Day 18

(1) Bank St Petersburg PJSC (2) Alexander Savelyev v (1) Vitaly Arkhangelsky (2) Julia Arkhangelskaya (3) Oslo Marine Group Ports
LLC

Day 18

February 29, 2016

Opus 2 International — Official Court Reporters

Phone: +44 (0)20 3008 5900

Email: transcripts@opus2.com
Website: http://www.opus2.com

February 29, 2016 Day 18

1 Monday, 29 February 2016 1 MR STROILOV: That was to take place tomorrow morning, after
2 (10.30 am) 2 Ms Meylanova.
3 (Proceedings delayed) 3 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Right.
4 (10.49 am) 4 MR STROILOV: Essentially he just exhibits some documents,
5 Housekeeping 5 but if at some point during the day you could have
6 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Yes, good morning. 6 a look at the statement.
7 MR STROILOV: May it please your Lordship, I am afraid we 7 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: I will do, yes.
8 have had lots of technical problems today. 8 MR STROILOV: I just want to let him know.
9 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: So I hear, yes. 9 Then, finally, I think we are not quite agreed with
10 MR STROILOV: And I am not sure they are quite over, because 10 my learned friend at what point we are to make the
11 my Magnum is still kind of — I’m not quite sure it is 11 housekeeping. We have both Mr Pasko and Mr Ameli here
12 functioning properly, so we will have to see how it 12 now, so my suggestion would be to call both witnesses
13 goes. The videolink got lost because there is no 13 now and do the housekeeping in the afternoon, especially
14 internet on the French side, so Mr and Mrs Arkhangelsky 14 since I haven’t had the opportunity even to read the
15 had to go home and will just follow on real time. 15 notes which were sent by the claimants this morning.
16 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: The real time service is available to 16 But I think Mr Lord is concerned that since there is
17 him, is it? 17 an issue on the lines of questioning, he would like that
18 MR STROILOV: The real time is available, but videolink 18 to take place before Mr Ameli. So I am not — well, we
19 isn’t, so they will simply have to follow it on Magnum 19 are in your Lordship’s hands on that. I just wanted you
20 real time. 20 to be aware.
21 MR LORD: I think, my Lord, there was a phone option. 21 My Lord, I think there is a new interpreter to be
22 I think a phone link could have been sent in or out, but 22 sworn in first thing, and then I propose to call
23 not both, as a partial workaround for that. But I don’t 23 Mr Pasko, who is estimated only to take half an hour, so
24 think Mr Stroilov wants that facility. 24 that we can release him.
25 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: He is content; though he would prefer, 25 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Right. I had better hear from Mr Lord
1 3

1 I am sure, as all of us would, but he is content with

2 the real time?

3 MR STROILOV: Yes, my Lord. We have to get on because some

4 of the witnesses are here only for the day.

5 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Yes.

6 MR STROILOV: My Lord, one more, if I could raise very

7 briefly a couple of brief and urgent housekeeping

8 points.

9 I think Mr Lord has indicated that it may be

10 possible, really, to finish with all our witnesses but

11 one tomorrow, and we suggested that we start at 10.00 am

12 tomorrow, so that we call Ms Meylanova, who I understand

13 now is estimated to take only half an hour, then for the

14 remainder of the day we have Mr Bromley-Martin. So

15 there is a good hope of finishing on the same day.

16 So if starting at 10.00 am tomorrow is all right

17 with you, then I think that’s what both parties would

18 prefer. That is something I would like to communicate

19 to the witness.

20 Then I think, secondly, Mr Lord says that he has no

21 questions for Mr Ashurkov, and I wonder whether this

22 means that I don’t need to call him, or perhaps

23 your Lordship has some questions to that witness?

24 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: I hadn’t focused on that, I am bound

25 to say. When was that to take place?

1 as to the sequence of events, if he disagrees with your

2 preference.

3 MR LORD: My Lord, dealing with the question of the points

4 that Mr Stroilov made in his e-mail of Friday, the ones

5 relating to questioning about Vyborg Port.

6 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Yes.

7 MR LORD: I do have questions for Mr Ameli about Vyborg Port

8 and therefore it did seem to me, in my respectful

9 submission, that if there are questions raised about

10 questioning in that regard, they ought to be addressed

11 at the earliest opportunity, and that is why I would

12 have suggested, respectfully submitted, that that does

13 need to be addressed. Mr Stroilov raised these points

14 on Friday afternoon, I wasn’t sure if there was going to

15 be some further application or particularity, but there

16 hasn’t been. Allegations were made in that e-mail. We

17 filed a note this morning, which sets out our response

18 to those points. I hope your Lordship has a copy of

19 that?

20 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Yes.

21 MR LORD: And, in my submission, that should be done before

22 Mr Ameli gives his evidence.

23 Mr Pasko, the same points don’t, I think, apply.

24 I don’t have questions for Mr Pasko about Vyborg Port,

25 and therefore that witness could give his evidence and

2 4
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

February 29, 2016 Day 18

1 come and go and be released without any fear that we

2 were trespassing in territory where there was an

3 outstanding query raised by Mr Stroilov.

4 So, in my respectful submission, the order should be

5 Mr Pasko; then these points, if Mr Stroilov wishes to

6 pursue them in the light of the note, which obviously he

7 needs to consider, and consider whether or not he wishes

8 to press any of his objections that he trailed in his

9 e-mail of Friday afternoon. Then your Lordship will

10 need to rule on that before I cross-examine Mr Ameli.

11 I would still expect that all those matters could be

12 comfortably completed within the normal court day.

13 MR STROILOV: Obviously, if there are questions on

14 Vyborg Port, then I cannot object to their being

15 addressed before Mr Ameli takes the stand. I didn’t

16 appreciate there would be questions about that.

17 I think I will have to ask for a half an hour break

18 between Mr Pasko and the housekeeping, because I haven’t

19 read the note, and also there have been material

20 uploaded on Magnum only minutes ago on my request, but

21 I still haven’t got the references of the correspondence

22 I would like to take you to. So I am afraid I will have

23 to ask for a half an hour break after Mr Pasko.

24 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Yes. Well, I think you are both

25 agreed that the thing to do after swearing in

1 translated to him orally before he signed it. Now we

2 have a Russian translation, prepared over this weekend,

3 so I will simply show that to him and simultaneously the

4 English version which he signed, and ask him to confirm

5 it.

6 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Right.

7 MR STROILOV: I appreciate that is not the best way of doing

8 it, for sure.

9 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: It is not the prescribed way, but

10 I dare say that we had best get on. I don’t know

11 whether Mr Lord has any points?

12 MR LORD: My Lord, simply that the statement appears to be

13 both given and signed in English. I don’t know the

14 status of a document that I certainly have only seen

15 this morning. I’ve seen a Russian version, I have not

16 had a chance to check whether it’s an authentic and

17 correct translation. I don’t know whether it has been

18 signed by the witness, I don’t know what, therefore, its

19 status is, and I do reserve all my clients’ rights in

20 relation to calling a witness to confirm a document,

21 essentially, that was produced last night for the first

22 time.

23 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Yes. I am, possibly myopically,

24 looking at the way forward. You are not suggesting that

25 we should defer the cross-examination of this witness?

5 7
1 the interpreter is to move straight to Mr Pasko and to 1 MR LORD: No, my Lord, but we will have to take it, I think,
2 complete his evidence, and then we will have a break. 2 rather carefully in terms of what material this witness
3 I need a fresh copy — and I do apologise for 3 is confirming, and on what basis. I am not going to
4 this — of your note with respect to the Vyborg Port 4 just …
5 issue, if someone could give me that. It has just got 5 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: No. If there were a difference, or
6 lost in transit in some way. It probably is here, but 6 there were to emerge a difference between yesterday’s
7 I know it is going to take me longer to find it than to 7 version in Russian and the English version, that would
8 get a new copy. 8 obviously be a source of anxiety. Otherwise it is
9 I think if there is any prospect — and obviously it 9 regrettable, but more form than substance, perhaps,
10 is difficult to measure — of your objecting to 10 unless there is a substantive difference.
11 questions along the same lines as you objected to when 11 MR LORD: I think I had better reserve my position on
12 they were asked of Mr Arkhangelsky, then it would be 12 whether it is only a formal issue until I have asked
13 foolhardy not to try and reach a landing before we 13 some questions in that regard.
14 started the cross-examination, because it’s inevitable 14 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: All right. Very good.
15 that the point is going to have to be determined and 15 Well, first things first, we should welcome and
16 it’s better that it should be determined before the 16 swear in the replacement interpreter, please.
17 witness takes the stand than in the middle of it while 17 MR STROILOV: I’m not sure that is the right oath, is it?
18 he is listening to us arguing away. So I would have 18 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Do we have a special interpreter’s
19 thought that is sensible. 19 oath?
20 MR STROILOV: Yes, my Lord. 20 MR STROILOV: I wasn’t aware that the interpreter was going
21 Then I think one more thing I need to indicate. 21 to give evidence, and I am not sure she can vouch for
22 Unfortunately, the evidence of — Mr Pasko is going to 22 the …
23 give evidence in Russian. Unfortunately it has been 23 MS ELENA KHORISHKA, Interpreter (Sworn)
24 dealt with not in a perfect way; that is to say his 24 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Thank you very much. Good. Well, we
25 witness statement was served in English, it was 25 had better call Mr Pasko.
6 8
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

February 29, 2016 Day 18

1 MR STROILOV: My Lord, may I call Mr Pasko, then.

2 MR GRIGORY PASKO (Affirmed)

3 Examination-in-chief by MR STROILOV

4 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Mr Pasko, do sit down. I hope you

5 have some water.

6 MR STROILOV: May we call on the screen {C1/5/1}, and can

7 the Russian translation be handed up to the witness?

8 Mr Pasko, I think you see on the screen what appears

9 to be the first page of the English version of your

10 witness statement; can you see that?

11 A. Yes, I can. I can see it in the printout as well.

12 Q. You have also been handed a Russian translation of that

13 witness statement, haven’t you?

14 A. Yes.

15 Q. And if we could scroll down to page 4 of the English

16 version, and Mr Pasko, if you could look at the last

17 page of the Russian translation. I think on the screen

18 you see what appears to be your signature? {C1/5/4}

19 A. Yes, this is my signature.

20 Q. And have you read this statement recently?

21 A. Yes, I have read it.

22 Q. And was that in the Russian translation which you have

23 in hard copy?

24 A. I saw it in the English version and I read it in

25 the Russian translation.

1 didn’t you?

2 A. Possibly. I cannot see the date stated here.

3 Q. If you go to page 11 in the Russian and page 7 in

4 the English; can you see it now? 1 May 2013.

5 {N15/27/7}

6 A. One second, sir. Could you please repeat the pages for

7 me.

8 Q. Yes, they are on screen if you want to look at it, but

9 it is {N15/27/11}, which I think is the last page of the

10 Russian version, and the last page of the English

11 translation is {N15/27/7}; do you have those now,

12 Mr Pasko?

13 A. Yes, yes, now I can see that.

14 Q. It looks as though you made this affidavit on

15 1 May 2013, doesn’t it?

16 A. Yes.

17 Q. And you can see what you said in paragraph 3. Can you

18 see paragraph 3?

19 A. Yes.

20 Q. You said:

21 «My knowledge of English is limited, therefore

22 I make this affidavit in Russian.»

23 A. Yes.

24 Q. Your witness statement, the witness statement that you

25 have given in this case — if we could have that,

9 11

1 Q. And do you confirm on oath to his Lordship today that

2 this is your evidence to these proceedings?

3 A. Yes, this is my evidence.

4 Q. And are they true to the best of your knowledge and

5 belief?

6 A. Yes. It is true.

7 Q. Well, if you stay there, my learned friend Mr Lord will

8 have some questions.

9 Cross-examination by MR LORD

10 MR LORD: I wonder, could we have on screen, please,

11 {N15/27/1} and also {N15/27/8}.

12 Do you see those documents, Mr Pasko?

13 A. Yes, I can.

14 Q. At {N15/27/1}, you can see there is the front page of

15 an exhibit to the fifth witness statement of

16 Mr Arkhangelsky, signed on 7 May 2013; can you see that?

17 A. Yes, I can.

18 Q. And amongst the material exhibited in that way was

19 an affidavit given, seemingly, by you, Mr Pasko, and the

20 first page of that affidavit in the Russian is at

21 {N15/27/8}; could you have a look at that, please?

22 A. I’ve looked at it.

23 Q. And the English translation, the first page of

24 the English is at {N15/27/3}.

25 Mr Pasko, you made this affidavit in May 2013,

1 please, up on screen, which is {C1/5/1}, which you

2 signed at {C1/5/4} — is in English, isn’t it, Mr Pasko?

3 A. Yes. Yes, it’s signed in English here.

4 Q. When you made this statement on 28 August 2015, was your

5 knowledge of English still limited, as you had said in

6 the earlier affidavit?

7 A. I had an opportunity to see this text in Russian.

8 Q. I will ask the question again. When you made this

9 witness statement on 28 August 2015, Mr Pasko, was your

10 knowledge of English limited, as you had said was the

11 case in May 2013?

12 A. I do not understand your question, sir.

13 Q. Well, Mr Pasko, in the affidavit that you made on

14 1 May 2013, you said your English was limited, your

15 knowledge of English was limited, and that was why you

16 made the affidavit in Russian.

17 Now, when you made a witness statement for this

18 trial in August 2015, the witness statement from you is

19 in English. So I think you know the point, Mr Pasko.

20 I am sure you understand the point behind these

21 questions. It is really, how were you able to make

22 a witness statement in August 2015 if your knowledge of

23 English was limited, as you described back in

24 the earlier affidavit? I think you know the point.

25 A. Yes, finally I understood your question, sir. Except

10 12
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

February 29, 2016 Day 18

1 I cannot understand why one could not draw a conclusion

2 that I have seen that text which was signed by me in

3 English, that I have seen the text in Russian.

4 Q. I see. Is there a version of this statement that you

5 have signed back in August 2015 in Russian?

6 A. I do not see the third version, however the text that

7 was signed by me in English, I have it in Russian and

8 I had it at the moment of signing.

9 Q. So have you actually signed a witness statement in

10 Russian along the lines of this August 2015 statement,

11 Mr Pasko?

12 A. Well, apparently I wasn’t given an opportunity to sign

13 in Russian, but only in English.

14 Q. Sorry, maybe it’s my fault. I thought you said that

15 there was a version of your 28 August 2015 statement in

16 Russian? Not the translation we saw, that we have just

17 seen now, that Mr Stroilov produced last night, not that

18 document, but another document, an earlier document; is

19 that right?

20 A. Sir, what would you like me to say, sorry, I cannot

21 follow. The documents that was signed by me in English,

22 this is something I had an opportunity to read in

23 Russian. As to why my signature is missing under the

24 Russian version, I wouldn’t be able to tell you sir, and

25 whether that is in the case material some way.

1 A. No one wrote it for me in English. I wrote it in

2 English, or in Russian, and the translation was made

3 using my Russian text that was made into English.

4 Q. I thought you just said that you could have provided

5 more information. I think you implied that this

6 statement had been reduced in size. I wanted to ask

7 whether you had done that reduction and ask you how you

8 did it, or if somebody helped you to edit or distil the

9 material into the English statement that we have seen on

10 screen?

11 A. No, I did it myself.

12 Q. Did you have any help from anybody at Withers?

13 A. Not in the preparation of the witness statement. Not in

14 preparing this very text. I had no help with that.

15 Q. So your evidence to his Lordship is that you produced

16 this statement in English by yourself with the help of

17 an interpreter; is that your evidence, Mr Pasko?

18 A. I think it’s — my words were not interpreted quite

19 accurately. I said I’ve prepared the text of my witness

20 statement in Russian and that was translated into

21 English. That would be more accurate.

22 Q. So is there a statement of yours that contains the

23 matters that we see in the English statement; does that

24 document exist, Mr Pasko? In other words, is there

25 a Russian version of what we see in English on the

13

1 Q. Are you able to read the statement at {C1/5/1},

2 Mr Pasko; in other words can you understand it if you

3 were to read it in the English?

4 A. Yes, in general terms I can.

5 Q. Did you sign the statement we see at {C1/5.4}?

6 A. Yes, this is my signature. What I can see on the

7 screen, sir, is my signature.

8 Q. Did you yourself draft this statement that we see at

9 {C1/5/1} to {C1/5/4}, Mr Pasko?

10 A. I put together the witness statement in Russian.

11 Subsequently it was translated into English using my

12 text, and I have an affixed my signature to it.

13 Q. Did you have some help in turning the material into this

14 English statement, Mr Pasko?

15 A. I had an interpreter’s assistance to translate that

16 document from my Russian into this English version.

17 Q. And is that the only assistance you had from any other

18 person in preparing that 28 August 2015 statement?

19 A. Of course not. There was no need to do that. Maybe the

20 witness statement is even a bit shorter that I could

21 have written and communicated to the courts. I could

22 have produced a bit more detail.

23 Q. So who actually produced that witness statement in

24 English for you, Mr Pasko. Who actually wrote it for

25 you?

15

1 screen that forms the basis for this English statement;

2 yes or no?

3 A. Yes, and here it is.

4 Q. Mr Pasko, I understand that Mr Stroilov will correct me

5 if I am wrong, but that is a translation which

6 Mr Stroilov has had cause to make over the weekend that

7 has just gone. If I am wrong about that, Mr Stroilov

8 will interrupt, but as he hasn’t, I will assume,

9 Mr Pasko, that the document you have just pointed to in

10 answer to my question was a translation done for the

11 transcript over the weekend of 27 and 28 February 2016.

12 Now, Mr Pasko, I will ask again: is there a document

13 which contains the evidence that we see in the English

14 statement that you have signed in these proceedings: yes

15 or no?

16 A. I don’t know when this translation was made. I know

17 that this translation I am holding here, sir, is fully

18 accurate and fully consistent with the translation that

19 I prepared with the document I prepared when I affixed

20 this signature.

21 Q. I wonder if your Lordship would direct the witness to

22 answer the question, please.

23 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: The question you are really being

24 asked, I think, Mr Pasko, is when you signed the English

25 version back in 2015, was there at that time, that is to

14 16
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

February 29, 2016 Day 18

1 say August 2015, a Russian translation, or version of

2 that English witness statement? Was there?

3 A. Certainly it was, but I don’t have it with me here in

4 court.

5 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: But it was in writing?

6 A. Absolutely.

7 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Did you sign it?

8 A. I do not recall signing the Russian version. I do not

9 recall whether the need to do that was at the time, but

10 I have signed the English version and this is the third

11 time I am asserting that yes, indeed, I have done that.

12 MR LORD: So your evidence on oath is that there is

13 a document in Russian signed by you containing the

14 material, or the evidence, that we see in the English

15 statement at {C1/5/1}? I just want to be clear,

16 Mr Pasko; if there is, I am sure we can track it down

17 somewhere.

18 MR STROILOV: I am sorry to interrupt, it may be

19 a mistranslation, but he didn’t say that there is — it

20 had been signed by him. I am sorry to interrupt. I am

21 just concerned it is not a very fair question if

22 something is asserted as being his evidence before he

23 said it.

24 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: His answer was:

25 «I do not recall signing the Russian version. I do

1 questions.

2 A. No, no, this is a clear question. It’s just unclear why

3 the obvious version and very simple version is not

4 admitted; ie there was a draft signed by me,

5 a handwritten draft in Russian, then it was sent to

6 a translator. A translator translated that into

7 English, sent me that text, I affixed my signature under

8 the document, and thus this document exists in our case

9 proceedings. That would be it. There are absolutely no

10 suppositions.

11 Q. So, to be clear about your evidence, there was a signed

12 Russian version of it in manuscript, which you prepared

13 and signed —

14 A. No, no. No. No, there was none, and there couldn’t

15 have been one, otherwise it would have been exhibited

16 here. There was — the Russian document was not signed

17 by me for the purpose of the court proceedings.

18 Q. I think you are saying that there was a document in

19 Russian in manuscript by you, containing the evidence

20 that you then went on to give in the English statement;

21 is that right?

22 A. Yes, but it did not contain my signature.

23 Q. And what happened to that document, Mr Pasko?

24 A. I have no idea what had happened to it. If it were

25 requested for the court proceedings in 2015, it probably

17 19
1 not recall whether the need to do that was at the time, 1 would have been here. There was no need for the
2 but I have signed the English version…» 2 document, therefore it’s not here.
3 MR LORD: So, Mr Pasko, the answer to his Lordship’s 3 Q. Did you arrange for that Russian version to be
4 question, your evidence is that there was a document in 4 translated into English, or did someone else carry that
5 Russian that contains the evidence in the English 5 out for you, Mr Pasko?
6 statement; is that right? 6 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Which one?
7 A. Sir, when you are saying a document, do you mean 7 MR LORD: My understanding of the witness’s evidence is that
8 a draft, a handwritten draft? Would that be a document? 8 the Russian manuscript version was turned into the
9 Q. Yes, any sort of written document which contains — 9 English statement with the help of an interpreter. So
10 I think you are tapping your fingers, Mr Pasko. Sorry, 10 what I’m asking the witness is whether that was
11 it is causing a bit of … 11 a process which Mr Pasko himself arranged or whether,
12 The witness, my Lord, is tapping his fingers — 12 for example, somebody else did, for example Withers.
13 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: I’m sorry, Mr Pasko, if you tap your 13 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: When you say «that Russian version»,
14 fingers, a tremendous bashing noise comes through our 14 you mean whatever it was that was the origin of
15 loud speakers, which is rather off-putting. 15 the English version back in 2015?
16 MR LORD: Sorry, Mr Pasko, I am just trying to — because 16 MR LORD: Sorry, my Lord, I do, yes. I don’t know whether
17 last night, when I was looking again at your evidence, 17 your Lordship wishes to — the question may not have
18 I was puzzled by how you could have given a statement in 18 been put terribly well.
19 English in August 2015, when it appeared that your 19 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: I think I have what happened.
20 English wasn’t good enough to give a statement or 20 MR LORD: All right.
21 an affidavit in May 2013. So I was really just puzzled 21 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Mr Pasko, my understanding, but you
22 about how this came about, and because the evidence may 22 must correct me very clearly, however unimportant it may
23 be important, it’s important, I think, to try to 23 seem, my understanding of what happened was in 2015 you
24 identify exactly how this August 2015 statement of yours 24 provided, to Withers or somebody, a Russian version of
25 came to be made. I hope you don’t mind me asking these 25 what you wanted to say in the proceedings; is that
18 20
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

February 29, 2016 Day 18

1 right?

2 A. Absolutely correct, my Lord. Only I don’t know what

3 Withers is.

4 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: I’m sorry. Who did you provide that

5 written Russian to back in 2015?

6 A. I think, if it wasn’t Pavel Stroilov, it was one of

7 the English-speaking lawyers. I do not recall exactly.

8 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Right, and you can’t remember whether

9 you signed that version; is that right, or do you think

10 you did sign that version?

11 A. No. I do not recall signing a Russian version because

12 if I were told that there is a need to do so, to sign

13 the Russian version, I of course would have signed it,

14 and we would have considered both versions at this point

15 in time. However, since we have the English version and

16 I am able to compare the translation of the English

17 version with the English, I confirm my signature, and

18 I think we could discuss this evidence and something

19 pertinent to the case proceedings, and being of value to

20 be considered.

21 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: And you don’t know what happened to

22 the Russian version prepared in 2015?

23 A. It could peacefully co-exist in one of my files on my

24 notebook.

25 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: I see. Right. Then at some point you

1 screen at the same time, please, which is {Q/1.1/3} can

2 you see those two pages, Mr Pasko?

3 A. Yes, of course I do.

4 Q. And on the top of the one in English, it says

5 «Vitaly Arkhangelsky shared Grigory Pasko’s post»; can

6 you see that?

7 A. Yes, I can see that.

8 Q. The entry we see below the one with the picture of

9 a lady and then a heading with «Matvienko», is that

10 something that you posted, Mr Pasko?

11 A. It looks like, yes.

12 Q. And can you tell his Lordship why you posted that

13 material on the internet?

14 A. Everything that pertains to my publications, well,

15 I tried to trace it, you see, in the internet. This

16 topic pertains to the article which I wrote at some

17 point. If there were a publication relating to this

18 topic from the Bank of St Petersburg, the Supreme Court,

19 I would have posted them as well.

20 Q. Is the heading in quotation marks something that you

21 drafted for the purposes of a post, or for any other

22 purpose? In other words, the quotation, is that from

23 something you produced, Mr Pasko, or not?

24 A. No, of course not. It is a repost. I reposted it.

25 Q. And why did you repost that quotation?

21 23

1 signed off on the English version, which we see in front

2 of us now, and then at some point this weekend, or last

3 week, a Russian translation of the English version was

4 produced, which you have in front of you, and which I do

5 not know whether you have signed.

6 MR LORD: The version I have doesn’t look as if it is

7 signed; it just looks as if there’s a translation of the

8 signature. But, again, if that is wrong, Mr Stroilov

9 will correct it.

10 MR STROILOV: I don’t think the Russian version has been

11 signed. I’m sure it can be arranged now, but it hasn’t.

12 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Right. And that Russian is what you

13 wish to say and you believe it to be the same as what

14 you have said in English; is that right?

15 A. Yes. Absolutely, my Lord. There are no differences

16 from the version that I have prepared to be translated.

17 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Any more?

18 MR LORD: No, my Lord.

19 Mr Pasko, can you be shown {Q/1.1/1}, please.

20 Mr Pasko, you will see on screen what appears to be

21 a posting on Dr Arkhangelsky’s Facebook page on

22 21 February 2016; can you see that?

23 A. Yes, I can.

24 Q. I wonder if you could scroll down, please, to the next

25 page, {Q/1.1/2}, and if we could have the English on the

1 A. I am answering for the second time, because this is the

2 topic which is connected with the publication of my

3 article several years ago.

4 Q. By posting this, were you in some way endorsing that

5 quotation?

6 A. I wanted to clarify that I did not create this post.

7 It’s a repost. I reposted it and I am repeating it for

8 the second time.

9 Q. I understand that, Mr Pasko, but I understand you to be

10 saying, and correct me if I am wrong, but that the entry

11 we see on the screen in quotation marks is an entry

12 which you caused to be reposted on one of your websites;

13 is that right?

14 A. Correct. It is reposted. I did not create the post.

15 Q. And why did you — what I’m trying to get you to tell

16 his Lordship on oath is really whether you, if you like,

17 endorse, you are somehow approving of that quotation or

18 not?

19 A. Reposting somebody else’s text is not a fact of

20 endorsement or non-endorsement of the text. It is

21 a factor of attracting attention to the problem.

22 Q. Because, on the face of it, Mr Pasko, that looks like

23 a rather offensive quotation, doesn’t it?

24 A. Yes. In my point of view, it is. But it looks like the

25 author decided it to be so and I again repeat that I am

22 24
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

February 29, 2016 Day 18

1 not the author of this post. 1 the basis of these proceedings?
2 Q. And when did you repost this? Was it in February this 2 A. From the start of 2016, no.
3 year? 3 Q. And what about from — at any time in the past? Any
4 A. I do not trace the repost and even posts, I do not 4 time?
5 trace. 5 A. No, I don’t recall that. During the preparation of
6 Q. Were you reposting this in order to help 6 the article, yes, a lot and often. After the
7 Dr Arkhangelsky’s claim against the 7 publication of the article, I do not recall.
8 Bank of St Petersburg? 8 Q. You see, Mr Pasko, it is obvious from your article that
9 A. It is not my task or goal to help or not help anyone. 9 you have spoken to Dr Arkhangelsky, isn’t it?
10 My task is to be objective in covering a topic. If 10 A. Of course.
11 there is a post connected with the subject, I reposted 11 Q. And is it your evidence on oath to his Lordship that
12 it. If there were a post from the Bank of St Petersburg 12 since the date of that article, which I think
13 about this subject, I would have definitely reposted it 13 was October 2011, you have not discussed the matter at
14 on my Facebook. 14 all with Dr Arkhangelsky?
15 Q. So will we find on your Facebook postings of articles 15 A. Yes, we discussed it, but you asked me about the start
16 favourable to the Bank of St Petersburg’s position in 16 of 2016 and I’ve answered you. From the start of 2016,
17 this case with Dr Arkhangelsky? 17 we have not discussed either the article or the topic.
18 A. If there were articles of this nature, then yes. But 18 Q. And when do you think the last occasion was that you
19 I am not sure that the Bank of St Petersburg published 19 discussed the matter with Dr Arkhangelsky?
20 anything regarding the subject anywhere in Facebook. 20 A. I don’t remember.
21 Q. Have you discussed Dr Arkhangelsky’s claim made in these 21 Q. Would you go, please, in your witness statement, to
22 proceedings with him, let’s say in the last three 22 {C5/1/1}, paragraph 3, please. I am afraid I don’t have
23 months? 23 a reference to the Russian, but you probably have it in
24 A. No, because I cannot imagine what form or shape this 24 front of you. It is paragraph 3. Do you have a copy of
25 discussion would take. I live in Russia. He lives in 25 that, Mr Pasko? Do you have a copy of the Russian
25 27

1 France. No.

2 Q. Are you suggesting that you couldn’t have spoken on the

3 telephone?

4 A. We did not have the need or we were not in the habit of

5 doing so — well, I don’t know. No, it didn’t take

6 place, if that’s what you want to hear.

7 Q. Sorry, Mr Pasko, I just want you to give a truthful

8 answer to his Lordship, which is whether you have

9 discussed Dr Arkhangelsky’s case against

10 Bank of St Petersburg with him in any way, in person or

11 on the telephone, in the last three months. So, let’s

12 say, since the beginning of 2016?

13 A. This claim was not discussed by me and Mr Arkhangelsky,

14 starting in 2016.

15 Q. When is the last time you discussed this matter with

16 Dr Arkhangelsky? Because obviously you have talked to

17 him about it at some stage. It is obvious you have. So

18 when is the last time you spoke to him about it?

19 A. You said now that it is quite obvious that I’ve

20 discussed it with him. Well, it is not obvious to me at

21 all that I’ve discussed it with him, so I have

22 difficulty answering your question.

23 Q. Is it your evidence, Mr Pasko, that you have never

24 discussed with Dr Arkhangelsky the claims he makes

25 against Bank of St Petersburg and Mr Savelyev that form

1 translation that Mr Stroilov handed up today?

2 A. Yes, of course.

3 Q. Do you see paragraph 3 of it?

4 A. Yes, I can see that.

5 Q. And you say in the first sentence — in paragraph 3 you

6 say:

7 «I am a Russian investigative journalist …»

8 Can you see that?

9 A. Yes, I can see that.

10 Q. Can you go, please, to paragraph 8 on {C1/5/2} where you

11 say this:

12 «In 2011, a friend drew my attention to the case of

13 Mr Arkhangelsky…»

14 Can you see that?

15 A. Yes, I can see that.

16 Q. And you go on to say:

17 «Having read the available press publications about

18 the case, I concluded that it merited an investigation.»

19 Can you see that?

20 A. Yes, I can see that.

21 Q. And if you go, please, to paragraph 15 on {C1/5/4}, you

22 say this:

23 «As a result of my investigation, I published

24 an article on my website, which is exhibited at page 1.

25 My analysis and my conclusions are apparent from that

26 28
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

February 29, 2016 Day 18

1 article. I do not propose to give any opinion evidence 1 Q. Apart from those interviews, what other investigation
2 in this statement.» 2 work did you carry out?
3 Do you see that, Mr Pasko? 3 A. I will have to list, starting from 2000 — no, hang on,
4 A. Yes, I can see that. 4 even earlier, we’ll have to go back. Let’s start with
5 Q. And you can see a reference in the margin to 5 1994. I investigated the burial of radioactive Japanese
6 {D174/2903.1/0.1}. I wonder if I could have that on 6 nuclear waste in the sea, and also how the submarines,
7 screen, please, and if we could have, as well as having 7 nuclear submarines were utilised. I investigated
8 0.1, if we could please have {D174/2903.1/1}, the first 8 ecological problems; I also investigated the persecution
9 page of the Russian. 9 of the Russian businessmen which were particularly
10 Is that the article you are talking about? Sorry, 10 active in the last ten years. I can go on.
11 the Russian version, the first page, {D174/2903.1/1}. 11 Q. Sorry, Mr Pasko, I wasn’t really asking for other
12 Is that the article you are referring to in paragraph 15 12 investigative work you have carried out; I was really
13 of this statement, Mr Pasko? {C1/5/4} 13 wanting you to tell his Lordship what investigative work
14 A. Yes, it’s the very article. 14 you carried out for the purposes of writing this
15 Q. And does that article represent the investigation into 15 particular article about Dr Arkhangelsky’s claim, except
16 this matter that you say you have carried out? 16 for some interviews that you refer to in the article; do
17 A. Yes. 17 you see what I mean? In other words, what other
18 Q. Did you write this article yourself, Mr Pasko? 18 investigation work did you carry out, apart from
19 A. Yes. 19 speaking to certain people?
20 Q. Did you have any help in writing it from anybody else? 20 A. These «some people», as you refer to them, they
21 A. Sorry, I don’t quite understand your question. 21 represented all the sides — all the parties to
22 Q. Well, the article covers quite a lot of ground and I was 22 the conflict, the Bank, the law enforcement agencies,
23 just checking, really, whether you would be in 23 Arkhangelsky side, and in addition to that I requested
24 a position to set out all the contents of this article, 24 an independent expert from the Bank to analyse the
25 or whether you were reliant upon anybody else for 25 material that I’ve gathered.
29 31
1 information or some help in actually drafting the 1 Q. Do you have any notes of your investigative work, any
2 article; do you see what I mean? 2 notes that survive of the various investigations you
3 A. Yes, I understand at last. No, when I do write 3 carried out?
4 articles, I always mine information myself, and if 4 A. I’ve kept an audio record, an audio recording of my
5 information is provided to me, I double-check it, and 5 conversation with the representative of the
6 only after that I write my articles. 6 Bank of St Petersburg, Mrs Irina Malysheva.
7 Q. Because if we go to the article, you refer to a number 7 Q. And is that the only record you have of your
8 of interviews that you carried out, don’t you? 8 investigative work, apart from this article?
9 A. Yes, of course. 9 A. Well, the people I spoke to, and actually they are
10 Q. And you seem to have spoken to Dr Arkhangelsky; is that 10 referred to in the article, they can confirm that I’ve
11 right? 11 spoken to them.
12 A. Absolutely. During the preparation of the article 12 Q. I wonder if you could just look at one — just pick up
13 I spoke to him. 13 one thing you have said in this article, please, just to
14 Q. And you claim to have talked to Lt-Colonel Levitskaya; 14 test the investigation you have carried out. At
15 is that right? 15 {D174/2903.1/0.3}, you give an opinion about the
16 A. Yes, several times on the telephone. 16 interview with Mrs Malysheva, and I think if you have
17 Q. And you have spoken to Mrs Malysheva, haven’t you? 17 the Russian, I think it is on page {D174/2903.1/3}; can
18 A. Yes, Mrs Malysheva. Yes, I did. 18 you see the top of the page? I think it follows the
19 Q. And Mrs Shabalina? 19 same paragraph numbers, looking at it. I think the top
20 A. On the phone, yes. 20 entry is «five banks»; is that right?
21 Q. And you refer, without identifying the author, to 21 A. Yes, I can see it in Russian, the translation. I mean,
22 a conversation you had with somebody at the 22 I see my article in Russian.
23 Bank of St Petersburg? 23 Q. Thank you, Mr Pasko. If you look down, about a fifth of
24 A. With a former employees of the Bank of St Petersburg who 24 the way down, you can see this. The article says:
25 wished to remain anonymous. 25 «No one has ‘scammed’ (using Ms Malysheva’s
30 32
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

February 29, 2016 Day 18

1 financial or legal speak) ‘five banks’, otherwise 1 the page in Russian, because it is your article and,
2 Bank of St Petersburg wouldn’t be alone standing with 2 I think, your words, and then the translators can
3 claims against OMG.» 3 translate and we can stop at the point when we come to
4 Can you see that paragraph? 4 the passage I am trying to find with you. If you can
5 A. No, sorry, I can’t see that. 5 find the passage in the article, we won’t have to go
6 Q. It’s about 4 centimetres down from the top of the page. 6 through this process.
7 The page starts with «five banks» then it says: 7 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Can you see a phrase «five banks» in
8 «We requested a search for his assets.» 8 that passage?
9 The next paragraph says: 9 A. Yes, yes I do remember very well. This is not my words.
10 «Arkhangelsky maintains everywhere that his assets 10 These are the words of Mrs Malysheva. It’s a quote from
11 are worth tons of money…» 11 Mrs Malysheva. We asked to find all of his assets, and
12 Then there is a line: 12 the pledges — sorry, I have to read slower so the
13 «Virtually every single sentence by Ms Malysheva is 13 translator will be able to catch up.
14 inaccurate to say the least.» 14 «An amicable agreement is not late to sign at any
15 Then there appears to be a sentence that reads: 15 stage. He will bring us 4 billion in one minute and the
16 «No one has ‘scammed’ (using Ms Malysheva’s 16 problem will be resolved. We have his assets to sell
17 financial or legal speak) ‘five banks’, otherwise 17 and nobody will pay half for it.»
18 Bank of St Petersburg wouldn’t be alone standing with 18 I can’t see, sorry, it’s either — I can’t see
19 claims against OMG.» 19 whether it’s …
20 It’s about this far down from the top (indicates); 20 «Arkhangelsky claims that his assets are worth
21 can you see? If you look down about that distance from 21 enormous amounts of money and we don’t see it. We must
22 the top of the page, can you see that? 22 protect the interests of the Bank. Our task is to
23 A. Yes, I can see that. Yes. Nobody scammed the five 23 search, to seize assets and to sell them on the market
24 banks. Talking — using, deploying Malysheva’s terms. 24 and return the money to the Bank. Where is the money?
25 It’s not my turn of phrase. It is Malysheva’s turn of 25 1.4 billion or more has been siphoned to Nice to buy
33 35

1 phrase.

2 Q. Can you then read on for his Lordship to say what you

3 then said after that bit in the article. Because

4 I think it is your words, then, isn’t it, your words as

5 follows:

6 «… otherwise Bank of St Petersburg wouldn’t be

7 alone standing with claims against OMG.»

8 Sorry, Mr Pasko, I really just want you to see what

9 you have said in the article. Can you see it?

10 A. No, I don’t see what you are referring to.

11 Q. Do you want to read out — I have to say it in English,

12 but why don’t you read out from the top of that page,

13 and it will be translated and I will tell you when to

14 stop. Why don’t you read out your article in Russian

15 from the top of the page, Mr Pasko, so we have it for

16 the transcript, and hopefully we will come across the

17 passage that I want to ask you about.

18 Read it out, please, for the transcript, and then it

19 will be translated for the court record.

20 A. «We asked to find all of his assets …»

21 And I think it’s what Malysheva is saying, because

22 it’s not from the very start of the paragraph, you see.

23 Q. Do you want just to read the Russian? Mr Pasko, it is

24 your article. If you just want to read, please,

25 {D174/2903.1/3}. If you could just read from the top of

1 a house. We believed him and he deceived us. Every

2 sentence of Mrs Malysheva is not correct, because she

3 says that Arkhangelsky obtained a loan from the Bank

4 Vozrozhdenie using forged documents. This is not

5 substantiated by anything. It contradicts the facts.

6 The Bank Vozrozhdenie still issues credits for

7 Arkhangelsky projects. Nobody, as Arkhangelsky says,

8 scammed the five banks, otherwise OMG will not be alone

9 in its claims — Bank of St Petersburg will not be alone

10 in its claims against OMG. What is pledged is not

11 definitely —»

12 Q. Mr Pasko, that’s enough. It’s the last bit, really.

13 Your article — in your article, you are picking up what

14 you describe as Mrs Malysheva’s language about «scamming

15 five banks»; in other words, Mrs Malysheva was saying

16 that other banks had been deceived by Dr Arkhangelsky,

17 and your article, which you claim to have written, says

18 this:

19 «No one has ‘scammed’ … ‘five banks’, otherwise

20 Bank of St Petersburg wouldn’t be alone standing with

21 claims against OMG.»

22 That’s what you said, wasn’t it, Mr Pasko, in this

23 article?

24 A. Yes. This is about the Renaissance, or Vozrozhdenie

25 Bank. Nobody scammed the five banks. Otherwise then

34 36
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

February 29, 2016 Day 18

1 not only the Bank of St Petersburg would have claims;

2 that is my conclusion that I draw, having telephoned

3 other banks and talked to them, and they said that they

4 do not have any criminal claims against Mr Arkhangelsky.

5 Q. Did you check whether any other banks were taking

6 proceedings against Dr Arkhangelsky, or OMG? You are

7 an investigative journalist. I would imagine you would

8 have checked things like the Russian court file to see

9 if any other banks were pursuing Dr Arkhangelsky or OMG

10 in relation to unpaid debts; did you carry out that

11 investigative step, Mr Pasko?

12 A. «Five banks», which are in quote marks, in inverted

13 commas, they are the words of Mrs Malysheva. If we were

14 to include the Bank of St Petersburg, Vozrozhdenie Bank

15 and the third bank, then I definitely contacted those

16 banks; and in addition to the Bank of St Petersburg

17 I spoke to the two banks who confirmed that they have no

18 criminal proceedings against Mr Arkhangelsky.

19 Q. Could you be shown {I20/21/4}, please. Mr Pasko, there

20 is available on the Russian court website information

21 showing civil proceedings, or claims, being made in

22 Russia; were you aware of that when you wrote this

23 article?

24 A. No, I wasn’t familiar with it.

25 Q. You can see from this letter — and I know it’s in

1 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Is this a claim against

2 Mr Arkhangelsky?

3 MR LORD: Sorry. This is — it’s a claim against

4 Scandinavia Leasing, but there is a reference to

5 Dr Arkhangelsky in this.

6 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: It’s just you put it that it was

7 proceedings against him, and I couldn’t see that.

8 MR LORD: Sorry, I said «and/or» in the question, and on the

9 letter there is a list of proceedings in which the

10 various defendants are named. So it is right that the

11 one judgment is against Scandinavia, not

12 Dr Arkhangelsky, although it refers to him, but the

13 other list of — it was my fault, but I was trying to

14 save time — the list of other proceedings in the letter

15 sets out who the defendants were.

16 So if your Lordship would like … your Lordship can

17 see the defendants, and the entries from the Russian

18 court website are set out.

19 But, Mr Pasko, I think I can ask you this question:

20 it appears from the Russian court website that

21 proceedings have been taken by banks against either

22 an OMG company or Dr Arkhangelsky in 2010 and 2011 and

23 2012, banks other than Bank of St Petersburg. Were you

24 aware of that?

25 A. Was I aware about the Lipetsk Arbitrazh Court and the

37 39

1 English, but we can go to the Russian entries, if you

2 like — this letter sets out a number of entries on the

3 Russian court website which show claims by other banks

4 against Dr Arkhangelsky and/or an OMG company. Can you

5 see that? Can you see —

6 A. No, I can’t see it from the text, because the text is in

7 English.

8 Q. Well, you can — can you not even read English? You

9 can’t read this letter; is that right, Mr Pasko? You

10 can’t read what’s in front of you there at that page?

11 A. You know, such documents for investigation I can read

12 but I can’t use them because my English is not

13 sufficient enough for the accuracy of the formulas that

14 the Banks and the law firms deploy.

15 Q. If you look, if you are shown {I20/21/5.48}, and if we

16 have {I20/21/5.46} as well, you can see that this is

17 a copy of a court decision. It is in Russian. A court

18 decision of the Arbitrazh Court of Lipetsk Region; it is

19 dated April 2010; can you see that, Mr Pasko?

20 A. I can see the text. But I can’t evaluate what is it —

21 what it is about, because I require the time to —

22 pardon?

23 Q. Does it surprise you that there is a record of other

24 banks taking proceedings against Dr Arkhangelsky or OMG

25 companies in Russia over the period 2010, 2011 and 2012?

1 proceedings against Mr Arkhangelsky? No, I didn’t know

2 about that.

3 Q. No, Mr Pasko, I was asking whether you are now —

4 whether you are aware now, in the witness box, that,

5 according to the Russian court website, there have been

6 court claims in Russia by banks other than

7 Bank of St Petersburg against either an OMG company or

8 Dr Arkhangelsky.

9 Are you aware that other banks have sued OMG

10 companies and Dr Arkhangelsky in Russia, apart from

11 Bank of St Petersburg? That’s the point.

12 A. No. I was not aware of that.

13 Q. And now you are aware of that, do you want to revise the

14 bit of your article where you say that

15 Bank of St Petersburg stands alone against OMG?

16 A. Even now I was not aware of that. For me to be aware of

17 that, I need to study the documents or, rather, that one

18 document, or, rather, that single page of that document,

19 sir, that you are now referring to.

20 Q. Could you be shown your witness statement, please,

21 {C1/5/3}. In paragraph 11 you refer to an interview

22 with Mrs Malysheva. Just for the record, Mr Pasko,

23 could you be shown {D142/2385.2/17} and at

24 {D142/2385.2/1} we have the English translation.

25 {D142/2385.2/17}, please, as well.

38 40
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

February 29, 2016 Day 18

1 Can you see that, Mr Pasko?

2 A. Yes, what do I need to see here, sir; what,

3 specifically?

4 Q. You refer in your witness statement to an interview with

5 Mrs Malysheva, but I don’t believe you exhibit any

6 record of it. I am just getting you to confirm for the

7 record that the document I have shown you on screen is,

8 in fact, a transcript of the interview that you had with

9 Mrs Malysheva? I’m just checking with you whether that

10 is the case. I assume it is. Mr Stroilov has admitted

11 this document as if it is a transcription of that

12 interview, but I just want, for the record, to confirm

13 that is the case, because I think you were the

14 interviewer.

15 A. Possibly I should have first compared the audio file

16 with this printout. I did not have such an opportunity.

17 Otherwise I would have at least put my surname in

18 the correct spelling here.

19 Q. What about the Russian version?

20 A. This is exactly the version I’m referring to now.

21 MR STROILOV: Perhaps I need to clarify, this is not the

22 transcript I submitted. It seems to be pretty similar,

23 but it’s not the one I submitted. I think it was done

24 separately at some point.

25 MR LORD: I am simply trying to establish, my Lord, with

1 A. I would be able to only say that it looks like the

2 conversation I had with Ms Malysheva. I have read that

3 one page, but did not compare my audio file, my audio

4 recording, with the printout of that recording. I can

5 see this text for the first time. Otherwise, should

6 I have seen it previously, I would have made some

7 corrections therein, and in my view they are material.

8 For example, my surname is stated incorrectly here;

9 secondly, it discusses some Ivan Mikhaylovich. I don’t

10 know who Ivan Mikhaylovich is. Most likely that is

11 Mrs Malysheva’s address to me, and my name is Grigory

12 Mikhailovich, and based on this I assume that there

13 might be some other inaccuracies in this printout.

14 Q. When did you interview Mrs Malysheva, Mr Pasko?

15 A. Well, it was clearly in the process of preparing for the

16 article. I do not recall the exact date.

17 Q. Did you keep a record or a file for the purposes of this

18 article, or a notebook?

19 A. I had a notebook and I had a dictaphone. All the main

20 notes, ie the dates, the surnames, et cetera, were

21 contained in the notebook, and all the conversation, or

22 the gist of it, was contained in the audio file.

23 Q. So the most you can say is that the interview with

24 Mrs Malysheva was before the date of this article; is

25 that right?

41 43

1 this witness, where we find the interview that he is

2 describing in his statement. I had assumed that this

3 was the version. There’s nothing clever behind the

4 question, I just want to know where the record is for

5 this. I had thought the document I took the witness to

6 had been disclosed by the defendants, but if I am wrong

7 about that, then I apologise to Mr Stroilov, I am sure,

8 because he submitted a copy of a translation of

9 the interview with his opening.

10 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: It seems that this version, by

11 whomsoever made, is a transcript of a tape. I don’t

12 know whether the tape was disclosed.

13 MR STROILOV: Yes, that’s correct, my Lord. The tape was

14 disclosed and then at a later stage they did an English

15 transcript, and then someone else at some other stage

16 did the transcript you see on the screen.

17 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: I see. So the transcript which is in

18 the bundles is not the transcript that you provided?

19 MR STROILOV: Yes. The one we provided, it was an appendix

20 to my opening, as my learned friend has it.

21 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Okay.

22 MR STROILOV: But this one seems to be different.

23 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: But is this the interview with

24 Ms Malysheva which you refer to in the article that we

25 have been looking at?

1 A. Absolutely.

2 Q. But you can’t say how much earlier it was? Is that

3 right?

4 A. I wouldn’t be able to write an article — having been in

5 the journalistic profession for 40 years, I cannot write

6 an article before taking an interview from a subject of

7 the article, from one person that I interviewed in

8 the article.

9 Q. Mr Pasko, I was just trying to get a date for your

10 interview with Mrs Malysheva, and I’m just giving you

11 a chance to help his Lordship with that date, you being

12 the investigative journalist who carried out that

13 interview; do you want to see if you can give a date for

14 it or not?

15 A. I wouldn’t be able to give a date.

16 Q. Could you go, please — but you would agree that the

17 audio tape that you took would be a more accurate record

18 of what the interview contained than your summary of it

19 in your witness statement; in other words the interview

20 will speak for itself, won’t it, Mr Pasko?

21 A. The audio file would, of course, be more detailed than

22 my summary thereof, but it doesn’t mean that my summary

23 is erroneous and materially different from the audio

24 recording.

25 Q. Could you be shown {C1/5/4} and paragraph 12 of your

42 44
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

February 29, 2016 Day 18

1 witness statement. You give some evidence in that

2 paragraph, Mr Pasko, about an interview with

3 Ms Shabalina, a retired employee of the Bank; can you

4 see that?

5 A. Yes, I can see it’s paragraph number 12 in my version.

6 Q. And you say that you spoke to Ms Shabalina by telephone;

7 is that right?

8 A. Yes.

9 Q. Did you tape-record that conversation?

10 A. Not the one I had on the phone.

11 Q. Sorry, I’m waiting for the answer; I didn’t hear the

12 answer.

13 A. Not the conversation I had on the phone, no.

14 Q. Did you make some notes at the time of the conversation

15 of the contents of the conversation?

16 A. Absolutely. I was making notes in my notebook.

17 Q. And have you kept your notebook that contains those

18 notes?

19 A. I’m not sure of that. Ie, I have some handwritten

20 archive, but I don’t think all the notebooks with all

21 the notes are preserved for a long term.

22 Q. So is it your evidence that you don’t think you have

23 kept the notes you made of your interview with

24 Ms Shabalina?

25 A. I wouldn’t be able to say precisely whether the notebook

1 various points to Ms Shabalina when she was in

2 the witness box in relation to the interview with you.

3 Mrs Shabalina said this at line 6: {Day5/119:6}

4 «Answer: I did not give any interviews to Grigory

5 Mikhaylovich Pasko, the journalist you mentioned.

6 I recall some conversation with a person who introduced

7 himself as a lawyer of Mr Arkhangelsky. He asked me

8 several questions over the phone, and I answered the

9 questions over the phone as well.»

10 Do you see that?

11 A. Yes, I do.

12 Sir, would you like me to comment upon this?

13 Q. If you want to.

14 A. Since the conversation happened over the phone, she

15 could have not remembered that. That’s my opinion.

16 But I always unequivocally introduce myself as

17 Mr Gregory Pasko, a journalist. I don’t think she would

18 have denied that.

19 Q. Could you go, please, to page 121, because Mrs Shabalina

20 was asked about various things she was meant to have

21 said to you in this interview. {Day5/121:15} If you

22 look at line 15, Mrs Shabalina didn’t think that she

23 used the words All over the world» which you have used,

24 or which you have quoted in paragraph 12 of your witness

25 statement. Might you be mistaken, Mr Pasko, about

45

1 contains this note or not. It’s possible that it’s

2 there, but for that we need to look into the archive.

3 Maybe it’s not there, but I confirm the fact of our

4 conversation here and now in court, and of course

5 Mrs Shabalina herself could confirm it as well.

6 Q. Mrs Shabalina says that she doesn’t remember speaking to

7 a journalist, but she does remember speaking to somebody

8 who explained that they were Dr Arkhangelsky’s lawyer.

9 Do you think, Mr Pasko, that you would have told

10 Mrs Shabalina when you were getting her to speak to you

11 that you were Dr Arkhangelsky’s lawyer?

12 A. Never. That is categorically ruled out; that

13 contravenes all the principles of journalist ethics.

14 Q. So you told Mrs Shabalina, did you, that you were

15 an investigative journalist; is that right?

16 A. Definitely, unequivocally. I introduce myself to anyone

17 as a journalist, which is true.

18 Q. And if we could have, please, {Day5/119:1}

19 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Mr Lord, I have no idea how much

20 longer we —

21 MR LORD: Sorry, my Lord, I haven’t got very much longer.

22 Five minutes. Sorry, my Lord, I should have seen the

23 time, I apologise.

24 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: That’s all right.

25 MR LORD: Sorry, Mr Pasko, {Day5/119:1}, Mr Stroilov put

47

1 Mrs Shabalina using those words or that phrase?

2 MR STROILOV: I’m sorry to interject again. Because it is

3 only available in English, I thought it might be a good

4 idea to read more of it so that Mr Pasko understands the

5 context of what we are talking about, because we are

6 looking at the English text.

7 MR LORD: Yes. Mr Pasko, in paragraph 12 of your witness

8 statement, you record Mrs Shabalina apparently saying

9 something to you along the lines of: {C1/5/4}

10 «It was inconceivable for the value of the assets to

11 be exaggerated. Mrs Shabalina’s view was that the value

12 of the assets fell sharply during the 2008 global

13 economic crisis, as with other assets all over the

14 world.»

15 Can you see those sentences in your paragraph 12?

16 A. Yes, I can.

17 Q. And Mrs Shabalina isn’t sure that she would have said

18 that to you because she wouldn’t be in a position to

19 comment on things all around the world; do you think you

20 may have been mistaken when you quoted her as saying

21 «all over the world»?

22 A. It’s unlikely that I could have quoted or used something

23 else and not a specialist’s opinion, and in this case

24 Mrs Shabalina is an expert, a specialist, and in this

25 case I was an allegor so I would have only relied on an

46 48
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

February 29, 2016 Day 18

1 expert’s opinion, on a professional’s opinion, and 1 this is one of many opinions. Also, you have missed my
2 Mrs Shabalina is in that capacity for me and I am not 2 phrase, sir, with regard to independent expert, and that
3 such an expert. 3 was the Banking expert. That was an expert of a very
4 So it’s very unlikely for me to think up the words, 4 high level from the Bank, UniCredit Bank — I can state
5 «all around the world», or «all over the world». 5 his name in court — and this expert’s opinion has given
6 Q. You go on to say that: 6 me the basis to draw some conclusions which I have
7 «Mrs Shabalina thought that the bank ‘lost its 7 discussed now.
8 nerve’ and demanded repayment of its loans as well as 8 MR LORD: Thank you, Mr Pasko.
9 pressing for criminal charges to be brought against 9 MR STROILOV: No re-examination, my Lord.
10 Mr Arkhangelsky, instead of negotiating a commercially 10 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Mr Pasko, thank you very much for
11 sensible solution.» 11 attending, and I think you are now free to go. Thank
12 Mr Pasko, I think the implication of your words in 12 you for your evidence.
13 paragraph 12 of yours is that Mrs Shabalina was critical 13 A. Thank you, my Lord.
14 of the Bank; is that right? {C1/5/4} 14 (The witness withdrew)
15 A. I think that «lost its nerve», that expression contains 15 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Now, can we decide how we proceed?
16 a critical expression towards the Bank’s action, and 16 You need a bit of time, do you, to read the notes, and
17 there is a hint that in that particular situation, one 17 someone is going to hand me up a copy of your note, and
18 could have taken a different course. 18 you wanted me to read some evidence. What was the
19 Q. Mr Pasko, in paragraph 15 of your statement, {C1/5/4}, 19 evidence you wanted me to read?
20 I think you are saying that you are not to be taken as 20 MR STROILOV: That was the witness statement of Mr Ashurkov,
21 giving any opinion evidence in this case to his 21 just so that I could tell him that he needn’t come or
22 Lordship; is that right? 22 needs to come.
23 A. In the opinion of the final decision? In the meaning of 23 MR LORD: Yes, and that’s behind divider 8, my Lord, of C1,
24 the final decision, final judgment, final valuation of 24 a short statement.
25 someone’s action? Did I understand your question 25 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Yes, I have read it some time ago, so

49

1 correctly, sir?

2 Q. Well, I don’t understand you to be giving evidence in

3 that paragraph of everything that you describe in your

4 article. Put it another way: what do you mean by the

5 sentence:

6 «I do not propose to give any opinion evidence in

7 this statement.»

8 Those are your words.

9 A. By that I wanted to say I do not consider myself such

10 a competent person with regard to finance and law. That

11 would unequivocally say that Bank of St Petersburg has

12 done such a breach of law and Mr Arkhangelsky did not

13 commit such a breach, or vice versa. In my article,

14 I simply draw people’s attention and cite the facts that

15 I managed to investigate. Quite likely I have not

16 investigated some facts; however, from the facts that

17 were available, or became available to me, thanks to my

18 work, I could draw a conclusion that, nevertheless, in

19 this situation the Bank of St Petersburg did not behave

20 in a legal way or proper way, and it was not the case

21 for Mr Arkhangelsky.

22 Q. And I suggest, Mr Pasko, that you have no real basis for

23 saying that and you are relying upon what

24 Dr Arkhangelsky has alleged, aren’t you?

25 A. Mr Arkhangelsky’s opinion is quoted in my article and

51

1 I will read it again. (Handed)

2 MR STROILOV: Was that my e-mail on Vyborg Port?

3 MR LORD: Yes, it was, yes.

4 MR STROILOV: I’m extremely grateful to my learned friend.

5 I would suggest if — could we have an earlier lunch

6 break so that I could read what has passed on?

7 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Yes.

8 MR STROILOV: And then we have a housekeeping session, which

9 I hope won’t take longer than half an hour, just

10 after — well, I would suggest at 1.15 or something like

11 that, if we break now, that would be reasonable, just to

12 be sure we can finish with Mr Ameli today.

13 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: So you want an early but truncated

14 short adjournment? A shorter short adjournment than

15 usual?

16 MR STROILOV: Yes, I would suggest that, my Lord. Well,

17 perhaps — I am not sure, it is probably rather for

18 Mr Lord to say what his estimates are for housekeeping

19 and for Mr Ameli.

20 Are we in difficulty or not on time?

21 MR LORD: My Lord, I have estimated two to two and a half

22 hours. I would expect it will take up to two hours.

23 I don’t think it will take more than that. It’s hard to

24 tell but I don’t think it will. It may even take

25 an hour and a half, it may take less.

50 52
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

February 29, 2016 Day 18

1 So we will finish Mr Ameli today, I am sure, but it

2 may be prudent to try to arrange things so we start his

3 evidence at 2.00, if we can, having disposed of as much

4 of the other business as we can before then to make sure

5 that he is finished by, let’s say, 4.00.

6 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: So the cautious approach would be to

7 reconvene as Mr Stroilov has suggested at 1.15, would

8 it?

9 MR LORD: Yes, subject to your Lordship’s convenience, of

10 course.

11 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Apologies to everyone else if they are

12 inconvenienced, but we will reconvene at 1.15, we will

13 then do the housekeeping points and we will then get on

14 with Mr Ameli’s evidence with a view to him being able

15 to leave at the close of the afternoon. I have

16 a meeting at 4.45 pm; I shall have to go then.

17 MR LORD: My Lord, there is also the other note that was

18 filed about the media campaign.

19 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Yes, is that something to be addressed

20 also?

21 MR LORD: It was something I was going to raise with

22 your Lordship at the end of today. We will see how the

23 time goes. But I would ask your Lordship to read that.

24 Mr Stroilov has had it this morning. He obviously needs

25 time to think about it, and obviously we would welcome

1 arisen and in what context. I think the first letter

2 I would like to show you, or e-mail, rather, is at

3 {I1/1/0.1}.

4 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Hold on.

5 MR STROILOV: Yes, it is on the screen now, my Lord.

6 {I1/1/1} That’s how it first arose.

7 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Before we go down this route, your

8 invitation to me is, what, to strike out these answers?

9 MR STROILOV: Yes, these questions and answers of the whole

10 line of questioning, and not to permit these questions

11 on this issue to be asked of other witnesses, such as

12 Mr Ameli.

13 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: I can understand the other witnesses

14 point, but it is quite a thing to delete from the court

15 record that which is on the court record.

16 I countenanced it in respect of an earlier matter,

17 partly then because I don’t think Mr Lord then

18 strenuously opposed it. But in this case he is opposing

19 it and if it is inadmissible, then it simply will have

20 to be struck from my approach. But it has happened, if

21 you like.

22 MR STROILOV: Yes, quite, my Lord. I do mean struck out of

23 your approach; simply you shouldn’t take it into

24 account.

25 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: The transcript would still show it,

53 55

1 his response to that to see exactly how matters are

2 going to proceed from here.

3 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: All right. We will have to decide

4 when we deal with that also. Thank you, 1.15 pm.

5 (12.27 pm)

6 (The Luncheon Adjournment)

7 (1.15 pm)

8 Housekeeping

9 MR STROILOV: May it please your Lordship. I am afraid

10 I have not been quite persuaded by my learned friend’s

11 note, so I will address your Lordship on the Vyborg Port

12 issue.

13 Just to clear any misunderstanding about that, what

14 I am saying is that this evidence is not relevant and,

15 therefore, not admissible. So I am inviting you not to

16 admit that evidence. I say these questions shouldn’t

17 have been asked. Had there been a counsel there in

18 the room, he would have stood up and objected there and

19 then. Now, in these circumstances, I have to do it

20 retrospectively, but, in my submission, I am obviously

21 entitled to have that argument.

22 My Lord, I don’t know if you are familiar with the

23 background to this issue and how it arose between the

24 parties or not. I think I need to take you to quite

25 a few letters in the past to show how this issue has

1 but when I am considering the rights and wrongs of

2 the case with a view to its final adjudication, if you

3 persuaded me that it was inadmissible evidence, then

4 obviously I couldn’t admit it into my process of

5 thought.

6 MR STROILOV: Exactly, that’s what I mean. I am not

7 suggesting that this transcript is burnt, and — I am

8 not suggesting that.

9 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: No. So it is twofold. One is

10 admissibility, which Mr Lord says is a matter that can

11 be dealt with in final submissions since it has already

12 happened.

13 MR STROILOV: Yes.

14 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: I am not in the process of

15 adjudicating; you have given the warning that I should

16 treat this with care, therefore from that point of view

17 there is no urgency at all. The only urgency, really,

18 is as regards the same question or something like it to

19 witnesses in the future; is that right?

20 MR STROILOV: Quite, my Lord, that is why it is urgent.

21 Obviously it is not that terrible if questions are asked

22 and then I successfully or not invite you to disregard

23 that as well. But obviously, that may save time if the

24 issue is resolved now and then unnecessary questions are

25 not asked —

54 56
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

February 29, 2016 Day 18

1 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: And the basis of objection is

2 inadmissibility, but it is said against that, before we

3 get into letters, first, that one of the things at the

4 heart of the case is, as it were, what happened to the

5 assets and were they properly dealt with or not properly

6 dealt with, and what, if anything, Mr Arkhangelsky had

7 power to do and did with respect to any of the assets

8 seems relevant, doesn’t it?

9 MR STROILOV: Well, that would be relevant if it had taken

10 place prior to the OMG collapse. That is to say

11 questions on City Centre, for example, and obviously my

12 learned friend will be trying to persuade your Lordship

13 that what happened is there’s no conspiracy by the Bank;

14 it’s just that Mr Arkhangelsky just took the money and

15 ran away.

16 So, so far as it concerns 2008/2009, I accept that

17 that would be relevant. But something that happened in

18 2014, in the course of this litigation, when OMG itself

19 no longer existed for a number of years, and it would

20 only go to the compliance with the freezing order. It’s

21 really part of the policing of the freezing order, and

22 whether or not it has been breached really has no

23 bearing on the issue you have to decide at the trial as

24 such.

25 It is a rather — well, there is potentially a very,

1 somehow Mr and/or Mrs Arkhangelskaya had managed to

2 retain in another pocket the value of Vyborg Port.

3 Would that not be relevant to quantum, amongst other

4 things?

5 MR STROILOV: Obviously, it is not part of the counterclaim.

6 The value of Vyborg Port is by no means part of

7 the counterclaim, so it wouldn’t.

8 Now, of course, if it was Scandinavia Insurance or

9 Western Terminal or even some other part of Onega

10 Terminal, that would be closer. But Vyborg Port is

11 neither here nor there.

12 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: You say it was insulated from all the

13 contractual documentation?

14 MR STROILOV: I’m not sure. It wasn’t, in any sense — it

15 played no part in the relationship with

16 Bank of St Petersburg, because it was another bank

17 financing it and then that bank wanted all the assets

18 pledged to it, so it is in no way relevant to OMG/BSP

19 relationship as it is. So that’s what we say on

20 relevance, really.

21 As for the freezing order aspect, again there are,

22 I think, two sub issues to that. Firstly, these

23 questions were largely informed by what we told them as

24 part of — such as the e-mail I’ve just shown you and

25 subsequent correspondence. We have told them things we

57 59
1 should I say, long route to that. I think what Mr Lord 1 wouldn’t want them to know but for our obligations under
2 really will invite you to find is that Mr Arkhangelsky 2 the freezing order, and that, then, is covered by the
3 has breached the freezing order, therefore he is 3 undertaking not to use it for purposes other than
4 dishonest, therefore you shouldn’t believe him on 4 policing —
5 anything. 5 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: But the umbrella under which Mr Lord
6 But that is really a very long route to establish 6 asked the questions was not the umbrella of the freezing
7 relevance, and on that logic, anything that is 7 order or the mandate it gave to require you to disclose
8 prejudicial would have been relevant. Whereas, of 8 assets; it was very expressly for the purposes of these
9 course, where freezing orders are concerned, there are 9 substantive proceedings, and Mr Lord gave that warning,
10 important safeguards and it is fundamental that the 10 and my recollection, which appears to be borne out by
11 substantive case is kept separate from policing the 11 Mr Lord’s note, is that I gave that warning.
12 freezing order. 12 Now, it would be difficult for me to, as it were,
13 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: I don’t quibble with that, and I don’t 13 listen to the witness say: I want to give that evidence,
14 think Mr Lord does either, although we can of course 14 and me to say: well, you had better not whilst we fish
15 explore that, but he has been at pains to agree 15 about for counsel; because the trial is being dealt with
16 immediately to this evidence not being capable of being 16 in a certain way, I don’t say whether it is choice or
17 used in the freezing order without my permission, and if 17 not choice, but it is the fact, that’s what’s happening.
18 I thought it was unfair I would immediately refuse 18 And I have to live with that, don’t I, and so do you.
19 permission. 19 MR STROILOV: That’s right, and my submission is not based
20 MR LORD: And before I asked any questions of 20 on any self-incrimination privilege on which we have
21 Dr Arkhangelsky. 21 second thoughts, as it is. What I’m saying is that
22 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Yes. Take one aspect of the matter, 22 these questions shouldn’t have been asked at all because
23 which is quantum. Would it not be of some relevance to 23 they are based on information we have disclosed as part
24 note — supposing they are right — I am not saying for 24 of freezing order disclosure, subject to the undertaking
25 a moment they are, but supposing they are right that 25 that it is not used for any other purpose; secondly,
58 60
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

February 29, 2016 Day 18

1 I think because really it is not going to — in the real

2 world, it doesn’t quite work like that. There is

3 a limit to this mental compartmentalisation, as it is:

4 this cross-examination is for the trial and then we

5 possibly make a committal application and then

6 cross-examine you again for the purposes of the freezing

7 order. It doesn’t quite work like that because,

8 obviously, it is a huge collateral advantage, if there

9 is a committal application, to have had a dry-run

10 cross-examination, even if you can’t use it.

11 It’s really not — well, in substance, the

12 allegation made is that of contempt, and I think we have

13 been through this, in a way, of —

14 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: I don’t think it is. I mean, if it

15 were, I would regard the assurance given and my

16 direction as simply being negated. But it is not

17 being — you are not accused of contempt and, if you

18 were, that would be a completely separate matter for

19 another day.

20 MR STROILOV: My Lord, I think Mr Lord did put to

21 Mr Arkhangelsky —

22 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: He said «Watch out».

23 MR STROILOV: — that: you were behind this transfer of

24 Vyborg Port shareholding.

25 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: That’s a fact without a label, isn’t

1 accordance with the contempt procedure, then we would

2 have considered what evidence we need to file to rebut

3 it. I think you will have gathered from

4 Mr Arkhangelsky’s answers that, just to take one

5 example, I was present at a number of relevant

6 discussions with Mr Vasiliev and so on. Some of them

7 may have been privileged, some of them may not. If they

8 were privileged, we would need to consider whether we

9 want to waive that privilege, and perhaps I could give

10 some relevant evidence.

11 Secondly, if I could summarise it briefly, rather

12 than taking you through correspondence —

13 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: I don’t want to stop you if you feel

14 that this is a matter which really can be demonstrated,

15 but it is true that facts often point both ways and can

16 be utilised in different contexts.

17 MR STROILOV: Well, that’s right, but I think I focus on

18 relevance in that sense.

19 The point I am making, really, just to expand on

20 relevance a bit, in a way it is all intermingled. It

21 wasn’t treated as relevant for the purposes of

22 disclosure, and the correspondence on this issue

23 consists of us pressing the Bank to disclose all the

24 documents they have in relation to Russian proceedings

25 relevant to this transfer, and they are not disclosing

61 63

1 it? You might say it is labelled, as it were, contempt,

2 but Mr Lord would say: I disavow the label of contempt.

3 The label on it is the substantive proceedings, and

4 I want to know in these substantive proceedings what the

5 answer is. Then he quite fairly gets up and says: if

6 you are worried about embarrassment or incrimination in

7 the freezing order, you may wish to consider whether or

8 not to answer. And I gave that warning and the witness,

9 from my recollection, already jaded, amazingly, is that

10 the witness was anxious, keen, to give the answer.

11 MR STROILOV: Yes, my Lord, but the difficulty with that is

12 if you put the case which on the facts amounts to

13 an allegation of contempt, and then at the last moment

14 you say, «But I am not calling it contempt», that is

15 a slippery slope, isn’t it, and then subsequently you do

16 put the contempt label to it, you know the answer as

17 well; when you cross-examine him for the third time, you

18 already know what it will be. You get the information

19 now which enables you to make further enquiries, and

20 that investigation which would have been a legitimate

21 investigation under the freezing order, in a way, it

22 stands on its head: it starts from cross-examination

23 where the cross-examiner, as he always does, scores some

24 points, admissions, inconsistencies and so on.

25 It should have been properly particularised in

1 them. So if it was thought irrelevant for disclosure

2 purposes, it cannot be relevant for cross-examination

3 purposes.

4 The second test I —

5 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Well, except on credit. You don’t

6 have to go for disclosure on credit. They also rely on

7 this in point of credit, as I understand it.

8 MR STROILOV: Yes, my Lord, but I think there is a limit to

9 what you can bring in under the credit heading, and if

10 it is a matter which is very much at the centre of this

11 court’s attention, such as compliance with the freezing

12 order, you know, it creates quite a mess in terms of

13 mixing two processes which it is fundamentally important

14 to keep apart.

15 Secondly, I think another test in terms of relevance

16 is simply whether or not we could have reasonably

17 anticipated that we need to file evidence on this.

18 Again, we didn’t, but perhaps we shouldn’t have.

19 So you have cross-examination without any issue

20 arising on the pleadings, without evidence being filed,

21 without disclosure being made, and —

22 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: But then, if that were true, your

23 recourse would be to apply to adduce evidence on the

24 point on the ground that it wasn’t relevant previously,

25 and I would either allow it or not, and if I allowed it,

62 64
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

February 29, 2016 Day 18

1 I would allow cross-examination on it.

2 MR STROILOV: Well, possibly, my Lord, but really the normal

3 way it would be done, it has to be done in stages.

4 Allegations have to be made. They have to be answered.

5 Then disclosure, then evidence, then cross-examination,

6 really, and starting — it’s rather an unfair process if

7 you start with cross-examination on some other issue,

8 and then and only then you have evidence of disclosure

9 and so on. It’s just it’s quite —

10 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Mr Lord’s note indicated that

11 Mr Milner had said: don’t ask it now, ask it later.

12 MR STROILOV: Well, my Lord, I think I haven’t been able to

13 check the context in which he said it —

14 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Well, neither have I, and I am afraid

15 I couldn’t access Magnum over the short adjournment.

16 I’m sorry, but I didn’t capture that transcript, but if

17 he did say that, you were rather forewarned, weren’t

18 you, at the very least?

19 MR STROILOV: My Lord, I would simply submit that, with

20 respect, he was mistaken on that occasion, because

21 clearly —

22 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: But even if he was mistaken, the

23 matter had been raised. Supposing he was wrong to say

24 it could be asked later; nevertheless, the fact is that

25 you knew and took a view as to whether you should or

1 No, that doesn’t seem right, {I1/1/0.13}. Can we just

2 try page 13, then. I am afraid it is something strange.

3 My numbering doesn’t seem to … {I1/1/0.18} yes,

4 I think that’s Baker & McKenzie —

5 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: 18, is that right? I see in

6 paragraph 2 there is some reference to it.

7 MR STROILOV: No, I think what you see on the screen is

8 actually what I wanted.

9 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: It is, is it?

10 MR STROILOV: Yes.

11 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: That’s a stroke of luck.

12 MR STROILOV: That’s really the substantive …

13 No, I think … sorry, my Lord, I am now confused.

14 I think if we could go to page 8, first. Keep this

15 open, because I wanted to take you to this. Could we

16 have on the other screen 8. {I1/1/0.13}, yes, my Lord,

17 that’s the one I wanted you to read, and this one I will

18 ask you to read throughout.

19 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: 0.13, okay. (Pause)

20 Right.

21 MR STROILOV: Yes, my Lord, and then if we could go to

22 page 13, the one we looked at previously, the

23 Baker & McKenzie letter of 13 April {I1/1/0.18}.

24 It sets out their position as it was, but really the

25 element I wanted to look at … I’m sorry, my Lord,

65 67

1 shouldn’t put in evidence as to the relevant company.

2 MR STROILOV: I know, but the important thing is that this

3 whole issue arose and was discussed in massive

4 correspondence between the parties.

5 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Okay.

6 MR STROILOV: Only in the context of compliance with the

7 freezing order, and not as a substantive issue.

8 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Well, I am sorry to have interrupted,

9 if you want to show me some correspondence, but …

10 MR STROILOV: I do think it may be helpful, really, if we

11 could scroll down to page 6 of the same tab, where

12 I expand on that a little — no, I am afraid the

13 numbering is rather complex … {I1/1/0.11}

14 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Right, so do you want me to read the

15 whole lot?

16 MR STROILOV: Well, if you could just scan through it?

17 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: I’m so sorry, is there any particular

18 bit you want me to read?

19 MR STROILOV: I think the paragraph at the bottom of

20 the first page is the bit I had in mind.

21 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: «In these circumstances …»?

22 MR STROILOV: Yes.

23 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Right.

24 MR STROILOV: And then if we could go to {I1/1/0.13},

25 I think so. I am afraid I am not quite … {I1/1/0.13}.

1 I can’t immediately find the passage I am looking at.

2 I think something is wrong with my Magnum.

3 What I was looking for, my Lord, is a point where

4 the claimants, really they invite us to support the

5 action they are taking in the Russian court to set aside

6 the transfer. You may have found it sooner than I.

7 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: I am afraid not.

8 MR STROILOV: No, I do apologise. Yes, 30 April … so if

9 we could go to page 4 of that letter, which will be

10 at … I’m sorry, again I … so three pages down,

11 page 4 of that letter. One page up, if we could

12 {I1/1/21}, {I1/1/0.21}.

13 Sorry, it’s very confused.

14 It is just being updated as we speak, my Lord, I am

15 told now. That may be the reason for the difficulty.

16 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: I see.

17 MR STROILOV: On my screen it comes out as 0.21. {I1/1/0.21}

18 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Is that the one?

19 MR STROILOV: That’s the continuation of the same letter,

20 30 April.

21 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Excellent, right.

22 MR STROILOV: What I was looking at is paragraph 9 of that

23 letter. (Pause).

24 Have you finished, my Lord?

25 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Yes.

66 68
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

February 29, 2016 Day 18

1 MR STROILOV: And finally if you — now I am somewhat

2 anxious to experiment with this, but if we could try and

3 go to {I1/1/0.23}, that’s the last one, which is my

4 response to that letter. Then after the … I think if

5 we could scroll one page down {I1/1/0.24}, I think in

6 paragraph 6 I identify matters which the claimants knew

7 but clearly didn’t disclose, so I will ask you to read

8 through paragraph 6. (Pause)

9 If we could scroll down one page. {I1/1/0.25}

10 {I1/1/0.26} There in paragraphs 9 and 10 we respond to

11 the proposal to support the court action, towards the

12 bottom of the page. (Pause)

13 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Is it right, though, that the Bank, as

14 it were, found out about the transfer, not pursuant to

15 any disclosure, but pursuant to their investigations?

16 MR STROILOV: Well, my Lord, at the time we did tell them.

17 They said they know nothing about it.

18 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: But they then ferreted about and it

19 was on the public record in Russia. They then asked you

20 questions about it.

21 MR STROILOV: Well, obviously we started that

22 correspondence. We said: we’ve just learned about it.

23 They said in response: we know nothing about it. Then

24 subsequently it transpired to be inconsistent with what

25 they did, really, and the fact that they have been

1 seen the tail of that correspondence during

2 cross-examination, but that request for information and

3 documents which we made, essentially it was never

4 answered, we never got the documents. And there have

5 been a number of chasers until we really learn that the

6 information was used for a criminal investigation in

7 Russia where Mr Vasiliev gave such and such evidence,

8 and that’s something we learned, I think, in about

9 a year’s time. That was in 2015 already.

10 So, my Lord, what we say is it is apparent from this

11 correspondence that we were candid, and that was because

12 we thought we were obliged to be candid due to

13 the freezing order, and it would be unfair to use that

14 to build up parts of the substantive case.

15 Secondly —

16 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Well, no that’s not quite what

17 happened, is it? You spotted that there was the

18 transfer, and you thought: oh my God, they’re going to

19 think that we were involved in this transfer and that we

20 are in substantial breach of the freezing order. So you

21 write to them and say: it’s nothing to do with us; we’re

22 telling you that this thing looks pretty awful and it’s

23 nothing to do with us, just in case you get funny ideas

24 about that. And you ask for disclosure.

25 They then take up the thing, saying: yes, well,

69 71
1 responding to that in Russia at the same time. 1 that’s extraordinary, it’s nothing to do with us and we
2 But, well, ultimately that’s what really started 2 want to know more about it.
3 this whole exchange. That was our letter, telling them 3 Then there is a sort of impasse, and it raises quite
4 about that. 4 a lot of temperature, and in the background, of course,
5 My Lord, really the point I am making, and perhaps 5 there is the worry about the freezing injunction, but in
6 just to complete, if we could read over the page, the — 6 the foreground, is it not quite a — I mean, Vyborg was
7 {I1/1/0.27} 7 quite a prospectively valuable company; isn’t it of
8 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Which is the letter you rely on as 8 interest to be able to question who is right about these
9 being you telling them under the umbrella of 9 competing events?
10 the freezing order? 10 MR STROILOV: Simply apart from the freezing order, there is
11 MR STROILOV: Well, the very first one. The e-mail of 11 simply no relevance of that to these proceedings at all.
12 13th — 12 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: But you say it is beyond the pale even
13 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Could we just have another look at 13 of credibility, do you?
14 that? 14 MR STROILOV: Well, obviously in a way anything is relevant
15 MR STROILOV: Yes, just a second, my Lord. 15 to credibility, anything that’s — so there is, I think,
16 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Is that 0.11? {I1/1/0.11} 16 a balancing exercise how far you can allow the
17 MR STROILOV: No, I think that is an earlier one. It will 17 questioning to go into matters which are otherwise
18 be at — no, that’s not correct. I think it is 18 irrelevant simply to challenge the credibility.
19 {I1/1/1}. Isn’t it still there? No. 19 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: But things which are credibility only
20 Should I try to search by the date, 13 February. 20 are, by definition, not sort of relevant facts, and
21 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Okay. 21 often you are rather cross because your witness is
22 MR STROILOV: Yes, now I think it is page 0.6. {I1/1/0.6} 22 confronted with something they’d never heard of, but
23 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Right. 23 this has been well ventilated. This has been the
24 MR STROILOV: So, my Lord, just to — perhaps it is really 24 subject of heated exchange.
25 not necessary to read a lot, especially because you have 25 MR STROILOV: But only in the context of the freezing order,
70 72
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

February 29, 2016 Day 18

1 that’s the point.

2 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: I don’t know whether they were

3 applying in the context. Maybe they were, maybe they

4 thought it was — they have raised this issue of mirror

5 companies, they have raised the issue as to whether

6 things are truly as they seem to be, you know. It seems

7 on the cusp of relevance to an actual substantive matter

8 and credibility; it seems quite difficult for me to say

9 with absolute — I’m just not going to hear anything

10 about it.

11 MR STROILOV: My Lord, as far as the substantive case is

12 concerned, I think just to reiterate, the dates say it

13 all. 2009 would be relevant, 2014 clearly isn’t.

14 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: I understand that on the — subject to

15 Mr Lord, I think it is a stretch to say that it is

16 directly relevant to any pleaded issue, but is it really

17 right that it is so irrelevant that it is actually

18 beyond the pale of asking questions about this on issues

19 of credibility?

20 MR STROILOV: My Lord, there is an additional consideration

21 of, really, preserving the integrity of the proceedings

22 by keeping freezing order process separate from the

23 substantive process. So if it was something different,

24 I would have been more relaxed about it.

25 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: But the freezing order is not to

1 MR LORD: My Lord, that might be right, save that, of

2 course, the counterclaim makes very substantial claims

3 for business losses, and your Lordship has the evidence

4 of Mr Arkhangelsky about the way in which OMG group

5 companies’ monies were transferred between different OMG

6 companies. Your Lordship has seen the number of

7 occasions on which he tried to refinance with a loan

8 taken out by OMG company A, with a view to providing

9 funds for OMG company B, and therefore, in my respectful

10 submission, it would be relevant, or arguably relevant,

11 to the quantum of the counterclaim in that regard. So,

12 that’s the first point.

13 But, secondly, although it is not an issue on the

14 face of the pleadings, the second half of

15 the defendants’ opening was devoted to complaints about

16 the potential unfairness of the trial or the litigation,

17 and it is impossible to see how questions about the

18 available assets and the true asset base of these

19 defendants and counterclaimants is not fairly and

20 squarely in play, as it were, on the defendants’ own

21 claims.

22 They have come to this court saying that although

23 they make a counterclaim for hundreds of millions of

24 dollars, they are so impecunious that they can’t afford

25 to pay for even junior counsel.

73

1 snooker Mr Lord. The fact that you have a freezing

2 order doesn’t snooker you and put the ball behind any

3 question, does it? That’s what you are really saying:

4 someone who has a freezing order must suffer the problem

5 that the ball he wants to hit is behind the freezing

6 ball. I don’t think that’s right, is it?

7 MR STROILOV: I think it is more discretionary, in a way.

8 If something is relevant to the proceedings and at the

9 same time relevant to the freezing order, obviously it

10 will have been admissible. If something is otherwise

11 not relevant to the proceedings but relevant to

12 the freezing order, that’s more problematic, especially

13 if there is an attack on credibility, and the attack in

14 substance is: you have breached the freezing order, you

15 can’t be trusted.

16 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Right.

17 MR STROILOV: And, really, that’s going into allegations of

18 contempt by the back door without observing all the

19 safeguards there are for that process.

20 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Right.

21 MR STROILOV: So, my Lord, I think unless I can help you on

22 this issue further, I think that’s what I have to say.

23 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Thank you.

24 Yes, Mr Lord, it is not all together easy to tie it

25 into a pleaded issue, is it?

75

1 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Well, it is my ignorance and

2 I apologise for it. I can quite understand that if

3 Mr Arkhangelsky in fact had in his pocket the

4 potentialities of Vyborg Port from 2013 onwards, that

5 might have cast rather a different complexion on the

6 applications which were made for appointment of

7 a Mackenzie friend and everything else. I can quite see

8 that, but it isn’t an issue in the proceedings. Is it

9 nevertheless a matter on which cross-examination can

10 take place? You say yes, because although it is not

11 a pleaded issue, it’s a matter relevant to the proper

12 adjudication of the process.

13 MR LORD: And to credibility, and we have never accepted,

14 from what I can see, at any stage, the claim to

15 impecuniosity. We have not accepted that. It will be

16 a matter in closing submissions, my Lord, whether that

17 is properly substantiated.

18 And, my Lord, we are slightly surprised about the

19 degree of concern here, because if Dr Arkhangelsky is

20 right, he has an interest in a very valuable asset for

21 Vyborg Port and he doesn’t know what’s become of it.

22 And it appears that it is, at least to a degree —

23 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: I don’t think that’s what he says.

24 I think he thinks that in order to frame him, stitch him

25 up, a transfer was effected of the interest in Vyborg to

74 76
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

February 29, 2016 Day 18

1 this other company, with a view to laying in wait and 1 between the OMG structure.
2 saying: what the heck are you doing? Meantime, the 2 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Well, I suppose a simple test of that
3 transferee; I think the implication of what 3 would be: you ask Mr Arkhangelsky to cooperate in
4 Mr Arkhangelsky says is that it’s another, what he would 4 the return from the transferee company to OMG of these
5 regard as a Renord-Invest-type situation, where although 5 shares, presumably because that would have in part
6 it looks independent, it is in fact owned by the Bank. 6 addressed your claims.
7 That’s what I understand his supposition to be. 7 MR LORD: Yes, and we think, and thought, that there would
8 MR LORD: I’m not sure that is his supposition, my Lord, but 8 be a mutual interest. But if, in fact, these shares —
9 your Lordship will recollect that the exchange with 9 without going into deciding who is right and who is
10 Mr Milner was in the context of the Withers letter 10 wrong in this question of: it’s not me, it’s you, but
11 last July, which I took the witnesses to, explaining the 11 just taking a step back, the evidence is that
12 payments that were made, the continuing payments that 12 Vyborg Port was worth hundreds of millions of dollars.
13 were being made. 13 There is no suggestion that Bank of St Petersburg — no
14 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: You say it’s very odd that they are 14 allegation that Bank of St Petersburg ever tried to
15 getting money, and they say they were too shy to ask, or 15 snatch this asset. That’s one of the few things that
16 whatever they did say, but that rather Delphic sentence 16 isn’t alleged in this case.
17 at the end of the Withers paragraph. And you can make 17 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: What, possibly.
18 all sorts of points as to whether that is convincing, 18 MR LORD: Sorry?
19 but I was just correcting you as to my appreciation of 19 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Possibly. It may be being suggested
20 what Mr Arkhangelsky’s supposition is. 20 they have snatched it through the transferee company.
21 MR LORD: My Lord, it was a perfectly fair line of 21 MR LORD: I am not sure they did suggest that, my Lord, and
22 questioning about what has become of those assets. The 22 I am slightly troubled with that sort of extrapolation,
23 idea that because you are subject to a freezing 23 because I don’t think that’s necessarily what was being
24 injunction, any questions about the assets that might be 24 said. I will double-check, but it is important,
25 covered by that order are off limits, that would be to 25 I think, not to stretch the conspiracy theory any
77 79

1 turn it on its head.

2 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: I think what Mr Stroilov is trying to

3 persuade me of is this: that a freezing order is a means

4 of extracting information you would not otherwise have

5 obtained and of putting pressure. It may not have been

6 the primary intention, but it is a consequence.

7 In those circumstances the court should be

8 particularly vigilant to ensure that questions in

9 cross-examination are proper questions, not exclusively

10 or primarily directed towards the freezing order or some

11 suggestion of its breach, and where the only relevance

12 is credibility, to take a particularly strong line.

13 I think that is what he is saying.

14 MR LORD: Yes. My Lord, I have made points that it clearly

15 goes to the OMG business position. Even in 2014 there

16 are claims for ongoing losses. If, in fact, it is the

17 case that in fact OMG had available greater resource

18 than it claims, that is obviously relevant to its claims

19 that it couldn’t do various things at that time. The

20 fact that it is not a claim for Vyborg Port doesn’t mean

21 that Vyborg Port resources couldn’t have been used for

22 other purposes.

23 We have seen evidence, we have seen lots of evidence

24 of the way OMG was treated by Dr Arkhangelsky as a sort

25 of — well, he was prepared to transfer money around

1 further than it has been stretched.

2 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: I thought there was some reference in

3 something Mr Stroilov told me.

4 MR STROILOV: I think there was this suspicion expressed in

5 correspondence, but it is obviously not part of

6 the pleaded counterclaim, so it is just part of that

7 correspondence, no more than that.

8 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Yes.

9 MR LORD: My Lord, and there was evidence about V-Bank’s

10 security interests over Vyborg Port.

11 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Yes.

12 MR LORD: But that seemed principally to be a V-Bank

13 and Vyborg Port area of the case, and it seems odd that

14 that valuable company, that Dr Arkhangelsky can’t

15 explain what’s become of that company, and you would

16 think that there would be an interest of

17 Bank of St Petersburg, as a creditor, and

18 Dr Arkhangelsky, entitled to whatever net equity seems

19 to be, on the figures, available still in this port

20 business, in finding out why shares have been wrongfully

21 transferred.

22 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: I think they did express that in

23 the bottom of the letter that I saw, where they said:

24 actually, we would be quite interested in reclawing this

25 back, if you would cooperate, but we need to know a bit

78 80
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

February 29, 2016 Day 18

1 more about the facts and we would like some disclosure

2 from you. That’s my understanding. I only saw it very

3 quickly, but that’s what I read.

4 MR LORD: My Lord, there were various exchanges in 2014 with

5 each side saying the other side must know more about it.

6 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Yes.

7 MR LORD: And that’s where the matter seemed to have been

8 left. And then in 2015, in July —

9 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Do you have documents on this issue?

10 MR LORD: We have given some disclosure in July.

11 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Have you given full disclosure on the

12 footing of it being a relevant issue?

13 MR LORD: Mr Birt is going to deal with the disclosure

14 points.

15 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: I’m not looking at it in terms of

16 whether it has been completed; I’m looking in terms of

17 the test of whether you think it is a proper issue.

18 MR LORD: I will let Mr Birt deal with it.

19 MR BIRT: In a sense, without trying to respond to

20 an application that has not been made, but simply to

21 address your Lordship’s point, there was an exercise

22 that was conducted last July in the context of the

23 letter that RPC wrote, I think it was 21 July and

24 I think some documents were attached to that, and they

25 were the product of working out which documents the Bank

1 If we are going to get into issues of disclosure and

2 further disclosure in relation to Vyborg Port at

3 Mr Stroilov’s behest, then I would reserve my position

4 in that regard in the light of what he said 20 minutes

5 ago. But I don’t think we need to go into that.

6 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: On disclosure, I was, to some extent,

7 tweaking your tail to try and see what the proof of

8 the pudding was. If you regarded this as an issue on

9 the pleadings, then, without application, your duty was

10 to disclose. You tell me that the matter having been

11 raised, actually, full disclosure was given, such that

12 on a recheck, none further is available. So you would

13 say that the pudding is proved. I don’t know whether

14 that is so or not, but that’s what you would say?

15 MR LORD: Yes, and I will look at the question of what

16 Mr Stroilov said earlier. I mean, clearly there have

17 been questions in this litigation about the fate of

18 Vyborg Port, and I take from his earlier submissions

19 that there is potentially further material within the

20 defendants’ control that bears upon this question, which

21 has not been disclosed by the defendants, Mr Stroilov

22 being aware of that material, on the basis that some

23 claim to privilege is going to be claimed, and I will

24 need to look at that and I reserve all my clients’

25 rights in that regard.

81 83

1 had as a result of the criminal process, which were

2 relevant to the issues that — certainly the issues that

3 Mr Lord cross-examined on, including assets available to

4 Mr and/or Mrs Arkhangelskaya, and who is behind Akort

5 and the transfer.

6 So RPC, since this was raised again on Thursday,

7 have caused a further review of documents to be done to

8 see if there are any others, and there are not. The

9 documents that fall to be disclosed have been disclosed

10 and there aren’t any others that fall to be disclosed

11 relating to those points, my Lord.

12 Sorry to do it in that slightly garbled way. In

13 a sense, it is a product of not meeting an application

14 and simply telling your Lordship that when the exercise

15 was done last July, there was a search, if you like.

16 I don’t know if it was a search — or where it was done,

17 I haven’t got that information, but there was a review

18 done and RPC have rechecked that since Thursday and can

19 give the confirmation that all the disclosable documents

20 have been disclosed, my Lord.

21 MR LORD: And, my Lord, there is an issue on what

22 Mr Stroilov has just said. Mr Stroilov made some

23 submissions about some other meetings, I think, or

24 exchanges to which he was privy. That’s the first —

25 I must say, I need to look at that and think about that.

1 In terms of the application more generally,

2 your Lordship has our note.

3 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Yes.

4 MR LORD: I dealt on page 2 with the unwarranted suggestion

5 that there was anything improper about the line of

6 questioning. As your Lordship rightly points out, the

7 fact that there is a freezing injunction doesn’t give

8 a respondent or defendant some sort of exemption from

9 being asked questions, and Mr Stroilov appears to be

10 turning the whole process on its head.

11 I very fairly took your Lordship to the context, and

12 your Lordship is right to note that, whether warning

13 needed to be given, warning was given, and the

14 questioning proceeded on that basis.

15 Complaint is made about an absence of counsel, but

16 Mr Stroilov has been licensed to conduct this case, and

17 there is absolutely no bar to his having been in Paris,

18 and we do think that is a point that is worth noting:

19 Dr Arkhangelsky clearly understood the issue, and

20 your Lordship is right that he seemed keen to go on to

21 deal with the points.

22 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Put it this way: I am sure in my own

23 mind, and I hope not rewriting my own mind, that had

24 Mr Arkhangelsky said it was a matter on which he wished

25 to consult with Mr Stroilov and/or Mr Ameli and/or

82 84
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

February 29, 2016 Day 18

1 anyone else, then I would have asked you to defer the

2 questioning until later.

3 MR LORD: Yes. Yes. My Lord, it is also right to note that

4 the matter was flagged in our opening. If we could

5 have, please, {AA1/7/238} on screen, please. Looking at

6 the foot of the page, it starts with «‘Mirror’

7 companies», 742, then 743:

8 «Transfer of OMGP’s shares in Vyborg Port to Akort»,

9 and if you go over the page, one can see what was said

10 in our opening, and then 744. {AA1/7/239}

11 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Yes, could you take me to what

12 Mr Milner said?

13 MR LORD: Yes, it is {L7/35/106}. That picks up the context

14 of the exchange. I took your Lordship, at one of these

15 case management hearings, I think in July last year, to

16 that Withers letter, which I took Dr Arkhangelsky to.

17 Does your Lordship recollect — probably your Lordship

18 recollects the letter, but the letter itself is at

19 {I15/15/103}, so that was the letter that I was asking

20 about. If we could maybe have that on the other screen,

21 if it is possible. I am sorry to ask so much.

22 Your Lordship will see on the screen the Withers letter.

23 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Yes.

24 MR LORD: If we could scroll down, please, to the third page

25 of the letter, at {I15/15/105}, and if you could blow it

1 course these are relevant matters for the trial. What

2 became of Vyborg Port is obviously a matter for the

3 trial because it is a relevant matter, it goes to

4 a number of issues of credibility, and the point of

5 the trial process is to find out what happened in a lot

6 of respects in relation to this dispute, this being one

7 of them; to get to the bottom of things and find out

8 what happened.

9 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Presumably when your clients searched

10 the corporate records and found this out for themselves,

11 having been alerted to it initially by the defendants,

12 they kept a copy of all that. I mean, is the fact that

13 it is now registered in the name of the transferee in

14 the evidence? Was it disclosed and is it in

15 the evidence?

16 MR LORD: I’m not sure, my Lord. I will have to check.

17 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: One would imagine they had it, so one

18 would imagine that would be number 1 in disclosure,

19 which might be a test as to whether full disclosure has

20 been given.

21 MR LORD: Well, according to the letter from

22 Baker & McKenzie, it’s in a register. There is

23 a register of company interests. I think that’s what

24 was said.

25 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: So they didn’t take a copy. It may be

85 87
1 up a bit so we can see the second and third paragraphs. 1 that they didn’t.
2 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Yes, what I was trying to encapsulate: 2 MR LORD: I’m not sure.
3 «… disinclined to question these payments in view 3 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: All I’m trying to get at is the fact
4 of their extremely straitened, even desperate 4 that it is in the name of the transferee, whatever may
5 circumstances.» 5 be the explanation of that, on the record, and a matter
6 MR LORD: So that was the letter that was then the subject 6 of which complaint is made in the proceedings. That’s
7 of some submissions in the July CMC, as your Lordship 7 what it comes down to.
8 sees on the other screen, at {L7/35/106}, so I was 8 MR LORD: Well, my Lord, we will look into this to see
9 making submissions to your Lordship about the 9 whether there is any further — whether we can cast some
10 potential — about these matters. Then at the bottom, 10 further light on it, and we would expect that the
11 Mr Milner said this, at line 41: 11 defendants would do likewise; if there are further steps
12 «There is nothing for your Lordship to rule upon 12 that we can take, we obviously will give some thought to
13 here. It seems to be referred to really to draw up 13 that, my Lord.
14 a cloud of prejudice against my client, which is 14 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Yes, but if I asked you the further
15 unfortunate because we have responded fully to what has 15 question, which is to direct me in your pleadings to
16 been said.» 16 where the fact of registration in the name of
17 Then he goes on. But then he said this, in line 10 17 the transferee is pleaded and complaint made, I think
18 {L7/35/107}: 18 you would struggle.
19 «If the claimants want to pursue it further then 19 MR LORD: We haven’t pleaded the fact of that, my Lord.
20 that is fine … and if they want to ask Mr Arkhangelsky 20 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: No.
21 about it at trial, they can do that as well…» 21 MR LORD: It goes to the question of the quantum claim we
22 So the point in our opening, to which no objection 22 face and the resources available and it goes to
23 was taken, was that certainly that point was flagged up 23 questions of impecuniosity and credibility, so to be
24 sufficiently at this hearing, and Mr Milner, we say 24 fair, that would not be something that would fall to be
25 correctly — there is no criticism of Mr Milner, but of 25 pleaded by my clients and therefore to be followed up —
86 88
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

February 29, 2016 Day 18

1 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: No, I think that’s what it comes down 1 of questioning and I would be very concerned if we were
2 to: it is not an issue, really, in the proceedings, but 2 stopped from asking those questions.
3 it is an issue going to quantum and going to credit. 3 If, in fact, there are submissions to be made about
4 MR LORD: Yes. 4 weight, the weight to be attached to answers, then
5 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: I think that’s what it comes down to. 5 that’s a matter that can be done in closing.
6 MR LORD: Yes. 6 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: But I suppose you would also say it
7 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: I surmise, though Mr Stroilov may 7 could go to the issue of conspiracy — I know you are
8 redirect me, that one of their issues is as to whether 8 not meant to call it conspiracy, but the Russian
9 they have adequately dealt with in the evidence. 9 equivalent of conspiracy — upon the footing that if it
10 I imagine you would say: well, they have had plenty of 10 was really the aim and object of the conspiracy with its
11 warning and they have made their bed and must lie in it; 11 political overtones, if they existed as alleged, to bag
12 but are you averse on any other grounds, if they want to 12 everything for one side and deprive the other side of
13 put in more evidence, to them doing so? 13 all that he and she possibly had. I suppose that, given
14 MR LORD: We would have to see what that evidence is and 14 that this matter had been raised, that might also go to
15 look at it first. Your Lordship will recollect that 15 the likelihood or not of there having been such
16 Dr Arkhangelsky has given evidence about Vyborg Port. 16 a conspiracy.
17 He has given a fair degree of evidence about it in his 17 MR LORD: Yes, and your Lordship is very right on that, and
18 witness statement. This point has been live at least 18 I’m going to be warning Mr Ameli of a question, but
19 since July. The witness statements were served at the 19 since he is here and we are here, I might as well.
20 end of August 2015. Following on that exchange at the 20 One of the points that Mr Ameli identifies as
21 CMC, it is a bit hard to see how that’s a matter that 21 a curiosity — I won’t take your Lordship to it — is
22 couldn’t have been addressed. But I am not in any way 22 the fact that the Vyborg Port, the valuable OMG
23 going to prejudge any attempt to adduce further 23 business, the most valuable, principal asset of
24 evidence, if, in fact, that’s what the defendants would 24 the Arkhangelskys, doesn’t appear, on the face of
25 like to do. If they want to seek to serve further 25 things, to have been targeted by the
89 91

1 evidence in and about Vyborg Port and its fate, then

2 that’s a matter which is up to them, really.

3 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: What are the rules — this is rather

4 a general question on cross-examining simply as to

5 credit. I mean, you are not allowed to put forward

6 fanciful suggestions. You must have some basis, but you

7 say you have.

8 MR LORD: My questioning was essentially one, your Lordship

9 will recollect, of pointing to the various documents

10 that suggested Mr Vasiliev had been given various

11 authorities to deal with Vyborg Port, and probing what

12 had become of Vyborg Port in those circumstances.

13 Certainly I would take objection to being closed off

14 from this line of questioning, particularly in view of

15 the allegations of impecuniosity that have been very

16 strongly made and do underpin the counterclaim. It is

17 said there is no resource to do a number of different

18 things, continuing up to today, both in the business

19 context — so on the quantum of the counterclaim, so

20 that goes to a pleaded issue to that extent; the

21 credibility of the impecuniosity, putting it that way,

22 goes to an issue in the case, and clearly goes to

23 an allegation of impecuniosity more generally in terms

24 of the litigation. That’s leaving aside credit, pure

25 credit. So there is plenty of basis to allow this sort

1 Bank of St Petersburg as part of their conspiracy to

2 steal the valuable assets of the OMG empire. And that’s

3 a point that I am I’m going to ask Mr Ameli about this

4 afternoon, and we will see what he says about it and so

5 on. But your Lordship is absolutely right that there

6 are credibility issues here that fan out in a number of

7 different respects, and the idea you would close off

8 that questioning we say would be wrong.

9 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Mr Stroilov, do you want to add

10 anything?

11 MR STROILOV: I think, yes, very briefly by way of reply.

12 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Yes.

13 MR STROILOV: I must say I’m rather astonished by the

14 suggestion that standard disclosure on this issue has

15 been given and I wonder whether my learned friends want

16 to reconsider that answer.

17 I think that goes to where we left, really; I have

18 correspondence, I am afraid I will have to ask you to

19 read a few further paragraphs. So if you go back to my

20 letter of 12 May 2014, which starts at {I1/1/0.23}, and

21 if we could now scroll down to page 0.25 {I1/1/0.25},

22 that’s where we left, my Lord. That’s where you were

23 reading but we didn’t reach the next page. If you could

24 please scroll down one more page to {I1/1/0.26} and if

25 you could just read to the end of that paragraph.

90 92
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

February 29, 2016 Day 18

1 (Pause). 1 rely on the loss of Vyborg Port as part of
2 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Yes. 2 the counterclaim case. We don’t rely on the events of
3 MR STROILOV: My Lord, now, if you could, reference was made 3 2014 in relation to Vyborg Port at all and so, really,
4 to what was disclosed under the cover of the RPC letter 4 apart from credibility, you can’t really see the
5 of 21 July. If you could look at it at {I15/15/65}, and 5 relevance.
6 the bottom paragraph describes what has been disclosed. 6 Of course the questions of fairness of the trial and
7 (Pause). 7 submissions which were made in relation to what needs to
8 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Right. 8 be done to keep the trial fair is quite a separate thing
9 MR STROILOV: So, my Lord, at the very least, there should 9 from the substantive case and it doesn’t justify
10 have been all the files from the civil cases in relation 10 cross-examination as such, really. The trial is —
11 to this transfer the Bank was involved in, and they’ve 11 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Why not? I mean, why should I accept
12 never been disclosed. Obviously there would be — 12 the say-so without testing whether actually there is
13 presumably, if there were investigations, there would be 13 less of a threat to the process than you have proposed?
14 various documents we cannot guess until they are — 14 MR STROILOV: Well, I don’t say you should; I say it is not
15 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Which civil cases, I’m sorry? 15 a part of the trial.
16 MR STROILOV: The ones we asked about in the previous 16 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: You are allowed to tell me anything
17 letters: the application to set aside the transfer, the 17 and they are not allowed to test it?
18 application to enforce the BVI — 18 MR STROILOV: I just say it is not a part of the trial and
19 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: I don’t know whether there were any. 19 it is important, really, to keep the trial on the
20 They say there was a criminal investigation and it 20 relevant issues, which are issues of substance. It is
21 turned out that in fact, according to that, 21 dangerous, because it — really, well, if you mix
22 Mr Arkhangelsky remained the beneficiary of 22 procedural matters with substantive, with the freezing
23 the companies and they said he has the documentation in 23 order, I mean in the end you risk doing all three
24 relation to that. What other civil processes are you — 24 unfairly.
25 MR STROILOV: Before that we asked — the previous letter 25 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Mm. Well, I would be the first to
93 95

1 I took you to.

2 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: I know you asked, but what basis was

3 there for supposing the word «civil» —

4 MR STROILOV: Because we knew that there were civil

5 proceedings in the Russian courts and that’s not

6 disputed, that there were, and we asked for documents on

7 them and we are still waiting for them.

8 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: So they haven’t been disclosed, you

9 say?

10 MR STROILOV: No, so it’s not standard disclosure; it’s

11 a selection of documents to prove a point, really, and,

12 again, I reserve the defendants’ rights in relation

13 to — well, it is quite apparent from the materials of

14 the criminal investigation that the investigator,

15 Levitskaya, was given the information we have shared as

16 part of this process, and asked to look into it, and

17 that’s a breach of undertaking, I would say.

18 But clearly there hasn’t been any standard

19 disclosure. I am amazed it is suggested that this issue

20 was treated as relevant for disclosure. And it wasn’t

21 treated as relevant for disclosure on our side, I accept

22 that, yes, because obviously it doesn’t arise on the

23 pleadings.

24 Of course there were references to Vyborg Port by

25 way of background to what the group was, but we don’t

1 admit that I have not consulted the evidence books as to

2 the proper limits of examination as to credit, but it

3 seems to me in this case that these questions cannot, as

4 presently I see the matter, subject to further

5 consideration, of course, be said to be without those

6 limits, and it seems to me that they do go to issues of

7 fairness of trial and may go to issues of quantum, and

8 my overall adjudication.

9 As I say, that is a provisional assessment, but

10 I see no reason, given that we have got Mr Ameli here,

11 to preclude Mr Lord asking those questions, and if, on

12 further examination, the answers appear not to be

13 admissible because they are not relevant evidence such

14 that I should take into account, then I will exclude

15 them.

16 MR STROILOV: I am obliged, my Lord.

17 May I now call Mr Ameli, then?

18 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Yes.

19 MR FRANÇOIS AMELI (Affirmed)

20 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Mr Ameli, do take a seat.

21 A. Thank you.

22 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: I hope you have some water. You will

23 be passed files and we will promise an end by the end of

24 the afternoon.

25 A. Thank you very much.

94 96
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

February 29, 2016 Day 18

1 Examination-in-chief by MR STROILOV

2 MR STROILOV: Can we please have on the screen {C1/4/1}.

3 Mr Ameli, this appears to be the first page of your

4 ninth witness statement.

5 A. Yes.

6 Q. And is that your witness statement prepared as your

7 evidence in these proceedings?

8 A. Yes.

9 Q. And could we please go to page 3 on the same tab? Is it

10 3? My Magnum is being funny.

11 Yes. Mr Ameli, is that your signature on the

12 screen? {C1/4/5}

13 A. Yes.

14 Q. And do you confirm on oath today that the evidence in

15 this statement is true to the best of your knowledge and

16 belief?

17 A. Yes.

18 MR STROILOV: If you stay there, my learned friend will have

19 some questions.

20 Cross-examination by MR LORD

21 MR LORD: Mr Ameli, could you be shown, please, {C1/4/1} and

22 paragraph 2, where you set out the respects in which you

23 represent Mr and Mrs Arkhangelsky; can you see that?

24 A. Yes.

25 Q. And could you be shown, please, your seventh affidavit

1 2012/2013.

2 Q. Right. How long had that coordination taken place up

3 to July 2013?

4 A. Well, it was almost from the time at which we lost

5 Bristows in the UK, which was I think around March 2012,

6 or something like that.

7 Q. Right.

8 A. And it went on until almost — you know, that was —

9 then the seventh was done in July 2013? Is that …?

10 I think that’s almost when I — that summer, I guess,

11 that’s where I began to slow down a little bit my work.

12 Q. Slow down a bit, but it sounds like you were still doing

13 a bit of work on proceedings in other jurisdictions

14 apart from France; would that be fair?

15 A. Well, BVI a little bit, but not Bulgaria, not Russia,

16 and not UK.

17 Q. Can I ask you, please, to be shown {I18&19/18/230.67}.

18 Sorry for the rather long reference. Trips off the

19 tongue.

20 Sorry, Mr Ameli, I apologise for that delay.

21 A. No problem.

22 Q. It’s a rather long reference.

23 This is an entry from the CoFrance website.

24 A. Mm hmm.

25 Q. And I was going to ask you just a couple of questions

97 99
1 at {G2/60/1}, please. This is your seventh affidavit. 1 about the entry on that site which seems to be promoting
2 A. Yes. 2 or advertising a conference in the Hotel Negresco in the
3 Q. And you will see in paragraph 1 you say this: 3 south of France in January 2014?
4 «I am an attorney at the Paris Bar —» 4 A. Yes.
5 And I should tell you, sorry: this was an affidavit 5 Q. If we could scroll down to the next page, which is
6 given on 4 July 2013. You say: 6 {I18&19/18/230.68}, thank you very much. You can see
7 «I am an attorney at the Paris Bar. I and my firm, 7 halfway down, at 16.30, which I think is 4.30 in
8 BEA Avocats, represent the defendants in a number of 8 the afternoon, it looks as if there was a session at
9 related proceedings in France; moreover, I coordinate 9 this conference on 22 January 2014 in which you were
10 the overall legal strategy of the international 10 going to play a part?
11 litigation between the parties in this case in France, 11 A. Yes.
12 Russia, Bulgaria, BVI and the UK.» 12 Q. And was there a session at this conference around that
13 Can you see that? 13 time in which you participated that addressed those
14 A. Yes, I can see that. 14 sorts of matters?
15 Q. I assume it was right as at July 2013 that you were 15 A. Yes.
16 carrying out that coordination on behalf of 16 Q. And can you tell his Lordship, what is your
17 the defendants; is that right? 17 relationship, if any, with CoFrance?
18 A. Yes, that’s true. 18 A. My relationship with CoFrance?
19 Q. And have you continued to carry out that sort of 19 Q. Yes.
20 coordination since that date? 20 A. CoFrance is Mr Arkhangelsky’s company that was
21 A. No, I did not continue. I just — that’s why my other 21 established in France. I can’t tell you when, I don’t
22 affidavit says that I was only in charge of France, 22 remember.
23 after — you know, because of the — mostly the 23 Q. No.
24 impecuniosity of Mr Arkhangelsky, I tried to, you know, 24 A. So I was working with CoFrance. CoFrance referred to me
25 do as less possible things from the end of 2013 — 25 maybe two clients since it began working in France.
98 100
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

February 29, 2016 Day 18

1 Q. And what does CoFrance do that would be relevant to your

2 business?

3 A. I really don’t — I haven’t worked for CoFrance. I have

4 been just referred to Russian clients, if I’m not

5 mistaken, by CoFrance. So I don’t really know

6 CoFrance’s business.

7 Q. So CoFrance sometimes refers clients to you?

8 A. Yes.

9 Q. So, the session at the Negresco conference that you took

10 part in, what was the purpose of this session? Why was

11 it being put on by the organisers, if you know that, and

12 why were you taking part?

13 A. My part was only to discuss about the legal issues

14 concerning recognition and enforcement of Russian

15 judgments in France, and so just to share my experience

16 on these issues.

17 Q. But why were you taking part in the conference? What

18 was your purpose in taking part in it?

19 A. My purpose?

20 Q. Was it to get business? Promote your services?

21 A. Well, here I was mostly — because you know that I have

22 two different — I work as a lawyer and I work also as

23 a professor at the Sorbonne, and in this case I was, you

24 know, more promoted as a professor, more than —

25 actually, I don’t know what «Professor Sainz by

1 the same time you had these issues of recognition and

2 enforcement of Russian judgments in France. I have

3 had — I don’t know — several cases of Russian citizens

4 with banks wanting to enforce and recognise their

5 decisions in France instead. Not that many, but some.

6 And there was also this other issue of Interpol

7 Red Notices and the fact that there was this sort of

8 very fuzzy relationship between the civil and criminal

9 cases, and since then I have also lectured at the French

10 Supreme Court, still on the same thing, on Red Notices,

11 Interpol Red Notices.

12 So there’s no real — I mean, I don’t have that many

13 Russian clients, if this is what you want me to tell you

14 about, but at that time, I was hoping that I’m going to

15 have a lot more, but there hasn’t been that many.

16 Q. And what’s your split of time between the Sorbonne and

17 your practice?

18 A. About, let’s say, 25 per cent of the — 75/25.

19 75 per cent as a lawyer and 25 per cent as a lecturer at

20 the Sorbonne. Although I’m considered as being a French

21 civil servant working full-time at the university.

22 Q. Right. I wonder, could I ask you, please, about the

23 meeting you had with Mr Novikov.

24 A. Sure.

25 Q. Which I think is at {C1/4/2}.

101

1 François» really means, but a professor at the Sorbonne;

2 and I was, you know, mostly, I do a lot of this kind of

3 lecture, so to promote myself or to promote the subject,

4 both.

5 Q. And do you lecture at the Sorbonne in these sorts of

6 matters?

7 A. Oh yes, this is part of my speciality.

8 Q. In Russian cases in the European courts?

9 A. Russian cases, cases from all over the world. I work

10 with a lot of different cases, Middle East, US, UK,

11 many — coming from many, many countries, yes.

12 Q. And do you tend to act for a particular type of client

13 in this sort of work? Do you tend to act for —

14 A. No. Not a particular type. No, no, not really.

15 I represent many different — I represent companies,

16 I represent — I don’t know if you mean Russian clients,

17 or …?

18 Q. It was really, if you are talking — I think, looking at

19 that session, it covered questions about enforcing

20 debts, didn’t it, against creditors?

21 A. Yes.

22 Q. And I wasn’t sure whether you would be typically on the

23 side of the creditor or the debtor or whether one

24 couldn’t really say there?

25 A. No, not really. This case was interesting because at

103

1 A. Yes.

2 Q. You explain the upshot of that meeting, starting at

3 paragraph 6?

4 A. Yes.

5 Q. Thank you, Mr Ameli. You refer in paragraph 9 to

6 an exhibit, which I think should be {D145/2424.1/1},

7 please, and if you could possibly have that up on the

8 parallel screen, that would be helpful.

9 Sorry, Mr Ameli, just bear with me while that is

10 brought up.

11 A. No problem. Are these my notes?

12 Q. I think it is; I hope it is. Does that look like the

13 note?

14 A. Yes, these are the English translation of my French

15 notes, actually.

16 Q. Oh right.

17 A. I took them in French.

18 Q. Do you have those original notes, then?

19 A. Yes.

20 Q. Where are they?

21 A. I have it with me, if you want I can take them.

22 Q. Okay. I think pages 3 and 4, yes, if we scroll down

23 {D145/2424.1/3}.

24 A. Yes, that’s it.

25 Q. Is that the one? And then on {D145/2424.1/4}, if we

102 104
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

February 29, 2016 Day 18

1 scroll on.

2 A. Yes.

3 Q. The note was in French and it has been translated and

4 that’s the document?

5 A. Right. Absolutely.

6 Q. Yes, okay. If we go back to paragraph 9 of your witness

7 statement on {C1/4/2}:

8 «I exhibit my note of the meeting (which was not

9 intended to be anything like a complete or verbatim

10 note) …»

11 A. Yes.

12 Q. Just pausing there, looking at the French version of

13 the note you have exhibited, it doesn’t seem to be

14 dated, does it?

15 A. No. That’s — I was very embarrassed about that because

16 I could not remember which date it was, really. And

17 I know that our meeting was some time between — I went

18 to St Petersburg on 30 March and I stayed there until

19 4 April, and I can’t remember whether it was on Friday,

20 1 April or on Monday, 4 April that we … contrary to

21 what I said here, I’m pretty sure it was not on

22 31 March, but I can’t tell you whether it was on 1 April

23 or 4 April.

24 Q. Because if we look in paragraph 7 of your witness

25 statement, which is up on screen.

1 time. The first question was whether any personal

2 guarantee existed or not; that was the first question

3 that I wanted to ask him.

4 Q. Yes.

5 A. And the second question was why the relationship between

6 Bank of St Petersburg and Mr Arkhangelsky on one side

7 and the V-Bank and Mr Arkhangelsky on the other side

8 were so different, because the problem — he had the

9 same type of problems with both banks: he could not pay

10 them, pay them back. One was acting very calmly,

11 peacefully, and with the other one there were so many

12 problems. So we wanted to find out why this was.

13 Q. So it was an important meeting with Mr Novikov?

14 A. Yes.

15 Q. And did you take a note when you were there of what

16 Mr Novikov was saying?

17 A. Yes. These notes were taken when I was there.

18 Q. What, you actually typed them up there and then, did

19 you?

20 A. Yes. I had my computer with me.

21 Q. And so why do you say in paragraph 9 that this:

22 «… was not intended to be anything like a complete

23 or verbatim note…»

24 A. Excuse me?

25 Q. Do you mean — how did you decide which bits of

105 107
1 A. Yes. 1 the interview you were going to record?
2 Q. It seems that you went to St Petersburg to meet 2 A. Oh, you know, the fact is that in French courts in civil
3 Mr Novikov around that time, around about late March, 3 cases we don’t have this kind of procedure going on, so
4 early 2009? 4 witness statements are important, but not that
5 A. I flew there on the 30th, yes, and I spent a lot of time 5 important, so my — actually, I didn’t intend at that
6 with a lot of witnesses on the 31st, 1st, and 4th. 6 time to use Mr Novikov’s witness statement before the
7 Q. And you say in paragraph 7: 7 courts. I’m pretty sure that Geoffrey Gauci intended
8 «Other participants of the meeting were two English 8 that, so maybe his notes would be much more complete
9 solicitors acting for Mr Arkhangelsky (Geoffrey 9 than mine, but mine was only, you know, I was just — in
10 Gauci…» 10 this case of personal guarantees, that’s all I needed to
11 I think he was at the Negresco conference as well, 11 know.
12 wasn’t he? 12 Q. You were focusing on certain topics?
13 A. Yes. 13 A. Yes.
14 Q. «… and Annabelle Maddison, an associate, at 14 Q. I understand. But you think that Mr Gauci took some
15 Bristows)…» 15 notes when he —
16 A. Yes. 16 A. I’m pretty sure, yes, much more than I did.
17 Q. Is that right, that they were also at this meeting? 17 Q. Handwriting or typing, do you think?
18 A. Yes, yes, we went there together. 18 A. He usually is a handwriting type of guy.
19 Q. » … and another person from V-Bank who was not 19 Q. And did the associate, Ms Maddison, take any notes to
20 introduced to us and who did not seem to speak English.» 20 the best of your recollection?
21 A. Yes. 21 A. I don’t recall. I don’t remember.
22 Q. And is it right that the purpose of your going to 22 Q. Could I ask you to look at the note itself; are you okay
23 Mr Novikov was in order to potentially proof him as 23 with me going to the English version, Mr Ameli?
24 a witness? 24 A. Sure, no problem.
25 A. Actually, there were two questions that we had at that 25 Q. If you need to go in the French, please say. I just
106 108
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

February 29, 2016 Day 18

1 need to ask you about some aspects of the notes, please?

2 A. Sure.

3 Q. The fourth paragraph records some information seemingly

4 garnered up from this meeting in relation to EBRD.

5 A. Right.

6 Q. Can you see that?

7 A. Yes.

8 Q. And the note says: {D145/2424.1/1}

9 «For example, the EBRD was willing to grant him

10 a loan of 20 to 40 million euros in November 2008 and,

11 unfortunately, this was stopped by the EBRD due to

12 the Vyborg development.»

13 A. Mm hmm.

14 Q. I was slightly puzzled by that because we have seen

15 evidence in this case more generally to the effect that

16 the potential loan from EBRD was round about

17 €115 million, so certainly a lot higher than this note

18 records, and it was being sought in large part to carry

19 out various development at Vyborg. So I was slightly

20 puzzled by this note, that was all —

21 A. Yes.

22 Q. — because this note didn’t really seem to fit terribly

23 well with what I had seen about the —

24 A. No, not really.

25 Q. No.

1 Dr Arkhangelsky had already talked to me about that, and

2 I was asking him whether EBRD was willing to grant him

3 loans, and he said yes.

4 Q. Can we just go back to page 108 of today’s [draft]

5 transcript, and line 3, please. If we could have that

6 on the screen, please.

7 A. Which one?

8 Q. It is an answer earlier today, Mr Ameli.

9 A. Okay.

10 Q. I think you said this at page 108. I just wanted to

11 query what you said. Can you see, [draft transcript]

12 line 25 on page 107? This is an answer you gave about

13 five minutes ago.

14 A. Yes, because it was very important, yes.

15 Q. When you say:

16 «Answer: … I completed these notes with

17 Mr Arkhangelsky afterwards …»

18 Are you talking about the notes that you exhibited

19 to this witness statement?

20 A. No, I meant after — no, these notes are exactly the

21 notes —

22 Q. Oh, I see.

23 A. — that I took during the — no, no, that doesn’t mean

24 that I completed these notes.

25 Q. Okay. I was wondering, what did you mean to say?

109

1 A. And if you go back to another affidavit that I — was it

2 in 2013, I guess? I don’t … it was a witness

3 statement that I made, and — because I completed these

4 notes with Mr Arkhangelsky afterwards, and I made that

5 affidavit in 2013 some time, I don’t remember. Witness

6 statement. It was a witness statement. And in that one

7 the figures were around the figures that you are — the

8 numbers that you are talking about right now.

9 So this is maybe, yes, a little bit inconsistent

10 with the numbers that we — I was used to also.

11 Q. But I understood you to say that this note was drawn up

12 by you actually in the meeting with Mr Novikov?

13 A. Yes.

14 Q. So can you explain the source of this information about

15 EBRD?

16 A. Well, it’s — I think it was an answer to one of my

17 questions, and because — you know, my concern was to

18 show that, as a matter of credibility, that — at this

19 stage our main concern was the extradition and the

20 recognition of Russian decisions in France.

21 Q. Yes.

22 A. So the credibility was very important and we wanted to

23 show that all these projects were, you know, existing

24 projects, and even EBRD was interested in these

25 projects. And I asked him whether this — because

111

1 A. What I meant to say is that I made a witness statement

2 in 2013 in which I said that the amount of the loan, if

3 I remember correctly, was about 100 million or

4 110 million, or something like that.

5 Q. Right.

6 A. And it was clearly to finance the — I don’t know how

7 you call them — the berths, in order to develop the

8 berths in Vyborg, and so obviously this figure of

9 20 million to 40 million is not correct.

10 Q. And I think you said a few minutes ago that your focus

11 was in large measure the extradition proceedings that

12 were then being undertaken?

13 A. Well, yes, and the recognition of —

14 Q. Yes.

15 A. Because —

16 Q. And I think you said —

17 A. Excuse me. The first thing that happened in France was

18 the recognition of three Russian judgments that the Bank

19 asked for. So that was the first thing, and then came

20 the extradition.

21 Q. I understand that. I think you were giving evidence,

22 I think to the effect, a few moments ago, that the

23 question of any personal guarantees —

24 A. Yes.

25 Q. — that Dr Arkhangelsky may have given was obviously

110 112
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

February 29, 2016 Day 18

1 very relevant to that?

2 A. Very important.

3 Q. Yes.

4 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Mr Lord, are we going to take a break

5 and, if we are going to take a break, is that a good

6 time for a break?

7 MR LORD: Yes, I do apologise, my Lord.

8 (2.51 pm)

9 (A short break)

10 (3.00 pm)

11 MR LORD: Mr Ameli, I was asking you about the note at

12 {D145/2424.1/1} and can you see in the third paragraph,

13 it says:

14 «He had a lot of contracts not only with us but

15 other partners who have continued to support him;

16 Danish, Finnish insurance companies who guaranteed him

17 so that they could continue to invest.»

18 Is that something that came from Mr Novikov?

19 A. Yes.

20 Q. And did he identify who those other companies were?

21 A. I don’t remember — no, we didn’t go any further on that

22 issue.

23 Q. If you look about halfway down the page, there is

24 a paragraph that begins:

25 «The additional guarantees did not offer sufficient

1 A. «This guarantee was moral in nature.»

2 Actually, this is a French …

3 He began by saying that he gave a guarantee, but

4 then he said that this guarantee was only a moral

5 guarantee, which was not a personal per se, what, you

6 know, in France we call the «caution personelle» or a

7 personal guarantee; it was a moral guarantee because

8 they were trusting him; they were trusting him and they

9 didn’t need to have a personal guarantee, even though

10 what he was saying again: the mortgages were not enough

11 to cover all the debts.

12 Q. Sorry, I am a bit unclear: are you saying that

13 Mr Novikov said that it was — are these Mr Novikov’s

14 words, that there was a personal guarantee but it was

15 only moral in nature; is that your evidence, Mr Ameli?

16 A. You see, a French person asking a question of a Russian

17 person who was speaking half Russian, half English, all

18 these gave a sort of thing which was not very clear, so

19 I began by noting that it was a personal guarantee and

20 when we went on a little bit further, actually it was

21 not a personal guarantee per se signed by

22 Mr Arkhangelsky, so he never gave his personal guarantee

23 to V-Bank, but it was a sort of moral guarantee, sort of

24 assurance given by Mr Arkhangelsky himself, and not in

25 a legal form. So that was what I understood.

113

1 coverage in any case. The bank requested a personal

2 guarantee from Mr Arkhangelsky and it obtained it.»

3 Can you see that?

4 A. Yes.

5 Q. That is a reference to V-Bank, isn’t it?

6 A. Yes.

7 Q. So Mr Novikov presumably confirmed in that meeting that

8 Dr Arkhangelsky had given a personal guarantee in favour

9 of V-Bank?

10 A. Well, that was very peculiar, because he was saying at

11 the same time when I took these notes, he was saying at

12 the same time that they obtained additional mortgages,

13 which is a sort of physical guarantee on — and at the

14 same time he was saying that he gave a personal

15 guarantee, and so that was very odd, so I continued

16 asking what he meant by this personal guarantee.

17 Q. Yes.

18 A. And if we go further down … I would more easily find

19 it in my French.

20 Q. Well, have the French. If we have {D145/2424.1/3}, if

21 we have both up, {D145/2424.1/1}, and {D145/2424.1/3},

22 please.

23 A. Okay, so if you go two paragraphs further on the

24 English, yes.

25 Q. Yes.

115

1 Q. Did you understand that there was actually some sort of

2 agreement, some sort of document, containing a personal

3 guarantee?

4 A. No. At the beginning when I took my first note, yes,

5 I thought that there was a personal guarantee, which was

6 very important for me because, you know, he began — if

7 you read this, the first thing he says is: okay, we

8 asked for a personal guarantee — let me read it here.

9 Q. Yes. Mr Ameli, it goes on to say:

10 «It is not normal practice but at that time, yes.»

11 A. Exactly.

12 Q. So it looks at that point as if the meeting was noting

13 the fact that an unusual personal guarantee had been

14 given by Mr Arkhangelsky?

15 A. Right. That was what was very peculiar, because he was

16 saying that a guarantee was given and then he went on,

17 saying: well, personal — because they asked him. This

18 was — you know, I was really focusing on personal

19 guarantees. I wanted to know if this is usual practice

20 in Russia to give personal guarantees to guarantee the

21 companies, which is something which happens, you know,

22 very frequently in France, and he said that, I mean,

23 personal guarantees were not that frequent; it was

24 very — actually very — not normal practice. And so

25 I said: well, why did he then give you a personal

114 116
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

February 29, 2016 Day 18

1 guarantee? So it’s out of normal practice? And he

2 said: no, in this case it was just a moral guarantee.

3 It was a sort of assurance given by Mr Arkhangelsky and

4 there was no formal personal guarantee.

5 So for me it was a good sign because, you know, at

6 that time you remember that — and now also — the most

7 important thing is that we want to prove that there were

8 no personal guarantees given to the

9 Bank of St Petersburg either.

10 So if the V-Bank didn’t ask for personal guarantees

11 although there was this crisis and there were all these

12 problems, that was a good argument for us.

13 Q. So would it be fair to say, Mr Ameli, that you were

14 hoping that V-Bank had not obtained the personal

15 guarantee from Dr Arkhangelsky?

16 A. That’s true.

17 Q. And would it be fair to say that this note — would it

18 be fair to say that this note reflected that hope of

19 yours?

20 A. That’s not true.

21 Q. Because if you look at the paragraph that says:

22 {D145/2424.1/1}

23 «The additional guarantees did not offer sufficient

24 coverage in any case. The bank requested a personal

25 guarantee from Mr Arkhangelsky and it obtained it. It

1 Q. I think you said that it —

2 A. It was central when he filed a complaint, a criminal

3 complaint. That — it is central in that procedure.

4 It is not central in the procedure of recognition of

5 Russian judgments in France, because we have a very

6 narrow test against, I mean, foreign court decisions,

7 when they want to be recognised, and this is not one of

8 them. The global public policy test is one of them, but

9 not necessarily the fact that there was no personal

10 guarantee.

11 It was not central in the BVI decision, in

12 the recognition of the BVI decision, because, you know,

13 we obtained the non-recognition of the BVI decision on

14 the basis, again, of the fact that — public policy, but

15 on the basis of the fact that there was no real control

16 carried out on the amount of expenses and the fact that

17 there was no — you can’t say «due process», but it was

18 access to court for Mr Arkhangelsky; and it’s — so

19 that’s — again, an extradition, it was not central

20 either. So it was central only in the complaint, yes.

21 Q. But one of the central thrusts of your meeting was to

22 establish this question of personal guarantees?

23 A. Yes, because my client, Dr Arkhangelsky, has always told

24 me that there was no personal guarantee, so I wanted

25 really to know about that, yes.

117 119

1 is not normal practice, but at that time, yes. We

2 agreed not to use it as we were certain that he would do

3 everything to achieve it.»

4 Now, just pausing there, that does sound like a note

5 of something slightly more concrete than the moral

6 guarantee you have described a little further down the

7 note; don’t you agree, Mr Ameli?

8 A. That is true, but you should go until the end of

9 the notes and one very important thing is also that up

10 to now, the only bank, to the best of my knowledge, who

11 has sued — brought a lawsuit against Mr Arkhangelsky on

12 the basis of a personal guarantee is

13 Bank of St Petersburg. So if, actually, this existed,

14 why V-Bank is not — that’s — you know, maybe I’m going

15 a little bit too far in my …

16 But he began by saying that there was a —

17 Q. I want to ask about — sorry, Mr Ameli, you carry on.

18 A. He began by saying that there was a personal guarantee

19 and then he said that the personal guarantee was not

20 activated, and then he said, actually, it was a moral

21 guarantee.

22 Q. But it was a central plank, was it, of Dr Arkhangelsky’s

23 defence in France that he had never given a personal

24 guarantee to a bank?

25 A. Well, it depends in which procedure we are talking.

1 Q. And has he told you that he never gave a personal

2 guarantee to any bank?

3 A. You mean at that time? Yes. Yes.

4 Q. But do you understand his case to be that he never gives

5 personal guarantees to any bank?

6 A. Yes.

7 Q. If we look at the note, read on down the note, it says:

8 «Before the crisis there was no such practice as

9 using personal guarantees.»

10 A. Yes.

11 Q. «The case law of the Arbitration Court of St Petersburg

12 provides the view that personal guarantees were not

13 normal practice.»

14 Now, that all rather implies, doesn’t it, that

15 contrary to the previous practice, V-Bank did take

16 a guarantee, post crisis, from Dr Arkhangelsky?

17 A. Yes, but they did not, because he went on saying that he

18 was only asking for a moral guarantee.

19 Q. I’m going to take you to that paragraph, but just go in

20 stages. Do you agree, before we get to the next

21 paragraph, when we are at the «Before the crisis»

22 paragraph, a natural reading of this note would lead the

23 reader to think that actually a personal guarantee had

24 been given by Dr Arkhangelsky?

25 A. No. Well, this — excuse me. This paragraph says that

118 120
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

February 29, 2016 Day 18

1 it was not normal practice of Russian banks before 2008

2 to ask for a personal guarantee. But after 2008 some of

3 them have asked for personal guarantees, but it doesn’t

4 mean that V-Bank asked for a personal guarantee from

5 Mr Arkhangelsky. So it was a general statement.

6 Q. And if we go to the paragraph you are pointing to, which

7 reads:

8 «This guarantee was moral in nature. None of Mr and

9 Mrs Arkhangelsky’s personal assets were mortgaged or

10 used as collateral in favour of V-Bank.»

11 A. Yes.

12 Q. The sense in which the phrase «moral in nature» is being

13 used, isn’t it really being used in the sense of: well,

14 there were no actual assets that were specifically put

15 up to back that guarantee? Isn’t that the sense in

16 which it is being used, as opposed to saying: there was

17 no such thing as a personal guarantee agreement at all?

18 A. I think you should just take into account that this is

19 my way of interpreting what Mr Novikov was saying.

20 According to the French law, what we say is that when

21 a person gives a personal guarantee, if this person

22 doesn’t have — we have a special kind of personal

23 guarantee called — I don’t know how you translate this

24 caution hypothécaire, meaning personal guarantee based

25 on a mortgage. That’s what we usually ask people to do

1 of that letter, 31 December 2015; can you see that?

2 A. Yes.

3 Q. I am going to take you to a couple of entries in

4 a minute, but from your understanding of

5 Dr Arkhangelsky’s business, if Dr Arkhangelsky was

6 a defendant to proceedings by a bank, would you have any

7 explanation other than that he was being sued because he

8 had given a personal guarantee? Can you explain any

9 other reason why Dr Arkhangelsky would be personally

10 involved in a claim by a Russian bank against him?

11 A. At a legal — yes, at a legal point of view you are

12 asking?

13 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Under French law, do you mean?

14 MR LORD: Yes. Let me show you an example. Can you see

15 there is a reference to the Arbitrazh (Commercial) Court

16 of Lipetsk at the top?

17 A. Which one?

18 Q. The first paragraph of the letter?

19 A. Okay?

20 Q. Because the table is just a table of proceedings shown

21 by the Russian website.

22 A. Okay, to Scandinavia Leasing Company LLC, okay.

23 Q. You can see that those proceedings, those Lipetsk

24 proceedings, if you could be shown {I20/21/5.46} and if

25 we could have {I20/21/5.48} on screen as well, so we

121 123
1 and banks do that because they want to be sure of two 1 have the Russian and English translation.
2 things: first of all, that the personal guarantee is 2 One is an extract from a judgment and the other is
3 backed by assets, so they take a personal mortgage on 3 the judgment itself.
4 some of the assets of the person who is giving his bank 4 A. Okay.
5 guarantee; and the second one, persons who give their 5 Q. You can see the Russian. Can you read Russian,
6 bank guarantee usually afterwards go against the Bank 6 Mr Ameli?
7 saying that: I did not have assets, so the guarantee 7 A. No.
8 that I am giving you is not valid. 8 Q. Not really, no, so it won’t mean very much. But if we
9 So in order for the Bank to be sure that the person 9 scroll down on the Russian, please, for a minute, scroll
10 cannot afterwards come and say: the guarantee that 10 down the pages {I20/21/5.49}, {I20/21/5.50},
11 I gave you was not a proper or a valid guarantee, they 11 {I20/21/5.51}, {I20/21/5.52} it looks to be a judgment
12 usually ask that they show sufficient assets to back 12 of the Russian court in the Lipetsk Region and the
13 this personal guarantee that they are giving. 13 translation on screen is only of the relevant extracts
14 So this is just, you know — this small sentence 14 from it.
15 means that, actually, and the first sentence is that 15 A. Okay.
16 there was — means that there was no personal guarantee 16 Q. But from the translation, you can see that this appears
17 duly signed, and so they asked for an assurance, or 17 to be a judgment of the Arbitrazh Court of the Lipetsk
18 moral obligation, on behalf of Mr Arkhangelsky. 18 Region, 13 April 2010. You can see it describes the
19 Q. Could you be shown {I20/21/4}, please, Mr Ameli. I just 19 court, the composition.
20 want to probe your evidence that Dr Arkhangelsky told 20 A. Yes.
21 you that he had never given personal guarantees. 21 Q. «Having heard a case brought by Lipetskcombank, a bank
22 Those instructing me have carried out a search of 22 for social development and construction …»
23 the Russian court website to try to find other 23 A. Mm hmm.
24 proceedings concerning or potentially involving 24 Q. Dr Arkhangelsky has never suggested to you, has he, that
25 Dr Arkhangelsky or his companies. Can you see the date 25 Lipetskcombank was in some way conspiring with the Bank
122 124
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

February 29, 2016 Day 18

1 of St Petersburg in relation to the matters in dispute?

2 A. I never heard of — no.

3 Q. But you can see that this judgment seems to record that

4 that bank brought a claim against Scandinavia Leasing

5 Company; can you see that?

6 A. Yes.

7 Q. For recovery of amounts under a credit facility, then

8 you can see the finding:

9 «Found as follows …»

10 Then if you go to the next page, {I20/21/5.47}, you

11 can see — and if you want the Russian, so Mr Stroilov

12 can see it, I believe it appears in the Russian at

13 {I20/21/5.50}. If we have that on screen, you can see

14 the third paragraph down has in brackets «(22-24)»; can

15 you see that?

16 A. Yes.

17 Q. So it looks like it is the same paragraph, and the

18 translation — and again, if that is a wrong

19 translation, I am sure I will be corrected:

20 «Additionally, Contract of Guarantee No 134/07/2

21 dated 18.03.2009 was entered into between the Bank [that

22 must be Lipetskcombank, I think] and VD Arkhangelsky

23 (case file pages 22-24).»

24 Can you see that?

25 A. Yes.

1 case with Mr Arkhangelsky during all these years.

2 Q. But one explanation you didn’t just describe then was

3 that Dr Arkhangelsky had given these personal

4 guarantees.

5 A. Yes, but that is —

6 Q. You said false guarantee or false judgment. You seem to

7 be excluding another explanation, which is that

8 Dr Arkhangelsky had, in fact, given some other personal

9 guarantees to other banks?

10 A. Exactly, that’s what I told you, that we are here to

11 discuss about this.

12 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Was Dr Arkhangelsky a party to these

13 proceedings?

14 MR LORD: Sorry, my Lord?

15 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Was Dr Arkhangelsky a party to these

16 proceedings in Lipetsk?

17 A. It doesn’t seem on the first page that he appeared.

18 MR LORD: I don’t think he was a party to these proceedings,

19 no.

20 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: I have no idea how it went on, but the

21 contract guarantee is just sort of hauled in, although

22 it is not a subject in the proceedings?

23 MR LORD: That seems to be the case, yes.

24 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: But there is no finding in respect of

25 it?

125 127

1 Q. So on the face of this document, and assuming this is

2 a valid judgment of the Lipetsk Arbitrazh court, it does

3 look, doesn’t it, as if a Russian court has found that

4 Dr Arkhangelsky did give a guarantee in favour of

5 another bank?

6 A. Yes.

7 Q. Does that cause you in any way to review your view of

8 this case, if, in fact, that judgment is right?

9 A. Well, we have numbers of Russian decisions that say that

10 Mr Arkhangelsky was — had given personal guarantees,

11 so … If we admit that all those Russian decisions

12 were true, yes. But that is the question, I guess, for

13 us here to, you know, elucidate.

14 Q. So are you really saying you cannot trust any Russian

15 judgment in this case, even concerning a bank other than

16 Bank of St Petersburg?

17 A. I’m not making any judgement on Russian judgments, but

18 what I’m saying is that we have filed a complaint in

19 France saying that many judgments have found that

20 Mr Arkhangelsky had given personal guarantees to

21 the Bank of St Petersburg, and we think that those are

22 false guarantees.

23 So either, again, we are confronted with the same

24 problem, which is being a false guarantee, or a false

25 judgment. I don’t know, I have never discussed this

1 MR LORD: I don’t think so, no, but that’s why it’s

2 important to go to the table, which I am going to go

3 back to.

4 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Yes.

5 MR LORD: If you go to {I20/21/4}, Mr Ameli, the table, or

6 the grid set out there cross-refers to a number of

7 entries on the Russian court website of ongoing

8 proceedings or proceedings that have been issued in

9 Russia; can you see?

10 A. Yes.

11 Q. Can you see, there is a limited amount of information on

12 this website, you can see in the second paragraph the

13 websites that have been looked at.

14 A. Are we talking about your letter, or …

15 Q. Yes, the letter. The letter.

16 A. Yes, but there was another document that you just showed

17 me.

18 Q. That’s all right.

19 A. Okay.

20 Q. I’ll show you some examples, because it’s a website that

21 you can go onto, or Mr Stroilov can, and you can go onto

22 this and you can test it, if you like. There was

23 a search of the website done at the end of last year and

24 some information was turned up, and the information has

25 been put into a table and served under cover of this

126 128
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

February 29, 2016 Day 18

1 letter were the extracts from the websites. 1 I wonder what that is all about.
2 So that you can see some examples of them, if you 2 MR LORD: If you just scroll down to the end, please, one
3 look at the table first, Mr Ameli, you can see that the 3 more page, that’s it, and the equivalent in the other.
4 table has tried to identify the case number, the court, 4 Thank you. {I20/21/5.41} {I20/21/5.42} {I20/21/5.5}
5 the claimant and the named defendants; can you see? 5 {I20/21/5.6}
6 A. Yes. 6 A. Yes.
7 Q. And you can see the claimants. The claimants are 7 Q. Can you see:
8 a number of banks, aren’t they? 8 «Party to the case:
9 A. Yes. 9 «Defendant: VD Arkhangelsky.
10 Q. Other Russian banks, not Bank of St Petersburg? 10 «Claimant: VTB bank.
11 A. Yes. 11 «Defendant: LPK Scandinavia LLC.»
12 Q. If you go over the page, over to the second page? 12 A. Yes.
13 {I20/21/5} 13 Q. It doesn’t actually say the basis on which
14 A. Mm hmm. 14 Mr Arkhangelsky seems to be made a defendant.
15 Q. And so that you can test the accuracy of the table, if 15 A. Mm hmm.
16 you look, for example, at the first one, {I20/21/4} 16 Q. But can you think of any reason why he would be
17 Petrogradsky District Court, OJSC VTB, that’s VTB Bank, 17 a defendant to a claim by VTB Bank against LPK Scan
18 and Mr Arkhangelsky and LPK Scan; if we have 18 under a loan agreement, other than for some sort of
19 {I20/21/5.3}, please, and if we have on the screen as 19 personal guarantee that he would have given? Can you
20 well, please, {I20/21/5.1}. 20 think of any other likely explanation?
21 A. This is the Russian version? Okay, the English version. 21 A. Well, if it was under French law you could have, in
22 Q. Yes. {I20/21/5.39}, please. Under cover of this letter 22 a case in which the company is insolvent, you can direct
23 was disclosed the entries on the website in Russian, and 23 the action against, you know, the managers of
24 then there were translations of them. If they could 24 the company. So it could be that, but I don’t know if
25 both be on screen, so you can see how this table and 25 it’s the same thing in Russian law.

129

1 letter was compiled, because if you see the Russian,

2 which I think I have lost, it must be my fault,

3 {I20/21/5.3}, and, as well, {I20/21/5.39}. I’m trying

4 to match up the English and the Russian.

5 A. Mm hmm.

6 Q. Can you see? It’s come from those websites at the top

7 of the page, so the Russian text is drawn from the

8 website; it is a print-off of what you would get if you

9 went on that website.

10 A. Right.

11 Q. And can you see, it has been translated in the English.

12 There is only certain information you can get from this

13 website. You can see it has «Case», do you see,

14 July 2012:

15 «Category: Claims for recovery of amounts under

16 a loan contract.»

17 Presiding Judge: Tarasova. And if you scroll on

18 down, progress of case, key details, and if you go to

19 the next page of both of those documents, please

20 {I20/21/5.40}, {I20/21/5.4} thank you.

21 A. Right.

22 Q. If you keep scrolling down, if you don’t mind, page by

23 page?

24 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: «Claimant, co-defendant, third party

25 joined to the proceedings.»

131

1 Q. I think the evidence is that Ms Tarasova was a general

2 director of this company. So assume that’s the case.

3 A. I don’t know. I don’t know, I have …

4 Q. Can you come up with any other explanation, knowing

5 Dr Arkhangelsky’s affairs as you do, as to why he might

6 have been joined to this sort of litigation, other than

7 for a personal guarantee?

8 A. It can be — it can be any kind of contractual, or —

9 I mean, it would be really very — I would be supposing

10 things, but it can be either on the basis of a contract

11 or on the basis of a —

12 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Yes, Mr Stroilov —

13 A. — my ability, whatever, I don’t know.

14 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: — I think I know what may be —

15 MR STROILOV: I am slightly concerned that a witness who is

16 not a Russian law expert is being asked to speculate.

17 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: He is being asked for his speculation

18 on law of procedure in Russia.

19 MR LORD: Very well, I will ask Mr Nazarov.

20 A. Also maybe in the decision there was what your Lordship

21 just pointed out, is that we have Mr Arkhangelsky in

22 the defendants, but it is peculiar that we don’t have it

23 on the judgment. That’s what you said. I didn’t …

24 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Well, we don’t know, really, what the

25 processes are, nor anything, really.

130 132
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

February 29, 2016 Day 18

1 MR LORD: Mr Ameli, going back to your note, if I may, for 1 A. Yes.
2 a minute. 2 Q. If you read across, it looks like those are loans from
3 A. Yes. 3 V-Bank to Vyborg Port?
4 Q. {D145/2424.1/1}, and thank you, we have finished with 4 A. Yes.
5 those other documents, thank you for that. Could you go 5 Q. Can you see the interest rate in the interest rate
6 to the second page, {D145/2424.1/2}, and it is 6 column?
7 {D145/2424.1/4}, in the French, if that helps. 7 A. 15 and 15?
8 You can see in the second line, you have set out the 8 Q. Yes. Do you want to reconsider your evidence about
9 total amount of the debt, I think owed to V-Bank, 9 7 per cent being the right rate of interest in the light
10 RUB 3.9 billion principal, and you said interest 10 of this schedule, or can you explain what seems to be
11 7 per cent; can you see that? 11 something of a discrepancy between the rates?
12 A. Yes. 12 A. Well, that’s what I’ve been told in that meeting.
13 Q. In paragraph 9 of your witness statement, you say in 13 Q. Mm. And you can see further down the page there are
14 the last — if you could have the note up, please, and 14 some more V-Bank loans to a company called Norwood; that
15 if you leave the note up and if we could please have 15 has 15 per cent and 14 per cent, doesn’t it?
16 {C1/4/2}. You say in paragraph 9: 16 A. Yes.
17 «The parties had negotiated the interest rate of 17 Q. Which looks to be about twice the 7 per cent that you
18 7 per cent per annum, which was remarkably low for 18 have given evidence of?
19 Russia.» 19 A. Yes. But can it mean that it has been negotiated in
20 A. Yes. 20 between, or not? I don’t know, I’m just speculating
21 Q. Might that have been the interest rate which was then 21 again.
22 being applied in 2011 when you had the meeting, or are 22 Q. That’s why I was asking you what time period that note
23 you in your evidence talking about the interest rates 23 refers to.
24 that would have applied back in, let’s say, 2007/2008 24 A. I think it was — you know, it concerned the time when
25 time? 25 we were there. I really don’t know.

133

1 A. What I understood was that their contract was — I don’t

2 remember, but I think that we were thinking about — we

3 were talking about the date on which we were discussing

4 that. So after 2008, most probably.

5 Q. Because if you could be shown, please, {D74/1101/1},

6 there has been disclosure in this case, Mr Ameli, of

7 something called an OMG debt schedule, which you have

8 probably not seen before?

9 A. No.

10 Q. So please take time to familiarise yourself with it.

11 A. Yes.

12 Q. This was a document disclosed by the defendants, and it

13 seems, from its heading, to list the Oslo Marine Group

14 debt portfolio as of September 25, 2008; can you see

15 that?

16 A. Yes.

17 Q. And it seems to list a series of loans with their

18 details, and it lists the collateral and guarantees; can

19 you see?

20 A. Yes. It is very difficult, but I can … yes.

21 Q. I want you to look at two things, please. One is, there

22 are some loans here tabled from V-Bank to Vyborg Port;

23 can you see entry numbers 8 —

24 A. Mm hmm.

25 Q. — and 9, for example.

135

1 Q. And can we go, please, to paragraph 13 of your witness

2 statement, {C1/4/3}, and if you could have the note on

3 the other screen, that’s very helpful, thank you, the

4 note at {D145/2424.1/1}.

5 A. Yes.

6 Q. You say this:

7 «Mr Novikov added that V-Bank did not regret taking

8 that view in 2008-2011, and was determined to continue

9 its support of Mr Arkhangelsky’s business until he was

10 able to return to Russia. He did not specifically refer

11 to the actions taken by Bank of St Petersburg but said

12 that ‘unlike other banks’, V-Bank focused on its own

13 banking business and did not ‘act as a predator’ against

14 its clients.»

15 This statement of yours was made on 28 August 2015,

16 wasn’t it?

17 A. Yes.

18 Q. Presumably by that time you had no independent

19 recollection of that meeting with Mr Novikov some four

20 years earlier?

21 A. Apart from my notes.

22 Q. And can you show in the notes whether there is any

23 reference to the phrase «unlike other banks», or «acting

24 as a predator»? It may be I have missed that, but

25 I don’t think I could see that. Maybe it is in

134 136
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

February 29, 2016 Day 18

1 the French?

2 A. Well, this was something that was at the centre of

3 everything, so I think that I would remember that very

4 clearly, because, as I told you, one of the most

5 important things I wanted to ask him is why there was so

6 much difference between the Bank of St Petersburg’s, you

7 know, relationship with Mr Arkhangelsky, and why there

8 was this sort of predator type of …

9 Q. Mr Ameli, let’s take it in stages, first. Can you point

10 in your note, and I think you agreed your only basis

11 that you had by 2015 was the note — can you show his

12 Lordship where in the note one finds a reference to, for

13 example, «acting as a predator»?

14 A. On the second page, maybe, if you can …

15 {D145/2424.1/2}

16 Q. Yes, the French is at {D145/2424.1/3} and

17 {D145/2424.1/4}.

18 A. No, it’s okay. (Pause)

19 Well, it’s not that clear but it’s in the sentence

20 where he says:

21 «Our philosophy is the banking business, nothing

22 else».

23 That’s the only thing that refers to that.

24 Q. Isn’t it right, Mr Ameli, that the phrases you put in

25 paragraph 13 of your witness statement in quotes, that

1 A. Yes.

2 Q. Mr Ameli, could I ask you now about Vyborg Port, if

3 I may?

4 A. Sure.

5 Q. And I’m going to show you, Mr Ameli, some evidence you

6 have given previously in support of Dr Arkhangelsky in

7 relation to Vyborg Port. I wonder, could you be shown,

8 please, your second affidavit at {G2/41/1}.

9 I think, Mr Ameli, this is an affidavit that you

10 filed in these proceedings in front of his Lordship.

11 I think this is, as you can seen in paragraph 2, you can

12 see the reason for your giving this affidavit, which

13 is — can you see, it is:

14 «… in support of the Defendants’ application for

15 relief in relation to damages and losses caused by the

16 Freezing Order (‘Damages Application’), but also in

17 support of the applications made earlier (‘Discharge

18 Application’ and ‘Stay Application’).»

19 Can you see that?

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. I think you were giving this affidavit to support

22 certain applications being made by the Arkhangelskys,

23 weren’t you?

24 A. Mm hmm.

25 Q. That’s right, isn’t it?

137 139
1 that’s a bit of embellishment of your account of 1 A. Correct. Correct.
2 the meeting to assist Dr Arkhangelsky’s claim? {C1/4/3} 2 Q. You see what you say in the rest of the paragraph too:
3 A. No, not really. It was really what he meant and, you 3 «As will be apparent below, I have direct knowledge
4 know, I very clearly recollect that we talked about the 4 of the facts giving rise to the application, and it is
5 fact of why there was so much difference between these 5 appropriate for me, rather than either defendant, to
6 two banks, and I was referring to the predator type 6 give principal evidence in support of the application.»
7 of — you know, acting, way of acting. 7 A. Mm hmm.
8 Q. Mr Ameli, has it ever occurred to you that, potentially, 8 Q. Can you see that?
9 an explanation is Dr Arkhangelsky did give these 9 A. In which paragraph, excuse me?
10 personal guarantees, contrary to what he is claiming? 10 Q. Paragraph 2 —
11 I’m not asking you to decide whether he has, but has it 11 A. Yes.
12 ever occurred to you that that might be an explanation? 12 Q. — second half.
13 A. Well, you know, I’m his lawyer, in France, so I would 13 A. Yes.
14 say no, but even if I thought otherwise, I wouldn’t say 14 Q. I assume his Lordship can take it that what you said in
15 it. 15 that paragraph 2 was true?
16 Q. No, I understand. I understand. I understand. 16 A. Yes.
17 Do you know anything of the relationship, if any, 17 Q. And that therefore the matters that we find later in
18 that Mr Arkhangelsky had with Mr Novikov? Do you 18 the affidavit are matters in respect of which you had
19 know — 19 direct knowledge of the underlying facts?
20 A. No. 20 A. Yes.
21 Q. — the way that they possibly worked together? 21 Q. And that it was more appropriate for you to address them
22 A. I know only that I think they went to the same 22 than either Dr or Mrs Arkhangelskaya?
23 university. That’s the only thing I know. I’m not even 23 A. Yes.
24 sure of that, but I think that was the case. 24 Q. Thank you. Could you go, please, to paragraph 23.
25 Q. But that is the limit of your knowledge of that — 25 Actually if we just go to paragraph 10, please.
138 140
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

February 29, 2016 Day 18

1 {G2/41/3}. You have a heading «Damage maximised by the

2 claimants’ malicious actions»?

3 A. Mm hmm.

4 Q. You say that’s some evidence about — some complaints

5 about the Bank’s actions. Then over the page,

6 {G2/41/4}, paragraph 15.

7 A. Mm hmm.

8 Q. You say this:

9 «It seems likely that the Freezing Order was

10 consciously obtained as a ‘weapon’ in a war between two

11 powerful clans of Russian ‘oligarchs’. One may wonder

12 why, having taken over very valuable businesses

13 belonging to the Defendants (Western Terminal and

14 Scandinavia) in 2009, and while the Defendants were

15 forced to flee Russia and seek political asylum in

16 France, the Claimants made no attempt to take over their

17 most valuable asset: the Vyborg Port.»

18 A. Mm hmm.

19 Q. Can you see that?

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. Was that then a puzzle for you: why, if

22 Dr Arkhangelsky’s claims about Bank of St Petersburg

23 raiding his businesses was right, why that didn’t seem

24 to have extended to the most valuable asset, the

25 Vyborg Port?

1 there be a perfectly normal explanation for why

2 Bank of St Petersburg wasn’t pursuing that in the first

3 instance: that the asset was mortgaged to another

4 lender?

5 A. Yes.

6 Q. Isn’t that a perfectly normal explanation for —

7 A. Right, but the problem is in the meanwhile, what

8 I understood was that the Vyborg Port had gained value,

9 and so even a second mortgage, which would be coming

10 after the mortgages taken for RUB 3.9 billion by the

11 V-Bank, would still be an asset that could have been

12 attached and could have been — against which the

13 Russian decisions could have been enforced. At least

14 that’s how it goes on in France when you have an asset

15 which is worth, I don’t know, 100, and on which you have

16 a first mortgage of 50, there is still 50 that can be

17 used by another creditor in order to ask for

18 an attachment for an enforcement to have an auction sale

19 and then the first guy who has 50 on the mortgage takes

20 the first part, and what is left would be given to

21 the second one.

22 So that’s what this paragraph expresses.

23 Q. And if we go to {G2/41/6}, you can see a heading above

24 paragraph 23, «Damage to Vyborg Port».

25 A. Right.

141 143
1 A. Well, what we usually, in a non-common law system, 1 Q. Can you see that?
2 usually learn and teach is that the first thing to do 2 A. Yes.
3 when you have a decision, which is a Russian decision, 3 Q. And you say:
4 is to try to enforce your Russian decision in Russia, 4 «Vyborg Port, consisting of Vyborg Port LLC and Port
5 and therefore, as long as they have already taken all 5 Equipment LLC, is the principal asset currently owned by
6 the assets concerning OMG, why they did not go against 6 the defendants.»
7 other assets, you know, being Vyborg Port, which is in 7 Do you see that?
8 Russia, for which they did not have the necessity to go 8 A. Yes.
9 and ask for enforcement before other courts, et cetera, 9 Q. And you say:
10 et cetera, why before coming to — I mean, before going 10 «The damage caused to it by the Freezing Order, both
11 against Mr and Mrs Arkhangelsky’s assets, there were 11 through reputational damage and the defendants’
12 other assets that they could — abroad, there were other 12 inability to sell the asset, is by far the most
13 assets that they could have attached, they could have 13 substantial.»
14 garnered in Russia, why didn’t they do it? That’s what 14 A. Yes.
15 this paragraph says. 15 Q. And then on the next page, {G2/41/7}, paragraphs 24 to
16 Q. I see. 16 26, you purport to set out the value of Vyborg Port?
17 A. So, you know, if we want to elaborate a little bit more, 17 A. Right.
18 my way of thinking was that there was a sort of — how 18 Q. Can his Lordship take it that paragraph 26 is designed
19 can we say — a pact of non-aggression between V-Bank 19 to show the net equity value available to
20 and the Bank of St Petersburg, saying that: I’m not 20 the Arkhangelskys; in other words, after loans have been
21 going against the Vyborg Port because this is something 21 paid off and liabilities, there is 190 million of net
22 that is being used as a collateral in the loans that 22 equity value in this asset?
23 have been granted by V-Bank. That’s what I had in mind 23 A. I don’t think so. This is, I think, the value, not the
24 at that time. 24 net value.
25 Q. But if Vyborg Port was mortgaged to V-Bank, wouldn’t 25 Q. If you look at 24, you have a figure of the value?
142 144
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

February 29, 2016 Day 18

1 A. Oh, okay.

2 Q. And 25 seems to have the liabilities, in other words the

3 debt to V-Bank?

4 A. Excuse me.

5 Q. And I had understood that what you had done —

6 A. Oh yes, that is true.

7 Q. So it is right, isn’t it, that in paragraph —

8 A. Yes.

9 Q. Just confirm that in paragraph 26, you are deposing on

10 oath to the value of Vyborg Port in the Arkhangelskys’

11 hands being in the order of £190 million after debts

12 have been paid off?

13 A. According to — you know, I’m basing myself on the

14 valuation of GVA Sawyer.

15 Q. Yes. I’m just checking what you are saying there,

16 really, I’m making sure I understood it properly. You

17 are saying after the debts that seemed to be secured on

18 Vyborg Port were discharged, that would leave

19 £190 million?

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. Is that how his Lordship should read paragraphs 24 to 26

22 of your second affidavit?

23 A. Yes.

24 Q. Yes, is that right, Mr Ameli?

25 A. Yes. Yes, that’s right. That’s correct.

1 Q. You need to say yes for the transcript —

2 A. Yes, excuse me, yes.

3 Q. That’s all right. And then you say in 34:

4 «… the sale could not materialise due to

5 the existence of the Freezing Order.»

6 Do you see that?

7 A. Yes.

8 Q. I won’t dwell on this because it is repeated in another

9 statement, I think, word for word.

10 Then {G2/41/13} — in fact, {G2/41/12}, you see that

11 in paragraph 51 you are suggesting, I think, on the

12 basis of this evidence of yours, that the

13 Bank of St Petersburg and Mr Savelyev, I think, should

14 provide fortification, I think, in the sum of

15 £317 million; do you see that? {G2/41/13}

16 A. Yes.

17 Q. And was that your view — this affidavit was

18 22 October 2012.

19 A. Yes.

20 Q. Was it really your view then that Vyborg Port was worth

21 £317 million, therefore, that was the sort of security

22 that Bank of St Petersburg should put up in relation to

23 the freezing of the asset?

24 A. Yes, in view of the modernisation projects, yes.

25 Q. I wonder, could we go to your witness statement on

145 147

1 Q. Then you can see at page {G2/41/7}, you then talk about

2 the modernisation project, which you describe was

3 potentially going to happen for Vyborg Port; then over

4 the page {G2/41/8} there is a heading, «Potential sale

5 of Vyborg Port»?

6 A. Mm hmm.

7 Q. I’m going to skip over it because you repeat all this

8 evidence in a later witness statement and I am going to

9 come to that, because I think that the same material

10 appears later.

11 A. Yes.

12 Q. I just wanted for his Lordship’s note to see that this

13 is what you were saying in your second affidavit.

14 If you go to {G2/41/9}, you give some evidence,

15 I think, of potential interest or offers to buy

16 Vyborg Port, don’t you?

17 A. Yes.

18 Q. You see a reference to the affidavit of Mr Sharifulin.

19 A. Mm hmm.

20 Q. And then at paragraph 33 there is a reference to a Saudi

21 businessman.

22 A. Yes.

23 Q. And we will come to this. That is Dr Garub(?), isn’t

24 it?

25 A. Mm hmm.

1 4 April 2013, please?

2 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: What was the date of this?

3 MR LORD: 22 October 2012.

4 If I could just take you forward, please, Mr Ameli,

5 I think.

6 Mr Ameli, if I show you your fourth witness

7 statement, which is at {G2/51/1}, you gave a witness

8 statement on 4 April 2013, so, my Lord, about six months

9 later.

10 A. Yes.

11 Q. And you can see in tramlines it says:

12 «Witness statement of François Ameli.»

13 Then in brackets it says:

14 «(Renewed Fortification Application).»

15 Can you see that?

16 A. Yes.

17 Q. And I think in paragraph 2 you explain the basis for

18 this further statement; can you seen, it’s further

19 affidavit sworn on 22 October 2012?

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. That’s why I showed you the first affidavit, because it

22 appears to fit with this witness statement.

23 A. Yes.

24 Q. And Mr Justice Hildyard had given, I think, liberty to

25 renew an application for fortification; can you see

146 148
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

February 29, 2016 Day 18

1 that?

2 A. Yes.

3 Q. And you say in paragraph 1 — I think I took you to it

4 earlier — at this point you:

5 «… coordinated the overall legal strategy of the

6 international litigation …»

7 Can you see that?

8 A. Yes.

9 Q. If you go to paragraph 6, {G2/51/3}

10 A. Yes.

11 Q. You say:

12 «For convenience, this statement incorporates all

13 the evidence from my second affidavit of

14 22 October 2012, and the exhibit FA-7 contains all the

15 documents from the exhibit FA-2.»

16 A. Yes.

17 Q. So you are reproducing and re-verifying that earlier

18 affidavit evidence, aren’t you?

19 A. Yes.

20 Q. And if we go, please, through to {G2/51/17}.

21 A. Yes.

22 Q. Sorry, first, {G2/51/13} Paragraph 49. I think in

23 paragraph 49 you are considering, aren’t you, what

24 appears to be I think a slight oddity from your point of

25 view: why the Bank of St Petersburg wasn’t pursuing the

1 Q. And just keep that open for a minute and go to

2 {G2/51/2}.

3 A. Two?

4 Q. Yes, it’s an earlier page in the affidavit.

5 Paragraph 3, it’s in the same witness statement. You

6 can see there is a reference to Mr Stroilov having

7 rights of audience; can you see that? It’s all in the

8 same witness statement.

9 A. Yes.

10 Q. I think by this stage, April 2013, I think it is right,

11 isn’t it, that the defendants were suggesting that they

12 couldn’t afford to pay for barristers and solicitors to

13 represent them in the English litigation?

14 A. Yes.

15 Q. And if we go back to {G2/51/17}?

16 A. Yes.

17 Q. You were saying that Vyborg Port potentially had

18 a sufficient value that £190 million might be available

19 once V-Bank debts were paid off, weren’t you?

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. So that looked, didn’t it, like quite a promising

22 resource for the Arkhangelskys to finance their

23 litigation? Potentially?

24 A. Yes.

25 Q. And you then explained some matters to do with

149

1 Vyborg Port asset. Your explanation, I think, is that

2 there is a tussle between V-Bank and

3 Bank of St Petersburg; that’s your view, isn’t it?

4 A. Right, yes.

5 Q. And I think you have given evidence about that today.

6 Then if we could go to the Vyborg Port section,

7 please, {G2/51/17}.

8 A. Yes.

9 Q. Can you see there is a heading, «Potential damage to

10 Vyborg Port»?

11 A. Yes.

12 Q. And in paragraph 67 you say:

13 «Vyborg Port, consisting of Vyborg Port LLC and Port

14 Equipment LLC, is the principal asset currently owned by

15 the Defendants.»

16 Then you have «Value of Vyborg Port prior to

17 the Freezing Order»?

18 A. Yes.

19 Q. And we see the same figures, don’t we, 190 million.

20 Again, can you confirm to his Lordship that what you

21 were then saying in evidence was that you thought the

22 value of Vyborg Port as an asset, once the relevant

23 liabilities had been paid off, the secure liabilities on

24 it, was in the order of £190 million?

25 A. Yes.

151

1 Vyborg Port. {G2/51/19}, you say «Potential sale of

2 Vyborg Port»?

3 A. Yes.

4 Q. Do you want just to read to yourself quickly — not out

5 loud — paragraphs 74 down to the foot of the page, and

6 actually if we could have the next page up as well,

7 {G2/51/20}, his Lordship can then read those two pages,

8 because I am going to ask you some questions about these

9 pages and the exhibits that you there refer to. (Pause)

10 A. Up to what paragraph do you want me to …?

11 Q. If you don’t mind, if you could read quickly down to 81,

12 I think, because then you will see the context for these

13 questions.

14 A. Okay. (Pause)

15 Yes.

16 Q. What you were really telling the court here, I think,

17 Mr Ameli, was that there had been a potential sale of

18 Vyborg Port, but that that sale could not be pursued

19 because of the freezing order; that’s right, isn’t it?

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. And you said:

22 «It is overwhelmingly likely that Vyborg Port will

23 have to default on its obligations to V-Bank and go into

24 bankruptcy, reducing its value … to zero.»

25 A. Yes.

150 152
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

February 29, 2016 Day 18

1 Q. If we go back to paragraph 75.

2 A. Yes.

3 Q. You referred to an affidavit of Mr Sharifulin. Can we

4 have {N4/25/259}, I just want to check that that is the

5 document you are referring to there.

6 A. Yes, I think so.

7 Q. I’m trying to find the Russian, but this was the

8 certified translation, I think, that was exhibited.

9 A. Certainly this.

10 Q. Yes. You will see what was said here by Mr Sharifulin.

11 A. Yes.

12 Q. He was acquainted with Dr Arkhangelsky in Nice two years

13 ago:

14 «… our children go to the same Sunday school.»

15 A. Yes.

16 Q. And then over the page, the next page —

17 A. Yes.

18 Q. — he claims that he had reached a principle agreement

19 with regard to the price to buy Vyborg Port and Port

20 Equipment in the amount of €390 million?

21 A. Yes.

22 Q. Did you think this was true, Mr Ameli, that actually

23 Mr Sharifulin was proposing to buy Vyborg Port for about

24 €390 million as at the end of 2011?

25 A. Well, I didn’t have any reason to …

1 Q. It’s all right. I think you can see the reference —

2 can you see the number 265 on the page?

3 A. Yes.

4 Q. It hasn’t come up. On the version I have, it has the

5 number 265 on, which I think is a hangover from the

6 pagination of the affidavit; do you see what I mean?

7 A. Yes.

8 Q. I think it was page 265 of FA-7.

9 A. It’s an e-mail sent to Mrs Goncharova —

10 Q. Yes.

11 A. — by Dr Arkhangelsky.

12 Q. And it is copied to a number of other people, isn’t it?

13 A. Yes, myself also.

14 Q. Yes.

15 A. Yes.

16 Q. Just read it to yourself quickly, if you wouldn’t mind.

17 I suggest to you it reads in a rather stylised way. It

18 reads in a rather contrived way —

19 A. Yes.

20 Q. — I am going to suggest to you, as if it is trying to

21 sort of generate a bit of a record. I just want to see

22 whether you agree with that. (Pause)

23 A. Mm hmm, yes.

24 Q. It then appears that Dr Arkhangelsky — it looks like

25 he sent that e-mail on, or forwarded it again, to you

153

1 Q. No.

2 A. Not to think it’s true.

3 Q. I see. Then, I wonder if you could be shown, please,

4 back to your witness statement, {G2/51/20} and

5 paragraph 77.

6 A. Mm hmm.

7 Q. You refer to an e-mail from Mr Arkhangelsky to V-Bank,

8 dated 8 May 2012; can you see that?

9 A. Mm hmm, yes.

10 Q. Can we have {N14/25/268} on screen, please, because

11 I think, Mr Ameli, that this is probably the document

12 you are there exhibiting, but I want you to confirm it

13 for the transcript?

14 A. Yes.

15 Q. Is that the document you are referring to?

16 A. Yes. Yes.

17 Q. It’s an e-mail, isn’t it, of 8 May 2012 from

18 Dr Arkhangelsky to a series of people including you;

19 that’s right, isn’t it?

20 A. No, I’m not sure this is …

21 Q. 8 May 2012. Maybe that’s wrong; can you see?

22 A. No, it’s 19 October 2012, this one that I am looking at.

23 Is it {N14/25/271}?

24 Q. {N14/25/268}, sorry.

25 A. Oh, 268.

155

1 and Ms Bidault on 20 August 2012; can you see the top of

2 the page?

3 A. Yes.

4 Q. And can you confirm, the other addressee, that’s

5 Mr Stroilov’s e-mail address, isn’t it?

6 A. I don’t know.

7 Q. «Nypyrsty» …

8 A. I don’t know.

9 Q. Can you have that on screen? Just keep that on screen

10 for the moment, could you?

11 A. Right.

12 Q. Could we have {N22/53.2/12}. This is an extract from —

13 A. It says my letter to V-Bank, yes.

14 Q. I just want you to look at the e-mail address, please.

15 Keep that on screen.

16 A. Yes.

17 Q. There is an address from a website I think called

18 Russophobe, to which Mr Stroilov has contributed some

19 material.

20 A. Mm hmm.

21 Q. And on {N22/53.2/12} can you see that there is

22 a reference to Mr Stroilov and an e-mail address there?

23 A. Where?

24 Q. Third up from the bottom.

25 A. At the bottom. Oh yes. Okay, yes.

154 156
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

February 29, 2016 Day 18

1 Q. It seems to match up, doesn’t it, with the third

2 address?

3 A. Yes, it does.

4 Q. Can you just confirm for the record?

5 A. Yes, it does. It does correspond to Mr Stroilov’s

6 e-mail address.

7 Q. Can you go, please, back to your witness statement, it

8 is {G2/51/20}.

9 A. Yes.

10 Q. Paragraph 78.

11 A. Yes.

12 Q. You refer there, I think, to — well, you say this:

13 «In the same period, on the instructions of

14 Mr Arkhangelsky, during a travel to Riyadh … in

15 the month of April 2012, I negotiated conditions of such

16 a sale with several Saudi businessmen.»

17 Is that true, Mr Ameli?

18 A. Yes.

19 Q. «One of them was clearly very interested. See my e-mail

20 to a legal representative of that businessman at [then

21 there is the reference] FA-7/267.»

22 Then if you could be shown {N14/25/270}, I think you

23 ought to find the e-mail that you are there referring

24 to.

25 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: M14?

1 A. Yes.

2 Q. Paragraph 80.

3 A. Yes.

4 Q. You say at the end of that — well, you refer to some

5 deterioration in the relations with V-Bank, and there’s

6 reference to Mr Vasiliev and Ms Lukina. I think

7 evidence was filed from them on behalf of

8 the Arkhangelskys, wasn’t it?

9 A. Yes.

10 Q. And you say this:

11 «The Modernisation Project now seems to be

12 increasingly unlikely.»

13 Then you say later on:

14 «It is overwhelmingly likely that Vyborg Port will

15 have to default on its obligations to V-Bank and go into

16 bankruptcy, reducing its value as one of the assets

17 owned by the Defendants to zero. See the note on the

18 present position of the port at [then there is

19 a reference to] FA-7/268.»

20 Could we have {N14/25/271} to {N14/25/274}, please,

21 I just want to check what you are there referring to.

22 Is that the note on the present position of the port

23 that you are —

24 A. Yes.

25 Q. — talking about?

157

1 MR LORD: Sorry, it is N for Nigel. Sorry, my Lord, it is

2 N. Sorry, it is my fault.

3 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: No, no. Yes.

4 MR LORD: Do you have that, Mr Ameli?

5 A. Yes.

6 Q. Can you confirm that that’s the e-mail that you are

7 referring to?

8 A. That’s the e-mail that we’re talking about.

9 Q. Is it your evidence to his Lordship that this was

10 a genuine potential buyer?

11 A. Yes, this was a genuine — well, we discussed about the

12 fact that if they were interested in buying, and

13 he showed some interest, this is a lawyer that is very

14 much linked to the royal family, Princess Adila’s

15 lawyer.

16 Q. So you thought there was interest from the royal family

17 in Saudi Arabia to buy the Vyborg Port or

18 the Baltic Sea, did you?

19 A. I don’t know if the royal family were interested but

20 he said that one of his clients was interested.

21 Q. Oh, I see.

22 A. I know him as being one of the lawyers of very precisely

23 Princess Adila of Saudi Arabia.

24 Q. If you go back to your witness statement, please,

25 {G2/51/20}.

159

1 A. Yes.

2 Q. Right. If you go back to your witness statement,

3 please, {G2/51/20}, should his Lordship take it,

4 therefore, that as at April 2013, when you gave this

5 witness statement, you thought that there had been

6 potential buyers for Vyborg Port in the order of

7 something over £300 million?

8 A. Mm hmm.

9 Q. Is that yes?

10 A. Yes.

11 Q. And that the net equity available after relevant loans

12 were discharged from that asset might be as high as

13 £190 million?

14 A. Yes.

15 Q. And if the freezing order prevented a sale, Vyborg Port

16 was then going probably to go into insolvency or

17 bankruptcy; is that right?

18 A. Yes. Yes.

19 Q. Why —

20 A. Two things. Excuse me. The freezing order, plus the

21 fact that from that moment in time the relationship with

22 the V-Bank changed, and we have our theory on why it

23 changed, but still it changed from then on. Because of

24 these two issues.

25 Q. Can you confirm to his Lordship that it doesn’t look as

158 160
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

February 29, 2016 Day 18

1 if there was any application to the court to vary the

2 freezing injunction to permit this potential sale;

3 that’s right, isn’t it?

4 A. I don’t know.

5 Q. Do you agree on the face of it, it would look like

6 a sensible thing to do, if you have an asset potentially

7 worth £300 million, with £190 million available to you,

8 the owner, and if you can’t sell it it’s going to go

9 down the drain, and you can’t sell it because of

10 a freezing injunction, allegedly; do you not an agree

11 that an obvious remedy would be to apply to the court to

12 vary the freezing injunction to allow the sale to

13 rescue the value? That would be an obvious thing to do,

14 wouldn’t it?

15 A. That is true. With all due respect to Pavel Stroilov,

16 we — at that time Mr Arkhangelsky didn’t have anybody

17 to defend him —

18 MR LORD: I don’t want you to — sorry, my Lord, I’m going

19 to be very careful with my questioning. I don’t want to

20 trespass into — without any waiver I don’t want to

21 trespass into privileged matters. This witness has

22 given a lot of evidence about the potential sale. I can

23 ask about that, I think he can probably give the answer

24 he gives, but I am framing my questions on the basis

25 I assume some sort of legal privilege might be claimed

1 time to allow this alleged sale to take place?

2 A. I don’t know. I don’t know, I really don’t know.

3 Q. Could you go, please, to Mr Arkhangelsky’s fourth

4 statement, {G2/53/1}, I just want you to see that he …

5 A. Mm hmm, yes.

6 Q. Paragraph 3.

7 A. Yes.

8 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: The date of this?

9 MR LORD: Sorry, my Lord, it is {G2/53/1}, and it is

10 paragraph 3.

11 A. Yes.

12 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: What’s the date?

13 MR LORD: Sorry, my Lord. This statement is — sorry.

14 Sorry. Hang on. (Pause).

15 Yes, I thought it was, it is 4 April 2013.

16 A. That’s {G2/53/1}?

17 Q. Yes, it’s {G2/53/1}.

18 A. Okay.

19 Q. And if you go to the last page, which is {G2/53/5}.

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. You can see the date of the witness statement.

22 A. Yes.

23 Q. And it is said to be the fourth witness statement of

24 Vitaly Arkhangelsky.

25 A. Right.

161 163

1 and, therefore, if there is any sensitivity about that,

2 that can be raised before the answer is given.

3 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Yes.

4 MR LORD: And that’s why I framed the question in the way

5 that I did.

6 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Yes. Do you understand the warning

7 that’s been given?

8 A. Yes.

9 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: That, assuming that there is some

10 legal privilege in your discussions with Mr Stroilov, or

11 with Mr Arkhangelsky, yourself and Mr Stroilov, assuming

12 that, Mr Lord is not wanting to trespass into your

13 discussions relating to conduct of the case.

14 A. Yes.

15 MR LORD: Which is why I asked you whether you would agree

16 that an obvious remedy would be to apply to the court to

17 vary the freezing order.

18 A. As I told you —

19 Q. Yes or no to that first, and then we can go forward more

20 safely.

21 A. I think so. I don’t know. I don’t know English law, so

22 most probably, I would say.

23 Q. And you can confirm that as far as you were aware there

24 was no such application made, as a matter of fact, to

25 the English court to vary the freezing injunction in

1 Q. And if you go back to the first page {G2/53/1},

2 Mr Arkhangelsky said he has read and he —

3 A. Yes, confirmed the truth.

4 Q. — confirms the truth of the evidence that you gave in

5 your October 2012 affidavit.

6 A. Yes.

7 Q. If we just skim over this witness statement, you can see

8 that Mr Arkhangelsky covers broadly the same ground. If

9 we go to the second page there’s a reference to

10 Vyborg Port and the modernisation plans, and then the

11 concern that wasn’t going to happen because of

12 the problems that he identifies.

13 A. Yes.

14 Q. Then the next page, {G2/53/3}.

15 A. Yes.

16 Q. There’s reference to a possible sale. In paragraph 9

17 he says this, Dr Arkhangelsky says, the third line:

18 «I also asked Mr Ameli to search for a possible

19 foreign buyer.»

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. Is that right, Mr Ameli?

22 A. That’s true.

23 Q. Then if you go to the next page, paragraph 14:

24 «Dr Arkhangelsky seems to confirm the view that as

25 things have ended up, Vyborg Port is likely to go into

162 164
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

February 29, 2016 Day 18

1 bankruptcy.»

2 A. Yes.

3 Q. So as at 4 April 2013, Mr Ameli, can we agree the

4 following: you had been asked by Dr Arkhangelsky to find

5 a buyer for Vyborg Port?

6 A. It was before that date.

7 Q. Yes, before that date, but as at that date, looking

8 backwards, you had been asked, historically, to find

9 a buyer?

10 A. Yes.

11 Q. And you gave evidence that a potential sale might have

12 taken place at over £300 million. To Mr Sharifulin.

13 A. Mr Sharifulin, yes.

14 Q. And that you had been directly involved in

15 the potential — this potential sale of Vyborg Port.

16 A. Yes.

17 Q. And that you were predicting the bankruptcy of

18 Vyborg Port as things had turned out as at that date?

19 A. Yes.

20 Q. Can you be shown, please, {D166/2835/1}. If you could

21 have {D166/2835/2} on screen, please. Mr Arkhangelsky,

22 have you seen this document in Russian or its English

23 translation before?

24 A. No.

25 Q. Dr Arkhangelsky was asked about it last week and

1 A. Okay. Yes.

2 Q. And if you go to the third page, so that’s {I15/15/105},

3 I would like you, please, to read the paragraphs, the

4 second and third paragraph, the one beginning, «Mr and

5 Mrs Arkhangelsky confirm …» and then the next one,

6 please.

7 A. Okay (Pause).

8 Yes.

9 Q. And I said before, Mr Ameli, I don’t want to go into any

10 potentially privileged matters, I don’t say whether they

11 are or aren’t but I don’t want to go into them if they

12 might be, unless re-examination it is clear that that is

13 going to be waived, and if it is I might want to come

14 back to it.

15 But I’m going to try and pose a question, I’m going

16 to assume that that might be an issue, and I’m going to

17 try and frame some questions accordingly, if that’s all

18 right, and if you are in any doubt about it, then please

19 pause before answering.

20 Can I ask you the following questions, please:

21 having seen all the material I have shown you this

22 afternoon, can I ask you the following questions,

23 please, and I want you to just focus on the facts of

24 the following points.

25 Since 4 April 2013 have you, Mr Ameli, as a matter

165

1 he challenges the authenticity of this document, so you

2 know.

3 A. Mm hmm, okay.

4 Q. That’s {Day16/102:1}.

5 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: 182?

6 MR LORD: {Day16/102:1}, sorry, my Lord.

7 You can see that on the face of it, Mr Ameli, it

8 looks like it is an instruction — on the face of it,

9 and bearing in mind Dr Arkhangelsky’s challenge to

10 the authenticity — just on the face of the document, it

11 looks like it is an instruction to Mr Vasiliev to sell

12 shares — can you see that — in Vyborg Port and

13 Port Equipment to a company called Akort? (Pause).

14 If you could be shown, please, {I15/15/103}, this is

15 a letter from Withers, who were the defendants’

16 solicitors at the time, 23 July 2015.

17 A. Right.

18 Q. And they are referring to the question about potential

19 sale of shares in Vyborg Port and Port Equipment; can

20 you see that from the third paragraph?

21 A. This is the last paragraph of the page?

22 Q. It’s the third paragraph. You can see —

23 A. Oh, the third paragraph, excuse me.

24 Q. That’s all right. (Pause).

25 Can you see the context for the letter?

167

1 of fact, had any involvement in any potential sale of

2 Vyborg Port, by which I mean Vyborg Port LLC or

3 Port Equipment LLC?

4 A. This is something which is difficult to answer, I guess.

5 Q. And is that because there’s a possible privilege issue,

6 or are there other issues?

7 A. No, no, privilege issues.

8 Q. What — sorry, my Lord, I’m not sure why the fact of

9 that involvement should be necessarily privileged as

10 opposed to any legal advice and assistance in that

11 regard.

12 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: No, the curiosity, if I can put it

13 that way, arises because it would be surprising if you

14 were undertaking the sale, really, as a lawyer, you were

15 really being asked to conduct the sale in a sense in

16 loco Mr Arkhangelsky.

17 A. Yes.

18 MR LORD: I’m not asking you for the legal help: I’m asking

19 whether or not —

20 A. Right.

21 Q. Because we’ve seen that you were instructed to find

22 a buyer.

23 A. Yes.

24 Q. And I want to know whether, as a matter of fact, you

25 have been involved in any potential sale?

166 168
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

February 29, 2016 Day 18

1 A. No. I was not.

2 MR STROILOV: I wonder if really «involvement in potential

3 sale» might be too vague and this deserves to be

4 reformulated and then I think —

5 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Did Mr Arkhangelsky ask you to try and

6 arrange the sale of this company in point of fact? Not

7 to advise him on any legal consequences or anything

8 else, but to actually act as an agent, as it were, for

9 the sale of it?

10 A. After 2013 and after the Saudi client, you mean?

11 MR LORD: Yes.

12 A. No.

13 Q. And what about whether as a matter of fact you’ve been

14 involved in any potential transfer or disposal of

15 Vyborg Port?

16 A. No.

17 Q. Do you know what has happened to the ownership of

18 Vyborg Port since 4 April 2013?

19 A. No.

20 Q. Do you know whether Vyborg Port has gone into bankruptcy

21 since 4 April 2013?

22 A. I don’t know for a fact. I have heard things, but

23 I haven’t had any proof of it. I have heard about tax

24 issues also, but I haven’t had any proof of it either.

25 Q. And do you know who has managed or controlled

1 procedure, because the first one was much — excuse me,

2 what was the date of this?

3 Q. I’m not sure there is a date on it.

4 A. No, on my affidavit.

5 Q. Your affidavit.

6 A. The first one, so it’s 2012 … (Pause)

7 Okay, so this is the first one.

8 Q. I think it is.

9 A. The first — yes, this is the first one.

10 Q. So {D6/140/1}, you think it is the first one?

11 A. Yes.

12 Q. I think it is. I think it matches up.

13 A. Yes, because we filed afterwards another one which was

14 much more extended.

15 Q. And can you confirm to his Lordship that this was filed

16 with the examining chamber of the Court of Appeal of

17 Aix-en-Provence?

18 A. Yes, it was filed with the examining chamber of

19 the Court of Appeal of Aix-en-Provence.

20 Q. And that it was filed on behalf of Dr Arkhangelsky?

21 A. Yes, it was filed on behalf of Dr Arkhangelsky.

22 Q. And it was based upon information provided by him to

23 you?

24 A. Yes.

25 Q. I want to ask you, please, just to confirm one or two

169 171
1 Vyborg Port since 4 April 2013? 1 more aspects, {D6/140/10}.
2 A. I don’t know. 2 A. Yes.
3 Q. I’m going to ask you now, Mr Ameli, another topic. 3 Q. About halfway down the page there is a paragraph:
4 I will try and go as quickly as I can. I’m going to ask 4 «In particular, even though Mr Arkhangelsky never
5 you now about extradition, if I may. 5 held himself to be a personal guarantor for the debts of
6 A. Sure. 6 his business, false documents featuring his falsified
7 Q. I wonder, could you be shown {D6/140/1}. You see at 7 signature were presented by the Bank of St Petersburg to
8 {D6/140/1} — 8 the Russian courts (Documents 25 and 26: reports by
9 A. Yes. 9 graphology experts).»
10 Q. — something called the «Appellant’s Factum»; can you 10 A. Yes.
11 see that? 11 Q. Can you confirm to his Lordship that that submission was
12 A. Yes. 12 made to the French court?
13 Q. And if you could be shown, please, {M1/19/1}, you will 13 A. It was. This submission was made to the French court.
14 see an affidavit that you have given. It’s an affidavit 14 Q. And the reference to documents 25 and 26, can you help
15 I think you gave in the BVI proceedings. 15 with what those were? I wasn’t sure what those were.
16 A. Yes. 16 A. It was the French graphology expert who made
17 Q. And if you go to {M1/19/7}, paragraph 16, if that could 17 an expertise on — I don’t remember what documents, but
18 be blown up. 18 on some of the documents and found that
19 A. Yes. 19 Mr Arkhangelsky’s signature was forged.
20 Q. I think you exhibit, in the last sentence, the document 20 Q. Can you be shown {D6/140/15}, please, which is another
21 I put up on screen at {D6/140/1}; is that right? That’s 21 page from this filing. Can you see the paragraph
22 what you were talking about, isn’t it? 22 halfway down:
23 A. Well, there were two of these appellant’s factum, one 23 «It should be noted that the Russian judgments for
24 for the first extradition, and one for the second. 24 which the Bank is trying to obtain an enforcement order
25 I think this one is for the second extradition 25 in France were passed by default and were not justified
170 172
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

February 29, 2016 Day 18

1 as regards to the convictions held against

2 Mr Arkhangelsky in his personal capacity.»

3 Can you see that?

4 A. Yes.

5 Q. What was the basis for that submission; do you remember?

6 What was the basis for it?

7 A. We were saying that as no personal guarantee existed —

8 Q. Yes.

9 A. — there was a guarantee given by — if I remember well

10 it was by Scandinavia, to … which company I don’t

11 remember. There was a guarantee given by one company in

12 favour of another company, but there was no guarantee

13 given by Mr Arkhangelsky as an individual in favour of

14 a company. So that’s why we were saying that this

15 judgment was invalid and should not be — would not be

16 recognised here.

17 Q. But you can confirm to his Lordship that this was

18 a submission that was made to the French court?

19 A. This was a submission that was made to the French court.

20 Q. Yes, I understand.

21 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Was it any part of the submission that

22 Mr Arkhangelsky simply had not taken part in

23 the proceedings? What is the reference to default?

24 A. Oh, the — on the three judgments that — for which

25 recognition was sought in France, those three judgments

1 that was said on this page — that this submission was

2 made. In other words, I’m really asking you, if it was

3 qualified or retracted in any way, I would like you to

4 say that, Mr Ameli.

5 A. These are the submissions.

6 Q. Yes. So the French court was told what we see in

7 the first and second paragraphs, the second paragraph

8 particularly:

9 «Therefore, the Bank of St Petersburg, its

10 directors, and its accomplices, are guilty not only of

11 the offence of forgery and use of forgery, by

12 fabricating the relevant personal guarantee documents

13 supposedly originating from Mr and Mrs Arkhangelsky, but

14 they are also guilty of the offence of attempted fraud

15 of a judgment, in the context of proceedings to obtain

16 the aforementioned enforcement order.»

17 A. Yes. These are extracts from actually our complaint to

18 the criminal court of Nice against the Bank.

19 Q. I’m just confirming; so these allegations about the

20 criminal behaviour of the Bank, based upon forgery and

21 fabrication of personal guarantee documents, those

22 submissions were made to this French court, were they?

23 A. Yes.

24 Q. On behalf of Dr Arkhangelsky?

25 A. Yes.

173

1 were default judgments. He was not present at them.

2 I talk about those three judgments with the reference

3 numbers in one of my affidavits, I guess. There are so

4 many judgments.

5 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: So have I got it right that the

6 submission to the court in Nice was to the effect that

7 the judgments in Russia had been entered in default of

8 his appearance: he had not been there?

9 A. Right.

10 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: And, secondly, that the conclusions

11 were based on guarantees which he said were forged?

12 A. Absolutely. There was the civil part of the case, which

13 was the recognition, before the court of Nice, and this

14 was the criminal part, which was the extradition part,

15 which was before the Court of Appeal of Aix-en-Provence.

16 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Thank you.

17 A. So we — usually when there are other proceedings going

18 on before the courts, we have to just, you know, list

19 all the proceedings that are going on in France or

20 abroad. These paragraphs refer to that.

21 MR LORD: Can you be shown {D6/140/17}, please, another page

22 from this document.

23 A. Yes.

24 Q. I just want you to read, please, what’s said on that

25 page, just to confirm to his Lordship that everything

175

1 Q. By you?

2 A. Yes. And William Bourdon, who was my co-counsel on this

3 extradition procedure.

4 Q. Can we go to {D6/140/20}, please. It’s the fourth

5 paragraph from the end:

6 «At the end of 2008, the directors of

7 the Bank of St Petersburg and of the Shipping Bank

8 carried out significant threats against Mr Arkhangelsky

9 ordering him to hand over the companies West Terminal

10 (Zapadny Terminal in Russian) and Scandinavia for

11 a derisory sum to so-called ‘friend’ companies (notably

12 Sevzapalians mentioned in the events to follow).»

13 Do you see that?

14 A. Yes.

15 Q. And I couldn’t find — the Shipping Bank is a reference

16 to Morskoy Bank, isn’t it, Mr Ameli?

17 A. Excuse me? Handover to companies … Western

18 Terminal…

19 Q. «… the Bank of St Petersburg and of the Shipping

20 Bank…»

21 A. Oh, yes, the Shipping Bank is Morskoy, yes.

22 Q. I couldn’t see in this filing any reference to any

23 repurchase agreement where there was an agreement that

24 these shares in Western Terminal and Scandinavia could

25 be sold by these friend companies back to the OMG

174 176
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

February 29, 2016 Day 18

1 companies that had originally sold them; do you see what

2 I mean?

3 A. Mm hmm. Yes. I understand.

4 Q. In other words, this paragraph reads as if — well,

5 I’ll rephrase it.

6 Can you confirm to his Lordship that the French

7 court was not told, either in this filing or otherwise,

8 of any repurchase agreement entered into in relation to

9 the transfers at the end of 2008 of the shares in

10 Western Terminal and Scandinavia Insurance?

11 A. Okay. Two things, your Lordship: first of all, this was

12 the first submission that we made to the court. There

13 was another one, about 90 pages, that we filed when the

14 Russian authorities were given more time to provide more

15 documents, and I don’t know if you have that one, but of

16 course I can send it to you. So I don’t remember what

17 we said or we didn’t say in that — in those

18 submissions.

19 The question of the fact that there was this

20 repurchase agreement has been extensively told to

21 the courts.

22 Q. Right.

23 A. It may not have been told. I don’t remember. I can

24 just have a look at it and tell you.

25 Q. All right.

1 wouldn’t know, but Mr Stroilov will know whether that’s

2 been disclosed, and I am sure you will be taken to it in

3 re-examination by Mr Stroilov. If that’s a disclosed

4 document and there are references in there to

5 the matters I have asked you about, Mr Stroilov will

6 have an opportunity to re-examine you so you are taken

7 to any relevant entries that will complete the story.

8 A. Okay.

9 MR STROILOV: I’m sorry to intervene, just a small remark.

10 I’m not quite sure where this line of questioning is

11 really going. So I wonder if — obviously, I’m not

12 objecting to any factual matters or consistent or

13 inconsistent statements being explored. I would be much

14 more concerned if this line is really meant to suggest

15 that the extradition requests were wrongly rejected, so

16 if it goes into that area, which is obviously related to

17 what was a controversy back in Paris, I would like it to

18 be borne in mind that — well, I would like some signal,

19 perhaps, to be given that we are entering into

20 a controversial area and perhaps things need to be

21 debated. I am sorry to have intervened here.

22 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Not at all.

23 MR LORD: I wasn’t going to put any points to that effect.

24 I want to establish what statements were made about

25 various relevant events.

177 179
1 A. It hasn’t been said to the Court of Appeal of 1 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Yes. I’m sure it will become clearer
2 Aix-en-Provence because it was not really a matter which 2 to me in due course why this is a line, but …
3 was central in the extradition case. 3 MR LORD: My Lord, it is obviously relevant; it is relevant
4 Q. Right. 4 to credibility. There’s going to be relevance to
5 A. But to the other courts it has been said, in 5 credibility. If your Lordship finds that, let’s say,
6 the criminal complaint it’s very clear, because we will 6 for argument’s sake, personal guarantees were entered
7 provide that document, you know, of repurchase. 7 into, it will obviously be relevant in this case as
8 Q. I was really focusing of what was said to the Court of 8 a matter of credit whether or not various statements
9 Appeal in Aix-en-Provence? 9 have been made to contrary effect.
10 A. Before the extradition, I don’t remember. Maybe in 10 I’m not going to ask this witness to comment on
11 the other — I can check. 11 whether these are or aren’t accurate. It will be
12 Q. We will check, and — 12 a matter for submission at the end of the case.
13 A. You will check. 13 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Yes. I mean, the French court
14 Q. Yes, we will check as well, yes, certainly. But it 14 recorded these submissions.
15 wasn’t mentioned in this filing that I am taking you to 15 MR LORD: I want to give the witness a chance, my Lord, out
16 at the moment, the first filing? 16 of fairness.
17 A. No, but this was just the first submissions. 17 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: I see. In case the French court got
18 Q. I see, yes. 18 it wrong.
19 A. That’s why I was a little bit confused, because the last 19 MR LORD: No, no, in case, in fact, there had been some
20 submission that we had was about 90 pages, so there’s 20 qualification of these statements.
21 much more … yes. 21 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: I see.
22 Q. I will check whether we’ve got that, Mr Ameli. I’ll 22 MR LORD: They are all premised upon there being no personal
23 just double-check whether we actually have that. 23 guarantees and the whole case based upon them, any
24 A. I can, of course, send it to you. 24 claims based upon them being fabricated and fraudulent
25 Q. Do you think that’s a document that has been — you 25 and committing offences, and clearly a big issue will
178 180
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

February 29, 2016 Day 18

1 be: is that right or not. And if your Lordship finds

2 that personal guarantees were entered into, then that

3 will lead to one set of submissions, and, if not, not.

4 Mr Stroilov is quite right: it is a question of

5 inconsistent statements made, made in other contexts,

6 and it goes to the heart of this case.

7 MR STROILOV: Well, I am afraid that explanation really

8 makes me more worried, because obviously the statement

9 that there were no personal guarantees in this kind of

10 statement, it’s not inconsistent with Mr Arkhangelsky’s

11 case. So what this really seems to be going to is

12 really trying to make sure that if the Bank wins in this

13 case, then all the French judgments are automatically

14 undermined and that, in my submission, is not

15 a legitimate line of questioning.

16 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Well, at the moment, I mean,

17 Mr Stroilov, if it is ultimately decided that personal

18 guarantees were given, I dare say that others will seek

19 to make use of that fact as established. But at the

20 moment, what Mr Lord assures me he is doing is giving

21 Mr Ameli a chance to explain if the French court did not

22 adequately capture the submissions and they were more

23 nuanced, or subject to some condition, or some other

24 explanation, he says he is giving Mr Ameli a chance to

25 say so, and my understanding is that Mr Ameli has said

1 anything to do in this procedure because usually when

2 you have an extradition, the state may be represented by

3 a lawyer or may consider that a prosecutor may come in

4 other cases, such as Ablyazov’s case, the Russian

5 prosecutor, representative of the prosecutor was

6 present, but the state was not represented — the State

7 of Russia was not represented in Arkhangelsky’s case.

8 Maybe they considered that it was not a high profile

9 case, I don’t know why.

10 But the Bank’s lawyer was present all the time and

11 that was very peculiar, because he was not a party to

12 this extradition procedure.

13 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: They are public hearings, though.

14 A. Excuse me?

15 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: They are public hearings.

16 A. The hearings are public, yes.

17 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Did the lawyer effect to be instructed

18 in the case? Mr Arkhangelsky told me he was dressed up.

19 A. Yes, that’s one of the things that you usually don’t do

20 if you are just — you come to the hearing not as

21 a lawyer but just as a person who comes to …

22 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Yes, I see.

23 A. But the fact is that when this hearing was going on,

24 usually — in French courts you don’t have this kind of

25 reservation of many days for one case; you have all

181

1 that what is recorded as said is accurately recorded,

2 but there was a further submission of some 90 pages

3 which may well be more nuanced, but which I have not

4 seen.

5 A. If I may, your Lordship, stress also on one point, this

6 first extradition was based not at all on personal

7 guarantees, so that was not really the scope of

8 the discussion that went on before the Court of Appeal

9 of Aix, because it was done on the basis of escroquerie,

10 of embezzlement of Morskoy Bank.

11 So, really, the personal guarantee was not an issue

12 here. We were talking about it because we had to give

13 all the context and you will find even more context in

14 the 90-page submission.

15 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: In the 90 pages, yes.

16 A. But it was not really a question of — and that’s what

17 really worried me at that time, and still worries me, is

18 that — and we may come to this kind of question also —

19 the matter of extradition is a matter between states,

20 between Russia and France, and you could really feel the

21 presence of the Bank of St Petersburg in this procedure,

22 and that was very worrying. That’s all I have to say.

23 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: You could feel it because?

24 A. Well, there was this presence of the Bank’s lawyer in

25 France during this procedure, and he didn’t have

183

1 three or four cases that come in the same day, so you

2 just dedicate 30 minutes to one hour of hearing to each

3 case.

4 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Yes.

5 A. And as the Arkhangelsky case each time was considered to

6 be the most important one, they just reserved it for the

7 end of the hearing.

8 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: I see.

9 A. Therefore, each time there was just the lawyers plus the

10 prosecutor plus sometimes the interpreter and of course

11 Mr Arkhangelsky —

12 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: The public had been worn out by the

13 previous cases, right.

14 A. And there was no public, and the only public was the

15 Bank’s lawyer.

16 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Yes, I see.

17 How are we doing on time? I said 4.45. I do have

18 a meeting.

19 MR LORD: We will have to stop, my Lord. I am afraid I’m

20 not going to finish in time. We started — well, a lot

21 of the day’s business — we started at 2.30. I have

22 been interrupted in my cross-examination.

23 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: How much longer do you need?

24 MR LORD: Probably about 10 or 15 minutes, but I need to

25 think about those last answers and I do …

182 184
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

February 29, 2016 Day 18

1 MR STROILOV: We were expecting that Mr Ameli will be able

2 to go back to Paris tonight.

3 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Mr Ameli, I can stretch it to about

4 4.55, but I have a question, at least, and Mr Stroilov,

5 do you have any re-examination?

6 MR STROILOV: Not at the moment, unless something really

7 sensational comes up in the next ten minutes.

8 MR LORD: I estimated two to two and a half hours. I think

9 I’ve been interrupted on one or two occasions, the last

10 one lasting about ten minutes, and we started at 2.30.

11 So with a following wind I would have finished within

12 the estimate. I am afraid the housekeeping took longer,

13 Mr Stroilov’s application took longer. It had to be

14 dealt with before this witness.

15 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Mr Ameli, how are you placed? I am so

16 sorry about this.

17 A. No problem. I have a train at, I don’t know, 7.00 pm,

18 8.00 pm.

19 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: But you have to be back in Paris

20 tomorrow?

21 A. Yes, tomorrow I have another hearing in Paris.

22 MR LORD: Well, I will finish, but —

23 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: I will sit until 5.00 pm; do you think

24 that will do it?

25 MR LORD: I will go more quickly, my Lord, but I … I will

1 implying that a bank representative had actually

2 represented the Russian State, but that’s not the case,

3 is it?

4 A. Oh no. No, no, I didn’t say that.

5 Q. And apart from Mr Bernier being present, I don’t think

6 you point to any other — there is nothing else you

7 identify to justify your claim that

8 Bank of St Petersburg was somehow involved in

9 the extradition, do you?

10 A. Apart from Marc Bernier? In the hearings, you mean?

11 Q. Yes.

12 A. No, in the hearings I didn’t see anything else.

13 Q. Thank you. There is nothing else you point to, is

14 there; there is nothing else in this case that would

15 warrant that view, except, apparently, a French lawyer

16 turning up on behalf of the Bank at a public hearing; is

17 that right?

18 A. Oh, outside the court I have a lot of things that point

19 to the court with — it’s going to be very lengthy again

20 to expose everything concerning all the things that

21 I have learned about the fact that usually, this kind of

22 extradition is — in some countries, I have, myself, had

23 also experience with other countries with the Interpol

24 Red Notice, et cetera, the intermingle between

25 politicians, and I don’t have a proof, if you wish me to

185 187
1 go more quickly. 1 say that, but —
2 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: You said 15 minutes, so I’ve tried to 2 Q. That’s what I mean.
3 give you what you said. 3 A. — I have a lot of sort of network of facts which give
4 MR LORD: Yes, thank you, my Lord. 4 a very bizarre situation about that, that makes me think
5 Mr Ameli, you have just given some evidence about 5 that Bank of St Petersburg is just, you know, doing some
6 the Bank of St Petersburg’s involvement in the first 6 things behind the scenes, yes.
7 extradition request. Can you go to {C1/4/4}, please, 7 Q. But that’s just speculation on your part, Mr Ameli,
8 paragraph 19. 8 isn’t it?
9 A. Yes. 9 A. I can’t prove that.
10 Q. You said in the second sentence: 10 Q. Can you identify one concrete fact beyond the fact that
11 «Apart from the Russian authorities being 11 there is a lawyer attending a public hearing; what is
12 represented by the French prosecutor, most, if not all, 12 the one concrete further fact you point to, to make that
13 hearings were attended by M Marc Bernier, the French 13 claim?
14 legal representative of the Bank of St Petersburg.» 14 A. Well —
15 A. Yes. 15 Q. Fact.
16 Q. So it’s right, isn’t it, that the Russian State were 16 A. — maybe two concrete facts. The majority shareholder
17 represented by the French prosecutor? 17 of the Bank of St Petersburg, who is very close to
18 A. Yes. Our procedure is that if the state is not 18 the person you know, and the second thing may be the
19 represented by a representative, then the prosecutor 19 fact that —
20 takes into account the view of the state. 20 Q. Sorry, who are — what are you talking about?
21 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: I see. So he represents both, does 21 A. About Mrs Matvienko.
22 he? 22 Q. And you are saying that Mr Savelyev is close to
23 A. He represents both. 23 Mrs Matvienko?
24 MR LORD: But I thought from your answers when Mr Stroilov 24 A. No, the shareholder.
25 intervened on me, I thought from those answers you were 25 Q. Who are you talking about?
186 188
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

February 29, 2016 Day 18

1 A. Mrs Matvienko’s son is one of the shareholders of 1 Then the judge says: what are you doing here? And
2 the Bank. 2 he said: well — if I’m not mistaken, I guess he said
3 Q. So that’s one of your bases, is it? 3 that he wants to inform or, you know, just give
4 A. That’s one of my bases. 4 an account of what is going on in the extradition
5 Q. Yes. 5 procedure. That’s why he’s there.
6 A. The other one is this takeover of the Morskoy Bank debt 6 I don’t remember why, but the judge got very angry,
7 by the Bank of St Petersburg later on, when … 7 saying: I don’t know what you’re doing here. Of course
8 Q. Anything else his Lordship could take into account to 8 it is a public hearing, so you can stay, but if it was
9 support this claim that the Bank — 9 up to me, I would not want you to stay. If it was up to
10 A. Not that I think of right now, no. 10 me I would have told you to, you know, just go out of
11 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Did Mr Bernier make any submissions in 11 the hearing room, but as it is a public hearing room,
12 writing or outside court on behalf of 12 I cannot do that. That’s what he said. And, of course,
13 Bank of St Petersburg relating to this matter between 13 Bernier stayed there.
14 states? 14 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Is it usual for the applicant state,
15 A. I didn’t understand your question, excuse me. 15 in this case, Russia, to be represented by the French
16 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Did Mr Bernier, who I understand to be 16 prosecutor?
17 the man who was appearing as a lawyer — 17 A. What I understood — I’m not a criminal law specialist,
18 A. Yes. 18 but what I understood is that for, let’s say, high
19 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: — but who was not instructed by the 19 profile cases, usually the state sends a representative.
20 state and was instructed by Bank of St Petersburg, make 20 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: I see.
21 any submissions to the court, either outside it or 21 A. And for low profile they don’t — you know, it costs
22 inside it, or to you in writing? 22 them too much so they don’t provide anybody.
23 A. He did not do any submissions in writing that we know 23 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Okay.
24 of. As I said, this is a matter between states, and 24 A. They just rely on the court.
25 even if he did, as Mr Arkhangelsky’s lawyer, I would not 25 MR LORD: Can you be shown {D143/2395/1}, please, Mr Ameli.
189 191

1 be informed of it.

2 I think he did. I am not — I can’t confirm it.

3 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Was there any indication to you during

4 the hearing or otherwise that Mr Bernier had made any

5 submissions to the court, of which you are unaware?

6 A. Your Lordship, I don’t — I have something in my —

7 I remember something somebody — there was a written

8 submission on his behalf, I think, but I can’t —

9 I really can’t —

10 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: I ask it because in your witness

11 statement you say there came a moment when the judge

12 asked Mr Bernier who he was.

13 A. Yes.

14 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: And when he answered that he was

15 Mr Bernier for the Bank, the judge indicated surprise.

16 A. Yes.

17 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: That is surprising if Mr Bernier had

18 already made a submission.

19 A. Yes. Well, no, he didn’t make a submission: he was just

20 there and what happened is that — so the judge knew

21 almost everybody in the hearing room except for this

22 person, and he asked him: are you representing — who

23 are you representing? And he said: I’m representing the

24 Bank of St Petersburg — I’m telling you from, you know,

25 my recollection.

1 Just tell his Lordship what that document is, please,

2 and with whom it was filed. It looks like it was filed

3 with the French court around January 2011 seeking

4 a stay; is that right?

5 A. Yes. This is before the Court of Nice.

6 Q. Yes. And your name is on it?

7 A. Yes.

8 Q. So you drafted it, and can you confirm that this was

9 filed with the —

10 A. Yes, it was filed by me.

11 Q. Could you be shown, please, {D151/2522/1} and if we

12 could have {D151/2522/17} at the same time, please.

13 Page 17 appears to be the first page of the judgment

14 of the Investigation Chamber in November 2011 on

15 extradition; is that right?

16 A. Yes.

17 Q. {D151/2522/17}?

18 A. Yes, that’s it.

19 Q. And {D151/2522/1} is the translation.

20 A. Yes. November 10, 2011. This is the first decision on

21 non-extradition.

22 Q. The only reason I take you to that is because in your

23 witness statement in paragraph 20, the witness statement

24 for this action.

25 A. Mm hmm.

190 192
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

February 29, 2016 Day 18

1 Q. You talk about the judgment given, but you don’t exhibit

2 it, so I want to be clear —

3 A. Oh, yes, that’s the judgment.

4 Q. Thank you. And you agree that that judgment — if there

5 is any difference between your paragraph 20 and the

6 judgment, his Lordship should take the judgment as the

7 accurate record of what was, in fact, decided, shouldn’t

8 he?

9 A. My paragraph 20 being … that’s it. My paragraph 20 on

10 {C1/4/4}.

11 Q. But you are paraphrasing, aren’t you, on something you

12 don’t exhibit and I’m getting you to confirm what the

13 original —

14 A. I’m paraphrasing, yes, but, you know, in essence the

15 court says the same thing.

16 Q. Could you be shown {D5/109/1}, please. It looks like it

17 is a press article drafted by you; if you go to

18 {D5/109/4}, your name appears with that of Mr Bourdon;

19 Can you see that?

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. Just confirm for his Lordship’s note, is this

22 a press article or a press release —

23 A. This is a press release.

24 Q. Drafted by you and Mr Bourdon?

25 A. Yes.

1 A. Yes.

2 Q. To the end, please. {D149/2489/5}

3 Signed by you and Mr Bourdon?

4 A. Yes.

5 Q. Can you go back to the first page, please. {D149/2489/1}

6 A. Yes.

7 Q. Can you confirm to his Lordship that you did, you and

8 Mr Bourdon did write this letter on 22 August 2011 to

9 this bank?

10 A. Yes. I don’t see to what bank, but yes, we drafted

11 a letter like this, I remember.

12 Q. We can see the second paragraph:

13 «We understand that you are one of the Bank’s

14 correspondent banks …»

15 Can you see?

16 A. Yes.

17 Q. And you say:

18 «… and accordingly, the purpose of this letter is

19 to make you fully aware of certain legal proceedings…»

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. So can you confirm to his Lordship’s that in August

22 2011, you and Mr Bourdon were writing to at least a bank

23 in these terms?

24 A. Yes.

25 Q. And what was your purpose in writing to one of

193 195

1 Q. And when was it put out? When was it released?

2 A. I don’t know. There’s no date on it. Most probably

3 right after the judgment.

4 Q. And what was the purpose of this press release?

5 A. Oh, this case was —

6 Q. What was the purpose of this press release?

7 A. This case was really becoming very — I mean, media was

8 already — had talked about this case before, and so

9 they wanted to know what was going on, so we were not in

10 a constant relationship, but we had a relationship with

11 the media on Arkhangelsky’s case on extradition.

12 It was really interesting in France because this was

13 one of the first cases in which we had not a political

14 person, but a businessman who was — for which

15 extradition was sought, for whom extradition was sought.

16 Q. Can you be shown {D149/2489/1}, please. This is

17 a letter —

18 A. Yes.

19 Q. — drafted to another bank. Can you go, please — can

20 we scroll down, please. {D149/2489/2} I think it is

21 from you, isn’t it, Mr Ameli; do you recognise this

22 letter?

23 A. Yes.

24 Q. Can we keep scrolling down, please? {D149/2489/3}

25 {D149/2489/4}

1 Bank of St Petersburg’s correspondent banks in this way?

2 A. Well, to make them fully aware of exactly what is said

3 in the letter.

4 Q. But why? Why?

5 A. Well, it was important that they would be aware.

6 Q. Why? To damage them? To damage Bank of St Petersburg?

7 A. No. No, why damage Bank of St Petersburg?

8 Q. Well, you tell his Lordship why, what the purpose was of

9 your writing this?

10 A. We were writing this in order to inform — I don’t know

11 which, because … 22 August. We were writing this

12 because it was important that, you know, all the

13 different cooperation — it was not to damage, no.

14 That’s not the purpose.

15 Q. Did you write to other banks, or did you write other

16 letters?

17 A. Yes, I think so, yes.

18 Q. How many do you think you wrote?

19 A. Oh, I don’t remember, that goes back five years ago.

20 Q. Tens, hundreds, how many letters?

21 A. No, no.

22 Q. How many?

23 A. I think four or five, I guess. I don’t remember.

24 MR LORD: My Lord, I am sorry to have gone on a bit. I have

25 no further questions for this witness. I am grateful to

194 196
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

February 29, 2016 Day 18

1 your Lordship for sitting late to allow me to finish.

2 MR STROILOV: No re-examination.

3 Questions by MR JUSTICE HILDYARD

4 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: I have just one question, I think,

5 Mr Ameli; it relates back to your note, and the issue of

6 «moral in nature».

7 A. Yes.

8 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: And just to be fair to you, if we

9 could have {D125/2424.1/1} up for us. If on the other

10 screen we could have the [draft] transcript of today at

11 about page 114.

12 And you explained at 114 and onwards as to

13 the practice in France, and the fact that in France

14 ordinarily, in order to ensure validity and to give it

15 substance, it’s normally accompanied by hypothecation of

16 some kind. That was my understanding of the evidence

17 that you gave?

18 A. Yes, but the question that I wanted to know was

19 whether — maybe we can use the French word, and I will

20 transmit through Pavel Stroilov the right translation of

21 that.

22 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Right.

23 A. It is called a caution hypothécaire, which means that

24 when you give a personal guarantee, you know, as

25 a person, you, in order for your guarantee to be, you

1 incidence on the personal guarantee.

2 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Yes. And I can understand that, using

3 French spectacles to interpret what you were being told.

4 A. Yes.

5 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: But did you form the view, is it your

6 recollection that he was telling you that there was no

7 contract at all?

8 A. That’s exactly what I understood at the end of our

9 meeting.

10 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: I want you to be clear about that: no

11 contract at all is one thing; no contract which would be

12 given validity in France under its rules is another.

13 A. No, it’s the first option that —

14 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: No contract.

15 A. No contract at all. There was a moral obligation, not

16 a contractual obligation on behalf of Mr Arkhangelsky.

17 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: I rather wondered whether what he was

18 saying was: look, it’s not a secured obligation, it’s

19 merely a personal bond. It will probably — we don’t

20 have any security for it, but it will keep him honest.

21 A. Well, sort of — how can I … the moral obligation in

22 the French system is very —

23 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: But he wasn’t talking in French law,

24 was he?

25 A. No, no, no. No, no, no, no, no. No, but as

197 199
1 know, valuable and credible towards your creditor, you 1 I understood, Russian law resembles more French law —
2 would link this to a real estate, to a physical asset, 2 I mean Russian law concepts resemble, from what I have
3 and you say: okay, I’m giving this but it’s on the basis 3 heard from the law experts, more French law than common
4 of the physical assets that I have. 4 law, and I would say that what he was saying is that we
5 So as we were, you know, going along and I was 5 had assurances on his behalf saying that I’m going to
6 trying to understand whether there was this form of 6 take care of this, I’m going to —
7 thing in the Russian, under the Russian law or not, 7 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Written assurances?
8 I asked him whether this was what he was meaning, and 8 A. Excuse me?
9 then he said: oh no, I’m talking about just the moral 9 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Written assurances?
10 obligation. Because he said it was not activated and 10 A. No. No, I didn’t have any — there didn’t seem to
11 I said: what does that mean, not being activated? And 11 exist — because I was telling him about the fact that
12 he said just it was assurances, it was a moral 12 there was personal guarantees that was shown by the
13 obligation that was taken by Mr Arkhangelsky and not 13 Bank of St Petersburg, and so — I mean, you know, maybe
14 a formal personal guarantee. But, so you have — 14 he would have shown it, at least, to us, if there
15 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Not in French terms, a formal — 15 existed any.
16 A. Yes, well, actually a caution personnelle under French 16 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Right. So I can take your evidence to
17 law means really a very important thing, because you 17 be that he, as far as you understood him, was saying
18 have this difference between autonomous guarantees and 18 there is no effective promise in law —
19 subsidiary personal guarantees, and when we are talking 19 A. Right.
20 about caution, it is a subsidiary personal guarantee, so 20 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: — given by Mr Arkhangelsky?
21 if for any reason the underlying obligation is not 21 A. Right.
22 valid, then the personal guarantee would not be valid 22 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: It’s merely —
23 either, but if you give an autonomous bank guarantee, 23 A. That’s what I understood.
24 such as a first demand, as international cases, in that 24 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: It’s merely an informal assurance?
25 case the underlying obligation doesn’t have any 25 A. An informal assurance.
198 200
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

February 29, 2016 Day 18

1 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: That’s what you understood him to be

2 telling you?

3 A. Absolutely. That’s what I call a moral obligation.

4 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: I know that’s what you call it but

5 I wonder what he called it.

6 A. Let’s say that it was to me the French equivalent of

7 a moral obligation, which is not enforceable.

8 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Do you think it is possible that you

9 read your French understanding into his Russian

10 explanation?

11 A. Well, of course it can — it is possible, but, you know,

12 it was really very clear. Of course, he was not going

13 to show us the papers, the documents, but it was very

14 clear that we were asking that if there is any pleas,

15 give a copy to us, and we did not go out of this meeting

16 with copies.

17 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: I see.

18 A. So that’s …

19 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: You expressly asked for any written

20 contract, did you?

21 A. No.

22 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: No.

23 A. No.

24 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: All right, yes. That was my question.

25 Does it give rise to any other questions?

1 evidence.

2 I am sorry to rush you, Mr Lord.

3 Did someone mention that they wanted to start at

4 10.00 am tomorrow?

5 MR LORD: I think Mr Stroilov does.

6 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: How are you —

7 MR LORD: I’m all right for that time, if your Lordship can

8 make it 10.00 am.

9 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Yes, I want to try and keep days

10 within reasonable compass because I have had some

11 problems with my eyesight, which I do not wish to

12 worsen. So we will start at 10.00, but I don’t want to

13 make a complete habit of it. It is becoming a bit of

14 a habit in the case.

15 MR STROILOV: Yes, my Lord.

16 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Very well, 10.00 am.

17 (5.08 pm)

18 (The court adjourned until 10.00 am on

19 Tuesday, 1 March 2016)

20

21

22

23

24

25

201 203

1 MR STROILOV: Just one, my Lord, if I may?

2 Re-examination by MR STROILOV

3 MR STROILOV: Mr Ameli, I think you gave evidence that the

4 meeting, most of the meeting took place in English;

5 isn’t that right?

6 A. Yes.

7 Q. So do you recall anyone at that meeting using the word

8 «surety», or «suretyship», rather than guarantee?

9 A. No, I don’t remember. Really, I don’t remember.

10 Q. So the reference would always be to the word

11 «guarantee»?

12 A. «Guarantee», yes.

13 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: You don’t remember whether anyone said

14 it, or you —

15 A. They might have said it. I don’t remember.

16 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: You don’t remember whether or not they

17 did say it?

18 A. Yes, whether or not they did say it.

19 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: I see.

20 MR STROILOV: Thank you, my Lord.

21 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Well, Mr Ameli, I’m sorry to have

22 taken more time than you had been indicated.

23 A. That’s okay. Thank you very much.

24 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: I am glad you are able to meet your

25 commitments tomorrow. Thank you very much for giving

202

1 INDEX
2 PAGE
3 Housekeeping ………………………………….. 1
4 MS ELENA KHORISHKA, Interpreter …………………. 8
5 (Sworn)……………………..
MR GRIGORY PASKO (Affirmed) 9
6 Examination-in-chief by MR STROILOV ……….. 9
7 Cross-examination by MR LORD …………….. 10
8 Housekeeping …………………………………. 54
9 MR FRANÇOIS AMELI (Affirmed) …………………… 96
10 Examination-in-chief by MR STROILOV ………. 97
11 Cross-examination by MR LORD …………….. 97
12 Questions by MR JUSTICE HILDYARD ………… 197
13 Re-examination by MR STROILOV …………… 202
14
15
16
17
18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

204

Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

205

February 29, 2016 Day 18

A

AA1/7/238 (1) 85:5 AA1/7/239 (1) 85:10 ability (1) 132:13 able (15) 12:21 13:24

14:1 21:16 35:13 43:1 44:4,15 45:25 53:14 65:12 72:8 136:10 185:1 202:24

Ablyazov’s (1) 183:4 abroad (2) 142:12

174:20

absence (1) 84:15 absolute (1) 73:9 absolutely (12) 17:6 19:9 21:2 22:15

30:12 44:1 45:16 84:17 92:5 105:5 174:12 201:3

accept (3) 57:16 94:21 95:11

accepted (2) 76:13,15 access (2) 65:15

119:18 accompanied (1)
197:15 accomplices (1)

175:10 account (7) 55:24

96:14 121:18 138:1 186:20 189:8 191:4

accuracy (2) 38:13 129:15

accurate (5) 15:21 16:18 44:17 180:11 193:7

accurately (2) 15:19 182:1

accused (1) 61:17 achieve (1) 118:3 acquainted (1) 153:12 act (4) 102:12,13

136:13 169:8 acting (6) 106:9
107:10 136:23 137:13 138:7,7 action (6) 49:16,25

68:5 69:11 131:23 192:24

actions (3) 136:11 141:2,5

activated (3) 118:20 198:10,11

active (1) 31:10 actual (2) 73:7 121:14 add (1) 92:9

added (1) 136:7 addition (2) 31:23

37:16 additional (4) 73:20

113:25 114:12 117:23

Additionally (1)

125:20 address (10) 43:11

54:11 81:21 140:21 156:5,14,17,22 157:2,6

addressed (7) 4:10,13 5:15 53:19 79:6 89:22 100:13

addressee (1) 156:4 adduce (2) 64:23

89:23

adequately (2) 89:9

181:22

Adila (1) 158:23

Adila’s (1) 158:14 alleged (4) 50:24 46:23 68:8 76:2 26:16,24 27:9,14 aside (3) 68:5 90:24
adjourned (1) 203:18 79:16 91:11 163:1 99:20 113:7 27:19 28:13 30:10 93:17
adjournment (4) allegedly (1) 161:10 apparent (4) 28:25 31:23 33:10 35:20 asked (45) 6:12 8:12
52:14,14 54:6 allegor (1) 48:25 71:10 94:13 140:3 36:3,7,7,16 37:4,6 16:24 27:15 34:20
65:15 allow (7) 64:25 65:1 apparently (3) 13:12 37:9,18 38:4,24 35:11 47:7,20
adjudicating (1) 56:15 72:16 90:25 161:12 48:8 187:15 39:2,5,12,22 40:1,8 54:17 55:11 56:21
adjudication (3) 56:2 163:1 197:1 Appeal (6) 171:16,19 40:10 47:7 49:10 56:25 58:20 60:6
76:12 96:8 allowed (4) 64:25 174:15 178:1,9 50:12,21,24 57:6 60:22 65:24 69:19
admissibility (1) 56:10 90:5 95:16,17 182:8 57:14 58:2,21 84:9 85:1 88:14
admissible (3) 54:15 amazed (1) 94:19 appear (2) 91:24 61:21 75:4 76:3,19 93:16,25 94:2,6,16
74:10 96:13 amazingly (1) 62:9 96:12 77:4 78:24 79:3 110:25 112:19
admissions (1) 62:24 Ameli (77) 3:11,18 4:7 appearance (1) 174:8 80:14,18 84:19,24 116:8,17 121:3,4
admit (4) 54:16 56:4 4:22 5:10,15 52:12 appeared (2) 18:19 85:16 86:20 89:16 122:17 132:16,17
96:1 126:11 52:19 53:1 55:12 127:17 93:22 97:23 98:24 162:15 164:18
admitted (2) 19:4 84:25 91:18,20 appearing (1) 189:17 106:9 107:6,7 165:4,8,25 168:15
41:10 92:3 96:10,17,19 appears (18) 7:12 9:8 110:4 111:1,17 179:5 190:12,22
advantage (1) 61:8 96:20 97:3,11,21 9:18 22:20 33:15 112:25 114:2,8 198:8 201:19
advertising (1) 100:2 99:20 104:5,9 39:20 60:10 76:22 115:22,24 116:14 asking (20) 18:25
advice (1) 168:10 108:23 111:8 84:9 97:3 124:16 117:3,15,25 118:11 20:10 31:11 40:3
advise (1) 169:7 113:11 115:15 125:12 146:10 119:18,23 120:16 73:18 85:19 91:2
affairs (1) 132:5 116:9 117:13 118:7 148:22 149:24 120:24 121:5 96:11 111:2 113:11
affidavit (37) 10:19,20 118:17 122:19 155:24 192:13 122:18,20,25 123:5 114:16 115:16
10:25 11:14,22 124:6 128:5 129:3 193:18 123:9 124:24 120:18 123:12
12:6,13,16,24 133:1 134:6 137:9 appellant’s (2) 170:10 125:22 126:4,10,20 135:22 138:11
18:21 97:25 98:1,5 137:24 138:8 139:2 170:23 127:1,3,8,12,15 168:18,18 175:2
98:22 110:1,5 139:5,9 145:24 appendix (1) 42:19 129:18 131:9,14 201:14
139:8,9,12,21 148:4,6,12 152:17 applicant (1) 191:14 132:21 137:7 138:9 aspect (2) 58:22 59:21
140:18 145:22 153:22 154:11 application (17) 4:15 138:18 139:6 aspects (2) 109:1
146:13,18 147:17 157:17 158:4 61:5,9 81:20 82:13 153:12 154:7,18 172:1
148:19,21 149:13 164:18,21 165:3 83:9 84:1 93:17,18 155:11,24 157:14 asserted (1) 17:22
149:18 151:4 153:3 166:7 167:9,25 139:14 140:4,6 161:16 162:11 asserting (1) 17:11
155:6 164:5 170:14 170:3 175:4 176:16 148:14,25 161:1 163:24 164:2,8,17 assessment (1) 96:9
170:14 171:4,5 178:22 181:21,24 162:24 185:13 164:24 165:4,21,25 asset (19) 75:18 76:20
affidavits (1) 174:3 181:25 185:1,3,15 Application’ (3) 167:5 168:16 169:5 79:15 91:23 141:17
Affirmed (4) 9:2 96:19 186:5 188:7 191:25 139:16,18,18 171:20,21 172:4 141:24 143:3,11,14
204:5,9 194:21 197:5 202:3 applications (3) 76:6 173:2,13,22 175:13 144:5,12,22 147:23
affixed (3) 14:12 202:21 204:9 139:17,22 175:24 176:8 150:1,14,22 160:12
16:19 19:7 Ameli’s (1) 53:14 applied (2) 133:22,24 183:18 184:5,11 161:6 198:2
afford (2) 75:24 amicable (1) 35:14 apply (4) 4:23 64:23 198:13 199:16 assets (32) 33:8,10
151:12 amount (5) 112:2 161:11 162:16 200:20 34:20 35:11,16,20
aforementioned (1) 119:16 128:11 applying (1) 73:3 Arkhangelsky’s (26) 35:23 48:10,12,13
175:16 133:9 153:20 appointment (1) 76:6 22:21 25:7,21 26:9 57:5,7 59:17 60:8
afraid (13) 1:7 5:22 amounts (4) 35:21 appreciate (2) 5:16 31:15 46:8,11 75:18 77:22,24
27:22 54:9 65:14 62:12 125:7 130:15 7:7 50:25 63:4 77:20 82:3 92:2 121:9,14
66:12,25 67:2 68:7 analyse (1) 31:24 appreciation (1) 77:19 100:20 118:22 122:3,4,7,12 142:6
92:18 181:7 184:19 analysis (1) 28:25 approach (3) 53:6 121:9 123:5 132:5 142:7,11,12,13
185:12 and/or (6) 38:4 39:8 55:20,23 136:9 138:2 141:22 159:16 198:4
afternoon (8) 3:13 59:1 82:4 84:25,25 appropriate (2) 140:5 142:11 163:3 166:9 assist (1) 138:2
4:14 5:9 53:15 92:4 angry (1) 191:6 140:21 172:19 181:10 assistance (3) 14:15
96:24 100:8 167:22 Annabelle (1) 106:14 approving (1) 24:17 183:7 189:25 14:17 168:10
agencies (1) 31:22 annum (1) 133:18 April (21) 38:19 67:23 194:11 associate (2) 106:14
agent (1) 169:8 anonymous (1) 30:25 68:8,20 105:19,20 Arkhangelskys (5) 108:19
ago (9) 5:20 24:3 answer (20) 16:10,22 105:20,22,23 91:24 139:22 assume (8) 16:8 41:10
51:25 83:5 111:13 17:24 18:3 26:8 124:18 148:1,8 144:20 151:22 43:12 98:15 132:2
112:10,22 153:13 45:11,12 47:4 62:5 151:10 157:15 159:8 140:14 161:25
196:19 62:8,10,16 92:16 160:4 163:15 165:3 Arkhangelskys’ (1) 167:16
agree (10) 44:16 110:16 111:8,12,16 167:25 169:18,21 145:10 assumed (1) 42:2
58:15 118:7 120:20 161:23 162:2 168:4 170:1 arose (3) 54:23 55:6 assuming (3) 126:1
155:22 161:5,10 answered (5) 27:16 Arabia (2) 158:17,23 66:3 162:9,11
162:15 165:3 193:4 47:8 65:4 71:4 Arbitration (1) 120:11 arrange (3) 20:3 53:2 assurance (6) 61:15
agreed (4) 3:9 5:25 190:14 Arbitrazh (5) 38:18 169:6 115:24 117:3
118:2 137:10 answering (3) 24:1 39:25 123:15 arranged (2) 20:11 122:17 200:24,25
agreement (9) 35:14 26:22 167:19 124:17 126:2 22:11 assurances (4) 198:12
116:2 121:17 answers (8) 55:8,9 archive (2) 45:20 46:2 article (51) 23:16 24:3 200:5,7,9
131:18 153:18 63:4 91:4 96:12 area (3) 80:13 179:16 27:6,7,8,12,17 assures (1) 181:20
176:23,23 177:8,20 184:25 186:24,25 179:20 28:24 29:1,10,12 astonished (1) 92:13
aim (1) 91:10 anticipated (1) 64:17 arguably (1) 75:10 29:14,15,18,22,24 asylum (1) 141:15
Aix (1) 182:9 anxiety (1) 8:8 arguing (1) 6:18 30:2,7,12 31:15,16 attached (4) 81:24
Aix-en-Provence (5) anxious (2) 62:10 69:2 argument (2) 54:21 32:8,10,13,22,24 91:4 142:13 143:12
171:17,19 174:15 anybody (5) 15:12 117:12 34:3,9,14,24 35:1,5 attachment (1)
178:2,9 29:20,25 161:16 argument’s (1) 180:6 36:13,13,17,23 143:18
Akort (3) 82:4 85:8 191:22 arisen (1) 55:1 37:23 40:14 42:24 attack (2) 74:13,13
166:13 apart (12) 31:1,18 arises (1) 168:13 43:16,18,24 44:4,6 attempt (2) 89:23
alerted (1) 87:11 32:8 40:10 64:14 arising (1) 64:20 44:7,8 50:4,13,25 141:16
allegation (4) 61:12 72:10 95:4 99:14 Arkhangelskaya (3) 193:17,22 attempted (1) 175:14
62:13 79:14 90:23 136:21 186:11 59:1 82:4 140:22 articles (4) 25:15,18 attended (1) 186:13
allegations (5) 4:16 187:5,10 Arkhangelsky (137) 30:4,6 attending (2) 51:11
65:4 74:17 90:15 Apologies (1) 53:11 1:14 6:12 10:16 Ashurkov (2) 2:21 188:11
175:19 apologise (7) 6:3 42:7 23:5 25:17 26:13 51:20 attention (4) 24:21

28:12 50:14 64:11 attorney (2) 98:4,7 attracting (1) 24:21 auction (1) 143:18 audience (1) 151:7 audio (9) 32:4,4 41:15
43:3,3,22 44:17,21 44:23

August (17) 12:4,9,18 12:22 13:5,10,15 14:18 17:1 18:19 18:24 89:20 136:15 156:1 195:8,21 196:11

authentic (1) 7:16 authenticity (2) 166:1

166:10

author (3) 24:25 25:1 30:21

authorities (3) 90:11 177:14 186:11

automatically (1)

181:13 autonomous (2)

198:18,23 available (17) 1:16,18

28:17 37:20 48:3 50:17,17 75:18 78:17 80:19 82:3 83:12 88:22 144:19 151:18 160:11 161:7

averse (1) 89:12 Avocats (1) 98:8 aware (16) 3:20 8:20

37:22 39:24,25 40:4,9,12,13,16,16 83:22 162:23 195:19 196:2,5

awful (1) 71:22

B

B (1) 75:9

back (34) 12:23 13:5 16:25 20:15 21:5 31:4 74:18 79:11 80:25 92:19 105:6 107:10 110:1 111:4 121:15 122:12 128:3 133:1,24 151:15 153:1 154:4 157:7 158:24 160:2 164:1 167:14 176:25 179:17 185:2,19 195:5 196:19 197:5

backed (1) 122:3 background (3) 54:23

72:4 94:25 backwards (1) 165:8 bag (1) 91:11

Baker (3) 67:4,23 87:22

balancing (1) 72:16 ball (3) 74:2,5,6

Baltic (1) 158:18 bank (127) 23:18 25:8

25:12,16,19 26:10 26:25 30:23,24 31:22,24 32:6 33:2 33:18 34:6 35:22 35:24 36:3,6,9,20 36:25 37:1,14,14 37:15,16 39:23 40:7,11,15 45:3 49:7,14 50:11,19 51:4,4 57:13 59:16 59:16,17 63:23

Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

206

February 29, 2016 Day 18

69:13 77:6 79:13 79:14 80:17 81:25 92:1 93:11 107:6 112:18 114:1 117:9 117:24 118:10,13 118:24 120:2,5 122:4,6,6,9 123:6 123:10 124:21,25 125:4,21 126:5,15 126:16,21 129:10 129:17 131:10,17 136:11 137:6 141:22 142:20 143:2 147:13,22 149:25 150:3 172:7 172:24 175:9,18,20 176:7,7,15,16,19 176:20,21 181:12 182:10,21 186:6,14 187:1,8,16 188:5 188:17 189:2,6,7,9 189:13,20 190:15 190:24 194:19 195:9,10,22 196:1 196:6,7 198:23 200:13

Bank’s (6) 49:16 141:5 182:24 183:10 184:15 195:13

banking (3) 51:3

136:13 137:21 bankruptcy (6) 152:24 159:16 160:17 165:1,17 169:20 banks (33) 32:20 33:7

33:24 35:7 36:8,15 36:16,25 37:3,5,9 37:12,16,17 38:3 38:14,24 39:21,23 40:6,9 103:4 107:9 121:1 122:1 127:9 129:8,10 136:23 138:6 195:14 196:1 196:15

banks’ (4) 33:1,17 36:19 136:12

bar (3) 84:17 98:4,7 barristers (1) 151:12 base (1) 75:18 based (10) 43:12

60:19,23 121:24 171:22 174:11 175:20 180:23,24 182:6

bases (2) 189:3,4 bashing (1) 18:14 basing (1) 145:13 basis (25) 8:3 16:1 27:1 50:22 51:6

57:1 83:22 84:14 90:6,25 94:2 118:12 119:14,15 131:13 132:10,11 137:10 147:12 148:17 161:24 173:5,6 182:9 198:3

BEA (1) 98:8 bear (1) 104:9 bearing (2) 57:23

166:9 bears (1) 83:20

becoming (2) 194:7 203:13

bed (1) 89:11 began (7) 99:11

100:25 115:3,19 116:6 118:16,18 beginning (3) 26:12

116:4 167:4 begins (1) 113:24 behalf (11) 98:16 122:18 159:7

171:20,21 175:24 187:16 189:12 190:8 199:16 200:5

behave (1) 50:19 behaviour (1) 175:20 behest (1) 83:3 belief (2) 10:5 97:16 believe (4) 22:13 41:5

58:4 125:12 believed (1) 36:1 belonging (1) 141:13 beneficiary (1) 93:22 Bernier (10) 186:13

187:5,10 189:11,16 190:4,12,15,17 191:13

berths (2) 112:7,8 best (6) 7:7,10 10:4 97:15 108:20

118:10

better (5) 3:25 6:16 8:11,25 60:14 beyond (3) 72:12 73:18 188:10

Bidault (1) 156:1 big (1) 180:25 billion (4) 35:15,25

133:10 143:10 Birt (3) 81:13,18,19 bit (27) 14:20,22

18:11 34:3 36:12 40:14 51:16 63:20 66:18,20 80:25 86:1 89:21 99:11 99:12,13,15 110:9 115:12,20 118:15 138:1 142:17 155:21 178:19 196:24 203:13

bits (1) 107:25 bizarre (1) 188:4 blow (1) 85:25 blown (1) 170:18 bond (1) 199:19 books (1) 96:1 borne (2) 60:10

179:18 bottom (8) 66:19

69:12 80:23 86:10 87:7 93:6 156:24 156:25

bound (1) 2:24 Bourdon (6) 176:2

193:18,24 195:3,8 195:22

box (2) 40:4 47:2 brackets (2) 125:14

148:13

breach (5) 50:12,13 71:20 78:11 94:17

breached (3) 57:22 58:3 74:14

break (9) 5:17,23 6:2 52:6,11 113:4,5,6,9

brief (1) 2:7

briefly (3) 2:7 63:11 92:11

bring (2) 35:15 64:9

Bristows (2) 99:5 106:15

broadly (1) 164:8

Bromley-Martin (1)

2:14 brought (5) 49:9

104:10 118:11

124:21 125:4 build (1) 71:14 Bulgaria (2) 98:12
99:15 bundles (1) 42:18 burial (1) 31:5 burnt (1) 56:7 business (15) 53:4

75:3 78:15 80:20 90:18 91:23 101:2 101:6,20 123:5 136:9,13 137:21 172:6 184:21

businesses (2) 141:12 141:23

businessman (3)

146:21 157:20 194:14

businessmen (2) 31:9

157:16

buy (5) 35:25 146:15 153:19,23 158:17

buyer (5) 158:10 164:19 165:5,9 168:22

buyers (1) 160:6 buying (1) 158:12

BVI (7) 93:18 98:12 99:15 119:11,12,13 170:15

C

C1 (1) 51:23 C1/4/1 (2) 97:2,21 C1/4/2 (3) 103:25

105:7 133:16

C1/4/3 (2) 136:2 138:2

C1/4/4 (2) 186:7 193:10

C1/4/5 (1) 97:12

C1/5.4 (1) 14:5 C1/5/1 (5) 9:6 12:1

14:1,9 17:15

C1/5/2 (1) 28:10 C1/5/3 (1) 40:21 C1/5/4 (9) 9:18 12:2

14:9 28:21 29:13 44:25 48:9 49:14 49:19

C5/1/1 (1) 27:22 call (13) 2:12,22 3:12

3:22 8:25 9:1,6 91:8 96:17 112:7 115:6 201:3,4

called (8) 121:23 134:7 135:14 156:17 166:13 170:10 197:23 201:5

calling (2) 7:20 62:14 calmly (1) 107:10 campaign (1) 53:18 candid (2) 71:11,12 capable (1) 58:16 capacity (2) 49:2

173:2 capture (2) 65:16

181:22

care (2) 56:16 200:6 careful (1) 161:19 carefully (1) 8:2 carried (10) 29:16

30:8 31:12,14 32:3 32:14 44:12 119:16 122:22 176:8

carry (7) 20:4 31:2,18 37:10 98:19 109:18

118:17 65:13 87:16 153:4 CoFrance’s (1) 101:6 124:19
carrying (1) 98:16 159:21 178:11,12 collapse (1) 57:10 computer (1) 107:20
case (83) 11:25 12:11 178:13,14,22 collateral (4) 61:8 concepts (1) 200:2
13:25 19:8 21:19 checked (1) 37:8 121:10 134:18 concern (4) 76:19
25:17 26:9 28:12 checking (3) 29:23 142:22 110:17,19 164:11
28:18 41:10,13 41:9 145:15 column (1) 135:6 concerned (8) 3:16
48:23,25 49:21 children (1) 153:14 come (17) 5:1 34:16 17:21 58:9 73:12
50:20 55:18 56:2 choice (2) 60:16,17 35:3 51:21,22 91:1 132:15 135:24
57:4 58:11 62:12 circumstances (5) 75:22 122:10 130:6 179:14
71:14,23 73:11 54:19 66:21 78:7 132:4 146:9,23 concerning (5) 101:14
78:17 79:16 80:13 86:5 90:12 155:4 167:13 122:24 126:15
84:16 85:15 90:22 cite (1) 50:14 182:18 183:3,20 142:6 187:20
95:2,9 96:3 98:11 citizens (1) 103:3 184:1 concerns (1) 57:16
101:23 102:25 City (1) 57:11 comes (7) 18:14 68:17 concluded (1) 28:18
108:10 109:15 civil (10) 37:21 93:10 88:7 89:1,5 183:21 conclusion (3) 13:1
114:1 117:2,24 93:15,24 94:3,4 185:7 37:2 50:18
120:4,11 124:21 103:8,21 108:2 comfortably (1) 5:12 conclusions (3) 28:25
125:23 126:8,15 174:12 coming (3) 102:11 51:6 174:10
127:1,23 129:4 claim (19) 25:7,21 142:10 143:9 concrete (4) 118:5
130:13,18 131:8,22 26:13 30:14 31:15 commas (1) 37:13 188:10,12,16
132:2 134:6 138:24 36:17 39:1,3 76:14 comment (3) 47:12 condition (1) 181:23
162:13 174:12 78:20 83:23 88:21 48:19 180:10 conditions (1) 157:15
178:3 180:7,12,17 123:10 125:4 Commercial (1) conduct (3) 84:16
180:19,23 181:6,11 131:17 138:2 187:7 123:15 162:13 168:15
181:13 183:4,7,9 188:13 189:9 commercially (1) conducted (1) 81:22
183:18,25 184:3,5 claimant (3) 129:5 49:10 conference (6) 100:2
187:2,14 191:15 130:24 131:10 commit (1) 50:13 100:9,12 101:9,17
194:5,7,8,11 claimants (7) 3:15 commitments (1) 106:11
198:25 203:14 68:4 69:6 86:19 202:25 confirm (32) 7:4,20
cases (15) 93:10,15 129:7,7 141:16 committal (2) 61:5,9 10:1 21:17 32:10
102:8,9,9,10 103:3 claimants’ (1) 141:2 committing (1) 180:25 41:6,12 46:3,5
103:9 108:3 183:4 claimed (2) 83:23 common (1) 200:3 97:14 145:9 150:20
184:1,13 191:19 161:25 communicate (1) 2:18 154:12 156:4 157:4
194:13 198:24 claiming (1) 138:10 communicated (1) 158:6 160:25
cast (2) 76:5 88:9 claims (23) 26:24 33:3 14:21 162:23 164:24
catch (1) 35:13 33:19 34:7 35:20 companies (16) 38:25 167:5 171:15,25
categorically (1) 46:12 36:9,10,21 37:1,4 40:10 73:5 75:6 172:11 173:17
Category (1) 130:15 37:21 38:3 40:6 85:7 93:23 102:15 174:25 177:6 190:2
cause (2) 16:6 126:7 75:2,21 78:16,18 113:16,20 116:21 192:8 193:12,21
caused (4) 24:12 82:7 78:18 79:6 130:15 122:25 176:9,11,17 195:7,21
139:15 144:10 141:22 153:18 176:25 177:1 confirmation (1)
causing (1) 18:11 180:24 companies’ (1) 75:5 82:19
caution (5) 115:6 clans (1) 141:11 company (26) 38:4 confirmed (3) 37:17
121:24 197:23 clarify (2) 24:6 41:21 39:22 40:7 66:1 114:7 164:3
198:16,20 clear (12) 17:15 19:2 72:7 75:8,9 77:1 confirming (2) 8:3
cautious (1) 53:6 19:11 54:13 115:18 79:4,20 80:14,15 175:19
cent (9) 103:18,19,19 137:19 167:12 87:23 100:20 confirms (1) 164:4
133:11,18 135:9,15 178:6 193:2 199:10 123:22 125:5 conflict (1) 31:22
135:15,17 201:12,14 131:22,24 132:2 confronted (2) 72:22
centimetres (1) 33:6 clearer (1) 180:1 135:14 166:13 126:23
central (9) 118:22 clearly (15) 20:22 169:6 173:10,11,12 confused (3) 67:13
119:2,3,4,11,19,20 43:15 65:21 69:7 173:14 68:13 178:19
119:21 178:3 73:13 78:14 83:16 compare (2) 21:16 connected (2) 24:2
centre (3) 57:11 64:10 84:19 90:22 94:18 43:3 25:11
137:2 112:6 137:4 138:4 compared (1) 41:15 consciously (1) 141:10
certain (7) 31:19 157:19 180:25 compartmentalisati… consequence (1) 78:6
60:16 108:12 118:2 clever (1) 42:3 61:3 consequences (1)
130:12 139:22 client (4) 86:14 compass (1) 203:10 169:7
195:19 102:12 119:23 competent (1) 50:10 consider (6) 5:7,7
certainly (8) 7:14 17:3 169:10 competing (1) 72:9 50:9 62:7 63:8
82:2 86:23 90:13 clients (9) 87:9 88:25 compiled (1) 130:1 183:3
109:17 153:9 100:25 101:4,7 complaint (9) 84:15 consideration (2)
178:14 102:16 103:13 88:6,17 119:2,3,20 73:20 96:5
certified (1) 153:8 136:14 158:20 126:18 175:17 considered (6) 21:14
cetera (4) 43:20 142:9 clients’ (2) 7:19 83:24 178:6 21:20 63:2 103:20
142:10 187:24 close (4) 53:15 92:7 complaints (2) 75:15 183:8 184:5
challenge (2) 72:18 188:17,22 141:4 considering (2) 56:1
166:9 closed (1) 90:13 complete (7) 6:2 70:6 149:23
challenges (1) 166:1 closer (1) 59:10 105:9 107:22 108:8 consistent (2) 16:18
chamber (3) 171:16 closing (2) 76:16 91:5 179:7 203:13 179:12
171:18 192:14 cloud (1) 86:14 completed (5) 5:12 consisting (2) 144:4
chance (5) 7:16 44:11 CMC (2) 86:7 89:21 81:16 110:3 111:16 150:13
180:15 181:21,24 co-counsel (1) 176:2 111:24 consists (1) 63:23
changed (3) 160:22,23 co-defendant (1) completely (1) 61:18 conspiracy (8) 57:13
160:23 130:24 complex (1) 66:13 79:25 91:7,8,9,10
charge (1) 98:22 co-exist (1) 21:23 complexion (1) 76:5 91:16 92:1
charges (1) 49:9 CoFrance (10) 99:23 compliance (3) 57:20 conspiring (1) 124:25
chasers (1) 71:5 100:17,18,20,24,24 64:11 66:6 constant (1) 194:10
check (11) 7:16 37:5 101:1,3,5,7 composition (1) construction (1)

Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

207
February 29, 2016 Day 18

124:22 corporate (1) 87:10 covered (3) 60:2 194:20 decide (5) 51:15 54:3 137:6 138:5 193:5 126:1 128:16

consult (1) 84:25 correct (15) 7:17 16:4 77:25 102:19 D149/2489/3 (1) 57:23 107:25 198:18 134:12 153:5
consulted (1) 96:1 20:22 21:2 22:9 covering (1) 25:10 194:24 138:11 differences (1) 22:15 154:11,15 165:22
contacted (1) 37:15 24:10,14 36:2 covers (2) 29:22 164:8 D149/2489/4 (1) decided (3) 24:25 different (14) 42:22 166:1,10 170:20
contain (1) 19:22 41:18 42:13 70:18 create (2) 24:6,14 194:25 181:17 193:7 44:23 49:18 63:16 174:22 178:7,25
contained (3) 43:21 112:9 140:1,1 creates (1) 64:12 D149/2489/5 (1) deciding (1) 79:9 73:23 75:5 76:5 179:4 192:1
43:22 44:18 145:25 credibility (18) 72:13 195:2 decision (12) 38:17,18 90:17 92:7 101:22 documentation (2)
containing (3) 17:13 corrected (1) 125:19 72:15,18,19 73:8 D151/2522/1 (2) 49:23,24 119:11,12 102:10,15 107:8 59:13 93:23
19:19 116:2 correcting (1) 77:19 73:19 74:13 76:13 192:11,19 119:13 132:20 196:13 documents (31) 3:4
contains (8) 15:22 corrections (1) 43:7 78:12 87:4 88:23 D151/2522/17 (2) 142:3,3,4 192:20 difficult (5) 6:10 60:12 10:12 13:21 36:4
16:13 18:5,9 45:17 correctly (3) 50:1 90:21 92:6 95:4 192:12,17 decisions (6) 103:5 73:8 134:20 168:4 38:11 40:17 63:24
46:1 49:15 149:14 86:25 112:3 110:18,22 180:4,5 D166/2835/1 (1) 110:20 119:6 126:9 difficulty (4) 26:22 71:3,4 81:9,24,25
contempt (9) 61:12 correspond (1) 157:5 credible (1) 198:1 165:20 126:11 143:13 52:20 62:11 68:15 82:7,9,19 90:9
61:17 62:1,2,13,14 correspondence (12) credit (11) 64:5,6,7,9 D166/2835/2 (1) dedicate (1) 184:2 direct (5) 16:21 88:15 93:14 94:6,11
62:16 63:1 74:18 5:21 59:25 63:12 89:3 90:5,24,25 165:21 default (6) 152:23 131:22 140:3,19 130:19 133:5
content (2) 1:25 2:1 63:22 66:4,9 69:22 96:2 125:7 180:8 D174/2903.1/0.1 (1) 159:15 172:25 directed (1) 78:10 149:15 172:6,8,14
contents (2) 29:24 71:1,11 80:5,7 creditor (4) 80:17 29:6 173:23 174:1,7 direction (1) 61:16 172:17,18 175:12
45:15 92:18 102:23 143:17 D174/2903.1/0.3 (1) defence (1) 118:23 directly (2) 73:16 175:21 177:15
context (16) 48:5 55:1 correspondent (2) 198:1 32:15 defend (1) 161:17 165:14 201:13
65:13 66:6 72:25 195:14 196:1 creditors (1) 102:20 D174/2903.1/1 (2) defendant (7) 84:8 director (1) 132:2 doing (11) 7:7 26:5
73:3 77:10 81:22 costs (1) 191:21 credits (1) 36:6 29:8,11 123:6 131:9,11,14 directors (2) 175:10 77:2 89:13 95:23
84:11 85:13 90:19 counsel (4) 54:17 criminal (14) 37:4,18 D174/2903.1/3 (2) 131:17 140:5 176:6 99:12 181:20
152:12 166:25 60:15 75:25 84:15 49:9 71:6 82:1 32:17 34:25 defendants (20) 39:10 disagrees (1) 4:1 184:17 188:5 191:1
175:15 182:13,13 countenanced (1) 93:20 94:14 103:8 D5/109/1 (1) 193:16 39:15,17 42:6 disavow (1) 62:2 191:7
contexts (2) 63:16 55:16 119:2 174:14 D5/109/4 (1) 193:18 75:19 83:21 87:11 Discharge (1) 139:17 dollars (2) 75:24
181:5 counterclaim (9) 59:5 175:18,20 178:6 D6/140/1 (4) 170:7,8 88:11 89:24 98:8 discharged (2) 145:18 79:12
continuation (1) 59:7 75:2,11,23 191:17 170:21 171:10 98:17 129:5 132:22 160:12 door (1) 74:18
68:19 80:6 90:16,19 95:2 crisis (5) 48:13 117:11 D6/140/10 (1) 172:1 134:12 141:13,14 disclosable (1) 82:19 double-check (3) 30:5
continue (3) 98:21 counterclaimants (1) 120:8,16,21 D6/140/15 (1) 172:20 144:6 150:15 disclose (4) 60:7 79:24 178:23
113:17 136:8 75:19 critical (2) 49:13,16 D6/140/17 (1) 174:21 151:11 159:17 63:23 69:7 83:10 doubt (1) 167:18
continued (3) 98:19 countries (3) 102:11 criticism (1) 86:25 D6/140/20 (1) 176:4 defendants’ (7) 75:15 disclosed (18) 42:6,12 Dr (71) 22:21 25:7,17
113:15 114:15 187:22,23 cross (1) 72:21 D74/1101/1 (1) 134:5 75:20 83:20 94:12 42:14 60:23 82:9,9 25:21 26:9,16,24
continuing (2) 77:12 couple (3) 2:7 99:25 cross-examination (… damage (9) 141:1 139:14 144:11 82:10,20 83:21 27:9,14,19 30:10
90:18 123:3 6:14 7:25 10:9 61:4 143:24 144:10,11 166:15 87:14 93:4,6,12 31:15 36:16 37:6,9
contract (11) 125:20 course (29) 14:19 61:10 62:22 64:2 150:9 196:6,6,7,13 defer (2) 7:25 85:1 94:8 129:23 134:12 38:4,24 39:5,12,22
127:21 130:16 21:13 23:3,24 64:19 65:1,5,7 71:2 damages (2) 139:15 definitely (4) 25:13 179:2,3 40:8,10 46:8,11
132:10 134:1 199:7 27:10 28:2 30:9 76:9 78:9 95:10 139:16 36:11 37:15 46:16 disclosing (1) 63:25 50:24 58:21 76:19
199:11,11,14,15 44:21 46:4 49:18 97:20 184:22 204:7 dangerous (1) 95:21 definition (1) 72:20 disclosure (25) 60:24 78:24 80:14,18
201:20 53:10 57:18 58:9 204:11 Danish (1) 113:16 degree (3) 76:19,22 63:22 64:1,6,21 84:19 85:16 89:16
contracts (1) 113:14 58:14 59:8 72:4 cross-examine (3) dare (2) 7:10 181:18 89:17 65:5,8 69:15 71:24 111:1 112:25 114:8
contractual (3) 59:13 75:2 87:1 94:24 5:10 61:6 62:17 date (24) 11:2 27:12 delay (1) 99:20 81:1,10,11,13 83:1 117:15 118:22
132:8 199:16 95:6 96:5 177:16 cross-examined (1) 43:16,24 44:9,11 delayed (1) 1:3 83:2,6,11 87:18,19 119:23 120:16,24
contradicts (1) 36:5 178:24 180:2 82:3 44:13,15 70:20 delete (1) 55:14 92:14 94:10,19,20 122:20,25 123:5,5
contrary (4) 105:20 184:10 191:7,12 cross-examiner (1) 98:20 105:16 Delphic (1) 77:16 94:21 134:6 123:9 124:24 126:4
120:15 138:10 201:11,12 62:23 122:25 134:3 148:2 demand (1) 198:24 discrepancy (1) 127:3,8,12,15
180:9 court (74) 5:12 17:4 cross-examining (1) 163:8,12,21 165:6 demanded (1) 49:8 135:11 132:5 138:2,9
contravenes (1) 46:13 19:17,25 23:18 90:4 165:7,7,18 171:2,3 demonstrated (1) discretionary (1) 74:7 139:6 140:22
contributed (1) 34:19 37:8,20 38:3 cross-refers (1) 128:6 194:2 63:14 discuss (3) 21:18 141:22 146:23
156:18 38:17,17,18 39:18 curiosity (2) 91:21 dated (4) 38:19 denied (1) 47:18 101:13 127:11 153:12 154:18
contrived (1) 155:18 39:20,25 40:5,6 168:12 105:14 125:21 depends (1) 118:25 discussed (15) 25:21 155:11,24 164:17
control (2) 83:20 46:4 51:5 55:14,15 currently (2) 144:5 154:8 deploy (1) 38:14 26:9,13,15,20,21 164:24 165:4,25
119:15 68:5 69:11 75:22 150:14 dates (2) 43:20 73:12 deploying (1) 33:24 26:24 27:13,15,17 166:9 171:20,21
controlled (1) 169:25 78:7 103:10 119:6 cusp (1) 73:7 day (7) 2:4,14,15 3:5 deposing (1) 145:9 27:19 51:7 66:3 175:24
controversial (1) 119:18 120:11 5:12 61:19 184:1 deprive (1) 91:12 126:25 158:11 draft (8) 14:8 18:8,8
179:20 122:23 123:15 D day’s (1) 184:21 derisory (1) 176:11 discusses (1) 43:9 19:4,5 111:4,11
controversy (1) 124:12,17,19 126:2 D125/2424.1/1 (1) Day16/102:1 (2) describe (4) 36:14 discussing (1) 134:3 197:10
179:17 126:3 128:7 129:4 166:4,6 50:3 127:2 146:2 discussion (2) 25:25 drafted (6) 23:21
197:9
convenience (2) 53:9 129:17 152:16 Day5/119:1 (2) 46:18 described (2) 12:23 182:8 192:8 193:17,24
D142/2385.2/1 (1)
149:12 161:1,11 162:16,25 46:25 118:6 discussions (3) 63:6 194:19 195:10
40:24
conversation (11) 171:16,19 172:12 Day5/119:6 (1) 47:3 describes (2) 93:6 162:10,13 drafting (1) 30:1
D142/2385.2/17 (2)
30:22 32:5 43:2,21 172:13 173:18,19 Day5/121:15 (1) 124:18 dishonest (1) 58:4 drain (1) 161:9
40:23,25
45:9,13,14,15 46:4 174:6,13,15 175:6 47:21 describing (1) 42:2 disinclined (1) 86:3 draw (6) 13:1 37:2
D143/2395/1 (1)
47:6,14 175:18,22 177:7,12 days (2) 183:25 203:9 deserves (1) 169:3 disposal (1) 169:14 50:14,18 51:6
191:25
convictions (1) 173:1 178:1,8 180:13,17 deal (5) 54:4 81:13,18 designed (1) 144:18 disposed (1) 53:3 86:13
D145/2424.1/1 (7)
convincing (1) 77:18 181:21 182:8 84:21 90:11 desperate (1) 86:4 dispute (2) 87:6 125:1 drawn (2) 110:11
104:6 109:8 113:12
cooperate (2) 79:3 187:18,19 189:12 dealing (1) 4:3 detail (1) 14:22 disputed (1) 94:6 130:7
114:21 117:22
80:25 189:21 190:5 dealt (8) 6:24 56:11 detailed (1) 44:21 disregard (1) 56:22 dressed (1) 183:18
133:4 136:4
cooperation (1) 191:24 192:3,5 57:5,6 60:15 84:4 details (2) 130:18 distance (1) 33:21 drew (1) 28:12
D145/2424.1/2 (2)
196:13 193:15 203:18 89:9 185:14 134:18 distil (1) 15:8 dry-run (1) 61:9
133:6 137:15
coordinate (1) 98:9 court’s (1) 64:11 debated (1) 179:21 deterioration (1) District (1) 129:17 due (6) 71:12 109:11
D145/2424.1/3 (4)
coordinated (1) 149:5 courts (11) 14:21 94:5 debt (5) 133:9 134:7 159:5 divider (1) 51:23 119:17 147:4
104:23 114:20,21
coordination (3) 102:8 108:2,7 134:14 145:3 189:6 determined (3) 6:15 document (43) 7:14 161:15 180:2
137:16
98:16,20 99:2 142:9 172:8 174:18 debtor (1) 102:23 6:16 136:8 7:20 13:18,18,18 duly (1) 122:17
D145/2424.1/4 (3)
copied (1) 155:12 177:21 178:5 debts (7) 37:10 develop (1) 112:7 14:16 15:24 16:9 duty (1) 83:9
104:25 133:7
copies (1) 201:16 183:24 102:20 115:11 development (3) 16:12,19 17:13 dwell (1) 147:8
137:17
copy (12) 4:18 6:3,8 cover (4) 93:4 115:11 145:11,17 151:19 109:12,19 124:22 18:4,7,8,9 19:8,8
D149/2489/1 (2)
9:23 27:24,25 128:25 129:22 172:5 devoted (1) 75:15 19:16,18,23 20:2 E
194:16 195:5
38:17 42:8 51:17 coverage (2) 114:1 deceived (2) 36:1,16 dictaphone (1) 43:19 40:18,18 41:7,11
D149/2489/2 (1) e-mail (19) 4:4,16 5:9
87:12,25 201:15 117:24 December (1) 123:1 difference (7) 8:5,6,10 42:5 105:4 116:2

Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

208

February 29, 2016 Day 18

52:2 55:2 59:24 20:4,9,15 21:15,16 109:15 112:21
70:11 154:7,17 21:17 22:1,3,14,25 115:15 122:20
155:9,25 156:5,14 23:4 34:11 38:1,7,8 132:1 133:23 135:8
156:22 157:6,19,23 38:12 40:24 42:14 135:18 139:5 140:6
158:6,8 48:3,6 104:14 141:4 146:8,14
earlier (16) 12:6,24 106:8,20 108:23 147:12 149:13,18
13:18 31:4 44:2 114:24 115:17 150:5,21 158:9
52:5 55:16 70:17 124:1 129:21 130:4 159:7 161:22 164:4
83:16,18 111:8 130:11 151:13 165:11 186:5
136:20 139:17 162:21,25 165:22 197:16 200:16
149:4,17 151:4 202:4 202:3 203:1
earliest (1) 4:11 English-speaking (1) exact (1) 43:16
early (2) 52:13 106:4 21:7 exactly (10) 18:24
easily (1) 114:18 enormous (1) 35:21 21:7 41:20 54:1
East (1) 102:10 enquiries (1) 62:19 56:6 111:20 116:11
easy (1) 74:24 ensure (2) 78:8 127:10 196:2 199:8
EBRD (7) 109:4,9,11 197:14 exaggerated (1) 48:11
109:16 110:15,24 entered (5) 125:21 examination (2) 96:2
111:2 174:7 177:8 180:6 96:12
ecological (1) 31:8 181:2 Examination-in-chie…
economic (1) 48:13 entering (1) 179:19 9:3 97:1 204:6,10
edit (1) 15:8 entitled (2) 54:21 examining (2) 171:16
effect (6) 109:15 80:18 171:18
112:22 174:6 entries (7) 38:1,2 example (10) 20:12
179:23 180:9 39:17 123:3 128:7 20:12 43:8 57:11
183:17 129:23 179:7 63:5 109:9 123:14
effected (1) 76:25 entry (7) 23:8 24:10 129:16 134:25
effective (1) 200:18 24:11 32:20 99:23 137:13
either (16) 27:17 100:1 134:23 examples (2) 128:20
35:18 39:21 40:7 Equipment (6) 144:5 129:2
58:14 64:25 117:9 150:14 153:20 Excellent (1) 68:21
119:20 126:23 166:13,19 168:3 exchange (5) 70:3
132:10 140:5,22 equity (4) 80:18 72:24 77:9 85:14
169:24 177:7 144:19,22 160:11 89:20
189:21 198:23 equivalent (3) 91:9 exchanges (2) 81:4
elaborate (1) 142:17 131:3 201:6 82:24
element (1) 67:25 erroneous (1) 44:23 exclude (1) 96:14
ELENA (2) 8:23 204:4 escroquerie (1) 182:9 excluding (1) 127:7
else’s (1) 24:19 especially (3) 3:13 exclusively (1) 78:9
elucidate (1) 126:13 70:25 74:12 excuse (13) 107:24
embarrassed (1) essence (1) 193:14 112:17 120:25
105:15 essentially (4) 3:4 140:9 145:4 147:2
embarrassment (1) 7:21 71:3 90:8 160:20 166:23
62:6 establish (4) 41:25 171:1 176:17
embellishment (1) 58:6 119:22 179:24 183:14 189:15
138:1 established (2) 100:21 200:8
embezzlement (1) 181:19 exemption (1) 84:8
182:10 estate (1) 198:2 exercise (3) 72:16
emerge (1) 8:6 estimate (1) 185:12 81:21 82:14
empire (1) 92:2 estimated (4) 2:13 exhibit (9) 10:15 41:5
employee (1) 45:3 3:23 52:21 185:8 104:6 105:8 149:14
employees (1) 30:24 estimates (1) 52:18 149:15 170:20
enables (1) 62:19 et (4) 43:20 142:9,10 193:1,12
encapsulate (1) 86:2 187:24 exhibited (6) 10:18
ended (1) 164:25 ethics (1) 46:13 19:15 28:24 105:13
endorse (1) 24:17 European (1) 102:8 111:18 153:8
endorsement (1) euros (1) 109:10 exhibiting (1) 154:12
24:20 evaluate (1) 38:20 exhibits (2) 3:4 152:9
endorsing (1) 24:4 events (5) 4:1 72:9 exist (2) 15:24 200:11
enforce (3) 93:18 95:2 176:12 179:25 existed (6) 57:19
103:4 142:4 everybody (1) 190:21 91:11 107:2 118:13
enforceable (1) 201:7 evidence (95) 4:22,25 173:7 200:15
enforced (1) 143:13 6:2,22,23 8:21 10:2 existence (1) 147:5
enforcement (7) 10:3 15:15,17 existing (1) 110:23
31:22 101:14 103:2 16:13 17:12,14,22 exists (1) 19:8
142:9 143:18 18:4,5,17,22 19:11 expand (2) 63:19
172:24 175:16 19:19 20:7 21:18 66:12
enforcing (1) 102:19 26:23 27:11 29:1 expect (3) 5:11 52:22
English (84) 6:25 7:4 45:1,22 49:21 50:2 88:10
7:13 8:7 9:9,15,24 50:6 51:12,18,19 expecting (1) 185:1
10:23,24 11:4,10 53:3,14 54:14,16 expenses (1) 119:16
11:21 12:2,3,5,10 56:3 58:16 60:13 experience (2) 101:15
12:14,15,19,23 63:2,10 64:17,20 187:23
13:3,7,13,21 14:3 64:23 65:5,8 66:1 experiment (1) 69:2
14:11,14,16,24 71:7 75:3 78:23,23 expert (8) 31:24 48:24
15:1,2,3,9,16,21,23 79:11 80:9 87:14 49:3 51:2,3,3
15:25 16:1,13,24 87:15 89:9,13,14 132:16 172:16
17:2,10,14 18:2,5 89:16,17,24 90:1 expert’s (2) 49:1 51:5
18:19,20 19:7,20 96:1,13 97:7,14 expertise (1) 172:17

experts (2) 172:9 200:3
explain (7) 80:15 104:2 110:14 123:8 135:10 148:17 181:21

explained (3) 46:8

151:25 197:12 explaining (1) 77:11 explanation (14) 88:5 123:7 127:2,7

131:20 132:4 138:9 138:12 143:1,6 150:1 181:7,24 201:10

explore (1) 58:15 explored (1) 179:13 expose (1) 187:20 express (1) 80:22 expressed (1) 80:4 expresses (1) 143:22 expression (2) 49:15

49:16 expressly (2) 60:8

201:19 extended (2) 141:24

171:14 extensively (1) 177:20 extent (2) 83:6 90:20 extract (2) 124:2

156:12 extracting (1) 78:4 extracts (3) 124:13

129:1 175:17

extradition (24)

110:19 112:11,20 119:19 170:5,24,25 174:14 176:3 178:3 178:10 179:15 182:6,19 183:2,12 186:7 187:9,22 191:4 192:15 194:11,15,15

extraordinary (1) 72:1 extrapolation (1)

79:22 extremely (2) 52:4

86:4

eyesight (1) 203:11

F

FA-2 (1) 149:15

FA-7 (2) 149:14 155:8

FA-7/267 (1) 157:21 FA-7/268 (1) 159:19 fabricated (1) 180:24 fabricating (1) 175:12 fabrication (1) 175:21 face (9) 24:22 75:14

88:22 91:24 126:1 161:5 166:7,8,10

Facebook (4) 22:21

25:14,15,20 facility (2) 1:24 125:7 fact (56) 24:19 41:8

46:3 60:17 61:25 65:24 69:25 74:1 76:3 77:6 78:16,17 78:20 79:8 84:7 87:12 88:3,16,19 89:24 91:3,22 93:21 103:7 108:2 116:13 119:9,14,15 119:16 126:8 127:8 138:5 147:10 158:12 160:21 162:24 168:1,8,24 169:6,13,22 177:19

180:19 181:19 34:20 35:4,5,11 forgery (3) 175:11,11
183:23 187:21 42:1 58:2 68:1 87:5 175:20
188:10,10,12,15,19 87:7 107:12 114:18 form (6) 8:9 25:24
193:7 197:13 122:23 140:17 26:25 115:25 198:6
200:11 153:7 157:23 165:4 199:5
factor (1) 24:21 165:8 168:21 formal (4) 8:12 117:4
facts (13) 36:5 50:14 176:15 182:13 198:14,15
50:16,16 62:12 finding (3) 80:20 former (1) 30:24
63:15 72:20 81:1 125:8 127:24 forms (1) 16:1
140:4,19 167:23 finds (3) 137:12 180:5 formulas (1) 38:13
188:3,16 181:1 fortification (3)
factual (1) 179:12 fine (1) 86:20 147:14 148:14,25
factum (2) 170:10,23 fingers (3) 18:10,12 forward (4) 7:24 90:5
fair (10) 17:21 77:21 18:14 148:4 162:19
88:24 89:17 95:8 finish (6) 2:10 52:12 forwarded (1) 155:25
99:14 117:13,17,18 53:1 184:20 185:22 found (7) 68:6 69:14
197:8 197:1 87:10 125:9 126:3
fairly (3) 62:5 75:19 finished (4) 53:5 126:19 172:18
84:11 68:24 133:4 185:11 four (3) 136:19 184:1
fairness (3) 95:6 96:7 finishing (1) 2:15 196:23
180:16 Finnish (1) 113:16 fourth (5) 109:3 148:6
fall (3) 82:9,10 88:24 firm (1) 98:7 163:3,23 176:4
false (6) 126:22,24,24 firms (1) 38:14 frame (2) 76:24
127:6,6 172:6 first (65) 3:22 7:21 167:17
falsified (1) 172:6 8:15,15 9:9 10:20 framed (1) 162:4
familiar (2) 37:24 10:23 28:5 29:8,11 framing (1) 161:24
54:22 41:15 43:5 55:1,6 France (30) 26:1 98:9
familiarise (1) 134:10 57:3 66:20 67:14 98:11,22 99:14
family (3) 158:14,16 70:11 75:12 82:24 100:3,21,25 101:15
158:19 89:15 95:25 97:3 103:2,5 110:20
fan (1) 92:6 107:1,2 112:17,19 112:17 115:6
fanciful (1) 90:6 116:4,7 122:2,15 116:22 118:23
far (8) 33:20 57:16 123:18 127:17 119:5 126:19
72:16 73:11 118:15 129:3,16 137:9 138:13 141:16
144:12 162:23 142:2 143:2,16,19 143:14 172:25
200:17 143:20 148:21 173:25 174:19
fate (2) 83:17 90:1 149:22 162:19 182:20,25 194:12
fault (4) 13:14 39:13 164:1 170:24 171:1 197:13,13 199:12
130:2 158:2 171:6,7,9,9,10 François (4) 96:19
favour (5) 114:8 175:7 177:11,12 102:1 148:12 204:9
121:10 126:4 178:16,17 182:6 fraud (1) 175:14
173:12,13 186:6 192:13,20 fraudulent (1) 180:24
favourable (1) 25:16 194:13 195:5 free (1) 51:11
fear (1) 5:1 198:24 199:13 freezing (48) 57:20,21
featuring (1) 172:6 Firstly (1) 59:22 58:3,9,12,17 59:21
February (5) 1:1 16:11 fish (1) 60:14 60:2,6,24 61:6 62:7
22:22 25:2 70:20 fit (2) 109:22 148:22 62:21 64:11 66:7
feel (3) 63:13 182:20 five (15) 32:20 33:1,7 70:10 71:13,20
182:23 33:17,23 35:7 36:8 72:5,10,25 73:22
fell (1) 48:12 36:15,19,25 37:12 73:25 74:1,4,5,9,12
ferreted (1) 69:18 46:22 111:13 74:14 77:23 78:3
fifth (2) 10:15 32:23 196:19,23 78:10 84:7 95:22
figure (2) 112:8 flagged (2) 85:4 86:23 139:16 141:9
144:25 flee (1) 141:15 144:10 147:5,23
figures (4) 80:19 flew (1) 106:5 150:17 152:19
110:7,7 150:19 focus (3) 63:17 112:10 160:15,20 161:2,10
file (9) 37:8 41:15 167:23 161:12 162:17,25
43:3,17,22 44:21 focused (2) 2:24 French (48) 1:14
63:2 64:17 125:23 136:12 103:9,20 104:14,17
filed (17) 4:17 53:18 focusing (3) 108:12 105:3,12 108:2,25
64:20 119:2 126:18 116:18 178:8 114:19,20 115:2,16
139:10 159:7 follow (4) 1:15,19 121:20 123:13
171:13,15,18,20,21 13:21 176:12 131:21 133:7 137:1
177:13 192:2,2,9 followed (1) 88:25 137:16 172:12,13
192:10 following (6) 89:20 172:16 173:18,19
files (3) 21:23 93:10 165:4 167:20,22,24 175:6,22 177:6
96:23 185:11 180:13,17 181:13
filing (5) 172:21 follows (3) 32:18 34:5 181:21 183:24
176:22 177:7 125:9 186:12,13,17
178:15,16 foolhardy (1) 6:13 187:15 191:15
final (6) 49:23,24,24 foot (2) 85:6 152:5 192:3 197:19
49:24 56:2,11 footing (2) 81:12 91:9 198:15,16 199:3,22
finally (3) 3:9 12:25 forced (1) 141:15 199:23 200:1,3
69:1 foreground (1) 72:6 201:6,9
finance (3) 50:10 foreign (2) 119:6 frequent (1) 116:23
112:6 151:22 164:19 frequently (1) 116:22
financial (2) 33:1,17 forewarned (1) 65:17 fresh (1) 6:3
financing (1) 59:17 forged (3) 36:4 172:19 Friday (4) 4:4,14 5:9
find (22) 6:7 25:15 174:11 105:19

Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

209

February 29, 2016 Day 18

friend (9) 3:10 10:7 28:12 42:20 52:4 57:12 76:7 97:18 176:25

friend’ (1) 176:11 friend’s (1) 54:10 friends (1) 92:15 front (6) 10:14 22:1,4

27:24 38:10 139:10 full (3) 81:11 83:11

87:19

full-time (1) 103:21 fully (5) 16:17,18

86:15 195:19 196:2 functioning (1) 1:12 fundamental (1)

58:10 fundamentally (1)
64:13 funds (1) 75:9

funny (2) 71:23 97:10 further (29) 4:15

62:19 74:22 80:1 82:7 83:2,12,19 86:19 88:9,10,11 88:14 89:23,25 92:19 96:4,12 113:21 114:18,23 115:20 118:6 135:13 148:18,18 182:2 188:12 196:25

future (1) 56:19 fuzzy (1) 103:8

G

G2/41/1 (1) 139:8 G2/41/12 (1) 147:10 G2/41/13 (2) 147:10

147:15

G2/41/3 (1) 141:1 G2/41/4 (1) 141:6 G2/41/6 (1) 143:23 G2/41/7 (2) 144:15

146:1

G2/41/8 (1) 146:4 G2/41/9 (1) 146:14 G2/51/1 (1) 148:7 G2/51/13 (1) 149:22 G2/51/17 (3) 149:20 150:7 151:15

G2/51/19 (1) 152:1 G2/51/2 (1) 151:2 G2/51/20 (5) 152:7

154:4 157:8 158:25 160:3

G2/51/3 (1) 149:9 G2/53/1 (5) 163:4,9 163:16,17 164:1

G2/53/3 (1) 164:14 G2/53/5 (1) 163:19 G2/60/1 (1) 98:1 gained (1) 143:8 garbled (1) 82:12 garnered (2) 109:4

142:14

Garub (1) 146:23 gathered (2) 31:25

63:3

Gauci (3) 106:10

108:7,14

general (4) 14:4 90:4

121:5 132:1

generally (3) 84:1 90:23 109:15 generate (1) 155:21 genuine (2) 158:10,11

Geoffrey (2) 106:9

108:7

getting (4) 41:6 46:10 77:15 193:12

gist (1) 43:22

give (38) 4:25 6:5,23 8:21 18:20 19:20 26:7 29:1 32:15 44:13,15 45:1 47:4 50:6 60:13 62:10 63:9 82:19 84:7 88:12 116:20,25 122:5 126:4 138:9 140:6 146:14 161:23 180:15 182:12 186:3 188:3 191:3 197:14,24 198:23 201:15,25

given (57) 7:13 10:19 11:25 13:12 18:18 51:5 56:15 61:15 81:10,11 83:11 84:13,13 87:20 89:16,17 90:10 91:13 92:15 94:15 96:10 98:6 112:25 114:8 115:24 116:14,16 117:3,8 118:23 120:24 122:21 123:8 126:10,20 127:3,8 131:19 135:18 139:6 143:20 148:24 150:5 161:22 162:2,7 170:14 173:9,11,13 177:14 179:19 181:18 186:5 193:1 199:12 200:20

gives (4) 4:22 120:4 121:21 161:24

giving (14) 44:10 49:21 50:2 112:21 122:4,8,13 139:12 139:21 140:4 181:20,24 198:3 202:25

glad (1) 202:24 global (2) 48:12 119:8 go (99) 1:15 5:1 11:3

27:21 28:10,16,21 30:7 31:4,10 35:5 38:1 44:16 47:19 49:6 51:11 53:16 55:7 57:20 64:6 66:24 67:14,21 68:9 69:3 72:17 83:5 84:20 85:9 91:7,14 92:19 96:6 96:7 97:9 105:6 108:25 110:1 111:4 113:21 114:18,23 118:8 120:19 121:6 122:6 125:10 128:2 128:2,5,21,21 129:12 130:18 133:5 136:1 140:24 140:25 142:6,8 143:23 146:14 147:25 149:9,20 150:6 151:1,15 152:23 153:1,14 157:7 158:24 159:15 160:2,16 161:8 162:19 163:3 163:19 164:1,9,23 164:25 167:2,9,11 170:4,17 176:4 185:2,25 186:1,7 191:10 193:17

194:19 195:5 201:15

goal (1) 25:9 God (1) 71:18

goes (16) 1:13 53:23 78:15 86:17 87:3 88:21,22 90:20,22 90:22 92:17 116:9 143:14 179:16 181:6 196:19

going (70) 4:14 6:7,15 6:22 8:3,20 51:17 53:21 54:2 61:1 71:18 73:9 74:17 79:9 81:13 83:1,23 89:3,3,23 91:18 92:3 99:25 100:10 103:14 106:22 108:1,3,23 113:4,5 118:14 120:19 123:3 128:2 133:1 139:5 142:10,21 146:3,7,8 152:8 155:20 160:16 161:8,18 164:11 167:13,15,15,16 170:3,4 174:17,19 179:11,23 180:4,10 181:11 183:23 184:20 187:19 191:4 194:9 198:5 200:5,6 201:12

Goncharova (1) 155:9 good (9) 1:6 2:15 8:14 8:24 18:20 48:3 113:5 117:5,12

grant (2) 109:9 111:2 granted (1) 142:23 graphology (2) 172:9

172:16 grateful (2) 52:4

196:25 greater (1) 78:17 Gregory (1) 47:17 grid (1) 128:6 Grigory (5) 9:2 23:5

43:11 47:4 204:5 ground (3) 29:22

64:24 164:8 grounds (1) 89:12 group (3) 75:4 94:25

134:13 guarantee (82) 107:2

114:2,8,13,15,16

115:1,3,4,5,7,7,9

115:14,19,21,22,23

116:3,5,8,13,16,20

117:1,2,4,15,25

118:6,12,18,19,21 118:24 119:10,24 120:2,16,18,23 121:2,4,8,15,17,21 121:23,24 122:2,5 122:6,7,10,11,13 122:16 123:8 125:20 126:4,24 127:6,21 131:19 132:7 173:7,9,11 173:12 175:12,21 182:11 197:24,25 198:14,20,22,23 199:1 202:8,11,12

guaranteed (1) 113:16 guarantees (32)

108:10 112:23 113:25 116:19,20 116:23 117:8,10,23 119:22 120:5,9,12 121:3 122:21

126:10,20,22 127:4 127:9 134:18 138:10 174:11 180:6,23 181:2,9 181:18 182:7 198:18,19 200:12
guarantor (1) 172:5 guess (8) 93:14 99:10

110:2 126:12 168:4 174:3 191:2 196:23

guilty (2) 175:10,14 guy (2) 108:18 143:19

GVA (1) 145:14

H

habit (3) 26:4 203:13 203:14
half (13) 2:13 3:23 5:17,23 35:17 52:9 52:21,25 75:14 115:17,17 140:12 185:8

halfway (4) 100:7 113:23 172:3,22

hand (2) 51:17 176:9 handed (4) 9:7,12

28:1 52:1

Handover (1) 176:17 hands (2) 3:19 145:11 handwriting (2)

108:17,18 handwritten (3) 18:8

19:5 45:19

hang (2) 31:3 163:14 hangover (1) 155:5 happen (2) 146:3

164:11 happened (17) 19:23

19:24 20:19,23 21:21 47:14 55:20 56:12 57:4,13,17 71:17 87:5,8 112:17 169:17 190:20

happening (1) 60:17 happens (1) 116:21 hard (3) 9:23 52:23

89:21

hauled (1) 127:21 head (3) 62:22 78:1

84:10

heading (8) 23:9,20 64:9 134:13 141:1 143:23 146:4 150:9

hear (5) 1:9 3:25 26:6 45:11 73:9

heard (6) 72:22 124:21 125:2 169:22,23 200:3

hearing (13) 86:24 183:20,23 184:2,7 185:21 187:16 188:11 190:4,21 191:8,11,11

hearings (7) 85:15 183:13,15,16 186:13 187:10,12

heart (2) 57:4 181:6 heated (1) 72:24 heck (1) 77:2

held (2) 172:5 173:1 help (14) 14:13 15:12

15:14,16 20:9 25:6 25:9,9 29:20 30:1 44:11 74:21 168:18 172:14

helped (1) 15:8 helpful (3) 66:10

104:8 136:3 helps (1) 133:7 high (4) 51:4 160:12

183:8 191:18 higher (1) 109:17 Hildyard (244) 1:6,9

1:16,25 2:5,24 3:3 3:7,25 4:6,20 5:24 7:6,9,23 8:5,14,18 8:24 9:4 16:23 17:5 17:7,24 18:13 20:6 20:13,19,21 21:4,8 21:21,25 22:12,17 35:7 39:1,6 42:10 42:17,21,23 46:19 46:24 51:10,15,25 52:7,13 53:6,11,19 54:3 55:4,7,13,25 56:9,14 57:1 58:13 58:22 59:12 60:5 61:14,22,25 63:13 64:5,22 65:10,14 65:22 66:5,8,14,17 66:21,23 67:5,9,11 67:19 68:7,16,18 68:21,25 69:13,18 70:8,13,16,21,23 71:16 72:12,19 73:2,14,25 74:16 74:20,23 76:1,23 77:14 78:2 79:2,17 79:19 80:2,8,11,22 81:6,9,11,15 83:6 84:3,22 85:11,23 86:2 87:9,17,25 88:3,14,20 89:1,5,7 90:3 91:6 92:9,12 93:2,8,15,19 94:2,8 95:11,16,25 96:18 96:20,22 113:4 123:13 127:12,15 127:20,24 128:4 130:24 132:12,14 132:17,24 148:2,24 157:25 158:3 162:3 162:6,9 163:8,12 166:5 168:12 169:5 173:21 174:5,10,16 179:22 180:1,13,17 180:21 181:16 182:15,23 183:13 183:15,17,22 184:4 184:8,12,16,23 185:3,15,19,23 186:2,21 189:11,16 189:19 190:3,10,14 190:17 191:14,20 191:23 197:3,4,8 197:22 198:15 199:2,5,10,14,17 199:23 200:7,9,16 200:20,22,24 201:1 201:4,8,17,19,22 201:24 202:13,16 202:19,21,24 203:6 203:9,16 204:12

hint (1) 49:17 historically (1) 165:8 hit (1) 74:5

hmm (24) 99:24 109:13 124:23 129:14 130:5 131:15 134:24 139:24 140:7 141:3 141:7,18 146:6,19 146:25 154:6,9 155:23 156:20 160:8 163:5 166:3 177:3 192:25

Hold (1) 55:4 holding (1) 16:17 home (1) 1:15 honest (1) 199:20 hope (9) 2:15 4:18 9:4

18:25 52:9 84:23 96:22 104:12 117:18

hopefully (1) 34:16 hoping (2) 103:14

117:14

Hotel (1) 100:2 hour (7) 2:13 3:23

5:17,23 52:9,25 184:2

hours (3) 52:22,22 185:8

house (1) 36:1 housekeeping (12)

1:5 2:7 3:11,13 5:18 52:8,18 53:13 54:8 185:12 204:3 204:8

huge (1) 61:8 hundreds (3) 75:23

79:12 196:20

hypothécaire (2)

121:24 197:23

hypothecation (1)

197:15

I

I1/1/0.1 (1) 55:3 I1/1/0.11 (2) 66:13
70:16

I1/1/0.13 (4) 66:24,25 67:1,16

I1/1/0.18 (2) 67:3,23 I1/1/0.21 (2) 68:12,17 I1/1/0.23 (2) 69:3

92:20

I1/1/0.24 (1) 69:5 I1/1/0.25 (2) 69:9

92:21

I1/1/0.26 (2) 69:10 92:24

I1/1/0.27 (1) 70:7 I1/1/0.6 (1) 70:22 I1/1/1 (2) 55:6 70:19 I1/1/21 (1) 68:12 I15/15/103 (2) 85:19

166:14

I15/15/105 (2) 85:25 167:2

I15/15/65 (1) 93:5

I18&19/18/230.67 (1)

99:17

I18&19/18/230.68 (1)

100:6

I20/21/4 (4) 37:19 122:19 128:5 129:16

I20/21/5 (1) 129:13 I20/21/5.1 (1) 129:20 I20/21/5.3 (2) 129:19

130:3

I20/21/5.39 (2)

129:22 130:3

I20/21/5.4 (1) 130:20

I20/21/5.40 (1)

130:20

I20/21/5.41 (1) 131:4 I20/21/5.42 (1) 131:4 I20/21/5.46 (2) 38:16

123:24

I20/21/5.47 (1)

125:10

I20/21/5.48 (2) 38:15

123:25

I20/21/5.49 (1)

124:10

I20/21/5.5 (1) 131:4

I20/21/5.50 (2)

124:10 125:13

I20/21/5.51 (1)

124:11

I20/21/5.52 (1)

124:11

I20/21/5.6 (1) 131:5 idea (6) 19:24 46:19 48:4 77:23 92:7

127:20 ideas (1) 71:23

identifies (2) 91:20 164:12

identify (6) 18:24 69:6 113:20 129:4 187:7 188:10

identifying (1) 30:21 ignorance (1) 76:1 imagine (5) 25:24

37:7 87:17,18 89:10

immediately (3) 58:16 58:18 68:1

impasse (1) 72:3 impecuniosity (6)

76:15 88:23 90:15 90:21,23 98:24

impecunious (1)

75:24 implication (2) 49:12

77:3 implied (1) 15:5

implies (1) 120:14 implying (1) 187:1 important (22) 18:23

18:23 58:10 64:13 66:2 79:24 95:19 107:13 108:4,5 110:22 111:14 113:2 116:6 117:7 118:9 128:2 137:5 184:6 196:5,12 198:17

impossible (1) 75:17 improper (1) 84:5 inability (1) 144:12 inaccuracies (1) 43:13 inaccurate (1) 33:14 inadmissibility (1)

57:2

inadmissible (2) 55:19 56:3

incidence (1) 199:1 include (1) 37:14 including (2) 82:3

154:18 inconceivable (1)

48:10 inconsistencies (1)

62:24 inconsistent (5) 69:24

110:9 179:13 181:5 181:10

inconvenienced (1)

53:12 incorporates (1)

149:12 incorrectly (1) 43:8 increasingly (1)

159:12 incrimination (1) 62:6 independent (4)

31:24 51:2 77:6 136:18

INDEX (1) 204:1

Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

210

February 29, 2016 Day 18

indicate (1) 6:21 184:22 185:9 192:3
indicated (4) 2:9 intervene (1) 179:9 Japanese (1) 31:5
65:10 190:15 intervened (2) 179:21 joined (2) 130:25
202:22 186:25 132:6
indicates (1) 33:20 interview (20) 32:16 journalist (9) 28:7
indication (1) 190:3 40:21 41:4,8,12 37:7 44:12 46:7,13
individual (1) 173:13 42:1,9,23 43:14,23 46:15,17 47:5,17
inevitable (1) 6:14 44:6,10,13,18,19 journalistic (1) 44:5
inform (2) 191:3 45:2,23 47:2,21 judge (6) 130:17
196:10 108:1 190:11,15,20 191:1
informal (2) 200:24,25 interviewed (1) 44:7 191:6
information (19) 15:5 interviewer (1) 41:14 judgement (1) 126:17
30:1,4,5 37:20 interviews (4) 30:8 judgment (22) 39:11
60:23 62:18 71:2,6 31:1,16 47:4 49:24 124:2,3,11
78:4 82:17 94:15 introduce (2) 46:16 124:17 125:3 126:2
109:3 110:14 47:16 126:8,15,25 127:6
128:11,24,24 introduced (2) 47:6 132:23 173:15
130:12 171:22 106:20 175:15 192:13
informed (2) 59:23 invalid (1) 173:15 193:1,3,4,6,6 194:3
190:1 inverted (1) 37:12 judgments (14)
initially (1) 87:11 invest (1) 113:17 101:15 103:2
injunction (7) 72:5 investigate (1) 50:15 112:18 119:5
77:24 84:7 161:2 investigated (4) 31:5 126:17,19 172:23
161:10,12 162:25 31:7,8 50:16 173:24,25 174:1,2
inside (1) 189:22 investigation (13) 174:4,7 181:13
insolvency (1) 160:16 28:18,23 29:15 July (16) 77:11 81:8
insolvent (1) 131:22 31:1,18 32:14 81:10,22,23 82:15
instance (1) 143:3 38:11 62:20,21 85:15 86:7 89:19
instructed (4) 168:21 71:6 93:20 94:14 93:5 98:6,15 99:3,9
183:17 189:19,20 192:14 130:14 166:16
instructing (1) 122:22 investigations (3) 32:2 junior (1) 75:25
instruction (2) 166:8 69:15 93:13 jurisdictions (1) 99:13
166:11 investigative (9) 28:7 Justice (244) 1:6,9,16
instructions (1) 31:12,13 32:1,8 1:25 2:5,24 3:3,7
157:13 37:7,11 44:12 3:25 4:6,20 5:24
insulated (1) 59:12 46:15 7:6,9,23 8:5,14,18
insurance (3) 59:8 investigator (1) 94:14 8:24 9:4 16:23 17:5
113:16 177:10 invitation (1) 55:8 17:7,24 18:13 20:6
integrity (1) 73:21 invite (3) 56:22 58:2 20:13,19,21 21:4,8
intend (1) 108:5 68:4 21:21,25 22:12,17
intended (3) 105:9 inviting (1) 54:15 35:7 39:1,6 42:10
107:22 108:7 involved (7) 71:19 42:17,21,23 46:19
intention (1) 78:6 93:11 123:10 46:24 51:10,15,25
interest (15) 72:8 165:14 168:25 52:7,13 53:6,11,19
76:20,25 79:8 169:14 187:8 54:3 55:4,7,13,25
80:16 133:10,17,21 involvement (4) 168:1 56:9,14 57:1 58:13
133:23 135:5,5,9 168:9 169:2 186:6 58:22 59:12 60:5
146:15 158:13,16 involving (1) 122:24 61:14,22,25 63:13
interested (6) 80:24 Irina (1) 32:6 64:5,22 65:10,14
110:24 157:19 irrelevant (3) 64:1 65:22 66:5,8,14,17
158:12,19,20 72:18 73:17 66:21,23 67:5,9,11
interesting (2) 102:25 issue (42) 3:17 6:5 67:19 68:7,16,18
194:12 8:12 54:12,23,25 68:21,25 69:13,18
interests (3) 35:22 55:11 56:24 57:23 70:8,13,16,21,23
80:10 87:23 63:22 64:19 65:7 71:16 72:12,19
interject (1) 48:2 66:3,7 73:4,5,16 73:2,14,25 74:16
intermingle (1) 74:22,25 75:13 74:20,23 76:1,23
187:24 76:8,11 81:9,12,17 77:14 78:2 79:2,17
intermingled (1) 82:21 83:8 84:19 79:19 80:2,8,11,22
63:20 89:2,3 90:20,22 81:6,9,11,15 83:6
international (3) 91:7 92:14 94:19 84:3,22 85:11,23
98:10 149:6 198:24 103:6 113:22 86:2 87:9,17,25
internet (3) 1:14 167:16 168:5 88:3,14,20 89:1,5,7
23:13,15 180:25 182:11 90:3 91:6 92:9,12
Interpol (3) 103:6,11 197:5 93:2,8,15,19 94:2,8
187:23 issued (1) 128:8 95:11,16,25 96:18
interpret (1) 199:3 issues (20) 36:6 59:22 96:20,22 113:4
interpreted (1) 15:18 73:18 82:2,2 83:1 123:13 127:12,15
interpreter (9) 3:21 87:4 89:8 92:6 127:20,24 128:4
6:1 8:16,20,23 95:20,20 96:6,7 130:24 132:12,14
15:17 20:9 184:10 101:13,16 103:1 132:17,24 148:2,24
204:4 160:24 168:6,7 157:25 158:3 162:3
interpreter’s (2) 8:18 169:24 162:6,9 163:8,12
14:15 Ivan (2) 43:9,10 166:5 168:12 169:5
interpreting (1) 173:21 174:5,10,16
121:19 J 179:22 180:1,13,17
interrupt (3) 16:8 jaded (1) 62:9 180:21 181:16
17:18,20 182:15,23 183:13
January (3) 100:3,9
interrupted (3) 66:8 183:15,17,22 184:4

184:8,12,16,23 200:13 201:4,11
185:3,15,19,23 knowing (1) 132:4
186:2,21 189:11,16 knowledge (11) 10:4
189:19 190:3,10,14 11:21 12:5,10,15
190:17 191:14,20 12:22 97:15 118:10
191:23 197:3,4,8 138:25 140:3,19
197:22 198:15
199:2,5,10,14,17 L
199:23 200:7,9,16 L7/35/106 (2) 85:13
200:20,22,24 201:1
86:8
201:4,8,17,19,22
L7/35/107 (1) 86:18
201:24 202:13,16
label (4) 61:25 62:2,3
202:19,21,24 203:6
62:16
203:9,16 204:12
labelled (1) 62:1
justified (1) 172:25
lady (1) 23:9
justify (2) 95:9 187:7
landing (1) 6:13

language (1) 36:14
K
large (2) 109:18
keen (2) 62:10 84:20
112:11
keep (12) 43:17 64:14 largely (1) 59:23
67:14 95:8,19 lasting (1) 185:10
130:22 151:1 156:9 late (3) 35:14 106:3
156:15 194:24 197:1
199:20 203:9 law (24) 31:22 38:14
keeping (1) 73:22 50:10,12 120:11
kept (5) 32:4 45:17,23 121:20 123:13
58:11 87:12 131:21,25 132:16
key (1) 130:18 132:18 142:1
KHORISHKA (2) 8:23 162:21 191:17
204:4 198:7,17 199:23
kind (10) 1:11 102:2 200:1,1,2,3,3,4,18
108:3 121:22 132:8 lawsuit (1) 118:11
181:9 182:18 lawyer (19) 46:8,11
183:24 187:21 47:7 101:22 103:19
197:16 138:13 158:13,15
knew (4) 65:25 69:6 168:14 182:24
94:4 190:20 183:3,10,17,21
know (138) 3:8 6:7 184:15 187:15
7:10,13,17,18 188:11 189:17,25
12:19,24 16:16,16 lawyers (3) 21:7
20:16 21:2,21 22:5 158:22 184:9
26:5 37:25 38:11 laying (1) 77:1
40:1 42:4,12 43:10 lead (2) 120:22 181:3
54:22 60:1 62:4,16 learn (2) 71:5 142:2
62:18 64:12 66:2 learned (11) 3:10 10:7
69:17,23 72:2 73:2 42:20 52:4 54:10
73:6 76:21 80:25 57:12 69:22 71:8
81:5 82:16 83:13 92:15 97:18 187:21
91:7 93:19 94:2 Leasing (3) 39:4
98:23,24 99:8 123:22 125:4
101:5,11,21,24,25 leave (3) 53:15 133:15
102:2,16 103:3 145:18
105:17 108:2,9,11 leaving (1) 90:24
110:17,23 112:6 lecture (2) 102:3,5
115:6 116:6,18,19 lectured (1) 103:9
116:21 117:5 lecturer (1) 103:19
118:14 119:12,25 left (4) 81:8 92:17,22
121:23 122:14 143:20
126:13,25 131:23 legal (17) 33:1,17
131:24 132:3,3,13 50:20 98:10 101:13
132:14,24 135:20 115:25 123:11,11
135:24,25 137:7 149:5 157:20
138:4,7,13,17,19 161:25 162:10
138:22,23 142:7,17 168:10,18 169:7
143:15 145:13 186:14 195:19
156:6,8 158:19,22 legitimate (2) 62:20
161:4 162:21,21 181:15
163:2,2,2 166:2 lender (1) 143:4
168:24 169:17,20 lengthy (1) 187:19
169:22,25 170:2 let’s (10) 25:22 26:11
174:18 177:15 31:4 53:5 103:18
178:7 179:1,1 133:24 137:9 180:5
183:9 185:17 188:5 191:18 201:6
188:18 189:23 letter (45) 37:25 38:2
190:24 191:3,7,10 38:9 39:9,14 55:1
191:21 193:14 67:23 68:9,11,19
194:2,9 196:10,12 68:23 69:4 70:3,8
197:18,24 198:1,5 77:10 80:23 81:23

85:16,18,18,19,22 look (36) 3:6 9:16
85:25 86:6 87:21 10:21 11:8 22:6
92:20 93:4,25 32:12,23 33:21
123:1,18 128:14,15 38:15 46:2 47:22
128:15 129:1,22 67:25 70:13 82:25
130:1 156:13 83:15,24 88:8
166:15,25 194:17 89:15 93:5 94:16
194:22 195:8,11,18 104:12 105:24
196:3 108:22 113:23
letters (5) 54:25 57:3 117:21 120:7 126:3
93:17 196:16,20 129:3,16 134:21
level (1) 51:4 144:25 156:14
Levitskaya (2) 30:14 160:25 161:5
94:15 177:24 199:18
liabilities (4) 144:21 looked (4) 10:22
145:2 150:23,23 67:22 128:13
liberty (1) 148:24 151:21
licensed (1) 84:16 looking (15) 7:24
lie (1) 89:11 18:17 32:19 42:25
light (4) 5:6 83:4 48:6 68:1,3,22
88:10 135:9 81:15,16 85:5
likelihood (1) 91:15 102:18 105:12
likewise (1) 88:11 154:22 165:7
limit (3) 61:3 64:8 looks (19) 11:14 22:7
138:25 23:11 24:22,24
limited (7) 11:21 12:5 43:1 71:22 77:6
12:10,14,15,23 100:8 116:12
128:11 124:11 125:17
limits (3) 77:25 96:2,6 135:2,17 155:24
line (18) 33:12 47:3 166:8,11 192:2
47:22 55:10 77:21 193:16
78:12 84:5 86:11 Lord (220) 1:21,21 2:3
86:17 90:14 111:5 2:6,9,20 3:16,21,25
111:12 133:8 4:3,3,7,21 6:20
164:17 179:10,14 7:11,12,12 8:1,1,11
180:2 181:15 9:1 10:7,9,10 17:12
lines (4) 3:17 6:11 18:3,12,16 20:7,16
13:10 48:9 20:16,20 21:2 22:6
link (2) 1:22 198:2 22:15,18,18 39:3,8
linked (1) 158:14 41:25,25 42:13
Lipetsk (8) 38:18 46:19,21,21,22,25
39:25 123:16,23 48:7 51:8,9,13,23
124:12,17 126:2 51:23 52:3,16,18
127:16 52:21,21 53:9,17
Lipetskcombank (3) 53:17,21 54:22
124:21,25 125:22 55:5,17,22 56:10
list (7) 31:3 39:9,13,14 56:20 58:1,14,20
134:13,17 174:18 60:5,9 61:20,20
listen (1) 60:13 62:2,11 64:8 65:2
listening (1) 6:18 65:12,19 67:13,16
lists (1) 134:18 67:21,25 68:3,14
litigation (9) 57:18 68:24 69:16 70:5
75:16 83:17 90:24 70:15,24 71:10
98:11 132:6 149:6 73:11,15,20 74:1
151:13,23 74:21,24 75:1,1
little (9) 66:12 99:11 76:13,16,18 77:8,8
99:15 110:9 115:20 77:21,21 78:14,14
118:6,15 142:17 79:7,18,21,21 80:9
178:19 80:9,12 81:4,4,7,10
live (3) 25:25 60:18 81:13,18 82:3,11
89:18 82:20,21,21 83:15
lives (1) 25:25 84:4 85:3,3,13,24
LLC (8) 123:22 131:11 86:6 87:16,16,21
144:4,5 150:13,14 88:2,8,8,13,19,19
168:2,3 88:21 89:4,6,14
loan (7) 36:3 75:7 90:8 91:17 92:22
109:10,16 112:2 93:3,9 96:11,16
130:16 131:18 97:20,21 113:4,7,7
loans (9) 49:8 111:3 113:11 123:14
134:17,22 135:2,14 127:14,14,18,23
142:22 144:20 128:1,5 131:2
160:11 132:19 133:1 148:3
loco (1) 168:16 148:8 158:1,1,4
logic (1) 58:7 161:18,18 162:4,12
long (7) 45:21 58:1,6 162:15 163:9,9,13
99:2,18,22 142:5 163:13 166:6,6
longer (8) 6:7 46:20 168:8,18 169:11
46:21 52:9 57:19 174:21 179:23
184:23 185:12,13 180:3,3,15,15,19

Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

211

February 29, 2016 Day 18

180:22 181:20 30:18 32:6,16 169:10 177:2 misunderstanding (1) nature (6) 25:18
184:19,19,24 185:8 33:13 34:21 35:10 180:13 181:16 54:13 115:1,15 121:8,12
185:22,25,25 186:4 35:11 36:2,15 187:10 188:2 194:7 mix (1) 95:21 197:6
186:4,24 191:25 37:13 40:22 41:5,9 198:11 200:2,13 mixing (1) 64:13 Nazarov (1) 132:19
196:24,24 202:1,20 42:24 43:2,14,24 meaning (3) 49:23 Mm (26) 95:25 99:24 necessarily (3) 79:23
203:2,5,7,15 204:7 44:10 121:24 198:8 109:13 124:23 119:9 168:9
204:11 Malysheva’s (6) 32:25 means (8) 2:22 59:6 129:14 130:5 necessary (1) 70:25
Lord’s (2) 60:11 65:10 33:16,24,25 36:14 78:3 102:1 122:15 131:15 134:24 necessity (1) 142:8
Lordship (73) 1:7 2:23 43:11 122:16 197:23 135:13 139:24 need (31) 2:22 4:13
4:18 5:9 10:1 15:15 man (1) 189:17 198:17 140:7 141:3,7,18 5:10 6:3,21 14:19
16:21 20:17 23:12 managed (3) 50:15 meant (7) 47:20 91:8 146:6,19,25 154:6 17:9 18:1 20:1
24:16 26:8 27:11 59:1 169:25 111:20 112:1 154:9 155:23 21:12 26:4 40:17
31:13 34:2 39:16 management (1) 114:16 138:3 156:20 160:8 163:5 41:2,21 46:2 51:16
39:16 44:11 49:22 85:15 179:14 166:3 177:3 192:25 54:24 63:2,8 64:17
53:22,23 54:9,11 managers (1) 131:23 measure (2) 6:10 modernisation (4) 80:25 82:25 83:5
57:12 75:3,6 77:9 mandate (1) 60:7 112:11 146:2 147:24 83:24 108:25 109:1
82:14 84:2,6,11,12 manuscript (3) 19:12 media (3) 53:18 194:7 159:11 164:10 115:9 147:1 179:20
84:20 85:14,17,17 19:19 20:8 194:11 moment (10) 13:8 184:23,24
85:22 86:7,9,12 Marc (2) 186:13 meet (2) 106:2 202:24 58:25 62:13 156:10 needed (2) 84:13
89:15 90:8 91:17 187:10 meeting (24) 53:16 160:21 178:16 108:10
91:21 92:5 100:16 March (5) 99:5 105:18 82:13 103:23 104:2 181:16,20 185:6 needn’t (1) 51:21
132:20 137:12 105:22 106:3 105:8,17 106:8,17 190:11 needs (4) 5:7 51:22
139:10 140:14 203:19 107:13 109:4 moments (1) 112:22 53:24 95:7
144:18 145:21 margin (1) 29:5 110:12 114:7 Monday (2) 1:1 negated (1) 61:16
150:20 152:7 158:9 Marine (1) 134:13 116:12 119:21 105:20 negotiated (3) 133:17
160:3,25 171:15 market (1) 35:23 133:22 135:12 money (7) 33:11 135:19 157:15
172:11 173:17 marks (3) 23:20 24:11 136:19 138:2 35:21,24,24 57:14 negotiating (1) 49:10
174:25 177:6,11 37:12 184:18 199:9 77:15 78:25 Negresco (3) 100:2
180:5 181:1 182:5 massive (1) 66:3 201:15 202:4,4,7 monies (1) 75:5 101:9 106:11
189:8 190:6 192:1 match (2) 130:4 157:1 meetings (1) 82:23 month (1) 157:15 neither (2) 59:11
193:6 195:7 196:8 matches (1) 171:12 mental (1) 61:3 months (3) 25:23 65:14
197:1 203:7 material (15) 5:19 8:2 mention (1) 203:3 26:11 148:8 nerve (1) 49:15
Lordship’s (7) 3:19 10:18 13:25 14:13 mentioned (3) 47:5 moral (19) 115:1,4,7 nerve’ (1) 49:8
18:3 53:9 81:21 15:9 17:14 23:13 176:12 178:15 115:15,23 117:2 net (5) 80:18 144:19
146:12 193:21 31:25 43:7 83:19 merely (3) 199:19 118:5,20 120:18 144:21,24 160:11
195:21 83:22 146:9 156:19 200:22,24 121:8,12 122:18 network (1) 188:3
loss (1) 95:1 167:21 merited (1) 28:18 197:6 198:9,12 never (16) 26:23
losses (3) 75:3 78:16 materialise (1) 147:4 mess (1) 64:12 199:15,21 201:3,7 46:12 71:3,4 72:22
139:15 materially (1) 44:23 Meylanova (2) 2:12 morning (6) 1:6 3:1,15 76:13 93:12 115:22
lost (6) 1:13 6:6 49:7 materials (1) 94:13 3:2 4:17 7:15 53:24 118:23 120:1,4
49:15 99:4 130:2 matter (39) 26:15 middle (2) 6:17 Morskoy (4) 176:16 122:21 124:24
lot (17) 27:6 29:22 27:13,19 29:16 102:10 176:21 182:10 125:2 126:25 172:4
66:15 70:25 72:4 55:16 56:10 58:22 Mikhailovich (1) 43:12 189:6 nevertheless (3)
87:5 102:2,10 61:18 63:14 64:10 Mikhaylovich (3) 43:9 mortgage (5) 121:25 50:18 65:24 76:9
103:15 106:5,6 65:23 73:7 76:9,11 43:10 47:5 122:3 143:9,16,19 new (2) 3:21 6:8
109:17 113:14 76:16 81:7 83:10 million (21) 109:10,17 mortgaged (3) 121:9 Nice (6) 35:25 153:12
161:22 184:20 84:24 85:4 87:2,3 112:3,4,9,9 144:21 142:25 143:3 174:6,13 175:18
187:18 188:3 88:5 89:21 90:2 145:11,19 147:15 mortgages (3) 114:12 192:5
lots (2) 1:8 78:23 91:5,14 96:4 147:21 150:19,24 115:10 143:10 Nigel (1) 158:1
loud (2) 18:15 152:5 110:18 162:24 151:18 153:20,24 move (1) 6:1 night (3) 7:21 13:17
low (2) 133:18 191:21 167:25 168:24 160:7,13 161:7,7 mutual (1) 79:8 18:17
LPK (3) 129:18 131:11 169:13 178:2 180:8 165:12 myopically (1) 7:23 ninth (1) 97:4
131:17 180:12 182:19,19 millions (2) 75:23 noise (1) 18:14
Lt-Colonel (1) 30:14 189:13,24 79:12 N non-aggression (1)
luck (1) 67:11 matters (18) 5:11 Milner (6) 65:11 77:10 N (2) 158:1,2 142:19
Lukina (1) 159:6 15:23 54:1 69:6 85:12 86:11,24,25 non-common (1)
N14/25/268 (2)
lunch (1) 52:5 72:17 86:10 87:1 mind (10) 18:25 66:20 142:1
154:10,24
Luncheon (1) 54:6 95:22 100:14 102:6 84:23,23 130:22 non-endorsement (1)
N14/25/270 (1)
125:1 140:17,18 142:23 152:11 24:20
157:22
M 151:25 161:21 155:16 166:9 non-extradition (1)
N14/25/271 (2)
M (1) 186:13 167:10 179:5,12 179:18 192:21
154:23 159:20
Matvienko (3) 23:9 mine (3) 30:4 108:9,9 non-recognition (1)
M1/19/1 (1) 170:13 N14/25/274 (1)
188:21,23 minute (5) 35:15 119:13
M1/19/7 (1) 170:17 159:20
Matvienko’s (1) 189:1 123:4 124:9 133:2 normal (10) 5:12 65:2
M14 (1) 157:25 N15/27/1 (2) 10:11,14
maximised (1) 141:1 151:1 116:10,24 117:1
Mackenzie (1) 76:7 N15/27/11 (1) 11:9
McKenzie (3) 67:4,23 minutes (10) 5:20 118:1 120:13 121:1
Maddison (2) 106:14 N15/27/3 (1) 10:24
87:22 46:22 83:4 111:13 143:1,6
108:19 N15/27/7 (2) 11:5,11
mean (43) 18:7 20:14 112:10 184:2,24 normally (1) 197:15
Magnum (6) 1:11,19 N15/27/8 (2) 10:11,21
30:2 31:17 32:21 185:7,10 186:2 Norwood (1) 135:14
5:20 65:15 68:2 N22/53.2/12 (2)
44:22 50:4 55:22 mirror (1) 73:4 notably (1) 176:11
97:10 156:12,21
56:6 61:14 72:6 Mirror’ (1) 85:6 note (50) 4:17 5:6,19
main (2) 43:19 110:19 N4/25/259 (1) 153:4
78:20 83:16 87:12 missed (2) 51:1 6:4 46:1 51:17
maintains (1) 33:10 name (7) 43:11 51:5
90:5 95:11,23 136:24 53:17 54:11 58:24
majority (1) 188:16 87:13 88:4,16
102:16 103:12 missing (1) 13:23 60:11 65:10 84:2
making (6) 45:16 192:6 193:18
107:25 111:23,25 mistaken (6) 47:25 84:12 85:3 104:13
63:19 70:5 86:9 named (2) 39:10
116:22 119:6 120:3 48:20 65:20,22 105:3,8,10,13
126:17 145:16 129:5
121:4 123:13 124:8 101:5 191:2 107:15,23 108:22
malicious (1) 141:2 narrow (1) 119:6
132:9 135:19 mistranslation (1) 109:8,17,20,22
Malysheva (19) 30:17 natural (1) 120:22
142:10 155:6 168:2 17:19 110:11 113:11

116:4 117:17,18 118:4,7 120:7,7,22 133:1,14,15 135:22 136:2,4 137:10,11 137:12 146:12 159:17,22 193:21 197:5

notebook (7) 21:24 43:18,19,21 45:16 45:17,25

notebooks (1) 45:20 noted (1) 172:23 notes (28) 3:15 32:1,2

43:20 45:14,16,18 45:21,23 51:16 104:11,15,18 107:17 108:8,15,19 109:1 110:4 111:16 111:18,20,21,24 114:11 118:9 136:21,22

Notice (1) 187:24

Notices (3) 103:7,10

103:11 noting (3) 84:18

115:19 116:12

November (3) 109:10

192:14,20

Novikov (13) 103:23 106:3,23 107:13,16 110:12 113:18 114:7 115:13 121:19 136:7,19 138:18

Novikov’s (2) 108:6

115:13

nuanced (2) 181:23

182:3

nuclear (2) 31:6,7 number (18) 30:7 38:2 45:5 57:19

63:5 71:5 75:6 87:4 87:18 90:17 92:6 98:8 128:6 129:4,8 155:2,5,12

numbering (2) 66:13 67:3

numbers (6) 32:19 110:8,10 126:9 134:23 174:3

Nypyrsty (1) 156:7

O

oath (8) 8:17,19 10:1 17:12 24:16 27:11 97:14 145:10

object (2) 5:14 91:10 objected (2) 6:11

54:18 objecting (2) 6:10

179:12 objection (3) 57:1

86:22 90:13 objections (1) 5:8 objective (1) 25:10 obligation (11) 122:18

198:10,13,21,25

199:15,16,18,21

201:3,7 obligations (3) 60:1

152:23 159:15

obliged (2) 71:12

96:16

observing (1) 74:18 obtain (2) 172:24

175:15

obtained (8) 36:3 78:5 114:2,12 117:14,25

119:13 141:10 obvious (8) 19:3

26:17,19,20 27:8 161:11,13 162:16 obviously (30) 5:6,13 6:9 8:8 26:16 53:24

53:25 54:20 56:4 56:21,23 57:11 59:5 61:8 69:21 72:14 74:9 78:18 80:5 87:2 88:12 93:12 94:22 112:8 112:25 179:11,16 180:3,7 181:8

occasion (2) 27:18 65:20

occasions (2) 75:7 185:9

occurred (2) 138:8,12 October (7) 27:13

147:18 148:3,19 149:14 154:22 164:5

odd (3) 77:14 80:13 114:15

oddity (1) 149:24 off-putting (1) 18:15 offence (2) 175:11,14 offences (1) 180:25 offensive (1) 24:23 offer (2) 113:25

117:23 offers (1) 146:15

oh (19) 71:18 102:7 104:16 108:2 111:22 145:1,6 154:25 156:25 158:21 166:23 173:24 176:21 187:4,18 193:3 194:5 196:19 198:9

OJSC (1) 129:17 okay (32) 42:21 66:5

67:19 70:21 104:22 105:6 108:22 111:9 111:25 114:23 116:7 123:19,22,22 124:4,15 128:19 129:21 137:18 145:1 152:14 156:25 163:18 166:3 167:1,7 171:7 177:11 179:8 191:23 198:3 202:23

oligarchs’ (1) 141:11 OMG (30) 33:3,19

34:7 36:8,10,21 37:6,9 38:4,24 39:22 40:7,9,15 57:10,18 75:4,5,8,9 78:15,17,24 79:1,4 91:22 92:2 134:7 142:6 176:25

OMG/BSP (1) 59:18 OMGP’s (1) 85:8 once (2) 150:22

151:19

Onega (1) 59:9 ones (2) 4:4 93:16 ongoing (2) 78:16

128:7 onwards (2) 76:4

197:12

open (2) 67:15 151:1 opening (6) 42:9,20 75:15 85:4,10

86:22 opinion (11) 29:1

Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

212
February 29, 2016 Day 18

32:15 47:15 48:23 153:16,16 155:2,8 particularised (1) 121:21 122:4,9 99:2 163:1 165:12 91:20 167:24 137:8,13 138:6

49:1,1,21,23 50:6 156:2 163:19 164:1 62:25 183:21 188:18 202:4 179:23 predator’ (1) 136:13
50:25 51:5 164:9,14,23 166:21 particularity (1) 4:15 190:22 194:14 placed (1) 185:15 policing (3) 57:21 predicting (1) 165:17
opinions (1) 51:1 167:2 172:3,21 particularly (5) 31:9 197:25 plank (1) 118:22 58:11 60:4 prefer (2) 1:25 2:18
opportunity (7) 3:14 174:21,25 175:1 78:8,12 90:14 personal (81) 107:1 plans (1) 164:10 policy (2) 119:8,14 preference (1) 4:2
4:11 12:7 13:12,22 192:13,13 195:5 175:8 108:10 112:23 play (2) 75:20 100:10 political (3) 91:11 prejudge (1) 89:23
41:16 179:6 197:11 204:2 parties (6) 2:17 31:21 114:1,8,14,16 played (1) 59:15 141:15 194:13 prejudice (1) 86:14
opposed (3) 55:18 pages (12) 11:6 23:2 54:24 66:4 98:11 115:5,7,9,14,19,21 pleaded (8) 73:16 politicians (1) 187:25 prejudicial (1) 58:8
121:16 168:10 68:10 104:22 133:17 115:22 116:2,5,8 74:25 76:11 80:6 port (90) 4:5,7,24 premised (1) 180:22
opposing (1) 55:18 124:10 125:23 partly (1) 55:17 116:13,17,18,20,23 88:17,19,25 90:20 5:14 6:4 52:2 54:11 preparation (3) 15:13
option (2) 1:21 152:7,9 177:13 partners (1) 113:15 116:25 117:4,8,10 pleadings (5) 64:20 59:2,6,10 61:24 27:5 30:12
199:13 178:20 182:2,15 parts (1) 71:14 117:14,24 118:12 75:14 83:9 88:15 76:4,21 78:20,21 prepared (9) 7:2
orally (1) 7:1 pagination (1) 155:6 party (6) 127:12,15,18 118:18,19,23 119:9 94:23 79:12 80:10,13,19 15:19 16:19,19
order (54) 5:4 25:6 paid (4) 144:21 130:24 131:8 119:22,24 120:1,5 pleas (1) 201:14 83:2,18 85:8 87:2 19:12 21:22 22:16
57:20,21 58:3,12 145:12 150:23 183:11 120:9,12,23 121:2 please (97) 1:7 8:16 89:16 90:1,11,12 78:25 97:6
58:17 59:21 60:2,7 151:19 Pasko (89) 3:11,23 121:3,4,9,17,21,22 10:10,21 11:6 12:1 91:22 94:24 95:1,3 preparing (3) 14:18
60:24 61:7 62:7,21 pains (1) 58:15 4:23,24 5:5,18,23 121:24 122:2,3,13 16:22 22:19,24 134:22 135:3 139:2 15:14 43:15
64:12 66:7 70:10 pale (2) 72:12 73:18 6:1,22 8:25 9:1,2,4 122:16,21 123:8 23:1 27:21,22 139:7 141:17,25 prescribed (1) 7:9
71:13,20 72:10,25 papers (1) 201:13 9:8,16 10:12,19,25 126:10,20 127:3,8 28:10,21 29:7,8 142:7,21,25 143:8 presence (2) 182:21
73:22,25 74:2,4,9 paragraph (105) 11:17 11:12 12:2,9,13,19 131:19 132:7 32:13 34:18,24 143:24 144:4,4,4 182:24
74:12,14 76:24 11:18 27:22,24 13:11 14:2,9,14,24 138:10 172:5 173:2 37:19 40:20,25 144:16 145:10,18 present (7) 63:5
77:25 78:3,10 28:3,5,10,21 29:12 15:17,24 16:4,9,12 173:7 175:12,21 44:16 46:18 47:19 146:3,5,16 147:20 159:18,22 174:1
95:23 106:23 112:7 32:19 33:4,9 34:22 16:24 17:16 18:3 180:6,22 181:2,9 54:9 85:5,5,24 150:1,6,10,13,13 183:6,10 187:5
122:9 139:16 141:9 40:21 44:25 45:2,5 18:10,13,16 19:23 181:17 182:6,11 92:24 97:2,9,21,25 150:13,16,22 presented (1) 172:7
143:17 144:10 47:24 48:7,15 20:5,11,21 22:19 197:24 198:14,19 98:1 99:17 103:22 151:17 152:1,2,18 presently (1) 96:4
145:11 147:5 49:13,19 50:3 22:20 23:2,10,23 198:20,22 199:1,19 104:7 108:25 109:1 152:22 153:19,19 preserved (1) 45:21
150:17,24 152:19 66:19 67:6 68:22 24:9,22 26:7,23 200:12 111:5,6 114:22 153:23 158:17 preserving (1) 73:21
160:6,15,20 162:17 69:6,8 77:17 92:25 27:8,25 29:3,13,18 personally (1) 123:9 122:19 124:9 159:14,18,22 160:6 Presiding (1) 130:17
172:24 175:16 93:6 97:22 98:3 31:11 32:23 34:8 personelle (1) 115:6 129:19,20,22 160:15 164:10,25 press (8) 5:8 28:17
196:10 197:14,25 104:3,5 105:6,24 34:15,23 36:12,22 personnelle (1) 130:19 131:2 165:5,15,18 166:12 193:17,22,22,23
ordering (1) 176:9 106:7 107:21 109:3 37:11,19 38:9,19 198:16 133:14,15 134:5,10 166:13,19,19 168:2 194:4,6
orders (1) 58:9 113:12,24 117:21 39:19 40:3,22 41:1 persons (1) 122:5 134:21 136:1 139:8 168:2,3 169:15,18 pressing (2) 49:9
ordinarily (1) 197:14 120:19,21,22,25 43:14 44:9,20 45:2 persuade (2) 57:12 140:24,25 148:1,4 169:20 170:1 63:23
organisers (1) 101:11 121:6 123:18 46:9,25 47:5,17,25 78:3 149:20 150:7 154:3 portfolio (1) 134:14 pressure (1) 78:5
origin (1) 20:14 125:14,17 128:12 48:4,7 49:12,19 persuaded (2) 54:10 154:10 156:14 pose (1) 167:15 presumably (5) 79:5
original (2) 104:18 133:13,16 136:1 50:22 51:8,10 56:3 157:7 158:24 position (9) 8:11 87:9 93:13 114:7
193:13 137:25 139:11 204:5 pertains (2) 23:14,16 159:20 160:3 163:3 25:16 29:24 48:18 136:18
originally (1) 177:1 140:2,9,10,15,24 Pasko’s (1) 23:5 pertinent (1) 21:19 165:20,21 166:14 67:24 78:15 83:3 pretty (5) 41:22 71:22
originating (1) 175:13 140:25 141:6 passage (5) 34:17 Petersburg (62) 23:18 167:3,6,18,20,23 159:18,22 105:21 108:7,16
Oslo (1) 134:13 142:15 143:22,24 35:4,5,8 68:1 25:8,12,19 26:10 170:13 171:25 possible (9) 2:10 46:1 prevented (1) 160:15
ought (2) 4:10 157:23 144:18 145:7,9 passed (3) 52:6 96:23 26:25 30:23,24 172:20 174:21,24 85:21 98:25 164:16 previous (4) 93:16,25
outside (3) 187:18 146:20 147:11 172:25 32:6 33:2,18 34:6 176:4 186:7 191:25 164:18 168:5 201:8 120:15 184:13
189:12,21 148:17 149:3,9,22 pause (16) 67:19 36:9,20 37:1,14,16 192:1,11,12 193:16 201:11 previously (4) 43:6
outstanding (1) 5:3 149:23 150:12 68:23 69:8,12 93:1 39:23 40:7,11,15 194:16,19,20,24 possibly (10) 7:23 64:24 67:22 139:6
overall (3) 96:8 98:10 151:5 152:10 153:1 93:7 137:18 152:9 50:11,19 59:16 195:2,5 11:2 41:15 61:5 price (1) 153:19
149:5 154:5 157:10 159:2 152:14 155:22 79:13,14 80:17 pledged (2) 36:10 65:2 79:17,19 primarily (1) 78:10
overtones (1) 91:11 163:6,10 164:16,23 163:14 166:13,24 92:1 105:18 106:2 59:18 91:13 104:7 138:21 primary (1) 78:6
overwhelmingly (2) 166:20,21,22,23 167:7,19 171:6 107:6 117:9 118:13 pledges (1) 35:12 post (8) 23:5,21 24:6 Princess (2) 158:14,23
152:22 159:14 167:4 170:17 172:3 pausing (2) 105:12 120:11 125:1 plenty (2) 89:10 90:25 24:14 25:1,11,12 principal (5) 91:23
owed (1) 133:9 172:21 175:7 176:5 118:4 126:16,21 129:10 plus (3) 160:20 184:9 120:16 133:10 140:6 144:5
owned (4) 77:6 144:5 177:4 186:8 192:23 Pavel (3) 21:6 161:15 136:11 141:22 184:10 posted (3) 23:10,12 150:14
150:14 159:17 193:5,9,9 195:12 197:20 142:20 143:2 pm (10) 53:16 54:4,5 23:19 principally (1) 80:12
owner (1) 161:8 paragraphs (10) 69:10 pay (5) 35:17 75:25 147:13,22 149:25 54:7 113:8,10 posting (2) 22:21 24:4 principle (1) 153:18
ownership (1) 169:17 86:1 92:19 114:23 107:9,10 151:12 150:3 172:7 175:9 185:17,18,23 postings (1) 25:15 principles (1) 46:13
144:15 145:21 payments (3) 77:12 176:7,19 182:21 203:17 posts (1) 25:4 print-off (1) 130:8
P 152:5 167:3 174:20 77:12 86:3 186:14 187:8 188:5 pocket (2) 59:2 76:3 potential (20) 75:16 printout (4) 9:11
pact (1) 142:19 175:7 peacefully (2) 21:23 188:17 189:7,13,20 point (43) 3:5,10 6:15 86:10 109:16 146:4 41:16 43:4,13
parallel (1) 104:8 107:11 190:24 196:6,7 12:19,20,24 21:14 146:15 150:9 152:1 prior (2) 57:10 150:16
page (95) 9:9,15,17
paraphrasing (2) peculiar (4) 114:10 200:13 21:25 22:2 23:17 152:17 158:10 privilege (7) 60:20
10:14,20,23 11:3,3
193:11,14 116:15 132:22 Petersburg’s (4) 25:16 24:24 35:3 40:11 160:6 161:2,22 63:9 83:23 161:25
11:9,10 22:21,25
pardon (1) 38:22 183:11 137:6 186:6 196:1 41:24 55:14 56:16 165:11,15,15 162:10 168:5,7
28:24 29:9,11
Paris (7) 84:17 98:4,7 people (6) 31:19,20 Petrogradsky (1) 63:15,19 64:7,24 166:18 168:1,25 privileged (5) 63:7,8
32:17,18 33:6,7,22
179:17 185:2,19,21 32:9 121:25 154:18 129:17 68:3 70:5 73:1 169:2,14 161:21 167:10
34:12,15 35:1
part (30) 57:21 59:5,6 155:12 philosophy (1) 137:21 75:12 81:21 84:18 potentialities (1) 76:4 168:9
38:10 40:18 43:3
59:9,15,24 60:23 people’s (1) 50:14 phone (8) 1:21,22 86:22,23 87:4 potentially (10) 57:25 privy (1) 82:24
47:19 66:11,20
79:5 80:5,6 92:1 perfect (1) 6:24 30:20 45:10,13 89:18 92:3 94:11 83:19 106:23 probably (14) 6:6
67:2,14,22 68:9,11
94:16 95:1,15,18 perfectly (3) 77:21 47:8,9,14 116:12 123:11 122:24 138:8 146:3 19:25 27:23 52:17
68:11 69:5,9,12
100:10 101:10,12 143:1,6 phrase (7) 33:25 34:1 137:9 149:4,24 151:17,23 161:6 85:17 134:4,8
70:6,22 84:4 85:6,9
101:13,17,18 102:7 period (3) 38:25 35:7 48:1 51:2 169:6 182:5 187:6 167:10 154:11 160:16
85:24 92:21,23,24
109:18 143:20 135:22 157:13 121:12 136:23 187:13,18 188:12 power (1) 57:7 161:23 162:22
97:3,9 100:5 111:4
173:21,22 174:12 permission (2) 58:17 phrases (1) 137:24 pointed (2) 16:9 powerful (1) 141:11 184:24 194:2
111:10,12 113:23
174:14,14 188:7 58:19 physical (3) 114:13 132:21 practice (11) 103:17 199:19
125:10 127:17
partial (1) 1:23 permit (2) 55:10 198:2,4 pointing (2) 90:9 116:10,19,24 117:1 probe (1) 122:20
129:12,12 130:7,19
participants (1) 106:8 161:2 pick (1) 32:12 121:6 118:1 120:8,13,15 probing (1) 90:11
130:22,23 131:3
participated (1) persecution (1) 31:8 picking (1) 36:13 points (19) 2:8 4:3,13 121:1 197:13 problem (10) 24:21
133:6 135:13
100:13 person (17) 14:18 picks (1) 85:13 4:18,23 5:5 7:11 precisely (2) 45:25 35:16 74:4 99:21
137:14 141:5
particular (6) 31:15 26:10 44:7 47:6 picture (1) 23:8 47:1 53:13 62:24 158:22 104:11 107:8
144:15 146:1,4
49:17 66:17 102:12 50:10 106:19 place (10) 2:25 3:1,18 77:18 78:14 81:14 preclude (1) 96:11 108:24 126:24
151:4 152:5,6
102:14 172:4 115:16,17 121:21 26:6 57:10 76:10 82:11 84:6,21 predator (4) 136:24 143:7 185:17

Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

213
February 29, 2016 Day 18

problematic (1) 74:12 191:16 83:20 86:3 88:15 14:1,3 28:17 34:2 recollection (6) 60:10 reiterate (1) 73:12 reports (1) 172:8

problems (7) 1:8 31:8 prospect (1) 6:9 88:21 90:4 91:18 34:11,12,14,18,23 62:9 108:20 136:19 rejected (1) 179:15 repost (5) 23:24,25
107:9,12 117:12 prospectively (1) 72:7 107:1,2,5 112:23 34:24,25 35:12 190:25 199:6 related (2) 98:9 24:7 25:2,4
164:12 203:11 protect (1) 35:22 115:16 119:22 38:8,9,10,11 43:2 recollects (1) 85:18 179:16 reposted (6) 23:24
procedural (1) 95:22 prove (3) 94:11 117:7 126:12 162:4 48:4 51:16,18,19 reconsider (2) 92:16 relates (1) 197:5 24:7,12,14 25:11
procedure (14) 63:1 188:9 166:18 167:15 51:25 52:1,6 53:23 135:8 relating (5) 4:5 23:17 25:13
108:3 118:25 119:3 proved (1) 83:13 177:19 181:4 66:14,18 67:17,18 reconvene (2) 53:7,12 82:11 162:13 reposting (2) 24:19
119:4 132:18 171:1 provide (5) 21:4 182:16,18 185:4 69:7 70:6,25 81:3 record (21) 32:4,7 189:13 25:6
176:3 182:21,25 147:14 177:14 189:15 197:4,18 92:19,25 116:7,8 34:19 38:23 40:22 relation (17) 7:20 represent (7) 29:15
183:1,12 186:18 178:7 191:22 201:24 120:7 124:5 135:2 41:6,7,12 42:4 37:10 47:2 63:24 97:23 98:8 102:15
191:5 provided (6) 15:4 questioning (16) 3:17 145:21 152:4,7,11 43:17 44:17 48:8 83:2 87:6 93:10,24 102:15,16 151:13
proceed (2) 51:15 20:24 30:5 42:18 4:5,10 55:10 72:17 155:16 164:2 167:3 55:15,15 69:19 94:12 95:3,7 109:4 representative (7)
54:2 42:19 171:22 77:22 84:6,14 85:2 174:24 201:9 88:5 108:1 125:3 125:1 139:7,15 32:5 157:20 183:5
proceeded (1) 84:14 provides (1) 120:12 90:8,14 91:1 92:8 reader (1) 120:23 155:21 157:4 193:7 147:22 177:8 186:14,19 187:1
proceedings (54) 1:3 providing (1) 75:8 161:19 179:10 reading (2) 92:23 recorded (3) 180:14 relations (1) 159:5 191:19
10:2 16:14 19:9,17 provisional (1) 96:9 181:15 120:22 182:1,1 relationship (11) represented (9) 31:21
19:25 20:25 21:19 prudent (1) 53:2 questions (52) 2:21 reads (5) 33:15 121:7 recording (4) 32:4 59:15,19 100:17,18 183:2,6,7 186:12
25:22 27:1 37:6,18 public (13) 69:19 2:23 4:7,9,24 5:13 155:17,18 177:4 43:4,4 44:24 103:8 107:5 137:7 186:17,19 187:2
37:21 38:24 39:7,9 119:8,14 183:13,15 5:16 6:11 8:13 10:8 real (10) 1:15,16,18 records (3) 87:10 138:17 160:21 191:15
39:14,21 40:1 60:9 183:16 184:12,14 12:21 19:1 47:8,9 1:20 2:2 50:22 61:1 109:3,18 194:10,10 representing (3)
62:3,4 63:24 72:11 184:14 187:16 54:16 55:9,10 103:12 119:15 recourse (1) 64:23 relaxed (1) 73:24 190:22,23,23
73:21 74:8,11 76:8 188:11 191:8,11 56:21,24 57:11 198:2 recovery (2) 125:7 release (5) 3:24 represents (2) 186:21
88:6 89:2 94:5 97:7 publication (3) 23:17 58:20 59:23 60:6 really (94) 2:10 12:21 130:15 193:22,23 194:4,6 186:23
98:9 99:13 112:11 24:2 27:7 60:22 69:20 73:18 16:23 18:21 24:16 Red (4) 103:7,10,11 released (2) 5:1 194:1 reproducing (1)
122:24 123:6,20,23 publications (2) 23:14 75:17 77:24 78:8,9 29:23 31:11,12 187:24 relevance (11) 58:7,23 149:17
123:24 127:13,16 28:17 83:17 84:9 88:23 34:8 36:12 56:17 redirect (1) 89:8 59:20 63:18,20 repurchase (4) 176:23
127:18,22 128:8,8 published (2) 25:19 91:2 95:6 96:3,11 57:21,22 58:2,6 reduced (1) 15:6 64:15 72:11 73:7 177:8,20 178:7
130:25 139:10 28:23 97:19 99:25 102:19 59:20 61:1,11 reducing (2) 152:24 78:11 95:5 180:4 reputational (1)
170:15 173:23 pudding (2) 83:8,13 106:25 110:17 63:14,19 65:2,6 159:16 relevant (45) 54:14 144:11
174:17,19 175:15 pure (1) 90:24 152:8,13 161:24 66:10 67:12,24 reduction (1) 15:7 57:8,9,17 58:8 59:3 request (3) 5:20 71:2
195:19 purport (1) 144:16 167:17,20,22 68:4 69:25 70:2,5 refer (14) 30:7,21 59:18 63:5,10,21 186:7
process (16) 20:11 purpose (13) 19:17 196:25 197:3 70:24 71:5 73:16 31:16,20 40:21 63:25 64:2,24 66:1 requested (5) 19:25
35:6 43:15 56:4,14 23:22 60:25 101:10 201:25 204:12 73:21 74:3,17 41:4 42:24 104:5 72:14,20 73:13,16 31:23 33:8 114:1
65:6 73:22,23 101:18,19 106:22 quibble (1) 58:13 86:13 89:2 90:2 136:10 152:9 154:7 74:8,9,11,11 75:10 117:24
74:19 76:12 82:1 194:4,6 195:18,25 quickly (7) 81:3 152:4 91:10 92:17 94:11 157:12 159:4 75:10 76:11 78:18 requests (1) 179:15
84:10 87:5 94:16 196:8,14 152:11 155:16 95:3,4,10,19,21 174:20 81:12 82:2 87:1,3 require (2) 38:21 60:7
95:13 119:17 purposes (10) 23:21 170:4 185:25 186:1 101:3,5 102:1,14 reference (28) 27:23 94:20,21 95:20 rescue (1) 161:13
processes (3) 64:13 31:14 43:17 60:3,8 quite (32) 1:10,11 3:9 102:18,24,25 29:5 39:4 67:6 80:2 96:13 101:1 113:1 resemble (1) 200:2
93:24 132:25 61:6 63:21 64:2,3 15:18 26:19 29:21 105:16 109:22,24 93:3 99:18,22 124:13 150:22 resembles (1) 200:1
produced (7) 7:21 78:22 29:22 50:15 54:10 116:18 119:25 114:5 123:15 160:11 175:12 reservation (1) 183:25
13:17 14:22,23 pursuant (2) 69:14,15 54:24 55:14,22 121:13 124:8 136:23 137:12 179:7,25 180:3,3,7 reserve (5) 7:19 8:11
15:15 22:4 23:23 pursue (2) 5:6 86:19 56:20 61:2,7 62:5 126:14 132:9,24,25 146:18,20 151:6 reliant (1) 29:25 83:3,24 94:12
product (2) 81:25 pursued (1) 152:18 64:12 65:9 66:25 135:25 138:3,3 155:1 156:22 relied (1) 48:25 reserved (1) 184:6
82:13 pursuing (3) 37:9 71:16 72:3,6,7 73:8 145:16 147:20 157:21 159:6,19 relief (1) 139:15 resolved (2) 35:16
profession (1) 44:5 143:2 149:25 76:2,7 80:24 94:13 152:16 163:2 164:9,16 172:14 rely (5) 64:6 70:8 95:1 56:24
professional’s (1) 49:1 put (23) 14:10 20:18 95:8 151:21 179:10 168:14,15 169:2 173:23 174:2 95:2 191:24 resource (3) 78:17
professor (4) 101:23 39:6 41:17 46:25 181:4 175:2 178:2,8 176:15,22 202:10 relying (1) 50:23 90:17 151:22
101:24,25 102:1 50:4 61:20 62:12 quotation (7) 23:20 179:11,14 181:7,11 references (3) 5:21 remain (1) 30:25 resources (2) 78:21
profile (3) 183:8 62:16 66:1 74:2 23:22,25 24:5,11 181:12 182:7,11,16 94:24 179:4 remainder (1) 2:14 88:22
191:19,21 84:22 89:13 90:5 24:17,23 182:17,20 185:6 referred (5) 32:10 remained (1) 93:22 respect (7) 6:4 55:16
progress (1) 130:18 101:11 121:14 quote (2) 35:10 37:12 190:9 194:7,12 86:13 100:24 101:4 remark (1) 179:9 57:7 65:20 127:24
project (2) 146:2 128:25 137:24 quoted (4) 47:24 198:17 201:12 153:3 remarkably (1) 133:18 140:18 161:15
159:11 147:22 168:12 48:20,22 50:25 202:9 referring (11) 29:12 remedy (2) 161:11 respectful (3) 4:8 5:4
projects (5) 36:7 170:21 179:23 quotes (1) 137:25 reason (8) 68:15 34:10 40:19 41:20 162:16 75:9
110:23,24,25 194:1 96:10 123:9 131:16 138:6 153:5 154:15 remember (32) 21:8 respectfully (1) 4:12
147:24 putting (2) 78:5 90:21 R 139:12 153:25 157:23 158:7 27:20 35:9 46:6,7 respects (3) 87:6 92:7
promise (2) 96:23 puzzle (1) 141:21 radioactive (1) 31:5 192:22 198:21 159:21 166:18 100:22 105:16,19 97:22
200:18 puzzled (4) 18:18,21 reasonable (2) 52:11 refers (4) 39:12 101:7 108:21 110:5 112:3 respond (2) 69:10
raiding (1) 141:23
promising (1) 151:21 109:14,20 203:10 135:23 137:23 113:21 117:6 134:2 81:19
raise (2) 2:6 53:21
promote (3) 101:20 reasonably (1) 64:16 refinance (1) 75:7 137:3 172:17 173:5 responded (1) 86:15
raised (10) 4:9,13 5:3
102:3,3 Q rebut (1) 63:2 reflected (1) 117:18 173:9,11 177:16,23 respondent (1) 84:8
65:23 73:4,5 82:6
promoted (1) 101:24 Q/1.1/1 (1) 22:19 recall (12) 17:8,9,25 reformulated (1) 178:10 190:7 191:6 responding (1) 70:1
83:11 91:14 162:2
promoting (1) 100:1 18:1 21:7,11 27:5,7 169:4 195:11 196:19,23 response (4) 4:17
Q/1.1/2 (1) 22:25 raises (1) 72:3
proof (5) 83:7 106:23 43:16 47:6 108:21 refuse (1) 58:18 202:9,9,13,15,16 54:1 69:4,23
Q/1.1/3 (1) 23:1 ran (1) 57:15
169:23,24 187:25 202:7 regard (11) 4:10 8:13 remembered (1) rest (1) 140:2
qualification (1) rate (5) 133:17,21
proper (6) 50:20 recheck (1) 83:12 50:10 51:2 61:15 47:15 result (2) 28:23 82:1
180:20 135:5,5,9
76:11 78:9 81:17 rechecked (1) 82:18 75:11 77:5 83:4,25 Renaissance (1) 36:24 retain (1) 59:2
qualified (1) 175:3 rates (2) 133:23
96:2 122:11 reclawing (1) 80:24 153:19 168:11 renew (1) 148:25 retired (1) 45:3
quantum (7) 58:23 135:11
properly (6) 1:12 57:5 recognise (2) 103:4 regarded (1) 83:8 Renewed (1) 148:14 retracted (1) 175:3
59:3 75:11 88:21 re-examination (7)
57:5 62:25 76:17 194:21 regarding (1) 25:20 Renord-Invest-type … retrospectively (1)
89:3 90:19 96:7 51:9 167:12 179:3
145:16 recognised (2) 119:7 regards (2) 56:18 77:5 54:20
query (2) 5:3 111:11 185:5 197:2 202:2
proposal (1) 69:11 173:16 173:1 repayment (1) 49:8 return (3) 35:24 79:4
question (47) 4:3 12:8 204:13
propose (3) 3:22 29:1 recognition (9) 101:14 Region (3) 38:18 repeat (3) 11:6 24:25 136:10
12:12,25 16:10,22 re-examine (1) 179:6
50:6 103:1 110:20 124:12,18 146:7 review (3) 82:7,17
16:23 17:21 18:4 re-verifying (1) 149:17
proposed (1) 95:13 112:13,18 119:4,12 register (2) 87:22,23 repeated (1) 147:8 126:7
19:2 20:17 26:22 reach (2) 6:13 92:23
proposing (1) 153:23 173:25 174:13 registered (1) 87:13 repeating (1) 24:7 revise (1) 40:13
29:21 39:8,19 42:4 reached (1) 153:18
prosecutor (8) 183:3,5 recollect (5) 77:9 registration (1) 88:16 rephrase (1) 177:5 rewriting (1) 84:23
49:25 56:18 72:8 read (55) 3:14 5:19
183:5 184:10 85:17 89:15 90:9 regret (1) 136:7 replacement (1) 8:16 right (123) 2:16 3:3,25
74:3 79:10 83:15 9:20,21,24 13:22
186:12,17,19 138:4 regrettable (1) 8:9 reply (1) 92:11 7:6 8:14,17 13:19

Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

214

February 29, 2016 Day 18

18:6 19:21 20:20 21:1,8,9,25 22:12 22:14 24:13 30:11 30:15 32:20 38:9 39:10 43:25 44:3 45:7 46:15,24 49:14,22 54:3 56:19 58:24,25 60:19 63:17 66:14 66:23 67:1,5,20 68:21 69:13 70:23 72:8 73:17 74:6,16 74:20 75:1 76:20 79:9 84:12,20 85:3 91:17 92:5 93:8 98:15,17 99:2,7 103:22 104:16 105:5 106:17,22 109:5 110:8 112:5 116:15 126:8 128:18 130:10,21 135:9 137:24 139:25 141:23 143:7,25 144:17 145:7,24,25 147:3 150:4 151:10 152:19 154:19 155:1 156:11 160:2 160:17 161:3 163:25 164:21 166:17,24 167:18 168:20 170:21 174:5,9 177:22,25 178:4 181:1,4 184:13 186:16 187:17 189:10 192:4,15 194:3 197:20,22 200:16 200:19,21 201:24 202:5 203:7

rightly (1) 84:6 rights (5) 7:19 56:1

83:25 94:12 151:7 rise (2) 140:4 201:25 risk (1) 95:23 Riyadh (1) 157:14 room (4) 54:18

190:21 191:11,11 round (1) 109:16 route (3) 55:7 58:1,6 royal (3) 158:14,16,19 RPC (4) 81:23 82:6,18

93:4

RUB (2) 133:10 143:10

rule (2) 5:10 86:12 ruled (1) 46:12 rules (2) 90:3 199:12 rush (1) 203:2 Russia (23) 25:25

37:22 38:25 40:6 40:10 69:19 70:1 71:7 98:12 99:15 116:20 128:9 132:18 133:19 136:10 141:15 142:4,8,14 174:7 182:20 183:7 191:15

Russian (131) 6:23 7:2 7:15 8:7 9:7,12,17 9:22,25 10:20 11:3 11:10,22 12:7,16 13:3,5,7,10,13,16 13:23,24 14:10,16 15:2,3,20,25 17:1,8 17:13,25 18:5 19:5 19:12,16,19 20:3,8 20:13,24 21:5,11

21:13,22 22:3,10 22:12 27:23,25 28:7 29:9,11 31:9 32:17,21,22 34:14 34:23 35:1 37:8,20 38:1,3,17 39:17,20 40:5 41:19 63:24 68:5 91:8 94:5 101:4,14 102:8,9 102:16 103:2,3,13 110:20 112:18 115:16,17 119:5 121:1 122:23 123:10,21 124:1,5 124:5,9,12 125:11 125:12 126:3,9,11 126:14,17 128:7 129:10,21,23 130:1 130:4,7 131:25 132:16 141:11 142:3,4 143:13 153:7 165:22 172:8 172:23 176:10 177:14 183:4 186:11,16 187:2 198:7,7 200:1,2 201:9

Russophobe (1)

156:18

S

safeguards (2) 58:10 74:19
safely (1) 162:20 Sainz (1) 101:25 sake (1) 180:6

sale (23) 143:18 146:4 147:4 152:1,17,18 157:16 160:15 161:2,12,22 163:1 164:16 165:11,15 166:19 168:1,14,15 168:25 169:3,6,9

Saudi (5) 146:20 157:16 158:17,23 169:10

save (3) 39:14 56:23 75:1

Savelyev (3) 26:25 147:13 188:22 saw (4) 9:24 13:16 80:23 81:2

Sawyer (1) 145:14 say-so (1) 95:12 saying (50) 18:7 19:18

24:10 34:21 36:15 48:8,20 49:20 50:23 54:14 58:24 60:21 71:25 74:3 75:22 77:2 78:13 81:5 107:16 114:10 114:11,14 115:3,10 115:12 116:16,17 118:16,18 120:17 121:16,19 122:7 126:14,18,19 142:20 145:15,17 146:13 150:21 151:17 173:7,14 188:22 191:7 199:18 200:4,5,17

says (31) 2:20 23:4 32:24 33:7,9 36:3,7 36:17 46:6 56:10 62:5 76:23 77:4 92:4 98:22 109:8 113:13 116:7 117:21 120:7,25

137:20 142:15 22:1,20,22 23:2,6,7 sense (8) 59:14 63:18 shown (31) 22:19 social (1) 124:22
148:11,13 156:13 23:8,15 24:11 27:8 81:19 82:13 121:12 37:19 38:15 40:20 sold (2) 176:25 177:1
164:17,17 181:24 28:3,4,8,9,14,15,19 121:13,15 168:15 40:23 41:7 44:25 solicitors (3) 106:9
191:1 193:15 28:20 29:3,4,5 30:2 sensible (3) 6:19 59:24 97:21,25 151:12 166:16
scammed (3) 33:23 31:17 32:18,21,22 49:11 161:6 99:17 122:19 solution (1) 49:11
36:8,25 32:24 33:4,5,21,22 sensitivity (1) 162:1 123:20,24 134:5 somebody (7) 15:8
scammed’ (3) 32:25 33:23 34:8,9,10,22 sent (6) 1:22 3:15 139:7 154:3 157:22 20:12,24 24:19
33:16 36:19 35:7,18,18,21 37:8 19:5,7 155:9,25 165:20 166:14 30:22 46:7 190:7
scamming (1) 36:14 37:25 38:5,5,6,16 sentence (11) 28:5 167:21 170:7,13 someone’s (1) 49:25
scan (3) 66:16 129:18 38:19,20 39:7,17 33:13,15 36:2 50:5 172:20 174:21 somewhat (1) 69:1
131:17 41:1,2 42:16,17 77:16 122:14,15 191:25 192:11 son (1) 189:1
Scandinavia (11) 39:4 43:5 44:13 45:4,5 137:19 170:20 193:16 194:16 sooner (1) 68:6
39:11 59:8 123:22 47:10 48:15 53:22 186:10 200:12,14 Sorbonne (5) 101:23
125:4 131:11 54:1 67:5,7 68:16 sentences (1) 48:15 shy (1) 77:15 102:1,5 103:16,20
141:14 173:10 75:17 76:7,14 82:8 separate (4) 58:11 side (10) 1:14 31:23 sorry (61) 13:14,20
176:10,24 177:10 83:7 85:9,22 86:1 61:18 73:22 95:8 81:5,5 91:12,12 17:18,20 18:10,13
scenes (1) 188:6 88:8 89:14,21 92:4 separately (1) 41:24 94:21 102:23 107:6 18:16 20:16 21:4
schedule (2) 134:7 95:4 96:4,10 97:23 September (1) 134:14 107:7 26:7 29:10,21
135:10 98:3,13,14 100:6 sequence (1) 4:1 sides (1) 31:21 31:11 33:5 34:8
school (1) 153:14 109:6 111:11,22 series (2) 134:17 sign (7) 13:12 14:5 35:12,18 39:3,8
scope (1) 182:7 113:12 114:3 154:18 17:7 21:10,12 45:11 46:21,22,25
scores (1) 62:23 115:16 122:25 servant (1) 103:21 35:14 117:5 48:2 65:16 66:8,17
screen (41) 9:6,8,17 123:1,14,23 124:5 serve (1) 89:25 signal (1) 179:18 67:13,25 68:10,13
10:10 11:8 12:1 124:16,18 125:3,5 served (3) 6:25 89:19 signature (14) 9:18,19 79:18 82:12 85:21
14:7 15:10 16:1 125:8,11,12,13,15 128:25 13:23 14:6,7,12 93:15 98:5 99:18
22:20 23:1 24:11 125:24 128:9,11,12 service (1) 1:16 16:20 19:7,22 99:20 104:9 115:12
29:7 41:7 42:16 129:2,3,5,7,25 services (1) 101:20 21:17 22:8 97:11 118:17 127:14
55:5 67:7,16 68:17 130:1,6,11,13,13 session (6) 52:8 100:8 172:7,19 149:22 154:24
85:5,20,22 86:8 131:7 133:8,11 100:12 101:9,10 signed (31) 7:1,4,13 158:1,1,2 161:18
97:2,12 104:8 134:14,19,23 135:5 102:19 7:18 10:16 12:2,3 163:9,13,13,14
105:25 111:6 135:13 136:25 set (9) 29:24 39:18 13:2,5,7,9,21 16:14 166:6 168:8 179:9
123:25 124:13 139:12,13,19 140:2 68:5 93:17 97:22 16:24 17:10,13,20 179:21 185:16
125:13 129:19,25 140:8 141:19 128:6 133:8 144:16 18:2 19:4,11,13,16 188:20 196:24
136:3 154:10 156:9 142:16 143:23 181:3 21:9,13 22:1,5,7,11 202:21 203:2
156:9,15 165:21 144:1,7 146:1,12 sets (4) 4:17 38:2 115:21 122:17 sort (27) 18:9 72:3,20
170:21 197:10 146:18 147:6,10,15 39:15 67:24 195:3 78:24 79:22 84:8
scroll (16) 9:15 22:24 148:11,15,25 149:7 seventh (3) 97:25 significant (1) 176:8 90:25 98:19 102:13
66:11 69:5,9 85:24 150:9,19 151:6,7 98:1 99:9 signing (4) 13:8 17:8 103:7 114:13
92:21,24 100:5 152:12 153:10 Sevzapalians (1) 17:25 21:11 115:18,23,23 116:1
104:22 105:1 124:9 154:3,8,21 155:1,2 176:12 similar (1) 41:22 116:2 117:3 127:21
124:9 130:17 131:2 155:6,21 156:1,21 Shabalina (19) 30:19 simple (2) 19:3 79:2 131:18 132:6 137:8
194:20 157:19 158:21 45:3,6,24 46:5,6,10 simply (17) 1:19 7:3 142:18 147:21
scrolling (2) 130:22 159:17 163:4,21 46:14 47:1,3,19,22 7:12 41:25 50:14 155:21 161:25
194:24 164:7 166:7,12,20 48:1,8,17,24 49:2,7 55:19,23 61:16 188:3 199:21
se (2) 115:5,21 166:22,25 170:7,11 49:13 64:16 65:19 72:10 sorts (3) 77:18 100:14
sea (2) 31:6 158:18 170:14 172:21 Shabalina’s (1) 48:11 72:11,18 81:20 102:5
search (8) 33:8 35:23 173:3 175:6 176:13 shape (1) 25:24 82:14 90:4 173:22 sought (4) 109:18
70:20 82:15,16 176:22 177:1 share (1) 101:15 simultaneously (1) 173:25 194:15,15
122:22 128:23 178:18 180:17,21 shared (2) 23:5 94:15 7:3 sound (1) 118:4
164:18 183:22 184:8,16 shareholder (2) single (2) 33:13 40:18 sounds (1) 99:12
searched (1) 87:9 186:21 187:12 188:16,24 siphoned (1) 35:25 source (2) 8:8 110:14
seat (1) 96:20 191:20 193:19 shareholders (1) sir (13) 11:6 12:12,25 south (1) 100:3
second (31) 11:6 24:1 195:10,12,15 189:1 13:20,24 14:7 speak (6) 33:1,17
24:8 60:21 64:4 201:17 202:19 shareholding (1) 16:17 18:7 40:19 44:20 46:10 68:14
70:15 75:14 86:1 seek (3) 89:25 141:15 61:24 41:2 47:12 50:1 106:20
107:5 122:5 128:12 181:18 shares (8) 79:5,8 51:2 speakers (1) 18:15
129:12 133:6,8 seeking (1) 192:3 80:20 85:8 166:12 sit (2) 9:4 185:23 speaking (4) 31:19
137:14 139:8 seemingly (2) 10:19 166:19 176:24 site (1) 100:1 46:6,7 115:17
140:12 143:9,21 109:3 177:9 sitting (1) 197:1 special (2) 8:18
145:22 146:13 seen (21) 7:14,15 13:2 Sharifulin (6) 146:18 situation (4) 49:17 121:22
149:13 164:9 167:4 13:3,17 15:9 43:6 153:3,10,23 165:12 50:19 77:5 188:4 specialist (2) 48:24
170:24,25 175:7,7 46:22 71:1 75:6 165:13 six (1) 148:8 191:17
186:10 188:18 78:23,23 109:14,23 sharply (1) 48:12 size (1) 15:6 specialist’s (1) 48:23
195:12 134:8 139:11 Shipping (4) 176:7,15 skim (1) 164:7 speciality (1) 102:7
secondly (8) 2:20 43:9 148:18 165:22 176:19,21 skip (1) 146:7 specifically (3) 41:3
60:25 63:11 64:15 167:21 168:21 short (5) 51:24 52:14 slight (1) 149:24 121:14 136:10
71:15 75:13 174:10 182:4 52:14 65:15 113:9 slightly (7) 76:18 spectacles (1) 199:3
section (1) 150:6 sees (1) 86:8 shorter (2) 14:20 79:22 82:12 109:14 speculate (1) 132:16
secure (1) 150:23 seize (1) 35:23 52:14 109:19 118:5 speculating (1) 135:20
secured (2) 145:17 selection (1) 94:11 show (17) 7:3 38:3 132:15 speculation (2)
199:18 self-incrimination (1) 54:25 55:2,25 66:9 slippery (1) 62:15 132:17 188:7
security (3) 80:10 60:20 110:18,23 122:12 slope (1) 62:15 spelling (1) 41:18
147:21 199:20 sell (6) 35:16,23 123:14 128:20 slow (2) 99:11,12 spent (1) 106:5
see (222) 1:12 9:8,10 144:12 161:8,9 136:22 137:11 slower (1) 35:12 split (1) 103:16
9:11,18 10:12,14 166:11 139:5 144:19 148:6 small (2) 122:14 179:9 spoke (5) 26:18 30:13
10:16 11:2,4,13,17 send (2) 177:16 201:13 snatch (1) 79:15 32:9 37:17 45:6
11:18 12:7 13:4,6 178:24 showed (3) 128:16 snatched (1) 79:20 spoken (5) 26:2 27:9
14:5,6,8 15:23,25 sends (1) 191:19 148:21 158:13 snooker (2) 74:1,2 30:10,17 32:11
16:13 17:14 21:25 sensational (1) 185:7 showing (1) 37:21 so-called (1) 176:11 spotted (1) 71:17

Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

215

February 29, 2016 Day 18

squarely (1) 75:20 states (3) 182:19 25:20 44:6 53:9
St (66) 23:18 25:8,12 189:14,24 60:24 72:24 73:14
25:16,19 26:10,25 status (2) 7:14,19 77:23 86:6 96:4
30:23,24 32:6 33:2 stay (6) 10:7 97:18 102:3 127:22
33:18 34:6 36:9,20 139:18 191:8,9 181:23
37:1,14,16 39:23 192:4 submarines (2) 31:6,7
40:7,11,15 50:11 stayed (2) 105:18 submission (23) 4:9
50:19 59:16 79:13 191:13 4:21 5:4 54:20
79:14 80:17 92:1 steal (1) 92:2 60:19 75:10 172:11
105:18 106:2 107:6 step (2) 37:11 79:11 172:13 173:5,18,19
117:9 118:13 steps (1) 88:11 173:21 174:6 175:1
120:11 125:1 stitch (1) 76:24 177:12 178:20
126:16,21 129:10 stood (1) 54:18 180:12 181:14
136:11 137:6 stop (4) 34:14 35:3 182:2,14 190:8,18
141:22 142:20 63:13 184:19 190:19
143:2 147:13,22 stopped (2) 91:2 submissions (19)
149:25 150:3 172:7 109:11 56:11 76:16 82:23
175:9 176:7,19 story (1) 179:7 83:18 86:7,9 91:3
182:21 186:6,14 straight (1) 6:1 95:7 175:5,22
187:8 188:5,17 straitened (1) 86:4 177:18 178:17
189:7,13,20 190:24 strange (1) 67:2 180:14 181:3,22
196:1,6,7 200:13 strategy (2) 98:10 189:11,21,23 190:5
stage (7) 26:17 35:15 149:5 submit (1) 65:19
42:14,15 76:14 strenuously (1) 55:18 submitted (4) 4:12
110:19 151:10 stress (1) 182:5 41:22,23 42:8
stages (3) 65:3 120:20 stretch (3) 73:15 subsequent (1) 59:25
137:9 79:25 185:3 subsequently (3)
stand (2) 5:15 6:17 stretched (1) 80:1 14:11 62:15 69:24
standard (3) 92:14 strike (1) 55:8 subsidiary (2) 198:19
94:10,18 Stroilov (155) 1:7,10 198:20
standing (4) 33:2,18 1:18,24 2:3,6 3:1,4 substance (5) 8:9
34:7 36:20 3:8 4:4,13 5:3,5,13 61:11 74:14 95:20
stands (2) 40:15 62:22 6:20 7:7 8:17,20 197:15
start (10) 2:11 27:2,15 9:1,3,6 13:17 16:4 substantial (3) 71:20
27:16 31:4 34:22 16:6,7 17:18 21:6 75:2 144:13
53:2 65:7 203:3,12 22:8,10 28:1 41:10 substantiated (2) 36:5
started (6) 6:14 69:21 41:21 42:7,13,19 76:17
70:2 184:20,21 42:22 46:25 48:2 substantive (13) 8:10
185:10 51:9,20 52:2,4,8,16 58:11 60:9 62:3,4
starting (5) 2:16 26:14 53:7,24 54:9 55:5,9 66:7 67:12 71:14
31:3 65:6 104:2 55:22 56:6,13,20 73:7,11,23 95:9,22
starts (4) 33:7 62:22 57:9 59:5,14 60:19 successfully (1) 56:22
85:6 92:20 61:20,23 62:11 sued (3) 40:9 118:11
state (11) 51:4 183:2 63:17 64:8 65:2,12 123:7
183:6,6 186:16,18 65:19 66:2,6,10,16 suffer (1) 74:4
186:20 187:2 66:19,22,24 67:7 sufficient (5) 38:13
189:20 191:14,19 67:10,12,21 68:8 113:25 117:23
stated (2) 11:2 43:8 68:17,19,22 69:1 122:12 151:18
statement (100) 3:6 69:16,21 70:11,15 sufficiently (1) 86:24
6:25 7:12 9:10,13 70:17,22,24 72:10 suggest (8) 50:22 52:5
9:20 10:15 11:24 72:14,25 73:11,20 52:10,16 79:21
11:24 12:4,9,17,18 74:7,17,21 78:2 155:17,20 179:14
12:22 13:4,9,10,15 80:3,4 82:22,22 suggested (7) 2:11
14:1,5,8,10,14,18 83:16,21 84:9,16 4:12 53:7 79:19
14:20,23 15:6,9,13 84:25 89:7 92:9,11 90:10 94:19 124:24
15:16,20,22,23 92:13 93:3,9,16,25 suggesting (6) 7:24
16:1,14 17:2,15 94:4,10 95:14,18 26:2 56:7,8 147:11
18:6,18,20,24 96:16 97:1,2,18 151:11
19:20 20:9 27:21 125:11 128:21 suggestion (5) 3:12
29:2,13 40:20 41:4 132:12,15 151:6 78:11 79:13 84:4
42:2 44:19 45:1 156:18,22 161:15 92:14
47:25 48:8 49:19 162:10,11 169:2 suggestions (1) 90:6
50:7 51:20,24 179:1,3,5,9 181:4,7 sum (2) 147:14
89:18 97:4,6,15 181:17 185:1,4,6 176:11
105:7,25 108:6 186:24 197:2,20 summarise (1) 63:11
110:3,6,6 111:19 202:1,2,3,20 203:5 summary (3) 44:18,22
112:1 121:5 133:13 203:15 204:6,10,13 44:22
136:2,15 137:25 Stroilov’s (4) 83:3 summer (1) 99:10
146:8 147:9,25 156:5 157:5 185:13 Sunday (1) 153:14
148:7,8,12,18,22 stroke (1) 67:11 support (10) 68:4
149:12 151:5,8 strong (1) 78:12 69:11 113:15 136:9
154:4 157:7 158:24 strongly (1) 90:16 139:6,14,17,21
160:2,5 163:4,13 struck (2) 55:20,22 140:6 189:9
163:21,23 164:7 structure (1) 79:1 suppose (3) 79:2 91:6
181:8,10 190:11 struggle (1) 88:18 91:13
192:23,23 study (1) 40:17 supposedly (1) 175:13
statements (7) 89:19 stylised (1) 155:17 supposing (5) 58:24
108:4 179:13,24 sub (1) 59:22 58:25 65:23 94:3
180:8,20 181:5 subject (14) 25:11,13 132:9

supposition (3) 77:7,8 77:20
suppositions (1)

19:10

Supreme (2) 23:18 103:10

sure (46) 1:10,11 2:1 4:14 7:8 8:17,21 12:20 17:16 22:11 25:19 42:7 45:19 48:17 52:12,17 53:1,4 59:14 77:8 79:21 84:22 87:16 88:2 102:22 103:24 105:21 108:7,16,24 109:2 122:1,9 125:19 138:24 139:4 145:16 154:20 168:8 170:6 171:3 172:15 179:2 179:10 180:1 181:12

surety (1) 202:8 suretyship (1) 202:8 surmise (1) 89:7 surname (2) 41:17

43:8

surnames (1) 43:20 surprise (2) 38:23

190:15 surprised (1) 76:18 surprising (2) 168:13

190:17 survive (1) 32:2 suspicion (1) 80:4 swear (1) 8:16 swearing (1) 5:25

sworn (4) 3:22 8:23 148:19 204:4

system (2) 142:1 199:22

T

tab (2) 66:11 97:9 table (9) 123:20,20
128:2,5,25 129:3,4 129:15,25

tabled (1) 134:22 tail (2) 71:1 83:7 take (54) 2:13,25 3:1

3:18,23 5:22 6:7 8:1 25:25 26:5 52:9 52:22,23,24,25 54:24 55:23 58:22 63:4 67:15 71:25 76:10 78:12 83:18 85:11 87:25 88:12 90:13 91:21 96:14 96:20 104:21 107:15 108:19 113:4,5 120:15,19 121:18 122:3 123:3 134:10 137:9 140:14 141:16 144:18 148:4 160:3 163:1 189:8 192:22 193:6 200:6,16

taken (18) 39:21 49:18,20 57:9 75:8 86:23 99:2 107:17 136:11 141:12 142:5 143:10 165:12 173:22 179:2,6 198:13 202:22

takeover (1) 189:6 takes (4) 5:15 6:17 143:19 186:20

talk (3) 146:1 174:2 thereof (1) 44:22 161:23 162:21
193:1 they’d (1) 72:22 169:4 170:15,20,25
talked (6) 26:16 30:14 thing (28) 3:22 5:25 171:8,10,12,12
37:3 111:1 138:4 6:21 32:13 55:14 178:25 184:25
194:8 66:2 71:22,25 95:8 185:8,23 187:5
talking (19) 29:10 103:10 112:17,19 188:4 189:10 190:2
33:24 48:5 102:18 115:18 116:7 117:7 190:8 194:20
110:8 111:18 118:9 121:17 196:17,18,23 197:4
118:25 128:14 131:25 137:23 201:8 202:3 203:5
133:23 134:3 158:8 138:23 142:2 161:6 thinking (2) 134:2
159:25 170:22 161:13 188:18 142:18
182:12 188:20,25 193:15 198:7,17 thinks (1) 76:24
198:9,19 199:23 199:11 third (17) 13:6 17:10
tap (1) 18:13 things (30) 8:15 37:8 37:15 62:17 85:24
tape (4) 42:11,12,13 47:20 48:19 53:2 86:1 113:12 125:14
44:17 57:3 59:4,25 72:19 130:24 156:24
tape-record (1) 45:9 73:6 78:19 79:15 157:1 164:17
tapping (2) 18:10,12 87:7 90:18 91:25 166:20,22,23 167:2
Tarasova (2) 130:17 98:25 122:2 132:10 167:4
132:1 134:21 137:5 thought (23) 6:19
targeted (1) 91:25 160:20 164:25 13:14 15:4 42:5
task (3) 25:9,10 35:22 165:18 169:22 48:3 49:7 56:5
tax (1) 169:23 177:11 179:20 58:18 64:1 71:12
teach (1) 142:2 183:19 187:18,20 71:18 73:4 79:7
technical (1) 1:8 188:6 80:2 88:12 116:5
telephone (4) 26:3,11 think (219) 1:21,22,24 138:14 150:21
30:16 45:6 2:9,17,20 3:9,16,21 158:16 160:5
telephoned (1) 37:2 4:23 5:17,24 6:9,21 163:15 186:24,25
tell (18) 13:24 23:12 8:1,11 9:8,17 11:9 thoughts (1) 60:21
24:15 31:13 34:13 12:19,24 15:5,18 threat (1) 95:13
51:21 52:24 69:16 16:24 18:10,23 threats (1) 176:8
83:10 95:16 98:5 19:18 20:19 21:6,9 three (9) 25:22 26:11
100:16,21 103:13 21:18 22:10 27:12 68:10 95:23 112:18
105:22 177:24 27:18 32:16,17,18 173:24,25 174:2
192:1 196:8 32:19 34:4,21 35:2 184:1
telling (9) 70:3,9 39:19 41:13,23 thrusts (1) 119:21
71:22 82:14 152:16 45:20,22 46:9 Thursday (2) 82:6,18
190:24 199:6 47:17,22 48:19 tie (1) 74:24
200:11 201:2 49:4,12,15,20 time (74) 1:15,16,18
temperature (1) 72:4 51:11 52:23,24 1:20 2:2 7:22 16:25
ten (3) 31:10 185:7,10 53:25 54:24 55:1 17:9,11 18:1 21:15
tend (2) 102:12,13 55:17 58:1,14 23:1 24:1,8 26:15
Tens (1) 196:20 59:22 61:1,12,14 26:18 27:3,4 38:21
term (1) 45:21 61:20 63:3,17 64:8 39:14 43:5 45:14
Terminal (8) 59:9,10 64:15 65:12 66:10 46:23 51:16,25
141:13 176:9,10,18 66:19,25 67:4,7,13 52:20 53:23,25
176:24 177:10 67:14 68:2 69:4,5 56:23 62:17 69:16
terms (11) 8:2 14:4 70:17,18,22 71:8 70:1 71:9 74:9
33:24 64:12,15 71:19 72:15 73:12 78:19 99:4 100:13
81:15,16 84:1 73:15 74:6,7,21,22 103:1,14,16 105:17
90:23 195:23 76:23,24 77:3 78:2 106:3,5 107:1
198:15 78:13 79:7,23,25 108:6 110:5 113:6
terrible (1) 56:21 80:4,16,22 81:17 114:11,12,14
terribly (2) 20:18 81:23,24 82:23,25 116:10 117:6 118:1
109:22 83:5 84:18 85:15 120:3 133:25
territory (1) 5:2 87:23 88:17 89:1,5 134:10 135:22,24
test (11) 32:14 64:4 92:11,17 99:5,10 136:18 142:24
64:15 79:2 81:17 100:7 102:18 160:21 161:16
87:19 95:17 119:6 103:25 104:6,12,22 163:1 166:16
119:8 128:22 106:11 108:14,17 177:14 182:17
129:15 110:16 111:10 183:10 184:5,9,17
testing (1) 95:12 112:10,16,21,22 184:20 192:12
text (17) 12:7 13:2,3,6 119:1 120:23 202:22 203:7
14:12 15:3,14,19 121:18 125:22 times (1) 30:16
19:7 24:19,20 38:6 126:21 127:18 today (11) 1:8 10:1
38:6,20 43:5 48:6 128:1 130:2 131:16 28:1 52:12 53:1,22
130:7 131:20 132:1,14 90:18 97:14 111:8
thank (25) 8:24 32:23 133:9 134:2 135:24 150:5 197:10
51:8,10,11,13 54:4 136:25 137:3,10 today’s (1) 111:4
74:23 96:21,25 138:22,24 139:9,11 told (21) 21:12 46:9
100:6 104:5 130:20 139:21 144:23,23 46:14 59:23,25
131:4 133:4,5 146:9,15 147:9,11 68:15 80:3 119:23
136:3 140:24 147:13,14 148:5,17 120:1 122:20
174:16 186:4 148:24 149:3,22,24 127:10 135:12
187:13 193:4 150:1,5 151:10,10 137:4 162:18 175:6
202:20,23,25 152:12,16 153:6,8 177:7,20,23 183:18
thanks (1) 50:17 153:22 154:2,11 191:10 199:3
theory (2) 79:25 155:1,5,8 156:17 tomorrow (8) 2:11,12
160:22 157:12,22 159:6 2:16 3:1 185:20,21

Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

216

February 29, 2016 Day 18

202:25 203:4 troubled (1) 79:22 138:16,16,16 162:6 145:14
tongue (1) 99:19 true (19) 10:4,6 46:17 173:20 177:3 value (19) 21:19
tonight (1) 185:2 63:15 64:22 75:18 189:15,16 195:13 48:10,11 59:2,6
tons (1) 33:11 97:15 98:18 117:16 198:6 199:2 143:8 144:16,19,22
top (12) 23:4 32:18,19 117:20 118:8 understanding (8) 144:23,24,25
33:6,20,22 34:12 126:12 140:15 20:7,21,23 81:2 145:10 150:16,22
34:15,25 123:16 145:6 153:22 154:2 123:4 181:25 151:18 152:24
130:6 156:1 157:17 161:15 197:16 201:9 159:16 161:13
topic (6) 23:16,18 164:22 understands (1) 48:4 various (12) 32:2
24:2 25:10 27:17 truly (1) 73:6 understood (15) 39:10 47:1,20
170:3 truncated (1) 52:13 12:25 84:19 110:11 78:19 81:4 90:9,10
topics (1) 108:12 trust (1) 126:14 115:25 134:1 143:8 93:14 109:19
total (1) 133:9 trusted (1) 74:15 145:5,16 191:17,18 179:25 180:8
trace (3) 23:15 25:4,5 trusting (2) 115:8,8 199:8 200:1,17,23 vary (4) 161:1,12
track (1) 17:16 truth (2) 164:3,4 201:1 162:17,25
trailed (1) 5:8 truthful (1) 26:7 undertaken (1) Vasiliev (5) 63:6 71:7
train (1) 185:17 try (14) 6:13 18:23 112:12 90:10 159:6 166:11
tramlines (1) 148:11 53:2 67:2 69:2 undertaking (4) 60:3 VD (2) 125:22 131:9
transcript (18) 16:11 70:20 83:7 122:23 60:24 94:17 168:14 ventilated (1) 72:23
34:16,18 41:8,22 142:4 167:15,17 unequivocally (3) verbatim (2) 105:9
42:11,15,16,17,18 169:5 170:4 203:9 46:16 47:16 50:11 107:23
55:25 56:7 65:16 trying (17) 18:16 unfair (3) 58:18 65:6 versa (1) 50:13
111:5,11 147:1 24:15 35:4 39:13 71:13 version (51) 7:4,15
154:13 197:10 41:25 44:9 57:12 unfairly (1) 95:24 8:7,7 9:9,16,24
transcription (1) 78:2 81:19 86:2 unfairness (1) 75:16 11:10 13:4,6,15,24
41:11 88:3 130:3 153:7 unfortunate (1) 86:15 14:16 15:25 16:25
transfer (13) 61:23 155:20 172:24 unfortunately (3) 6:22 17:1,8,10,25 18:2
63:25 68:6 69:14 181:12 198:6 6:23 109:11 19:3,3,12 20:3,8,13
71:18,19 76:25 Tuesday (1) 203:19 UniCredit (1) 51:4 20:15,24 21:9,10
78:25 82:5 85:8 turn (3) 33:25,25 78:1 unimportant (1) 20:22 21:11,13,15,17,22
93:11,17 169:14 turned (4) 20:8 93:21 university (2) 103:21 22:1,3,6,10,16
transferee (6) 77:3 128:24 165:18 138:23 29:11 41:19,20
79:4,20 87:13 88:4 turning (3) 14:13 unnecessary (1) 56:24 42:3,10 45:5
88:17 84:10 187:16 unpaid (1) 37:10 105:12 108:23
transferred (2) 75:5 tussle (1) 150:2 unusual (1) 116:13 129:21,21 155:4
80:21 tweaking (1) 83:7 unwarranted (1) 84:4 versions (1) 21:14
transfers (1) 177:9 twice (1) 135:17 updated (1) 68:14 vice (1) 50:13
transit (1) 6:6 two (28) 23:2 37:17 uploaded (1) 5:20 videolink (2) 1:13,18
translate (3) 14:15 52:21,21,22 59:22 upshot (1) 104:2 view (24) 24:24 43:7
35:3 121:23 64:13 100:25 urgency (2) 56:17,17 48:11 53:14 56:2
translated (10) 7:1 101:22 106:8,25 urgent (2) 2:7 56:20 56:16 65:25 75:8
14:11 15:20 19:6 114:23 122:1 use (9) 38:12 60:3 77:1 86:3 90:14
20:4 22:16 34:13 134:21 138:6 61:10 71:13 108:6 120:12 123:11
34:19 105:3 130:11 141:10 151:3 152:7 118:2 175:11 126:7 136:8 147:17
translation (34) 7:2,17 153:12 160:20,24 181:19 197:19 147:20,24 149:25
9:7,12,17,22,25 170:23 171:25 usual (3) 52:15 116:19 150:3 164:24
10:23 11:11 13:16 177:11 185:8,8,9 191:14 186:20 187:15
15:2 16:5,10,16,17 188:16 usually (12) 108:18 199:5
16:18 17:1 21:16 twofold (1) 56:9 121:25 122:6,12 vigilant (1) 78:8
22:3,7 28:1 32:21 type (6) 102:12,14 142:1,2 174:17 Virtually (1) 33:13
40:24 42:8 104:14 107:9 108:18 137:8 183:1,19,24 187:21 Vitaly (2) 23:5 163:24
124:1,13,16 125:18 138:6 191:19 vouch (1) 8:21
125:19 153:8 typed (1) 107:18 utilised (2) 31:7 63:16 Vozrozhdenie (4) 36:4
165:23 192:19 typically (1) 102:22 36:6,24 37:14
197:20 typing (1) 108:17 V VTB (4) 129:17,17
translations (1) V-Bank (31) 80:12 131:10,17
129:24 U Vyborg (86) 4:5,7,24
106:19 107:7 114:5
translator (3) 19:6,6 UK (4) 98:12 99:5,16 5:14 6:4 52:2 54:11
114:9 115:23
35:13 59:2,6,10 61:24
102:10 117:10,14 118:14
translators (1) 35:2 72:6 76:4,21,25
ultimately (2) 70:2 120:15 121:4,10
transmit (1) 197:20 78:20,21 79:12
181:17 133:9 134:22 135:3
transpired (1) 69:24 80:10,13 83:2,18
umbrella (3) 60:5,6 135:14 136:7,12
travel (1) 157:14 85:8 87:2 89:16
70:9 142:19,23,25
treat (1) 56:16 90:1,11,12 91:22
unaware (1) 190:5 143:11 145:3 150:2
treated (4) 63:21 94:24 95:1,3
unclear (2) 19:2 151:19 152:23
78:24 94:20,21 109:12,19 112:8
115:12 154:7 156:13 159:5
tremendous (1) 18:14 134:22 135:3 139:2
underlying (3) 140:19 159:15 160:22
trespass (3) 161:20,21 139:7 141:17,25
198:21,25 V-Bank’s (1) 80:9
162:12 142:7,21,25 143:8
undermined (1) vague (1) 169:3
trespassing (1) 5:2 143:24 144:4,4,16
181:14 valid (5) 122:8,11
trial (16) 12:18 57:23 145:10,18 146:3,5
underpin (1) 90:16 126:2 198:22,22
60:15 61:4 75:16 146:16 147:20
understand (32) 2:12 validity (2) 197:14
86:21 87:1,3,5 95:6 150:1,6,10,13,13
12:12,20 13:1 14:2 199:12
95:8,10,15,18,19 150:16,22 151:17
16:4 24:9,9 29:21 valuable (10) 72:7
96:7 152:1,2,18,22
30:3 49:25 50:2 76:20 80:14 91:22
tried (6) 23:15 75:7 153:19,23 158:17
55:13 64:7 73:14 91:23 92:2 141:12
79:14 98:24 129:4 159:14 160:6,15
76:2 77:7 108:14 141:17,24 198:1
186:2 164:10,25 165:5,15
112:21 116:1 120:4 valuation (2) 49:24
Trips (1) 99:18 165:18 166:12,19

168:2,2 169:15,18 169:20 170:1

W

wait (1) 77:1

waiting (2) 45:11 94:7 waive (1) 63:9 waived (1) 167:13 waiver (1) 161:20 want (67) 3:8 11:8

17:15 26:6,7 34:8 34:11,17,23,24 40:13 41:12 42:4 44:13 47:13 52:13 60:1,13 62:4 63:9 63:13 66:9,14,18 72:2 86:19,20 89:12,25 92:9,15 103:13 104:21 117:7 118:17 119:7 122:1,20 125:11 134:21 135:8 142:17 152:4,10 153:4 154:12 155:21 156:14 159:21 161:18,19 161:20 163:4 167:9 167:11,13,23 168:24 171:25 174:24 179:24 180:15 191:9 193:2 199:10 203:9,12

wanted (23) 3:19 15:6 20:25 24:6 50:9 51:18,19 59:17 67:8,15,17,25 107:3,12 110:22 111:10 116:19 119:24 137:5 146:12 194:9 197:18 203:3

wanting (3) 31:13 103:4 162:12 wants (3) 1:24 74:5

191:3

war (1) 141:10 warning (9) 56:15

60:9,11 62:8 84:12 84:13 89:11 91:18 162:6

warrant (1) 187:15 wasn’t (23) 4:14 8:20

13:12 18:20 21:6 31:11 36:22 37:24 59:14 63:21 64:24 94:20 102:22 106:12 136:16 143:2 149:25 159:8 164:11 172:15 178:15 179:23 199:23

waste (1) 31:6 Watch (1) 61:22 water (2) 9:5 96:22 way (41) 6:6,24 7:7,9

7:24 10:18 13:25 24:4 26:10 32:24 50:4,20,20 59:18 60:16 61:13 62:21 63:20 65:3 72:14 74:7 75:4 78:24 82:12 84:22 89:22 90:21 92:11 94:25 121:19 124:25 126:7 138:7,21 142:18 155:17,18 162:4 168:13 175:3 196:1

ways (1) 63:15 we’ll (1) 31:4
we’re (2) 71:21 158:8 we’ve (3) 69:22

168:21 178:22 weapon’ (1) 141:10 website (18) 28:24

37:20 38:3 39:18 39:20 40:5 99:23 122:23 123:21 128:7,12,20,23 129:23 130:8,9,13 156:17

websites (4) 24:12 128:13 129:1 130:6

week (2) 22:3 165:25 weekend (4) 7:2 16:6

16:11 22:2 weight (2) 91:4,4 welcome (2) 8:15

53:25

went (12) 19:20 99:8 105:17 106:2,18 115:20 116:16 120:17 127:20 130:9 138:22 182:8

weren’t (3) 65:17 139:23 151:19

West (1) 176:9

Western (5) 59:9 141:13 176:17,24 177:10

whilst (1) 60:14 whomsoever (1)

42:11

William (1) 176:2 willing (2) 109:9 111:2 wind (1) 185:11

wins (1) 181:12 wish (4) 22:13 62:7

187:25 203:11 wished (2) 30:25

84:24

wishes (3) 5:5,7 20:17 withdrew (1) 51:14 Withers (9) 15:12

20:12,24 21:3 77:10,17 85:16,22 166:15

witness (88) 2:19,23 4:25 6:17,25 7:18 7:20,25 8:2 9:7,10 9:13 10:15 11:24 11:24 12:9,17,18 12:22 13:9 14:10 14:20,23 15:13,19 16:21 17:2 18:12 20:10 27:21 40:4 40:20 41:4 42:1,5 44:19 45:1 47:2,24 48:7 51:14,20 60:13 62:8,10 72:21 89:18,19 97:4,6 105:6,24 106:24 108:4,6 110:2,5,6 111:19 112:1 132:15 133:13 136:1 137:25 146:8 147:25 148:6,7,12 148:22 151:5,8 154:4 157:7 158:24 160:2,5 161:21 163:21,23 164:7 180:10,15 185:14 190:10 192:23,23 196:25

witness’s (1) 20:7 witnesses (8) 2:4,10

3:12 55:11,13 56:19 77:11 106:6

wonder (17) 2:21 10:10 16:21 22:24 29:6 32:12 92:15 103:22 131:1 139:7 141:11 147:25 154:3 169:2 170:7 179:11 201:5

wondered (1) 199:17 wondering (1) 111:25 word (6) 94:3 147:9,9 197:19 202:7,10 words (23) 14:2 15:18 15:24 23:22 31:17 34:4,4 35:2,9,10 36:15 37:13 44:19

47:23 48:1 49:4,12 50:8 115:14 144:20 145:2 175:2 177:4

work (15) 31:2,12,13 31:18 32:1,8 50:18 61:2,7 99:11,13 101:22,22 102:9,13

workaround (1) 1:23 worked (2) 101:3

138:21 working (4) 81:25

100:24,25 103:21 world (8) 47:23 48:14 48:19,21 49:5,5

61:2 102:9 worn (1) 184:12 worried (3) 62:6

181:8 182:17 worries (1) 182:17 worry (1) 72:5 worrying (1) 182:22 worsen (1) 203:12 worth (7) 33:11 35:20

79:12 84:18 143:15 147:20 161:7

wouldn’t (16) 13:24 33:2,18 34:6 36:20 44:4,15 45:25 48:18 59:7 60:1 138:14 142:25 155:16 161:14 179:1

write (9) 29:18 30:3,6 44:4,5 71:21 195:8 196:15,15

writing (11) 17:5 29:20 31:14 189:12 189:22,23 195:22 195:25 196:9,10,11

written (8) 14:21 18:9 21:5 36:17 190:7 200:7,9 201:19

wrong (12) 16:5,7 22:8 24:10 42:6 65:23 68:2 79:10 92:8 125:18 154:21 180:18

wrongfully (1) 80:20 wrongly (1) 179:15 wrongs (1) 56:1 wrote (7) 14:24 15:1,1

23:16 37:22 81:23 196:18

X

Y

year (3) 25:3 85:15 128:23
year’s (1) 71:9 years (8) 24:3 31:10

Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

217
February 29, 2016 Day 18

44:5 57:19 127:1 136:20 153:12 196:19

yesterday’s (1) 8:6

Z

Zapadny (1) 176:10 zero (2) 152:24
159:17

0

0.1 (1) 29:8

0.11 (1) 70:16

0.13 (1) 67:19

0.21 (1) 68:17

0.25 (1) 92:21

0.6 (1) 70:22

1

1 (11) 11:4,15 12:14 28:24 87:18 98:3 105:20,22 149:3 203:19 204:3

1.15 (5) 52:10 53:7,12 54:4,7

1.4 (1) 35:25

10 (6) 69:10 86:17 140:25 184:24 192:20 204:7

10.00 (7) 2:11,16

203:4,8,12,16,18

10.30 (1) 1:2

10.49 (1) 1:4
100 (2) 112:3 143:15
107 (1) 111:12
108 (2) 111:4,10
11 (2) 11:3 40:21
110 (1) 112:4
114 (2) 197:11,12
115 (1) 109:17
12 (7) 44:25 45:5 47:24 48:7,15 49:13 92:20

12.27 (1) 54:5

121 (1) 47:19

13 (7) 67:2,22,23 70:20 124:18 136:1 137:25

134/07/2 (1) 125:20 13th (1) 70:12
14 (2) 135:15 164:23
15 (10) 28:21 29:12
47:22 49:19 135:7
135:7,15 141:6
184:24 186:2
16 (1) 170:17
16.30 (1) 100:7
17 (1) 192:13
18 (1) 67:5
18.03.2009 (1) 125:21
182 (1) 166:5
19 (2) 154:22 186:8
190 (8) 144:21 145:11
145:19 150:19,24
151:18 160:13
161:7
197 (1) 204:12
1994 (1) 31:5 1st (1) 106:6

2

2 (7) 67:6 84:4 97:22 139:11 140:10,15 148:17

2.00 (1) 53:3

2.30 (2) 184:21 185:10

2.51 (1) 113:8

20 (8) 83:4 109:10 112:9 156:1 192:23 193:5,9,9

2000 (1) 31:3 2007/2008 (1) 133:24

2008 (8) 48:12 109:10
121:1,2 134:4,14
176:6 177:9
2008-2011 (1) 136:8
2008/2009 (1) 57:16
2009 (3) 73:13 106:4
141:14
2010 (4) 38:19,25
39:22 124:18
2011 (11) 27:13 28:12
38:25 39:22 133:22
153:24 192:3,14,20
195:8,22
2012 (16) 38:25 39:23
99:5 130:14 147:18
148:3,19 149:14
154:8,17,21,22
156:1 157:15 164:5 171:6

2012/2013 (1) 99:1 2013 (27) 10:16,25 11:4,15 12:11,14

18:21 76:4 98:6,15 98:25 99:3,9 110:2 110:5 112:2 148:1 148:8 151:10 160:4 163:15 165:3 167:25 169:10,18 169:21 170:1

2014 (8) 57:18 73:13 78:15 81:4 92:20 95:3 100:3,9

2015 (24) 12:4,9,18 12:22 13:5,10,15 14:18 16:25 17:1 18:19,24 19:25 20:15,23 21:5,22 71:9 81:8 89:20 123:1 136:15 137:11 166:16

2016 (9) 1:1 16:11 22:22 26:12,14 27:2,16,16 203:19

202 (1) 204:13

21 (3) 22:22 81:23 93:5

22 (7) 100:9 147:18 148:3,19 149:14 195:8 196:11

22-24 (2) 125:14,23

23 (3) 140:24 143:24 166:16

24 (3) 144:15,25 145:21

25 (7) 103:18,19 111:12 134:14 145:2 172:8,14

26 (6) 144:16,18 145:9,21 172:8,14

265 (3) 155:2,5,8

268 (1) 154:25

27 (1) 16:11

28 (6) 12:4,9 13:15 14:18 16:11 136:15

29 (1) 1:1

3

3 (13) 11:17,18 27:22 27:24 28:3,5 97:9 97:10 104:22 111:5 151:5 163:6,10

3.00 (1) 113:10

3.9 (2) 133:10 143:10

30 (4) 68:8,20 105:18 184:2

300 (3) 160:7 161:7 165:12

30th (1) 106:5
31 (2) 105:22 123:1
317 (2) 147:15,21
31st (1) 106:6
33 (1) 146:20
34 (1) 147:3
390 (2) 153:20,24

4
4 (18) 9:15 33:6 35:15
68:9,11 98:6
104:22 105:19,20
105:23 148:1,8
163:15 165:3
167:25 169:18,21
170:1
4.00 (1) 53:5
4.30 (1) 100:7
4.45 (2) 53:16 184:17
4.55 (1) 185:4
40 (3) 44:5 109:10
112:9
41 (1) 86:11
49 (2) 149:22,23
4th (1) 106:6

5

5.00 (1) 185:23

5.08 (1) 203:17

50 (3) 143:16,16,19

51 (1) 147:11

54 (1) 204:8

6

6 (6) 47:3 66:11 69:6 69:8 104:3 149:9
67 (1) 150:12

7

7 (8) 10:16 11:3 105:24 106:7 133:11,18 135:9,17

7.00 (1) 185:17

74 (1) 152:5

742 (1) 85:7

743 (1) 85:7

744 (1) 85:10

75 (2) 103:19 153:1

75/25 (1) 103:18 77 (1) 154:5

78 (1) 157:10

8

8 (9) 28:10 51:23 67:14,16 134:23 154:8,17,21 204:4

8.00 (1) 185:18

80 (1) 159:2

81 (1) 152:11

9

9 (11) 68:22 69:10 104:5 105:6 107:21 133:13,16 134:25 164:16 204:5,6

90 (4) 177:13 178:20 182:2,15

90-page (1) 182:14

96 (1) 204:9

97 (2) 204:10,11

Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900