Tag: Corporations

  • Pharma giants pay millions to Russian distributor entangled in corruption allegations to win cancer drug business

    Pharma giants pay millions to Russian distributor entangled in corruption allegations to win cancer drug business

    In selling its blockbuster anticancer drug Keytruda to the Russian government, the pharmaceutical giant Merck turned to a hospital supplier with friends in high places: Alexey Repik, a now-sanctioned oligarch close to Russian President Vladimir Putin and fluent in the ways of Russia and Western business.

    A native of Moscow, trained as an economist, Repik started R-Pharm in 2001 after selling his car and borrowing $15,000 from his mother. Serving as an intermediary for pharmaceutical firms bidding on massive government contracts for medicine, the firm took off.

    In 2009, the year New Jersey-based Merck forged a strategic alliance with R-Pharm, the Russian company was expanding and soon teamed up with other Western firms and formed new lines of business.

    Repik amassed billions of dollars, a mansion in San Francisco and a precious collection of modern art and Japanese prints. He enjoyed high-stakes poker events at luxury casino hotels in the West, joining high-roller pros and gaining a reputation as a somewhat aggressive and unorthodox player. And he attracted scrutiny. Some in the media questioned whether insider connections to government officials helped him win contracts. Repik brushed off the question. “In the classical sense, no,” he said in a 2015 interview. “Officials and shadow leaders have never stood behind us.”

    R-Pharm also faced scrutiny from Russia’s Federal Antimonopoly Service, which investigated whether the firm coordinated bidding with other medicine distributors and in separate cases engaged in anticompetitive conduct designed to maintain high drug prices and influence winners.

    Yet R-Pharm kept growing, deepening its relationship with Merck by sharing manufacturing know-how and producing medicines jointly. Along the way, Repik became a political heavyweight. He met one-on-one with Putin, was invited to mingle with the super elite at the World Economic Forum and attended Donald Trump’s first presidential inauguration festivities in 2017. The oligarch bragged on Facebook that he was able to “check the handshake strength” of the president-elect. And news investigations later found that an offshore company linked to Repik owned a Bombardier business jet apparently used by one of Putin’s daughters.

    A screenshot of a Facebook post showing Alexey Repik wearing a red MAGA hat and giving a thumbs up.

    Alexey Repik’s Facebook post from the U.S. election night in 2016 shows him in a red Make America Great Again hat, giving a thumbs up. Image: via Facebook

    Merck wasn’t the only major Western drugmaker to partner with a politically connected Russian distributor entangled in corruption allegations. Nor was it the only one to operate in a system in which improper payments, conflicts of interest, bid rigging and inflated medicine prices were recurring public concerns.

    Now confidential whistleblower reports obtained by the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists say that four pharmaceutical giants paid tens of millions of dollars to proxies to supply lifesaving drugs to Russian government entities as part of a corrupt system that helped keep prices high and limit access for cancer patients and others with serious ailments.

    The probe into the role of intermediaries in Russia’s cancer medicine infrastructure, by ICIJ, Proekt and the Swiss media outlet Republik, is part of ICIJ’s Cancer Calculus project. The series explores strategies that pharmaceutical firms use to maintain multibillion-dollar monopolies and to keep cancer drug prices high — at the expense of patients and depleted healthcare resources around the world.

    The new whistleblower reports say that between 2020 and 2023, the drug companies provided “excessive” bonuses to R-Pharm and other intermediaries in Russia, even as those middlemen participated in dubious bidding practices or faced scrutiny for alleged bid rigging or anticompetitive conduct.

    These whistleblower reports, made in 2024 and 2025, allege that Merck (known as MSD outside of the U.S. and Canada), Eli Lilly, Novartis and AstraZeneca paid the large sales bonuses, or rebates, to a network of Russian distributors and sub-distributors. The distributors or firms they controlled, in turn, paid government healthcare officials and hospital administrators in return for awarding public contracts and boosting prescriptions of high-priced medicines without real competition, the whistleblower disclosures say.

    The Western companies paid bonuses of between 15% and 35%, the disclosures claim, including bonuses based on the volume of a drug bought or other types of incentives. The distributors allegedly used the bonuses to fund kickbacks to officials who approved purchases of drugs such as Merck’s anticancer medicine Keytruda, Eli Lilly’s Cyramza, Novartis’s Kisqali and AstraZeneca’s Tagrisso.

    The whistleblower reports are part of a trove of hundreds of pages of documents, including company emails, bidding records and letters to the drugmakers’ audit committees, submitted to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission and alleging violations under the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. The FCPA prohibits bribery of officials to secure or retain business and requires publicly traded companies to maintain accurate and transparent accounting. The disclosures also said the information would be provided to the Justice Department’s FCPA unit.

    about the matter. AstraZeneca declined to comment. Merck and Lilly did not respond to requests for comment.

    To corroborate some of the whistleblower’s claims, ICIJ reviewed Russia’s public procurement database, as well as procurement records shared by Proekt, for records relating to several bids that the whistleblower reports allege had been rigged. ICIJ also verified the accuracy of facts asserted in the reports, including the name of the drug, the companies involved, dates of the bid solicitations and bid amounts. ICIJ corroborated some of the whistleblower’s claims by reviewing facts asserted in the statements alleging a “fake auction” for a drug bid solicitation.

    Granting bonuses is a common business practice in the pharmaceutical sector and sometimes takes a non-cash form, specifically by reducing the outstanding amount that distributors pay for products. Under one bonus arrangement, a drugmaker may send a drug to a distributor in return for a promissory note. The distributor then sells the medicine to a hospital at a government bidding auction. The drugmaker effectively pays a bonus by issuing a credit note that reduces the amount the distributor owes.

    Russian distributors told ICIJ they complied with all laws and adhered to strict ethical business standards.

    Photo of a building with a Russian flag, R-Pharm flag and Ortat flag out the front

    The Ortat Pharmaceutical Plant, operated by the R-Pharma group in the Kostroma region in Russia’s west. Image: via R-Pharm.com

    R-Pharm said that its use of bonuses was legitimate and that it was not aware of any investigation into improper payments. “We deny any involvement of R-Pharm and/or its officers and/or affiliates in any instances of improper payments to public officials in Russia or any other country in the world in exchange for non-competitive medicine contracts,” Vasily Ignatiev, R-Pharm’s general director, wrote to ICIJ.

    But the whistleblower disclosures claim that the only reason Western companies would provide such large bonuses is because their Russian management teams knew the distributors needed large margins to fund alleged kickbacks for medicines.

    The whistleblower reports do not contain evidence of direct payments from intermediaries to government officials, but they do offer an array of red flags that indicate the intermediaries had encountered legal trouble, that the system they were navigating was rife with corruption and that the bonuses the pharmaceutical firms were paying may have been beyond industry norms.

    The whistleblower’s claims also raise questions about whether bonuses can improperly influence medical decisions, including whether patients receive the right medicines, whether public funds are used effectively and whether artificially high costs prevent access to treatment for those who need it.

    The whistleblower disclosures claim that there was no business justification for such large bonuses and that the Western firms’ conduct “is the very definition of being willfully blind.”

    ‘Exceptionally large’ bonuses

    While problems in Russia’s drug procurement system are publicly known, reforms have been hard to come by because so many distributors and others in the supply chain benefit from it. Meanwhile, many patients can’t access medicines because of limited supply or high prices, and taxpayers must finance a system that experts say is built on bribery instead of one that funds lifesaving medicines.

    Under the FCPA, using a third-party distributor doesn’t shield a manufacturer from liability for improper payments. A manufacturer may face liability if it knows or deliberately ignores warning signs that a distributor is using its margins to fund improper payments. Because companies can be held liable for the actions of their distributors, federal regulators expect firms to conduct a thorough due diligence process, including checks into the distributor’s business history, ownership structures and links to government officials.

    The whistleblower disclosures say it is unclear whether the companies’ audit and compliance units were “aware of the distributor corruption scheme and have chosen to ignore the scheme to maintain their jobs or have been poorly trained at identifying and preventing systematic FCPA violations.” Letters addressed to the firms’ audit committees, which are part of the whistleblower reports, urge corporate investigators to conduct reviews of the distributor schemes.

    The letters to the audit committees mention six key distributors used by the pharma giants that had documented red flags, including alleged shell company transactions, bid-rigging cases, faked auction schemes and high-profile bribery or antitrust investigations. Proekt’s investigation found the bonuses cited in the whistleblower reports were broadly consistent with amounts quoted in a confidential industry survey conducted by the Russian audit firm Kept. That survey found the average bonus paid to government distributors in Russia in 2022 was 30%, seven times as high as bonuses paid to retail distributors selling medicine to pharmacies, according to Proekt. But in a written statement,  Kept said it was unfair to compare bonuses in the retail and public sectors. In particular, Kept said the retail market, unlike the government one, involves others in the distribution chain including pharmacy chains and e-commerce players, “which results in additional costs for pharmaceutical companies.”

    “Based on this, it is necessary to consider the entire spectrum of relationships among participants in the pharmaceutical market,” a Kept spokesperson said.

    Kept added: “Bonus mechanisms regulate exclusively commercial relationships between distributors and pharmaceutical companies and have no bearing on the effectiveness of government procurement.”

    Retail distributors supply both prescription and over-the-counter medicines often bought directly by consumers. Government distributors are typically different companies that cover medicines including high-priced cancer drugs under patent, paid for by Russian government agencies. These medicines tend to be purchased through government auctions for public hospitals and public health agencies. The Russian government did not respond to ICIJ’s requests for comment. In his statement, R-Pharm’s Ignatiev described the system as transparent and “based on open competitive bidding procedures.”

    Photo of the Blokhin Cancer Research Center in Moscow.

    Russia’s N.N. Blokhin Cancer Research Center in Moscow. Image: Alexander Nemenov/AFP via Getty Images

    Proekt’s investigation found that bonuses to Russian distributors participating in government auctions were “exceptionally large” compared to several countries where they rarely exceeded 10%.

    Researchers and investigators have found that pharmaceutical distributors and other intermediaries can raise the price of prescription medicines. At a 2015 industry compliance conference in Washington, Andrew Ceresney, then-director of the SEC’s Division of Enforcement, said distributors were in a position to “use their margin or spread to create a slush fund of cash that will be used to pay bribes to foreign officials.”

    ‘There is no competition’

    Distributors have been at the center of bribery probes before. In Kazakhstan, the SEC alleged that distributors for the French pharmaceutical giant Sanofi generated funds to bribe Kazakh officials to win contracts and boost sales of the company’s prescription drugs. The SEC issued a cease-and-desist order alleging that Sanofi and distributors typically created a 20% to 30% “discount” to increase distributors’ profit margins, designating some of that money for bribes, and then having the distributor kick back funds to Sanofi employees. Distributors tracked the financial accounting on internal spreadsheets where the kickbacks were masked under the code word “marzipans.” Sanofi paid $25.2 million to settle the allegations in 2018 without admitting or denying wrongdoing.

    In Brazil, the SEC found that a subsidiary of Indianapolis-based Eli Lilly allegedly gave a distributor a 17% and 19% discount for drug sales to the government. The SEC described these discounts as “unusually large.” The U.S. investigation showed the distributor used about 6% of the purchase price to pay bribes to Brazilian government officials. Lilly reached a civil settlement with the SEC and agreed in 2012 to pay more than $29 million without admitting or denying the allegations. “Lilly requires our employees to act with integrity with all external parties and in accordance with all applicable laws and regulations,” Anne Nobles, Lilly’s chief ethics and compliance officer, said in a statement at the time. “Since ours is a business based on trust, we strive to conduct ourselves in an ethical way that is beyond reproach.”

    ICIJ reviewed a page from a 2022 Eli Lilly business plan that indicated, without specifying any country, that the company budgeted a bonus of 34% for Cyramza, a costly infusion drug approved to treat various advanced cancers. The whistleblower disclosure in the Lilly case cited nine Cyramza contracts valued at more than $5 million that the Moscow City Department of Health awarded in 2021 to the distributor Pharmstandard. An ICIJ review of Russian procurement data shows that Pharmstandard was the only bidder for most of those contracts. Lilly had provided Pharmstandard a 29% volume bonus for achieving its annual sales target and a 5% bonus for paying on time, according to the whistleblower’s disclosure. “As a result, Lilly received about $3.4 million from these Cyramza tenders,” or bid solicitations, the report said, adding that the distributor’s primary task was to deliver the vials of medicine to the Moscow Health Department’s warehouse in a small truck equipped with a cooler and thermometers.

    Photo of Eli Lilly building with a sign that reads Lilly and an American flag on top.

    A flag flies above the headquarters campus of Eli Lilly in Indianapolis, Indiana. Image: Scott Olson/Getty Images

    Neither Lilly nor Pharmstandard responded to requests for comment. Bidding systems are supposed to secure the lowest possible price for the government. And in many countries, a drug’s official list price is considerably higher than the net price ultimately paid by insurers and government programs. But in Russia, the whistleblower reports allege, distributors often obtained single-participant or noncompetitive awards for medicine. As a result, the price of cancer and other high-cost medicines could end up even higher than the list price. For example, between 2019 and 2023, Tagrisso, a medication used to treat adults with non-small cell lung cancer, had a list price of about $3,000-$3,500 for a box of 30 tablets. Yet the whistleblower’s written report about Tagrisso’s manufacturer, U.K.-based AstraZeneca, said so many batches were awarded without competition that a pack of 30 tablets of Tagrisso was sold at slightly above the list price from 2020 to 2023. “The reason for this is that there is no competition,” the whistleblower wrote to AstraZeneca’s audit committee chairman in 2024. Single bidders won in the  majority of the Tagrisso bid solicitations.

    Indeed, Russian procurement data reviewed by ICIJ shows single-participant bidding in about 95% of Tagrisso bids from 2020 to 2023.

    An AstraZeneca spokesperson declined to comment.

    The confidential whistleblower reports also describe how distributors allegedly channeled work through sub-distributors — some allegedly shell companies — that provided an extra layer of plausible deniability to mask allegedly improper payments. Proekt says it found at least 100 shell and “front companies” in different regions that entered bids for medicines supplied by Pharmstandard and R-Pharm.

    In his statement, R-Pharm’s Ignatiev said the company “participates in procurement procedures independently and does not appoint distributors and/or sub-distributors.”

    A review of Russian procurement data by Proekt and ICIJ confirms some details of the whistleblower’s account of cases relating to Kisqali, the best-selling breast cancer therapy made by Swiss giant Novartis. In one case, two distributors submitted the same bid, allowing the first company that entered the auction to win the contract — what the whistleblower’s report called a clear example of bid rigging.

    A Novartis representative told ICIJ: “Novartis takes all allegations of misconduct or irregular business practices by its third-party partners very seriously. Regarding the topic in question, Novartis conducted a thorough investigation into the specific activities.”

    The whistleblower reports about Novartis and AstraZeneca urged the companies’ audit committees to review why the firms used the distributor Pharmimex to obtain government contracts for oncology and rare drugs.

    How Merck uses patents to help maintain Keytruda's exorbitant price

    An illustration of a judge's gavel stylized with red tape

    https://www.icij.org/investigations/cancer-calculus/merck-keytruda-cancer-drug-price/

    OVERVIEW How Merck turned its wonder drug into a blockbuster — and priced out cancer patients worldwide Apr 13, 2026

    https://www.icij.org/investigations/cancer-calculus/keytruda-evergreening-patents-merck/

    INTERACTIVE How Merck uses patents to help maintain Keytruda’s exorbitant price Apr 13, 2026

    https://www.icij.org/investigations/cancer-calculus/cancer-patients-legal-battle-keytruda-lifesaving-drug/

    INSURERS ‘They deny the medication that is keeping you alive’: Patients wage grueling legal battles for lifesaving cancer drug Apr 13, 2026

    Recommended reading OVERVIEW How Merck turned its wonder drug into a blockbuster — and priced out cancer patients worldwide Apr 13, 2026 INTERACTIVE How Merck uses patents to help maintain Keytruda’s exorbitant price Apr 13, 2026 INSURERS ‘They deny the medication that is keeping you alive’: Patients wage grueling legal battles for lifesaving cancer drug Apr 13, 2026

    ough noncompetitive awards.

    Keytruda public procurement records reviewed by ICIJ show that R-Pharm dominated the public market from 2020 to 2022, winning 2,400 out of nearly 5,000 Keytruda bids (about $360 million worth of contracts out of a total $870 million). A closer look at the data shows that 96% of all bids were with a single participating company.

    Keytruda bids won by R-Pharm By others Source: Public procurement records.

    But Ignatiev stressed that the firm had a license to be Merck’s local production partner for Keytruda, which was under patent with no competing drug in Russia at the time. “If such local partner holds a license from the patent holder granting it the right to carry out the final stages of production and release quality control, the primary source of supply of that drug can be none other than this local partner,” Ignatiev wrote in reply to ICIJ’s questions.

    The whistleblower report said that R-Pharm allegedly funneled some contracts to affiliates “to make it appear on paper that other companies are also winning some of the Keytruda business, even though R- Pharm is controlling everything and has a monopoly on supplying Keytruda to the Russian government.”

    Ignatiev noted that Keytruda’s prices in Russia were lower than in many countries, including the U.S. and China. Still, R-Pharm reported revenue of nearly $2.5 billion in 2021, with Keytruda as 25% of its top 10 product revenue mix, according to an investors presentation. And the drug soon became a Russian and global blockbuster, leading public procurement of oncology medicines.

    Meanwhile, Repik’s influence grew as he gained direct access to Putin. He had a private working meeting with the president in the Kremlin in December 2021 and again the following year.

    But Repik’s Western ties unraveled after Russia invaded Ukraine in February 2022. The U.K., Canada, Australia and Ukraine sanctioned Repik because of his ties to Putin. The oligarch left the company he built as Merck and other Western giants scaled back operations in Russia. Ramping up a campaign to get drugmakers to produce medicines within Russia, Putin began dismantling protections for foreign patent holders, particularly those from “unfriendly countries.”

    Photo of the entrance and brick wall around Merck

    Merck headquarters in Rahway, New Jersey. Image: Christopher Occhicone/Bloomberg via Getty Images

    The push led to Russia’s first generic version of Keytruda, Pembroria, manufactured by Biocad and priced at about $1,300 for a single 100 milligram vial. An even cheaper copycat produced by R-Pharm, Arfleyda, hit the market shortly thereafter. Its maximum price: about $1,000 a vial, nearly half the price of Merck’s Keytruda. Merck had lost most of its Keytruda business in Russia.

    The whistleblower report included internal Merck emails indicating that the company received the report in July 2024 and that Merck retained the law firm Jones Day to advise it on the allegations. “Merck has engaged us to represent the company in this matter,” Jones Day partner Jordan Matthews wrote in an email that was included in the whistleblower’s report to the SEC.

    Matthews did not respond to requests for comment, nor did Merck. The report also said the whistleblower’s claims were submitted to the SEC in November 2024 and would be sent to the Justice Department’s FCPA Unit.

    The Trump administration cut back on FCPA enforcement in 2025. The SEC effectively disbanded its FCPA unit, and the U.S. shifted Justice Department prosecutors away from corporate bribery investigations toward cases targeting drug cartels.

    Contributors: Roman Badanin, Mikhail Rubin, Kate Reznikova (Proekt); Philipp Albrecht and Timo Kollbrunner (Republik); Agustin Armendariz and Dean Starkman (ICIJ). Data visualization: Antonio Cucho (ICIJ)

    Source: ICIJ · 2026-11-02

  • How Beijing’s Africa ambitions, financed by China’s mega banks, triggered a crisis in Zambia

    How Beijing’s Africa ambitions, financed by China’s mega banks, triggered a crisis in Zambia

    As Kanangwa Newlove walked through her 10-acre farm just outside Lusaka, Zambia, one day in October 2025, she felt as if her dreams were withering away in front of her. The spinach, lettuce and mustard wilted in the heat. Tomatoes shriveled on their vines. She uprooted entire rows of organic vegetables — once sought-after by discerning customers, now rotting in the sun — and fed them to her pigs. “The crops that suffered the most without water were our mainstay,” she told a reporter for the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists. “There was nothing we could do. There was no water for the crops because there was no electricity.”

    Every few days, she needed nearly 8,000 gallons of water from borehole pumps to keep her farm going. The pumps required a reliable supply of electricity, but since March 2024, Zambia’s rolling blackouts had left swathes of the country without power, turning everyday tasks into Herculean struggles. Sometimes she had only four hours of power a day.

    The blackouts had a “cascading effect,” Newlove said. Without electricity she couldn’t refrigerate the few meager vegetables she could harvest. She stopped breeding and slaughtering animals. She was unable to sell to many of her regular customers, like local “mom and pop shops.” She had to drastically reduce the area she farmed and cut back on planting, and she couldn’t hire seasonal workers.

    The rolling blackouts affecting Newlove’s farm were a result of “load shedding,” scheduled power cuts meant to reduce demand on the grid. ZESCO, the state-owned power company supplying almost all of Zambia’s energy needs, alerted its customers to the load shedding schedule, but these schedules weren’t consistent or reliable, Newlove told ICIJ, making it hard to plan how to maintain — or save — her crops. “One week you’d get a schedule from, say, morning to midday and you’d make a plan based on that,” she said. “Then, without prior notice, it would change.”

    She couldn’t run a farm on four hours of electricity. For the first time since she’d started the farm over a decade earlier — a labor of love she launched while working for a social enterprise — she began to wonder if she’d need to shut it down. “Farmers are optimistic people until that is obliterated entirely by reality. …  It’s a mammoth thing to fathom, that you’re going to kill a business that you’ve worked so hard for for so many years,” she said.

    Photo of a woman sitting in front of a chalkboard in an open field on a farm in Zambia.

    Kanangwa Newlove started farming just outside Lusaka in 2012, selling organic produce to local businesses. Image: Micah Reddy / ICIJ

    Newlove and other small-business owners across Zambia faced collapse amid a perfect storm in which environmental and economic shocks were exacerbated by the country’s deep-seated financial problems. Zambia — where roughly 60% of the population lives in poverty — is overwhelmingly dependent on hydropower, but a severe drought in 2024 left dams empty and forced ZESCO to ration electricity usage. While Zambia is drought-prone, ZESCO’s financial woes left it uniquely ill-prepared for the drought, the worst in decades.

    The company was sinking financially. Among its biggest expenses was a long-term loan of nearly $285 million from the Industrial and Commercial Bank of China (ICBC) with tough repayment terms. The loan was signed more than a decade before, in 2011, and in the following years, ZESCO had taken on more and more debt from ICBC and other Chinese lenders. Beholden to Chinese creditors, the power utility mirrored Zambia, one of the world’s most indebted countries and the first in Africa to default on its sovereign debt during the COVID-19 pandemic. As the country’s largest state-owned company, ZESCO was a significant contributor to Zambia’s overall debt.

    Now, newly revealed documents show how Chinese lenders, working with Chinese contractors in Zambia, piled loans onto the country and its ailing state-owned enterprises. When it came time for ZESCO to pay, ICBC adopted what analysts see as a hardball stance to recover debt from a struggling borrower.

    These documents form part of China Capital, an ICIJ-led investigative collaboration with 23 media partners. Based on a trove of 4.8 million documents, including client dossiers, due diligence reports, loan agreements, meeting minutes and internal emails in English and Chinese, China Capital exposes the inner workings of ICBC’s U.K. subsidiary and London branch, and the crucial role ICBC London has played in advancing Chinese interests in Africa.

    China Capital lays bare what experts describe as the bank’s muscular lending tactics, which burdened some of Africa’s most economically vulnerable states — claims the Chinese Embassy in Zambia denied. The project reveals the complex picture of Zambian debt arrangements and the role played by lenders such as ICBC, which presents itself as a commercial bank but acts as a foreign policy tool of the Chinese state, advancing Chinese strategic interests in resource-rich countries like Zambia.

    Although China became a vital lender for Zambia and helped the country fill an enormous infrastructure gap, Chinese objectives were not always aligned with Zambia’s best interests. Chinese lenders like ICBC were willing to make onerous and high-risk loans to a country that could not afford them. Meanwhile, Chinese companies seeking infrastructure contracts urged Zambian state entities to take on new debt to fund those projects. Zambia’s government, eager for easily accessible credit to fund its infrastructure plans, needed little encouragement. These factors combined to push Zambia into a disastrous debt spiral in which it was unable to service its debt, followed by years of sluggish recovery.

    Photo of a man walking past a sign at the airport in Lusaka that reads Welcome to Zambia beside an advertisement for the Bank of China

    A Bank of China billboard, left, and a PepsiCo Inc. advertisement stand outside the arrivals area at Kenneth Kaunda International Airport in Lusaka, Zambia, on Tuesday, Dec. 11, 2018. Chinese funding was behind many major infrastructure projects, including parts of the airport. Image: Waldo Swiegers/Bloomberg via Getty Images

    A $285 million loan

    Zambia’s economic outlook was positive in 2011, the year ZESCO signed its $285 million loan agreement with ICBC.

    The country had emerged from successful debt relief programs involving the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund and other international lenders years before. Relatively debt-free, it began to focus on funding new infrastructure projects, such as power lines, highways, stadiums and airports. To do so, it turned to the international financial market. Between 2012 and 2015, Zambia issued three international bonds worth $3 billion to foreign investors chasing high yields in the developing world.

    At the same time that Zambia was eagerly courting foreign infrastructure investment, China was rapidly expanding its interests in Africa. In 2013, Chinese President Xi Jinping announced China’s Belt and Road Initiative, a strategy to bolster the country’s connectivity with the rest of the world through infrastructure and development. Chinese companies were encouraged to invest abroad, accompanied by a surge in Chinese foreign lending. To poor, landlocked countries like Zambia, China portrayed itself as an alternative to Western funders, untainted by accusations of paternalism and willing to engage developing nations as equals. It offered fewer economic policy conditions on its loans than its Western counterparts, whose legacies were associated with painful economic reforms forced onto indebted African countries.

    Chinese investors were also willing to go where others were not. For Western companies, Zambia came with a risk premium that drove up the cost of capital and meant that they would invest only if high returns made up for the perceived risk. Barbara Dutzler, an economist with Germany’s main development agency and head of the agency’s Good Financial Governance in Zambia program, told ICIJ that, with China, there was “an alignment between state and industry” and an overarching geostrategic plan. That meant China could direct investment where it wanted and fund projects that would not hold up in purely commercial terms.

    Although it presents itself as a commercial bank, ICBC remains majority state-owned and is driven not only by the profit-maximizing interests of shareholders but also the political prerogatives of the party-state. Documents from China Capital show that ICBC bankers routinely weighed Chinese strategic policies like the Belt and Road Initiative when considering loan decisions around the world.

    Illustration showing ICBC logo, portions of leaked documents, and a Norilsk Nickel sign

    Illustration with photo of Zhang Hongli overlaid with ICBC logo details and images of ICBC bank and boardroom.

    https://www.icij.org/investigations/china-capital/china-banking-icbc-oligarchs-sanctions-london/

    OVERVIEW Chinese banking giant serves firms linked to oligarchs and autocrats to push Beijing’s agenda Sep 14, 2026

    https://www.icij.org/investigations/china-capital/zhang-hongli-icbc-executive-corruption-employee-misconduct/

    CORRUPTION ICBC promoted corrupt executive, ignored employee misconduct as it pursued global expansion Sep 14, 2026

    https://www.icij.org/investigations/china-capital/huawei-icbc-banking-us-court-beijing-london/

    HUAWEI Chinese bank helped Huawei spirit $1B out of London days after US indictment of the tech giant Sep 14, 2026

    Recommended reading OVERVIEW Chinese banking giant serves firms linked to oligarchs and autocrats to push Beijing’s agenda Sep 14, 2026 CORRUPTION ICBC promoted corrupt executive, ignored employee misconduct as it pursued global expansion Sep 14, 2026 HUAWEI Chinese bank helped Huawei spirit $1B out of London days after US indictment of the tech giant Sep 14, 2026

    jiang region specializing in power transmission and renewable energy projects, arranged the financing for a project it was contracted by ZESCO to undertake: construct power transmission lines and infrastructure to supply electricity to Zambia’s Northern Province on the border of the Democratic Republic of Congo and Tanzania, and Eastern Province bordering Malawi and Mozambique.

    This sort of “contractor-facilitated lending” became institutionalized in Zambia, where the government found it convenient to start “outsourcing much of the financing and mobilization process directly to Chinese contractor partnerships,” according to a paper by researcher Tianyi Wu at the Global China Initiative, part of Boston University’s Global Development Policy Center. Besides ICBC, the funds came from an array of Chinese financial institutions that were all too willing to provide high-risk loans. In these transactions, China benefited on both ends — as lender and contractor — while Zambia assumed the repayment obligation and much of the financial risk.

    The former Finance Ministry official told ICIJ the ministry was supposed to oversee borrowing, but “a lot went on outside the Ministry of Finance, and they’d find out that ministry X had signed with Y company from China and organized the finance. It was a bit of a free-for-all for a while.”

    Researchers at CARI found that among African countries with Chinese loans, Zambia had the highest number of lenders and the second-largest number of Chinese contractors securing Chinese-financed infrastructure projects. “Only Angola, which has borrowed four times as much from Chinese lenders, has more contractors, and even Angola has fewer Chinese lenders,” the researchers found.

    Many analysts agree that widespread corruption, patronage and institutional weaknesses helped fuel Zambia’s debt spiral. The country’s bureaucracy lacked capacity to negotiate, evaluate and monitor its high levels of debt, while politicians had perverse incentives to keep accumulating it. The money was easily available for large infrastructure projects from which political elites could derive kickbacks and other illicit gains: “Patronage is part of the political landscape of Zambia,” the former Finance Ministry official said. “People were seeing things like roads being built, a new airport and stadium. Things were getting better in terms of infrastructure but at a very high price because of rent-seeking behavior.”

    Chinese banks loan billions to Zambia

    Sources: The China Africa Research Initiative (CARI) at the School of Advanced International Studies, Johns Hopkins University and the AidData research center at the College of William & Mary. The CARI data includes 2015-2019 loan commitments to ZESCO and 2000-2020 loan commitments to the Zambian central government.

    An IMF report noted both that “large public investment projects were often transformed into vehicles for political patronage and rent seeking opportunities,” and that “embedded governance weaknesses cannot be overestimated in accumulation of sovereign debt and the subsequent crisis.”

    Zambia was an increasingly risky prospect, but ICBC continued expanding its interests there. In 2016 and 2017, ICBC committed to finance three other ZESCO electricity supply projects worth over $100 million and, together with the Export-Import Bank of China (known as China Eximbank), was a joint lender in the $1.5 billion syndicated loan for the 750 megawatt Kafue Gorge Lower Hydropower Station, for which ICBC claimed $15 million in management fees from ZESCO. It also signed six additional loans with the central government between 2016 and 2018, committing over $1 billion to a range of projects, from police and defense force housing to the construction of a hospital and an international airport, not all of which were fully implemented. Borrowing “mushroomed during the [Lungu] administration … to the degree they couldn’t even disburse the loans,” said Dutzler — a view backed by findings of Zambia’s auditor general. This led to growing alarm among Zambian opposition politicians and civil society groups over alleged Chinese predatory lending, as well as international headlines warning of “debt-trap diplomacy” — where a creditor country overloads a borrower with debt with the intention of extracting concessions.

    Meanwhile, Gerald Soko, the butcher, was still trading on Zambia’s good years and focusing on expanding his business, unaware of an approaching debt cliff and the years of economic strain ahead.

    r the $20 million from a reserve account it held on behalf of ZESCO. This caused a stir among ICBC London staffers when they “later learned that [head office] had pushed [the London branch] to make the payment” without the necessary documentation being in place, according to an internal ICBC report in the China Capital documents.

    The reserve account was firmly under ICBC’s control. “What this means is a bank doesn’t have to go to a separate bank, to ask for permission to touch the money in the [debt service reserve account]. They’re like, ‘I am the escrow account bank, I can do whatever the hell I want with this money,’ ” said Bradley Parks, executive director of AidData, a research center at the College of William & Mary that has tracked Chinese lending globally.

    Photo of people walking past a building with a sign that reads ICBC

    ICBC’s London branch was pressured to transfer $20 million from a ZESCO reserve account without securing the proper paperwork first, according to confidential bank records. Image: May James/SOPA Images/LightRocket via Getty Images

    Later that year, S&P Global again downgraded Zambia “on rising fiscal deficits and debt burden.” In its analysis, it referred to mounting government arrears “to contractors involved in the construction of new roads and to ZESCO … which had to import emergency power to replace a shortfall of hydro-generated power.” It added that “the increase in debt accumulation has also been accompanied by rising debt service payments.” Between 2014 and 2019 the government’s debt to foreign creditors as a percentage of GDP more than quadrupled.

    The effects of a severely strained economy soon reached ordinary Zambians. Zambia’s currency, the kwacha, depreciated, inflation rose and high interest rates made borrowing more expensive. “This has affected the ordinary person, this high inflation without GDP growth that can match the cost of living,” said Hambayi, the Zambian financial analyst.

    By 2019, ICBC was “reportedly reluctant” to release funds because Zambia began defaulting on payments to other creditors, according to an AidData analysis. In 2020, a ZESCO subsidiary defaulted on its repayment obligations for the $1.5 billion China Eximbank-ICBC hydropower loan. ZESCO — which had guaranteed higher electricity prices from independent power producers than the tariffs it charged its customers — was insolvent. So was the country, after defaulting on its debt that year. Lungu’s government had run out of options and had begun talks to restructure its debt.

    Among other measures to recover costs and reduce losses, the government began cutting subsidies, including for fuel, and increasing electricity tariffs. The escalating cost of living weighed heavily on Soko’s butchery business. “People complain about the cost of electricity … and are struggling to make ends meet. They keep asking for meat on credit, the same people who used to spend a lot,” he said, before listing the many neighboring businesses that had closed in recent years: barbers and salons, welders and fast-food franchises.

    Zambia’s weakened fiscal position left it extremely vulnerable to the worst drought in four decades, which began in 2023 and led to the relentless power cuts that nearly ended Newlove’s farming business. During the most intense period of cuts, as her crops wilted, she and the farm supervisor scrambled to find a generator and eventually found someone willing to rent them an old one. It sputtered and shook and looked as if it would give out, but it got her through those difficult days. The generator’s high costs ate into her dwindling margins, though, forcing Newlove to use her personal savings to keep the business afloat. “If we didn’t have that reserve of money, we would have sunk,” she told ICIJ.

    Photo of a woman farming.

    A crippling drought that began in 2023 wilted crops and led to rolling electricity outages, which made it difficult for Newlove to run pumps for irrigation and pushed her business to the brink of collapse. Image: Micah Reddy / ICIJ

    The electricity crisis also dealt a heavy blow to Soko’s butchery, leaving fridgefuls of rotting meat. Customers stopped buying in bulk, worried that they would face the same problem, what Soko called the “trickle-down effects” of load shedding. He said that burglars twice took advantage of the darkness during power cuts to target his shop. To get through the worst of the outages, Soko too had to fork out for a generator he could barely afford to run. Sales from the butchery these days is less than half of what it was before load shedding, and he has had to put all his plans for expanding his business on hold. “There is no profit,” he told ICIJ.

    Negotiating the future

    After China became the world’s largest source of bilateral official lending to developing countries, it faced a critical test in Zambia: How would it negotiate to restructure an unusually complex mountain of debt? How would it work with other external creditors? As a creditor nation, China has not joined the Paris Club — an informal group of mostly high-income lending countries that coordinates solutions to heavily indebted developing countries — and Chinese creditor loan agreements often contain provisions to exclude them from collective debt-restructuring initiatives. Chinese lenders also had a reputation for taking a hard line and refusing to accept markdowns on their loans, “a core Chinese position,” said Dutzler of Good Financial Governance in Zambia. “They don’t give a haircut.” Among those at the negotiation table, she said, “China was the big unknown.”

    The restructuring efforts began on shaky ground, as the negotiating parties — numerous governments and private lenders — went through back-and-forth talks that dragged on for years, hamstringing Zambia’s development and economic recovery.

    The true scale of the country’s debt remained hidden, adding to the tension. Researchers at CARI, which had been tracking Chinese lending to Africa for almost a decade, found that “Zambia’s outstanding external debt to all Chinese financiers, official and commercial, was approximately $6.6 billion in August 2021.” This was nearly double the highest figure cited by the Zambian government. Part of the problem stemmed from the structure of the Chinese loans, which were cloaked in confidentiality clauses.

    debt restructuring.” At the time, holders of Zambia’s bonds were “refusing to proceed with debt renegotiation, citing insufficient information about China’s claims on the country.”

    In an email to ICIJ, the Chinese Embassy in Zambia said that claims about opaque lending were “baseless” and that China’s “overseas financing cooperation is fully open and transparent.”

    Ultimately, the worst fears of Chinese predatory lending, rumors of China seizing national assets like ZESCO and screaming international headlines about debt-trap diplomacy turned out to be alarmist. China agreed to co-chair Zambia’s official creditors’ committee alongside France, signaling a willingness to work with others rather than go it alone. An important milestone came in 2024, when Zambia reached agreements in principle to restructure debt with Chinese commercial lenders, including ICBC. As of 2026, debt-restructuring negotiations were largely concluded, with most of the talks occurring under the government of Lungu’s rival and successor, Hakainde Hichilema.

    Ordinary Zambians still feel the lingering effects of years of intersecting crises that battered the economy and shifted perceptions of China’s role in Zambia. At Soko’s spartan butchery, the long queues of customers have been reduced to a trickle. Turnover is less than half of what it was, he said, leaning against a mostly empty display cabinet. Survey data shows that Zambians have grown increasingly skeptical of China’s role in their country. In 2014, 72% of those polled by Afrobarometer — an independent public opinion research network — viewed China’s economic and political influence positively. By 2022, that figure was down to 42%. China too was burnt by the debt troubles of developing nations; that’s part of the reason it has shifted focus to what it calls a “small and beautiful” approach to infrastructure projects, with smaller loans and shorter repayment windows.

    Photo of an empty butcher shop, with a picture of Zambian president Hichilema hanging on the wall.

    A photo of Zambian President Hakainde Hichilema hangs on the wall of Soko’s butcher shop, which was a thriving business until the country’s electricity crisis hit and the economy stalled. Image: Micah Reddy / ICIJ

    Newlove, the farmer, told ICIJ that she feels she has made it out of the crisis intact. Her farm is fully operational, and she avoided laying off any of her 14 full-time staff. They have begun replanting on portions of the land they were forced to abandon. The chickens, goats, rabbits and pigs survived, and she has since crisis-proofed her farm with large solar panels that soak up energy from Zambia’s mostly sunny skies. But on the other side of Newlove’s stone perimeter wall is dry, dusty scrubland — a graveyard for failed farms and a constant reminder of her close brush with disaster. “Our resilience was tested,” she said. “I knew a lot of farmers who shut down or changed business. … They were very lucrative, and I thought, ‘We’re next.’ ”

    Contributing reporters: Scilla Alecci, Denise Ajiri, Jelena Cosic and Delphine Reuter (ICIJ)

    Source: ICIJ · 2026-10-26