The Case of 'Corruption in Petrochemicals'; How Much is the Violation Amount?

On the morning of Saturday, March 9, the headline of Hamshahri newspaper read: '100 trillion tomans of corruption.' The author referred to the petrochemical corruption case as 'the largest embezzlement in Iran's history.' Judge Masoudi Moghaddam, head of the third branch of the 'Special Court for Economic Disruptors and Corruptors,' denied the '100 trillion tomans embezzlement' in an interview with Mizan News Agency, stating: 'It is not accurate to say that 100 trillion tomans have been seized by these individuals; rather, the issue is about the appropriation of benefits.' He added that 'these individuals, by exploiting the difference between domestic and imported currency rates, have unlawfully acquired wealth in some cases.' According to the indictment, 14 individuals are accused in this case of 'disrupting currency distribution' during a financial transaction of '6 billion and 656 million euros.' More specifically, during the transfer of this '6 billion and 656 million euros' inside and outside the country, some defendants illegally withdrew part of it or engaged in personal transactions and profited. According to the figures in the court indictment, the total of these violations, labeled as 'unlawful acquisition of wealth,' is reported as: 14 million and 172 thousand and 158 euros + 40 million and 920 thousand and 768 dollars + 64 billion and 3232 thousand and 550 tomans. If we want to calculate the total violations based on today's exchange rate in Tehran, we arrive at a figure of about 850 billion tomans, which is over 64 million dollars. However, is this figure the exact violation in this case? In response, it should be noted that although such numbers are mentioned in the indictment, during the court session, the prosecutor's representative stated that some of these figures were based on the defendants' statements and questioned the accuracy of some numbers. For example, in the first court session, the prosecutor's representative quoted one of the defendants as saying: '2% of petrochemical product sales' was received as commission. Based on this percentage, since the total amount of money transferred was 6 billion and 656 million euros, the commissions received should be over 130 million euros. Mohammad Hossein Shirali is accused in the indictment of receiving 8 million dollars as commission, but the prosecutor's representative stated in the first court session that he does not accept Mr. Shirali's statements, and the accounts show that Mr. Shirali received 35 million dollars in commission. If we consider the numbers for the other defendants based on this premise and multiply it by four and a half, the total commissions would reach about 290 million dollars. Given that the defendants engaged in currency trading and sometimes returned petrochemical export money at the government dollar rate or in tomans, it is unclear how much profit they made in that area. In this regard, in the second court session, the prosecutor's representative stated that Marjan Sheikh Al-Islami and Reza Hamzehlou were supposed to transfer 342 million euros with 'foreign currency' through their companies in Turkey, but they deposited 215 million euros 'with domestic source money.' In fact, the defendants delayed the transfer and when the euro became more expensive in the country, they paid the equivalent in tomans, resulting in 128 million euros less than the actual amount reaching the domestic company. It cannot be said that all this amount went to intermediaries, but it is clear that this amount, which should have reached domestic sellers at a specified time, did not arrive due to currency fluctuations and changes in the euro price, benefiting intermediaries. Reza Hamzehlou admitted in the second court session that some money was deposited into his 'personal account,' and the exact amount of these deposits is unclear. In another case, it was mentioned that these individuals not only transferred petrochemical company money but also transferred money from Irancell and received commissions. If we want to add the profits from the money that remained in these individuals' accounts over various periods to this list, the total profit that this network received during the sanctions would increase, and it is not precisely calculable. The author of this report had a conversation three years ago in Istanbul with three Iranian merchants residing in Turkey about how money was transferred during the sanctions by the networks of Reza Zarrab and Babak Zanjani. They stated that receiving a 3% commission for transferring Iranian money during the sanctions was common. Currently, the amount considered as commission in this case is less than 1% of the total money transferred, which does not align well with the financial transfer environment during the sanctions.