At the height of the dollar shortage crisis that swept the Egyptian markets during 2023 and 2024, when the gap between the official and parallel rates for foreign currency reached unprecedented levels, the state began a wide-ranging move on more than one front to contain the repercussions. This move included tightening oversight of the banking system and activating the Central Bank’s tools to control the market, in a scene marked by anxiety and speculation. In the midst of this turbulent atmosphere, a complex criminal case came to the surface involving bankers and businessmen, in accusations of offering and receiving bribes to facilitate the provision of hard currency outside the approved legal frameworks, according to what was stated in the official investigations.
The case, in which economic, legal and administrative dimensions overlap, reflects a close connection with the general context of the crisis, and also reflects the scale of the pressures suffered by both investors and workers in the banking sector, in the absence of a clear vision for monetary policies and amid a multiplicity of decision-making circles. It also reflects the state of confusion that struck the official market, which pushed many economic actors to search for alternative solutions, some of them outside the scope of the law, to meet import requirements or to fulfil external obligations.
Between a crisis-ridden economic reality and stringent legal prosecutions, this case stands out as a telling example of the complexities of the period, and raises fundamental questions about the fairness of these prosecutions, and about the margin of options available to those dealing with the banking system in periods of financial strangulation, as well as the repercussions of such cases on investors’ confidence in the country’s regulatory and monetary environment.
Bribery in exchange for facilitation
According to the official investigations conducted by the Supreme State Security Prosecution, and documents obtained by Zawia3, the current case is one of the largest bribery files linked to the foreign exchange market during the dollar crisis between 2023 and 2024. The prosecution accuses a senior banking official, who held the post of deputy managing director at Crédit Agricole Egypt and a seat on the bank’s foreign exchange committee, of receiving large sums of money from two businessmen in exchange for exceptional facilitation in the provision of foreign currency for their company.
According to the case papers, the total received by the official amounted to EGP 2 million, 515,000 US dollars (equivalent to about 26 million and 265,000 Egyptian pounds at the official exchange rate), and 89,400 euros (equivalent to nearly 4 million and 917,000 Egyptian pounds), bringing the total value of the bribe to more than 33 million Egyptian pounds.
In return, the official issued verbal instructions to his subordinates to provide foreign currency for the two companies “MF for Import, Export and Commercial Agencies” and **”Farouk Trading Office”, owned by the second and third defendants, in 74 import transactions with a total value of about 13.374 million US dollars (EGP 682 million) and 95,199 euros** (approximately EGP 5.2 million), for a total of nearly EGP 700 million in foreign currencies provided to the two companies at a time when the market was suffering from a severe shortage of dollars.
According to the investigation records, the threads of the case began following an electronic complaint received by the Central Anti-Fraud Department at the Central Bank of Egypt, submitted by one of the employees, reporting that the deputy managing director at Crédit Agricole had received unusual verbal directives to provide foreign currency to the company “MF”, in a manner contrary to the priority of bank allocation.
Mostafa Ahmed Sayed, director of the Central Anti-Fraud Department at the Central Bank, stated that the examination of the complaint showed that the banking official had deposited EGP 2 million into his personal account at the National Bank of Kuwait, by means of a cheque issued by the company “MF” on its account at the National Bank of Kuwait Islamic branch in Alexandria.
A technical committee from the Central Bank of Egypt reinforced these accusations, as it established the existence of clear banking violations, and concluded that the accused official had issued direct instructions to pass 63 currency provision operations for “MF” for huge amounts, in addition to 11 further transactions that were carried out despite the absence of the corresponding balance in Egyptian pounds, in explicit violation of the banking policies in force.
The committee, made up of Mohamed Khairy Osman (general manager of the field supervision sector), Wael Nabil Sabry (external fraud investigator) and Ahmed Mohamed Mahfouz (banker “A”), pointed out that these operations were carried out with clear preference for one company at the expense of other, higher-rated companies, including drug import companies that were supposed to enjoy priority, according to the Central Bank’s instructions at that time.
The Administrative Control Authority’s inquiries
The prosecution requested inquiries by the Administrative Control Authority into the incident; they were prepared by Sherif Mahmoud Raafat, 41, a member of the Administrative Control Authority, who confirmed in the investigations that his inquiries had found that the first defendant had violated his employer’s banking norms relating to the provision of foreign currencies, by issuing immediate directives to his competent subordinates to provide sums of foreign currency to the aforementioned company, amounting to 10 million and 500,000 US dollars, equivalent to about 535 million and 500,000 Egyptian pounds, raising its banking limit to a degree exceeding that of other clients even though they are among the large companies that outrank the aforementioned company in banking classification.
His inquiries also added that the accused banking official had received sums of money into his accounts at Egyptian banks from the second defendant during periods that coincided with the periods in which foreign currency was provided to him by the bank that employed the first defendant, without the purpose of these sums transferred to his accounts being clear.
He went on to say that his inquiries had also shown him that the first defendant had directed the employee responsible for the banking classification of the bank’s clients to raise the classification of the company belonging to the second and third defendants from the category of small and medium-sized companies to that of a large corporate client, in order to justify providing the foreign sums to it.
After the investigations in the case were concluded, the Public Prosecution, in its decision referring him to criminal trial, charged the first defendant with having, in his capacity as a person deemed a public employee (deputy managing director at Crédit Agricole Egypt at the time of the incident, a bank in whose capital one of the government bodies contributes and which is subject to the oversight and supervision of the Central Bank of Egypt, and a member of the bank’s foreign exchange committee, which is tasked with setting controls, drawing up policies and issuing instructions on the provision of foreign currency to the bank’s clients), accepted and taken for himself a gift in order to breach the duties of his office.
This was by accepting and taking from the second and third defendants sums of money amounting to EGP 2 million, 515,000 US dollars, equivalent to about 535 million and 500,000 Egyptian pounds, and 89,400 euros, equivalent to about 4 million and 918,000 pounds, by way of a bribe.
This was in return for breaching the duties of his office by issuing his verbal instructions to his competent subordinates, without justification, to provide foreign currency for 63 transactions for import operations of the company (MF for Import, Export and Commercial Agencies), belonging to the second and third defendants, for amounts totalling 10 million and 500,000 US dollars, equivalent to about 535 million and 500,000 Egyptian pounds, on the claim that it had reached a level of banking classification granting it that possibility although it did not enjoy it, in violation of the limits permitted to be provided for its category among companies of the same category according to banking norms and the economic orientation of giving priority to companies importing goods and products of strategic importance.
He also issued additional verbal instructions to his competent subordinates to allow the provision of the sum of 2 million, 874,032 US dollars, equivalent to about 146 million and 576,000 pounds, as well as the sum of 95,199 euros, equivalent to about 5 million and 236,000 Egyptian pounds, relating to 11 import operations of the said company out of the total operations set out above, despite the absence in its accounts at the aforementioned bank of a balance in the national currency corresponding to this value, in violation of the established banking requirement of a balance in the national currency equivalent to the value of the foreign currency sought for the aforementioned import operations.
The Public Prosecution also charged him with having obtained for another, without right, a benefit from one of the acts of his office, by obtaining for the aforementioned company the benefit of the provision of the said sums of foreign currency, through issuing his instructions to his competent subordinates to provide the foreign sums to this company despite the absence of an equivalent balance in Egyptian pounds in its accounts at the same bank, giving it priority over the bank’s clients of the same credit category as this company, in violation of the banking rules and instructions in force in this regard, intending thereby to secure for the company the benefit of the provision of the foreign sums concerned.
The prosecution charged the second and third defendants with offering a bribe to a public employee to breach the duties of his office, by offering the first defendant the said bribe sums, and with participating with him, by way of agreement and assistance, in committing the crime, by agreeing with him to commit it and assisting him by submitting 63 requests for the provision of foreign currency, on the basis of which the defendant exploited the powers of his office and gave instructions to his subordinates to disburse them.
Legal loopholes that weaken the case
In a statement to Zawia3, legal expert Mostafa Alwan, a lawyer before the Court of Cassation and the Supreme Administrative Court and head of the “Rights” Foundation for Legal Consultancy and International Arbitration, reveals fundamental legal loopholes in the case, pointing out that the charges attributed to the first defendant, especially bribery and abuse of influence, lack the legal elements necessary to prove them.
Alwan explains that the “material element” of the crime is not clearly present, since the instructions issued by the banking official to his subordinates were given verbally and within the framework of his powers as a member of the foreign exchange committee, a committee that is in principle authorised to assess the priorities for providing foreign currency on the basis of daily economic developments.
He points out that criminal intent (what is known as the element of certainty in the bribery charge) cannot be proven in the absence of decisive evidence of the existence of a criminal intention. He also stresses that there is no clear conflict of interest between the defendant and the beneficiary company, which weakens the possibility of characterising the incident as a bribe complete in all its elements, as he puts it.
Alwan concludes that there are similar judicial precedents that ended in acquittal for lack of conclusive evidence, stressing that these points represent strong lines of defence that can be built upon if the case is referred to trial.
Alwan continues that the case also lacks the element of conflict of interest, which is one of the pillars on which charges of abuse of influence are built, stressing that the investigations did not prove the existence of a direct professional or personal link between the first defendant and any of the legal representatives of the company that received the currency, nor did the prosecution present any evidence of a previous or current relationship that could explain the granting of banking facilities as the result of mutual interests or unprofessional pressures.
He points out that similar precedents in the banking sector reveal many cases in which similar decisions were taken, relating to giving priority to the requests of some companies over others, without those cases being criminalised, especially if the matter was done within the powers of the exchange committee or the foreign currency department, and according to a technical assessment of the emergency conditions in the market.
Alwan ends his conversation with Zawia3 by pointing out that the file, as presented in the case papers, appears in the eyes of the defence closer to a regulatory or administrative file than to a criminal case complete in all its elements, calling for a distinction to be made between an error of judgement in banking decisions and the criminal intent that warrants punishment, and considering that expanding the criminalisation of financial decisions under the pressure of public opinion or security escalation may weaken the independence of the banking sector and affect the performance of its staff in times of crisis.
Legal expert Mostafa Alwan adds that this interpretation is consistent with the principle of disciplinary, not criminal, liability, since the most that can be laid on the defendant, if a flaw in professional judgement is proven, is internal administrative accountability under the bank’s regulations, not a criminal referral on the basis of charges of bribery or abuse of influence. He recalls that the Egyptian Penal Code distinguishes between disciplinary error and criminal deviation, and requires, for a criminal offence to exist, the presence of the two elements of special criminal intent and material consideration in a manner that admits no other interpretation.
Alwan affirms that the absence of conclusive evidence of a mutual benefit or of any prior agreement between the two parties, whether verbal or written, fundamentally weakens the case, pointing out that judicial precedents confirm that an accusation cannot be built on “conclusions or suspicions”, but requires “irrefutable material evidence”, which has not been provided in this file.
He concludes by pointing out that this case represents an important test of the state’s balancing between protecting transparency in the banking sector on the one hand, and preserving the employee’s right to make his professional decisions without the threat of criminal punishment on the other. In light of the above, he believes that referring the defendant to trial without clear legal conditions being met constitutes a precedent that may shake the confidence of workers in the banking sector and make them afraid to exercise judgement or take the initiative in pressing economic conditions.
The dollar crisis redrew priorities
Dr Wael El-Nahhas, an economic expert and professor of political economy, affirms in his conversation with Zawia3 that allocating a sum of nearly EGP 700 million to a single company at the peak of the dollar crisis “is considered a bold decision from an economic point of view, but it does not rise to the level of a crime unless the court proves the existence of a personal benefit received by the banking official in exchange for this allocation”. He believes that discrimination between companies was common during that critical stage as a result of the liquidity shortage, and was often based on internal considerations or on the nature of the activity, which makes the file more complex than a mere direct legal characterisation.
El-Nahhas stresses that the trial alone will determine whether there was an unjustified personal benefit, or a breach of institutional procedures, affirming that “even if an administrative flaw in the mechanism for providing foreign currency is proven, this does not automatically mean that a bribery offence was committed, which requires the presence of criminal intent and a direct personal return”.
He adds that the case once again raises the need to reform the system for providing foreign currency within Egyptian banks, and the need to adopt transparent rules for setting financing priorities during crises, in order to protect employees from falling under legal suspicion because of the absence of strict institutional policies.
Regarding the use of the allocated sums, he points out that the investigations “did not prove direct speculation on the dollar by the company”, although this possibility was circulated, adding that “the existence of 74 transactions recorded in the company’s name suggests the use of the funds in genuine import activities”. He also notes that many companies during that period resorted to ways of circumventing banking restrictions, such as importing on behalf of others, or dealing with companies holding dollar balances, practices that were not criminalised, but were tolerated institutionally amid the crisis.
He continues: “The essence of the case, as stated in the indictment, relates to exploiting an exceptional economic circumstance to breach monetary policy, by enabling a private company to buy dollars and euros at the official rate in exchange for suspicious transfers to a banking official, which violates the regulations, but is not considered a conviction unless criminal intent is proven before the court.”
He concludes by saying: “The outcome will not be decided by general feeling or impressions, but by documents and papers. The law only convicts proven acts, and the distinction between administrative error and criminal intent will be decisive in determining the fate of the case.”
The harshest articles of the indictment
In an exclusive interview with Zawia3, legal expert Saleh Hasballah El-Gabaly, a lawyer before the Court of Cassation and the Supreme Constitutional Court, reveals that the defendants in the case face charges under 11 articles of the Egyptian Penal Code relating to the crimes of bribery and abuse of influence, pointing out that these articles cover the various forms of the crime, from offering and giving to mediating, which reflects the seriousness and ramifications of the file.
According to El-Gabaly, the maximum penalty falls on the banking official, the first defendant, who faces, under Article 103 of the law, the charge of requesting or accepting a gift in exchange for performing an act of his office, a crime punishable by up to life imprisonment and a fine equal to what was given or promised. Article 104 aggravates this penalty if the consideration was refraining from performing the act or breaching the duties of the office.
As for the second and third defendants, they have a different legal status, as they confessed during the investigations to the details of offering the bribe and mediating in it, which allows them, under Article 107 bis, to obtain mandatory exemption from punishment upon full confession of the facts of the crime, which did in fact happen according to the investigation records.
El-Gabaly points out that the defendants also face charges under Articles 40 and 41, which criminalise incitement to or agreement on committing the crime, and which make the principal perpetrator and anyone who incited or participated equal in punishment. Article 111 of the law also applies to the case of the banking official, given the nature of the institution where he works, as the crime covers members of the boards of companies and institutions in whose capital the state contributes in any proportion.
In addition to the above, the indictment refers to Article 115, which criminalises abuse of authority and obstructing laws or official orders, exposing the public employee to imprisonment and dismissal. Articles 118 and 118 bis, relating to causing damage to the funds of the entity where the employee works, whether intentionally or through negligence and recklessness, also appear on the list of charges, which places the banking official under multiple articles ranging from administrative negligence to intentional damage.
El-Gabaly concludes by pointing out that the most serious thing facing the first defendant is Article 119, which punishes the embezzlement of public funds or facilitating it for others with aggravated life imprisonment, pointing out that the inclusion of this article among the charges makes it the maximum possible penalty in the event of full conviction, a penalty below which it is not legally permissible to go.
Justice or score-settling?
At an extremely sensitive political and economic moment, this case comes to light, loaded with connotations that go beyond the traditional criminal framework, touching the very core of the relationship between economic power and oversight institutions, and revealing the nature of the overlap between men of finance and business, who have long been presented as partners in supporting the economy, only for some of them to find themselves today in the line of accusation.
Does this case represent a serious move to regulate the market and hold violators accountable? Or does it reveal a hidden conflict of interests, or an attempt to divert attention from the failures of monetary policies that deepened the foreign currency crisis? And were the defendants key actors in a systematic corruption network, or mere tools in a confused scene drawn by market pressures and the ambiguity of directives?
And what are the repercussions of this case on the investment climate in Egypt? Does it strengthen confidence in a business environment that is more transparent and more subject to accountability? Or does it entrench investors’ fears of the use of criminal justice tools to settle economic or political scores?
In any case, it is difficult to separate this trial from its wider context, nor can its results be assessed without pausing at the transformations, legislation and official positions that will follow it. But what is certain is that the chapters of this case are being written at a decisive moment, and that the way it is read will contribute to shaping the features of the coming stage, economically, in terms of oversight, and politically.
Editorial clarification: The sum of 515,000 dollars is equivalent to about 26 million and 265,000 pounds at the official exchange rate, as stated in the body of the report, not 535 million and 500,000 pounds as stated in the quoted text of the case papers.
