Author: tio

The Belgian government is pressing the European Union to close a glaring sanctions loophole after OCCRP and partners revealed that raw materials from an Irish refinery are feeding into a supply chain that ultimately provides aluminum to EU sanctioned Russian weapons manufacturers.

Maxime Prévot, Belgium’s foreign minister, described the findings as “extremely disturbing.” Through a spokesperson, Prévot announced to OCCRP’s partner “De Tijd” that Belgium would lobby the European bloc to expand its sanctions regime to ensure that E.U.-produced raw materials cannot be repurposed for the Russian war effort.

The diplomatic push follows a report by OCCRP detailing the supply chain of Aughinish Alumina, Europe’s largest alumina refinery. The investigation found that since 2023, the Irish facility has sent more than half of its alumina exports to Russian smelters owned by its parent company, the Russian aluminum giant Rusal.

Because EU sanctions currently ban the import of Russian aluminum but do not restrict the export of alumina to Russia, the shipments remain entirely legal.

According to the investigation, the Russian smelters subsequently sold more than $650 million worth of aluminum to a Moscow-based trader. That trader, in turn, supplied more than 40 Russian arms companies that are currently under EU sanctions. The volume of the trade is vast: in 2024 alone, the Aughinish refinery sent approximately half of its total alumina production — worth roughly $400 million — to just two smelters in Siberia.

In Dublin, the revelations prompted immediate political fallout. A government spokesperson said to OCCRP’s partner Irish Times authorities were “aware of reports relating to Aughinish Alumina,” were taking them “very seriously,” and were actively examining the issues raised.

In a parliamentary debate on March 24, Prime Minister Micheál Martin expressed concern over the findings. While noting that the investigation alleged a supply chain routed “through intermediaries” rather than a direct link, he assured lawmakers that the matter would be reviewed.

Martin also cautioned that the refinery holds significant economic importance, serving as a major employer in Ireland and a critical node in broader European supply chains. Nevertheless, he told parliament that the reported diversion of materials into Russian armaments “is a concern.”

Opposition lawmakers in Ireland responded with sharper condemnation. Ivana Bacik, the leader of the Labour Party, said she was “shocked,” calling it “horrific” if Irish-made alumina was being utilized to manufacture weapons that are killing Ukrainian children. Ged Nash, the party’s finance spokesman, characterized the government as “rather incurious” and suggested Dublin must revisit the scope of sanctions at the European level.

Paul Murphy, a lawmaker with the People Before Profit party, accused the government of shielding the interests of an oligarch, while Jennifer Whitmore of the Social Democrats said the shipments demand immediate, intensive scrutiny.

The controversy has reverberated beyond Ireland, highlighting what critics describe as severe structural flaws in the European Union’s economic blockade of Moscow.

During a recent session of Ireland’s foreign affairs committee, Oleksandr Merezhko, a Ukrainian lawmaker, argued that it is unacceptable for Western companies to help Moscow circumvent restrictions. Russia, he said, “should be totally isolated, economically, politically.” Anton Gerashchenko, a former Ukrainian deputy interior minister, echoed the sentiment, expressing hope that the investigation would prompt official action.

The Ukrainian Embassy to Ireland says the investigation raises “serious and legitimate concerns.” This case, the Embassy spokesperson says, illustrates the growing challenge of preventing dual-use and other materials from entering Russian military supply chains.

In Brussels, Thijs Reuten, a Dutch member of the European Parliament, cited the case as glaring proof that EU sanctions require urgent tightening and stricter enforcement. Reuten emphasized that companies bear a fundamental responsibility to vet their trading partners, even when a specific trade flow technically circumvents the letter of the sanctions law.

Calling it “incomprehensible” that an EU-based company could export virtually its entire production of a sensitive metal to Russia without obstruction, Reuten warned that the resulting weapons “wreak death and destruction in Ukraine.”

“The game of hide-and-seek by companies and member states must end,” Reuten said, adding that such regulatory blind spots not only cost Ukrainian lives but fundamentally undermine Europe’s own security.

The EU’s sanctions envoy, David O’Sullivan, says that sanctions have decreased EU-Russia trade significantly. He says the information provided “if accurate, is worrying” and promises that the EU Commission will continue to act in order to undermine Russia’s ability to wage its war.

Experts in international relations and anti-corruption advocates echoed the call for reform. John O’Brennan, a professor of Irish politics, said the findings exposed “significant gaps in EU sanctions” and urged the bloc to fully sanction the alumina sector. Alexander Pomazuev, of Russia’s Anti-Corruption Foundation, described the current regulatory framework allowing the exports as a “glaring loophole.”

Philippine lawmakers on Wednesday opened formal impeachment hearings against Vice President Sara Duterte, initiating a high-stakes political showdown fueled by accusations of massive corruption and extraordinary threats to assassinate President Ferdinand Marcos Jr.

The proceedings represent a stunning rupture between the country’s two top leaders. Duterte, 47, faces a litany of severe charges, most notably the alleged embezzlement of 612.5 million pesos (about $10.19 million) in confidential government funds during her first 18 months in power.

According to reporting by OCCRP’s media partner in the Philippines, Rappler, the sweeping complaints transmitted to the House of Representatives include financial fraud, corruption and violent threats. Duterte is said to have fabricated official submissions to the Commission on Audit to conceal the misuse of public funds, bribed education officials and accumulated unexplained wealth and issued violent threats against the lives of President Marcos and his family.

Duterte, who remains in the country, refused to attend Wednesday’s inaugural hearing, arguing that she was under no legal obligation to appear in person. Instead, she took to social media to dismiss the proceedings as a politically motivated “fishing expedition” orchestrated by the House of Representatives.

“The invitation to attend the hearing of the Committee on Justice is being used to create a media narrative that there will be a ‘mini-trial,’ based on the alleged non-response and non-attendance,” she wrote in a statement posted to Facebook.

Displaying her trademark defiance, the vice president demanded that lawmakers abandon the inquiry entirely. “The Committee has no choice but to dismiss the complaints due to the clear lack of evidence,” she stated.

The relationship between Duterte and Marcos has deteriorated from an electoral alliance of powerful dynastic families into open, visceral hostility.

The feud reached a fever pitch in November 2024 when the vice president publicly claimed she had hired an assassin to kill the president if she were to be assassinated first. In another macabre outburst, she reportedly threatened to exhume the remains of the president’s father — the late dictator Ferdinand Marcos — and hurl them into the sea.

This week’s hearings represent the second attempt by Congress to oust Duterte. Lawmakers previously voted to impeach her in February 2025 over similar allegations of corruption and threats against the president. However, the Philippine Supreme Court blocked that bid six months later, ruling that the vote violated a constitutional ban on initiating multiple impeachment proceedings within a single year.

The current political crisis unfolds under the heavy shadow of Duterte’s family legacy. Her father, former President Rodrigo Duterte, was arrested last year and remains in the custody of the International Criminal Court in The Hague. He is facing allegations of crimes against humanity tied to the brutal, extrajudicial anti-drug campaign that defined his presidency.

If convicted by the Senate, Sara Duterte would be stripped of the vice presidency and permanently barred from holding public office. The House Committee on Justice now has a maximum of 60 session days to conclude its investigation into the four complaints and decide whether to formally send the articles of impeachment to the Senate for trial, Rappler reported.