#FactCheck -False Claim About Indian Ships Paying Iran in Yuan to Pass Strait of Hormuz Goes Viral Amid Geopolitical Tensions
Executive Summary
Amid the ongoing geopolitical tensions involving the US, Israel, and Iran, and reports of disruptions in the Strait of Hormuz affecting cargo ship movement and global crude oil prices, several posts on social media have made a viral claim. The posts allege that Indian cargo vessels are being allowed to pass through the Strait of Hormuz after payments to Iran were made in Chinese currency, the yuan. The claim has been widely circulated from certain social media accounts, suggesting a shift in India’s trade and payment arrangements. However, a fact-check by CyberPeace Research Wing has found the claim to be false.
Claim
A social media user “MEHF voice 2.0” shared a viral post (archived link), claiming that an Indian oil tanker secured passage through the Strait of Hormuz by making payments in Chinese yuan. The post further suggested that India had formed a new alignment with China, bypassing the US dollar system.
Fact Check
Due to US sanctions, Iran is excluded from the international banking network SWIFT, which prevents direct trade settlements in US dollars or euros. As a result, India and Iran conduct trade through a specially designed rupee–rial payment mechanism. According to a Ministry of Commerce and Industry release (based on a written reply in Parliament), India and Iran established this arrangement to facilitate bilateral trade using local currencies instead of the US dollar.
Further, information from the Indian Embassy in Tehran notes that rupee-based payments are processed through UCO Bank and Iranian banks with vostro accounts, enabling trade settlement outside sanctioned banking channels. IDBI Bank has also been part of efforts to expand rupee-based transactions with Iran.
The Ministry of External Affairs’ official fact-check handle has also debunked this claim, confirming that it is false.
Conclusion
The viral claim that Indian oil tankers are paying in Chinese yuan to pass through the Strait of Hormuz is false. India and Iran conduct trade settlements through a rupee–rial payment mechanism, not through the Chinese currency.
Related Blogs
Brief Overview of the EU AI Act
The EU AI Act, Regulation (EU) 2024/1689, was officially published in the EU Official Journal on 12 July 2024. This landmark legislation on Artificial Intelligence (AI) will come into force just 20 days after publication, setting harmonized rules across the EU. It amends key regulations and directives to ensure a robust framework for AI technologies. The AI Act, a set of EU rules governing AI, has been in development for two years and now, the EU AI Act enters into force across all 27 EU Member States on 1 August 2024, with certain future deadlines tied up and the enforcement of the majority of its provisions will commence on 2 August 2026. The law prohibits certain uses of AI tools, including those that threaten citizens' rights, such as biometric categorization, untargeted scraping of faces, and systems that try to read emotions are banned in the workplace and schools, as are social scoring systems. It also prohibits the use of predictive policing tools in some instances. The law takes a phased approach to implementing the EU's AI rulebook, meaning there are various deadlines between now and then as different legal provisions will start to apply.
The framework puts different obligations on AI developers, depending on use cases and perceived risk. The bulk of AI uses will not be regulated as they are considered low-risk, but a small number of potential AI use cases are banned under the law. High-risk use cases, such as biometric uses of AI or AI used in law enforcement, employment, education, and critical infrastructure, are allowed under the law but developers of such apps face obligations in areas like data quality and anti-bias considerations. A third risk tier also applies some lighter transparency requirements for makers of tools like AI chatbots.
In case of failure to comply with the Act, the companies in the EU providing, distributing, importing, and using AI systems and GPAI models, are subject to fines of up to EUR 35 million or seven per cent of the total worldwide annual turnover, whichever is higher.
Key highlights of EU AI Act Provisions
- The AI Act classifies AI according to its risk. It prohibits Unacceptable risks such as social scoring systems and manipulative AI. The regulation mostly addresses high-risk AI systems.
- Limited-risk AI systems are subject to lighter transparency obligations and according to the act, the developers and deployers must ensure that the end-users are aware that the interaction they are having is with AI such as Chatbots and Deepfakes. The AI Act allows the free use of minimal-risk AI. This includes the majority of AI applications currently available in the EU single market like AI-enabled video games, and spam filters, but with the advancement of Gen AI changes with regards to this might be done. The majority of obligations fall on providers (developers) of high-risk AI systems that intend to place on the market or put into service high-risk AI systems in the EU, regardless of whether they are based in the EU or a third country. And also, a third-country provider where the high-risk AI system’s output is used in the EU.
- Users are natural or legal persons who deploy an AI system in a professional capacity, not affected end-users. Users (deployers) of high-risk AI systems have some obligations, though less than providers (developers). This applies to users located in the EU, and third-country users where the AI system’s output is used in the EU.
- General purpose AI or GPAI model providers must provide technical documentation, and instructions for use, comply with the Copyright Directive, and publish a summary of the content used for training. Free and open license GPAI model providers only need to comply with copyright and publish the training data summary, unless they present a systemic risk. All providers of GPAI models that present a systemic risk – open or closed – must also conduct model evaluations, and adversarial testing, and track and report serious incidents and ensure cybersecurity protections.
- The Codes of Practice will account for international approaches. It will cover but not necessarily be limited to the obligations, particularly the relevant information to include in technical documentation for authorities and downstream providers, identification of the type and nature of systemic risks and their sources, and the modalities of risk management accounting for specific challenges in addressing risks due to the way they may emerge and materialize throughout the value chain. The AI Office may invite GPAI model providers, and relevant national competent authorities to participate in drawing up the codes, while civil society, industry, academia, downstream providers and independent experts may support the process.
Application & Timeline of Act
The EU AI Act will be fully applicable 24 months after entry into force, but some parts will be applicable sooner, for instance the ban on AI systems posing unacceptable risks will apply six months after the entry into force. The Codes of Practice will apply nine months after entry into force. Rules on general-purpose AI systems that need to comply with transparency requirements will apply 12 months after the entry into force. High-risk systems will have more time to comply with the requirements as the obligations concerning them will become applicable 36 months after the entry into force. The expected timeline for the same is:
- August 1st, 2024: The AI Act will enter into force.
- February 2025: Prohibition of certain AI systems - Chapters I (general provisions) & II (prohibited AI systems) will apply; Prohibition of certain AI systems.
- August 2025: Chapter III Section 4 (notifying authorities), Chapter V (general purpose AI models), Chapter VII (governance), Chapter XII (confidentiality and penalties), and Article 78 (confidentiality) will apply, except for Article 101 (fines for General Purpose AI providers); Requirements for new GPAI models.
- August 2026: The whole AI Act applies, except for Article 6(1) & corresponding obligations (one of the categories of high-risk AI systems);
- August 2027: Article 6(1) & corresponding obligations apply.
The AI Act sets out clear definitions for the different actors involved in AI, such as the providers, deployers, importers, distributors, and product manufacturers. This means all parties involved in the development, usage, import, distribution, or manufacturing of AI systems will be held accountable. Along with this, the AI Act also applies to providers and deployers of AI systems located outside of the EU, e.g., in Switzerland, if output produced by the system is intended to be used in the EU. The Act applies to any AI system within the EU that is on the market, in service, or in use, covering both AI providers (the companies selling AI systems) and AI deployers (the organizations using those systems).
In short, the AI Act will apply to different companies across the AI distribution chain, including providers, deployers, importers, and distributors (collectively referred to as “Operators”). The EU AI Act also has extraterritorial application and can also apply to companies not established in the EU, or providers outside the EU if they -make an AI system or GPAI model available on the EU market. Even if only the output generated by the AI system is used in the EU, the Act still applies to such providers and deployers.
CyberPeace Outlook
The EU AI Act, approved by EU lawmakers in 2024, is a landmark legislation designed to protect citizens' health, safety, and fundamental rights from potential harm caused by AI systems. The AI Act will apply to AI systems and GPAI models. The Act creates a tiered risk categorization system with various regulations and stiff penalties for noncompliance. The Act adopts a risk-based approach to AI governance, categorizing potential risks into four tiers: unacceptable, high, limited, and low. Violations of banned systems carry the highest fine: €35 million, or 7 percent of global annual revenue. It establishes transparency requirements for general-purpose AI systems. The regulation also provides specific rules for general-purpose AI (GPAI) models and lays down more stringent requirements for GPAI models with 'high-impact capabilities' that could pose a systemic risk and have a significant impact on the internal market. For high-risk AI systems, the AI Act addresses the issues of fundamental rights impact assessment and data protection impact assessment.
The EU AI Act aims to enhance trust in AI technologies by establishing clear regulatory standards governing AI. We encourage regulatory frameworks that strive to balance the desire to foster innovation with the critical need to prevent unethical practices that may cause user harm. The legislation can be seen as strengthening the EU's position as a global leader in AI innovation and developing regulatory frameworks for emerging technologies. It sets a global benchmark for regulating AI. The companies to which the act applies will need to make sure their practices align with the same. The act may inspire other nations to develop their own legislation contributing to global AI governance. The world of AI is complex and challenging, the implementation of regulatory checks, and compliance by the concerned companies, all pose a conundrum. However, in the end, balancing innovation with ethical considerations is paramount.
At the same hand, the tech sector welcomes regulatory progress but warns that overly-rigid regulations could stifle innovation. Hence flexibility and adaptability are key to effective AI governance. The journey towards robust AI regulation has begun in major countries, and it is important that we find the right balance between safety and innovation and also take into consideration the industry reactions.
References:
- https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=OJ:L_202401689
- https://www.theverge.com/2024/7/12/24197058/eu-ai-act-regulations-bans-deadline
- https://techcrunch.com/2024/07/12/eus-ai-act-gets-published-in-blocs-official-journal-starting-clock-on-legal-deadlines/
- https://www.wsgr.com/en/insights/eu-ai-act-to-enter-into-force-in-august.html
- https://www.techtarget.com/searchenterpriseai/tip/Is-your-business-ready-for-the-EU-AI-Act
- https://www.simmons-simmons.com/en/publications/clyimpowh000ouxgkw1oidakk/the-eu-ai-act-a-quick-guide
Executive Summary
A video of Swatantra Bhardwaj is being shared on social media. Another man can also be seen with Bhardwaj in the video. Swatantra Bhardwaj came into the spotlight following an alleged assault involving the father of a protester during a protest by the Cockroach Janta Party at Jantar Mantar. Social media posts claim that the video was recorded immediately after his release from jail and shows him openly threatening people. CyberPeace Research Wing’s Research found the viral claim to be false. Our Research revealed that the video being shared on social media is old. Swatantra Bhardwaj was released from jail on September 17, while our Research found that the video has been available online since June. Therefore, the claim that the video was recorded immediately after Bhardwaj’s release from jail is misleading.
Claim:
A Facebook user shared the viral video on September 17, 2026, with the caption: “The Indian judicial system has failed once again... Swatantra Bhardwaj has started again immediately after coming out, even though the court has imposed a condition that he will not make any statements to the media. But listen to what he is saying.” The post link, archive link, and screenshot are provided below.
https://www.facebook.com/reel/1349048917301713
Fact Check
To verify the date of Swatantra Bhardwaj’s release from jail, we searched Google using relevant keywords. During the search, we found a report published by Aaj Tak on September 18, 2026. According to the report, social media influencer Swatantra Bhardwaj, who came into the spotlight following an alleged assault during a protest at Jantar Mantar, was released from Delhi’s Tihar Jail on September 17, 2026, after being granted bail by the court and completing the necessary legal formalities. Soon after walking out of the main gate of the jail, he ran towards a taxi and left without speaking to the media personnel present there. The post link and screenshot are provided below.
To verify the authenticity of the viral claim, we conducted a reverse image search of the keyframes from the video. During the search, we found the same video on a YouTube channel, where it was published on September 7, 2026. Meanwhile, the report mentioned above clearly states that Swatantra Bhardwaj was released from Delhi’s Tihar Jail on September 17, 2026. The report link and screenshot are provided below.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-3V0pwJbpwg
At the end of our Research, we found another version of the same video, which was uploaded by a person identified as Vaibhav Kumar on June 26, 2026. The post link and screenshot are provided below.
https://www.instagram.com/reels/DaBs7Q-T8xc/
Conclusion
Our Research found that the video being shared on social media is old. Swatantra Bhardwaj was released from jail on September 17, while our Research found that the video had already been available online since June. Therefore, the claim that the video was recorded immediately after Bhardwaj’s release from jail is misleading.
Executive Summary
A social media post is being widely circulated claiming that Delhi Police personnel Amit died during the Cockroach Janata Party (CJP) ‘Sansad Chalo’ protest held on July 20, 2026. The post attempts to link his death to violence that allegedly took place during the demonstration. CyberPeace Research Wing’s research found the claim to be false. The research revealed that the death of Head Constable Amit was not related to the CJP protest held on July 20. He died on July 15 after being hit by a speeding vehicle while on duty at Singhu Border. An old accident has been falsely linked to the recent protest through a misleading claim.
Claim:
A Facebook user shared a post on July 23, 2026, claiming that a police personnel was martyred during the alleged protest carried out by “student goons and their supporters from Congress and Kejriwal’s party” on July 20. The user further claimed that the protest was responsible for the death of a police personnel and questioned criticism over alleged police action against protesters.
The post’s link, archive link and screenshot are provided below:
https://www.facebook.com/photo?fbid=3562630610568369&set=a.100838436747621
https://ghostarchive.org/archive/m8QM8
Fact Check:
To verify the authenticity of the viral claim, the Desk first examined the official social media accounts of Delhi Police. During the research, the Desk found a post shared on Delhi Police’s official Instagram account on July 16, 2026, which contained the same image being circulated in the viral post.
https://www.instagram.com/p/Da19BQxEmQv/?igsh=cnN1bXZhaHg5OWRs
In the next stage of the research, the Desk found an NDTV report published on July 16, 2026. According to the report, Delhi Police had arrested two accused in connection with the death of Head Constable Amit. The arrested individuals were identified as Kuldeep alias Karan and Neeraj. The report stated that police had also seized the vehicle bearing registration number DL11CG2268, which was involved in the accident. An FIR was registered at Alipur Police Station and further research was underway.
Further research led the Desk to a related post on the Facebook page of Delhi Samachar TV. According to the post, the hit-and-run case involving Head Constable Amit, who was hit while performing duty at Singhu Border (NH-44), was solved by Delhi Police within hours. The police team arrested two accused and recovered the vehicle used in the incident.
The post’s link and screenshot are provided below:
https://www.facebook.com/reel/1006635078843860
Conclusion:
The research established that the death of Delhi Police Head Constable Amit was not connected to the CJP ‘Sansad Chalo’ protest held on July 20, 2026. Amit died on July 15 after being hit by a speeding vehicle while on duty at Singhu Border. The old accident is being falsely linked to the recent protest with a misleading claim.
