A spokesperson for the Judiciary explained the institution’s nearly 20-year process of handling the Crescent case. Of

Energy Press reports that Asghar Jahangir, the spokesman for the judiciary, held a press conference today, Tuesday (October 13, 2021), with the presence of reporters and photographers from various media outlets.
He said: The Crescent case is a case that has been in the courts for more than 20 years. This case can be examined from two perspectives; one is the legal issues arising from it, for which the judiciary has carried out the necessary follow-ups. It also has non-legal and technical issues that should be examined elsewhere, such as the principle of concluding the contract, whether it was correct or not, or the issue of its annulment, which different departments have opinions about.
The spokesman for the judiciary added: In this case, which was related to the 25-year sale of sour gas to the Crescent Company, it was concluded on May 25, 2001. On February 1, 2005, the then head of the Court of Accounts wrote a letter to the then speaker of the parliament, announcing that the contract was in trouble, claiming that violations had occurred, explaining the violations, and requesting the intervention of the Inspection Organization and the Ministry of Intelligence.
He said: In July 2000, the Economic Affairs Prosecutor’s Office issued an indictment against oil company officials on charges of collusion in government transactions through influence and changing the terms of the contract. An indictment was also issued in August 2011 against the managers of the National Oil Company on charges of using fake minutes. In addition, 9 of the managers of the National Oil Company were issued indictments for paying bribes.
Jahangir continued: Indictments were issued for another number of people, totaling 17 people, on charges of acquiring illegitimate property. A hearing was held in the provincial criminal court, and 8 people were sentenced to pay a fine, temporary dismissal, and imprisonment on charges of collusion in transactions. They were acquitted of forgery. Due to the appeal, the case went to the Supreme Court, where a stay of prosecution was issued, and upon the request of the Attorney General to apply Article 18, the First Branch of the Court in 2015, declaring that the matter was not subject to the statute of limitations, a retrial was accepted.