WILLEMSTAD – 2BAYS and Curaçao Refinery Utilities (CRU) have rejected Curaçao Chronicle’s report that US$200,000 connected to CRU was used to help finance a U.S. influence campaign related to Venezuela policy. However, their response leaves several central questions raised by the underlying American investigation unanswered.
In a statement issued following Curaçao Chronicle’s publication, the state-owned companies said they “categorically reject” the claim that CRU used US$200,000 of its own funds to finance an influence campaign in the United States.
“Recently there were publications that Curaçao Refinery Utilities B.V. (CRU) used US$200,000 of its own funds to finance an influence campaign in the United States. 2BAYS and CRU categorically reject this claim,” the companies stated.
They also said neither company had been consulted regarding the allegations.
Curaçao Chronicle acknowledges that 2BAYS and CRU are now expressly denying that the US$200,000 came from CRU’s own funds. That denial is significant and is being reported accordingly.
However, the statement does not say that no US$200,000 payment or contribution associated with CRU existed. It does not state that the U.S. reporting identifying CRU as a contributor is false. Nor does it explain whether another party may have provided funds on CRU’s behalf or in connection with a client relationship involving the company.
Those distinctions are important.
The original Curaçao Chronicle investigation was based on reporting published in the United States concerning businessman Harry Sargeant III and efforts to influence U.S. policy toward Venezuela. Curaçao Chronicle reported that CRU was identified as contributing US$200,000 to the broader effort. The article attributed that information to the underlying investigative reporting rather than claiming Curaçao Chronicle had independently obtained CRU banking records.
The Curaçao connection warranted scrutiny because CRU forms part of the 2BAYS structure and has had contractual relations connected to Global Oil Management Group, part of the Sargeant business network involved in plans for petroleum activities at Curaçao’s refinery facilities. Curaçao’s own government financial reporting has more recently stated that Global has failed to meet financial obligations, adding to financial pressure surrounding the refinery companies.
The response from 2BAYS and CRU therefore raises a new and important question: if the reported US$200,000 did not come from CRU’s own funds, why was CRU identified in the U.S. reporting as a participant or contributor?
That question cannot be answered by the companies’ statement.
2BAYS and CRU further stated that they maintain “a strict policy of confidentiality regarding client matters and therefore do not discuss such matters publicly.”
That sentence itself raises additional questions because the companies did not identify which “client matter” they were referring to.
For a government-owned company, the issue is particularly relevant because CRU ultimately operates within Curaçao’s public corporate structure. Questions involving the possible use of its name, participation in international lobbying or influence activities, and relationships with commercial partners can therefore become matters of legitimate public interest.
Curaçao Chronicle consequently believes several questions remain unanswered: whether any US$200,000 payment associated with CRU was made; if so, who actually supplied the money; who authorized CRU’s involvement or the use of its name; what services were being purchased; who the “client” referenced by 2BAYS and CRU was; and whether the Government of Curaçao, the supervisory board or other relevant authorities were informed.
The companies’ denial should therefore not be interpreted more broadly than what they actually said.
2BAYS and CRU have denied that US$200,000 of CRU’s own funds was used. They have not, in the statement provided, explained the circumstances that caused CRU to be identified in the U.S. reporting in connection with the US$200,000.
Curaçao Chronicle stands by its decision to report on the matter because it concerns a government-owned company, Curaçao’s refinery assets and an international influence campaign tied to policy toward neighboring Venezuela. At the same time, the newspaper will continue to publish substantive responses or documentation from 2BAYS, CRU or the Government of Curaçao that clarify, correct or contradict any part of the underlying reporting.
The issue can ultimately be resolved with documentation and clear answers: whether the reported payment existed, where the money originated, what CRU’s role was, and who authorized that role.
Until those questions are answered, the denial that CRU used “its own funds” provides an important clarification, but it does not resolve the broader issue raised by the investigation.