The case involving INJET company's bank accounts is taking a new turn. Faced with questions raised by reports of emptied accounts following their seizure, the Justice Ministry broke its silence on Wednesday, September 9. In an official statement, it affirms that no money has disappeared and explains that the funds in question were transferred to a state escrow account in execution of a judicial decision. INJET, a company founded by Andry and Mialy Rajoelina in 1999, thus finds itself at the center of proceedings whose certain elements are now being officially clarified. Previously published information indicated that three bank accounts of the company had been blocked before becoming accessible again a few hours later, but without the sums that were previously there. The initial absence of public explanations regarding the destination of these funds had fueled questions. The Justice Ministry now provides a formal response. According to its statement, the seizure stems from a decision rendered by the Anti-Corruption Unit (PAC) on August 19, 2026. This decision provides for measures concerning INJET, including the seizure of its accounts. Execution was entrusted to the Agency for Recovery of Illicit Assets (ARAI), presented by the ministry as the competent body to implement this measure. The seized sums would therefore not have been lost or withdrawn without identifiable destination. They have, according to judicial authorities, been transferred to the state escrow account in accordance with Malagasy legislation. The ministry thus explicitly rejects the idea of funds disappearing. It specifies that this is an operation carried out within the framework of implementing a court decision and within the legal competencies of ARAI. This clarification establishes the existence of a judicial decision prior to the operations observed on INJET's accounts. It primarily addresses one of the main questions raised by this case: that of the destination of the money. Other questions remain, however, particularly regarding the immediate consequences of the seizure for the company's operations. If the accounts in question no longer have the funds necessary for its current operations, INJET's ability to meet its social obligations, suppliers, or employee salaries could become an issue. In a particularly sensitive political context, the ministry's communication primarily serves to place the operation back on judicial grounds. The question no longer concerns a supposed 'disappearance' of money, officially denied, but rather the procedure leading to its seizure, its scope, and its possible consequences for the company and its employees.