In 2025, the South African telecommunications firm MTN Group finds itself at the heart of a heated scandal involving suspicions of cooperation in terror financing linked to Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC). U.S. legal actions and legislative scrutiny have spotlighted MTN’s 49% ownership of Irancell, Iran’s largest mobile operator, which courts and authorities have related to terrorist activities that resulted in American casualties. Using important facts, stakeholder statements, and current events, this research explores the intricate legal, financial, and geopolitical aspects of the MTN issue in order to determine if MTN’s activities amount to corporate culpability or are being exploited as a geopolitical scapegoat.
MTN’s Involvement in Iran and Terror Financing Allegations
Legal Background and Ownership
The largest mobile phone operator in Iran, Irancell Telecommunication Company Service (Irancell), is 49% owned by MTN Group. When American courts, especially the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, upheld MTN charges brought under the Anti-Terrorism Act (ATA), a significant legal precedent was established. According to accusations, MTN’s cooperation with Iranian companies enabled financial and operational assistance to the IRGC and its proxy organizations such as Hezbollah and militias within Iraq and Afghanistan.
By signing a joint venture agreement that was created by the IRGC itself, the plaintiffs, who include 67 American Gold Star families and disabled service members, claim that MTN intentionally took part in a conspiracy with the IRGC. Internal records reportedly referred to the endeavor as “Project Snooker,” and whistleblower leaks suggest MTN skirted U.S. restrictions to purchase American equipment for Irancell.
Allegations pertaining to finances and operations
In order to obtain the Irancell license and replace Turkcell as the operator, MTN is accused of paying corrupt Iranian authorities under false pretenses of consulting fees. According to reports, the IRGC ordered front organizations like Irancell to split a portion of their profits in order to finance terrorist activities.
Additional claims include MTN Afghanistan allegedly aiding insurgent activities by providing the Taliban with “protection payments” and turning off cell towers at their request to impede NATO forces.
The Activity of BNY Mellon and American Financial Markets
MTN’s ADR program is sponsored by Bank of New York Mellon (BNY Mellon), the world leader in custodianship of American Depositary Receipts, with more than $341 billion in ADR assets under custody. U.S. Congresswoman Elise Stefanik has urged BNY Mellon to be open about its financial relationship with MTN and Iranian affiliates on grounds of national security interests.
Stefanik’s letter emphasizes BNY Mellon’s gatekeeping responsibility to preserve the integrity of U.S. financial markets and prevent facilitation of terror financing through the sponsorship of ADRs.
Stakeholder Statements and Responses
MTN Group
MTN has strongly denied complicity, stating that no final judgment has determined any wrongdoing. The company states it carries out its operations responsibly and within the ambit of the laws in its jurisdictions and will vehemently defend itself.
U.S. Congresswoman Elise Stefanik
Stefanik has been vocal in her criticism, referencing MTN’s affiliation with the IRGC and the facilitation of Iranian-sponsored terror financing. She calls for BNY Mellon to be forthcoming about its financial involvement and stresses the gravity of the national security implications.
BNY Mellon
The custodian bank has responded cautiously, stating it takes the concerns seriously and is reviewing the inquiry carefully.
Legal and Academic Experts
Experts like Professor Jeffrey Breinholt warn that MTN’s partners, including major consulting firms, could face legal exposure under the ATA if MTN’s Iran operations are deemed substantial. Michael Walsh of UC’s Center for Middle Eastern Studies also notes the Trump administration’s willingness to sanction unusual actions against states compromising U.S. national security, placing the MTN case in the context of a larger geopolitics.
Recent Legal and Geopolitical Developments in 2025
South African Court Ruling
In May 2025, an Iran bribery case against MTN was upheld by a South African appellate court, allowing the case to proceed. The ruling puts local legal pressure on top of U.S. cases.
Geopolitical Context
South Africa’s increasing diplomatic alignment with Iran, for example, through condemnation of Israeli attacks on Iran, has also sparked criticism of MTN and its executives. MTN’s independent non-executive chairman, Mcebisi Jonas, is a special envoy to the U.S. for South Africa as well, sparking controversy over the blurring of diplomacy and business.
Analysis: Corporate Complicity or Geopolitical Scapegoating?
Arguments for Corporate Complicity
- MTN’s ownership stake in Irancell and documented cooperation with IRGC-linked entities suggest a level of complicity in terror financing.
- Allegations of corrupt payments, sanction circumvention, and operational support to terrorist groups indicate active participation rather than passive association.
- Legal precedent under the ATA affirms claims that multinational corporations can be held liable for indirect support of terrorism.
Arguments for Geopolitical Scapegoating
- MTN and its lawyers argue that no final court ruling has established wrongdoing and that the company is still operating legally.
- MTN may be caught in the crossfire of geopolitical tensions between the US, South Africa, and Iran, which could affect the case.
- Run-of-the-mill guilt tales are further complicated by MTN’s position as a giant African telecoms provider, and politicization of anti-terror laws is a problem.
Consequences for International Finance and Multinational Businesses
The MTN case serves as a reminder of the dangers faced by global companies with operations in politically exposed areas. It serves to illustrate how transparency, careful research, and stringent compliance protocols are vital in avoiding the risk of exposure to allegations of terror funding.
Financial institutions like BNY Mellon are nervous as the case challenges custodians’ responsibility to monitor and control risk associated with ADR programs related to controversial entities.
At the nexus of law, business, and geopolitics is the MTN terror-finance problem. The company’s protests and the geopolitical backdrop paint a complicated picture, despite the fact that the accusations against MTN are grave and backed by new court rulings. The future of multinational accountability for financing terrorism and the function of international financial intermediaries will probably be shaped by the ongoing legal proceedings and political pressure.