The Press Ombudsman has partially upheld a complaint from Mr Vitalie Botgros about an article published by The Irish Times in September 2025. She has not upheld a complaint about another article on related matters published the following day.
The newspaper published two articles on consecutive days and complaints of breaches of the Code of Practice were made about both.
Through his solicitor, Mr Botgros complained that The Irish Times had in respect of both articles breached Principle 1 (Truth and Accuracy) of the Code of Practice, Principle 2 (Distinguishing Fact and Comment) and Principle 4 (Respect for Rights).
The Articles.
READ MORE
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 articles, the first of 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 headline of the second article declared: “largest investor in [the presidential hopeful’s] US business accused of ‘history of improper conduct’ in legal case.” The subject of the headline in this article was the complainant. The article asserted that he was to be accused in a US civil case of having “an unfortunate, long history of illegal and otherwise improper conduct”.
The case was taken against the presidential hopeful’s company, with the complainant described in the article as one of several defendants. The case had yet to come to court. A sub headline noted that the defendants had in turn accused the US broker who made the claim of “improper conduct”.
The article noted that the broker also said he believed the complainant was a Russian citizen, and that he owned a consultancy, one of the clients of which was the presidential hopeful’s company.
The Complaints
Article 1.
The complainant said in respect of Principle 1, that the first 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 2 had been breached because the published material was “an amalgamation of conjecture, tenuous connections and inaccurate statements” presented so as to suggest that it is a fact that his client was guilty of inappropriate conduct, had a checkered business history and associations with the airline controversy and sanctioned companies. He said all these suggestions were false and damaging.
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.
Article 2.
In relation to the second article, and Principle 1, the complainant said the headline was “misleading and sensationalist” and devoid of context. He said there were significant inaccuracies such as untrue claims that he was a Russian citizen and that he owned the consultancy.
He said the allegation that he had “a history of improper conduct” was from a US court case in which he was a defendant. The case had been brought by a broker against the presidential hopeful’s company. He said the allegation had been denied. He said the publication had provided no evidence other than a reference to 2019 news article in which a “speculative suggestion” was made that he was connected to the transaction. (He provided a link to this article).
He said there had been no substantive steps in the litigation since 2023 other than an approach by the plaintiffs with a settlement offer. He suggested it had been used to put unsubstantiated allegations about him (and others) into the public arena. He said there was no basis for the claim about his history.
On Principle 2, he did not make specific reference to the second article.
On Principle 4, he said reasonable care had not been taken to check the articles which attacked his good name and reputation. He said he had not been asked for comment.
The complainant sought amendments and clarifications of the articles and to have the record corrected.
The Response from the Publication.
The Irish Times stated that the articles were 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 stated that the second article included reporting on legal proceedings which was protected by Principle 7.2 of the Code of Practice which states that “nothing in this Code shall limit or prohibit the fair and accurate reporting of legal proceedings.” It said the second article was a “straightforward news report of a substantial legal claim in a New York court against a listed company, the CEO of which was running for President of Ireland.”
It 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 2, it denied having suggested that it was a fact that the complainant was guilty of inappropriate conduct. It said it did not advocate any view or conclusion about him or his business dealings.
In respect of Principle 4, it said neither article had knowingly published material based on malicious misrepresentation or unfounded accusations, and that care had been taken in reporting information.
The Decision
These articles were focused 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. They 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.
Article 1.
The Press Ombudsman notes that while the two articles cover similar ground they are framed and contextualised very differently. She notes that she cannot, and is not asked to by the publication, consider the articles jointly or to consider matters raised in the second article when reaching a decision on the first article. Her decision is on each article separately.
The first 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.
In relation to Principle 2, she notes that while the publication implied that the complainant was associated with what was reliably described as a transaction found to be illegal, it does not state this as a matter of fact and therefore there is no breach of Principle 2.
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.
Article 2.
The second article is a news report which refers to material drawn from legal proceedings.
In relation to Principle 1, the Press Ombudsman finds that the material from the legal proceedings is protected, as asserted by the publication, by Principle 7 of the Code of Practice. She finds the publication was entitled to use as its headline, and in quotation marks, the accusation levelled by the plaintiff in the proceedings. She notes that there was also a sub headline stating that the defendants had in turn accused the plaintiff of wrongdoing. The article also stated that the parties denied each other’s claims.
The Press Ombudsman finds that the claim that the complainant was Russian was not presented as a fact but was attributed to the plaintiff in his claim within the legal process, as was the assertion that the complainant owned the consultancy.
In the second article, as in the first, the publication refers to the assertion about the conglomerate and the complainant having been “mentioned in the Moldovan media” in connection with the controversial airline sale. However, in the second article, the publication attributes the assertion to the plaintiff in the legal proceedings. The publication commented that the plaintiff had relied on a news report and that it presented “no other evidence.” The Press Ombudsman again notes that the second article was protected by Principle 7.2 in this regard.
She finds that there is no breach of Principle 1.
On Principle 2, the Press Ombudsman takes it that the complainant wishes the matters referred to in his complaint about the first article to be considered in relation to the second article as well. She finds that the matters complained about are covered by the protection offered by Principle 7.2 as asserted by the publication and there is no breach.
On Principle 4, the Press Ombudsman finds that the complainant’s good name is not at risk of damage because the material was presented as evidence given in legal proceedings and the fact that the defendants, including the complainant, denied the claims and made counter claims was reported. There is no breach of Principle 4.
Appeal to the Press Council of Ireland
The Irish Times appealed a decision by the Press Ombudsman to uphold a complaint that an article published by The Irish Times breached Principle 1 and 4 of the Press Council’s Code of Practice.
The Irish Times submitted their appeal on the grounds that;
The procedures followed in making the decision were not in accordance with the published procedures, and
That there was an error in the Press Ombudsman’s application of Principle 1 and Principle 4 of the Code of Practice.
Appeal Decision
The Press Council has rejected the appeal on the ground that the procedures followed in making the decision were not in accordance with the published procedures for considering complaints. It decided that the Press Ombudsman was not required to consider the two articles together.
The Press Council has rejected the appeal that there has been an error in the application of the Principles of the Code of Practice.
In regard to Principle 1, it decided that the Press Ombudsman had not erred in her application of the requirement to meet the necessary standard of truth and accuracy.
In regard to Principle 4 it decided that the Press Ombudsman had not erred in her application of the requirement to take reasonable care in checking facts before publication.
