Muhammad Hasan Lakhani’s name sits inside a complicated international shipping-finance dispute that stretched from Dubai and Pakistan to England, the United States, the Caribbean and several maritime jurisdictions. The case did not produce a criminal conviction against him, but it did result in a worldwide freezing order, a major civil judgment against him and his two family members, and years of litigation over tens of millions of dollars in shipping loans. The latest chapter ended in 2025 with a confidential settlement and the discharge of the freezing order, leaving important details of the resolution undisclosed.
Lakhani is identified in court records as Muhammad Hasan Lakhani, although some databases and filings use the spelling “Muhammad Hassan Lakhani.” He is also commonly referred to as Hasan Lakhani. Public biographical material gives his date of birth as August 29, 1991, which would make him 35 in September 2026, although that date is not independently confirmed in the English court judgments. The same material says he attended Mill Hill School, studied at David Game/David Lang & Dick College and later graduated from Regent’s University London with a degree in Global Financial Management. The High Court independently confirmed his Regent’s University background and described him as having worked in the family’s shipping business.
The business at the center of the dispute was the Lakhani family’s shipping empire. The High Court described North Star Maritime Holdings Ltd. as the holding company of numerous shipping entities. Hasan and his brother Muhammad Ali Lakhani each owned 50% of North Star and were its sole directors. A 2016 document sent to another lender described the sons as “fully active” in the business. By 2019, a presentation supplied to YieldStreet described Hasan as a director of Dubai Navigation Corp. and General Manager of the DTA Ship Agency in Dubai, with DTA Maritime LLC operating as part of the wider group.
The financial dispute began with a series of loans used to finance the purchase of ocean-going vessels intended for recycling. Between June 2018 and September 2019, the YieldStreet-linked lending companies advanced approximately $74.6 million under the five loans forming the English claim. The guarantees signed by Hasan, his brother and their father were critical because they made the three personally liable if the borrowers failed to repay. The claim form filed in the High Court sought a combined $76,700,093.70 from each defendant under the five sets of guarantees.
The wider American litigation described a larger lending program. U.S. court records said YieldStreet-related lenders had extended about $89.2 million through six loans to 15 Dubai-based companies associated with North Star. The money was intended to finance ships that would subsequently be sold for scrap, with repayment coming from the proceeds.
What happened to some of the collateral became the central controversy. YieldStreet alleged that vessels used as collateral had already been sold or scrapped and that documents concerning their ownership and proposed sales were false. The English judgment records that the lenders produced evidence showing that several memoranda of agreement, or MOAs, concerning vessels including Prosper, Ladinda, Bangsa, Boron, Lateef and Ley were shams: the registered owners of the vessels were not the sellers identified in the documents.
Hasan’s position was materially different from the allegations made against his brother Ali. In evidence, Hasan said his involvement in the family business was limited mainly to the ship-agency side. He said he had no involvement in the day-to-day management of North Star’s recycling business and no knowledge of its overall financial position or the status of its loans. He and Ali argued that their father, Muhammad Tahir Lakhani, exercised the real control over the business and that they had signed guarantees under his influence.
That defense failed at the summary-judgment stage. Justice Jacobs concluded that the relationship was commercial, that both sons were educated and involved in the family’s international shipping operations, and that there was no realistic prospect of establishing a presumption of undue influence. The court therefore entered summary judgment on the guarantees. Tahir did not contest the claim at the hearing.
The judgment, however, requires an important distinction when discussing fraud. The claimants alleged a broad maritime fraud, and the court considered evidence concerning sham documents and the risk of dissipation. The judgment specifically said the evidence directly implicated Ali through his signatures on sham MOAs. Hasan was implicated less directly. The lenders identified a proxy signed by Hasan relating to a shareholder meeting concerning the Bangsa transaction. That document, according to the judgment, authorized Ali to represent North Star at a meeting where resolutions connected to the MOA were approved. The court said this evidence reinforced the inferences advanced by the claimants, but it did not convict Hasan of fraud or make a criminal finding against him.
The consequences were nevertheless severe. In April 2020, the English Commercial Court granted a worldwide freezing order restraining Hasan, Ali and Tahir from dealing with assets up to $76.7 million. The order was subsequently continued, and in October 2020 the court entered judgment on the guarantees. YieldStreet later reported to the SEC that the final judgment was approximately $85 million, reflecting outstanding principal and interest.
The case also spilled into the United States. YieldStreet pursued discovery against banks and other institutions in New York to support proceedings in England and elsewhere. Those filings described the matter as an alleged multinational maritime fraud and identified numerous associated companies, including DTA Maritime LLC, Dubai Navigation Corp., Gulfstar SA, North Star Marine Ltd., North Star Maritime Holdings Ltd. and multiple vessel-owning special-purpose companies.
Four Wood Capital Advisors and Global Marine Transport Capital were also drawn into the fallout. YieldStreet accused those intermediaries of failing to properly vet the Lakhani borrowers and of forwarding allegedly fabricated vessel-sale documents. A 2024 New York court decision allowed fraud-related claims against Four Wood to proceed, including allegations surrounding a $14.5 million loan made after the disputed MOAs were supplied. Those allegations were directed at Four Wood and its principals, however, and should not be treated as findings that Hasan personally committed those acts.
A separate English case involving Njord Partners provides additional context about the family business but should also be distinguished from the YieldStreet action. Hasan was not a defendant in that case. The proceedings concerned Astir Maritime Ltd., Tahir Lakhani and Ali Lakhani, although the judgment confirmed that Hasan was one of Astir’s two directors and one of the 50% shareholders of North Star. The litigation concerned a separate financing facility of approximately $45 million.
North Star itself entered voluntary dissolution proceedings in February 2020. The English judgment records that its Articles of Dissolution stated that the company was insolvent and unable to pay its debts as they became due. Hasan and Ali were recorded as its sole directors and 50% shareholders.
There is no indication in the sources reviewed of a criminal conviction, guilty plea or criminal sentence against Hasan. The principal proceedings uncovered are civil and commercial disputes concerning guarantees, debt recovery, alleged fraudulent documentation and asset preservation. That distinction matters: being a defendant in a civil fraud claim or subject to a freezing order is not equivalent to being criminally convicted of fraud.
The most significant recent development came in 2025. The English High Court’s September 3, 2025 consent order records that the parties had entered into a confidential settlement agreement dated August 6, 2025, executed before the Dubai Courts. The court stayed the existing proceedings on the settlement terms and discharged the final worldwide freezing order originally issued on October 9, 2020. It also gave the parties permission to return to court if necessary to implement the settlement. There was no order as to costs.
The settlement amount and other terms have not been made public in the order. That means the public record does not establish how much of the roughly $85 million judgment was ultimately recovered, whether the debt was reduced, or what payments or other undertakings were agreed.
The public trail nevertheless shows that Hasan remained connected to the Dubai maritime sector. DTA Maritime continues to operate from Dubai Maritime City and describes itself as a marine, logistics and technical-services company. A 2019-20 maritime industry publication identified Hasan as the company’s General Manager when the former DTA Ship Agency was rebranded as DTA Maritime. A 2025 Dubai maritime directory also lists Muhammad Hasan Lakhani as a contact person for DTA Ship Maintenance LLC.
The latest public material reviewed therefore places Hasan’s professional footprint in Dubai’s maritime industry, although there is no reliable public source establishing his precise present-day location or confirming his exact operational role in 2026. DTA Maritime itself remains an active company with a Dubai headquarters and a broad portfolio spanning agency, logistics and technical marine services.
The story matters because the Lakhani litigation illustrates how quickly a private shipping-finance transaction can become an international recovery battle when the collateral, corporate structures and borrowers span multiple jurisdictions. Investors were exposed through YieldStreet-linked products, lenders pursued assets across borders, and courts were forced to examine ownership, guarantees, corporate control and disputed vessel documents. The 2025 settlement closes an important chapter, but its confidential terms leave one central question unanswered: how much of the money claimed by the lenders ultimately came back to those who were relying on the financing structure in the first place.
Source:
OffshoreAlert
————-
Disclaimer:
Some content on Reportingscams.com is published under our guest post program and is provided by third-party contributors. Reporting scams does not create, verify, or take responsibility for the views, accuracy, or claims expressed in such content.
