On the morning of December 9th 2024, Miranda Patrucic, editor-in-chief of the Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project (OCCRP), emailed a “Letter to Mediapart” to Mediapart’s editors. Ms Patrucic claims that there are “significant factual inaccuracies” in the text of our investigative article about OCCRP and our newsletter on the same topic, and requested that that we make “appropriate corrections and apologies”. In a second email sent the same day at 2:21 pm, Ms Patrucic asked Mediapart to “issue a correction within the next 48 hours”.
Four hours later, Aubrey Belford, Asia-Pacific editor of OCCRP, publicly announced in a slanderous post that OCCRP had sent this “Letter to Mediapart”, and that Mediapart needed to “fully retract and apologize as soon as possible”.
We also learnt that Miranda Patrucic sent the same “Letter to Mediapart” to media working with OCCRP, despite this letter contains slanderous comments about Mediapart’s work, asserting wrongly, for instance, that our “repeated inaccurate reporting” would endanger “investigative journalists around the world” (we have already answered that point here).
On December 10th Mediapart’s publishing editor Carine Fouteau replied to Ms Patrucic that we refuse to comply with her request, because we fully stand by our reporting, which has been fact-based, proven, accurate and fair. As a courtesy, Carine Fouteau informed OCCRP's editor-in-chief that there is, in French press law, a disposition called “droit de réponse” (“right of reply”), which allows OCCRP to ask that Mediapart publishes a response from OCCRP regarding the content of our article.
As a matter of transparency, we publish in full the seven issues raised in Ms Patrucic's letter, and the responses from Mediapart’s publishing editor that were sent to her.
OCCRP point 1:
Your report falsely asserts that OCCRP does not disclose the sources of our funding, stating that “the OCCRP appears uncomfortable about the scale of U.S. funding, as the amounts are not published on the NGO’s website.”
This is incorrect. Detailed figures are indeed published on our website as part of our annual report (see the tab “full financial statements”). The annual report specifically breaks out U.S. grant funding down to the exact dollar.
This basic factual inaccuracy, that the extent of U.S. support for OCCRP is “hidden,” is fundamental to the misleading framing of your report, as well as its headline. It has formed the basis of the unjustified, alarming attacks on our journalists that we have seen in the days since publication.
Mediapart response:
We confirm that our journalistic investigation shows that OCCRP appears uncomfortable with the scale of its US funding, and especially the percentage of OCCRP’s spending provided by the US Government, that has never been disclosed by OCCRP as of today. Drew Sullivan acknowledged to us that the accurate way to evaluate this matter is the percentage of US government money in OCCRP spending any given year (which is different from the percentage of funds received).
If a few raw figures have been published in OCCRP’s annual reports on the website, this publication has been incomplete, because the full financial audits were not published at all on OCCRP’s website, and out of 16 years of activity, only 6 annual reports are available. Most importantly, it is impossible for people that are not financial experts to understand these raw figures. This has been acknowledged by the board of OCCRP in its written response to NDR: “Taking numbers directly from grants or audit reports can be misleading“. Despite this, OCCRP never published any explanations about the scale and meaning of these raw figures.
As you are aware, Drew Sullivan first provided inaccurate statements to NDR about the extent of US Government funding (“no one donor dominates”). Then the board of directors of OCCRP also provided inaccurate statements to NDR, claiming wrongly that the percentage of US Government funding has decreased from 60 percent in 2019 to 22 percent in 2023. It is only after we pointed out these inaccuracies in our latest “right of reply”, that Drew Sullivan finally provided us both raw figures and the percentage of US Government's money in OCCRP’s spending, that we published in full:
Still today, none of the figures provided to Mediapart by Drew Sullivan about the raw amounts and extent of US Government funding are available on the dedicated pages of OCCRP’s website: neither on the page “Supporters”, neither on the new “FAQ on OCCRP’s Funding and Editorial Policies” that you created after the publication of our stories. These two pages continue to inaccurately present the US Government as being one donor among many others. This doesn't correspond to reality, as the US Government has been providing on average half of OCCRP’s operational budget during the last ten years.
OCCRP point 2:
Your report fails to disclose material you received that undermines your preferred narrative.
In your article, Mr. Philippin and Mr. Candea write:
“The OCCRP repeats at length that US government funding poses no problem because there is no influence exerted upon its reports. “All OCCRP grants acknowledge donors have no right to interfere with the editorial policies,” insisted the OCCRP board in their written reply. But the board refused to provide us with copies of such grant agreements.”
This is inaccurate. Your reporting colleague John Goetz, well before publication of your report, received written confirmation from the U.S. government of our independence.
On August 19, 2023, Mr. Goetz emailed Shannon Maguire of the U.S. Agency for International Development requesting information on USAID’s support for OCCRP.
Ms. Maguire sent Mr. Goetz an email on August 25, 2023, quoting verbatim the editorial independence clause that is part of OCCRP’s current grant with USAID. It states:
“(d) Editorial Rights
The Recipient (also referred to as OCCRP) retains sole control over the editorial processes during the performance of this agreement including, but not limited to, the stories and content selected, sources used, and the story angle used. The Recipient will take full responsibility for all legal, regulatory, and financial ramifications of its stories and will not hold USAID responsible for its editorial product. The Recipient will solely decide which stories it reports and publishes without consideration to USG recommendations.”
On August 27, 2023, Mr. Goetz replied, confirming receipt of the email and asking if he could quote it. On August 28, Ms. Maguire responded by affirming that he could.
Your story does not quote this clause, nor mention this email exchange.
Mediapart response:
Mediapart does not have in its possession any funding contracts or agreements between OCCRP and US Government entities related to editorial independence, because OCCRP refused to provide us with these documents, as stated in your written answers to us.
Despite your refusal to provide these documents, we did not fail to disclose this information, as we quoted the statements of both OCCRP’s board of directors and Shannon Maguire regarding the existence of such clause:
“All OCCRP grants acknowledge donors have no right to interfere with the editorial policies,” insisted the OCCRP board in their written reply. But the board refused to provide us with copies of such grant agreements. USAID’s Shannon Maguire also insisted that it did not interfere with the OCCRP‘s editorial decisions. “They're 100% independent,” she said. “We don't direct the stories that they work on.”
OCCRP point 3:
Your report falsely asserts that the U.S. government has a veto over staffing at OCCRP.
Your report falsely claims that the U.S. government has a right to “veto appointments of ‘key personnel’ on every new funding contract. Elsewhere, it falsely claims that the U.S. government has the “right to veto its senior staff” and that it can “veto the nomination of ‘key personnel’ in the organization, including Drew Sullivan.”
Mediapart has also falsely claimed that the U.S. government has the power to “fire its boss if he doesn’t perform.” (“Oui, Washington dispose d’un droit de veto sur les dirigeants de l’OCCRP et peut donc renvoyer son patron s’il ne donne pas satisfaction.”).
As we explained to your reporters on many occasions over many months, OCCRP retains full control over all editorial staffing decisions. Hiring and firing of all staff is entirely independent of donors, without exception. This also applies to Drew Sullivan, who is appointed by the board of directors of OCCRP and answers only to the board of directors. Our board is made up of private, independent individuals with no government ties. In no sense does any donor, including the different U.S. government agencies that have provided grants to OCCRP, have the right to fire Drew Sullivan or “veto” his employment at OCCRP.
As explained to you previously, the vast majority of grants that OCCRP receives from the U.S. government or any other public or private donor contain no clauses whatsoever concerning individual staffing. The statement that “every new funding contract” contains such a provision is factually false.
Only a very small minority contain provisions concerning “key personnel.”
Within this very small minority of grants (two out of 50 currently active grants), OCCRP must name a staff member or members to be responsible for meeting grant goals (for example, training a certain number of journalists in a geographical region). Under the terms of these two grants, if we replace this person during the grant period, we must find an equally qualified replacement, and the donor needs to agree that the replacement is qualified. This applies only if we want to make a replacement. Drew Sullivan was, in fact, publicly listed as the “chief of party” on the USAID grant you refer to in your report, meaning that he was responsible for the financial administration of the grant at the time it was given. Therefore, the replacement provision could not possibly apply to him.
At no point ever in our 17-year history has a donor raised an objection to any of our staff members, nor do they have the right to do so.
Mediapart response:
This right of veto on “key personnel”, included in the “cooperative agreements” between US Government entities and OCCRP, has been acknowledged during filmed interviews by Drew Sullivan and two USAID officials. “Key personnel” includes the top editorial manager (Sullivan: "It's one or two positions at the top, which is usually our editors". USAID officials: "editor in chief" and "managing director", including Drew Sullivan). During these interviews, neither Drew Sullivan, nor the USAID officials mentioned any restrictions regarding the reasons why the US Government is allowed to enforce this veto. The applicable US regulations, which we reviewed, do not mention restrictions either.
In their written answers to NDR and Mediapart, both Drew Sullivan and OCCRP’s board acknowledged that this right of veto exists when OCCRP wishes to replace “key personnel” during the execution of the grant agreement, but consider that it is not fully the case at the beginning, when the decision to grant the funding is taken. We quoted these answers accurately and accordingly in our story, and published them in full in the appendixes of our article.
OCCRP point 4:
Your report fails to disclose Stefan Candea’s previous business relationship with OCCRP’s co-founder Paul Radu
Your story states that Stefan Candea never had a “business relationship” with Paul Radu. This is factually incorrect. Mr. Candea was a co-founder with Mr. Radu of the Romanian Center for Investigative Journalism. He was a paid contractor for OCCRP while Mr. Radu was a co-director. You must not ignore these facts, which establish a strong conflict of interest for Mr. Candea in reporting on OCCRP.
Mediapart response:
We do not understand the meaning of your remark on this matter, which is fully contradicted by the objective facts.
We disclosed in length the story of Stefan Candea with OCCRP and Paul Radu:
https://www.mediapart.fr/en/journal/international/021224/hidden-links-between-giant-investigative-journalism-and-us-government/prolonger
As explained in the text above, we strongly deny your allegations of conflict of interests:
"The articles that we publish today are the result of the collective work of eight journalists from five different media, who have together gathered and verified the information they contain in all independence, and with the strictest respect of journalistic ethics. We consider that the OCCRP attacks against Stefan Candea are an attempt to divert attention from the facts reported here by trying to discredit some of the journalists who discovered them."
Our investigation shows, as we wrote in the text above, that Stefan Candea had no “business relationship” with Paul Radu, they were colleagues when both working at the RCIJ. Stefan Candea may have received payments as a freelance journalist from OCCRP, but as you are aware, OCCRP’s money was provided at this time by the US company Journalism Development Group (JDG), controlled by Drew Sullivan.
Finally, we have been fair in our reporting, as we published, in the same text mentioned above, your allegations against Stefan Candea, despite we consider them highly inaccurate:
“Stefan Candea, who appears to have played a critical role in the development of your article, has had personal conflicts with OCCRP and business relationships with one of the OCCRP founders. The journalists among us would have precluded the participation of someone with such obvious conflict,” wrote the board, of which Drew Sullivan is a member.
OCCRP point 5:
Your report falsely asserts that OCCRP avoids reporting on the US government and its interests.
OCCRP has pursued numerous investigations into wrongdoing by the U.S. government . This includes billions of dollars in CIA-coordinated arms shipments to Syria, the privatization of U.S. drone strikes in Kenya, and corruption involving the U.S. military in Afghanistan.
According to our own disclosures (and your reporting claiming to “reveal” them), roughly half of OCCRP’s funding comes from non-U.S. grants, both government and private. As we have previously explained, this means we have millions of dollars available every year that we can, and do, use to produce reports critical of the U.S. government. No U.S. donor has any power to object to this, and none has tried.
Mediapart response:
We stand with what we wrote, which is different from the wording that you chose to include in your “Letter to Mediapart”. What we wrote precisely is that “the US government [is] largely untargeted by OCCRP reporting”, and that the investigations harming the US interests represent a “small part of the OCCRP’s total production”, which is an objective fact, and differs from what you wrote in your letter.
We also quoted an email from Drew Sullivan acknowledging that it was “mostly true” that OCCRP did not “do stories on US […] in the early years” because of the US Government funding restrictions (“We couldn't use US government or Soros money for US stories”), and we reported about the case of the US company Bechtel.
We have been fair in our reporting and fully complied with journalism ethics, as we quoted in length OCCRP’s response regarding this matter:
"Since then, the OCCRP has attracted wider sources of funding, and Sullivan and the board told this investigation that the restriction of not using US funds to investigate US issues is not a problem given that the NGO can use other, non-US funds it receives to do so. They also detailed that the OCCRP employs a journalist tasked with developing stories that concern the US, and that the NGO has regularly published reports about issues in the country, for example about the businessmen who helped Donald Trump’s lawyer in an operation to damage Joe Biden, and on how the Pentagon spent massive amounts to deliver arms to rebel groups in Syria, and also about a contract between the US government and an airline whose owners are linked to organised crime in Russia."
OCCRP point 6:
Your report falsely asserts that “US government financing is never mentioned in OCCRP-produced articles”
This is untrue. OCCRP discloses financing when it is directly relevant to the topic of a story we publish. For example, a 2023 article about China’s government paying media in Solomon Islands included a disclosure that OCCRP receives US-government grants to report on the Pacific Islands. A 2017 investigation into a campaign in the Balkans against financier George Soros disclosed that OCCRP had received grants from Soros’ Open Society Foundations.
Mediapart response:
In your “Letter to Mediapart”, you could present to us only one article mentioning US Government funding, out of the hundreds of investigations published by OCCRP since 2008. The 2017 investigation that you are referring to in your letter is irrelevant, as it only mentions funding from Open Society Foundations.
You claim that “OCCRP discloses financing when it is directly relevant to the topic of a story we publish”. This is not accurate, as demonstrated, for instance, by the funding dedicated to Malta and Cyprus that you received from the Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs (INL) of the US Department of State, as detailed in our article.
In his written answer to us, Drew Sullivan acknowledged that OCCRP obtained from US Government entities a “partial branding waiver” allowing OCCRP not to mention US Government funding in its stories: “The branding waiver allows OCCRP, among other things, to not brand our website or stories with the USAID and Department of State logos and name.”
OCCRP point 7:
Your report labels OCCRP a “criminal organization.”
This label is libelous and extremely dangerous to OCCRP journalists living under authoritarian regimes.
Mediapart response:
We have never made such accusations against the OCCRP.
This is a mistranslation from French of the content of our newsletter “La lettre enquêtes”, which discusses, every week, the “making of” an important investigation that we published. What our newsletter said was that when seeing OCCRP's influence to make a major media outlet give up its investigation based on hard facts, it could be mistaken for "an institution or a criminal organisation", when it is in reality none of these: "in reality, it's an NGO. A journalistic NGO".