Investigative Report: Exposing OCCRP’s Allegations Against Adani Group and Election Manipulator Anand Mangnale

In a series of explosive revelations, a Common Man on Twitter named Vijay Chauhan meticulously dissected the anti-Adani report filed by the Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project (OCCRP) and its Indian associate, Anand Mangnale. The claims bring to light significant discrepancies and alleged manipulations in the report, suggesting a coordinated attempt to influence the 2024 Indian general elections. The detailed investigation into these allegations reveals a complex web of misleading information, incomplete evidence, and potential political bias.

The Allegations and the Evidence

On May 22, 2024, OCCRP, along with Mangnale, published an article claiming to expose financial irregularities involving the Adani Group. The report was supported by three documents: a certificate of origin issued in Indonesia, a commercial invoice from Supreme Union Investors to Adani Global, and another commercial invoice from Adani to Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation (TANGEDCO). However, the detailed examination of these documents raises several critical issues.

Falsehood No. 1: Misleading Price Comparisons

The report’s core argument hinges on the price discrepancy of coal bought and sold by Adani. OCCRP claims that Adani purchased coal at $28 per metric tonne (PMT) in Indonesia and sold it to TANGEDCO for $91.91 PMT. However, this comparison is fundamentally flawed. The $28 PMT represents the Free-on-Board (FOB) price, which excludes shipping and insurance costs, while the $91.91 PMT is the final bid price, inclusive of all additional costs. This crucial difference between FOB and CIF (Cost, Insurance, and Freight) pricing parameters, which include all expenses up to the delivery point, was not acknowledged, rendering the comparison misleading and factually incorrect.

Falsehood No. 2: Concealing Key Information

The credibility of OCCRP’s evidence is further undermined by the intentional redaction of critical data. The FOB value in the certificate of origin was obscured with a black marker, raising questions about the integrity of the investigation. Such omissions suggest a deliberate attempt to mislead by hiding the real value. Why would an investigative report hide the FOB value if it were central to their claim? This selective disclosure hints at an effort to manipulate the narrative rather than present a transparent and truthful account.

Falsehood No. 3: Misunderstanding Shipping Costs

OCCRP’s report also demonstrates a poor grasp of international shipping cost parameters. It fails to differentiate between FOB (cost until goods are loaded on a ship) and CIF (Cost, Insurance, and Freight — the total cost until delivery). This oversight leads to incorrect assumptions about Adani’s pricing strategy. Understanding these terms is essential for any serious investigation into international trade practices, and the report’s failure to do so points to either negligence or intentional obfuscation.

Falsehood No. 4: Inevitability of Price Differentials

Common sense dictates that buying and selling prices, not just in international trade, but in any trade can never be identical. The FOB value is always lower than the CIF value due to additional shipping, insurance, and handling costs. OCCRP’s failure to recognize this basic economic principle casts doubt on their allegations. Adani, like any other business, cannot absorb these costs without marking up the final price. The report’s suggestion that Adani’s buying and selling prices should be the same ignores the fundamental mechanics of global trade.

Falsehood No. 5: Omitting Details of Transactional Responsibilities

The report lacks transparency about the roles and responsibilities of the parties involved. The transaction chain includes the Indonesian mining company Jhonlin Group, Adani’s Singapore-based trading entity Adani Global Pte Limited, and TANGEDCO (Power Generation Company for Govt of Tamil Nadu). Each party’s involvement and the pricing models used (FOB and CIF) are critical to understanding the full context, which OCCRP overlooks. Without this context, the report fails to provide a comprehensive view of the transaction dynamics.

Falsehood No. 6: Ignoring Necessary Transaction Costs

The investigation neglects to account for the various costs incurred by Adani. These include FOB payments, insurance, freight charges, export duties, and profit margins. Emphasising that Adani should be paying these costs without increasing the final sale price underscores the flaws in OCCRP’s argument. This means Adani can’t sell the coal to TANGEDCO at the same FOB value of $28 PMT.

This omission is significant because it suggests their misunderstanding of how international trade operates, where numerous costs accumulate from the point of origin to the final delivery.

Falsehood No. 7: Misrepresenting TANGEDCO’s Role

TANGEDCO, lacking direct procurement capabilities, relies entirely on the bid winner which is Adani in this case for coal supply logistics. The report disregards this dependency and the associated costs borne by Adani, further skewing the price comparison. TANGEDCO does not own cargo ships, rail rakes, or coal handling facilities either in Indonesia or at Ennore Port in India. This dependency on Adani for the entire logistics chain is because Adani has already created a whole supply chain powered by tens of coal mining companies and shipping companies.

Falsehood No. 8: Oversimplifying Adani’s Responsibilities

Transporting coal from Indonesia to India and ensuring its delivery to TANGEDCO involves significant risk and investment by Adani. The report’s failure to acknowledge these operational challenges and costs highlights its superficial analysis. Adani has been handling everything from procurement to shipping to delivery, incurring costs and risks at every stage, justifying the final price higher than the procurement price of $28 PMT in Indonesia. These responsibilities are not trivial and significantly impact the pricing structure. Adani bears all risks and costs,

Falsehood No. 9: Contradictory Purchase Claims

OCCRP alleges that Adani Global bought coal from Jhonlin Group on 26 December 2013 and from Supreme Union Investors on 03 January 2014 within days of each other. This claim lacks logical coherence, as it implies duplicate purchasing of the same coal without sales documentation, suggesting either misreporting or document forgery. Such discrepancies raise serious questions about the accuracy and reliability of OCCRP’s investigative methods and findings.

Falsehood No. 10: Legal Forwarding Practices

Adani’s practice of routing transactions through multiple entities is portrayed as suspicious. However, such arrangements are commonplace and legally permissible, provided they adhere to international regulations, which the report does not contest. This business practice is used to manage risks, fulfil internal contractual obligations, and optimize logistical efficiency. Criticizing it without evidence of wrongdoing is unjustified.

Adani might have forwarded and routed this procurement through several layers of companies based on their internal contractual obligations with investors across the world. What’s wrong with it till the routes are legally approved by all govts across the world?

Falsehood No. 11: Bias in Investigative Priorities

The timing and focus of OCCRP’s report, targeting Adani amid the high-stakes Lok Sabha elections, raise concerns about its objectivity. OCCRP was founded in 2006, but it has not investigated major Indian scandals like the 2G Scam, Coalgate Scam, Augusta Westland Scam or Rafale Scam with similar vigour, suggesting selective scrutiny. The report’s release during a critical point of the Lok Sabha Election 2024 suggests an attempt to influence public perception and voter behaviour, rather than a commitment to impartial investigative journalism.

OCCRP, FT, Adani Watch, and all other propaganda media houses forward news and share funding as per their agenda and agreements with the Soros-funded Open Society Foundation, Rockefeller Foundation, or Ford Foundation. This same propaganda forwarding model asked 21 organizations to come together to urge the Supreme Court to target Adani again closely before the Lok Sabha Election 2024.

Falsehood No. 12: Misinterpreting Certificates of Origin

The report erroneously claims that a shipping document indicates a direct coal supply from Jhonlin to TANGEDCO. This simplification ignores the complexities of international trade logistics. OCCRP claims that Jhonlin supplies coal directly to TANGEDCO at $28 PMT just based on a mere shipping approval document called ‘Certificate of Origin’. The certificate of origin only states the origin of the goods and their destination, not the entire supply chain or the transactional details. Misinterpreting this document reveals a lack of understanding of international trade documentation.

This is exactly how we give our destination address while booking train tickets on the Indian Railway Booking Platform IRCTC. This address is where we will be going after deboarding at the railway station. Since the destination address is mandated by IRCTC, it does not mean the train will directly drop us at our doorsteps.

Falsehood No. 13: Incomplete Investigation

The partial release of so-called three-document evidence during the Lok Sabha Election 2024 points to a potentially strategic move to influence voters rather than a comprehensive investigative effort. Questions about missing invoices and contracts undermine the report’s credibility. An incomplete investigation fails to provide a full picture, leading to potentially erroneous conclusions.

If the investigation is still ongoing as they claim, what was the urgency in releasing the half-cooked documents during the final phases of Indian #LokSabhaElections2024?

Falsehood No. 14: Implausible Calorific Value Manipulation

Accusations of Adani manipulating coal calorific values from 3500 to 6000 kcal/kg are technically unfounded. The third document OCCRP submitted as evidence to allege that Adani sold the coal with 3500-kcal/kg calorific value as 6000-kcal/kg is just another unimaginable and unacceptable. Because it was not just some paper document to siphon the money. The entire coal consumption would have to be doubled if the calorific value was almost halved from 6000 kcal/kg to 3500 kcal/kg.

No one can hide this elephant in daylight. Such significant alterations would be easily detectable and unsustainable over the long term. The physical properties of coal make such drastic changes implausible, as the calorific value directly affects the efficiency and performance of coal-fired power plants. Any discrepancies would be immediately noticeable in operational performance.

Falsehood No. 15: Discrepant Testing Data

The minor price adjustment in Adani’s invoice due to a slight deviation in calorific value (5976 kcal/kg) is standard practice and does not support allegations of large-scale manipulation. This adjustment reflects normal variations in natural resources, which are being transported for several days and the same are accounted for in mutually agreed pricing mechanisms. The reduction from $91.91 to $91.54 PMT is a routine correction based on precise testing data, not evidence of fraud.

Even if somebody wants to manipulate the coal quality testing data, no one can do it beyond a certain calorific value. In the worst-case scenario, one may do it by a few hundred. But it could never be done for the 5 years straight from 2012–2016.

Falsehood No. 16: Confusion Over Purchase Orders

Regional Editor Anand and OCCRP claim that the investigation was based on the Purchase Order (PO 89) dated 07 Feb 2014, but they shared documents that are related to PO 88 dated 24 May 2013. Even the so-called OCCRP investigators are confused about their investigation and so they can’t even differentiate between the purchase orders.

The report’s reliance on conflicting purchase order numbers (PO 88 and PO 89) further erodes its credibility, suggesting a lack of due diligence. Accurate documentation is crucial in such investigations, and discrepancies in foundational details would create chaos in the Indian stock market.

Falsehood No. 17: Propaganda Ties

The affiliations of Anand Mangnale and OCCRP with organizations critical of the Indian government and supportive of opposition parties raise questions about potential biases and motivations behind the report. Anand and his associates have been hand in glove with Anti-India, Anti-Modi and Anti-Adani propaganda organisations.

Anand claims to be an investigative journalist thinking for India’s well-being while doing the bootlicking job for such anti-national and anti-developmental organizations funded by Soros, Chinese, and Australian Coal Barons. His involvement with the entities with vested interests in political outcomes suggests that the investigation may be driven by agendas beyond mere transparency and accountability.

Falsehood No. 18: Political Leanings

Anand Mangnale’s social media activity indicates a clear political inclination, undermining claims of impartiality in his investigative work. His retweets and posts supporting the main opposition party attacking Adani day and night such as Congress cast doubt on his objectivity and the neutrality of his reporting.

Look at Anand’s social media posts to decide who he supports and what his political inclination is.

Falsehood No. 19: Implicit Collaboration Between OCCRP & Rahul Gandhi

The now-deleted collaborations and shared agendas between OCCRP and politically motivated entities further suggest an orchestrated effort to influence public perception against Adani. The deletion of these collaborations from public records after scrutiny hints at an attempt to cover up connections that could compromise the perceived impartiality of the investigation.

It is also proven earlier that Soros is directly funding the Congress Party and OCCRP through his Open Society Foundation.

Falsehood No. 20: Linking Pollution-related Deaths

The coal shipment date is 2014, but OCCRP linked it to 1.9 million deaths that occurred in 2019. What is OCCRP trying to convey? Are they suggesting that the Coal procured in 2014 was being burnt until 2019, or that the smoke had no immediate impact but caused deaths directly in 2019?

Alternatively, is that coal’s caloric value around 10X (60000 kcal/kg) higher than the top-quality coal (6000 kcal/kg) available in this world so that it lasted until 2019? Relating coal shipped in 2014 to pollution-related deaths in 2019 is totally an absurd argument.

Most importantly, Adani was just supplying the coal to TANGEDCO, but not burning them in its own thermal power plants. Adani does not even have a power plant in and around Tamil Nadu.

The Final Take: OCCRP’s Expose Exposes Their Own Propaganda

The allegations against Adani Group, as presented by OCCRP and its mouthpiece Anand Mangnale, are fraught with inconsistencies, selective omissions, and potential biases. The timing of the report’s release, amid the final phases of India’s Lok Sabha elections, hints at an ulterior motive to sway voter opinion. A thorough, unbiased investigation is necessary to uncover the truth and ensure that influential reports are grounded in factual accuracy and comprehensive analysis. The discrepancies identified in the OCCRP report highlight the importance of rigorous, transparent, and objective investigative journalism, particularly when the stakes involve both significant financial entities and national electoral processes.