A Tehran-based company named Kourosh, along with its founder Amir Hossein Sharifian, faced criminal conviction for selling counterfeit iPhones valued at tens of millions of dollars. The case has drawn clear attention to a fraud that leaned on the prestige of the Apple brand, with courts in the region outlining the scope of the scheme. This account aligns with reporting from major financial outlets, which highlight the scale and mechanics of the operation.
Prosecutors describe a strategy that attracted buyers with strikingly low prices. The advertised price for an iPhone hovered around $700, a figure that seemed to appeal to consumers seeking significant savings. The justification offered by Kourosh centered on a alleged lack of middlemen in the purchasing process, a claim that would supposedly enable price reductions. To amplify reach, the company reportedly leveraged social media pages managed by well-known bloggers and public figures to promote its storefront. Prospective buyers were promised delivery within 45 days of payment; however, the investigation indicates that most, if not all, orders were never fulfilled.
Local media assessments place public losses in the tens of millions, with estimates suggesting the operation generated roughly $35 million from selling non-existent iPhones. As the scheme unraveled, Sharifian reportedly fled the country. In the aftermath, victims pressed authorities to locate and prosecute the perpetrator. Law enforcement agencies subsequently tracked Sharifian and began negotiations for extradition. A video released by the businessman claimed that he owed customers only about $2.7 million, a figure that has been scrutinized by investigators and victims alike.
Within the broader market, it is noted that iPhones can still be obtained in Iran despite sanctions, though the price tags are steep, sometimes approaching $2,000 per unit. This reality underscores how sanctions environments can create opportunities for illicit trading and price distortions in the consumer electronics sector.
Authorities and consumer protection advocates stress the importance of vigilance against scams that imitate legitimate brands and rely on social media amplification to lure buyers. The case serves as a reminder that the line between aggressive marketing and fraudulent misrepresentation can be razor-thin, especially in markets where price skepticism coexists with limited regulatory oversight. As the investigation continues, stakeholders are watching closely to assess the full financial impact and to deter similar schemes in the future. The core takeaway is the need for due diligence, especially when offers seem too good to be true, and for robust law enforcement cooperation to pursue fraudsters across borders.。