Messages presented at Woolwich Crown Court showed Mostafa Sepahvand seeking a meeting with a man saved in his phone as “Navid Embassy Bro,” while separate exchanges detailed his demands for money and assurances relayed by contacts in Iran.
Sepahvand, 41, is on trial alongside Farhad Javadi Manesh, 46, and Shapoor Qalehali Khani Noori, 57. All three deny charges under Britain’s National Security Act.
Prosecutors allege they gathered information for Iranian intelligence in preparation for serious violence against at least one target, with Sepahvand expected to carry out an attack and the other two helping to prepare it. The alleged targets included Iran International journalists Mojtaba Pourmohsen and Kambiz Hosseini.
In a message to Navid dated March 28, 2025, Sepahvand wrote: “hello bro, are you well [w]ill come to see you at the embassy”.
Navid replied that something was troubling him and that he would explain that evening.
The contact was saved under the Persian name “Navid Barar Sefarat,” rendered in court as “Embassy Bro,” and associated with a UK telephone number. The exchanges presented did not establish his role or whether he worked for an embassy. The quoted message did not identify which embassy Sepahvand meant.
A day later, Sepahvand sent Navid a link to an auction listing for a 2024 Mercedes-Benz GLE 450.
On April 2, he wrote: “Brother I am waiting for you call me [w]ill send this friend of mine there”.
Further exchanges followed on April 3. When Sepahvand asked Navid to answer, Navid replied that he was on the phone. An April 30 message asking why Navid had not responded went unanswered.
The purpose of the proposed meeting and any connection between those exchanges and the alleged surveillance operation were not established in the messages described in court.
In separate communications with Mostafa Ghorbani, Sepahvand discussed the financial costs of locating individuals and promises to resolve his legal difficulties in Iran.
In a March 20 voice recording, previously aired during the trial, Sepahvand said he had been promised £150,000 as well as help with his court case if he completed the task.
“They have sent me £3,500, and they keep sending me fifty addresses,” he said, complaining about the money he had spent visiting locations.
Ghorbani also relayed assurances that Sepahvand’s case would be resolved once the work was done, that he would be provided with a house and that people would meet him at the airport.
Sepahvand repeatedly complained that the addresses supplied to him proved incorrect and that the work exposed him to arrest. In a March 20 voice message, he described it as “very seriously illegal” and demanded money to cover expenses.
He said locating the individuals required people to attend addresses and keep watch, and that others would be unwilling to take those risks without payment.
The hearing also examined Sepahvand’s communications with Vahid Malmir, whom he repeatedly questioned about a possible role in criminal investigations.
“I knew from very first day that you were with the criminal investigation department, but I couldn’t bring myself to say it,” Sepahvand wrote on March 28.
In another message, he asked: “Tell me the truth are you an officer with the criminal investigation”.
Malmir responded with assurances that he was at Sepahvand’s service, without explicitly confirming such a role.
Later exchanges returned to Sepahvand’s demands for a formal resolution of his Iranian case.
On April 25, he complained that he had repeatedly been told the matter was resolved even though no court ruling had been issued. He said he would stand at the previously discussed addresses if the ruling came through.
The following day, he claimed that a contact named Amin was threatening him and had said his case would not be resolved until he took action.
In earlier sessions, jurors heard evidence about photographs of locations associated with the journalists, information about Hosseini’s social media accounts and communications concerning Iran International’s offices.
Prosecutors have said Sepahvand’s wish to resolve his Iranian criminal conviction was relevant to his motivation. Jurors were previously told not to treat the conviction itself as evidence against him.
According to the prosecution’s account of his defense, Sepahvand accepts conducting surveillance for Iran but says he feared the consequences of refusing and deliberately did a poor job. Prosecutors reject that explanation.
Javadi Manesh and Noori accept visiting locations and taking photographs and videos but say they did not know they were assisting Iranian intelligence.