JUBA — An unnamed Crawford Capital Ltd Chief Executive Officer on Monday denied public allegations that the U.S. – sanctioned company retains 75 per cent of government revenues collected through its digital platforms, insisting that the claims misrepresent its contractual role in South Sudan’s digital government systems.
In a press statement dated 22 June 2026, the company said it is a technology provider working under government mandates and contractual agreements, claiming that it does not exercise control over taxation, budgeting or public revenue allocation.
“Government revenue remains Government revenue, and Crawford is paid only under its contractual arrangements,” the company said, adding that its role is limited to building and maintaining digital systems used by state institutions.
The statement comes at a time of heightened international scrutiny, following sanctions imposed by the Department of State in May 2026 against Crawford Capital and other unnamed entities accused of siphoning public funds and diverting foreign assistance intended for the South Sudanese population, prompting reactions from key government institutions linked to the UK–registered firm.
Company rejects 75% revenue diversion claims
At the centre of the controversy are allegations that Crawford Capital retains an unusually large share of public revenues processed through government digital platforms.
The company rejected this characterisation, arguing that the widely cited 75/25 arrangement does not apply to government revenue itself, but only to a separate convenience fee charged on selected digital services.
According to Crawford, government taxes, fees and charges continue to go directly to state institutions, while the company earns a 2 per cent “platform service fee” for operating and maintaining digital infrastructure used in non-oil revenue collection.
Crawford also pointed to reported increases in government revenue collection, alleging monthly non-oil revenues rose from about US$648,000 in 2020 to approximately US$28 million in 2025, attributing the increase to digitisation and reduced leakage in manual systems.
However, findings by the United Nations Human Rights Commission in September 2025 present a significantly different account of how revenue flows are structured.
The Commission alleged that Crawford Capital “captures an inordinate share of non-oil revenues through irregular government e-services,” and described arrangements under which the company receives 75 per cent of certain fees generated through government digital platforms.
The Commission further stated that under a 2019 agreement, Crawford retains a 75 per cent profit share of taxes it collects, an arrangement it said was extended in 2024 to include additional levies, including those imposed on humanitarian organisations.
According to the UN findings, the South Sudan Revenue Authority was complicit in the arrangements, which the Commission said may violate international anti-corruption standards.
The report also raised concerns over the extension of digital fees to humanitarian agencies, alleging that such charges contributed to disruptions in critical food assistance operations.
The Commission further detailed a separate revenue stream linked to oil exports, alleging that in 2023 the government introduced an electronic crude oil accreditation mechanism requiring exporters to pay a fee equivalent to 0.3 percent of cargo value through an online system.
It said documents reviewed during its investigation indicated that the fee was implemented through government e-services platforms operated in partnership with Crawford Capital, with proceeds split between the company and the Ministry of Information, Communication Technology and Postal Services.
The Commission estimated that Crawford’s share of the arrangement could amount to between US$9.6 million and US$11.5 million annually based on production levels at the time. Crawford, however, did not directly address the specific oil-sector allegations in its latest statement.
The controversy intensified further in May 2026 when the United States imposed sanctions on Crawford Capital, citing its alleged involvement in schemes that siphon public funds and divert international assistance.
The sanctions were announced as part of broader measures targeting corruption and financial misconduct linked to state revenue systems in South Sudan.
Washington did not publicly detail all supporting evidence, but the action followed international reporting and findings, including those of the UN Commission.
In its response, Crawford rejected claims that it operates private accounts holding public funds, alleging that all transactions are conducted through regulated trust or collection accounts in line with South Sudan’s Electronic Money Regulation of 2017.
The company said such accounts are subject to reconciliation, audit and central bank oversight, and are not private operating accounts.
It further argued that procurement and fee structures are determined by government institutions under existing legal frameworks, and that Crawford’s role is limited to technical implementation.
“Crawford’s role is clear: we provide technology that helps Government institutions deliver services and collect revenue more transparently,” the statement said.
Despite Crawford’s detailed rebuttal, significant questions remain about how revenue is distributed across digital platforms and fee structures, particularly where government institutions, private operators, and ministries share proceeds.
While the company insists that allegations of revenue diversion stem from a misunderstanding of contractual arrangements, the UN Commission’s findings and U.S. sanctions continue to cast a long shadow over its operations.
