Smear campaign against Savings UK Ltd labeling the company as “fake,” accusing it of fraud, and targeting the owner: Dr Hassan Khan and it’s nationality with claims of criminality are deeply misleading, lack substantiated evidence, and reflect elements of racial and ethnic discrimination. These claims appear to be malicious falsehoods rather than fact-based concerns.

Notably, no concrete evidence has been presented to demonstrate that any fraud occurred or to identify any victims. Allegations lacking credible evidence, factual grounding, or lawful justification are unlikely to withstand legal scrutiny under the following legal frameworks:

🇬🇧 United Kingdom: Defamation Act 2013 (UK), Section 2 & Section 3 both require evidentiary support.

🇪🇺 European Union: Article 7 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union
requires factual basis and proportionality for allegations.

🇺🇸 United States: U.S. defamation law requires Plaintiffs to prove false statements presented as fact, publication, and harm.

🇵🇰 Pakistan: Defamation Ordinance 2002 requires proof and lawful justification.

Despite this, the allegations were circulated globally and shared with policymakers and law enforcement authorities across the UK, EU, USA, and Pakistan. This led to multiple unofficial and formal reviews:

Findings from Reviews and Inquiries:

1. In the United Kingdom, Companies House requested supporting documentation and evidence. Savings UK Ltd complied fully, submitting all required materials on 20 August 2025. After approximately six months of review, no misconduct or wrongdoing was identified.
2. In Pakistan, national-level inquiries were also conducted, and similarly, no evidence of wrongdoing was found.

Note: Although these investigations in Pakistan uncovered several major corruption scandals in KPK during 2025, including the Kohistan Mega Corruption Scandal (2025), KP Development Funds and Tender Irregularities, Health and Education Procurement Complaints, KP Cities Improvement Project (KPCIP) Irregularities, KP Rural Accessibility Project (KP RAP) Inquiry, and the Peshawar BRT (Bus Rapid Transit) Controversy. These cases provide evidence of alleged corrupt practices among certain KPK officials.

Context and Timeline Raise Serious Concerns:

A closer examination of the timeline surrounding these allegations suggests the possible involvement of foreign actors in sponsoring or influencing this smear campaign.

Initial Allegations (01-02-2025):

• • These surfaced just days after the company owner: Dr Hassan Khan  reportedly refused to pay a $300,000 bribe allegedly demanded by officials in KPK, Pakistan. At that same time, he was actively undergoing recruitment for key public sector roles, including:
  • Director (Digital Economy) at the Prime Minister Office Pakistan, where he was among the top scorers in the National Testing Service (NTS) examination.
  • An MP-2 grade position, for which he had been recommended by senior federal and provincial ministers. (An alleged bribe of USD 300,000 was demanded by KPK officials for this role.)
  • Director role at the KPK Home Department (where he ranked second highest in the competitive examination. The candidates who had failed the competitive examination were shortlisted and he was allegedly told that individuals from the Hazara region (non-Pashtuns) were not welcome for this role; however, an exception could allegedly be made in exchange for a bribe.),
• Preceding Business Developments: Shortly before the allegations, the company’s senior Executive attended a high-level meeting hosted by a US-based company. This meeting included prominent participants such as a state Governor and the FDIC Chair. The meeting was part of major acquisition negotiations that had been ongoing since 2023, with documented evidence submitted to UK Companies House. The emergence of allegations significantly disrupted and caused collapse of deal and significant financial loss.

Second Wave of Allegations (12-05-2025):

• These were published just one day after heightened tensions and military exchanges between India and Pakistan. Various sources have suggested possible involvement of foreign actors in amplifying and redistributing these claims to influence authorities across multiple jurisdictions.

During this period, the company also received threats from anonymous sources suggesting that the Bloody Paki must surrender or sell the business or face criminal consequences raising further concerns about coercion and external interference.

Conclusion:

The available evidence and official findings strongly indicate that the allegations against Savings UK Ltd are unfounded. Instead, they appear to be part of a broader pattern of targeted misinformation, reputational harm, and possible interference. Ensuring transparency, accountability, and protection from such actions is essential not just for Savings UK Ltd, but for the integrity of global business environments.