Fact check: What are the names of gold mining companies investigated for corruption in Mali?

1. Summary of the results

Based on the analyses provided, two major gold mining companies have been investigated or faced legal action in Mali:

• Barrick Gold Corporation (Canadian company) - The most prominently mentioned company across multiple sources. The Malian military government seized over $100 million worth of gold from its Loulo-Gounkoto mine ^[1]. A judge ordered the company's Loulo-Gounkoto gold complex to be placed under provisional administration due to alleged unpaid taxes and unfair contracts with past governments ^[2]. The company has been in dispute with Malian authorities over back taxes and compliance with new mining laws ^[3], and removed its Mali gold complex from its 2025 output forecast due to ongoing disputes ^[4].
• Resolute Mining (Australian company) - The CEO and two executives were arrested and taken into police custody on allegations of forgery and damage to public property ^[5]. The CEO was detained for over a week amid negotiations with the Malian government ^[4].

2. Missing context/alternative viewpoints

The original question focuses specifically on "corruption investigations," but the analyses reveal a broader pattern of disputes that extends beyond traditional corruption charges:

• The conflicts appear to stem from Mali's new mining code and regulatory changes rather than solely corruption allegations ^[6]. The government partially lifted a suspension on mining permits while introducing new mining regulations.
• Tax disputes and contract renegotiations are central issues - Barrick Gold's case specifically involves alleged unpaid taxes and challenges to contracts signed with previous governments ^[2].
• The timing coincides with Mali's military government asserting greater control over natural resources, suggesting these actions may be part of a broader resource nationalism strategy rather than purely anti-corruption efforts.
• International mining companies operating in Mali would benefit from portraying these actions as politically motivated rather than legitimate regulatory enforcement, while Mali's military government benefits from demonstrating sovereignty over natural resources and generating revenue through seizures and renegotiated contracts.

3. Potential misinformation/bias in the original statement

The original question contains an implicit assumption that may not accurately reflect the situation:

• The framing as "corruption investigations" may be overly narrow - the evidence suggests these are primarily regulatory disputes, tax issues, and contract renegotiations rather than traditional corruption probes ^{[3] [2]}.
• The question implies active "investigations" when the reality appears to be immediate government action including asset seizures and provisional administration of mining operations ^{[1] [2]}.
• Missing broader context about Mali's changing regulatory environment and the military government's approach to foreign mining operations, which could significantly alter how these cases should be understood and interpreted.