On August 27, the City of London Police issued a triumphant press release that quickly captured the attention of media outlets across the globe. Headlined "Man in his 60s jailed for 6.5 years after making over £980,000 through illegal streaming," the announcement detailed the downfall of a major international digital piracy ring. In the days that followed, mainstream news sites, trade publications, and tech blogs repeated the exact framing provided by law enforcement, painting a picture of an aggressive, contemporary crackdown on modern IPTV infrastructure.
Accompanying the police announcement were prepared statements from prominent anti-piracy advocates and major rights holders, including the Federation Against Copyright Theft (FACT), the Premier League, Sky, and BBC Studios. The narrative seemed straightforward: a 68-year-old man from Chorley had been caught operating a massive commercial streaming empire running on 80 dedicated servers, servicing customers worldwide—particularly British expatriates—and raking in nearly a million pounds over a three-year period.
Yet, as is frequently the case with high-profile UK intellectual property enforcement efforts, the initial press releases were remarkably sparse on critical operational details. Official communications omitted the name of the illegal service in question, provided no timeline regarding when the underlying offenses took place, and offered little insight into the judicial reasoning behind the final sentence handed down at Preston Crown Court.
Faced with these information gaps, major news organizations scrambled to fill in the blanks, inadvertently constructing a narrative that did not match reality. The Mirror, for example, ran a dramatic headline proclaiming that a "Massive streaming crackdown blocks more UK homes from watching Sky for free." The publication reported that a major closure had taken place immediately following the arrest of the mastermind behind a popular illegal streaming service, suggesting that thousands of active users had just been left staring at blank screens as servers were seized in real time.
Other outlets followed suit. International Broadcasting Convention (IBC) coverage asserted that all 80 servers had "now been seized" in a fresh operational blow, while French media outlet Le Tribunal du Net reported that British justice had "just dismantled" the enterprise. Meanwhile, security-focused publications like BleepingComputer speculated that the newly seized hardware might lead investigators directly to the doorsteps of individual subscribers who could soon face heavy fines.
However, a deeper journalistic investigation reveals a startling discrepancy: this high-profile case is not recent at all. In reality, the complex police raid that dismantled the core of the operation dates back nearly a decade, to the summer of 2016.
Pleaded Guilty
While the official police press release correctly identified the duration of the illegal financial activity as a three-year window, the broader context of the legal proceedings tells a significantly different story.
Following multiple inquiries and credential verifications, Preston Crown Court confirmed that the defendant, Milan Ibrahim, formally pleaded guilty to two distinct counts rather than being abruptly caught off guard by a sudden modern raid. For a comprehensive look at the formal charges, the court directed inquiries to the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), which ultimately identified the pirate operation and clarified the circumstances of the plea.
According to CPS records, Ibrahim entered his guilty plea five days into his trial at Preston Crown Court. The distinction between a defendant pleading guilty and being unconditionally found guilty by a jury became a point of semantic debate when questioned. When the City of London Police were asked about the phrasing in their press release, a spokesperson maintained that the jury formally returned a guilty verdict after the plea was entered, justifying the terminology used in public announcements. In British criminal procedure, when a defendant decides to change their plea after a jury has already been sworn in, the jury is directed to return a formal guilty verdict, meaning the conviction fundamentally rests upon the admission of guilt.
Which Three Years?
The official indictment provides the definitive timeline, exposing the reality that the case stems from investigations conducted many years ago. The charges span a precise timeframe running from June 1, 2013, to August 10, 2016.
The August 10, 2016 end date marks the exact day of a coordinated enforcement action led by the City of London Police Intellectual Property Crime Unit (PIPCU). On that morning, officers executed simultaneous search warrants at a commercial business and three residential properties located in Chorley, arresting three men aged 36, 40, and 58 on suspicion of conspiracy to defraud and money laundering. Milan Ibrahim was 58 years old at the time of the initial raids. The triumphant 2026 press release made no mention of this ten-year history.
Independent reporting from the time shows that the operation was already well-known within anti-piracy circles. Sources immediately pointed to a Chorley-based enterprise that was commercializing IPTV packages tailored specifically for British expatriates living abroad.
The Crown Prosecution Service has now officially confirmed that the previously unnamed network was initially known under the banner of "Ex Pat TV" before rebranding to "My TV Abroad." This strategic rebrand occurred shortly before law enforcement intervened in 2016. Archived internet records confirm that the website promoting the service featured prominent banners in July 2016 announcing the transition, promising live UK television channels anywhere in the world for a starting price of £19 per month without the need for a virtual private network. Website footers from the archived pages explicitly credited a web designer based in Chorley.
Consequently, FACT’s identification of the service—highlighted prominently in their recent promotional materials—occurred more than ten years prior to the recent sentencing announcement, a crucial piece of context omitted from the modern public relations campaign.
From Three Defendants to One
Another significant detail obscured by the recent police communications involves the number of individuals originally implicated in the criminal enterprise. While the 2026 press release focuses exclusively on Ibrahim, the original indictment named three separate individuals.
In addition to Ibrahim, two other men faced parallel charges alleging conspiracy to defraud copyright holders through unauthorized live television streams, unauthorized movie distribution, and the supply of modified satellite decoding equipment to commercial establishments. While Milan Ibrahim ultimately pleaded guilty to the primary counts, his two co-defendants were not convicted. Crown prosecutors formally offered no evidence against the remaining two men. While exact details of the legal arrangements remain confidential, legal observers note that Ibrahim was treated as the principal instigator behind the enterprise, and the resolution of the case against the co-defendants was handled as part of the broader plea negotiations.
Despite the missing historical context, the ultimate legal penalty stands. Ibrahim remains incarcerated to serve his six-and-a-half-year prison sentence. Furthermore, law enforcement agencies have confirmed that separate proceedings under the Proceeds of Crime Act are underway to recover the £980,812 generated by the illegal enterprise.
Legal experts and media critics argue that while the financial recovery and prison sentence are accurate, context remains vital for accurate public reporting. Omitting the fact that the pirate IPTV service—operating as Ex Pat TV and later My TV Abroad—was raided a decade ago, or that the conviction followed a late-trial guilty plea stemming from a multi-defendant indictment, leaves the public with a distorted view of how contemporary law enforcement timelines operate. Why anti-piracy organizations and police press offices chose to strip away this historical background remains unexplained.
A copy of the revised indictment in the matter of R v Ibrahim and others, adjudicated at Preston Crown Court under case reference T20237377, confirms these judicial records, with the names of the unconvicted co-defendants properly redacted to comply with reporting restrictions.
