The Footprint of a $500 Million Debt
Saeed Aganji, editor of the Iran Gate News Agency, in his new report, has addressed the actions of another group of trustees who, according to the claims made in this report, have facilitated the plundering of public funds through influence and collusion.
Soon, the due date will arrive for guarantees and insurance policies that are claimed to have been issued without the necessary backing in banks, particularly in the Export Guarantee Fund during Afrouz Bahrami’s time. If these claims materialize, there is a possibility that a significant portion of these debts will ultimately flow towards the central bank, a situation that could add the burden of bankrupt banks’ losses onto the central bank and ultimately the country’s economy, creating further economic pressures.
In the bitumen corruption case ongoing in Frasco, it is claimed that Afrouz Bahrami issued insurance policies and guarantees for Mohammad Reza Faghih and Adman Nafrieh that lacked the necessary backing. According to the claim, the value of these commitments exceeds $500 million, a figure that, if true, has heavy and unprecedented dimensions and requires serious investigation by supervisory and judicial bodies.
At a time when in the Export Guarantee Fund, Javad Jalili, who is mentioned in this report as Bahrami’s right-hand man and one of Afrouz Bahrami’s other associates, was arrested and corruption cases were made public, it was expected that judicial and security supervisory bodies would intervene more seriously. However, the serious question is why the recommendations of individuals like Rabiei and Rahmani were accepted and why the expansion of this network was not prevented.
Recently, warnings were also issued about the timing of Afrouz Bahrami’s departure, and after that, this individual left the country. Now, serious questions are being raised about the financial resources available to this person and their family in London and Turkey, resources that need to be clarified regarding their origin. Additionally, the question arises as to why, in wartime conditions, the departure of these individuals and the associated financial resources happened so swiftly.
If these claims are true, the issue is not merely an administrative violation or mismanagement, but rather we are facing a case that could reveal extensive dimensions of influence, collusion, the squandering of public resources, and the transfer of a network’s costs onto the country’s economy. Now, the ball is in the court of supervisory and judicial bodies to determine who was behind these decisions, who benefited from them, and ultimately, who should be accountable for the potential loss of hundreds of millions of dollars.
