The Controversial Saga of the Samanis and Pasargad Oil
The story of $300 million and a 600 billion toman discount: What’s happening behind the scenes of bitumen deals? According to Iran Gate News Agency, the names Mehrdad Samani, Ali Samani, Sepko, Espadana, Pasargad Bitumen, and Pasargad Oil have once again surfaced in a complex foreign exchange and commercial case. If the claims made about it are true, it could implicate several influential figures and institutions.
According to exclusive documents from Iran Gate, Mehrdad Samani and Ali Samani, through Sepko and Espadana companies, did not return about $300 million in export revenue to the country in 2026. It is said that a significant portion of this currency relates to the credit purchase of bitumen from Pasargad Oil.
But the main question is, if these figures are correct, what happened to hundreds of millions of dollars, and why hasn’t a clear response been provided about the return of the currency?
The 600 billion toman discount: A deal that raised questions
One of the main points of these documents is a deal in which it is said that about 600 billion tomans in discounts were given to entities related to the Samanis for the purchase of bitumen.
In this narrative, the name Abolfazl Alavi also comes up, a person said to have had connections with the Samani group in Pasargad Oil. Additionally, the name Esmaeili, Alavi’s brother-in-law, is mentioned in some claims as another person involved in this matter.
Of course, the exact role of these individuals requires the publication of documents and official responses from the relevant parties.
The 43,000-ton offer and the 258 billion toman puzzle
The issue becomes more controversial when the offer of 43,000 tons of bitumen on December 10, 2026, is mentioned.
Based on evidence and documents, no buyer was found for this shipment in the first offer, and about 12 days later, the offer was repeated, this time with about a 6 million toman reduction per ton.
The multiplication of 43,000 tons by 6 million tomans results in about 258 billion tomans, meaning such a price difference was created just between two offers.
This is where the main question arises.
What exactly happened in these 12 days that the price of a 43,000-ton shipment had to drop by about 258 billion tomans?
Why did the price of the raw material rise later?
Another claim in this case relates to the price of vacuum bottom. It is said that about ten days after the second offer, the price of the raw material for bitumen increased by about 30%.
On the other hand, it has been revealed that Naft Jey also exported bitumen two days after the mentioned offer by Pasargad Oil at a price similar to the previous Pasargad offer.
If this information aligns with transactional documents and official prices, a serious economic question arises.
Why didn’t Pasargad Oil keep the shipment in its tanks to benefit from the increase in the raw material’s price?
Based on the discussed calculations, it was determined that if such an action had been taken, the sale value of the shipment could have been at least about 430 billion tomans higher. The accuracy of this estimate, of course, requires expert review of prices, storage costs, contract conditions, and sales limitations.
The check and Alavi’s order come into play
In another part of this narrative, it is said that after El Samani—according to claims—was not honored, the issue of checks and payment guarantees was raised, and it was even claimed that this action was carried out under the order of Abolfazl Alavi.
But the question arises as to what the basis of decision-making, the authority of individuals, and the mechanism for obtaining guarantees in this transaction were.
The bigger question: Where are the unreturned currencies?
All these issues ultimately lead to a bigger question.
Given the non-return of nearly $300 million, where are these resources now, and why hasn’t a transparent and official explanation been provided about their status?
Especially if even a single transaction worth about $15 million was subject to currency obligations, it is expected that responsible institutions explain how the currency was returned, the source of financial guarantees, credit conditions, and the performance of the involved companies.
The ball is in the court of supervisory bodies
What takes this case beyond a typical commercial dispute is a set of seemingly contradictory numbers and claims: $300 million in currency obligations, a claimed 600 billion toman discount, a 258 billion toman price difference between two offers, and a claimed multi-hundred-billion-toman loss for the seller.
But a crucial link is still missing: official documents and responses from the named parties.
Now, it is expected that supervisory bodies and officials in the currency and petrochemical sectors explain the role of the mentioned individuals, the pricing method, the applied discounts, and the fate of the export currencies instead of remaining silent about this transaction.
Until then, this case remains with several unanswered big questions: Where is the $300 million? How was the 258 billion toman price difference created? On what basis was the 600 billion toman discount granted? And what was the real role of Abolfazl Alavi and Esmaeili in this matter?