Syrian Petroleum Co. denies $110M embezzlement claims

The Syrian Petroleum Company released a clarification addressing circulating news and fragmented information on social media platforms regarding its operations and contracts. The company explicitly stated that reports alleging the embezzlement of 110 million dollars are inaccurate.

Nature of the disputed financial figure

According to the official statement, the circulated number does not represent funds confirmed as stolen or lost from the company, nor does it reflect the value of the contracts currently under audit. Instead, the 110 million dollar figure is described as an initial estimate of potential damages contained within files that remain subject to ongoing investigation and scrutiny.

The company emphasized that no final results have been issued to date proving actual damage at this specific valuation, nor have final responsibilities been determined. Presenting this preliminary estimate as confirmed embezzlement conflates estimated harm with proven loss and confuses the investigative process with a verdict, thereby preempting outcomes that belong exclusively to competent authorities after investigations conclude.

Context behind controversial contracts

Regarding the specific contracts being discussed in the media, the company affirmed that their circumstances and execution mechanisms vary significantly. It rejected the generalization that all such agreements were awarded by mutual consent or involved corruption.

Some contracts were executed during exceptional and sensitive conditions accompanying the recovery of oil fields and facilities in the eastern region. These measures were necessitated by a complex security and operational reality requiring urgent actions to protect wells, facilities, and crude oil, as well as to treat contaminated water and prevent its flow into the Euphrates River. The company noted these engagements occurred within applicable legal frameworks and stage requirements.

Legal framework for direct awards

In contrast, other contracts labeled in public discourse as "mutual consent" agreements were not originally structured that way. The statement clarified that these deals resulted from tender requests and competition among submitting entities, with technical and financial evaluations conducted according to established procedures.

The company underscored that contracting by mutual consent is one of the methods permitted by the public institutions' contract system under specific cases, conditions, and legal controls. Consequently, resorting to this method does not inherently constitute evidence of violation or corruption.

Furthermore, the presence of technical or executive observations on any contract, or its submission to audit and oversight, does not imply proven corruption in the original agreement. Similarly, investigating a specific contract or procedure does not amount to a prior condemnation of individuals or the company itself.

Denial of leadership detention rumors

The statement concluded by denying reports concerning the arrest of the company's chief executive officer or his referral for investigation by the Central Inspection Authority. The company asserted that these news items are false.