Syrian Petroleum Company denies $110 million embezzlement claim

The Syrian Petroleum Company has released an official statement addressing circulating information on social media platforms regarding its operations and contracts. The company firmly refutes claims that $110 million was embezzled, describing such reports as inaccurate and based on partial data.

According to the statement, the widely circulated figure does not represent funds proven to have been stolen or lost by the company. It also does not reflect the total value of the contracts currently under audit. Instead, the amount is identified as a preliminary estimate of potential damages contained within files that remain subject to ongoing investigation and scrutiny.

The company emphasized that no final results have yet been issued to confirm actual damage at this specific value or to determine ultimate liabilities. Presenting this preliminary estimate as a confirmed act of embezzlement confuses estimated damage with proven loss, and conflates the investigative process with a verdict. The statement notes that such interpretations preempt findings that only competent authorities can establish after completing their investigations.

Regarding the contracts highlighted in media reports, the company clarified that their circumstances and execution mechanisms vary significantly. It denied any validity to portraying all these agreements as negotiated directly without competition or tainted by corruption. Some contracts were signed during exceptional and sensitive periods accompanying the recovery of oil fields and facilities in the eastern region.

These specific agreements were made under complex security and operational conditions that required urgent measures to protect wells, facilities, and crude oil. They also addressed the treatment of contaminated water to prevent it from reaching the Euphrates River. The company asserts that these contracts were executed within existing legal frameworks and met the requirements of that particular phase.

In contrast, other contracts cited in the media as being awarded by direct negotiation were not originally structured that way. These agreements were established through calls for tenders and competitive bidding among multiple applicants. Technical and financial evaluations of the offers were conducted according to standard procedures.

The statement reaffirmed that contracting by agreement is one of the methods permitted by the public institutions' contract system, provided specific legal conditions and controls are met. Resorting to this method does not, in itself, constitute evidence of violation or corruption.

The company stressed that technical or executive observations on any contract, or its submission to audit and oversight, do not prove corruption in the original awarding process. Furthermore, investigating a specific contract or procedure does not imply prior guilt against individuals or the company itself.

The statement concluded by explicitly denying rumors concerning the arrest of its CEO or his referral for investigation by the Central Body for Control and Inspection, confirming that such news is false.