“Sir, the FT’s exposé about my business dispute with oil trader Niels Troost neglects to shed any serious light on Troost’s business dealings. Since the FT article was published, the EU, now in addition to the UK, promptly sanctioned him. What remains a mystery to me is why the FT chose to believe Troost’s narrative that I am somehow responsible for the sanctions levied against him.

Troost is a sophisticated oil trader who, as the FT reported, has a nearly three-decades long history of trading Russian oil. Yet, the FT concluded that Troost’s business is “wholly dependent on Troost’s personal relationships” in Russia while failing to question any of these relationships or whether they may have led to his sanctioning.

The FT would have its readers believe that I was solely responsible for Troost’s sanctioning, by allegedly convincing him that I secured US government approval allowing him to trade Russian oil in violation of strict G7 price caps. The FT posits that I convinced Troost of this by claiming to be a CIA agent – cursorily noting, without naming names or delving into detail, that just prior to having met me, Troost had “fallen out” with yet another business partner who “claimed to be working as a ‘special agent’ for the CIA”. The FT should have at least considered the possibility that Troost relies upon the predictable trope of claiming to have been tricked by purported CIA agents as a defence to cover for his own poor decisions.

While I vehemently deny Troost’s allegations against me, the present forum does not allow me the opportunity to counter them comprehensively. That said, it is disappointing that the FT chose to adjudicate the credibility of one party to a business dispute (Troost) over another (myself) in the court of public opinion while our dispute is yet to be adjudicated in courts of law. ”