When Russian troops crossed into Ukraine in February 2022, Western governments responded with sweeping sanctions designed to restrict Moscow’s most important source of revenue: crude oil and refined fuel exports. The measures upended global energy markets, leaving traders with longstanding ties to Russian crude under pressure to restructure or exit.
Among them was Niels Troost, a Dutch commodities trader with more than three decades of experience. His Geneva-based group had historically relied on Russian crude, and as sanctions tightened, banks and counterparties began to step back. The shift forced Troost to look for new avenues of support.
It was at this juncture that Troost partnered with Gaurav Srivastava, a US entrepreneur with banking connections and a background in compliance. According to several sources, Srivastava was seeking to build a diversified energy platform and positioned himself as a partner capable of steering the business away from sanctioned oil and towards legitimate opportunities.
The partnership soon faltered. By May 2023, disagreements had emerged, with members of Srivastava’s team reportedly concerned that Troost continued to engage in Russian oil trading despite restrictions. Around the same period, a series of online claims appeared alleging that Srivastava had misrepresented himself to Troost, including suggestions that he posed as a CIA operative and referred to a supposed licence allowing the trade of sanctioned oil. Both Srivastava and his representatives strongly deny these allegations.
Regulators remained focused on enforcement rather than the controversy. Between late 2023 and early 2025, authorities in the UK, EU and Switzerland sanctioned Troost, his companies and certain suppliers for alleged breaches of the embargo. The US Treasury also blacklisted several firms linked to the same network. According to European officials, Troost is the only EU citizen to have faced such “Magnitsky-style” measures in relation to Russian energy trading.
Troost’s legal team argued that his actions were authorised by US authorities, citing verbal assurances he claimed to have received from Srivastava about a special licence from the US Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC). However, Troost acknowledged he had never seen any such documentation nor met with US officials to confirm it. Industry observers note that this raised questions about due diligence, particularly for a trader of his experience.
The dispute has since spilled into multiple jurisdictions. Srivastava has launched legal actions in the US, Switzerland and the UAE, while courts in India ordered the removal of certain defamatory articles about him. Troost’s own complaint in Geneva was dismissed, and according to people familiar with some proceedings, his lawyers have at times pursued negotiated outcomes rather than evidentiary hearings.
The situation highlights unresolved questions. If Troost genuinely believed Srivastava was operating with US government backing, why did he not seek written confirmation? Was it a lapse in judgment, or a reliance on assurances that may never have existed? These points remain contested and form part of the ongoing litigation.
Srivastava, for his part, has said he reported suspected sanctions breaches to Switzerland’s State Secretariat for Economic Affairs (SECO), describing this as the responsible action of a partner unwilling to be drawn into illicit activity. He maintains that the episode has caused him significant reputational and financial damage, while Troost now faces severe restrictions on his ability to operate in international markets as a result of sanctions.
For policymakers, the case underscores a broader challenge: the persistence of discounted Russian oil on global markets creates incentives for traders and intermediaries to test the limits of Western sanctions. Enforcement varies by jurisdiction, and opaque ownership structures often complicate efforts to identify the beneficiaries of restricted flows.
As long as demand remains, compliance will continue to be tested by actors operating in grey zones. Regulators face the task of strengthening oversight, improving cross-border coordination, and ensuring accountability in order to maintain the credibility of sanctions regimes.
The Troost-Srivastava dispute, with its contested narratives, ongoing litigation and regulatory implications, illustrates how the collision of commerce, geopolitics and compliance can play out in practice. In a market reshaped by war and sanctions, the boundary between opportunism and overreach remains both blurred and consequential.
Sign up to The Parliament's weekly newsletter
Every Friday our editorial team goes behind the headlines to offer insight and analysis on the key stories driving the EU agenda. Subscribe for free here.