Over the past decade, “whistleblowing” has grown considerably in Iran’s online space. Carried out within the framework of the law and supported by credible documentation, it is a valuable instrument for transparency and for fighting corruption. But when people publish accusations without evidence — on the basis of guesswork, supposition or even personal grievance, and without a court’s confirmation — the distinction between whistleblowing and defamation disappears. The case of Mohammad Jorjandi’s baseless accusations against Farhad Moghadam Salimi is an instructive example, and it ended with Jorjandi’s judicial conviction for defamation.
What legitimate whistleblowing looks like
A genuine whistleblower holds documents and evidence that can be cited. They report the suspected matter to the legal authorities first and, where necessary, inform the public while preserving the dignity of those involved — saying that a person or company may be doing something wrong. They never issue a final verdict, and they do not accept the role of judge in the court of public opinion.
The line between whistleblowing and defamation
Whistleblowing rests on documents, aims to refer the matter to the legal authorities, preserves respect for the accused, and accepts that it may be mistaken.
Defamation rests on assertion, aims at character assassination, speaks in absolute terms, and leaves no room for the possibility of acquittal.
What the Farhad Moghadamsalimi case shows
No legal evidence. The accuser held no citable document. Even the material presented — including a Telegram channel with 217 members, offered as proof of million-dollar money laundering — was found on expert examination to be fabricated and unrelated.
A clean record. Farhad Moghadamsalimi has no criminal record in either Iran or Turkey and has not been convicted of any offence by any judicial authority.
The accuser avoided court. Despite repeated invitations to prove his claim before a judge, Mohammad Jorjandi declined to appear.
The final ruling. After reviewing the case, the court convicted Mohammad Jorjandi of defamation and publishing falsehoods. Jorjandi later acknowledged this himself in a video.
Why the case matters beyond one person
The significance of this case is not limited to Farhad Moghadam Salimi. It is a public lesson in the kind of attack that independent entrepreneurs and producers are exposed to. The capital and reputation of people building businesses can easily become a plaything for the self-appointed righteous — those who pursue personal or commercial ends behind the mask of fighting corruption.
Correspondence bias, and why impartiality matters
One of the concepts Farhad Moghadam Salimi raised in his response is correspondence bias: the mental tendency to attribute other people’s behaviour to their character, even when there are real external causes. This bias is why, when someone is acquitted in court, public opinion often still assumes they “got away with it somehow”. Being aware of it helps us judge more fairly.
In summary
Genuine, legitimate whistleblowing contributes to transparency and to a healthier economy. But defamation and the publishing of falsehoods under the cover of whistleblowing not only destroys the accuser’s credibility — it can become a prosecutable offence, as it did in the Farhad Moghadam Salimi case, where Mohammad Jorjandi was convicted.
Further reading
official response to the baseless accusations · conviction of Mohammad Jorjandi · full biography of Farhad Moghadam Salimi
About the Author
This article was written by Farhad Moghadamsalimi, Senior General Manager of Ege Money and a market analyst with 30+ years of experience in financial markets.