|
Bahrain’s drive to position itself as a serious player in advanced industry is drawing renewed scrutiny as legal battles overseas spotlight questions about the background and financing of the Bahrain Titanium venture. The attention largely stems from filings in U.S. federal court, where allegations about the international titanium trade point to several companies said to be tied to Igor Raykhelson. He is the public face of the Bahrain project and is described in those filings as the ultimate beneficial owner of the Interlink group. None of the allegations abroad accuse the Bahrain project itself of wrongdoing, though they do raise issues any country welcoming strategic industrial investment eventually has to weigh.
The U.S. filings, made under Congressional rule 28 U.S.C. §1782, lay out what appears to be a kickback structure in the titanium supply chain. According to the public record, Russian prosecutors and related court submissions describe a group of intermediary firms that bought titanium from AVISMA - one of the world’s largest producers - at prices below the market and then resold it back to VSMPO, the parent ofAVISMA,at a markup. The spread, the filings argue, should have gone to the producer. Companies linked to Interlink appear in that network, and the documents suggest that money earned through these transactions may have helped fund ventures launched later, including the project now underway in Bahrain.
Those same filings cast Raykhelson as a key figure in this web of companies. In the materials, he is portrayed as publicly holding himself out as the longtime owner and chairman of Interlink; while telling authorities he merely served as a consultant. The filings say this inconsistency reflects a structure designed to keep actual control out of sight. They also note that Interlink entered into at least one contract with VSMPO, during the period in which Russian investigators allege misconduct occurred, and that Raykhelson was advising the company at the time. The documents describe overlapping addresses, personnel, and family involvement across Interlink-branded entities. Russian authorities have formally charged him, and the U.S. submissions go further, advancing the theory that the ill-gotten gains from the alleged arrangement later flowed into new ventures abroad, including the Bahrain Titanium project.
Raykhelson has rejected the allegations outright. In a sworn affidavit filed in the U.S. proceedings, he denies any improper activity, says Interlink never did business with AVISMA, disputes any claim that he controlled the intermediary companies in question, and insists that no pricing irregularities occurred. His denials stand by direct contrast to the allegations in the filings, and that gap continues to drive much of the debate.
While the U.S. filings serve as the primary source of information prompting the current scrutiny, there are also legal proceedings in Switzerland involving Interlink-related entities. Public submissions in that jurisdiction describe ongoing efforts by claimants from the Interlink-related entities to secure their positions and prevent potential dissipation of assets in those proceedings while litigation continues. These matters do not involve the Bahrain project directly and do not alter its legal posture. They do, however, underscore how disputes that begin in one part of the world can expand across borders and create uncertainty for corporate networks connected to multiple jurisdictions.
Observers familiar with Bahrain’s Golden License program note that the Kingdom built the initiative to attract major, high-value industrial projects backed by transparent ownership and stable financing. Sectors such as aerospace, defense, and advanced metals typically face higher scrutiny because of the strategic importance of the supply chains they support. Investors and lenders accustomed to operating globally frequently examine the legal exposure of foreign sponsors when weighing long-term commitments. Questions raised in litigation abroad can influence those assessments, even when the projects themselves remain unaffected.
Bahraini authorities have not issued comments on the foreign allegations, and the Bahrain Titanium venture continues to appear in national development plans. The legal disputes overseas do not implicate local partners and do not allege any misconduct within the Kingdom. They relate solely to the conduct of a foreign sponsor and a network of companies active in other markets. Still, as the filings evolve, they shape how international stakeholders view the project and the due-diligence considerations that accompany it.
There is also the possibility that these foreign disputes may later intersect with Bahrain directly. Parties involved in the overseas litigation have signaled that they may seek enforcement of foreign judgments or asset-related claims in jurisdictions where Interlink-affiliated interests reside. Any such filing would not accuse the Bahrain project of wrongdoing. It would be a procedural step reflecting how multi-jurisdictional disputes typically unfold as parties attempt to enforce rights recognized abroad. If that occurs, Bahraini courts would be asked to consider how foreign rulings relate to domestic corporate structures - an issue that could draw significant interest and serve as a clear point of follow-up in the months ahead.
Bahrain’s industrial strategy remains central to its broader economic plans. The emergence of foreign litigation involving a participant in one of its flagship projects gives the Kingdom an opportunity to demonstrate the strength of its oversight, legal system, and the seriousness of its vetting processes. The long-term credibility of large industrial ventures often depends on how clearly a country can separate a project’s inherent value from the controversies that surround individual stakeholders. In that respect, openness and clarity are powerful tools. The way these issues are handled will influence how global partners view Bahrain’s future as a growing center for high-value manufacturing.
|
New
