Ursula Von der Leyen Investigation

This investigation concerns:

• suspected state-level human trafficking;

• organ harvesting and commercial extraction of human cells;

• eugenic and class-based control of scarce biological resources;

• corruption and political conflicts of interest;

• securities, accounting and disclosure misconduct;

• regulatory evasion;

• asset transfers designed to reduce scrutiny.

The record begins with a signed declaration of interests. It leads to human organs, hospital processing, a Nevada public company, state research, unnamed customers, missing accounts and companies operating across several countries.

As the president of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen must publish a declaration of interests. Ursula signed her current version on the 20th of November 2024. Under her own personal financial interests, the form says not applicable. That does not mean she has no money. This form asks about work, assets, debts, property, political membership, and professional interests. But it excludes ordinary bank accounts, family homes, personal goods, and investments managed by a third party. Not applicable only means Ursula has no personal assets under the form’s narrow reporting rules. (European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen’s declaration of interests, signed 20 November 2024)

Then we reach her husband, Heiko von der Leyen. His section is much busier. Heiko von der Leyen is the medical director at a biotechnology company called Orgenesis. (European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen’s declaration of interests, signed 20 November 2024) Orgenesis is a company that transports and commercially processes human organs. A surgeon cuts the pancreas out of a sick person. The organ travels from the hospital to an Orgenesis processing center. Workers at that center break the organ down, remove its insulin-producing cells, and turn those cells into a product called Kyslecel. That Kyslecel then gets sold on the open market. Kyslecel has one advertised use: returning the patient’s own islets after surgery. (Orgenesis, Investor Presentation, May 2024, p.19; Orgenesis, 2024 Form 10-K, Kyslecel programme) But human pancreatic islets have several wider uses. They are used in transplantation, diabetes research, drug testing, genetic research, stem cell development, and bioprinting. (US National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, Pancreatic Islet Transplantation; Nature Communications, bioprinting of islet-specific niches, 2025) These same human cells can be used as a treatment, as research material, as a drug testing platform, as genetic data, as a model for manufacturing replacement tissue, or as somebody’s commercial intellectual property. The Kyslecel pilot generated $2 million in private sales revenue for Orgenesis. (Orgenesis, Koligo Therapeutics acquisition announcement) The patient supplies their own organ. Orgenesis turns the cells taken from that organ into a commercial product and earns revenue from returning it to the hospitals through the open market. Human pancreatic islets are obviously very scarce and they are genuinely needed for transplant programs, universities, and biotechnology companies. This private company sells those islets on an open market. This means that doctors are having to compete for rare resources that they need to treat sick patients against wealthy private companies, pharmaceutical firms, and state-backed research programs. The same material that could save someone’s life can also be turned into products, patents, and political power. (Orgenesis, 2024 Form 10-K, therapies, hospital services and patent sections)

Ursula von der Leyen is the president of the European Commission. Her husband, Heiko von der Leyen, is the medical director of Orgenesis. (European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen’s declaration of interests) Orgenesis is a company that transports and commercially processes human organs, cells, and tissue. Orgenesis didn’t actually start as a biotechnology company. It actually started as a Nevada-based shell company called Business Outsourcing Services. It originally registered with the SEC as a general business services company. And still today, its SEC classification has nothing to do with biotechnology. (SEC, Orgenesis issuer record) The original Business Outsourcing Services had one employee, no subsidiaries, no patents, no trademarks, no biotechnology, just a website that said “still under construction” and plans to provide online bookkeeping. Singapore-based men controlled it: Guilbert Cuison, a network engineer working for Citigroup, and Jerome Golles, a sales executive at Kenwood Electronics. Together, they owned 69.9% of the shares. (Business Outsourcing Services, Form S-1, 2009; filing records 69.6%) The company’s registration statement openly said it might accept a sale, merger, or acquisition. This was a public shell waiting for another business.

On the 28th of June 2011, Oded Shvartz, an Israeli-Romanian businessman, bought 317,912 restricted shares. The agreement also gave him the option to buy another 309,742 shares that placed as much as 30% of the company within his reach. (Oded Shvartz, Schedule 13D, filed 7 July 2011; filing calculates 27.29%) The SEC identifies this person as Oded Shvartz, a citizen of Israel and Romania, president of Amraz Romania SRL, with a business address at 130 Biruinței Boulevard, Pantelimon, Ilfov, Romania. February 2014 Orgenesis OTC certification lists him at the same Romanian address, only this time he has 21.8% of ownership. (Orgenesis, OTCQB certification, February 2014) Amraz Romania, the company that he is also the president of, is actually the Romanian subsidiary of an Israeli packaging company owned by Ampa Group and Coca-Cola Israel’s Central Bottling Company. He was running the Eastern European arm of an Israeli plastics conglomerate when he bought his positions in Orgenesis. (Ampa Group, Amraz industrial holding; Globes, Amraz sale report, 6 July 2010)

In October 2022, the European Public Prosecutor’s Office (EPPO) confirmed that it had opened criminal investigations into the European Union’s purchase of COVID-19 vaccines. (European Public Prosecutor’s Office, ongoing investigation into the acquisition of COVID-19 vaccines, 14 October 2022) The EPPO investigates offenses affecting the European Union’s financial interests. As of the 30th of July 2026, the EPPO confirmed that this investigation remains active. As it’s still a live investigation, the EPPO has not published its evidence, suspects, or legal theory. (European Public Prosecutor’s Office, investigation clarification, 17 May 2024; written EPPO confirmation to alimcforever, 30 July 2026, preserved with the case file) But the procurement records explain why this is a criminal investigation.

In March 2021, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen began preliminary negotiations with Pfizer Chief Executive Albert Bourla. The European Union already had a formal vaccine negotiation system. A joint team made up of Commission and member state officials normally conducted preliminary negotiations with pharmaceutical companies. A steering board supervised that team. The European Court of Auditors found that the joint negotiation team did not participate in Ursula’s preliminary discussions with Pfizer. The normal steering board meeting did not take place. The steering board only received the outcome of Ursula’s discussions, but they still agreed to launch the formal procurement procedure. The resulting contract covered 900 million doses of the Pfizer COVID vaccine with an option for another 900 million. (European Court of Auditors, Special Report 19/2022, paragraphs 48–50) The European Commission never actually published this contract’s full price, but investigative journalists put the price at €19.50 per dose, putting the value of this contract at €35.1 billion. (Deutsche Welle, EU seals new BioNTech-Pfizer vaccine deal, 8 May 2021) And before a single dose was even supplied, Pfizer received an advance payment from the EU of €2 billion. (European Commission, EU Vaccines Strategy, describing the €2.7 billion pooled Emergency Support Instrument rather than a €2 billion Pfizer-specific payment; European Court of Auditors, pooled advance payments; no €2 billion Pfizer-specific payment identified) This was the largest COVID-19 vaccine contract signed by the EU. The Commission signed 11 vaccine contracts between August 2020 and November 2021. Combined, these contracts covered up to 4.6 billion doses and had an expected cost of almost €71 billion. (European Court of Auditors, Special Report 19/2022, paragraphs 6 and 48–53)

The auditors asked the Commission for the Pfizer preliminary negotiation record. The Commission refused to supply any minutes and it refused to supply any terms. It did not supply any documents that showed what Ursula and Bourla discussed before the formal procurement process began. (European Court of Auditors, Special Report 19/2022, paragraphs 48–50) Journalists later requested the text messages exchanged between Ursula and Bourla. The Commission searched only for messages that staff had formally registered as Commission documents. It treated text messages as short-lived communications that didn’t need to be normally entered into the public register. The European Ombudsman found maladministration and told the Commission to conduct a proper search. The Commission did not confirm that it had done that. (European Ombudsman, Case 1316/2021/MIG, decision 12 July 2022) So The New York Times took the Commission to court. On the 14th of May 2025, the EU General Court annulled the Commission’s refusal. The court found the Commission had supplied changing or imprecise information and had failed to give a plausible explanation for why it did not possess these text messages. (Court of Justice of the European Union, Case T-36/23, press release 60/25, 14 May 2025) These criminal investigations remain open. The preliminary negotiation record remains unavailable. The text messages remain unavailable. The price, liability, indemnity, and delivery terms discussed privately between Ursula and Pfizer remain unavailable.

On the 12th of February 2021, the European Union created the Recovery and Resilience Facility. This became the main spending instrument inside NextGenerationEU. (Regulation (EU) 2021/241 establishing the Recovery and Resilience Facility) The official narrative states that NextGenerationEU was the EU’s post-COVID recovery fund. A more accurate framing would be that NextGenerationEU was the vehicle that turned the COVID emergency into a new European debt system. The Commission borrowed hundreds of billions of euros in the EU’s name. It borrowed that money on financial markets from private investors backed by EU budgets. Future EU budgets and member states will carry these repayments until at least 2058. (Council Regulation (EU) 2020/2094)

The Recovery and Resilience Facility gave the Commission power to approve national plans and release this money as grants to governments if and when they met certain conditions. To access this money, every EU member state had to submit a spending plan. The EU’s official statement is that none of the 27 national plans was finally rejected. By the end of 2025, every member state had received some money. And while it did eventually approve every plan, it then delayed, froze, or partially suspended payments when it said the government had not completed the required conditions. (European Commission, Recovery and Resilience Scoreboard; Council of the European Union, country disbursement figures, 2026)

Italy received more recovery money than any other EU country. The official explanation is that Italy had been the first EU country to experience a large outbreak. European institutions describe Italy as one of the countries hit hardest by the pandemic, but that description does not explain the full 191.5 billion euros. The EU funding formula did not actually count hospital admissions or deaths. It calculated grants based on population, relative poverty, unemployment, and economic damage. Italy qualified for 68.9 billion euros in grants. It then requested another 122.6 billion euros in loans. Almost two-thirds of Italy’s original recovery package was debt. (European Commission, Italy Country Report; European Commission Joint Research Centre, Recovery and Resilience Facility allocation analysis)

Italy called its spending plan the PNRR. Part of that plan paid universities, hospitals, and private companies to develop research that would become commercial products. To achieve this, Italy created several large research networks. One of them was the National Center for Gene Therapy and Drugs based on RNA Technology. The Italian Ministry of University and Research gave that center a budget of 320 million euros. This brought public universities, hospitals, and private biotechnology companies into the same funding network. (Italian Ministry of University and Research, National Centre factsheet) One of the private biotechnology companies that received its own project inside this network was Orgenesis Italy. That project was allocated €967,810. (Italian Government OpenCUP, project B23D21012140004; €967,810 project cost and €383,905 planned public financing)

Heiko von der Leyen is Ursula von der Leyen’s husband. In December 2020, Heiko became the medical director of Orgenesis. (Heiko von der Leyen, public employment record) In July 2021, the EU approved Italy’s recovery plan. This included approving the funding decisions for Orgenesis Italy’s project. Then in June 2022, the Italian ministry published the 320 million euro national center program. (Italian Ministry of University and Research, National Centre factsheet; Italian Government OpenCUP, project B23D21012140004) Then in September 2022, Orgenesis announced that Heiko would be taking on the center’s supervisory committee role and also serving as the medical director for Orgenesis Italy. By the time Ursula declared her declaration of interest in November 2024, she reported that Heiko held these roles plus over 14,000 stock options. (European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen’s declaration of interests, signed 20 November 2024) This matters because Ursula led the institution that was controlling Europe’s recovery money. He then represented the same company inside the wider 320 million euro program. He also held options in this company that would become more valuable if Orgenesis gained EU funding and research and was able to hold the patent and commercial opportunities for themselves. This all happened while the European Public Prosecutor’s Office was investigating the EU COVID vaccine purchases for possible crimes affecting European public money. Ursula led the institution controlling those funds. Her husband worked for the company receiving them.

The Commission and the Italian government hold the conflict checks, the funding decisions, the payment records, and the meeting minutes. They are yet to produce them. The issue here is that the EU Commission controls too many parts of its own accountability system. It controls which executive communications even enter the document register, how it searches for requested records, how commissioners declare household conflicts, whether an internal conflict check requires recusal, how national recovery plans receive approval, and whether governments have met conditions for later payments. The Ombudsman found maladministration. The General Court found that the Commission had given changed or imprecise information and no plausible explanation for why it did not possess the text messages. (European Ombudsman, Case 1316/2021/MIG; Court of Justice of the European Union, Case T-36/23)

Italy’s PNRR structure creates another layer. The Commission can say Italy selected the individual project. Italy can say a national research center administered the project. The center can say Orgenesis Italy received one project inside of a larger network. Orgenesis can say Heiko only held a temporary committee position. The declaration places each relationship in a separate box, which means the full sequence record disappears between the institutions. The practical concern exposed here is that the institution responsible for examining the conflict is part of the conflict. It controls the records and it decides what explanation the public receives. (Regulation (EU) 2021/241; Italian Government OpenCUP; European Commission declaration)

The European Commission has a legal job. It must serve the general interests of the European Union. It must enforce European law. It must manage European programs and public money responsibly. It must maintain records so that its citizens, auditors, courts, and parliament can examine the decisions that were taken. (Treaty on European Union, Article 17) In the Pfizer case, this Commission did something else. Its president personally conducted preliminary negotiations for the largest vaccine contract in history. The normal negotiation team did not participate. The Commission gave auditors no records of those discussions. (European Court of Auditors, Special Report 19/2022) When journalists requested Ursula’s text messages with Pfizer, her office searched only a small registered amount. The Ombudsman had to step in. They found maladministration. The Commission continued to defend and deny and refuse. The General Court eventually found that its explanation was inconsistent and implausible. (European Ombudsman, Case 1316/2021/MIG; Court of Justice of the European Union, Case T-36/23) This Commission has spent years protecting the absence of records instead of just producing the record. That behavior shields only Ursula from accountability while transferring the work of the European oversight committees onto journalists, citizens, auditors, and courts. I am doing the European Commission’s job on TikTok. This is humiliating for Europe.

Why is that woman still in post? Ursula remains in office because the Commission president does not have an ordinary employer who can dismiss her. But the European Parliament can force the entire Commission to resign through a motion of censure. If they won’t get rid of her, then we need to get rid of them. The European Parliament has the legal power to remove this entire Commission. Article 234 allows Parliament to pass a motion of censure. If two-thirds of the votes cast, representing a majority of all MEPs, vote in favor, the entire Commission must resign. (Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, Article 234) European citizens now need to demand that their MEPs use that power. Ask your representatives: Will you support a motion of censure against Ursula von der Leyen’s Commission? Will you demand the complete Pfizer negotiation record? Will you demand an independent investigation into von der Leyen’s household connections to European recovery funding and biotechnology? Every MEP should answer those questions publicly.

If you want to do something about this, go to alimcforever.com/eu. I’m putting all of my evidence, the European Parliament’s powers, and a simple editable letter into one place. You’ll be able to find your MEP, copy the letter, change what you want, and ask them directly.

https://alimcforever.com/orgenesis-investigation