by the BBC after apologising for using 'inappropriate language' during the launch of the Strictly tour. It is understood that the BBC often appoints external law firms to help it lead investigations. The BBC spokesperson previously said: 'We have clear protocols and policies in place for dealing with any serious complaint raised with us. 'We would always encourage people to speak to us if they have concerns. It would not be appropriate for us to comment further.' The Metropolitan Police has been contacted for comment. Get all the latest news from around the country Follow STV News Scan the QR code on your mobile device for all the latest news from around the country
The Independent
an hour ago
- The Independent
Home secretary defends Palestine Action arrests: ‘More than a regular protest group'
Home Secretary Yvette Cooper has defended the proscription of Palestine Action as a terrorist organisation, stating it is more than a regular protest group. Ms Cooper argued that Palestine Action has engaged in an escalating campaign of violent criminality, distinct from lawful protest. She cited counterterrorism intelligence indicating the group met the criteria for proscription under the 2000 Terrorism Act, with disturbing information about future attacks. The Metropolitan Police reported over 700 arrests since Palestine Action was banned on 5 July, with 60 more people to be prosecuted for supporting the group. The first three charges in England and Wales under the Terrorism Act relating to Palestine Action have been confirmed, with more prosecutions anticipated.
Telegraph
an hour ago
- Telegraph
Starmer has carried through one of the worst legacies of Tony Blair: ‘lawyer brain'
The recent spectacle of the Metropolitan police rounding up 500 peaceful protestors, half of them pensioners, for supporting a 'terrorist organisation' whose terrorist activities include spraying some paint on an empty plane does have one saving grace: it makes it clear what the Labour Party thinks about the public's right to dissent. Keir Starmer has been fond of juridical high-handedness for as long as he has been the Prime Minister: following the riots in Southport last year, he supported the police's round-up of over thirty people for their indiscretions on X, arguing that such posts were 'not free speech', and promising that online instigators would feel 'the full force of the law'. Now, the same treatment is being visited on middle-class, middle-aged liberals. Interestingly, though, rather than making any moral arguments in favour of the proscription, Labour partisans have decided that the best tactic is to keep repeating the statutes that enact it. Dan Jarvis argues that 'the UK's definition of terrorism was established in law a quarter of a century ago, and it has stood the test of time and extensive scrutiny since'; Lord Hanson of Flint spent most of a recent Lords debate repeating the line 'the terms of the proscription are clear' (as if, say, the Nuremberg Laws weren't pretty clear too). The fact that anyone in the Labour Party finds this kind of thing even remotely satisfying, or even coherent, suggests that the party is in the throes of a very specific pathology: 'lawyer brain'. In its broadest form, 'lawyer brain' is the belief that legislation alone can solve all human problems, and that the law is the law, whether it is ethically sound or not. Anything can be justified, provided it meets arbitrary legal standards of legality. Elderly protestors can be arrested if they meet definitions of 'terrorism'. Online posters can be rounded up if they meet definitions of 'incitement'. It certainly seems to capture something about Keir Starmer – a former lawyer whose former nickname, according to a leaked 2022 Labour memo, was 'Mr. Rules.' In this respect, Starmer is part of a long case-history of 'lawyer brain' in the UK Labour Party. Perhaps the worst offenders came from the Blair government, whose seasoned lawyer-politicians – Tony Blair, Lord Irvine, Jack Straw – passed a frenzied set of statutes and constitutional reforms without much in the way of democratic consensus. Urban crime was to be tackled by the invention of new, quasi-criminal categories like the 'ASBO'; broken families were to be fixed with 'parenting orders'; political violence was to be tackled by an enormous raft of new anti-terror legislation, that conveniently rolled back all those bothersome rights to privacy and fair treatment under the law that prior statutes had codified. Much of this new legislation was nonsensical with loopholes; it caused the day to day running of the country to be beset by legal challenge, and left a lot of citizens – peaceful protestors, for example – with far fewer rights than they had before. In Blair's New Labour, 'lawyer brain' took root for one reason above all else: it was the perfect instrument for justifying the actions of a party which technically had a large mandate, but which was, in real terms, haemorrhaging public support. 'Lawyer brain' was a kind of magic: given that whatever was lawful was, by definition, right, all an incumbent party had to do was write new legislation, invent new legal categories, and it could be justified in any pursuit – abolishing the office of Lord Chancellor, invading Iraq. It's no wonder Starmer – who possesses what must be one of the greatest discrepancies between parliamentary majority and public popularity in British history – is so susceptible to it. But government by diktat also has its drawbacks. As convincing as the arguments of 'lawyer brain' are to other lawyers, they remain unimpressive to the public. In Blair's case, the final straw came with Lord Goldsmith's mealy-mouthed declaration of the legality of the invasion of Iraq. In Starmer's, it seems to be working through accretion. Almost every well-touted 'communication failure' of Starmer's can be explained by the same, mad legalism: the man won't talk about gilt markets, or pension funds; he has to keep talking about the OBR and its arcane rules. He seems incapable of assessing the morality of what's going on in migrant hotels, or Gaza; he can only about international law, as though he were still back in the halls of Matrix Chambers. No wonder he has slumped to remarkable depths in the polls, and is facing considerable dissent from within his own party. He is on the verge of discovering what most of us knew already: that lawyers might be pretty good at getting their way, but they're not exactly well-liked.
