Gaurav Srivastava was the target of a ruthless smear campaign, positioning him as “the fall guy” for a former business partner, who has since been sanctioned for illicit trading in Russian oil by the UK, EU and Switzerland.

As a strategic investor in frontier markets, Gaurav Srivastava had spent years cultivating relationships across geographies and industries. In 2023, what began as a promising partnership in the energy sector quickly unraveled into a highly publicized legal and reputational dispute. His new business partner was exposed for illicit trading in Russian oil and things took a nasty turn, leading to a media onslaught, legal battles, and serious questions about the role of (dis)information in shaping reputations.

It’s a story about power, shifting alliances and how when powerful figures seem to need a defense strategy, they will do whatever it takes, even if it means rewriting history.

A Partnership That Promised the Future

Gaurav Srivastava and Dutch oil trader Niels Troost were introduced in 2022 by a mutual connection.

Troost is a savvy trader that had built his career dealing in energy markets for three decades, often taking on high-risk ventures. His history included involvement in the UN Oil-for-Food Programme in Iraq — infamous for corruption scandals — and dealings in Venezuela, another geopolitically volatile oil market. For three decades, he had built his career focusing on trading Russian crude, an area that became increasingly challenging as international sanctions tightened.

As the regulatory environment grew more restrictive, Troost sought new strategies to remain competitive.

Srivastava, who had built a network of relationships across emerging markets, appeared to be the ideal partner. The idea was simple: together, they would reposition Paramount Energy & Commodities SA and Harvest Commodities SA, shifting the companies away from Russian dealings and toward new markets.

In July 2022, Srivastava took a 50% stake in Troost’s Swiss companies. They assembled a team of top-tier lawyers, accountants, and financial experts, with ambitious plans to relocate the business to the United States for better credit access and expansion.

But beneath the surface, things were not as they seemed.

The Cracks Begin to Show

By early 2023, something felt off. According to Srivastava, he and his team had been pushing for a third-party financial audit to finalize their restructuring plans. But delays kept piling up.

When they finally gained access to Paramount’s financial records, the findings were deeply unsettling. They included:

Clandestine Asset Transfers: Evidence uncovered by Srivastava’s team suggested that Troost was quietly moving Paramount’s assets into entities controlled solely by him, potentially cutting Srivastava out.
Undisclosed High-Stakes Deals: Evidence uncovered by Srivastava’s team showed Troost had allegedly attempted to purchase Turkey’s Zeyhan Oil Terminal, a key infrastructure point for Russian oil exports, without informing his new partner.
Questionable or Fraudulent Financial Transactions: Srivastava’s team uncovered previous “shareholder loans” totaling millions that had been funneled through the company, alongside large consultancy fees paid to Troost’s personal network.
Ongoing Russian Oil Trades: Despite their agreement to move away from sanctioned energy deals, Troost had allegedly continued trading Russian oil above the permitted price cap, a serious violation that resulted in him being sanctioned by the UK (February 2024), EU (December 2024) and Switzerland (January 2025).

The Breakup That Turned into Media War

In May 2023, everything erupted.

When confronted with the financial discrepancies, Troost took drastic action, revoking Srivastava’s 50% ownership in the Swiss companies.

It appeared as an outright corporate coup, an attempt to erase Srivastava from the company overnight. Naturally, legal battles followed immediately.

Srivastava filed civil and criminal complaints in the relevant jurisdictions, claiming that Troost had fraudulently stripped him of his rightful ownership. He was prepared to fight, believing that the truth — backed by financial records and audits — would vindicate him.

But then came something even more sinister.

The Targeting: A Sophisticated Smear Campaign

Shortly after the fallout, a wave of media reports emerged portraying Srivastava in a negative light.

The pattern appeared to follow a distinct trajectory:

Initial Reports in Smaller Outlets: Articles first appeared in lesser-known, low-tier online publications, many of which indicated that the reports were not based on independent research.
Amplification by a Former WSJ Journalist: A former Wall Street Journal journalist picked up the claims on his blog, bringing them to a wider audience.
Coverage in Major Media Outlets: The Wall Street Journal (WSJ) and Financial Times (FT) later published high-profile stories referencing the allegations.
A Wikipedia Page Appears: A Wikipedia entry about Srivastava, which was later flagged as an “attack page” and removed by senior editors, further extended the controversy.

It was clear to Srivastava: this was a targeted effort to destroy his reputation before he could expose what he had found. In his view, this was a classic disinformation campaign, designed to make Srivastava look like the villain so that Troost could avoid accountability.

A Familiar Accusation: Troost’s Identical Claims About Another Business Partner

One of the more striking aspects of this dispute is that Troost has made similar claims about a previous business partner. In a written memo that he shared with Srivastava, Troost described another former associate — referred to here as Mr. K. to preserve anonymity — in nearly identical terms.

The memo, which Troost sent to Srivastava via WhatsApp, stated:

“My business partner had several meetings with Mr. K, during which he told my partner that he was a special agent working for the CIA and that he had very strong connections to, quote, ‘the agency in the U.S.’ He offered to us his strong connections to help us increase our business, in particular in China, and use his special CIA status to work on special projects in the interest of the U.S. government.”

The memo continued:

“Throughout the entire period from the beginning of 2020 up until today, he has claimed to be working for the CIA in some sort of capacity.”

In other words, long before his dispute with Srivastava, Troost had already accused another past partner of similar claims.

This pattern naturally raises questions about the credibility of the allegations made against Srivastava and whether such accusations have been previously leveraged in business disputes involving Troost.

A Legal Perspective on the Coverage

In 2024, an Indian Court reviewed dozens of media articles about Srivastava and ruled that many were paid for by third parties and included statements not based on verifiable evidence. The court ordered the removal of multiple online articles, which reinforced concerns that some of the reporting was influenced by the legal dispute itself, rather than independently verified facts.

A Parallel Development: The Sanctioning of Troost

As Srivastava worked to clear his name, Troost’s legal situation took a different turn.

In February 2024, the UK sanctioned Troost, followed by the EU (December 2024) and Switzerland (January 2025). These sanctions were linked to his trading of Russian crude oil above the price cap, in violation of international regulations.

In response, Troost has publicly stated that he believes these sanctions were the result of false allegations made against him, a claim that remains contested in legal and diplomatic circles.

Despite the ongoing investigations, these developments have further complicated the narrative surrounding the original business dispute.

A Fight That’s Far From Over

As of the episode airing in April 2025, Gaurav Srivastava continues to work to restore his reputation while pursuing legal action to address the business dispute.

His legal team continues to pursue claims against Troost for the fraudulent stripping of his business ownership, while also working to expose the full extent of the disinformation campaign that was launched against him.

But beyond the legal battle, this case is a sobering reminder of how power and influence can be wielded against individuals:

How a business partner, when backed into a corner, can rewrite history to shift blame.
How the media can be manipulated to paint someone as a villain with little to back it up.
How, in the world of high-stakes energy trading, the dirtiest fights are not in boardrooms, but in the court of public opinion.

Final Thoughts

What started as a business restructuring effort evolved into a high-profile dispute with legal, financial, and reputational implications.

While Troost now faces sanctions, and media scrutiny continues, the larger question remains: how can individuals and businesses navigate reputational attacks when legal disputes spill into the public domain?

For Srivastava, the real question now is: will the truth finally be enough to clear his name? Or will the damage of the smear campaign outlast the facts?