The Press Ombudsman has upheld a complaint from Mr Vitalie Botgros, through his solicitor, that an article published by The Irish Times in September 2025 breached Principle1 (Truth and Accuracy) of the Code of Practice and Principle 4 (Respect for Rights).
She did not uphold a complaint in respect of Principle 2 (Distinguishing Fact and Comment) and she did not uphold a complaint about another article on related matters published the following day.
The Article
In 2025 an Irish entrepreneur, hereafter referred to as “the presidential hopeful”, made a bid to be nominated as a candidate in Ireland’s Presidential election. This provides the context for the article which examined his business partner’s “links with Russia”. It should be noted that the complainant was not the business partner referred to in this headline but was named in the article as the largest shareholder in the US company founded in 2016 by the presidential hopeful.
The article stated that the complainant had also formerly worked for an international consultancy (which was founded by the man named as the presidential hopeful’s business partner) and which serviced the presidential hopeful’s company as well as companies with Russian links.
It also said that “before the invasion of Ukraine” the complainant had worked for a “now sanctioned” Russian conglomerate. It stated that: “Both [the conglomerate] and Botgros were mentioned in the Moldovan media during a controversy in 2018 and 2019 over the privatisation of Air Moldova”.
It went on to say that the privatisation had been investigated by the Moldovan parliament. It quoted the chairperson of the parliamentary inquiry into the matter, stating that he said it had been “controversial” and “declared illegal” by the parliament “based on suspicions of fraud and numerous violations during the process”.
The article noted that “there is no suggestion that [the presidential hopeful] was in any way linked to the transaction.”
The Complaint
The complainant said in respect of Principle 1, that the article “inaccurately asserts” that he was connected to the privatisation of the airline and that he was part of a controversial transaction which became the subject of legal investigations. He said he had no association with this privatisation and that he was never subject to criminal or civil investigations arising out of it. The complainant provided documents from the Moldovan Anti-Corruption Centre, which investigated the privatisation, in support of this assertion. These state that there was nothing in its records to suggest his involvement with the commission of any crimes.
He said he had ceased working with the Russian conglomerate in 2006, 17 years before it was sanctioned, and that the publication had presented his involvement with it in a misleading and damaging way.
He said Principle 4 had been breached because the article attacked his good name and reputation and had been damaging. He said reasonable care had not been taken in fact checking it and he had not been approached for comment or offered right of reply. The complainant sought amendments and clarifications of the article and to have the record corrected.
The Response from the Publication
The Irish Times stated that the article was based on facts that were “already on the public record” and that it had not therefore been required to contact the complainant before publication. It said that, as required under Principle 1, it had striven for truth and accuracy, and that while there was nothing to correct, it had provided a right to reply by offering to interview the complainant, or for the complainant to write a letter to be considered for publication.
The publication said its references to the complainant’s roles in various companies were accurate and cited sources for this material. It said that it had made accurate reference to the claim by the plaintiff that the complainant had been “mentioned in the Moldovan media” in relation to the controversy over the privatisation of Air Moldova. It noted that it had stated that the plaintiff had presented “no other evidence” to support its allegation against the complainant.
The publication denied stating that the complainant was the subject of any criminal or civil investigation arising out of this matter and denied there was any “allusion” to his having been “linked to or associated with criminal activity.”
In respect of Principle 4, it said the article had not knowingly published material based on malicious misrepresentation or unfounded accusations, and that care had been taken in reporting information.
The Decision
The article was focussed on examining the probity and professional judgement of a person who was seeking to stand for election as the President of Ireland. This is clearly a matter of public interest. It set out to consider the aspirant’s connections with companies and individuals that may have been linked to controversial business dealings.
The Press Ombudsman notes that it is not her role to investigate the propriety of the business dealings of any of the parties or the veracity or otherwise of any claims made in this regard. It is undisputed that the complainant was the largest shareholder in the presidential hopeful’s company, that he had been a senior figure in the consultancy, and that he had formerly worked for the Russian conglomerate.
The article, having noted that the complainant had worked for the Russian conglomerate “before the invasion of Ukraine” and that the conglomerate was “now sanctioned”, went on to state that, “Both, [the conglomerate] and Botgros were mentioned in the Moldovan media during a controversy in 2018 and 2019 over the privatisation of Air Moldova”.
It went on to say that the privatisation had been investigated by the Moldovan parliament. It quoted the chairperson of the parliamentary inquiry into the matter and stated that he said it had been “controversial” and “declared illegal” by the parliament “based on suspicions of fraud and numerous violations during the process”.
The publication stated that there was “no suggestion that the [presidential hopeful] is in any way linked to the transaction.” The Press Ombudsman notes that this comment strongly indicates that the publication was aware that without such a clarification, it might be taken that the Irish presidential hopeful was linked to the transaction, and that the publication needed to avoid creating this impression.
The Press Ombudsman notes that the publication conspicuously did not include the complainant in this disclaimer.
In responding to the complaint, the publication asserted that there had been no allusion to the complainant having been linked to or associated with criminality. The Press Ombudsman finds however that there is such an allusion. The suggestion is there, both in what it said, and in what it did not say, that Mr Botgros was associated with a business transaction which was, according to the authoritative source quoted by the publication “declared illegal”, with reference to fraud and other violations. The Press Ombudsman refers to the evidence from the National Anti-Corruption Centre cited above.
The Press Ombudsman notes that the publication stated that it was not obliged to contact the complainant about matters already on the public record. It went on to say it did not wish to be in dispute with him and was therefore willing to “facilitate [his] wish to get across his view”.
However, the publication has relied on a reference to the complainant having been “mentioned in the Moldovan media” to imply a connection with illegality and fraud. The Press Ombudsman finds that this vague and unspecified reference cannot be described as the use of material that is “on the public record”, particularly since there was readily accessible evidence refuting the suggestion on the public record. She finds that the chance to give Mr Botgros’s view should have been offered before rather than after publication.
The Press Ombudsman also finds that the statement that the complainant worked for the “now sanctioned” Russian conglomerate “before the invasion of Ukraine” is misleading and a distortion. It is not disputed that he ceased work for the conglomerate in 2006, 16 years before the 2022 invasion. The contextualising of this as “before the invasion” implies a more recent connection and suggests a more recent link to the conglomerate which was sanctioned in 2023.
The Press Ombudsman finds that the publication breached Principle 1. She finds that the offer to the complainant of an interview, or that he might submit a letter for publication, was insufficient in terms of remedial action.
Principle 4 opens with the assertion that “everyone has constitutional protection for his or her good name”. It states that publications “must take reasonable care in checking facts before publication.”
The Press Ombudsman considers that in the spirit of the Code of Practice a foreign national referred to in a Press Council member publication is entitled to the same protection as an Irish person. She accepts that as asserted by the publication there is no evidence of “malicious misrepresentation” and no direct “unfounded accusations”.
However, she finds that the publication has suggested a link between the complainant and a major controversy involving illegality. The publication relied upon a reference to the complainant having been “mentioned in the Moldovan media” to make this link. It did not specify what was said or provide any other evidence of having sought to establish the facts. The Press Ombudsman finds that this is potentially damaging to his name.
It has also suggested that his involvement with a conglomerate may have ended not long before it was sanctioned, when in reality it was 17 years since he had worked for it. She finds that this too was potentially damaging.
The complainant is not the direct subject of the article but there is a risk that his good name becomes, as asserted, “collateral damage”. The Press Ombudsman finds that Principle 4 has been breached.
The decision was appealed to the Press Council of Ireland.