Day 21

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

Day 21 Redacted

March 3, 2016

Opus 2 International — Official Court Reporters

Phone: +44 (0)20 3008 5900

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

March 3, 2016 Day 21 Redacted

1 Thursday, 3 March 2016

2 (10.30 am)

3 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Yes, good morning.

4 MR STROILOV: May it please your Lordship, just a very quick

5 update on attendance: you can see Mrs Arkhangelsky on

6 the screen, and Mr Arkhangelsky sends his apologies. He

7 will join during the day as soon as he can, but he has

8 a commitment in the morning.

9 May I proceed with re-examination of

10 Mr Bromley-Martin, my Lord?

11 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Yes, certainly.

12 MR ROBIN BROMLEY-MARTIN (Continued)

13 Re-examination by MR STROILOV

14 MR STROILOV: Mr Bromley-Martin, you were asked some

15 questions yesterday about the significance which

16 a potential lender would attach to the acquisition cost

17 of Western Terminal; do you recall that?

18 A. Yes.

19 Q. And I think the burden of your evidence, it is fair to

20 summarise it as that it would be relevant because it

21 would indicate the market value of the asset; is that —

22 A. Sorry, could you just repeat that?

23 Q. I think your evidence was that the acquisition cost

24 would be a relevant consideration because it would be

25 indicative of the market value of the asset; is that

1 A. For the terminal handling charges?

2 Q. That’s right, Mr Bromley-Martin, yes.

3 A. Right. I have. What I have here is six different

4 shipping companies’ tariffs which are published on the

5 internet (indicates) which, together with the European

6 Union competition report which I mentioned yesterday all

7 indicate that the $210 per TEU is either spot-on today’s

8 prices, or 10 or 15 per cent below today’s prices.

9 Q. I wonder if you could summarise the contents of the

10 material you found on the internet in your own words?

11 A. Basically there are two different charges. There are

12 the charges that the terminal charge to a shipping

13 company which are then passed onto the shipper, then

14 there the charges that a shipping company will charge

15 itself. So we are dealing with the first and not the

16 second.

17 So basically the advantage of having an intermodal

18 terminal as opposed to a transhipment is that you have

19 all these opportunities to charge what is known as

20 value-added services, like customs clearance, stuffing

21 and de-stuffing, moving and removing, demurrage, all

22 those extra charges that come on over and above what the

23 industry referred to as THCs, terminal handling charges.

24 So, therefore, when the counsel for the Bank took

25 the average of those charges in the information

1 3
1 correct? 1 memorandum, he clearly didn’t take in account of these
2 A. That’s correct, yes. 2 extra charges that can be levied which go to increasing
3 Q. And then you gave evidence and you were asked some 3 the average cost per TEU going through a terminal.
4 questions about your insistence on Dr Arkhangelsky 4 Just while we are on that chart that counsel did
5 obtaining a valuation report from an international 5 produce, that chart, as I said at the time, we got from
6 valuer of good repute. 6 OMG and you can find it in their business plan here,
7 Now, supposing that had happened, and such a report 7 which I know is in amongst the court documents
8 would be available to lenders; what would then be the 8 (indicates).
9 significance of the acquisition cost figure for 9 Q. I think it is. I don’t think I can see at this
10 a potential lender? 10 distance.
11 A. I think the lender would not be — a lender as opposed 11 A. It was an OMG drafted business plan that I know is
12 to an investor — do you remember we categorised the two 12 amongst the court papers.
13 separately — a lender would not be looking to the value 13 Q. Right, thank you.
14 of the property to be repaid, because clearly property 14 A. I have no idea where in amongst all these books they
15 in itself cannot repay a debt. What it is looking to is 15 are, so …
16 the cash flow from the business. So, therefore, it 16 Q. I do apologise. There may be a logistical difficulty
17 would be nice to have an increased valuation, but by no 17 with that. I am sure we can find it. I don’t think we
18 means essential. 18 need to spend time on that.
19 Q. Yes, thank you. 19 I think you mentioned a couple of minutes ago the
20 Now, I think you were asked some questions about 20 tariffs of — contemporary tariffs of six shipping
21 your model for the project, and the assumptions you made 21 companies, which you found on the internet. Could you
22 about an achievable handling charge, and I think it was 22 name those companies and explain it?
23 put to you that your estimates were unrealistic. Have 23 A. Yes. Hapag-Lloyd.
24 you anything to add to clarify to the court your 24 Q. And what are their charges, if you could help?
25 justification for those figures? 25 A. Sorry, I need my glasses.
2 4
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

March 3, 2016 Day 21 Redacted

1 Hapag-Lloyd for St Petersburg is $350 per container,

2 terminal handling charge for a conventional container.

3 An outsize, or reefer, which is a refrigerated

4 container, are $450 per container.

5 Q. Yes.

6 A. Containerships, their terminal handling charges are $280

7 for a conventional TEU, and $355 for any non standard

8 type of terminal.

9 MR LORD: Sorry, my Lord, I don’t know how your Lordship

10 wants to proceed, but this is sort of bringing in

11 further documentary/quasi expert evidence in

12 re-examination on material that hasn’t, I don’t think,

13 actually been put in evidence or shown to the court or

14 to me, but I just raise that. I don’t know what weight

15 your Lordship will put on it, but I think I probably

16 should at least identify some concern at the course this

17 re-examination is now taking.

18 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: It is the fact, Mr Stroilov, that the

19 opportunity to refer to the public sources which may

20 compositely have been referred to in paragraph 35 of

21 this witness’s evidence, were when the evidence was

22 adduced. I realise that I need to be flexible to some

23 extent, but it is a little late in re-examination to be

24 introducing what, in effect, is the material on which

25 paragraph 35 may or may not have been based.

1 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Well, Mr Bromley-Martin, did you have

2 the figures you are now relying on at the time when you

3 worked out the 210 figure that you eventually fixed upon

4 but which you thought was at the top end, and possibly

5 optimistic to some?

6 A. I did, indeed, sir. I had some documentation

7 from June 2008 which, again, I understand has been

8 disclosed to the Bank.

9 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: But is that sheaf of papers

10 from June 2008?

11 A. One of them is, yes, sir.

12 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: And the rest?

13 A. A month ago.

14 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: So you are relying on them to show

15 that, in effect, your estimate in 2008 has been borne

16 out by experience?

17 A. More than, sir.

18 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: More than borne out by experience.

19 MR LORD: My Lord, I think we should see, because I don’t

20 know exactly what we are talking about here, so we

21 should need to have all this material and we can see

22 what it is and we can check whether it has been

23 disclosed.

24 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Insofar as it relates to 2008 I am

25 happy, in a way, for your evidence to be that you think

5

1 I’m also a little bit worried as to, perhaps,

2 exaggerating the science in this. I mean, I can take it

3 from what has already been told that: one, there are

4 differences between intermodal and transhipment, dollars

5 per TEU rates; two, that in the case of intermodal

6 facilities, the scope for add-on charge is considerable,

7 such that $350 might be achieved in certain

8 circumstances; three, that at that time, this witness

9 was not expert in the matter, had been advised rather

10 lower figures, but took figures which he is happy have

11 been justified in the light of retrospect.

12 Beyond that, does the rate per shipper evidence

13 really take me anywhere?

14 MR STROILOV: Well, in my submission it does. It shows

15 how — well, it has been suggested in

16 cross-examination —

17 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: I don’t know who the shippers were who

18 were expected to use, so the identification is — they

19 may or may not have used St Petersburg, I just don’t

20 know, there is no evidence about that.

21 MR STROILOV: But, my Lord, the accuracy of that figure and

22 how realistic it is was attacked in cross-examination,

23 so I am entitled to ask the witness in re-examination to

24 justify his figures on the basis of the knowledge he

25 has.

7

1 it is justified by experience. Of course, Mr Lord and

2 his team must see that to satisfy themselves.

3 In so far, however, as it does relate to a period

4 after 2008, I’m not quite sure, beyond I-told-you-so

5 value, what value it has?

6 A. Your Lordship, if I could intercede, I think it is

7 important because clearly this would predicate the

8 EBITDA that would have been achieved about now and,

9 therefore, if there was a liquidity event, as we call

10 it, approximately five years after one starts

11 a terminal, which is quite normal, then you would be

12 looking, in today’s market, at five or six times EBITDA,

13 so that therefore coming to a valuation at today’s — as

14 of today, you would need to know what the EBITDA

15 projections were that I did in 2008 and to what extent

16 they had been borne out in the fullness of time.

17 So I do feel, sir, that it is quite critical that

18 the court takes in that $210 is not an unreasonable THC

19 to be put into the model for the purposes of evaluation

20 of the business.

21 MR STROILOV: Should I move on, my Lord?

22 MR LORD: I think it is important that your Lordship sees

23 this material.

24 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: You think it is important?

25 MR LORD: My Lord, I don’t know what evidential status it is

6 8
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

March 3, 2016 Day 21 Redacted

1 going to take on or assume. (Handed).

2 There are a series of handouts there or printouts

3 from the internet, one of them seems to be

4 dated 3 July 2008. I don’t know whether or not that is

5 the full extent of this witness’s research, whether

6 there are any other documents or notes or analyses he

7 carried out which informed the figure, if there are,

8 they should all be disclosed and I have not had time to

9 look at the one 2008 document. From a quick look at it,

10 it seems to have a number of entries that would have

11 been entries which would have been helpful which I may

12 well have chosen to rely on.

13 A. That 2008 document has been disclosed.

14 MR LORD: I don’t want to revisit that and it may have been

15 disclosed, but I just want to establish the cohort of

16 material that we are talking about. It is also right to

17 note that when the witness statement was served, the

18 defendants had solicitors, there were solicitors on the

19 record at that point in time; they were not acting in

20 person.

21 MR STROILOV: My Lord, if I may address you on that, that’s

22 not disclosable because it is not material within our

23 control. I haven’t seen it yet. The defendants haven’t

24 seen it yet. It is just the witness who is independent

25 who has been responsibly preparing for

1 We looked at it yesterday in relation to Mr Nazarov’s

2 documents. {J1/20/9} was a schedule to the order that

3 I took your Lordship to yesterday, the October 2015

4 order.

5 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Sorry, I had forgotten.

6 MR LORD: Yes, I had forgotten, my learned friend Mr Birt

7 helpfully reminded me. Paragraph 1:

8 «Documents held by Oxus Cross Border Finance …

9 and/or by Robin Bromley Martin and/or by James

10 Sutcliffe…»

11 So there was an order of this court —

12 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: I think the answer may be — he thinks

13 that they were disclosed and he accepts that the non

14 2008 have been produced latterly because he wanted to

15 justify his figure, I suspect.

16 MR LORD: Very well.

17 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Do you have lots of questions on this,

18 because can I tell you where I am coming from? It may

19 be unorthodox, but I am going to tell you anyway, is

20 that I think my chances of being able to assess from

21 this material whether 210 was the right figure for the

22 right users is minimal from this figure. I can see that

23 there is a range, Mr Bromley-Martin has accepted, quite

24 fairly, that when he assessed it, it was different from

25 the advice that he was given by Mr Sutcliffe. It looked

9 11

1 cross-examination, thinking what questions might be

2 asked, doing a research.

3 Now that questions have been asked in

4 cross-examination on this subject, it is perfectly

5 appropriate to elicit evidence in re-examination on the

6 same subject, which clarifies what has been raised in

7 cross-examination.

8 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: It is going to take longer to dispute

9 this. I will listen to it, if you want further

10 information, I will attach such weight as is

11 appropriate, and I will let Mr Lord return to the matter

12 if that’s what he thinks should be done.

13 But, I have to say, I find the submission that, in

14 a sense, it was only for the witness to think about this

15 later rather odd, because paragraph 35 says:

16 «In the end, having researched and benchmarked to

17 public sources, I used this figure. This might have

18 seemed optimistic. I would concede that it was at the

19 upper end of an achievable range.»

20 Now, I find it difficult to believe that once that

21 witness statement was put together, that people didn’t

22 think it might be relevant to disclose the public

23 sources on which it was based.

24 MR LORD: My Lord, it is worse than that, because

25 your Lordship made an order that these be — {J1/20/9}.

1 toppy to some. In the event, he has been justified by

2 experience.

3 Am I going to get more scientific than that?

4 MR STROILOV: Well, on reflection, I then move on.

5 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Yes.

6 MR STROILOV: And if I might, with apologies, perhaps

7 plagiarise your Lordship’s question from yesterday,

8 I think Mr Bromley-Martin didn’t have an opportunity to

9 answer, except, perhaps, he touched upon it today.

10 Could you explain more fully the difference in

11 calculations in relation to intermodal as opposed to

12 transhipment terminals? Do you have anything to add to

13 what you have already said —

14 A. There is one other element that, if I can get a little

15 scientific, your Lordship, perhaps. Clearly if you have

16 a big, 15,000 or 16,000 TEU vessel, it berths, that

17 takes time, X. You then have three or four very large

18 cranes unloading, so it is highly efficient, it is

19 a volume commodity market, can we describe it as that?

20 So hence the margins are very tight, hence why

21 a transhipment facility is down at the 120/130.

22 Intermodal has small ships. It still takes time to

23 bring time, X, to bring a 3,000 or 4,000 TEU vessel

24 alongside, and because of the physical location you can

25 perhaps only get two cranes at one time operating on it.

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

March 3, 2016 Day 21 Redacted

1 So, therefore, the whole process of getting

2 a container, from when the ship arrives offshore to when

3 you get the container onto the thing, per container is

4 a lot longer than it is at a transhipment facility.

5 So there is another dimension in this, and I felt we

6 had a rather two-dimensional discussion yesterday,

7 whereas it is actually a multi-dimensional discussion.

8 So all of these things point to why an intermodal

9 container terminal like St Petersburg and the

10 competitors there all suffer from the same problem is,

11 as I think in some of the documents that you will have

12 seen, that there’s only a 11-metre draught going into

13 St Petersburg so you probably can only get a 9-metre

14 ship in there with the fall and rise of the tide so,

15 therefore, you are dealing with pretty small ships for

16 a very large economy.

17 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: I mean, it is probably terribly

18 inaccurate, but an analogy is between the sort of pack

19 them high and get them out of the warehouse operation

20 and bespoke, we’ll look after everything for you and

21 keep it for a longer time. So it is really throughput

22 against value. I dare say a transhipment may be able to

23 justify higher TEUs per annum because it can shift —

24 you can pack them high, you can shift them out, it grabs

25 the money for each TEU, let’s say $110, whereas it is

1 there any corrections you would like to make?

2 A. No, none at all. I should explain that we have another

3 company called Port African Assets, who are tendering

4 and negotiating to take on the concession ourselves to

5 run three different container terminals in Africa, and

6 I used this same model to raise about $300 million for

7 a project in Equatorial Guinea and Emerging Capital

8 Partners from Washington DC were quite happy to use

9 exactly the same model and so, therefore, the comments

10 that BNP raised yesterday, or were raised to the court

11 yesterday about my model having flaws, doesn’t seem to

12 be justified in the fullness of time and our ability to

13 raise money for not only our own projects but our

14 clients’ projects.

15 Q. I am slightly hesitant to ask that, but I suppose, would

16 you have any problem naming these African projects you

17 are talking about?

18 A. Well, we are mandated to project manage and raise funds

19 for a $500 million container terminal cum industrial

20 facility in a place called Calabar in Cross River state

21 in Nigeria, and we are in the midst of doing the

22 fundraising for that at the moment.

23 We are also hoping that we might be able to pick up

24 the port concession at that project, another one at Luba

25 in Equatorial Guinea and another one in São Tomé, in

13 15
1 altogether slower, lower TEU forecast, but higher dollar 1 the islands of São Tomé and Principe.
2 per TEU. It is as simple as that, isn’t it, really? 2 Q. And to your knowledge, the projects on a similar model
3 A. Yes. Just one last statistic, if I may, sir. The big 3 which had been developed since then in Africa, have they
4 cranes will do 60 movements an hour, a small crane of 4 been successful as businesses?
5 the type that they would have had at St Petersburg will 5 A. As I say, we are in the process of tendering, because we
6 be 20 movements an hour, so do you see, it is all 6 see container terminals in emerging markets as a hugely
7 painting a picture, I hope. 7 profitable business and, therefore, if you can excuse my
8 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: There is a bit of a premium if you 8 language, we wanted to have a slice of the action there.
9 want to ship into St Petersburg? 9 So the container terminal in Calabar will be between
10 A. Sorry? 10 50,000 and 100,000. In Luba it will start at 500,000
11 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: There is a bit of a premium if you 11 and go up to perhaps 1.5 million TEU.
12 want to ship into St Petersburg or any similar 12 Q. Finally, if I may just double-check. If we could go to
13 intermodal — 13 the transcript of yesterday, page 41 {Day20/41:1}.
14 A. That would be the general drift of my evidence, sir. 14 I think you can see at the top of the page, my Lord
15 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Yes, thank you. 15 asked you a question on the hypothesis that if the
16 MR STROILOV: Well, if I may ask, I think, in rather general 16 discrepancy between the purchase price of 40 million,
17 terms, I think you said yesterday that at the time you 17 and 220 million which had been given to you earlier, if
18 were creating that model and working on that project, 18 there were enquiries and it:
19 that was your first experience of working on container 19 «… was explained by a mixture of consultancy
20 terminals. Since then, you have had a lot more 20 agreements, other innominate costs associated with
21 experience in that; is that correct understanding? 21 procuring the agreement of the relevant authorities and
22 A. Correct. 22 so on and so forth.»
23 Q. So now looking back at your first project from the 23 Then I think you say:
24 height of your present experience, do you find that your 24 «I think if it came out, I think Clyde and ourselves
25 view at that stage was justified, or is there any — are 25 would have probably withdrawn.»
14 16
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

March 3, 2016 Day 21 Redacted

1 What were you referring to? Did you mean if the 1 A. Your Lordship, I am not au fait with etiquette —
2 fact of bribery came out? 2 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Yes.
3 A. Indeed. 3 A. — but I would be very happy to, if I am using the right
4 Q. But what if these were only consultancy agreement which 4 phraseology, provide a second statement and attach all
5 perhaps give suspicion to — which perhaps give rise to 5 the information I have referred to during the course of
6 a suspicion of bribery rather than establish bribery as 6 my evidence. I am not being paid for this, but if it
7 a fact? What would have happened then? 7 helps the court clarify the situation, I could come back
8 A. I mean, it is — when you get a concession to run 8 and be cross-examined against that evidence if required.
9 a container terminal or any other port, for that matter, 9 I put that offer to you, sir.
10 it is not unusual to pay a very significant lump sum 10 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Thank you.
11 upfront. 11 MR STROILOV: Well, if I may just address you on that
12 So if, for example, this had in reality been 12 quickly, I don’t propose to treat what has been elicited
13 a concession fee to the government or something, then it 13 from Mr Bromley-Martin in re-examination as anything
14 would have been perfectly justifiable. If it’s a bribe, 14 other than evidence given in re-examination. I am not
15 then I believe it is a completely separate issue. And 15 suggesting that we are putting in any additional
16 clearly I haven’t got the evidence in front of me, apart 16 documents.
17 from the transcript of Dr Arkhangelsky, to go on. So, 17 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Well, they have been given. They are
18 as I say, I would prefer just to give the two outliers 18 there. I have got them.
19 in the scenario and explain it. As I say, there are 19 MR STROILOV: Well, they are there, my Lord, but all I —
20 large areas of grey in between. 20 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Am I to treat them as light reading,
21 MR STROILOV: Thank you, Mr Bromley-Martin. 21 or what?
22 My Lord, do you have any questions for the witness? 22 MR STROILOV: Well, I am only going to rely on this as
23 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Yes. Mr Lord, are you likely to have 23 answers given by Mr Bromley-Martin in re-examination, no
24 any further cross-examination leading to re-examination 24 more and no less.
25 on the basis of the material that you have sought, or 25 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Yes, but his answers depended on him
17 19

1 been given?

2 MR LORD: What, this morning?

3 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Yes.

4 MR LORD: Just now, you mean?

5 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Yes.

6 MR LORD: Well, I haven’t had much of a chance to go through

7 it, I am afraid.

8 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Will you want to have some time?

9 MR LORD: I don’t think so because there are other experts

10 coming, and my provisional view is I can pick up some of

11 these matters, if I need to, with other experts,

12 Ms Simonova, for example.

13 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Yes.

14 MR LORD: Port value and throughput and so on. As long as

15 I am not criticised for not putting to this witness

16 points that might arise from this documentation we have

17 only seen 20 minutes ago, if I can leave it on that

18 basis. Otherwise I think I might have to have a quick

19 look through.

20 As your Lordship will see, it is hard in the time to

21 identify the provenance, the weight, it’s just difficult

22 to gauge that, really. But if I can leave it — as long

23 as I won’t be criticised if I take the matter up with

24 Ms Simonova, for example, about port matters, then I am

25 probably happy to leave it on that basis, my Lord.

1 identifying the basis on which they were given, and he

2 did, and he identified some papers. They were called

3 for and they were given to me.

4 MR STROILOV: Yes, my Lord. I am not asking to admit this

5 as evidence.

6 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: They have been admitted as evidence.

7 MR STROILOV: I think the fact that he can specify the

8 source goes to its weight as hearsay evidence —

9 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: I will address this when I hear from

10 Mr Lord what his attitude is going to be, but I suspect

11 that this witness, in order to justify the figures that

12 he gave, chose to share with us the documentary trail,

13 some of it contemporaneous, and some of it very recent,

14 and Mr Lord called for it, asked for me to look at it,

15 I blinked at it. I think it is, as it were, to —

16 either all the answers must be withdrawn in the

17 documents, or — we can’t have one without the other,

18 I think.

19 MR STROILOV: So be it, my Lord.

20 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Yes.

21 Questions by MR JUSTICE HILDYARD

22 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Just a few questions,

23 Mr Bromley-Martin.

24 A. Yes, sir.

25 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Just picking up, while I think of it,

18 20
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

March 3, 2016 Day 21 Redacted

1 on the last distinction you drew between a really quite

2 significant concession or consultancy arrangements and

3 bribery, you mentioned yesterday that the Bribery Act,

4 of course, was not in force at this time. I can’t

5 remember when it came into force, but I think the Act in

6 England was dated 2010.

7 A. Indeed, sir.

8 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: But that Act, you probably recall from

9 your business, was based on a prior convention in 1997,

10 the OECD convention, and was intended to supplement in

11 Britain the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, which had

12 been already instituted in the United States of America.

13 A. While I was working for Bechtel, so that was something

14 that, you can imagine, as we provided most of President

15 Reagan’s cabinet was something that was drilled into us

16 every day of the week —

17 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Yes, because there were very serious

18 corporate and personal penalties for breach.

19 A. Let me just explain, if I may, sir.

20 If I had a hint of bribery whilst during my job at

21 Bechtel I had to write under the executive directives,

22 a one-page memo to the president of Bechtel to tell him

23 and the executive committee, they took it that

24 seriously. So that’s been drilled into me, sir, from

25 1982, if not before.

1 totality of the group, et cetera, was hugely opaque at

2 the time, and therefore, I suppose naively, perhaps, we

3 chose to rely upon the Russian valuation as

4 an indication of the value of the property and what it

5 had cost to get to that point.

6 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: I am not blaming you for a second.

7 I am not saying — it is irrelevant: you are not on

8 trial and your company isn’t, but the thing is if I go

9 to my bank and I seek to borrow some money and they have

10 such as, laughingly, is called my cash flow, and they

11 have the security in the property, and I go in on day

12 one and say: I paid £1 million for this, and the next

13 day I go in and say: actually, you know, when I said

14 £1 million, it was £3 million actually I paid for it.

15 Do you not think the bank would seriously lose

16 confidence in the accuracy of my statements?

17 A. As I said yesterday, sir, it would have taken a lot of

18 our persuasive powers to have got past that, indeed.

19 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Yes.

20 A. In my experience, as I say, having raised I think about

21 $3 billion of finance in my life, basically once you get

22 to the point of the term sheet, quite honestly the

23 information memorandum never sees the light of day

24 again, so to a certain extent they don’t rely upon some

25 rather sales-minded character like me writing a sales

21

1 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: 1982. The problem with it, is this

2 right, is that although there are more adventurous

3 lenders in the market and people who are prepared, as it

4 were, to hold their nose, if I can put it that way, if

5 confronted with a red flag which simply won’t go away,

6 even the adventurous will back off and the more

7 reputable will long since have fled; isn’t that right?

8 A. I think your reading is absolutely right, sir, yes.

9 Certainly, if that came clear, as I said yesterday, we

10 would have had to have considered our position and

11 I would clearly have consulted Clyde & Co and I think we

12 would have both come to a similar decision.

13 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Yes. Then just on skeletons in

14 the cupboard and focusing not so much on the

15 $160 million payment, whatever its true characterisation

16 is, park that and just look at the discrepancy in the

17 valuation figures, the amount that had been paid —

18 slightly different, I know — the question is not so

19 much whether the value of the port or terminal was

20 accurately stated, but the skeleton which appeared to be

21 revealed by the extreme discrepancy in the value, isn’t

22 it? Isn’t that really a sort of paradigm skeleton?

23 A. Yes, I suppose the honest truth is that, as I answered

24 yesterday, what assets, which particular company owned

25 and to what extent those IFRS accounts covered the

23

1 document in the form of an information memorandum; they

2 rely upon their own due diligence and, therefore, there

3 is a chance that it could have been rolled into the

4 undergrowth and out of sight.

5 You know, again, I am afraid we are talking about

6 shades of grey here, sir, so it’s just a question of how

7 the cards fall, as it were.

8 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Well, I was wondering about that and

9 the thing is, it’s not what you say. What you say in

10 paragraph 22 is that as any potential investor or lender

11 will undertake its own due diligence, ie is going to

12 find out things to be found in the end as part of their

13 evaluation:

14 «…therefore, not least to safeguard our own

15 profession reputation, it is essential that no

16 ‘skeletons’ are found during that process.» {C1/3/4}.

17 And if the investment memorandum says actually it

18 costs X and it transpires that it cost 3X, isn’t that

19 a clanking great skeleton?

20 A. It is a skeleton but, as I say, it would have been very

21 difficult to get around it, and I don’t believe that —

22 there isn’t — I can’t be black and white and say that

23 it would be terminal in terms of the discussions with

24 the banks. We may have been able to justify it in some

25 way, but clearly there is a new dimension that I have

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

March 3, 2016 Day 21 Redacted

1 become aware of yesterday which changes the — if, 1 final draft in July. If you go, please, to tab 1,
2 indeed, it is true — 2 {D43/750/4}.
3 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Well, we have parked that. I think 3 A. Could we have the other one on the other screen?
4 you accept that would be what you called «assured 4 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Yes, let’s do that. That’s a good
5 destruction», whereas this, you think, is a pretty 5 idea. And the other one.
6 explosive piece of — 6 A. Sorry, I’m looking at the hard copies here.
7 A. But I go back to my fundamental point, which is that 7 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: The other one, the final draft, is at
8 they are relying upon the cash flow rather than the 8 {D52/889/7}, and it is in tab 10 of
9 asset backing. 9 the Western Terminal.
10 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Yes, I understand that, yes. 10 A. Yes, sir.
11 A. That’s the chink of light that one would focus on in 11 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: At page 7. If you see the bottom
12 trying to kick the issue into the undergrowth. 12 paragraph on page {D43/750/4} it says:
13 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Yes. But you think — could we have 13 «The cost of the project is projected to be in
14 {D98/1259/1}, please. This is an e-mail from you, 14 the region of US $100 million, and it is for this that
15 I think. 15 the funding is being sought.»
16 A. Indeed, sir. 16 Then if you compare that to the fourth paragraph on
17 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Of 27 November. There are some 17 {D52/889/7} it says:
18 differences between the list you give there and the list 18 «The cost of the project is projected to be in
19 at {D84/1153/2}, but let us focus on {D98/1259/1}, where 19 the region of US $220 million.»
20 you give a list of potentially interested banks, and you 20 That’s quite an increase; would that unsettle one?
21 include Standard Bank of South Africa, which I think you 21 A. The 100 million is what I believed to be the cost of
22 had previously said was effectively on hold, but leave 22 using, can I call them Western rules of thumb. What
23 that aside. Do they look the sort of banks who would 23 I was persuaded was that in 2008 such was the shortage
24 take the sort of risk which even the skeleton alone 24 of cement and reliable contractors and the cost of
25 suggested? I mean — 25 getting ship-to-shore cranes into the port, et cetera,
25 27

1 A. Those are, indeed, blue chip banks, and would very

2 definitely go through it with a tooth comb, and if the

3 lawyers — if it wasn’t picked up us it would certainly

4 have been picked up by their own local DD advisers,

5 which would have been a very grave embarrassment to us.

6 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: The discrepancy in the values?

7 A. Yes, if we hadn’t addressed it before we got to that DD

8 stage.

9 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Leaving aside 160 million, these sort

10 of banks would have been pretty leery, if I can put it

11 that way?

12 A. Yes, I mean, they are probably six out of the top ten

13 banks in the world for this sort of infrastructure

14 lending.

15 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: So they don’t really have to take

16 risks, in a sense?

17 A. No.

18 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Yes.

19 A. Their internal credit committee and their compliance

20 would clearly prevent them, if nothing else.

21 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Again, this is not a criticism of you,

22 but I just want to understand better and apologise if

23 you have already been asked questions about this, but if

24 we go to the Western Terminal file, and compare draft 1

25 in May 2008 with draft — I think it was 9 or 10 — the

1 et cetera, with the general congestion in the port, that

2 we had to build in what I would euphemistically call the

3 «Russia factor», and that 200 million, therefore, when

4 we had got to understand the situation in

5 the construction industry in Russia at the time, we put

6 in — there’s clearly a fairly generous — what do you

7 call it, contingency.

8 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: I see.

9 A. If I could just say, when you first do a project and do

10 what they call front-end engineering.

11 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Yes.

12 A. At the end of that you normally come away with a cost

13 estimate of somewhere plus or minus 50 per cent, I mean,

14 it’s a huge thing, so that was why we were keen —

15 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: This was 100 per cent, slightly more?

16 A. There wasn’t 100 million contingency in there, sir, we

17 had to increase the cost of laying concrete because of

18 the difficulties associated with a constricted site and

19 so on, everything like that.

20 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: I see.

21 A. But that contingency can be brought down as you define

22 the project better, and hence the purpose of the PSC.

23 So you are taking a very large chunk of risk out so you

24 can then afford to reduce your contingency as a result.

25 So it is much better to tell a bank it is 200 million

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

March 3, 2016 Day 21 Redacted

1 subject to detailed cost estimate and then be able to

2 come back and say: actually, now we’ve defined the

3 project better it is a reduced amount. Going the other

4 way is another no-no, going from 100 to 200, so it is

5 better to start high and come down, which was in part

6 what I was trying to say yesterday, which is, you know,

7 200 was top whack, or 220, top whack of what we think

8 worst case scenario we would have needed to get that

9 terminal completely done.

10 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Thank you.

11 You stated yesterday with some emphasis, as

12 I perceived it, how difficult it was to get information

13 from the client and how you eventually resorted to

14 a short, sharp schedule, if I can put it that way, what

15 did you ascribe that to?

16 A. Lack of structure within the organisation. I mean,

17 it’s — I’ve raised money for a lot of entrepreneurs,

18 and the organisational structure was very similar, and

19 you have a very charismatic character like

20 Dr Arkhangelsky who probably, since the start of his

21 business, has controlled everything at his fingertips

22 himself, and for an entrepreneur to then grow into

23 corporate man, if I can call it that, and put in

24 a structure underneath him which would support a vastly

25 growing structure is always, whether you are Richard

1 chaos — documentary chaos within the OMG organisation?

2 A. Well, there’s two answers to that question. What Vitaly

3 had done was to recruit a very experienced team to run

4 Western.

5 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Right.

6 A. So if one can take, if you like, the ringfence scenario,

7 the lenders would have probably paid less heed to what

8 was going on in the rest of the group and just merely

9 concentrated on Western and what it would cost.

10 I mean, in terms of development risk and in terms of

11 construction risk, they were all pretty low, because,

12 I mean, it was sheet piling and laying of concrete,

13 there was no technology per se involved, and as long

14 as — if you have a fixed price contract from

15 a contractor you laid off the construction risk onto

16 that contractor.

17 So it was very easy to ringfence it in that sense.

18 Whether with the — as we know, the financial situation

19 in late 2008 would have allowed us to do that or whether

20 we would have to have brought extra equity in, as

21 I suggested in that e-mail you had up a short while ago.

22 So we would have, to use the American expression, to

23 answer the question a second way, we would have —

24 pressing to use a western accountant, a KPMG, an E&Y or

25 a PwC, to go in, because the (inaudible) says IFRS

29 31
1 Branson or Dr Arkhangelsky, you have great difficulty in 1 accounts were very difficult to follow, I mean, as
2 achieving that. Lots of professors spend a lot of time 2 I think you probably picked up yesterday, one document
3 studying that. 3 said three companies owned Western Terminal, you showed
4 So, yes, the corporate structure of the group just 4 me another document which said there was one purchaser
5 hadn’t grown to match the complexity of the growing 5 and the name didn’t tie up with what was in the IFRS.
6 business. 6 So it was — you know, that was why I was pressing
7 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Grown like topsy, really. 7 Vitaly to get a western accountant in to do precisely
8 A. Grown like topsy. 8 that, to iron out all those differences.
9 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: No real structure underneath it. 9 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Just on equity, and just looking at
10 A. Not that was discernible. I mean, who sent us the debt 10 a micro example of equity, can we go to {D15/363/9}.
11 schedule? The business development manager. 11 I was just looking at the capital structure of
12 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Yes. 12 Western Terminal, is it? And I was just reminding
13 A. Not the finance director. 13 myself as to the amount of money which was going to have
14 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: No. 14 to be found, and the revelation which was inevitable,
15 A. So you never quite knew who was doing what, or anything 15 that there had been no other equity finance put in, that
16 else. It is not unusual. 16 it was all borrowings, and I was just thinking to myself
17 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: No. 17 what other indications of skin in the game and
18 A. If you can imagine Nigeria, we have exactly the same 18 commitment could be found — perhaps it is in the share
19 problem, or Equatorial Guinea. 19 capital — is that usual in your experience, to have
20 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: What reason did you have to believe 20 RUB 5,000 worth, 10,000 in all, as the share capital of
21 that when due diligence, if you did manage to interest 21 a company seeking to raise these very large amounts?
22 someone sufficiently for them to enter into the next 22 A. It has been known, sir. If I could give you a classic
23 stage, that you would be able to assemble orderly 23 situation, the company that built the Humber Bridge was
24 documentation at the due diligence stage, given the 24 a £3 company.
25 apparent — I don’t want to be rude, but let us call it 25 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Did that have infrastructure funding
30 32
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

March 3, 2016 Day 21 Redacted

1 from the Government?

2 A. Yes, exactly.

3 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Absent that sort of thing —

4 A. But it is not unusual to have very, very low equity in

5 infrastructure projects.

6 I was involved in helping a client on the Wightlink

7 ferry, and you may say what does that have to do with

8 it, but that is Macquarie Infrastructure Fund who owns

9 that. They had £100,000 of equity and £200 million of

10 «mez», mezzanine debt, as their quasi equity, and then

11 the commercial bank debt on top of that as the senior

12 debt. So that is a structure that we come across the

13 whole time in projects of this kind.

14 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Even when in combination with —

15 I mean, here the capital contribution is so small that

16 it can’t be measured in US dollars —

17 A. True.

18 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: — point one. Point two, there is no,

19 it appears from the investigations made, there is no

20 zero equity of any other kind.

21 A. But if you remember, sir, I was pressing there to be

22 some more equity put into that, and even going to —

23 talking to two equity providers to provide that equity.

24 So I would agree with you wholeheartedly that it was

25 something I had picked up and me and my partners were

1 I think, and this is on 25 September. By «this», I mean

2 the schedule. Your warning was in August, the schedule

3 is on 25 September.

4 Weren’t you a bit surprised and troubled by this

5 apparent list of personal guarantees already given when

6 you spotted them on 25 September?

7 A. Yes. To be honest with you, we didn’t take a huge

8 amount of note of the situation and didn’t check the

9 veracity of the guarantees. What we were rather looking

10 at is what the value of the assets were against the

11 total on the following page, if I remember.

12 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Yes.

13 A. Yes.

14 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: So you didn’t really look at that

15 column with any great degree of interest; is that what

16 you are saying?

17 A. No, that wasn’t the column that was sounding the alarm

18 bells. The one that was sounding the alarm bells was

19 column five and column six, redemption date.

20 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Right.

21 A. I made a reference to David Coe and Al Coe. David Coe,

22 I worked for, is a very rich Australian gentleman who

23 set up the Australian Leveraged Leasing Corporation and

24 he provided a whole lot of personal guarantees and one

25 went sour on him and that brought down the whole pack of

33 35

1 seeking to address.

2 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: So did you perceive that, really, you

3 wouldn’t get the bank funding off the ground without

4 a bit of equity investment to —

5 A. Again, we are talking about shades of grey, but

6 certainly it’s not a tick the box, it’s: does that feel

7 right, sort of question for the bankers, and the more

8 equity you have in there, clearly real equity, clearly

9 the happier they are going to be.

10 It is all about risk, so if they saw very low

11 equity, which I presume was what the Russian banks saw,

12 and they were charging 20 or 22 per cent coupon, whereas

13 BNP said: if this is properly structured we will do

14 12 per cent, you can see that the Russian banks clearly

15 saw that there was no equity backing and BNP was

16 promulgated on there being at least some equity in

17 the game.

18 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Yes. Thank you.

19 I think my last question relates to that schedule

20 that we were looking at, {D74/1101/1} I can’t remember,

21 and someone may be able to help me, I think if you have

22 on the left-hand side, it may be {D66/1035.1/1}, which

23 was — the e-mail I am wanting is your warning about the

24 dangers of giving personal guarantees in answer to

25 the request for them by KIT, which was in August,

1 cards.

2 Their chief competitor in Australia was Babcock &

3 Brown and Macquarie, and Babcock & Brown, their share

4 price collapsed which meant they breached their banking

5 covenant so they went into liquidation, which then

6 brought Macquarie down to its knees.

7 One personal guarantee that Mr Coe gave part of his

8 organisation completely killed the Australian leveraged

9 leasing industry overnight.

10 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Well, Mr Stern would agree with you.

11 He called a guarantor «a fool with a fountain pen». But

12 there we are.

13 I am sorry to have detained you further. Are there

14 questions which arise from my questioning?

15 Further cross-examination by MR LORD

16 MR LORD: I do have one or two questions, if I may?

17 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Yes.

18 MR LORD: Mr Bromley-Martin, his Lordship asked you about

19 the equity contribution and if you could be shown,

20 please, {D52/889/9} and also {D52/889/11}. It is behind

21 divider 10, and it is pages 9 and 11 of the final

22 version of the information memorandum. I think I showed

23 you this yesterday, but if you look halfway down the

24 page of 9, there is reference to 140 million being put

25 in from OMG’s internal resources, can you see that?

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

March 3, 2016 Day 21 Redacted

1 A. Yes. 1 are going to think, aren’t you: how can I trust the
2 Q. And then on page 11, this point is emphasised: 2 borrower and the project and anything I’m told about
3 «The parent company has already put in 3 security and the way it’s going to work and what the
4 US $140 million of equity.» 4 money is going to be used for if I am told these great
5 A. Indeed, that’s what we had been told, as I explained to 5 big untruths at the start? Isn’t that going to be the
6 you. When the IFRS accounts came out, we realised that 6 end of it?
7 that wasn’t the case. 7 A. Not the end of it, no. I think it would have given me
8 Q. That was the question I was going to ask you. To pick 8 a challenge to —
9 up his Lordship’s point, if you go to {D15/363/9}. 9 Q. You must be a very persuasive man, Mr Bromley-Martin?
10 A. Hold on. What, D15? 10 A. What?
11 Q. {D15/363/9}. It’s all right, it was the page from the 11 MR LORD: You must be very persuasive. Thank you very much.
12 accounts. 12 Thank you, my Lord.
13 A. Oh right. 13 MR STROILOV: My Lord, do you have any questions arising out
14 Q. I think you were just asked a question about it. Can 14 of Mr Lord’s questions?
15 you at the bottom of the page, which shows that 2007? 15 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: No, no. Do you have any?
16 A. Right, I’ve got it, yes. 16 MR STROILOV: No, my Lord. May the witness then be
17 Q. If you are a lender, if you one of those banks that you 17 released?
18 described as the blue chip banks, and you have been told 18 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Well, Mr Bromley-Martin, first of all,
19 by Oxus on behalf of a borrower that they have sunk 19 and knowing that you have not been paid for this, I’m
20 US $140 million of their own equity into the project, 20 very grateful for your attendance and your assistance.
21 and then you look at the accounts that you are bound to 21 Second of all, I won’t formally release you for the
22 get to see. 22 moment, the reason being that Mr Lord, it is just
23 A. Mm hmm. 23 possible, will call for a statement to be made so that
24 Q. And then you see, well, actually, it looks as if 24 he can cross-examine you on it and take you up on your
25 certainly OMGP, the owners have only ever put in a few 25 offer to return. I hope, and slightly sense, that that
37 39

1 thousand roubles.

2 Now, you would expect an equity contribution,

3 wouldn’t you, to show up in these accounts; you would

4 expect that to be recorded in these accounts somewhere?

5 A. Not necessarily in ordinary share capital. They might

6 be in the form — as I explained, people like Macquarie

7 put in equity in the form of mezzanine debt. So you use

8 this expression quasi equity.

9 Q. Mr Bromley-Martin, you are searching for excuses. Isn’t

10 the most natural reaction of a possible lender to be

11 very concerned that they have been told that

12 $140 million of equity has gone into a project already

13 and they can’t see that in the accounts and it is plain

14 that it hasn’t. Wouldn’t that be a big red flag? They

15 are being lied to, aren’t they? They are being told

16 that money is being put in by the founders or owners

17 that hasn’t gone in. It is like me saying to the bank:

18 I have put X million pounds into this business of my own

19 money, can I have some of your money? And it turns out

20 I haven’t put any in. It is just misleading, isn’t it,

21 really? Do you agree with that?

22 A. I do agree with that. As I said yesterday, one has to

23 rely on the information given to you by the clients.

24 Q. I am not criticising you, but to pick up your point

25 earlier, if you are one of these reputable lenders, you

1 may not be necessary, but it is good of you to confirm

2 that you would be prepared to do that if needs be.

3 A. I am abroad for two weeks, sir, but I am back on the

4 22nd or 23rd.

5 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Right. I hope it is an enjoyable

6 trip. Thank you very much for your help.

7 A. Thank you.

8 MR STROILOV: Yes, my Lord, I’m sorry for my ignorance.

9 I assume that even though you haven’t formally released

10 Mr Bromley-Martin, he is now free to talk about the case

11 with people?

12 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: I don’t think he should discuss this

13 case. I will discuss with Mr Lord whether he is free to

14 discuss on all matters except the additional material.

15 MR STROILOV: Yes, my Lord. I was wondering whether before

16 I call Mr Nazarov, I would be grateful for a 10-minute

17 break.

18 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Certainly.

19 MR STROILOV: Because first of all I forgot, there is

20 something I would like to discuss with

21 Mr Bromley-Martin, and perhaps I had better do it in

22 court because of the uncertainty. Firstly, I am afraid

23 it is my fault, I forgot that your Lordship requested

24 photographs of all witnesses, so that’s some

25 organisational aspect I would like to address with

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

March 3, 2016 Day 21 Redacted

1 Mr Bromley-Martin before he goes.

2 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Yes, sorry about that.

3 A. Sorry, mea culpa, sir, I pulled the photograph out and

4 in the mad dash to pack it got left on my office desk.

5 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: That’s all right, you can send it

6 later.

7 MR STROILOV: Then I would simply welcome the chance before

8 Mr Bromley-Martin goes just to thank him and say goodbye

9 outside court.

10 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: I am sure that is permissible.

11 Mr Lord, I’m minded to think that the purdah should

12 continue with respect to anything relating to the

13 dollar/TEU but I’m not sure that we will ever hear from

14 this witness again on any other matter.

15 MR LORD: I am happy with that, my Lord.

16 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: All right. So you will be thanked in

17 the 10 minutes, and thank you.

18 (11.34 am)

19 (A short break)

20 (11.45 am)

21 MR STROILOV: May it please your Lordship, contrary to what

22 I indicated, actually I forgot, I did tell

23 Mr Bromley-Martin that your Lordship wants a photograph

24 and he did bring one. Is it a good idea to hand it up

25 now, or should I perhaps e-mail it through?

1 Mr Nazarov, is this your signature?

2 A. Yes, it is.

3 Q. And have you had an opportunity to re-read this

4 statement recently?

5 A. Yes, of course.

6 Q. Is it true to the best of your knowledge and belief?

7 A. Yes, yes, as far as I can judge of what I can read here,

8 this is correct.

9 Q. And do you want this statement to stand as your evidence

10 in this trial?

11 A. Yes.

12 MR STROILOV: Thank you, Mr Nazarov. My learned friend

13 Mr Lord will now ask you some questions.

14 Cross-examination by MR LORD

15 MR LORD: Mr Nazarov, you say in paragraph 1 of your witness

16 statement that you are a Russian attorney practising in

17 St Petersburg; can you see that, {C1/6/1}?

18 A. Yes, this is correct.

19 Q. How long have you been in practice as an attorney for?

20 A. From 2007.

21 Q. And are there rules of practice for a Russian attorney

22 in relation to the keeping of records?

23 A. It’s not regimented by law in any way, or by

24 intracorporate — the Bar community rules, it’s only of

25 recommendation nature, and every attorney, depending on

41 43
1 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: E-mail it through, that’s fine, and 1 the complexity of the case and on the volume of
2 Mr Lord is thereby reminded of his obligation to provide 2 material, can have some records or can have some drafts,
3 me with the witnesses past and future. 3 but it is not documented in any way.
4 MR STROILOV: Yes, my Lord, and I will take care of taking 4 Q. So is it your practice when operating as an attorney to
5 photographs of other witnesses on our side as well. 5 take notes of what may be important meetings?
6 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Yes. 6 A. In my diary, in my calendar, that sort of notes.
7 MR LORD: Or we can always add it. 7 Q. I’m not sure from that answer, really. Let’s say you
8 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Sooner rather than later, because 8 have a one-hour meeting with somebody who may have some
9 I like fixing them in my mind. 9 important information in relation to a dispute for
10 MR LORD: I was going to say rogue’s gallery, but I only 10 a client; is it your practice to take a note of that
11 meant it in a colloquial sense. 11 meeting so that you would have a written record of
12 MR STROILOV: May I call Mr Nazarov, please. Will 12 the contents of the meeting?
13 Mr Nazarov please come into the witness box. 13 A. All the client materials go into the attorney’s dossier
14 MR MIKHAIL EDUARDOVICH NAZAROV (Sworn) 14 as a set of documents, and the mandatory documents
15 (All questions and answers interpreted except where 15 should be minutes of the meeting, or some summary. I do
16 otherwise indicated) 16 not keep such documents, only if it’s necessary to
17 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Do sit down if you would prefer, have 17 reflect or to state the minutes in great details; for
18 some water, and if you need a break you must let me 18 example, if the client is a very complex one, so as to
19 know. 19 not have any dispute, and he would be understood by me
20 Examination-in-chief by MR STROILOV 20 with regard to the further tactics relating to the case.
21 MR STROILOV: Mr Nazarov, can you please be shown {C1/6/1}. 21 Q. Sorry, Mr Nazarov, I don’t really understand that last
22 Is this the first page of the witness statement — of 22 answer. I am not really focusing on where you might
23 your witness statement prepared for this trial? 23 keep the record or where you might make the note. It’s
24 A. Yes, this is correct. 24 really a first point, which is, as a point of principle,
25 Q. And could we please scroll down to page {C1/6/5}. 25 when you sit down to have a meeting with what might be
42 44
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

March 3, 2016 Day 21 Redacted

1 an important witness in a case, let’s say, or somebody 1 However, one needs to know that in the Russian Bar
2 who might give information about a case for a client of 2 practice, in my experience and my colleagues’
3 yours, you sit down with them and you have a meeting 3 experience — and I have many colleagues in
4 with them and you ask them things and they tell you 4 St Petersburg — there is no such intracorporate
5 things, is it your practice that you would make a note, 5 discipline for the Bar Association members. Each Bar
6 either writing or typing, so that you have a record of 6 Association member decides for themselves how to
7 that meeting? 7 document their work with their clients. The important
8 I’m not sure, from that last answer, what your 8 thing is that a result would be achieved for that
9 approach is. 9 client.
10 A. As I understood your question, sir, the question was 10 Q. So, Mr Nazarov, do you, on occasion, make what I would
11 whether that is done as some official documented record 11 call an attendance note of a meeting with someone?
12 of a client meeting, ie to always be able to open and 12 A. As I mentioned, this is all individual with regard to
13 see what was done, or are you discussing some draft 13 each client and with regard to the complexity of
14 notes, sir? Of course, during the meeting it could be 14 the case. If there is a large volume of information at
15 anything, it could be some doodles, some sort of ongoing 15 the meetings and the client communicates that to me, or
16 working note, and after the meeting, some position is 16 it calls for noting some facts, I simply take my
17 clear to me and I would type it up as an official 17 notebook and make notes what is important, some main
18 document, for example, a petition, and that becomes 18 points, and after the meeting with the client I would
19 an official document and there is no need to keep the 19 then work with his materials to prepare our position and
20 drafts. The drafts are simply drafts, and this is what 20 not to miss any important points, and to draw my
21 they are, but then they would be destroyed, and they do 21 attention to these specific points.
22 not form part of the attorney’s dossier, as it should 22 But in so many cases, this is simply not called for.
23 be. 23 Q. And you mentioned a notebook; do you keep a sort of
24 Q. Right. I think from that last answer you are saying 24 counsel or attorney’s notebook?
25 that you would tend to keep at least some sort of record 25 A. Well, these are simply drafts, simply notebooks for

45

1 of the meeting so that you could see what you might —

2 what use you might need to make of it subsequently;

3 would that be fair?

4 A. That would be an individual matter with regard to each

5 case: there could be a simple case, and after meeting

6 the client that furnished the documents, some documents

7 would be with the official authorities, and then one

8 could go and familiarise oneself with them. Then there

9 is no need to draft it for some internal report for

10 an aide-memoire. As a rule, that sort of note taking is

11 not done.

12 But as I mentioned, if it’s a complex case then

13 I keep some notes, but only as drafts, in draft form, in

14 order to make it clear to myself.

15 Q. Because a lawyer or attorney, let’s say in the UK, would

16 have a practice of making what are called attendance

17 notes; have you heard of that expression, Mr Nazarov?

18 A. I have an idea what it means.

19 Q. And what’s that?

20 A. Every meeting is held and some notes are being taken and

21 the minutes of the meetings are being kept, the result

22 has been noted in order to show it to the client in case

23 any misunderstanding might present itself between the

24 attorney and their client in the practice of the case

25 proceedings for that specific client.

47

1 making notes. It lives for no longer — it only lives

2 until the proper documents is prepared based on the

3 meeting results. No more than that.

4 Q. So do you have no notebooks in your possession that

5 would record meetings you have had in the past?

6 A. No. No, I do not.

7 Q. You mean you have no notebooks?

8 A. That is correct.

9 Q. Could you look, please, at {C1/6/1}, which is your

10 witness statement, and the first paragraph, please, and

11 you say this:

12 «Since early 2010, I represent the First defendant

13 in this case, Mr Vitaly Arkhangelsky, in relation to

14 the criminal cases investigated against him in

15 St Petersburg.»

16 Can his Lordship take it that you still represent

17 Mr Arkhangelsky?

18 A. Yes, Mr Arkhangelsky did not deny my assistance,

19 however, the criminal cases that are mentioned in my

20 statement are suspended today, so there are no

21 investigative actions. At least, the investigator does

22 not inform about them, and accordingly, my role and my

23 participation in that is virtually non-existent.

24 So, actually, I haven’t been involved in these cases

25 for five years, and effectively the case has been

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

March 3, 2016 Day 21 Redacted

1 suspended in legal terms, and in practical terms, it is

2 basically virtually closed.

3 Q. I understand, and when were these criminal cases against

4 Dr Arkhangelsky suspended?

5 A. I think it was in 2011 or perhaps in 2012. As a matter

6 of fact, during that time, the investigator did do

7 certain things and she suspended those things. She did

8 conduct certain investigatory things and for that she

9 needed to change the status of her investigation.

10 Certain things were suspended, put on the back-burner

11 and then they were resumed.

12 At the same time, during that period of time, I was

13 not always in attendance because there are lots of

14 things that the investigator does on her own within the

15 framework of her criminal investigation, and in very few

16 cases she actually required to keep the attorney

17 informed.

18 Q. But is it right that you still are Mr Arkhangelsky’s

19 attorney in relation to those cases? That as at today,

20 you still are instructed by him? You still represent

21 him if anything needs to be done?

22 A. Yes.

23 Q. And do you represent Dr Arkhangelsky in relation to any

24 other matters? I don’t want the detail, I just want the

25 particular dispute or proceedings; are there any other

1 A. That is true, yes.

2 Q. And do you still represent Mrs Arkhangelsky?

3 A. No. No longer. The matters on which I used to act for

4 her have now been closed.

5 Q. And if you look in paragraph 1, you say this in the last

6 sentence:

7 «I am not presently paid for that work because of

8 the Defendants’ impecuniosity.»

9 Can you see that, the end of the first paragraph?

10 A. Yes, yes, of course.

11 Q. And then you go on to say:

12 «… but taking account of their difficult

13 situation, I am prepared to wait for payment until their

14 financial situation improves.»

15 Can you see that?

16 A. Yes.

17 Q. And I think it is fair, Mr Nazarov, to point out that

18 I think this statement is a statement you gave

19 in January 2014, isn’t it? I think if we go to the last

20 page, unless my copy is wrong, {C1/6/5}.

21 A. Yes. That must have been the case.

22 Q. Yes. So to go back to page 1, if that’s all right,

23 please, {C1/6/1}, when you say:

24 «… because of the Defendants’ impecuniosity.»

25 I am assuming from that statement that you are

49

1 respects in which you are retained on behalf of

2 Dr Arkhangelsky?

3 A. No, not as of today. The criminal cases that you have

4 just referred to are just something that I would

5 describe as a remainder, or the remnants of our previous

6 cooperation because those cases have been suspended and

7 Vitaly has not renounced my instruction, he is still

8 instructing me. But because those matters have been put

9 on the back-burner, I am still considered to be his

10 attorney and there are no other matters in which I act

11 for Mr Arkhangelsky.

12 Q. And have you acted for Dr Arkhangelsky over, let’s say,

13 since 2009, in relation to any other matters apart from

14 these criminal investigations in Russia?

15 A. Yes, there have been a few, possibly. Possibly.

16 Q. And don’t go into the detail of them, but what sorts of

17 assistance have you been providing to him?

18 A. Well, again, I would have to go back to my records, but

19 there may have been some civil law related actions or

20 matters.

21 Q. Right. Because you say in your witness statement that

22 you also represent the second defendant,

23 Mrs Arkhangelsky, in relation to the enforcement

24 proceedings brought by the Bank in Russia; can you see

25 that?

51

1 relying on what you have been told by the defendants as

2 opposed to your own independent investigation of

3 the defendants’ means and their assets; is that

4 a correct assumption of mine, or not?

5 A. Well, first of all, of course, I did trust and I still

6 do trust Mr Vitaly Arkhangelsky, and so far as their

7 financial situation is concerned, I do know, because

8 I was acting for Julia Arkhangelsky as well, I know that

9 all the financial claims against her were based, or were

10 sort of derived from the claims that had been made

11 against Mr Arkhangelsky, therefore, I had no reason to

12 doubt what Mr Vitaly Arkhangelsky had told me in

13 the sense that he said that he was in a situation of

14 impecuniosity, that enforcement action was being taken

15 against him in Russia, and outside of Russia I knew that

16 certain injunction had been handed out in France against

17 him, therefore I knew that even if he did have some

18 limited funds, I had no doubt that he actually could not

19 afford an attorney. So I had no reason not to believe

20 him.

21 Q. So should we really put into that bit of evidence of

22 yours the word «alleged», «because of the defendants’

23 alleged impecuniosity». I mean, as far as you are

24 concerned, it is what Dr Arkhangelsky says, isn’t it,

25 rather than something you have actually verified

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

March 3, 2016 Day 21 Redacted

1 yourself. If you have verified it, I will ask you some

2 more questions about it, so be clear where this is

3 going: if you know about the Arkhangelskys’ assets and

4 resources, subject to privilege, I will ask you about

5 them. It’s up to you. And I assume that you didn’t

6 know about them.

7 A. Absolutely. Obviously I do not know exactly what takes

8 place. I know that certain claims have been made

9 against him, and obviously his financial situation was

10 obviously quite difficult, and obviously I did not

11 conduct any due diligence, I did not verify his words,

12 I did not look into the details of what assets he might

13 have had in Russia or elsewhere. I did not conduct any

14 kind of investigation along those lines.

15 Q. I would like to ask you, please, about one document that

16 I think has been disclosed recently from within your

17 possession. Could you be shown {D197/2951/0.1}, please,

18 and the Russian text starts at {D197/2951/1}.

19 Now, Mr Nazarov, this is a document that was

20 disclosed on Sunday evening by Mr Stroilov, I think on

21 Sunday evening, which I think we were told came from

22 your records; is that right?

23 A. Yes, that is correct.

24 Q. And it seems to be something called a «Clarification»,

25 dated 5 May 2009, and it appears to be a document made

1 police checks that were being run against him, and so

2 that document, Mr Vasiliev’s clarification, as it is

3 called, was part of the bundle.

4 Q. And do you have files or some other store of documents

5 that have come into your possession as a result of

6 representing Dr or Mrs Arkhangelsky?

7 A. Yes, of course I do have the records.

8 Q. And how extensive are they? How many documents are we

9 talking about, do you think? How many files? How many

10 bits of paper?

11 A. Well, it’s a rather voluminous record, I would say two

12 large boxes like the boxes that we have at the bottom of

13 the courtroom here. So two, maybe three boxes of

14 materials. But that is my attorney’s dossier. Some of

15 them are relevant, others may not be relevant. Part of

16 it is, obviously, privileged information.

17 Q. Right, and as Dr Arkhangelsky and Mrs Arkhangelsky’s

18 attorney, you would hold some of those documents on

19 their behalf, wouldn’t you? They would be, in effect,

20 their documents, wouldn’t they? Some of those

21 documents?

22 A. Not exactly. Those were the documents that I received

23 in my capacity as their attorney, when I was acting for

24 them.

25 Q. Yes.

53 55
1 and signed by Mr Vasiliev; is that right? If we go to 1 A. So those dossiers included my applications to the court,
2 {D197/2951/0.10} or {D197/2851/10}, we can see why 2 to the investigator, the replies that I received, if
3 I said that; is that right? 3 any, the documents which I received from the opponents,
4 A. Yes, now I can see the Russian text. It looks like 4 that kind of documentation. Whatever I was able to
5 Mr Vasiliev’s signature. 5 gather, put together in the — while acting in
6 Q. And can you explain to his Lordship why you would have 6 the interests of my clients.
7 a document like this made by Mr Vasiliev? 7 Now, if you are referring to Vitaly’s and Julia’s
8 A. As I mentioned in my witness statement, where 8 documents, then I presume that you mean their personal
9 I described my work together with Erokhin and 9 documents such as, for instance, copies of their
10 Ms Abarina, the first being an attorney and the second 10 passports or other documents, and obviously if those
11 being just a lawyer, and I am referring to paragraph 14 11 documents are part of those bundles, that would be
12 in my witness statement. In February 2010 I had 12 something minimal. This would be something that
13 a meeting with him at Vitaly Arkhangelsky’s request, 13 I received —
14 because I was just beginning to act and to gather the 14 Q. Yes.
15 information that would then allow me to decide on 15 A. — while acting on my own, not directly from them.
16 certain tactics with respect to our defence within the 16 Q. I understand. I was really focusing, Mr Nazarov, on the
17 framework of the criminal case and other matters. 17 documents that you described at the beginning of that
18 So Mr Arkhangelsky asked me to meet Mr Erokhin and 18 last answer, namely the documents that you received in
19 Ms Abarina so that they could bring me up to speed to 19 your capacity as Dr Arkhangelsky and Mrs Arkhangelsky’s
20 the extent that they were aware of certain things and 20 attorney; not their personal information.
21 acts, and I received a bundle from them, and that 21 A. If I did receive anything from Vitaly directly, that was
22 document, Mr Vasiliev’s clarification, was part of that 22 really minimal because obviously he was in France, I was
23 bundle. There were quite a few documents there with 23 in Russia, and the investigation was not being actually
24 respect to different parts and episodes of the criminal 24 pursued, so I gathered those documents on my own using
25 case initiated by Arkhangelsky and against him, various 25 whatever sources were available to me from third
54 56
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

March 3, 2016 Day 21 Redacted

1 parties, from the investigator, and so on and so forth.

2 That was the way I put together my attorney’s dossier.

3 Q. Have you been asked at any stage by Dr Arkhangelsky or

4 Mrs Arkhangelsky to make those documents that you got in

5 your capacity as their attorney, to make those documents

6 available in case they should be disclosed in these

7 proceedings with the Bank of St Petersburg?

8 A. Well, not that he asked me to do that as my client.

9 There may have been instances where a document cropped

10 up as part of my files, something that I received from

11 third parties, and a document that I needed to discuss

12 with my client, I would obviously discuss that via

13 e-mail correspondence, I would have scanned the document

14 and sent it to him by e-mail, because lots of documents

15 were related to the criminal files. They were either

16 photocopied or photographed, and then we would then

17 exchange those documents.

18 Q. And presumably when you acted in your capacity as his

19 attorney, you also came by some documents in relation to

20 some of the civil proceedings that you described

21 earlier. I don’t want to go into the detail, but you

22 must have some documents that relate to Russian civil

23 proceedings; is that right?

24 A. Well, while acting for Julia Arkhangelskaya, obviously

25 I did seize some documents, court documents, because

1 Q. But we can take it, can’t we, Mr Nazarov, that you have

2 certain original documents in your files that relate to

3 matters you have done for the Arkhangelskys?

4 A. Possibly so. I may have retained Russian court

5 judgments or some interim decisions, court decisions.

6 It’s not really an original, it’s a certified copy.

7 A copy certified by a seal of the court, but it’s not

8 the original.

9 Q. But you would have kept original powers of attorney,

10 I think you just said as much, didn’t you, Mr Nazarov?

11 A. Well, they may be either in my possession or, as

12 sometimes happens to avoid any dispute with a client, if

13 I need to do something, like, for instance, have a court

14 judgment registered, for instance, if some property

15 needs to be entered into the Land Registry on the basis

16 of the court decision, then obviously the original of

17 the power of attorney goes to the state agency, the

18 registration agency in this case, and they keep it, they

19 get to keep the original. This does not, in any way,

20 impinge upon the interests of the client, and this is

21 really the last thing that an attorney ever does for the

22 client.

23 Q. Have you heard of a solicitors firm in England called

24 Withers?

25 A. Not that I can recall that.

57 59

1 I was involved in the various enforcement proceedings

2 and obviously I did see some of those materials, yes.

3 Q. But I think you have confirmed that you have never been

4 asked to produce that material for the purposes of

5 potential disclosure of it in the course of these

6 English civil proceedings; that’s right, isn’t it?

7 A. I have no recollection of that, really. I do not recall

8 being asked to do that, but to give an example,

9 Mr Stroilov asked me, on Mr Arkhangelsky’s behalf, to

10 make certain documents available to him, because, you

11 know, one lawyer asks another lawyer who was in charge

12 of some other matters, thinking that he might have some

13 other documents available to him, in that case I

14 understood that whatever Mr Stroilov was asking me to do

15 was at the request of Mr Arkhangelsky, but this was

16 really a one-off. It was between attorneys, between two

17 professionals, but it was not something by way of

18 an official request from a client in the sense that

19 certain documents had to be disclosed.

20 Russian practice is that all the originals,

21 including the power of attorney, has to be handed over

22 if I stop acting for a client, unless the client wants

23 me to keep those documents.

24 Once I stop acting for a client, I have to hand them

25 over.

1 Q. So I think it would follow from that last answer,

2 Mr Nazarov, that you have never been asked by anybody

3 from a firm called Withers to produce any documents for

4 the purposes of these proceedings involving the

5 Arkhangelskys in England?

6 A. No one asked me to do that, no.

7 Q. Have you ever been asked by Mr Stroilov to produce those

8 documents for the purposes of these proceedings in

9 England?

10 A. As I have already mentioned, he asked me by way of

11 friendly cooperation to do that. He did not say that it

12 was needed for the purposes of the proceedings. He said

13 he needed that for his work, and he did not really

14 specify any documents. He just wanted to go through

15 some records, and he may have described certain

16 categories of documents so that some information of

17 interest to him could be then gleaned and then passed

18 over to him.

19 Q. Yes. So his Lordship can take it, can’t he, that when

20 Mr Stroilov asks you for information or access to these

21 documents, you give it; is that right?

22 A. Well, not the entire access, because this is covered by

23 the attorney-client privilege, but if he asks me to do

24 certain things, I would either ask Vitaly for permission

25 to do that, or, based on my prior dealings with

58 60
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

March 3, 2016 Day 21 Redacted

1 Vitaly Arkhangelsky, I understand that he has given me

2 a blank permission, as it were, for those documents to

3 be disclosed to third parties, because Pavel Stroilov is

4 a third party, even though he is a colleague of mine

5 within the framework of these proceedings, but because

6 I am not an attorney in these proceedings, for me he is

7 a third party in terms of my relationship with Vitaly.

8 Therefore, if Pavel Stroilov asks me a question,

9 I first try to determine whether or not that information

10 can be disclosed to him at all to begin with, then

11 I would normally ask him why he needs that information,

12 in what form that information he would like to be

13 disclosed to him, not to mention the fact that, for all

14 I know, sometimes it may so happen that I simply do not

15 have that information available to me.

16 Q. But as far as you are concerned, Mr Nazarov, if the

17 Arkhangelskys agreed, there would be no problem, would

18 there, with you providing the documents that you have

19 kept from acting as their attorney, no problem with

20 making those available to see if they were relevant

21 documents that should be disclosed in these English

22 proceedings? There is no other issue, is there? No

23 other problem?

24 A. In principle, my answer would be, yes, I agree with what

25 you have just said.

1 you, this was correspondence between two colleagues

2 without making reference to any court documents,

3 including this particular order, where he said — where

4 Mr Stroilov said that he would need some documents and

5 it was a list — a generic list of documents which he

6 thought might be in my possession.

7 But I was not aware of this order. The only order

8 that was made available to me by Vitaly Arkhangelsky, he

9 e-mailed that order to me, and that was the order which

10 said that I was going to be called as a witness, and

11 there was some date that was proposed there, and I think

12 it was the end of December 2015, but I am not sure.

13 But I do not believe that that particular order

14 referred to any disclosure or documents at all.

15 Mr Stroilov asked me to conduct a search of documents,

16 but, as I have already mentioned, this was within the

17 framework of our relationship as between colleagues, by

18 way of friendly assistance, as it were, and therefore it

19 was not something that was at the top of my agenda, or

20 something urgent. I thought that this was something

21 that could wait, on the understanding that I have not

22 been acting for Mr Arkhangelsky for the past five years,

23 and any document search would require a lot of time and

24 effort, both my time and that of my assistants, and mind

25 you, there are quite a few matters that I’m involved in

61

1 Q. And I wonder, Mr Nazarov, could you be shown, please,

2 {J1/20/1}. Sorry to take you out of your statement.

3 This was an order that was made in these proceedings by

4 his Lordship for, amongst other things, various searches

5 for documents to be carried out by the parties; do you

6 understand that, Mr Nazarov? Do you understand the

7 point?

8 A. Not entirely. I mean, I understand what the order says.

9 Q. Yes.

10 A. But I am not sure I understand exactly what you mean

11 when you refer to document searches.

12 Q. Yes. I don’t think it matters very much, but are you

13 aware that the court made an order in these proceedings

14 for disclosure of various documents that were

15 potentially held by you? Are you aware that that sort

16 of order was made?

17 A. This order is dated 23 September and 23 October 2015.

18 I am not aware of this order, this specific order.

19 Q. You have never been made aware of an order of

20 the English court for disclosure of documents by the

21 Arkhangelskys that were held by you as their attorney;

22 is that right?

23 A. As I have already mentioned, I was not aware of this

24 particular order, but I did have some correspondence

25 with Mr Stroilov to the effect that — and, again, mind

63

1 in Russia, I have quite a busy schedule, plus I had some

2 electronic records.

3 So when it became obvious that I would have to give

4 evidence in court, and based on my correspondence with

5 Mr Stroilov, I tried to look for some documents, some

6 materially important documents in my records, including

7 the e-mails, and all the documents that I had available

8 to me were made available as soon as it transpired that

9 I would have to give evidence as a witness.

10 Q. So, to be clear for his Lordship, what documents did

11 Mr Stroilov ask you to look for?

12 A. By and large, those were documents that could support my

13 witness statement, the various matters that I describe

14 in my witness statement: Some documented records,

15 memoranda of conversations with Vinarsky, with Erokhin,

16 that kind of document. Some documents that might

17 support or might offer additional support to what

18 I describe in my witness statement.

19 Q. Could you be shown {J1/20/9}, please, Mr Nazarov? Were

20 you ever sent by Mr Stroilov a copy of this schedule?

21 A. No. Never.

22 Q. And can you see paragraph 5 sets out — there is

23 a reference to documents held by you; can you see that?

24 A. Yes, I can see that.

25 Q. Did Mr Stroilov ever ask you to look for those sorts of

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

March 3, 2016 Day 21 Redacted

1 documents or not?

2 A. Well, I have cast my eye over it. That was about the

3 extent of documents that we discussed in our

4 correspondence. As I said, if we are talking about

5 paragraphs 10 to 13, that’s pertaining to the meetings

6 with Vinarsky and Kapustin. Paragraph 14 is as

7 regards meeting Erokhin and Abarina, so by the time

8 I came to court to give evidence, we have discovered the

9 bundle in the archives, the scans of electronic

10 documents, and I have forwarded them to Mr Stroilov.

11 This is concerning the meeting with Mr Erokhin and

12 Ms Abarina.

13 Q. When do you think you were asked to look for those

14 documents? When did Mr Stroilov ask you to look for

15 them?

16 A. That was around November 2015, or thereabouts.

17 Q. And did you look for them when he asked you in November?

18 A. I told him that, firstly, that happened a long time ago,

19 that is to do with 2010, so possibly that I did not have

20 those documents in my possession, but to be more

21 accurate on the matter, of course, one needed to go

22 through the archives, and I told him that we will

23 endeavour to do that ASAP, based on my workload with

24 regard to other cases. This is what I told him.

25 Q. And did Mr Stroilov ever ask you on a subsequent

1 A. — with regard to the work that has already been done

2 with regard to criminal cases, of course, I would have

3 gone back to them based on my workload, and that would

4 have been treated as my active work on the suspended

5 criminal cases in his regard.

6 In that case, that would have been documented in our

7 future settlements, despite the fact that he cannot pay

8 for my services now. So we would have done it in some

9 such way, or I would have proposed to him to contact

10 another attorney in St Petersburg. I don’t know on what

11 terms they would have agreed to do that, but that

12 attorney would have, upon permission from

13 Vitaly Arkhangelsky, would have come to me and collected

14 the documents and, of course, I have several cases that

15 need my active assistance as an attorney, so I was not

16 prepared to spend my time.

17 Of course, if I had his Lordship’s order pertaining

18 to the documents, of course we would have been asking

19 questions of Mr Arkhangelsky more specifically with

20 regard to the importance of what has to be done and how

21 these matters should be treated.

22 Q. Can we go, please, to {C1/6/1}, Mr Nazarov, and to

23 the last sentence of that, where you say:

24 «I am prepared to wait for payment until their

25 financial situation improves.»

65

1 occasion, in other words, after November last year, to

2 look for these documents? Did he say: come on,

3 Mr Nazarov, can you please look for these documents

4 because they are needed in the proceedings in England;

5 did he ask you that?

6 A. Yes, he wrote to me about that prior to the new year, at

7 the end of December 2015, and thereabouts he also told

8 me that that would be clarified and, yes, the order was

9 forwarded to me as well, with regard to the date of my

10 taking part in the hearing, that was set as 1 March and,

11 as I said, I treated Mr Stroilov’s requests as requests

12 of a friendly nature between two colleagues and not as

13 something pertaining to documents that has to be

14 provided straight to the court, directly to the court.

15 So I did not have any document with regard to these

16 documents having high legal importance, and they had to

17 be provided to court because the judge would need them.

18 I can see that his Lordship made an order in October.

19 Of course, should I have been made aware of that,

20 I would have asked Mr Arkhangelsky, and I would have

21 said some resources had to be expended to study the

22 archives, some time has to be expended, and of course

23 that would have meant that I had to come back to

24 the documents, to the archive documents —

25 Q. Yes.

67

1 Can you see that?

2 A. Yes.

3 Q. I don’t want to know the actual amount of money, but is

4 there some sort of contingency or condition or agreement

5 with the Arkhangelskys, in other words, that you are

6 going to be paid your fees in the future if certain

7 things happen?

8 A. I would be able to say that there was an agreement.

9 Firstly, as I already mentioned, with regard to active

10 work on criminal cases, there is no such work going on

11 at this point in time, and should any investigative

12 actions have been activated, reactivated, of course, the

13 matter about payment for my services would have arisen.

14 For example, searching for documents in the archives,

15 that is also work. That could have been paid for in

16 the future, but speaking about payment terms, the terms

17 would presume that I currently would be acting in

18 defence of Mr Arkhangelsky, and should I need any work

19 to be done, that work ought to be paid for in

20 the future, should his financial situation improve.

21 But, in any case, if this work would have been

22 excessively huge, we would have simply discussed the

23 matter and I would have suggested he contacts another

24 attorney whose services he could pay for or who would be

25 prepared to wait. Currently I am assisting him on the

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

March 3, 2016 Day 21 Redacted

1 condition that if anything extraordinary would happen

2 and my legal assistance would be called for, I would not

3 deny that assistance to him.

4 Q. Sorry, I took you to it originally, and I have to go

5 back. {D197/2951/0.1} and {D197/2951/1}, this is the

6 clarification document that Mr Vasiliev, I think,

7 drafted, and you have explained, Mr Nazarov, how this

8 document came into your possession, but I wanted to ask

9 you about the contents of it, please, because if you

10 look at the first page, {D197/2951/0.1} and

11 {D197/2951/1} in the Russian, it is dated 5 May 2009,

12 isn’t it? Can you see that?

13 A. Yes, I can.

14 Q. And you can see what Mr Vasiliev has said in this

15 document. He said, about halfway down:

16 «On the subject matter of the questions asked, I can

17 explain the following. At the beginning of 2009, I was

18 approached by Julia … Arkhangelsky, a participant in

19 Oslo Marine Group LLC, who informed me of

20 the following…»

21 Can you see that?

22 A. Yes.

23 Q. In other words, it looks from Mr Vasiliev’s 5 May 2009

24 document that he was approached by Mrs Arkhangelskaya in

25 relation to this issue about the transfer of the shares

1 specifically it was, I think, Mr Vasiliev who shown me

2 a document, allegedly signed by myself, saying that I’ve

3 sold my share for a very small amount of money.»

4 Can you see that, Mr Nazarov?

5 A. Yes.

6 Q. So Mrs Arkhangelsky seemed to be saying under oath that

7 the information came from Mr Vasiliev, and Mr Vasiliev

8 seemed to be saying that the information came from

9 Mrs Arkhangelsky. Can you see that those, on the face

10 of it, are potentially contradictory statements? Can

11 you see that?

12 A. I wouldn’t be able to judge. I could only comment that,

13 on the face of the text that we looked at in paragraph

14 number 1, Mr Vasiliev — if we look at what it says in

15 the Russian text — he simply states the fact that

16 Mrs Arkhangelsky contacted him in 2009, and he states

17 the source — he does not state the source of his

18 information about the facts.

19 Q. Right.

20 A. So I think that assertion would be wrong, that there is

21 any connection between these two statements. I, of

22 course, surmise that Mr Vasiliev, being a lawyer, was

23 gathering information —

24 Q. Yes.

25 A. — from some third source and garnered that information

69 71
1 in Scandinavia Insurance Company; can you see that? 1 from a third party.
2 A. Well, I can — it’s not obvious to me from these two 2 Q. Would there be other documents in your files potentially
3 paragraphs. It’s mentioning some other companies, 3 that would relate to this sort of issue, this question
4 «Gram-Bell», and some other companies. 4 of the transfer of the shares in Western Terminal and
5 Q. And if you go over the page, you can see that 5 Scandinavia Insurance? It doesn’t matter what
6 Mr Vasiliev is saying that I think Mrs Arkhangelsky 6 proceedings they relate to, but that go to that
7 provided him with various information {D197/2951/0.2}, 7 particular point; do you see what I mean?
8 {D197/2951/2}, and you can see that it goes on to refer 8 A. With regard to the Western Terminal? Perhaps a very
9 to a complaint or issue as to whether or not this 9 small number of documents, the ones that I became aware
10 transfer was really a gift; can you see that? 10 of within the criminal proceedings.
11 A. Yes. 11 Q. Yes.
12 Q. And the reason I want to ask you about it, Mr Nazarov, 12 A. There was an episode there with regard to
13 is that when Mrs Arkhangelsky gave her evidence — if we 13 the Western Terminal, and it concerns not as much the
14 could have {Day17/86:1}, please. When Mrs Arkhangelsky 14 transfer of shares, but rather some financial
15 was asked about some of these matters by me in these 15 consequences of bank loans issued to Western Terminal,
16 proceedings, you can see there, Mr Nazarov, that I asked 16 but perhaps there might be some intracorporate documents
17 Mrs Arkhangelsky about the evidence she gave in relation 17 confirming the transfer of shares between the entities,
18 to this complaint she made in Russia about the transfer 18 so the documents that were post factum drawn up with
19 of shares in Western Terminal and Scandinavia Insurance. 19 regard to the deal itself, but not with regard to
20 And I asked her in line 19: 20 the deal’s circumstances. The rest of the documents are
21 «Question: And how did you get that understanding? 21 within the possession of the investigators and, of
22 How was that understanding derived? Where did the 22 course, they were not disclosed as of today.
23 information come from?» 23 Q. And have the documents that you just described in your
24 She said: 24 possession, have you made those available to
25 «Answer: From the group’s lawyers, and more 25 Mr Stroilov?
70 72
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

March 3, 2016 Day 21 Redacted

1 A. I think that Mr Arkhangelsky has these documents in his

2 possession. Firstly, Mr Stroilov didn’t request me to

3 provide these documents with regard to the transfer of

4 shares or anything pertaining to Western Terminal, but

5 in any case, should I have received such a request from

6 him, I would have forwarded that to Mr Arkhangelsky and

7 asked him to look in his archives, because if any

8 question of signature or a similar matter, or whether he

9 recalls any circumstances, if the question of that

10 matter would arise, that would be all the circumstances

11 of 2010, I reckon that Mr Arkhangelsky would not be able

12 to find these in his archives and would still come back

13 to me to see if I could find something. But,

14 nevertheless, Mr Stroilov did not send such a request to

15 me.

16 Q. And you think that Dr Arkhangelsky has an archive of

17 documents? From that last answer, it seemed as if you

18 thought that.

19 A. Not an archive base, per se.

20 Q. But some records?

21 A. But perhaps an archive of some correspondence. I’m

22 using e-mail and these things are being stored up for

23 a while and then they’ve been deleted after a while. So

24 that’s what I meant when I mentioned an archive.

25 I simply surmised that, based on our relationship

1 what that includes, if anything?

2 A. First of all, I analysed the documents disclosed to me

3 after my contacting the investigators, Madame

4 Levitskaya, and when I contacted Madame Levitskaya in

5 order to gather the information with regard to the stage

6 of the proceedings, what do the investigators have in

7 their plans, how to carry on the criminal proceedings,

8 so based on these sources first and foremost, and

9 subsequently, the investigators contacted the court in

10 order to obtain order to arrest of Mr Arkhangelsky, and

11 further searches, and they justified their requests and

12 disclosed some documents within that procedure and

13 I have familiarised myself with them, and thus garnered

14 the information.

15 Q. Have you kept copies of those documents?

16 A. I think so. I think we need to discuss and study the

17 issue, but I think it’s an important one.

18 Q. Have you kept copies of those documents, Mr Nazarov?

19 A. I still have a dossier. Overall, yes, of course, the

20 copies are there, I think so, to a certain extent

21 certainly.

22 Q. And have you sent that dossier to Mr Stroilov?

23 A. No, he didn’t ask me to do so.

24 Q. And were you allowed access to the investigator’s files

25 for the purposes of representing Dr Arkhangelsky?

73 75

1 practice with Dr Arkhangelsky, it usually is the case

2 that he sees a document, he forgets about the document

3 and he can’t find it and perhaps it’s been deleted.

4 Q. Could we have {C1/6/2}, Mr Nazarov, and paragraph 5 of

5 your witness statement, and I would like to ask you

6 about a sentence in that paragraph which reads as

7 follows, and you are describing some criminal cases

8 against Mr Arkhangelsky in Russia. You say:

9 «The evidence against Mr Arkhangelsky is

10 questionable to say the least.»

11 Can you see that? Can you see that?

12 A. Yes.

13 Q. Have you independently assessed the evidence which the

14 authorities have placed against Mr Arkhangelsky in this

15 regard?

16 A. Of course I have. In the course of drawing up the

17 defence tactics, of course I had some opinion of my own.

18 Q. I don’t really want your opinion. I want to establish

19 what, if any, review or assessment you have carried out

20 of the evidence that you are referring to here. I don’t

21 really want your sort of opinion, we can come to that,

22 I want to establish, really, for his Lordship’s benefit,

23 what sort of forensic investigations and assessments you

24 have yourself carried out, when and where and access to

25 what files and so on; do you want to tell his Lordship

1 A. Yes. When the matter was considered by court, about

2 whether to permit Mr Arkhangelsky’s arrest, I was

3 familiarised with the documents and I took photographs

4 of them.

5 Q. And presumably you have kept a record of those

6 photographs. You have photographs of that still? You

7 have kept the photographs?

8 A. I think so.

9 Q. So you have a photographic record, have you, of

10 the investigator’s file?

11 A. I would put it more precisely, of the court cases where

12 the investigator only disclosed the information she

13 deemed sufficient for the court to resolve the matter,

14 to rule on the matter of arrest.

15 Q. I see.

16 A. Of permitting the arrest. And I saw these documents

17 directly as part of the court case.

18 Q. And have you sent copies of those photographs to

19 Mr Stroilov?

20 A. He didn’t ask me about that.

21 Q. And if he had done, would there have been a problem with

22 your sending them to him?

23 A. That would be the same sort of problem as with the other

24 documents; that is, in order to find the documents in

25 an electronic archive, because it’s not in the current

74 76
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

March 3, 2016 Day 21 Redacted

1 folder, it’s not in the current use, some time would

2 have been spent and that should have been prioritised in

3 some way, and of course, it should have been coordinated

4 with Mr Arkhangelsky.

5 Q. Yes, and when you say in paragraph 5 of your witness

6 statement:

7 «The evidence against Mr Arkhangelsky is

8 questionable to say the least.»

9 What do you mean by «questionable»? What’s

10 questionable about it?

11 A. I am based on the presumption of innocence, ie in

12 Russia, if we haven’t got the court verdict saying that

13 Mr Arkhangelsky admitted his guilt in committing some

14 crimes, and the investigator has produced some evidence

15 and the evidence hasn’t been rated, therefore on the

16 totality of things we can say that — we cannot say that

17 he is guilty of committing something, or basically any

18 suspicions or any accusations on the part of

19 the investigations in his regard are not justified, are

20 unfounded.

21 Q. And that last answer you gave, that’s — his Lordship

22 can take it that that is the basis for your saying that

23 the evidence against Mr Arkhangelsky is questionable; is

24 that right?

25 A. Despite — apart from the fact that there could not,

1 A. And, of course, this investigator’s position contains

2 the evaluation of evidence on the prosecutor’s part, and

3 that evaluation as of today, with regard to

4 Mr Arkhangelsky’s charges, that evaluation is questioned

5 by me —

6 Q. I understand.

7 A. — acting as his defence, and I think what it says

8 there —

9 Q. Yes.

10 A. — it’s simply chinks in various chains which were

11 brought together and is being passed for some kind of

12 charge. It’s completely trumped up.

13 Q. I understand. But his Lordship can take it that you

14 have reviewed, and I think photographed, the written

15 evidence that the prosecutors rely upon; is that right?

16 In other words, that there is a record in your

17 possession of the evidence that you are reviewing in

18 paragraph 5 of your witness statement?

19 A. In essence I looked at — because the investigator, to

20 corroborate what she says in her official statements,

21 she produced the documents to the judge, to the extent

22 that she deemed fit. Some things were perhaps seen by

23 the court without disclosing them to the defence to

24 preserve the court privilege, and of course, the

25 documents that were shown to me, I did take photocopies

77 79

1 without a court verdict, say that that is a fact or

2 otherwise, but, in my opinion, the evidence — and

3 I said that in my witness statement — the evidence

4 produced by the investigator, indeed they are, to put it

5 this way — in my opinion they are insufficient, to say

6 the least, and they are trumped up pieces of some facts

7 that the investigator is trying to pass for a totality

8 of facts, witnessing the fact that Mr Arkhangelsky did

9 something unlawful.

10 Q. And is there any evidence that you have seen — from

11 that last answer it rather looks as though you have

12 reviewed some evidence that the prosecutors are relying

13 upon; is that right? That you have seen some bits of

14 evidence that they are relying upon; is that right?

15 A. Yes, of course. The investigators always outline their

16 position in some official petitions to court, some

17 statements, and the latest thing, there were two

18 verdicts about charges being brought against

19 Mr Arkhangelsky, and a statement about petitioning the

20 judge to arrest Mr Arkhangelsky, and in these documents,

21 the investigator states their position in detail and

22 says why she thinks that Mr Arkhangelsky needs to be

23 charged with committing a criminal offence, and she

24 states the reasons why he should be arrested.

25 Q. Yes.

1 of them, and I evaluated them and I think the position

2 is at least questionable with regard to Mr Arkhangelsky.

3 Q. I see.

4 Could you go to {C1/6/3} of your statement, please,

5 Mr Nazarov, and paragraph 10, where you describe

6 a meeting with Mr Vinarsky and Mr Kapustin in 2010. You

7 gave this witness statement, Mr Nazarov, in January

8 2014, so it was about four years after that meeting. Do

9 you think that you had originally made a note of that

10 meeting, in other words, a note at the time, do you

11 think?

12 A. No, I did not keep any notes then. That was a formal

13 meeting on the one hand, but on the other hand it was

14 simply a meeting to put names to faces because

15 Mr Arkhangelsky mentioned something about

16 Western Terminal, his ex-manager was Mr Vinarsky, and he

17 would be able to tell at first-hand the story of

18 the conflict, and perhaps it is worth meeting him.

19 But at that point I understood the situation from

20 the documents from the investigator, and from some other

21 third party documents, more or less official documents

22 pertaining to the criminal case, and I simply wanted to

23 hear out Mr Vinarsky and hear his position, the way he

24 sees the situation and what his attitude was to all of

25 that.

78 80
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

March 3, 2016 Day 21 Redacted

1 So, of course, I was surprised that rather than

2 produce some assistance and communicate some information

3 useful to me, he would have warned me in all respects,

4 and he treated Mr Arkhangelsky and the situation rather

5 negatively. He said: Mr Nazarov, don’t get involved in

6 this matter at all, so that was a bit strange that

7 Mr Arkhangelsky left the country and we are here and now

8 the investigator is calling us up, et cetera. So that

9 was what the meeting was like.

10 He didn’t communicate any important information, and

11 neither did Mr Kapustin, who was also present in

12 the meeting.

13 Q. If we go, please, to {C1/6/4}, paragraph 14, Mr Nazarov

14 you refer there to another meeting, a meeting you had

15 in February 2010, with Mr Erokhin and Ms Abarina. You

16 say:

17 «The purpose of the meeting was to obtain background

18 information and documents from them.»

19 Did you make any note at about that time of the

20 meeting and the information they provided you with?

21 A. No. No notes.

22 Q. You say that they provided you with documents; did you

23 keep those documents?

24 A. These were not the only documents that they provided to

25 me. I passed them on to Mr Stroilov in two stages.

1 A. — along, or make some notes, or, rather, interaction

2 with her was despite — you know, I was just trying to

3 get some information, to find something out. If I would

4 keep notes I think contact with her would have been

5 extremely officious or rather, none whatsoever, only

6 that she would see fit that something could have been

7 found out or communicated.

8 Q. I didn’t just mean notes made in the meeting itself,

9 Mr Nazarov. I really meant a note afterwards. So once

10 you had had the meeting, did you make a note in your

11 file, or notebook, so you could be sure of a reliable

12 record of what you say took place in that meeting?

13 A. No, not really. I did not make any notes.

14 MR LORD: Thank you, Mr Nazarov.

15 Housekeeping

16 MR STROILOV: My Lord, I think you — well, before

17 I re-examine, I wonder if I might request that we go

18 into private for five to ten minutes. I have a few

19 urgent housekeeping points, I am afraid.

20 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: You need to do that before

21 re-examining, do you?

22 MR STROILOV: I do, my Lord, yes, and really there are

23 some — I think some urgent — it really deals with —

24 partly that affects how I should use the lunch

25 adjournment today, because there are some urgent matters

81 83

1 I’ve scanned them and sent them to him, I think on

2 Sunday, and they also included explanations from

3 Mr Vasiliev, that we’ve already discussed, and there

4 were some other documents of a procedural nature, other

5 documents that I brought to him in paper copy, so in

6 the blue folder, and there was nothing else.

7 Q. And paragraph 15 of that statement, you refer to being

8 contacted by Mrs Saltykova, and you said she told you

9 various things. Again, Mr Nazarov, did you make any

10 note or keep any record at the time of what she told

11 you?

12 A. No, I didn’t keep any records or notes.

13 Q. And then if you go to paragraph 19, please, on {C1/6/5},

14 you referred to having a meeting with Lt

15 Colonel Levitskaya; do you remember that?

16 A. Yes.

17 Q. Again, did you make any note or keep any record of that

18 meeting?

19 A. No, I did not keep any notes and, moreover, that was

20 probably not possible at all because when you are

21 speaking to an investigator it’s an official person and

22 she does not make you feel comfortable in order to

23 communicate with her openly, with mutual respect, and

24 take some notes —

25 Q. Yes.

1 I need to address, but prior to that, I would really

2 welcome an opportunity to address your Lordship very

3 briefly in private.

4 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: I’m just a bit bothered about

5 interrupting the flow of the witness unless they affect

6 the questions you are going to ask of this witness?

7 MR STROILOV: I think they do, yes, my Lord. Yes, I am

8 afraid so. I’m reluctant, really, to explain in front

9 of the witness, lest I am later accused, really, of —

10 MR LORD: That’s fair enough. It’s very fair, Mr Stroilov.

11 If, in fact, there are matters he needs to apprise the

12 court of that might relate to this witness’s evidence

13 then he is very properly saying that should be done

14 without the witness there.

15 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Yes, are you content with that?

16 MR LORD: I am, my Lord, of course.

17 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Shall we do that before the short

18 adjournment?

19 MR LORD: I think I would like to find out, if you don’t

20 mind, what is the problem.

21 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Is that what you had in mind?

22 MR STROILOV: Yes, my Lord.

23 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: And presumably you would like the

24 witness to stand down for a moment?

25 MR STROILOV: Indeed, my Lord, yes.

82 84
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

March 3, 2016 Day 21 Redacted

1 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: So, Mr Nazarov, we will continue with

2 your examination after lunch, at 2.00 pm, or

3 thereabouts. You are, please, not to speak about this

4 case at all to anybody over that time. Do anything but

5 do not discuss this case or your evidence or anything

6 about it over the short adjournment, until we meet

7 again.

8 I’m going to ask you now, please, to leave the

9 court, and I am going to ask anyone who is not

10 instructed as a lawyer in the matter and connected with

11 the case please to leave court, which will now go into

12 a private session.

13 (The witness withdrew)

14 MR LORD: I think, my Lord, we should establish perhaps why

15 we are going into private, I know Mr Stroilov has been

16 very anxious about going into private, and it might be

17 preferable for him to explain before we do so, obviously

18 not giving away, but just so we can establish whether

19 that is the right mode for this bit of the hearing,

20 because obviously I know how anxious he has been to have

21 everything in public as far as possible.

22 MR STROILOV: That’s very fair, and in a way perhaps I’m

23 being overanxious. My anxiety was really about —

24 I will have to comment upon the witness’s evidence while

25 he is giving evidence. So to be on the safe side and in

85

1 terms of — well, obviously that is inappropriate

2 generally, but I think I have to in the circumstances,

3 and simply to avoid doing anything — you see it’s

4 rather a difficult position and to avoid doing anything

5 improper.

6 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: I think I understand. I think that’s

7 enough, Mr Lord.

8 MR LORD: That’s fine, I just want to be —

9 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: We will move into private. It’s

10 because Mr Stroilov needs to approach the court, as it

11 were —

12 MR LORD: I understand.

13 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: — with respect to how he conducts the

14 re-examination.

15 MR LORD: And I am more than content with that.

16 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Yes.

17 (Hearing in private)

18 [REDACTED]

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

86

1 [REDACTED]
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
87

1 [REDACTED]

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

25

88

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

March 3, 2016 Day 21 Redacted

1 [REDACTED] 1 [REDACTED]
2 2
3 3
4 4
5 5
6 6
7 7
8 8
9 9
10 10
11 11
12 12
13 13
14 14
15 15
16 16
17 17
18 18
19 19
20 20
21 21
22 22
23 23
24 24
25 25
89 91
1 [REDACTED] 1 [REDACTED]
2 2
3 3
4 4
5 5
6 6
7 7
8 8
9 9
10 10
11 11
12 12
13 13
14 14
15 15
16 16
17 17
18 18
19 19
20 20
21 21
22 22
23 23
24 24
25 25
90 92
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

March 3, 2016 Day 21 Redacted

1 [REDACTED] 1 [REDACTED]
2 2
3 3
4 4
5 5
6 6
7 7
8 8
9 9
10 10
11 11
12 12
13 13
14 14
15 15
16 16
17 17
18 18
19 19
20 20
21 21
22 22
23 23
24 24
25 25
93 95
1 [REDACTED] 1 [REDACTED]
2 2
3 3
4 4
5 5
6 6
7 7
8 8
9 9
10 10
11 11
12 12
13 13
14 14
15 15
16 16
17 17
18 18
19 19
20 20
21 21
22 22
23 23
24 24
25 25
94 96
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

March 3, 2016 Day 21 Redacted

1 [REDACTED] 1 [REDACTED]
2 2
3 3
4 4
5 5
6 6
7 7
8 8
9 9
10 10
11 11
12 12
13 13
14 14
15 15
16 16
17 17
18 18
19 19
20 20
21 21
22 22
23 23
24 24
25 25
97 99
1 [REDACTED] 1 [REDACTED]
2 2
3 3
4 4
5 5
6 6
7 7
8 8
9 9
10 10
11 11
12 12
13 13
14 14
15 15
16 16
17 17
18 18
19 19
20 20
21 21
22 22
23 23
24 24
25 25
98 100
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

March 3, 2016 Day 21 Redacted

1 [REDACTED]

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

25

101

1 (1.25 pm)

2 (The Luncheon Adjournment)

3 (2.15 pm)

4 (Hearing in open court)

5 MR STROILOV: May it please your Lordship, I am afraid

6 Mr Nazarov cannot stay for tomorrow. He has some

7 commitments in Russia. I was anxious not to cross any

8 boundaries and discuss it much further. Perhaps we can

9 ask him why he has to go back, but he is prepared to

10 come back, subject to availability, and to his expenses

11 being covered, which I’m sure won’t be any problem on

12 the defendants’ side.

13 We have discussed the matter with my learned friends

14 over the adjournment briefly. They reserve their right

15 if anything arises out of the proposed re-examination,

16 they reserve a right to ask for a further

17 cross-examination or take such steps as would be

18 appropriate, and of course, we would be perfectly

19 cooperative in this respect.

20 But other than that, they do not object to me trying

21 the re-examination which I have indicated.

22 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Right. Are we in a public session

23 now?

24 MR STROILOV: We are now, yes.

25 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: So we are going straight onto the

1 re-examination of Mr Nazarov.

2 MR STROILOV: With your permission.

3 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: One point, I need to rise at about

4 4.15 pm today. I have to get to a meeting.

5 MR STROILOV: Yes, my Lord.

6 Can Mr Nazarov please go back to the witness box?

7 Re-examination by MR STROILOV

8 MR STROILOV: Mr Nazarov, it is likely that the court will

9 need to examine you again later during the course of

10 this trial. Will you come back to London to be examined

11 again if that is necessary?

12 A. That depends on the timing, when that should be needed.

13 So I would be able to adjust my schedule where

14 necessary.

15 Q. Yes. Can you give the court your availability or

16 unavailability dates now for March and April this year?

17 A. It would be preferable for me to come back in April, in

18 the second half of April.

19 Q. Well, in the event the court needs you to attend sooner,

20 doing the best you can, what dates can you make in March

21 or the first half of April?

22 A. With regard to March, the next two weeks I unfortunately

23 won’t be able to attend, and the rest of it I only have

24 Mondays taken up, that’s for sure. So Mondays and then

25 going through to 11 April.

103

1 Q. So starting from 22 March, and to 11 April, with the

2 exception of Mondays, you can attend on any day, can’t

3 you?

4 A. This is correct as of today.

5 Q. Yes. Should that be necessary, will you endeavour, to

6 the best of your ability, to come to London and appear

7 in this court if required to do so?

8 A. I will endeavour to do my utmost, but it’s critical for

9 me at the moment to sort out my appointment schedule

10 with the Russian cases, because today my availability

11 looks like this, but when I come back to St Petersburg,

12 my assistants might put something else on my plate and

13 I will have to study that.

14 I mentioned the dates being purely based on the

15 transportation issue, in order to get here, when the

16 time is more or less free and available in order not to

17 let the court down.

18 Q. Yes, Mr Nazarov. And will you undertake on oath today,

19 as soon as there is any update on your availability

20 compared to what you have said today to communicate this

21 through me to the court immediately?

22 A. Yes, of course. I will inform as soon as possible.

23 Q. Thank you, Mr Nazarov.

24 Now, I think I need to inform you that over the

25 lunch adjournment your clients have waived privilege

102 104
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

March 3, 2016 Day 21 Redacted

1 over all communications with you in relation to the

2 specific disclosure of documents pursuant to his

3 Lordship’s order, which you were taken to by Mr Lord

4 earlier. Perhaps if we could have a look at it again so

5 that you know the scope of that waiver. If you could

6 call on the screen {J1/20/1}. If we could scroll down

7 to {J1/20/4}, and could you please, as you can see, in

8 paragraph 9 there is an order for:

9 «The Defendants and the Part 20 Claimant [to]…

10 make a reasonable search for and disclose and produce

11 for inspection by 11 November 2015 documents within

12 their control in the categories set out in Schedule A

13 below.»

14 The defendants and the part 2 claimant in this case,

15 as I take it you know, are Mr and Mrs Arkhangelsky and

16 OMG Ports? So you have seen this paragraph, haven’t

17 you, Mr Nazarov?

18 A. Yes.

19 Q. And if we could now scroll down to page 9 {J1/20/9}, you

20 will see, if you could re-read paragraph 5, and if you

21 can’t understand anything, if any language difficulties,

22 please say so and I will read it out and cause it to be

23 translated for you.

24 A. I understand the contents because Mr Lord has put that

25 question to me. I have seen that list.

1 issue before, because I understood that would be

2 something to be discussed, ie that it possibly might

3 need to be disclosed.

4 Q. Yes, quite, Mr Nazarov, I am not suggesting you are in

5 breach of that; I was just explaining to you the

6 position.

7 Now, if this clip of e-mails could be handed up to

8 the witness, I don’t think your Lordship needs it

9 because it is in Russian. I have a copy for the

10 translators and I have given a couple of copies to my

11 learned friends for anyone in their team who may read

12 Russian. So if you could hand up one copy to

13 the witness and another to the interpreters. (Handed).

14 I was just wondering if the interpreters might

15 appreciate two copies. (Handed).

16 So, Mr Nazarov, obviously you have just referred to

17 questions from Mr Lord this morning about requests being

18 made for these documents. I was just — I am just

19 thinking how to do it.

20 Well, perhaps you would like — I think it’s best if

21 we take it in stages. If you look on page 1 at the

22 e-mail at the top of the page, I think that appears to

23 be an e-mail from me to you, dated 11 October 2015.

24 A. Yes.

25 Q. And do you recall receiving this e-mail?

105

1 Q. Yes, and if we could scroll down to {J1/20/10}, just to

2 make sure you have read through to the end of the list.

3 So you do understand the scope of the waiver I have

4 mentioned earlier.

5 I just want to be sure, Mr Nazarov, that you

6 understand what has happened. Normally your clients’

7 communications with you, I think it must be the same in

8 Russia, but in this country your clients’ communications

9 with you in relation to compliance with this kind of

10 order would be privileged, however, your clients have

11 chosen to waive that privilege, so you are free, and

12 indeed, you are obliged, to answer questions in relation

13 to these communications and documents in relation to

14 these communications become disclosable, they are no

15 longer privileged. They can and should be disclosed to

16 the claimants and to the court. Do you understand,

17 Mr Nazarov?

18 A. Yes. I do understand. However, with regard to the

19 paragraphs at the previous page, at page 9, as I already

20 mentioned, the documents that were in my possession with

21 regard to that specific list, there are no other

22 documents, and with regard to correspondence, it

23 happened in 2010 and I can assert, confidently, that it

24 did not — it was not kept in my e-mail, that

25 correspondence with Mr Arkhangelsky. I did check that

107

1 A. Yes.

2 Q. And if you could quickly read it through, and then just

3 say when you have finished. (Pause).

4 A. Yes, I looked it over.

5 Q. Now, would you like to revise your evidence of this

6 morning, or to add something to it, having now refreshed

7 your recollection?

8 A. Well, I said everything in detail. With regard to

9 the list of documents, it is repeated here in the same

10 way, and it accords completely with what I have seen in

11 the appendix to his Lordship’s order, and I responded to

12 this request on 11 February, the letter to Mr Stroilov

13 with regard to the list.

14 Q. Yes, and you will find that response further on in this

15 clip, won’t you?

16 A. That’s right, in the end.

17 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Does that letter — e-mail — make

18 clear that the request is being made because the English

19 court has made an order that those documents should be

20 disclosed?

21 A. It says here, it says in the letter of 11 October at the

22 very beginning that was mentioned by Mr Stroilov, it

23 literally says that the court ordered to submit the

24 following by 11 November, and it lists the documents

25 after that.

106 108
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

March 3, 2016 Day 21 Redacted

1 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Right. Thank you.

2 A. So verbatim it says:

3 «We now are ordered by the court to submit the

4 following by 11 November.»

5 That’s what it says here.

6 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Thank you.

7 MR STROILOV: And if you could look at the next e-mail on

8 that page, dated 9 November 2015. It’s a short e-mail;

9 will you please read it out in Russian?

10 A. It says here:

11 «Misha, are there any news with regard to document

12 search because the court ordered us to provide

13 everything by this Wednesday? Please let me know if

14 you’ve found anything. If you need more time let me

15 know as soon as possible, we will ask for a delay.»

16 Q. And to that you responded on 10 November, haven’t you,

17 if you look at the next e-mail on the list?

18 A. Yes, I said:

19 «Hello Pasha, sorry for the delay in replying. I am

20 either in court or travelling. Unfortunately I won’t be

21 able to make anything by Wednesday. I’ll try to dig

22 through the archive by the end of the week.»

23 Q. So, Mr Nazarov, I think I am just thinking how to do it

24 most elegantly in re-examination rather than …

25 I am grateful. My learned friend has indicated that

1 order. That is correct. That is there.

2 Q. If you just scan through this clip of correspondence,

3 I simply don’t want you and me to understand what we are

4 looking at and everybody else to be bored. If you could

5 just scan through this and confirm to the court if

6 that’s right, that you do recall those e-mails being

7 exchanged. If you can just quickly scan through the

8 pages to the extent of being able to confirm to

9 the court on oath that these e-mails have, indeed, been

10 exchanged. (Pause).

11 A. Yes, indeed, as I already mentioned, I know about this

12 correspondence; it did take place.

13 Q. Yes, and could we call on the screen the transcript of

14 day 6, page 75. {Day6/75:1}. If it is possible to have

15 page 76 there as well at the same time on the same

16 screen or on the other, but I need both {Day6/76:1}

17 Now, Mr Nazarov, looking at this transcript quickly,

18 do you recognise this document? Have you seen it

19 before?

20 A. I think so. I think I’ve seen it before, in brief.

21 Q. And do you recall how and by whom it was brought to your

22 attention?

23 A. If I’m not mistaken, that was in January, or even

24 in February 2016 by Mr Arkhangelsky. He sent me by

25 e-mail a letter stressing that in March my participation

109 111

1 he doesn’t mind me leading.

2 So haven’t you been mistaken when you told the court

3 this morning that you were led to believe it was simply

4 a friendly request rather than a court order?

5 A. I think it needs to be clarified here. The thing is as

6 follows: with regards to the court proceedings here in

7 the High Court in London, I am not a party either as

8 a Russian lawyer, I do not follow the proceedings, and

9 actually, indeed, I understood the letter from

10 Mr Stroilov of 11 October as a friendly request in

11 a way, a request of assistance from a colleague, because

12 indeed, the content of the court order, ie this phrase

13 that the court ordered us to submit, as I already

14 mentioned, these documents or any documents within my

15 possession or were in my possession, they are of course

16 protected by privilege and I did not know the contents

17 of the order. So of course we cannot say that that

18 request should have been treated in any different way.

19 Perhaps a misunderstanding has arisen as to

20 the importance, as to the time pressure. Let me put it

21 this way: the detailed information about the

22 circumstances for which the documents should have been

23 provided was not communicated or disclosed to me by

24 Mr Arkhangelsky or at all. Although, indeed, it

25 mentions here in the words of the letter about the court

1 would be required in the court proceedings with regard

2 to the statement previously made by me, and I may just

3 remind that the order of the court of 2015 was also

4 appended to the letter, and the transcript was also

5 appended. I think that was the very content, because

6 I just looked over this document. Yes.

7 Q. Thank you very much.

8 Do you recall that you have been asked some

9 questions by Mr Lord earlier about documents in your

10 possession which — well, about the evidence from

11 Russian criminal proceedings which might be in your

12 possession; do you recall being asked about that?

13 A. Yes.

14 Q. And I think you were also asked about documents which

15 might concern the transfer of shares for

16 Western Terminal and Scandinavia Insurance in the end of

17 2008 or the beginning of 2009, weren’t you?

18 A. Yes, I remember that.

19 Q. Now, can you please be shown {D137/2273/1} — I am

20 afraid there seems to be only the English translation

21 there, oddly, but if you could just scan through this,

22 and if it could be slowly, I think, scrolled down,

23 perhaps at the signal of the witness. I’m grateful,

24 that is helpful: the witness has been handed the hard

25 copy.

110 112
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

March 3, 2016 Day 21 Redacted

1 Now, Mr Nazarov, does it look like one of

2 the documents you had in mind when you said you had them

3 in your possession, or, rather, a translation of

4 a document you said you provided to Dr Arkhangelsky?

5 A. Possibly so. I’m not confident, since this document

6 pertains to one of the episodes, this document that

7 pertains to interrogation by an employee of the Morskoy

8 Joint-Stock Bank, and the only source — I’m confident

9 that’s the only source from where the document could

10 have been received by me, that is the photocopies — the

11 photographs of the materials that the investigator

12 provided for the court to justify the decision to arrest

13 Mr Arkhangelsky.

14 Possibly there was a large scope of documents in

15 the large list of documents. That document was there as

16 well, since under different circumstances I think

17 Investigator Levitskaya could have not possibly

18 disclosed this document other than by a court request,

19 because she herself requested to sanction some court

20 decisions leading to a court verdict, and I have

21 appealed against some of her actions, been instructed by

22 Mr Arkhangelsky, and she was providing documents to

23 provide justification of her actions.

24 As of today, I could say that I’m not confident.

25 Possibly this document is appended in the court

1 And, moreover, the existence of a court decision

2 regarding arresting the accused in absentia, because he

3 is outside the state borders, that is a necessary

4 measure in order to obtain the Interpol Red Notice in

5 order to detain the sought person.

6 Q. All right, thank you. Could you now be shown

7 {D137/2279/1} on one screen, and {D137/2279/3} on

8 another screen.

9 I beg your pardon, probably it is {D137/2279/4},

10 contrary to what my computer says.

11 Again, Mr Nazarov, I think you have a hard copy, and

12 perhaps it can be scrolled down about every half

13 a minute.

14 MR LORD: My Lord, I’m not sure whether it may arise out of

15 cross-examination, but I just want to check that it

16 does. It may be it does, but I just need to put

17 a marker down that it should obviously be confined to

18 cross-examination matters. It may be it does.

19 MR STROILOV: Indeed, I actually would be grateful, my Lord,

20 for guidance on that, because obviously, Mr Lord, you

21 will recall he has asked about some evidence from

22 criminal proceedings and it was — these were questions

23 pertaining to disclosure. What I’m trying to establish

24 is how much of that material has, in fact, been

25 disclosed, because you will recall that the witness has

113 115

1 materials and possibly not, but I surmised that that

2 document could have been there.

3 Q. Right, and just for clarification to the court, you

4 referred to a decision to arrest Dr Arkhangelsky; can

5 you explain a bit more about that and what happened on

6 that occasion?

7 A. In order to declare Mr Arkhangelsky for international —

8 to issue an international search warrant for

9 Dr Arkhangelsky, and in order to update the Interpol

10 Red Notice in order to find and detain Mr Arkhangelsky

11 outside the Russian Federation, Investigator Levitskaya

12 has made a decision, made a resolution, and contacted

13 the Kalininsky District Court of St Petersburg with a

14 petition to decide on the measure on restraint for

15 Mr Arkhangelsky in the way of arresting him. Usually it

16 happens in cases when the suspect or the accused, ie

17 that was Mr Arkhangelsky at that point in time, to be

18 detained, and the court decision is required to arrest

19 him for longer than 48 hours.

20 However, because Mr Arkhangelsky was outside the

21 Russian Federation, the Russian Criminal Procedural Code

22 can do that in absentia. So when the actual accused

23 person is absent and this is what was done by

24 Investigator Levitskaya, she contacted the court for

25 that.

1 said they have been sent to Mr Arkhangelsky, and

2 potentially it would be a serious matter if they were

3 not. So I am just trying to understand the scope of

4 documents which the witness has admitted to be in his

5 possession or in Mr Arkhangelsky’s possession.

6 I am conscious of time, and of course, there are

7 quite a few documents I need to show to the witness to

8 establish the limits of this.

9 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Mr Lord, I am a bit at sea here.

10 I think you did ask as to the documentation which may

11 either have been retained by this witness or sent to

12 Dr Arkhangelsky, and you did ask about one of

13 the clarifications, or whatever it was.

14 MR LORD: Yes, I was asking about what material might have

15 been sent, might have been available to be inspected.

16 There was some questioning — do you remember, the

17 evidence about there being questionable evidence.

18 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Yes.

19 MR LORD: I was asking what the material was in that

20 compass. I don’t think I went beyond that, but I don’t

21 want to be difficult.

22 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: I think you went a little bit beyond

23 to quiz the witness where documentation relating to any

24 criminal proceedings in the Russian Federation — maybe

25 I am wrong about that.

114 116
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

March 3, 2016 Day 21 Redacted

1 MR LORD: I was asking about what material was available,

2 I think. I was asking about what material — about what

3 material this lawyer had been able to access in that

4 regard. That was the basis for the questioning.

5 I didn’t really go beyond that.

6 MR STROILOV: Well, really I’m not sure. I don’t want to be

7 disproportionate, really, and take the witness through

8 a huge mass of documents when it is not really necessary

9 to do so.

10 But, on the other hand, since I think one of

11 the possible implications of the cross-examination is

12 that a mass of relevant documents hasn’t been disclosed,

13 I really want to establish with this witness, you know,

14 how many of them have been disclosed. I am taking him

15 through the disclosed documents which appear to fall

16 into the category he described previously, and I hope

17 that at some point it will become apparent whether all

18 of them have been disclosed or whether the witness

19 thinks that —

20 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: I think Mr Lord did ask questions

21 which led, for example, in my memory, to the witness

22 indicating that he had two boxes not unlike those in

23 the back there, and Mr Lord pursued that for a small

24 amount of time.

25 But I think Mr Lord’s point was that he was really

1 not sure that establishing what has found its way in to

2 the proceedings is going to really answer the question,

3 arguably the more important question now, of what has

4 not found its way through into the face of these

5 proceedings. That’s really the point: not what’s in

6 play, but the extent of what appears not to be in play.

7 MR STROILOV: That’s my difficulty. I can’t really see how

8 I can establish that without really taking the witness

9 through the majority of these documents and asking if

10 that really accounts for what he has described. It

11 seems to be on — purely — I’m really in your hands,

12 I’m not pushing for anything, but on a purely technical

13 interpretation of re-examination rules, that seems to be

14 legitimate.

15 MR LORD: My Lord, I am not anxious to choke this off. If

16 Mr Stroilov thinks he needs to ask questions, he should

17 ask his questions, as far as I am concerned, anyway.

18 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Yes. I think Mr Lord is right that

19 you are really trying to identify whether all the

20 relevant documents have found their way to

21 Mr Arkhangelsky or not, and I don’t know how we are

22 going to do that, but I will let you go on and let’s see

23 how we go.

24 MR STROILOV: Yes, my Lord.

25 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Are you going to take us through all

117 119

1 seeking to establish what the documents were, point one,

2 and then a limited question as to the basis on which

3 this witness had said that in his perception the case

4 against Dr Arkhangelsky was at least questionable.

5 Those were the two areas which I thought to have been

6 covered and I think you are entitled to re-examine in

7 respect of either/or both.

8 MR STROILOV: Yes, my Lord.

9 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Does that help you?

10 MR STROILOV: I do think so. I am concerned it may some

11 time, really. I am concerned purely on a housekeeping

12 level that this is perhaps taking disproportionate time.

13 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Well, I don’t know what your ambition

14 is. Is it your ambition to take us to each of

15 the documents which might be in the two boxes, in which

16 case, I think that would take quite a long time?

17 MR STROILOV: I think it will be less than two boxes,

18 because I believe the witness has indicated he would

19 only send some of the documents to Dr Arkhangelsky, and

20 that is what has been disclosed.

21 MR LORD: I’m sorry, my Lord, the witness evidence was

22 really fairly clear: that not all the material,

23 I thought, that he had access to or seen has found its

24 way through to Mr Stroilov and/or into these

25 proceedings. I thought that was tolerably clear, so I’m

1 the documents that this witness agrees were either sent

2 on you or to Mr Arkhangelsky, and then what’s the

3 punch line?

4 MR STROILOV: I suppose really what I really want to ask in

5 the end is whether he, to his recollection there is

6 anything else of substance that hasn’t been — that he

7 has seen in criminal cases, and I am anxious about

8 taking a lot of time for what is not necessary —

9 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Mr Nazarov, have you gone through each

10 of the documents in the two boxes to satisfy yourself

11 whether or not they are or could be relevant to any of

12 the matters which arise in these proceedings, or have

13 you really left those two boxes, fished into them

14 occasionally, but not applied your mind to each and

15 every one of them?

16 A. My Lord, I can say that with respect to all the

17 materially important facts related to the civil law

18 cases and the criminal cases, I did keep

19 Julia Arkhangelskaya and Vitaly Arkhangelsky completely

20 apprised of that via various means, and obviously such

21 important documents as, for instance, the photographs,

22 or the various materials with respect to his arrest

23 in absentia, or, for instance, the materials related to

24 the criminal case involving Bank of St Petersburg,

25 I obviously disclosed all those documents to

118 120
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

March 3, 2016 Day 21 Redacted

1 Mr Arkhangelsky, and if he had any questions as to 1 of the case whether they are relevant and whether, if
2 whether or not he needed those documents to be provided 2 they are, there are any grounds for withholding them?
3 to him, I first gave him an oral explanation, 3 A. I wouldn’t have any objection. It might just be
4 I explained to him orally what the nature of 4 a logistical nightmare, including transportation costs,
5 the documents was, and I thought that if they were 5 but even under Russian law, Mr Arkhangelsky has the
6 important and if he said to me that he needed those to 6 right to have those documents available to him, to
7 be made available to him, then they were made available 7 the extent that those documents are relevant to his
8 to him. 8 case.
9 So I do not believe — the bottom line — I do not 9 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Well, subject to there being some
10 believe that I have any undisclosed documents in my 10 supervening rule of privilege or confidentiality in
11 possession. 11 Russia as to which I am ignorant, and therefore assume
12 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: And just to test that a little bit 12 there is not, I should have thought that we can’t
13 more, you gave evidence this morning to the effect that 13 really, by re-examination, identify a corpus of relevant
14 you had made available to Dr Arkhangelsky, whether of 14 or irrelevant documents, and neither this witness,
15 your own motion or at his request, documents which 15 because he is not apprised of the issues in the case,
16 supported their position, but under our rules you have 16 and therefore the only solution is for the two boxes, or
17 to disclose documents which may be against you. Have 17 two boxes’ worth, to be packed up, sent to you, and for
18 you satisfied yourself that any documents which might be 18 you, with your knowledge of the case, knowing what the
19 made use of, either by the Arkhangelskys or by the Bank 19 rules of English disclosure are, in the company of
20 in these proceedings, has been carefully assessed by you 20 the Arkhangelskys, disclosing any documents which you
21 and determined to be relevant or irrelevant on that 21 consider are relevant, proportionate and not something
22 footing? 22 which you are entitled on grounds of confidentiality and
23 A. Yes. While preparing for giving evidence here and not 23 privilege to withhold.
24 to waste the court time or my personal time, based on 24 MR STROILOV: Yes, my Lord.
25 the documents that Mr Stroilov listed in his 11 October 25 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: I can’t think that there is any other
121 123

1 documents, I went through those documents, I looked at

2 the electronic versions, which I sent to Mr Stroilov,

3 and I did not engage in a triage operation in the sense

4 that this might or might not work to the advantage of

5 Mr Arkhangelsky. I disclosed everything that I believed

6 was material.

7 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Those are the specific documents in

8 the order, but what about the non specific documents?

9 What about documents which might be relevant but which

10 are not listed?

11 A. Well, it’s very difficult for me to say whether or not

12 they are material within these proceedings because, as

13 I have already mentioned, I do not know much about these

14 proceedings. I have not been involved in these

15 proceedings. I do not really know the details and the

16 minutiae of the respective parties’ cases, so I did not

17 look at all the materials from that point of view, but

18 I can say with certainty that Mr Arkhangelsky is

19 completely aware of all the circumstances and the range

20 of documents that may be available to me to decide for

21 himself what documents these are and to what extent

22 these documents may be needed.

23 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: But have you any objection, as regards

24 these two boxes, to them being sent to Mr Stroilov in

25 order that he should satisfy himself with his knowledge

1 solution, can you?

2 MR STROILOV: I cannot. I will, I think, address

3 your Lordship separately on the logistics and the

4 timetable of this because you will appreciate the burden

5 that is —

6 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Well, there may be an issue of

7 proportionality, but we can only go at things one at

8 a time. The first question which, really, has been

9 posed, and which has given rise to this intermission, is

10 whether it is fruitful and likely to be definitive, to

11 go through this witness documents which he has regarded

12 as relevant with a view to identifying that there may or

13 may not be some other documents. It’s the «may or may

14 not» which is going to sort of elude us at the end of

15 the day until we see the whole lot, isn’t it?

16 MR STROILOV: My Lord, I think that is helpful. I think

17 I will try, since this particular body of documents has

18 been raised, I will take this opportunity to establish

19 provenance of several documents which I consider

20 particularly important, but hopefully that won’t be too

21 long.

22 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Well, you might just be entitled to

23 that, and you are also entitled with regard to the view

24 expressed by the witness as regards the frailties of

25 the case, in his perception, against the Arkhangelskys,

122 124
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

March 3, 2016 Day 21 Redacted

1 but we must keep it within some sort of limit,

2 particularly as if it looks increasingly as if this

3 witness may have to return.

4 MR STROILOV: My Lord, yes. I will aim to finish in

5 the next 15 minutes.

6 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Okay.

7 MR STROILOV: Mr Nazarov, sorry about interrupting this.

8 Looking at the screen, and if, perhaps, it could be

9 scrolled down just one page {D137/2279/2},

10 {D137/2279/5}. Now, does this document look familiar?

11 A. Is this page 2?

12 Q. Yes, that’s the second page. You have the first —

13 A. Yes. I understand this is the record of the interview,

14 and it obviously comes from the case materials related

15 to Mr Arkhangelsky’s arrest, and those are the documents

16 that had been filed with the court.

17 Q. Yes. So if we could look now at {D137/2278/1} on one

18 screen, and {D137/2278/4} on the other. I am afraid it

19 is not terribly good quality, but, again, perhaps you

20 could just say whether this looks familiar, doing the

21 best you can, and if you need it scrolled down, if you

22 just …

23 A. Well, I can see the translation, but the original, the

24 Russian original, is really — yes, it looks like it is

25 a Malysheva interview record, or transcript. It was

1 Q. Yes. I’m just wondering if anything is lost in

2 translation here. When you say «disclosed», do you mean

3 that at some point the investigator followed,

4 essentially, the same process as we’ve been discussing

5 a few minutes ago in relation to you? That is to say,

6 she sent you the whole body of relevant documents just

7 so that you —

8 A. No. The investigator sent the documents directly to

9 the court upon a court order. So the procedure is as

10 follows: I filed my appeal in support of

11 Mr Arkhangelsky’s case, the court opens the proceedings

12 and in the run-up to the hearing, the court demands that

13 the investigator disclose the materials which are

14 relevant to the appeal.

15 Now, in this case, we, the attorneys, the defence,

16 had the right to review the materials and take

17 photographs of those materials, so that’s what I meant

18 when I used the term «disclose» and «disclosure».

19 MR STROILOV: Yes. So does this mean that, in a way, it

20 wasn’t a free choice of the investigator to provide

21 these documents to you? She had to — is that what you

22 are saying?

23 A. Yes, exactly. Now — well, I need to qualify my answer.

24 With respect to the arrest hearings, with respect to

25 Mr Arkhangelsky, obviously, it was the investigator’s

125

1 conducted by the criminal case investigator, and this

2 document comes from the case materials related to

3 Mr Arkhangelsky’s arrest.

4 Q. Yes, and perhaps if we could now have a look at

5 {D138/2305/1} on one screen, and {D138/2305/5} on the

6 other screen.

7 A. Yes, it comes from the same source. It’s also the

8 record of an interview conducted by the investigator,

9 this time it is Mr Savelyev.

10 Q. And once again, you have been able to copy this document

11 because it was provided to court to justify the order

12 for Mr Arkhangelsky’s arrest, is that what you say?

13 A. Well, I need to clarify here that this document was

14 received as a result of the reading of the case

15 materials. I am not sure I can exactly recollect at

16 this point in time which episode this relates to, but it

17 was either when the arrest in absentia was being debated

18 by the court, or perhaps this document was disclosed by

19 the investigator in the course of the appeal hearings

20 when they disagreed with one of her decisions, so she

21 filed this document in support of her case, or, rather,

22 a set of documents in support of her case.

23 But, anyway, the source of this document is the case

24 materials, whenever those documents were being disclosed

25 by the investigator.

127

1 free choice to disclose or not disclose certain

2 documents in order to prove her case to make sure that

3 the court agrees and supports her application to have

4 Mr Arkhangelsky arrested.

5 Now, with respect to our appeal against her

6 decision, obviously in this instance it was not her free

7 choice because she was under an obligation to disclose

8 all the documents, all the documents available to her to

9 allow the court to acquaint itself with — familiarise

10 itself with the materials filed both by the prosecution

11 and the defence sides to make an informed decision.

12 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: You indicated earlier, and I don’t

13 know whether it was in the context of the arrest

14 proceedings or the appeal proceedings as to which you

15 have drawn a distinction, that Colonel Levitskaya owed

16 the obligation to the court to provide the documents,

17 but there were certain instances in which they would be

18 privileged or only disclosed to the court and not to

19 anyone else. Is that right, or is that wrong?

20 A. That is correct, my Lord. I do not really know what the

21 list of documents was that was made available to

22 the court and what was made available to us with respect

23 to the arrest. However, I believe that all the

24 documents were fully disclosed.

25 Just to give an example, with respect to the appeal

126 128
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

March 3, 2016 Day 21 Redacted

1 proceedings, when we appealed against the decision by

2 the investigator to open the criminal case, the

3 investigator had to confirm to the court that she had

4 the reason to open the case in the first place against

5 Mr Arkhangelsky, and those materials had to be disclosed

6 by the investigator in order to support her procedural

7 case and her procedural decision.

8 However, by the time the court starts hearing our

9 appeal, and if by that time she already has some

10 documents supporting her case, and if those documents

11 are confidential or privileged, those documents are

12 filed to the court, but it’s only the judge who has

13 sight of those documents to come to the proper decision

14 as to whether the case had been opened in a lawful way,

15 whether it has been properly substantiated or not, and

16 also to read all the other documents, and those

17 documents are not disclosed to the defence. But, having

18 said all this, that’s the general procedure under our

19 law.

20 Now, with respect to Mr Arkhangelsky specifically,

21 now how many documents were disclosed with respect to

22 which episodes I do not know exactly. I know that

23 something was disclosed, but I will not be able to be

24 any more specific than that. I think the best person to

25 ask that question would be the investigator herself.

1 A. Yes, I understand. Here a criminal case with regard to

2 Western Terminal is being discussed. I think it’s one

3 of the first, if not the first criminal case initiated

4 against Mr Arkhangelsky, and related to the Bank, that

5 the Morskoy Joint-Stock Bank loan for RUB 56.5 million

6 was — there were circumstances that the investigation

7 deemed to be of a criminal nature.

8 Q. Yes, and when you were asked earlier by Mr Lord about

9 documents relating to the transfer of shares in

10 Western Terminal and Scandinavia Insurance, can you

11 recall which criminal charge those documents would

12 relate to?

13 A. Well, with regard to the Western Terminal it certainly

14 would be the documents that would be also included in

15 the Western Terminal case in specific scope, pertaining

16 to that RUB 56.5 million loan, so with regard to this

17 criminal case, and what concerns Scan Insurance company,

18 I’m not sure, because the documents with regard to

19 the Western Terminal, as far as I can recall, could only

20 be present in the scope related to the fact of that

21 loan, of 56.5 million that was obtained, and the

22 payments with regard to that loan were going

23 concurrently, or around the same time, as re-registering

24 the shares in the Western Terminal.

25 Q. Right, and now you will have — I’m not sure if you have

129 131

1 Q. Yes. Now, Mr Nazarov, I have taken you to three

2 photographs which you have obtained in the way you have

3 described, of the witness interviews of, respectively,

4 Mrs Stalevskaya, Mrs Malysheva and Mr Savelyev; do you

5 recall in relation to what criminal charge these

6 interviews were taken?

7 A. Well, because this refers to people who worked at

8 Bank of St Petersburg, I would assume that the episodes

9 that Levitskaya is looking into are related to major

10 fraud. That’s the way the Russian criminal code

11 describes this, major, or very serious fraud.

12 Q. Yes. I am just … well, if I could perhaps take it

13 a little further, if you could have {D132/2167/1} on one

14 screen, and {D132/2167/4} on the other. Again, I am

15 afraid the Russian version is not terribly good quality,

16 but perhaps that might provoke some recollections too.

17 Now, if you just scan through the first page and if

18 it could be scrolled down on the other page, one page

19 once you have done so {D132/2167/2}, {D132/2167/5}.

20 Now, if you look at the second paragraph from the

21 bottom in the English version, and what I think is, if

22 you can somehow decipher it, it’s the third paragraph

23 from the bottom in the Russian version, does that

24 refresh your recollection as to which criminal case it

25 was?

1 had an opportunity to really scan through the substance

2 of the witness interviews I took you to earlier, that’s

3 those of Mr Savelyev and Mrs Malysheva and

4 [Ms Stalevskaya]; don’t you recall now in relation to

5 which criminal case those interviews were taken? Should

6 we go back through this?

7 A. Shall we have a look?

8 Q. Perhaps if we could go — perhaps by way of — yes,

9 let’s go to {D137/2278/1}, then at least it is a good

10 quality Russian copy, on one screen, and {D137/2278/4}

11 on the other. No, it doesn’t seem to be great.

12 That seems to be in the view of Mrs Malysheva,

13 doesn’t it.

14 If we could now scroll down one page {D137/2278/2},

15 {D137/2278/5}. I’m not sure if you can read Russian.

16 Perhaps the hard copy is better if you can be given

17 that. I think we want to identify the case.

18 A. I can see it, it’s sufficient for me.

19 Q. I am simply trying to identify the criminal case.

20 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Has this interview got anything to do

21 with the Morskoy Bank case?

22 A. Yes, it has something to do with it, and it says so in

23 the text of the interview, saying the witness,

24 Ms Malysheva, is given clarifications with regard to

25 purchase of the shares by Sevzapalians in

130 132
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

March 3, 2016 Day 21 Redacted

1 Western Terminal. Possibly these interviews, minutes of

2 the interviews, indeed, are pertaining to

3 the Western Terminal case. It’s difficult for me now to

4 separate them out at this point in time, because the

5 actual criminal case against Mr Arkhangelsky has

6 a single registration number as of today; however, when

7 each episode was initiated by the investigation there

8 were separate numbers and sometimes they were

9 investigated separately and then everything was brought

10 together, so now it’s being viewed as a single criminal

11 case with many statements, with many episodes, 10 or 11.

12 MR STROILOV: Thank you very much, and I apologise it has

13 taken so long.

14 My Lord, have you any questions for Mr Nazarov?

15 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Hold on one second. (Pause)

16 Questions by MR JUSTICE HILDYARD

17 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Can I just clarify with you,

18 Mr Nazarov, can you go to page 65 of today’s [draft]

19 transcript; could someone get that up? It’s really 64

20 at line 16, and then going down a bit in the page to 65.

21 Do you see your answer there? Do you want some time to

22 study it, down to line 9 on 65. (Pause).

23 A. Yes, I had a look, my Lord.

24 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Now that you have been reminded of the

25 letters or e-mails which you were sent, that answer is

1 statement, and just for clarification, this witness

2 statement is in English. You prepared it, did you?

3 A. I have prepared them in draft myself.

4 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Yes.

5 A. And I met with Mr Stroilov and he asked questions of me

6 with regard to the circumstances that he was interested

7 in, and I provided a draft version to him. He had

8 a look. He discussed it with me and in my presence he

9 finished off this text to the version that we see before

10 us, also in the presence of Madame Nadejda Bidault, and

11 I signed it off on 25 January 2014.

12 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Thank you.

13 You say in this last sentence of paragraph 12

14 Mr Vinarsky said he felt intimidated and so did many

15 other ex-employees of OMG who had spoken with

16 Lt Colonel Levitskaya.

17 I just wanted to clarify, is that what Mr Vinarsky

18 told you, or are you telling me that to your own

19 knowledge, other ex-employees of OMG who had spoken to

20 Levitskaya felt intimidated? {C1/6/3}.

21 A. Firstly, I knew that myself, indeed, because in

22 the course of my work on the criminal proceedings I have

23 heard from various sources about the former employees

24 who were dismissed, who went where, for what reason, and

25 there is a certain interest towards Ms Levitskaya, and

133 135

1 not quite accurate, is it? You knew, in other words,

2 that there was an order; you knew that the request was

3 being made pursuant to that order; and you knew that the

4 order was of the English court in these proceedings;

5 isn’t that right, really?

6 A. Unfortunately the content of the order was not known to

7 me, and with regard to the extent of correspondence and

8 with regard to what Mr Stroilov wrote to me on

9 11 October, he simply referred to the existing court

10 order and asked whether the documents pertained — the

11 documents were in my possession, pertained to the order,

12 and from what I have seen from your order of October

13 where the names and surnames and the extents of

14 the document has been mentioned, now I can say that it

15 was about the documents most likely being in my

16 possession, and had to be disclosed from

17 Mr Arkhangelsky’s part.

18 However, when I received the letter, I was not able

19 to draw such a conclusion.

20 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: When it referred in the first line,

21 which I asked you to go back to, you didn’t know which

22 order that was. Is that what you are saying?

23 A. That is correct, your Lordship.

24 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Right. Can I just ask you for

25 clarification about paragraph 12 of your witness

1 I had that impression that every time when it was about

2 a possible call to be interrogated by Ms Levitskaya for

3 some ex-employees of OMG, of course, it was little

4 pleasure for them, and after some — they were left with

5 a sense of disquiet, a sense of anxiety as to whether

6 they might not be in the circle of those unidentified

7 persons that are always mentioned in the investigator’s

8 comments.

9 With regard to Mr Vinarsky, just as it says in my

10 explanations here — that was my impression, I think he

11 himself understood that he could be within the group of

12 persons unidentified, so the investigators might develop

13 some interest in him as a possible co-defendant,

14 co-actor in the crime, in the criminal offence. So he

15 was worried about that, and in the conversation I was

16 just saying — he was describing the situation in

17 a negative way. He was saying: you know,

18 Mr Arkhangelsky left the country and people are still

19 here, and the investigator is calling them up from time

20 to time and asking them questions and, of course,

21 everyone is very nervous about that.

22 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Dealing with the first part, you said

23 that you observed that ex-employees of OMG had been and

24 felt intimidated. Are you able to name people who were

25 intimidated or is your evidence simply very general?

134 136
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

March 3, 2016 Day 21 Redacted

1 A. Now, of course, I would not be able to name them. It’s

2 rather my evidence would be general. That was the

3 general emotional background around the situation.

4 I mean, the impression from my communication was these

5 people, for example, with Ms Saltykova.

6 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Have you finished?

7 A. That’s right.

8 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Well, I don’t think I have any other

9 questions. Does anyone have any questions arising from

10 those?

11 Very well. Thank you very much, Mr Nazarov, but you

12 will liaise with Mr Stroilov as to how to get these

13 boxes back to him, and I will await to hear with what

14 result, and Mr Lord will await the disclosure, and if

15 there are documents that are privileged or otherwise

16 restricted, you will say. If you think the exercise is

17 disproportionate, you will have to explain to me that

18 basis, but I don’t think we need detain the witness for

19 that purpose. Thank you very much indeed.

20 A. Thank you, my Lord.

21 (The witness withdrew)

22 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Is that a good time for a break?

23 MR LORD: Yes, my Lord, of course.

24 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: I’m so sorry, I do have to leave at

25 4.15 in order to get —

1 statement?

2 A. Yes, absolutely correct.

3 Q. And could you please go on to {B2/13/23}, if you could

4 just turn the pages until you come to that page, please,

5 where you ought to see your signature at the foot of

6 the page; is that your signature?

7 A. Yes, indeed, it is my signature.

8 Q. And could you go over the page, Mr Sklyarevsky, because

9 it looks like you signed it on 26 August 2015; is that

10 right? {B2/13/24}

11 A. Yes.

12 Q. And have you read that witness statement recently?

13 A. Yes.

14 Q. And are the contents of it true to the best of your

15 knowledge and belief today?

16 A. Yes.

17 MR LORD: Mr Sklyarevsky, can you wait there, please.

18 Cross-examination by MR STROILOV

19 MR STROILOV: Mr Sklyarevsky, did you have any training for

20 this cross-examination?

21 A. Only with the company called Bond Solon, otherwise

22 I didn’t have any training.

23 Q. And what did that training with Bond Solon involve?

24 A. They explained to me what the procedure is in

25 the English court, how I should behave, and nothing to

137

1 MR LORD: My Lord, I would like to start Mr Sklyarevsky, he

2 has been waiting all day, I would like to start him

3 because we will make as much progress as we can and we

4 will pick it up again tomorrow, if that is all right.

5 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Yes, all right, well you will see me

6 getting itchy at 4.10 because I have to be somewhere in

7 the City at 4.45.

8 (3.31 pm)

9 (A short break)

10 (3.42 pm)

11 MR LORD: My Lord, may I call Mr Sklyarevsky, please.

12 MR VLADIMIR ALEXANDROVICH SKLYAREVSKY (Affirmed)

13 (All questions and answers interpreted except where

14 otherwise indicated)

15 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Do sit down.

16 Examination-in-chief by MR LORD

17 MR LORD: Mr Sklyarevsky, could you give his Lordship your

18 full name and address, please?

19 A. Vladimir Sklyarevsky, the address is St Petersburg,

20 Russia, Sinopskaya Embankment, 50A.

21 Q. Thank you, Mr Sklyarevsky.

22 Mr Sklyarevsky, can you look in front of you, you

23 should see at {B2/13/13} what looks like the first page

24 of your witness statement, it’s {B2/13/1} in English.

25 Mr Sklyarevsky, is that the first page of your witness

139

1 do with the case at hand. It dealt with the procedure

2 only.

3 Q. Right, Mr Sklyarevsky. I understand from your evidence

4 that one of the areas of business of SKIF, your company,

5 is management of distressed banking assets?

6 A. That was one of the areas of our business, yes.

7 Q. And on some occasions that is a purely — that’s purely

8 a consultancy service; isn’t that right?

9 A. Yes.

10 Q. And on some other occasions, that involves SKIF holding

11 and managing assets on behalf of its client; is that

12 right?

13 A. Yes.

14 Q. And I think you describe in your witness statement

15 Bank of St Petersburg as one of the clients of SKIF?

16 A. Yes.

17 Q. So does this mean that what happens is

18 Bank of St Petersburg hires SKIF to help manage

19 distressed assets pledged to it under various loans?

20 A. No, it does not mean that. This may only be the case if

21 there is an agreement between the owner of the asset and

22 the Bank that this asset will be managed by a third

23 party. The Bank cannot outsource this because for that

24 they do need to obtain the consent of the owner of

25 the assets. This is a tripartite, trilateral kind of

138 140
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

March 3, 2016 Day 21 Redacted

1 operation.

2 Q. Now, is it your understanding that that is what happened

3 in relation to Oslo Marine Group assets?

4 A. No.

5 Q. So I think you say in your statement — I stand to be

6 corrected — but that you regarded this project as being

7 no different from your other work, didn’t you?

8 A. That is correct, yes.

9 Q. So doesn’t that mean that you’ve had a number of similar

10 cases where you performed a similar role in relation to

11 other clients of the Bank and their assets?

12 A. You see, all distressed assets projects are absolutely

13 different and absolutely unique, they cannot be compared

14 with each other. We always have a tripartite agreement

15 between the owner, the Bank and some company,

16 a consultancy company, or a company that manages the

17 asset if there is a problem between the Bank and the

18 borrower.

19 The Oslo Marine situation was slightly different in

20 the sense that Oslo Marine and the Bank achieved

21 an agreement before I was brought on board, and that’s

22 why I am saying that this particular situation was

23 somewhat different.

24 Q. So apart from that difference which you have just

25 indicated, would you still say that the project in

1 board equity or debt, or to sell the distressed debtor’s

2 assets, and that was the worst scenario, whereby the

3 borrower could not repay the debt.

4 My initial discussion with Malysheva was that she

5 asked me to give her some consultancy services, and she

6 asked me whether I had any companies in the insurance

7 and the port management businesses. Originally we did

8 not discuss asset management. This did crop up later

9 on.

10 Q. But looking back at this now, you do agree that this

11 project involved SKIF holding and managing assets

12 formerly belonging to Oslo Marine Group, wouldn’t you?

13 A. Even if you look at ex post facto, if you look at this

14 entire project, SKIF only purchased some shares in

15 Scandinavia Insurance Company, did not manage any

16 assets. It held those shares in the interest of

17 Bank of St Petersburg, and it did not take part in

18 running Oslo Marine Group Port’s assets or disposing of

19 them. We did some legal work, we billed some

20 consultancy work, and I can give you more details, but

21 we did not do any asset management work.

22 Q. All right. We will come back to that, but on the whole,

23 as far as you are concerned, all that has happened is

24 that you have simply provided your professional services

25 to a client; is that correct?

141 143

1 relation to OMG assets was a normal business case for

2 SKIF, if that makes sense?

3 A. Yes. Apart from the caveat that I set out in my

4 previous sentence. That was basically the Bank asking

5 us to help them resolve a distressed [debt] situation.

6 Q. And I gather from your statement — correct me if that’s

7 a wrong reading of it — that this did involve some

8 consultancy service provided to the Bank, didn’t it?

9 A. Any project starts with some consultancy work and then

10 it may morph into bringing an investor on board or

11 managing an asset. Early in the day it’s very

12 difficult, virtually impossible, to predict what kind of

13 intervention SKIF will have to deploy.

14 Q. But in this case this also involved some holding and

15 management of assets too — I mean, in the case of

16 Oslo Marine Group, isn’t that a fair statement?

17 A. I would not put it that way because this project evolved

18 step by step. Earlier in the game, based on my first

19 discussion with Mrs Malysheva, we thought that we would

20 be selling the businesses of Oslo Marine Group Port to

21 repay the debt vis-a-vis the Bank, or bring in

22 an investor.

23 Malysheva’s responsibility was to make sure that

24 [debt related to] problem or distressed assets could be

25 repaid, and she had to look for liquidity, bring on

1 A. Absolutely. That is correct.

2 Q. And would you agree that in this case, these services

3 were quite considerable? I mean, it was a large work,

4 wasn’t it, for you?

5 A. At a certain point in time, yes, it was.

6 Q. So just to understand the correct scope of what that

7 work involved. So one of the things you did, that SKIF

8 held 18 per cent shareholding in Scan on behalf of

9 the Bank, until the pledges were realised; is that

10 a fair summary of that aspect?

11 A. Yes. Yes.

12 Q. Then I think you also mentioned that you advised

13 Mrs Malysheva and Mr Smirnov on how to deal with the

14 situation overall?

15 A. Yes.

16 Q. And I think you also say in your statement that you

17 tried to mediate with OMG on behalf of the Bank through

18 Mr Berezin and Ms Lukina.

19 A. Yes, first via Berezin. Lukina, that was much later, at

20 the end of summer [2009]. Originally it was Mr Berezin,

21 yes.

22 Q. And you also say that you did some investigations of

23 your own in relation to Morskoy Bank loan to

24 Western Terminal. Would that be a fair statement?

25 A. Yes.

142 144
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

March 3, 2016 Day 21 Redacted

1 Q. And also, if I am reading your statement correctly, you 1 {B2/13/23}, if I am not mistaken, but find paragraph 54
2 were the one who led the effort and the work to replace 2 at any rate. If you could scroll down.
3 the management of Western Terminal and Scan 3 A. Yes, I got it.
4 in April 2009 and subsequently? 4 Q. Mr Sklyarevsky, this seems to suggest that at the date
5 A. I was in charge of the legal work. SKIF lawyers 5 of making this statement you had not received any
6 undertook all the corporate actions and then they — so 6 remuneration; would you like to revise that?
7 the lawyers of SKIF were in charge of all the corporate 7 A. No.
8 things with respect to the various corporate actions and 8 Q. Well, the way I read this paragraph —
9 the litigation at that time. 9 A. I’m not sure I understand exactly where you are coming
10 Now, if you’re referring to the replacement of 10 from.
11 directors, now that was something that was done by 11 Q. Well, as I read this paragraph, and especially the last
12 Renord. 12 three lines in that paragraph, you say:
13 Q. Right, I will come back to that. 13 «I eventually agreed with the Bank that SKIF’s fee
14 Then I think you are right to refer to the legal 14 was contingent on the completion of the sale of OMG’s
15 work, which I understand was in terms of legal 15 assets for the Bank to make the maximum recovery. That
16 proceedings in Russian courts, SKIF lawyers also took 16 has not yet happened.»
17 the lead, isn’t that correct? 17 Now, that seems to suggest to me that you still
18 Then I understand you also provided one of your 18 haven’t received any payment, but you have just told the
19 companies, Mercury, to use as a holding company in 19 court that you did.
20 the process of realisation of assets. 20 A. I am not sure I understand you. Do you think the assets
21 A. Yes. 21 have not been disposed of?
22 Q. So would all the things I have just listed be a correct 22 Q. Well, I don’t think so, but you say, at the end of
23 indication of the scope of your work on this project, or 23 paragraph 54:
24 would you like to add something to the list just to have 24 «This has not yet happened.»
25 the general feeling of the scope of your work on this 25 What do you mean by that?

145

1 case.

2 A. I think that on the whole my main efforts were deployed

3 in March 2009 and in July 2009, and then there was this

4 transaction with Mercury, between Mercury and Renord.

5 Q. Right, and when you refer to — just to be clear, you

6 referred to the events of July 2009; what do you mean?

7 A. That was an attempt to maintain Scandinavia afloat, to

8 preserve it as a company, to preserve it as

9 a functioning, going concern. That

10 was July/August 2009.

11 Q. Right. So for all that work which you — which we have

12 now reviewed on a very high level, you say you have

13 received no remuneration so far?

14 A. I have received remuneration for the sale of

15 Scandinavia, but not for Western Terminal.

16 Q. Right. When did that happen?

17 A. When you say «this», define «this»: do you mean

18 Scandinavia?

19 Q. When were you paid for your role in the sale of

20 Scandinavia?

21 A. If my memory serves me right, it was at the end of 2010.

22 Maybe early 2011.

23 Q. Well, if we could look at paragraph 54 of your witness

24 statement, which will be at {B2/13/10} for the English

25 version and I think the Russian version will be at

147

1 A. What I meant was that I have not received my

2 remuneration to the last penny, not that the realisation

3 has not taken place. I have still not been paid for

4 Western Terminal, even though I do believe it has been

5 realised.

6 Q. But is it the case that you, at the time you entered

7 that project, you did not agree any terms of

8 remuneration with the Bank?

9 A. That was the case. I did not know what kind of project

10 that was going to be, nor did anyone understand that,

11 and depending on the shape that the contract was going

12 to take at the end of the day, the remuneration was

13 going to be decided upon.

14 Q. Right. So how much were you paid for your services

15 after the realisation of Scan assets?

16 A. About RUB 30 million.

17 Q. And I think you have indicated that your fee would be

18 a percentage of overall recovery made by the Bank, so

19 what is the percentage?

20 A. Between 5 per cent and 6 per cent.

21 Q. And how much do you expect to receive for your role in

22 the sale of Western Terminal?

23 A. I would expect a similar amount. For the time being

24 I do not have the calculations, I don’t know what the

25 exact figure is going to be, but my expectation would be

146 148
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

March 3, 2016 Day 21 Redacted

1 in the same ballpark.

2 Q. By now have you agreed with the Bank whether it is

3 5 per cent or 6 per cent or whatever it is?

4 A. We have discontinued any negotiation with the Bank

5 because of these proceedings. The proceedings need to

6 end before we can make any payments or agree on any

7 payments. Unfortunately for me, that was the position

8 that the Bank has taken.

9 Q. So at what stage did you discuss that issue with the

10 Bank?

11 A. It was in the second half of — the second half of 2009.

12 Q. Now, apart from this percentage from realisation which

13 you describe, did you derive any financial benefit from

14 the events described in your witness statement in any

15 other way?

16 A. No, absolutely not.

17 Q. And turning back to your paragraph 54, when you say in

18 the end of the paragraph:

19 «This has not yet happened.»

20 Do you mean you still have not been paid or do you

21 mean that the completion of the sale of OMG’s assets is,

22 to your knowledge, not something that has happened?

23 A. What I’m referring to here is myself. They have not

24 paid me. I have long since stopped working with OMG and

25 I do not know what happened to Western Terminal assets,

1 those shares.

2 Q. We will come to that. What I’m trying to establish is

3 that this was done on behalf of the Bank.

4 A. In the interests of the Bank, I would say.

5 Q. Yes. And while you held these shares, was it recorded

6 anywhere in writing that SKIF was holding these shares

7 on behalf of the Bank rather than simply holding the

8 shares?

9 A. No, not in writing. It was not recorded in writing

10 anywhere. It was an oral agreement.

11 Q. And that was between you and the Bank acting by

12 Mrs Malysheva, wasn’t it?

13 A. Absolutely, yes.

14 Q. From this it appears, doesn’t it, that the Bank trusted

15 you quite a lot?

16 A. I think so, yes.

17 Q. Now, throughout the time you were acting on the Bank’s

18 behalf, in good conscience, can you say you have never

19 abused the Bank’s trust?

20 A. I can say that. That was the case.

21 Q. So at all times you were involved in this project, you

22 acted in the Bank’s interests; is that right?

23 A. I acted in my own interests and in those of the Bank,

24 because after 4 or 5 May, our interests coincided.

25 Q. And in relation to OMG assets, were you always acting in

149

1 so I am simply not up to speed on this.

2 Q. So apart from your percentage from realisation of Scan

3 assets, and your percentage from realisation of

4 Western Terminal assets, do you expect to receive any

5 further payment from the Bank?

6 A. No.

7 Q. So for a period of time in 2009, SKIF held an

8 18 per cent shareholding of Scan.

9 A. Well, it was not shares; it was participatory shares,

10 because it was not a company limited by shares, it was

11 a limited liability company, so in Russian it is called

12 participatory shares, as opposed to shares in a company.

13 Q. Yes, I am afraid that’s a translation difficulty,

14 because the word «shares» is translated into Russian in

15 two different ways: shares of open joint-stock company,

16 or shares of a limited liability company.

17 Now, at the time, Scan owned rather substantial

18 assets; would you agree?

19 A. Yes, I do not know to what extent they were substantial,

20 but the company did own some assets.

21 Q. And SKIF was asked to hold these shares on behalf of

22 the Bank; isn’t that right?

23 A. Yes, but prior to that, certain things had happened that

24 then resulted in SKIF purchasing those shares. Had

25 those things not happened, SKIF would not have purchased

151

1 accordance with the Bank’s instructions?

2 A. If we agreed on certain things with the Bank,

3 I obviously performed my responsibilities, and that,

4 mind you, does not apply just to this bank, it applies

5 to all my clients across the board.

6 Q. Did the Bank have any independent interest in OMG? I am

7 sorry, let me start again.

8 Did SKIF have any interest of its own, independent

9 of the Bank, in OMG assets?

10 A. Not at all.

11 Q. So throughout that period, and throughout that work, you

12 were acting, as far as you are concerned, within the

13 instructions, possibly within some discretion, which was

14 given to you by the Bank through Mrs Malysheva; would

15 that be a correct summary?

16 A. We had an agreement and we were acting in the interests

17 of the Bank, trying to recover to the maximum possible

18 extent the money that had been borrowed by OMG from the

19 Bank.

20 MR STROILOV: Thank you.

21 My Lord, I think this is a convenient moment, seeing

22 the time.

23 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Right. Mr Sklyarevsky, we will

24 continue with your examination tomorrow. You must not

25 speak about this case to anybody for so long as you are

150 152
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

March 3, 2016 Day 21 Redacted

1 being examined. Speak about other things, but not this 1 and they have been condensed in a sense that duplicate
2 case to anybody. 2 material has been stripped out, so where a blog or an
3 Now, what time shall we start tomorrow? 3 entry were scrolled down you would find previous
4 Housekeeping 4 entries, that’s been stripped out to try to capture the
5 MR STROILOV: Well, my Lord, I suspect Mr Lord may have his 5 recently uploaded material on a particular date.
6 own view on this. I must say, I have lost any hope of 6 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Thank you very much.
7 finishing tomorrow and I would suggest we might as well 7 Yes, Dr Arkhangelsky, you wanted to speak?
8 do a normal day, just always making a habit out of it. 8 MR ARKHANGELSKY: Yes. Your Lordship, I have one very small
9 I will be trying to finish by the end of Monday, but so 9 question. It’s again some problems with the language
10 far I see no reason, really, to make it earlier than 10 here, the channel of the language, but the only question
11 10.30 am. 11 I have, that it seems to me that against your ruling,
12 MR LORD: My Lord, if there is a risk of going beyond 12 RPC are still not disclosing any transcripts on their
13 Monday, I think we really must start at 10.00 am 13 website, so we have not had any transcripts for this
14 tomorrow in order to make sure we do finish by the end 14 week yet on their website, and I think that not all
15 of Monday, I am sorry to say, I hadn’t thought it would 15 transcripts for last week been in private, so at least
16 be — we will see, but we obviously must try and save, 16 this week transcripts, I think they should be on the
17 if we can, half an hour. That might make all the 17 website, so I think they do it on purpose again, so
18 difference. 18 just — can you please tell them that it should be very,
19 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Are you all right for 10.00 am? 19 very important on daily basis. Thank you.
20 MR STROILOV: Well, as I said, and obviously I think I have 20 MR BIRT: I’m happy to deal with it, if I can be of help,
21 indicated yesterday that, in a way, I am preparing 21 my Lord.
22 frantically, so the more time I have for preparation, 22 The position is that most of the transcripts —
23 the better from my point of view, but if that is 23 I think Days 1 to 10 went up on the website as soon as
24 your Lordship’s view. 24 we all agreed on what was going to happen, and since
25 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: I am just worried because this witness 25 then I think every day there have been the questions
153 155

1 has to finish on the 8th, and we’ve always known that.

2 So if there is any danger, we can’t really take the

3 risk.

4 MR STROILOV: I am reasonably confident of the 8th — I’m

5 quite confident of the 8th. I hope to finish on the

6 7th, obviously, and that’s likely.

7 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: All right. I know it’s a bit tough,

8 but this is the only substantial witness this week you

9 have had to cross-examine. I think we will start at

10 10.00 am and see how we go.

11 Also tomorrow, will you be able to give me

12 an update?

13 MR STROILOV: On?

14 MR LORD: Will I be able to give you an update on

15 Mr Smirnov?

16 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Yes.

17 MR LORD: Yes, I will.

18 Can I hand in, we have a copy of the social media

19 posts —

20 MR ARKHANGELSKY: Your Lordship, I have a small question to

21 you, if possible.

22 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Yes.

23 MR LORD: My Lord, that is a copy of the social media posts

24 which your Lordship asked for, and they are split into

25 before and after the direction that your Lordship gave,

1 about whether certain passages were going to be in

2 private or public which weren’t resolved definitively

3 until, I can’t remember what day it was this week, but

4 a couple of days ago. Since then, it turned out that we

5 hadn’t received from Opus sections of — sorry, copies

6 of any of the days’ transcripts that had contained

7 portions of the day in private that had those portions

8 blanked out, because there were various passages when

9 people’s health was discussed or bank statements or

10 other reasons.

11 Producing those transcripts is only taking a little

12 bit of time. My understanding is we have received them

13 from Opus and RPC are just checking them to make sure

14 that all the passages that should be in private are in

15 private, because obviously once you put them on the

16 website, you sort of cross the rubicon, in that sense.

17 MR ARKHANGELSKY: But nothing in private this week, so it’s

18 not correct information.

19 MR BIRT: There have been some private passages this week,

20 my Lord, I think, but RPC are certainly not, and

21 I really need to emphasise this, given the allegation

22 that’s just been made, RPC are not deliberately holding

23 these back. There is a process that has just got to be

24 gone through, my Lord, in order to make sure that —

25 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Well, I understand that.

154 156
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

March 3, 2016 Day 21 Redacted

1 Dr Arkhangelsky, I don’t think you have a basis for

2 the accusation, but I would like to know what the

3 position is at 10.00 am tomorrow so that I know exactly

4 what’s happening.

5 (4.19 pm)

6 (The court adjourned until 10.00 am on Friday, 4 March 2016)

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

157

1 INDEX
2 PAGE
3 MR ROBIN BROMLEY-MARTIN (Continued) ………………1
4 Re-examination by MR STROILOV …………….. 1
5 Questions by MR JUSTICE HILDYARD …………. 20
6 Further cross-examination by MR LORD ………36
7 MR MIKHAIL EDUARDOVICH NAZAROV …………………. 42
8 (Sworn) ……….
Examination-in-chief by MR STROILOV 42
9 Cross-examination by MR LORD …………….. 43
10 Housekeeping …………………………………. 83
11 (Hearing in private) ………………………….. 86
12 (Hearing in open court) ………………………. 102
13 Re-examination by MR STROILOV …………… 103
14 Questions by MR JUSTICE HILDYARD ………… 133
15 MR VLADIMIR ALEXANDROVICH …………………….. 138
16 SKLYAREVSKY (Affirmed) ………….
Examination-in-chief by MR LORD 138
17 Cross-examination by MR STROILOV ………… 139
18 Housekeeping ………………………………… 153
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

158
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

159

March 3, 2016 Day 21 Redacted

A

Abarina (5) 54:10,19 65:7,12 81:15
ability (2) 15:12 104:6 able (25) 11:20 13:22 15:23 24:24 29:1 30:23 34:21 45:12 56:4 68:8 71:12

73:11 80:17 103:13 103:23 109:21 111:8 117:3 126:10 129:23 134:18 136:24 137:1 154:11,14

abroad (1) 40:3 absent (2) 33:3

114:23 absentia (4) 114:22

115:2 120:23 126:17
absolutely (8) 22:8 53:7 139:2 141:12 141:13 144:1 149:16 151:13

abused (1) 151:19 accept (1) 25:4 accepted (1) 11:23 accepts (1) 11:13 access (6) 60:20,22

74:24 75:24 117:3 118:23

accords (1) 108:10 account (2) 4:1 51:12 accountant (2) 31:24

32:7

accounts (9) 22:25 32:1 37:6,12,21 38:3,4,13 119:10

accuracy (2) 6:21 23:16

accurate (2) 65:21 134:1

accurately (1) 22:20 accusation (1) 157:2 accusations (1) 77:18 accused (4) 84:9

114:16,22 115:2 achievable (2) 2:22
10:19

achieved (4) 6:7 8:8 47:8 141:20 achieving (1) 30:2 acquaint (1) 128:9

acquisition (3) 1:16,23 2:9

act (7) 21:3,5,8,11 50:10 51:3 54:14

acted (4) 50:12 57:18 151:22,23

acting (17) 9:19 52:8 55:23 56:5,15 57:24 58:22,24 61:19 63:22 68:17 79:7 151:11,17,25 152:12,16

action (2) 16:8 52:14 actions (7) 48:21

50:19 68:12 113:21 113:23 145:6,8

activated (1) 68:12 active (3) 67:4,15 68:9 acts (1) 54:21

actual (3) 68:3 114:22 133:5

add (5) 2:24 12:12 42:7 108:6 145:24

add-on (1) 6:6 additional (3) 19:15

40:14 64:17 analyses (1) 9:6 arises (1) 102:15 aspect (2) 40:25
address (10) 9:21 and/or (3) 11:9,9 arising (2) 39:13 137:9 144:10
19:11 20:9 34:1 118:24 Arkhangelskaya (3) assemble (1) 30:23
40:25 84:1,2 124:2 annum (1) 13:23 57:24 69:24 120:19 assert (1) 106:23
138:18,19 answer (20) 11:12 Arkhangelsky (104) assertion (1) 71:20
addressed (1) 26:7 12:9 31:23 34:24 1:5,6 2:4 17:17 assess (1) 11:20
adduced (1) 5:22 44:7,22 45:8,24 29:20 30:1 48:13 assessed (3) 11:24
adjourned (1) 157:6 56:18 60:1 61:24 48:17,18 49:4,23 74:13 121:20
adjournment (6) 70:25 73:17 77:21 50:2,11,12,23 51:2 assessment (1) 74:19
83:25 84:18 85:6 78:11 106:12 119:2 52:6,8,11,12,24 assessments (1) 74:23
102:2,14 104:25 127:23 133:21,25 54:18,25 55:6,17 asset (9) 1:21,25 25:9
adjust (1) 103:13 answered (1) 22:23 56:19 57:3,4 58:15 140:21,22 141:17
admit (1) 20:4 answers (6) 19:23,25 61:1 63:8,22 66:20 142:11 143:8,21
admitted (3) 20:6 20:16 31:2 42:15 67:13,19 68:18 assets (32) 15:3 22:24
77:13 116:4 138:13 69:18 70:6,13,14 35:10 52:3 53:3,12
advantage (2) 3:17 anxiety (2) 85:23 70:17 71:6,9,16 140:5,11,19,25
122:4 136:5 73:1,6,11,16 74:1,8 141:3,11,12 142:1
adventurous (2) 22:2 anxious (5) 85:16,20 74:9,14 75:10,25 142:15,24 143:2,11
22:6 102:7 119:15 120:7 77:4,7,13,23 78:8 143:16,18 145:20
advice (1) 11:25 anybody (4) 60:2 85:4 78:19,20,22 80:2 147:15,20 148:15
advised (2) 6:9 144:12 152:25 153:2 80:15 81:4,7 149:21,25 150:3,4
advisers (1) 26:4 anyway (3) 11:19 105:15 106:25 150:18,20 151:25
affect (1) 84:5 119:17 126:23 110:24 111:24 152:9
Affirmed (2) 138:12 apart (7) 17:16 50:13 113:4,13,22 114:4 assistance (9) 39:20
158:15 77:25 141:24 142:3 114:7,9,10,15,17 48:18 50:17 63:18
afford (2) 28:24 52:19 149:12 150:2 114:20 116:1,12 67:15 69:2,3 81:2
afloat (1) 146:7 apologies (2) 1:6 12:6 118:4,19 119:21 110:11
afraid (10) 18:7 24:5 apologise (3) 4:16 120:2,19 121:1,14 assistants (2) 63:24
40:22 83:19 84:8 26:22 133:12 122:5,18 123:5 104:12
102:5 112:20 apparent (3) 30:25 127:25 128:4 129:5 assisting (1) 68:25
125:18 130:15 35:5 117:17 129:20 131:4 133:5 associated (2) 16:20
150:13 appeal (7) 126:19 136:18 154:20 28:18
Africa (3) 15:5 16:3 127:10,14 128:5,14 155:7,8 156:17 Association (2) 47:5,6
25:21 128:25 129:9 157:1 assume (5) 9:1 40:9
African (2) 15:3,16 appealed (2) 113:21 Arkhangelsky’s (13) 53:5 123:11 130:8
agency (2) 59:17,18 129:1 49:18 54:13 55:17 assuming (1) 51:25
agenda (1) 63:19 appear (2) 104:6 56:19 58:9 76:2 assumption (1) 52:4
ago (7) 4:19 7:13 117:15 79:4 116:5 125:15 assumptions (1) 2:21
18:17 31:21 65:18 appeared (1) 22:20 126:3,12 127:11 assured (1) 25:4
127:5 156:4 appears (5) 33:19 134:17 attach (3) 1:16 10:10
agree (10) 33:24 53:25 107:22 119:6 Arkhangelskys (8) 19:4
36:10 38:21,22 151:14 59:3 60:5 61:17 attacked (1) 6:22
61:24 143:10 144:2 appended (3) 112:4,5 62:21 68:5 121:19 attempt (1) 146:7
148:7 149:6 150:18 113:25 123:20 124:25 attend (3) 103:19,23
agreed (6) 61:17 appendix (1) 108:11 Arkhangelskys’ (1) 104:2
67:11 147:13 149:2 application (1) 128:3 53:3 attendance (5) 1:5
152:2 155:24 applications (1) 56:1 arrangements (1) 21:2 39:20 46:16 47:11
agreement (9) 16:21 applied (1) 120:14 arrest (16) 75:10 76:2 49:13
17:4 68:4,8 140:21 applies (1) 152:4 76:14,16 78:20 attention (2) 47:21
141:14,21 151:10 apply (1) 152:4 113:12 114:4,18 111:22
152:16 appointment (1) 120:22 125:15 attitude (2) 20:10
agreements (1) 16:20 104:9 126:3,12,17 127:24 80:24
agrees (2) 120:1 128:3 appreciate (2) 107:15 128:13,23 attorney (28) 43:16
aide-memoire (1) 124:4 arrested (2) 78:24 43:19,21,25 44:4
46:10 apprise (1) 84:11 128:4 46:15,24 49:16,19
aim (1) 125:4 apprised (2) 120:20 arresting (2) 114:15 50:10 52:19 54:10
Al (1) 35:21 123:15 115:2 55:18,23 56:20
alarm (2) 35:17,18 approach (2) 45:9 arrives (1) 13:2 57:5,19 58:21 59:9
ALEXANDROVICH (2) 86:10 ASAP (1) 65:23 59:17,21 61:6,19
138:12 158:15 approached (2) 69:18 ascribe (1) 29:15 62:21 67:10,12,15
allegation (1) 156:21 69:24 aside (2) 25:23 26:9 68:24
alleged (2) 52:22,23 appropriate (3) 10:5 asked (41) 1:14 2:3,20 attorney’s (5) 44:13
allegedly (1) 71:2 10:11 102:18 10:2,3 16:15 20:14 45:22 47:24 55:14
allow (2) 54:15 128:9 approximately (1) 26:23 36:18 37:14 57:2
allowed (2) 31:19 8:10 54:18 57:3,8 58:4,8 attorney-client (1)
75:24 April (7) 103:16,17,18 58:9 60:2,6,7,10 60:23
alongside (1) 12:24 103:21,25 104:1 63:15 65:13,17 attorneys (2) 58:16
altogether (1) 14:1 145:4 66:20 69:16 70:15 127:15
ambition (2) 118:13 archive (7) 66:24 70:16,20 73:7 au (1) 19:1
118:14 73:16,19,21,24 112:8,12,14 115:21 August (3) 34:25 35:2
America (1) 21:12 76:25 109:22 131:8 134:10,21 139:9
American (1) 31:22 archives (6) 65:9,22 135:5 143:5,6 Australia (1) 36:2
amount (8) 22:17 66:22 68:14 73:7 150:21 154:24 Australian (3) 35:22
29:3 32:13 35:8 73:12 asking (10) 20:4 58:14 35:23 36:8
68:3 71:3 117:24 areas (4) 17:20 118:5 67:18 116:14,19 authorities (3) 16:21
148:23 140:4,6 117:1,2 119:9 46:7 74:14
amounts (1) 32:21 arguably (1) 119:3 136:20 142:4 availability (4) 102:10
analogy (1) 13:18 arisen (2) 68:13 asks (4) 58:11 60:20 103:15 104:10,19
analysed (1) 75:2 110:19 60:23 61:8 available (22) 2:8

56:25 57:6 58:10 58:13 61:15,20 63:8 64:7,8 72:24 104:16 116:15 117:1 121:7,7,14 122:20 123:6 128:8 128:21,22

average (2) 3:25 4:3 avoid (3) 59:12 86:3,4 await (2) 137:13,14 aware (11) 25:1 54:20

62:13,15,18,19,23 63:7 66:19 72:9 122:19

B

B2/13/1 (1) 138:24 B2/13/10 (1) 146:24 B2/13/13 (1) 138:23 B2/13/23 (2) 139:3

147:1

B2/13/24 (1) 139:10 Babcock (2) 36:2,3 back (27) 14:23 19:7

22:6 25:7 29:2 40:3 50:18 51:22 66:23 67:3 69:5 73:12 102:9,10 103:6,10 103:17 104:11 117:23 132:6 134:21 137:13 143:10,22 145:13 149:17 156:23

back-burner (2) 49:10 50:9

background (2) 81:17 137:3

backing (2) 25:9 34:15 ballpark (1) 149:1 bank (58) 3:24 7:8

23:9,15 25:21 28:25 33:11 34:3 38:17 50:24 57:7 72:15 113:8 120:24 121:19 130:8 131:4 131:5 132:21 140:15,18,22,23 141:11,15,17,20 142:4,8,21 143:17 144:9,17,23 147:13 147:15 148:8,18 149:2,4,8,10 150:5 150:22 151:3,4,7 151:11,14,23 152:2 152:4,6,9,14,17,19 156:9

Bank’s (4) 151:17,19 151:22 152:1

bankers (1) 34:7 banking (2) 36:4

140:5

banks (10) 24:24 25:20,23 26:1,10 26:13 34:11,14 37:17,18

Bar (4) 43:24 47:1,5,5 base (1) 73:19

based (15) 5:25 10:23 21:9 48:2 52:9 60:25 64:4 65:23 67:3 73:25 75:8 77:11 104:14 121:24 142:18

basically (6) 3:11,17 23:21 49:2 77:17 142:4

basis (12) 6:24 17:25 18:18,25 20:1

59:15 77:22 117:4 118:2 137:18 155:19 157:1

Bechtel (3) 21:13,21

21:22 beg (1) 115:9

beginning (5) 54:14 56:17 69:17 108:22 112:17

behalf (11) 37:19 50:1 55:19 58:9 140:11 144:8,17 150:21 151:3,7,18

behave (1) 139:25 belief (2) 43:6 139:15 believe (12) 10:20

17:15 24:21 30:20 52:19 63:13 110:3 118:18 121:9,10 128:23 148:4

believed (2) 27:21

122:5

bells (2) 35:18,18 belonging (1) 143:12 benchmarked (1)

10:16 benefit (2) 74:22

149:13

Berezin (3) 144:18,19 144:20

berths (1) 12:16 bespoke (1) 13:20 best (7) 43:6 103:20 104:6 107:20 125:21 129:24

139:14

better (8) 26:22 28:22 28:25 29:3,5 40:21 132:16 153:23

beyond (6) 6:12 8:4 116:20,22 117:5 153:12

Bidault (1) 135:10 big (4) 12:16 14:3 38:14 39:5

billed (1) 143:19 billion (1) 23:21

Birt (3) 11:6 155:20 156:19

bit (16) 6:1 14:8,11 34:4 35:4 52:21 81:6 84:4 85:19 114:5 116:9,22 121:12 133:20 154:7 156:12

bits (2) 55:10 78:13 black (1) 24:22 blaming (1) 23:6 blank (1) 61:2 blanked (1) 156:8 blinked (1) 20:15 blog (1) 155:2 blue (3) 26:1 37:18

82:6

BNP (3) 15:10 34:13 34:15

board (4) 141:21 142:10 143:1 152:5

body (2) 124:17 127:6 Bond (2) 139:21,23 books (1) 4:14 Border (1) 11:8 borders (1) 115:3 bored (1) 111:4 borne (3) 7:15,18 8:16 borrow (1) 23:9 borrowed (1) 152:18 borrower (4) 37:19

39:2 141:18 143:3

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

160
March 3, 2016 Day 21 Redacted

borrowings (1) 32:16 call (15) 8:9 27:22 certainly (9) 1:11 22:9 22:11 24:25 26:20 communications (5) confronted (1) 22:5 cooperative (1)

bothered (1) 84:4 28:2,7,10 29:23 26:3 34:6 37:25 28:6 34:8,8,14 105:1 106:7,8,13 congestion (1) 28:1 102:19
bottom (6) 27:11 30:25 39:23 40:16 40:18 75:21 131:13 client (26) 29:13 33:6 106:14 connected (1) 85:10 coordinated (1) 77:3
37:15 55:12 121:9 42:12 47:11 105:6 156:20 44:10,13,18 45:2 community (1) 43:24 connection (1) 71:21 copies (9) 27:6 56:9
130:21,23 111:13 136:2 certainty (1) 122:18 45:12 46:6,22,24 companies (7) 4:21,22 conscience (1) 151:18 75:15,18,20 76:18
bound (1) 37:21 138:11 certified (2) 59:6,7 46:25 47:9,13,15 32:3 70:3,4 143:6 conscious (1) 116:6 107:10,15 156:5
boundaries (1) 102:8 called (17) 15:3,20 cetera (4) 23:1 27:25 47:18 57:8,12 145:19 consent (1) 140:24 copy (14) 51:20 59:6,7
box (3) 34:6 42:13 20:2,14 23:10 25:4 28:1 81:8 58:18,22,22,24 companies’ (1) 3:4 consequences (1) 64:20 82:5 107:9
103:6 36:11 46:16 47:22 chains (1) 79:10 59:12,20,22 140:11 company (26) 3:13,14 72:15 107:12 112:25
boxes (11) 55:12,12 53:24 55:3 59:23 challenge (1) 39:8 143:25 15:3 22:24 23:8 consider (2) 123:21 115:11 126:10
55:13 117:22 60:3 63:10 69:2 chance (3) 18:6 24:3 clients (8) 38:23 47:7 32:21,23,24 37:3 124:19 132:10,16 154:18
118:15,17 120:10 139:21 150:11 41:7 56:6 104:25 106:10 70:1 123:19 131:17 considerable (2) 6:6 154:23
120:13 122:24 calling (2) 81:8 136:19 chances (1) 11:20 140:15 141:11 139:21 140:4 144:3 corporate (6) 21:18
123:16 137:13 calls (1) 47:16 change (1) 49:9 152:5 141:15,16,16 consideration (1) 1:24 29:23 30:4 145:6,7
boxes’ (1) 123:17 capacity (4) 55:23 changes (1) 25:1 clients’ (3) 15:14 143:15 145:19 considered (3) 22:10 145:8
Branson (1) 30:1 56:19 57:5,18 channel (1) 155:10 106:6,8 146:8 150:10,11,12 50:9 76:1 Corporation (1) 35:23
breach (2) 21:18 capital (6) 15:7 32:11 chaos (2) 31:1,1 clip (3) 107:7 108:15 150:15,16,20 constricted (1) 28:18 corpus (1) 123:13
107:5 32:19,20 33:15 character (2) 23:25 111:2 compare (2) 26:24 construction (3) 28:5 correct (24) 2:1,2
breached (1) 36:4 38:5 29:19 closed (2) 49:2 51:4 27:16 31:11,15 14:21,22 42:24
break (5) 40:17 41:19 capture (1) 155:4 characterisation (1) Clyde (2) 16:24 22:11 compared (2) 104:20 consultancy (9) 16:19 43:8,18 48:8 52:4
42:18 137:22 138:9 cards (2) 24:7 36:1 22:15 co-actor (1) 136:14 141:13 17:4 21:2 140:8 53:23 104:4 111:1
bribe (1) 17:14 care (1) 42:4 charge (12) 2:22 3:12 co-defendant (1) compass (1) 116:20 141:16 142:8,9 128:20 134:23
bribery (6) 17:2,6,6 carefully (1) 121:20 3:14,19 5:2 6:6 136:13 competition (1) 3:6 143:5,20 139:2 141:8 142:6
21:3,3,20 carried (4) 9:7 62:5 58:11 79:12 130:5 code (2) 114:21 competitor (1) 36:2 consulted (1) 22:11 143:25 144:1,6
Bridge (1) 32:23 74:19,24 131:11 145:5,7 130:10 competitors (1) 13:10 contact (2) 67:9 83:4 145:17,22 152:15
brief (1) 111:20 carry (1) 75:7 charged (1) 78:23 Coe (4) 35:21,21,21 complaint (2) 70:9,18 contacted (6) 71:16 156:18
briefly (2) 84:3 102:14 case (80) 6:5 29:8 charges (12) 3:1,11,12 36:7 completely (7) 17:15 75:4,9 82:8 114:12 corrected (1) 141:6
bring (6) 12:23,23 37:7 40:10,13 44:1 3:14,22,23,25 4:2 cohort (1) 9:15 29:9 36:8 79:12 114:24 corrections (1) 15:1
41:24 54:19 142:21 44:20 45:1,2 46:5,5 4:24 5:6 78:18 79:4 coincided (1) 151:24 108:10 120:19 contacting (1) 75:3 correctly (1) 145:1
142:25 46:12,22,24 47:14 charging (1) 34:12 collapsed (1) 36:4 122:19 contacts (1) 68:23 correspondence (11)
bringing (2) 5:10 48:13,25 51:21 charismatic (1) 29:19 colleague (2) 61:4 completion (2) 147:14 contained (1) 156:6 57:13 62:24 63:1
142:10 54:17,25 57:6 chart (2) 4:4,5 110:11 149:21 container (14) 5:1,2,4 64:4 65:4 73:21
Britain (1) 21:11 58:13 59:18 67:6 check (4) 7:22 35:8 colleagues (4) 47:3 complex (2) 44:18 5:4 13:2,3,3,9 106:22,25 111:2,12
Bromley (1) 11:9 68:21 73:5 74:1 106:25 115:15 63:1,17 66:12 46:12 14:19 15:5,19 16:6 134:7
Bromley-Martin (21) 76:17 80:22 85:4,5 checking (1) 156:13 colleagues’ (1) 47:2 complexity (3) 30:5 16:9 17:9 corroborate (1) 79:20
1:10,12,14 3:2 7:1 85:11 105:14 118:3 checks (1) 55:1 collected (1) 67:13 44:1 47:13 Containerships (1) 5:6 Corrupt (1) 21:11
11:23 12:8 17:21 118:16 120:24 chief (1) 36:2 colloquial (1) 42:11 compliance (2) 26:19 contains (1) 79:1 cost (14) 1:16,23 2:9
19:13,23 20:23 123:1,8,15,18 chink (1) 25:11 Colonel (3) 82:15 106:9 contemporaneous (1) 4:3 23:5 24:18
36:18 38:9 39:9,18 124:25 125:14 chinks (1) 79:10 128:15 135:16 compositely (1) 5:20 20:13 27:13,18,21,24
40:10,21 41:1,8,23 126:1,2,14,21,22 chip (2) 26:1 37:18 column (4) 35:15,17 computer (1) 115:10 contemporary (1) 28:12,17 29:1 31:9
158:3 126:23 127:11,15 choice (3) 127:20 35:19,19 concede (1) 10:18 4:20 costs (3) 16:20 24:18
brought (11) 28:21 128:2 129:2,4,7,10 128:1,7 comb (1) 26:2 concentrated (1) 31:9 content (5) 84:15 123:4
31:20 35:25 36:6 129:14 130:24 choke (1) 119:15 combination (1) 33:14 concern (3) 5:16 86:15 110:12 112:5 counsel (3) 3:24 4:4
50:24 78:18 79:11 131:1,3,15,17 chose (2) 20:12 23:3 come (25) 3:22 19:7 112:15 146:9 134:6 47:24
82:5 111:21 133:9 132:5,17,19,21 chosen (2) 9:12 22:12 28:12 29:2,5 concerned (9) 38:11 contents (6) 3:9 44:12 country (3) 81:7 106:8
141:21 133:3,5,11 140:1 106:11 33:12 42:13 55:5 52:7,24 61:16 69:9 105:24 110:16 136:18
Brown (2) 36:3,3 140:20 142:1,14,15 chunk (1) 28:23 66:2,23 67:13 118:10,11 119:17 139:14 couple (3) 4:19
build (1) 28:2 144:2 146:1 148:6 circle (1) 136:6 70:23 73:12 74:21 143:23 152:12 context (1) 128:13 107:10 156:4
built (1) 32:23 148:9 151:20 circumstances (10) 102:10 103:10,17 concerning (1) 65:11 contingency (5) 28:7 coupon (1) 34:12
bundle (4) 54:21,23 152:25 153:2 6:8 72:20 73:9,10 104:6,11 129:13 concerns (2) 72:13 28:16,21,24 68:4 course (42) 5:16 8:1
55:3 65:9 cases (23) 47:22 48:14 86:2 110:22 113:16 139:4 143:22 131:17 contingent (1) 147:14 19:5 21:4 43:5
bundles (1) 56:11 48:19,24 49:3,16 122:19 131:6 135:6 145:13 151:2 concession (5) 15:4 continue (3) 41:12 45:14 51:10 52:5
burden (2) 1:19 124:4 49:19 50:3,6 65:24 City (1) 138:7 comes (3) 125:14 15:24 17:8,13 21:2 85:1 152:24 55:7 58:5 65:21
business (13) 2:16 4:6 67:2,5,14 68:10 civil (5) 50:19 57:20 126:2,7 conclusion (1) 134:19 Continued (2) 1:12 66:19,22 67:2,14
4:11 8:20 16:7 21:9 74:7 76:11 104:10 57:22 58:6 120:17 comfortable (1) 82:22 concrete (2) 28:17 158:3 67:17,18 68:12
29:21 30:6,11 114:16 120:7,18,18 claimant (2) 105:9,14 coming (4) 8:13 11:18 31:12 contract (2) 31:14 71:22 72:22 74:16
38:18 140:4,6 122:16 141:10 claimants (1) 106:16 18:10 147:9 concurrently (1) 148:11 74:16,17 75:19
142:1 cash (3) 2:16 23:10 claims (3) 52:9,10 comment (2) 71:12 131:23 contractor (2) 31:15 77:3 78:15 79:1,24
businesses (3) 16:4 25:8 53:8 85:24 condensed (1) 155:1 31:16 81:1 84:16 102:18
142:20 143:7 cast (1) 65:2 clanking (1) 24:19 comments (2) 15:9 condition (2) 68:4 contractors (1) 27:24 103:9 104:22
busy (1) 64:1 categories (2) 60:16 clarification (7) 53:24 136:8 69:1 contradictory (1) 110:15,17 116:6
105:12 54:22 55:2 69:6 commercial (1) 33:11 conduct (4) 49:8 71:10 126:19 135:22
C categorised (1) 2:12 114:3 134:25 135:1 commitment (2) 1:8 53:11,13 63:15 contrary (2) 41:21 136:3,20 137:1,23
C1/3/4 (1) 24:16 category (1) 117:16 clarifications (2) 32:18 conducted (2) 126:1,8 115:10 court (95) 2:24 4:7,12
cause (1) 105:22 116:13 132:24 commitments (1) conducts (1) 86:13 contribution (3) 33:15 5:13 8:18 11:11
C1/6/1 (5) 42:21
caveat (1) 142:3 clarified (2) 66:8 102:7 confidence (1) 23:16 36:19 38:2 15:10 19:7 40:22
43:17 48:9 51:23
cement (1) 27:24 110:5 committee (2) 21:23 confident (5) 113:5,8 control (2) 9:23 41:9 56:1 57:25
67:22
cent (11) 3:8 28:13,15 clarifies (1) 10:6 26:19 113:24 154:4,5 105:12 59:4,5,7,13,16
C1/6/2 (1) 74:4
34:12,14 144:8 clarify (5) 2:24 19:7 committing (3) 77:13 confidential (1) controlled (1) 29:21 62:13,20 63:2 64:4
C1/6/3 (2) 80:4
148:20,20 149:3,3 126:13 133:17 77:17 78:23 129:11 convenient (1) 152:21 65:8 66:14,14,17
135:20
150:8 135:17 commodity (1) 12:19 confidentiality (2) convention (2) 21:9 75:9 76:1,11,13,17
C1/6/4 (1) 81:13
certain (23) 6:7 23:24 classic (1) 32:22 communicate (4) 81:2 123:10,22 21:10 77:12 78:1,16
C1/6/5 (3) 42:25
49:7,8,10 52:16 clear (9) 22:9 45:17 81:10 82:23 104:20 confidently (1) 106:23 conventional (2) 5:2,7 79:23,24 84:12
51:20 82:13
53:8 54:16,20 46:14 53:2 64:10 communicated (2) confined (1) 115:17 conversation (1) 85:9,11 86:10
cabinet (1) 21:15
58:10,19 59:2 108:18 118:22,25 83:7 110:23 confirm (4) 40:1 111:5 136:15 102:4 103:8,15,19
Calabar (2) 15:20 16:9
60:15,24 68:6 146:5 communicates (1) 111:8 129:3 conversations (1) 104:7,17,21 106:16
calculations (2) 12:11
75:20 128:1,17 clearance (1) 3:20 47:15 confirmed (1) 58:3 64:15 108:19,23 109:3,12
148:24
135:25 144:5 clearly (12) 2:14 4:1 communication (1) confirming (1) 72:17 cooperation (2) 50:6 109:20 110:2,4,6,7
calendar (1) 44:6
150:23 152:2 156:1 8:7 12:15 17:16 137:4 conflict (1) 80:18 60:11 110:12,13,25 111:5

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

161
March 3, 2016 Day 21 Redacted

111:9 112:1,3 132:15 143:3 114:18 68:22 82:3 102:13 119:9,20 120:1,10 EDUARDOVICH (2)

113:12,18,19,20,25 D137/2279/1 (1) debtor’s (1) 143:1 determine (1) 61:9 107:2 131:2 135:8 120:21,25 121:2,5 42:14 158:7
114:3,13,18,24 115:7 December (2) 63:12 determined (1) 156:9 121:10,15,17,18,25 effect (5) 5:24 7:15
115:1 121:24 D137/2279/2 (1) 66:7 121:21 discussing (2) 45:13 122:1,1,7,8,9,20,21 55:19 62:25 121:13
125:16 126:11,18 125:9 decide (3) 54:15 develop (1) 136:12 127:4 122:22 123:6,7,14 effectively (2) 25:22
127:9,9,11,12 D137/2279/3 (1) 114:14 122:20 developed (1) 16:3 discussion (4) 13:6,7 123:20 124:11,13 48:25
128:3,9,16,18,22 115:7 decided (1) 148:13 development (2) 142:19 143:4 124:17,19 125:15 efficient (1) 12:18
129:3,8,12 134:4,9 D137/2279/4 (1) decides (1) 47:6 30:11 31:10 discussions (1) 24:23 126:22,24 127:6,8 effort (2) 63:24 145:2
139:25 147:19 115:9 decipher (1) 130:22 diary (1) 44:6 dismissed (1) 135:24 127:21 128:2,8,8 efforts (1) 146:2
157:6 158:12 D137/2279/5 (1) decision (12) 22:12 difference (3) 12:10 disposed (1) 147:21 128:16,21,24 either (12) 3:7 20:16
courtroom (1) 55:13 125:10 59:16 113:12 114:4 141:24 153:18 disposing (1) 143:18 129:10,10,11,13,16 45:6 57:15 59:11
courts (1) 145:16 D138/2305/1 (1) 114:12,18 115:1 differences (3) 6:4 disproportionate (3) 129:17,21 131:9,11 60:24 109:20 110:7
covenant (1) 36:5 126:5 128:6,11 129:1,7 25:18 32:8 117:7 118:12 131:14,18 134:10 116:11 120:1
covered (4) 22:25 D138/2305/5 (1) 129:13 different (13) 3:3,11 137:17 134:11,15 137:15 121:19 126:17
60:22 102:11 118:6 126:5 decisions (4) 59:5,5 11:24 15:5 22:18 dispute (5) 10:8 44:9 doing (7) 10:2 15:21 either/or (1) 118:7
crane (1) 14:4 D15 (1) 37:10 113:20 126:20 54:24 110:18 44:19 49:25 59:12 30:15 86:3,4 electronic (4) 64:2
cranes (4) 12:18,25 D15/363/9 (3) 32:10 declare (1) 114:7 113:16 141:7,13,19 disquiet (1) 136:5 103:20 125:20 65:9 76:25 122:2
14:4 27:25 37:9,11 deemed (3) 76:13 141:23 150:15 distance (1) 4:10 dollar (1) 14:1 elegantly (1) 109:24
creating (1) 14:18 D197/2851/10 (1) 79:22 131:7 difficult (12) 10:20 distinction (2) 21:1 dollar/TEU (1) 41:13 element (1) 12:14
credit (1) 26:19 54:2 defence (8) 54:16 18:21 24:21 29:12 128:15 dollars (2) 6:4 33:16 elicit (1) 10:5
crime (1) 136:14 D197/2951/0.1 (3) 68:18 74:17 79:7 32:1 51:12 53:10 distressed (6) 140:5 doodles (1) 45:15 elicited (1) 19:12
crimes (1) 77:14 53:17 69:5,10 79:23 127:15 86:4 116:21 122:11 140:19 141:12 dossier (6) 44:13 elude (1) 124:14
criminal (40) 48:14,19 D197/2951/0.10 (1) 128:11 129:17 133:3 142:12 142:5,24 143:1 45:22 55:14 57:2 Embankment (1)
49:3,15 50:3,14 54:2 defendant (2) 48:12 difficulties (2) 28:18 District (1) 114:13 75:19,22 138:20
54:17,24 57:15 D197/2951/0.2 (1) 50:22 105:21 divider (1) 36:21 dossiers (1) 56:1 embarrassment (1)
67:2,5 68:10 72:10 70:7 defendants (5) 9:18 difficulty (4) 4:16 30:1 document (47) 9:9,13 double-check (1) 26:5
74:7 75:7 78:23 D197/2951/1 (3) 9:23 52:1 105:9,14 119:7 150:13 24:1 32:2,4 45:18 16:12 emerging (2) 15:7
80:22 112:11 53:18 69:5,11 defendants’ (5) 51:8 dig (1) 109:21 45:19 47:7 53:15 doubt (2) 52:12,18 16:6
114:21 115:22 D197/2951/2 (1) 70:8 51:24 52:3,22 diligence (5) 24:2,11 53:19,25 54:7,22 Dr (25) 2:4 17:17 emotional (1) 137:3
116:24 120:7,18,24 D43/750/4 (2) 27:2,12 102:12 30:21,24 53:11 55:2 57:9,11,13 29:20 30:1 49:4,23 emphasis (1) 29:11
126:1 129:2 130:5 D52/889/11 (1) 36:20 define (2) 28:21 dimension (2) 13:5 62:11 63:23 64:16 50:2,12 52:24 55:6 emphasise (1) 156:21
130:10,24 131:1,3 D52/889/7 (2) 27:8,17 146:17 24:25 66:15 69:6,8,15,24 55:17 56:19 57:3 emphasised (1) 37:2
131:7,11,17 132:5 D52/889/9 (1) 36:20 defined (1) 29:2 direction (1) 154:25 71:2 74:2,2 109:11 73:16 74:1 75:25 employee (1) 113:7
132:19 133:5,10 D66/1035.1/1 (1) definitely (1) 26:2 directives (1) 21:21 111:18 112:6 113:4 113:4 114:4,9 employees (1) 135:23
135:22 136:14 34:22 definitive (1) 124:10 directly (5) 56:15,21 113:5,6,9,15,18,25 116:12 118:4,19 endeavour (3) 65:23
critical (2) 8:17 104:8 D74/1101/1 (1) 34:20 definitively (1) 156:2 66:14 76:17 127:8 114:2 125:10 126:2 121:14 155:7 157:1 104:5,8
criticised (2) 18:15,23 D84/1153/2 (1) 25:19 degree (1) 35:15 director (1) 30:13 126:10,13,18,21,23 draft (10) 26:24,25 enforcement (3)
criticising (1) 38:24 D98/1259/1 (2) 25:14 delay (2) 109:15,19 directors (1) 145:11 134:14 27:1,7 45:13 46:9 50:23 52:14 58:1
criticism (1) 26:21 25:19 deleted (2) 73:23 74:3 disagreed (1) 126:20 documentary (2) 46:13 133:18 135:3 engage (1) 122:3
crop (1) 143:8 daily (1) 155:19 deliberately (1) discernible (1) 30:10 20:12 31:1 135:7 engineering (1) 28:10
cropped (1) 57:9 danger (1) 154:2 156:22 discipline (1) 47:5 documentary/quasi … drafted (2) 4:11 69:7 England (5) 21:6
cross (4) 11:8 15:20 dangers (1) 34:24 demands (1) 127:12 disclosable (2) 9:22 5:11 drafts (6) 44:2 45:20 59:23 60:5,9 66:4
102:7 156:16 dare (1) 13:22 demurrage (1) 3:21 106:14 documentation (6) 45:20,20 46:13 English (12) 58:6
cross-examination (… dash (1) 41:4 deny (2) 48:18 69:3 disclose (8) 10:22 7:6 18:16 30:24 47:25 61:21 62:20 108:18
6:16,22 10:1,4,7 date (5) 35:19 63:11 depended (1) 19:25 105:10 121:17 56:4 116:10,23 draught (1) 13:12 112:20 123:19
17:24 36:15 43:14 66:9 147:4 155:5 depending (2) 43:25 127:13,18 128:1,1 documented (4) 44:3 draw (2) 47:20 134:19 130:21 134:4 135:2
102:17 115:15,18 dated (7) 9:4 21:6 148:11 128:7 45:11 64:14 67:6 drawing (1) 74:16 138:24 139:25
117:11 139:18,20 53:25 62:17 69:11 depends (1) 103:12 disclosed (41) 7:8,23 documents (189) 4:7 drawn (2) 72:18 146:24
158:6,9,17 107:23 109:8 deploy (1) 142:13 9:8,13,15 11:13 9:6 11:2,8 13:11 128:15 enjoyable (1) 40:5
cross-examine (2) dates (3) 103:16,20 deployed (1) 146:2 53:16,20 57:6 19:16 20:17 44:14 drew (1) 21:1 enquiries (1) 16:18
39:24 154:9 104:14 derive (1) 149:13 58:19 61:3,10,13 44:14,16 46:6,6 drift (1) 14:14 enter (1) 30:22
cross-examined (1) David (2) 35:21,21 derived (2) 52:10 61:21 72:22 75:2 48:2 54:23 55:4,8 drilled (2) 21:15,24 entered (2) 59:15
19:8 day (15) 1:7 21:16 70:22 75:12 76:12 106:15 55:18,20,21,22 due (5) 24:2,11 30:21 148:6
culpa (1) 41:3 23:11,13,23 104:2 describe (7) 12:19 107:3 108:20 56:3,8,9,10,11,17 30:24 53:11 entire (2) 60:22
cum (1) 15:19 111:14 124:15 50:5 64:13,18 80:5 110:23 113:18 56:18,24 57:4,5,14 duplicate (1) 155:1 143:14
cupboard (1) 22:14 138:2 142:11 140:14 149:13 115:25 117:12,14 57:17,19,22,25,25 entirely (1) 62:8
current (2) 76:25 77:1 148:12 153:8 described (10) 37:18 117:15,18 118:20 58:10,13,19,23 E entities (1) 72:17
currently (2) 68:17,25 155:25 156:3,7 54:9 56:17 57:20 120:25 122:5 59:2 60:3,8,14,16 e-mail (17) 25:14 entitled (5) 6:23
customs (1) 3:20 Day17/86:1 (1) 70:14 60:15 72:23 117:16 126:18,24 127:2 60:21 61:2,18,21 118:6 123:22
31:21 34:23 41:25
Day20/41:1 (1) 16:13 119:10 130:3 128:18,24 129:5,17 62:5,14,20 63:2,4,5 124:22,23
42:1 57:13,14
D Day6/75:1 (1) 111:14 149:14 129:21,23 134:16 63:14,15 64:5,6,7 entrepreneur (1)
73:22 106:24
D132/2167/1 (1) Day6/76:1 (1) 111:16 describes (1) 130:11 disclosing (3) 79:23 64:10,12,16,23 29:22
107:22,23,25
days (2) 155:23 156:4 describing (2) 74:7 123:20 155:12 65:1,3,10,14,20 entrepreneurs (1)
130:13 108:17 109:7,8,17
days’ (1) 156:6 136:16 disclosure (9) 58:5 66:2,3,13,16,24,24 29:17
D132/2167/2 (1) 111:25
DC (1) 15:8 desk (1) 41:4 62:14,20 63:14 67:14,18 68:14 entries (3) 9:10,11
130:19 e-mailed (1) 63:9
DD (2) 26:4,7 despite (3) 67:7 77:25 105:2 115:23 72:2,9,16,18,20,23 155:4
D132/2167/4 (1) e-mails (5) 64:7 107:7
de-stuffing (1) 3:21 83:2 123:19 127:18 73:1,3,17 75:2,12 entry (1) 155:3
130:14 111:6,9 133:25
deal (3) 72:19 144:13 destroyed (1) 45:21 137:14 75:15,18 76:3,16 episode (3) 72:12
D132/2167/5 (1) E&Y (1) 31:24
155:20 destruction (1) 25:5 discontinued (1) 76:24,24 78:20 126:16 133:7
130:19 earlier (11) 16:17
deal’s (1) 72:20 detail (5) 49:24 50:16 149:4 79:21,25 80:20,21 episodes (5) 54:24
D137/2273/1 (1) 38:25 57:21 105:4
dealing (3) 3:15 13:15 57:21 78:21 108:8 discovered (1) 65:8 80:21 81:18,22,23 113:6 129:22 130:8
112:19 106:4 112:9 128:12
136:22 detailed (2) 29:1 discrepancy (4) 16:16 81:24 82:4,5 105:2 133:11
D137/2278/1 (2) 131:8 132:2 142:18
dealings (1) 60:25 110:21 22:16,21 26:6 105:11 106:13,20 Equatorial (3) 15:7,25
125:17 132:9 153:10
deals (1) 83:23 details (4) 44:17 discretion (1) 152:13 106:22 107:18 30:19
D137/2278/2 (1) early (3) 48:12 142:11
dealt (1) 140:1 53:12 122:15 discuss (11) 40:12,13 108:9,19,24 110:14 equity (25) 31:20 32:9
132:14 146:22
debated (1) 126:17 143:20 40:14,20 57:11,12 110:14,22 112:9,14 32:10,15 33:4,9,10
D137/2278/4 (2) easy (1) 31:17
debt (11) 2:15 30:10 detain (3) 114:10 75:16 85:5 102:8 113:2,14,15,22 33:20,22,23,23
125:18 132:10 EBITDA (3) 8:8,12,14
33:10,11,12 38:7 115:5 137:18 143:8 149:9 116:4,7 117:8,12 34:4,8,8,11,15,16
D137/2278/5 (1) economy (1) 13:16
142:5,21,24 143:1 detained (2) 36:13 discussed (8) 65:3 117:15 118:1,15,19 36:19 37:4,20 38:2

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

162

March 3, 2016 Day 21 Redacted

38:7,8,12 143:1 exchanged (2) 111:7 117:15 48:25 63:22 83:18
Erokhin (6) 54:9,18 111:10 familiar (2) 125:10,20 fixed (2) 7:3 31:14
64:15 65:7,11 excuse (1) 16:7 familiarise (2) 46:8 fixing (1) 42:9
81:15 excuses (1) 38:9 128:9 flag (2) 22:5 38:14
especially (1) 147:11 executive (2) 21:21,23 familiarised (2) 75:13 flaws (1) 15:11
essence (1) 79:19 exercise (1) 137:16 76:3 fled (1) 22:7
essential (2) 2:18 existence (1) 115:1 far (12) 8:3 43:7 52:6 flexible (1) 5:22
24:15 existing (1) 134:9 52:23 61:16 85:21 flow (4) 2:16 23:10
essentially (1) 127:4 expect (5) 38:2,4 119:17 131:19 25:8 84:5
establish (13) 9:15 148:21,23 150:4 143:23 146:13 focus (2) 25:11,19
17:6 74:18,22 expectation (1) 152:12 153:10 focusing (3) 22:14
85:14,18 115:23 148:25 fault (1) 40:23 44:22 56:16
116:8 117:13 118:1 expected (1) 6:18 February (4) 54:12 folder (2) 77:1 82:6
119:8 124:18 151:2 expended (2) 66:21 81:15 108:12 follow (3) 32:1 60:1
establishing (1) 119:1 66:22 111:24 110:8
estimate (3) 7:15 expenses (1) 102:10 Federation (3) 114:11 followed (1) 127:3
28:13 29:1 experience (11) 7:16 114:21 116:24 following (5) 35:11
estimates (1) 2:23 7:18 8:1 12:2 14:19 fee (3) 17:13 147:13 69:17,20 108:24
et (4) 23:1 27:25 28:1 14:21,24 23:20 148:17 109:4
81:8 32:19 47:2,3 feel (3) 8:17 34:6 follows (3) 74:7 110:6
etiquette (1) 19:1 experienced (1) 31:3 82:22 127:10
euphemistically (1) expert (2) 5:11 6:9 feeling (1) 145:25 fool (1) 36:11
28:2 experts (2) 18:9,11 fees (1) 68:6 foot (1) 139:5
European (1) 3:5 explain (11) 4:22 felt (4) 13:5 135:14,20 footing (1) 121:22
evaluated (1) 80:1 12:10 15:2 17:19 136:24 force (2) 21:4,5
evaluation (5) 8:19 21:19 54:6 69:17 ferry (1) 33:7 forecast (1) 14:1
24:13 79:2,3,4 84:8 85:17 114:5 figure (9) 2:9 6:21 7:3 Foreign (1) 21:11
evening (2) 53:20,21 137:17 9:7 10:17 11:15,21 foremost (1) 75:8
event (3) 8:9 12:1 explained (6) 16:19 11:22 148:25 forensic (1) 74:23
103:19 37:5 38:6 69:7 figures (7) 2:25 6:10 forgets (1) 74:2
events (2) 146:6 121:4 139:24 6:10,24 7:2 20:11 forgot (3) 40:19,23
149:14 explaining (1) 107:5 22:17 41:22
eventually (3) 7:3 explanation (1) 121:3 file (3) 26:24 76:10 forgotten (2) 11:5,6
29:13 147:13 explanations (2) 82:2 83:11 form (6) 24:1 38:6,7
everybody (1) 111:4 136:10 filed (5) 125:16 45:22 46:13 61:12
evidence (56) 1:19,23 explosive (1) 25:6 126:21 127:10 formal (1) 80:12
2:3 5:11,13,21,21 expressed (1) 124:24 128:10 129:12 formally (2) 39:21
6:12,20 7:25 10:5 expression (3) 31:22 files (8) 55:4,9 57:10 40:9
14:14 17:16 19:6,8 38:8 46:17 57:15 59:2 72:2 former (1) 135:23
19:14 20:5,6,8 43:9 extensive (1) 55:8 74:25 75:24 formerly (1) 143:12
52:21 64:4,9 65:8 extent (16) 5:23 8:15 final (3) 27:1,7 36:21 forth (2) 16:22 57:1
70:13,17 74:9,13 9:5 22:25 23:24 Finally (1) 16:12 forwarded (3) 65:10
74:20 77:7,14,15 54:20 65:3 75:20 finance (4) 11:8 23:21 66:9 73:6
77:23 78:2,3,10,12 79:21 111:8 119:6 30:13 32:15 found (12) 3:10 4:21
78:14 79:2,15,17 122:21 123:7 134:7 financial (9) 31:18 24:12,16 32:14,18
84:12 85:5,24,25 150:19 152:18 51:14 52:7,9 53:9 83:7 109:14 118:23
108:5 112:10 extents (1) 134:13 67:25 68:20 72:14 119:1,4,20
115:21 116:17,17 extra (3) 3:22 4:2 149:13 founders (1) 38:16
118:21 121:13,23 31:20 find (16) 4:6,17 10:13 fountain (1) 36:11
136:25 137:2 140:3 extraordinary (1) 69:1 10:20 14:24 24:12 four (2) 12:17 80:8
evidential (1) 8:25 extreme (1) 22:21 73:12,13 74:3 fourth (1) 27:16
evolved (1) 142:17 extremely (1) 83:5 76:24 83:3 84:19 frailties (1) 124:24
ex (1) 143:13 eye (1) 65:2 108:14 114:10 framework (4) 49:15
ex-employees (4) 147:1 155:3 54:17 61:5 63:17
135:15,19 136:3,23 F fine (2) 42:1 86:8 France (2) 52:16 56:22
ex-manager (1) 80:16 face (3) 71:9,13 119:4 fingertips (1) 29:21 frantically (1) 153:22
exact (1) 148:25 finish (5) 125:4 153:9 fraud (2) 130:10,11
faces (1) 80:14
exactly (12) 7:20 15:9 153:14 154:1,5 free (7) 40:10,13
facilities (1) 6:6
30:18 33:2 53:7 finished (3) 108:3 104:16 106:11
facility (3) 12:21 13:4
55:22 62:10 126:15 135:9 137:6 127:20 128:1,6
15:20
127:23 129:22 finishing (1) 153:7 Friday (1) 157:6
fact (14) 5:18 17:2,7
147:9 157:3 firm (2) 59:23 60:3 friend (3) 11:6 43:12
20:7 49:6 61:13
exaggerating (1) 6:2 first (31) 3:15 14:19 109:25
67:7 71:15 77:25
examination (2) 85:2 14:23 28:9 39:18 friendly (5) 60:11
78:1,8 84:11
152:24 40:19 42:22 44:24 63:18 66:12 110:4
115:24 131:20
Examination-in-chie… 48:10,12 51:9 52:5 110:10
facto (1) 143:13
42:20 138:16 158:8 54:10 61:9 69:10 friends (2) 102:13
factor (1) 28:3
158:16 75:2,8 103:21 107:11
facts (5) 47:16 71:18
examine (1) 103:9 121:3 124:8 125:12 front (3) 17:16 84:8
78:6,8 120:17
examined (2) 103:10 129:4 130:17 131:3 138:22
factum (1) 72:18
153:1 131:3 134:20 front-end (1) 28:10
fair (9) 1:19 46:3
example (11) 17:12 136:22 138:23,25 fruitful (1) 124:10
51:17 84:10,10
18:12,24 32:10 142:18 144:19 full (2) 9:5 138:18
85:22 142:16
44:18 45:18 58:8 first-hand (1) 80:17 fullness (2) 8:16 15:12
144:10,24
68:14 117:21 firstly (5) 40:22 65:18 fully (2) 12:10 128:24
fairly (3) 11:24 28:6
128:25 137:5 68:9 73:2 135:21 functioning (1) 146:9
118:22
exception (1) 104:2 fished (1) 120:13 Fund (1) 33:8
fait (1) 19:1
excessively (1) 68:22 fit (2) 79:22 83:6 fundamental (1) 25:7
fall (3) 13:14 24:7
exchange (1) 57:17 five (6) 8:10,12 35:19 funding (3) 27:15

32:25 34:3 fundraising (1) 15:22 funds (2) 15:18 52:18 furnished (1) 46:6 further (13) 5:11 10:9
17:24 36:13,15 44:20 75:11 102:8 102:16 108:14 130:13 150:5 158:6

future (5) 42:3 67:7 68:6,16,20

G

gallery (1) 42:10 game (3) 32:17 34:17
142:18 garnered (2) 71:25

75:13

gather (4) 54:14 56:5 75:5 142:6

gathered (1) 56:24 gathering (1) 71:23 gauge (1) 18:22 general (8) 14:14,16

28:1 129:18 136:25 137:2,3 145:25

generally (1) 86:2 generic (1) 63:5 generous (1) 28:6 gentleman (1) 35:22 getting (3) 13:1 27:25

138:6 gift (1) 70:10

give (19) 17:5,5,18 25:18,20 32:22 45:2 58:8 60:21 64:3,9 65:8 103:15 128:25 138:17 143:5,20 154:11,14

given (19) 11:25 16:17 18:1 19:14 19:17,23 20:1,3 30:24 35:5 38:23 39:7 61:1 107:10 124:9 132:16,24 152:14 156:21

giving (4) 34:24 85:18 85:25 121:23

glasses (1) 4:25 gleaned (1) 60:17 go (51) 4:2 16:11,12

17:17 18:6 22:5 23:8,11,13 25:7 26:2,24 27:1 31:25 32:10 37:9 44:13 46:8 50:16,18 51:11,19,22 54:1 57:21 60:14 65:21 67:22 69:4 70:5 72:6 80:4 81:13 82:13 83:17 85:11 102:9 103:6 117:5 119:22,23 124:7,11 132:6,8,9 133:18 134:21 139:3,8 154:10

goes (5) 20:8 41:1,8 59:17 70:8

going (46) 4:3 9:1 10:8 11:19 12:3 13:12 19:22 20:10 24:11 29:3,4 31:8 32:13 33:22 34:9 37:8 39:1,3,4,5 42:10 53:3 63:10 68:6,10 84:6 85:8,9 85:15,16 102:25 103:25 119:2,22,25

124:14 131:22 133:20 146:9 148:10,11,13,25 153:12 155:24 156:1

good (10) 1:3 2:6 27:4 40:1 41:24 125:19 130:15 132:9 137:22 151:18

goodbye (1) 41:8 government (2) 17:13

33:1

grabs (1) 13:24 Gram-Bell (1) 70:4 grateful (5) 39:20

40:16 109:25 112:23 115:19

grave (1) 26:5 great (6) 24:19 30:1

35:15 39:4 44:17 132:11

grey (3) 17:20 24:6 34:5

ground (1) 34:3 grounds (2) 123:2,22 group (10) 23:1 30:4

31:8 69:19 136:11 141:3 142:16,20 143:12,18

group’s (1) 70:25 grow (1) 29:22 growing (2) 29:25

30:5

grown (3) 30:5,7,8 guarantee (1) 36:7 guarantees (4) 34:24

35:5,9,24 guarantor (1) 36:11 guidance (1) 115:20 guilt (1) 77:13 guilty (1) 77:17 Guinea (3) 15:7,25

30:19

H

habit (1) 153:8 half (6) 103:18,21
115:12 149:11,11 153:17

halfway (2) 36:23 69:15

hand (8) 41:24 58:24 80:13,13 107:12 117:10 140:1 154:18

handed (7) 9:1 52:16 58:21 107:7,13,15 112:24

handling (5) 2:22 3:1 3:23 5:2,6

handouts (1) 9:2 hands (1) 119:11 Hapag-Lloyd (2) 4:23

5:1

happen (5) 61:14 68:7 69:1 146:16 155:24

happened (15) 2:7 17:7 65:18 106:6 106:23 114:5 141:2 143:23 147:16,24 149:19,22,25 150:23,25

happening (1) 157:4 happens (3) 59:12 114:16 140:17

happier (1) 34:9 happy (7) 6:10 7:25

15:8 18:25 19:3

41:15 155:20 hard (5) 18:20 27:6 112:24 115:11

132:16 health (1) 156:9

hear (5) 20:9 41:13 80:23,23 137:13

heard (3) 46:17 59:23 135:23

hearing (8) 66:10 85:19 86:17 102:4 127:12 129:8 158:11,12

hearings (2) 126:19 127:24

hearsay (1) 20:8 heed (1) 31:7 height (1) 14:24 held (9) 11:8 46:20

62:15,21 64:23 143:16 144:8 150:7 151:5

Hello (1) 109:19 help (7) 4:24 34:21

40:6 118:9 140:18 142:5 155:20

helpful (3) 9:11 112:24 124:16

helpfully (1) 11:7 helping (1) 33:6 helps (1) 19:7 hesitant (1) 15:15 high (6) 13:19,24 29:5

66:16 110:7 146:12 higher (2) 13:23 14:1 highly (1) 12:18 HILDYARD (153) 1:3

1:11 5:18 6:17 7:1 7:9,12,14,18,24 8:24 10:8 11:5,12 11:17 12:5 13:17 14:8,11,15 17:23 18:3,5,8,13 19:2,10 19:17,20,25 20:6,9 20:20,21,22,25 21:8,17 22:1,13 23:6,19 24:8 25:3 25:10,13,17 26:6,9 26:15,18,21 27:4,7 27:11 28:8,11,15 28:20 29:10 30:7,9 30:12,14,17,20 31:5 32:9,25 33:3 33:14,18 34:2,18 35:12,14,20 36:10 36:17 39:15,18 40:5,12,18 41:2,5 41:10,16 42:1,6,8 42:17 83:20 84:4 84:15,17,21,23 85:1 86:6,9,13,16 102:22,25 103:3 108:17 109:1,6 116:9,18,22 117:20 118:9,13 119:18,25 120:9 121:12 122:7 122:23 123:9,25 124:6,22 125:6 128:12 132:20 133:15,16,17,24 134:20,24 135:4,12 136:22 137:6,8,22 137:24 138:5,15 152:23 153:19,25 154:7,16,22 155:6 156:25 158:5,14

hint (1) 21:20 hires (1) 140:18 hmm (1) 37:23

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

163

March 3, 2016 Day 21 Redacted

hold (6) 22:4 25:22 37:10 55:18 133:15 150:21

holding (7) 140:10 142:14 143:11 145:19 151:6,7 156:22

honest (2) 22:23 35:7 honestly (1) 23:22 hope (6) 14:7 39:25

40:5 117:16 153:6 154:5

hopefully (1) 124:20 hoping (1) 15:23 hour (3) 14:4,6 153:17 hours (1) 114:19 housekeeping (6)

83:15,19 118:11 153:4 158:10,18 huge (4) 28:14 35:7

68:22 117:8 hugely (2) 16:6 23:1 Humber (1) 32:23 hypothesis (1) 16:15

I

I-told-you-so (1) 8:4 idea (4) 4:14 27:5
41:24 46:18 identification (1) 6:18 identified (1) 20:2 identify (6) 5:16 18:21

119:19 123:13 132:17,19

identifying (2) 20:1 124:12

IFRS (4) 22:25 31:25 32:5 37:6

ignorance (1) 40:8 ignorant (1) 123:11 imagine (2) 21:14

30:18 immediately (1)
104:21

impecuniosity (4)

51:8,24 52:14,23 impinge (1) 59:20 implications (1)

117:11 importance (3) 66:16

67:20 110:20 important (18) 8:7,22

8:24 44:5,9 45:1 47:7,17,20 64:6 75:17 81:10 119:3 120:17,21 121:6 124:20 155:19

impossible (1) 142:12 impression (3) 136:1

136:10 137:4 improper (1) 86:5 improve (1) 68:20 improves (2) 51:14

67:25 inaccurate (1) 13:18

inappropriate (1) 86:1 inaudible (1) 31:25 include (1) 25:21 included (3) 56:1 82:2

131:14 includes (1) 75:1 including (4) 58:21

63:3 64:6 123:4 increase (2) 27:20

28:17 increased (1) 2:17 increasing (1) 4:2

increasingly (1) 125:2

independent (4) 9:24

52:2 152:6,8

independently (1)

74:13

INDEX (1) 158:1 indicate (2) 1:21 3:7 indicated (10) 41:22

42:16 102:21 109:25 118:18 128:12 138:14 141:25 148:17 153:21

indicates (2) 3:5 4:8 indicating (1) 117:22 indication (2) 23:4

145:23 indications (1) 32:17 indicative (1) 1:25 individual (2) 46:4

47:12 industrial (1) 15:19

industry (3) 3:23 28:5 36:9

inevitable (1) 32:14 inform (3) 48:22

104:22,24 information (37) 3:25

10:10 19:5 23:23 24:1 29:12 36:22 38:23 44:9 45:2 47:14 54:15 55:16 56:20 60:16,20 61:9,11,12,15 70:7 70:23 71:7,8,18,23 71:25 75:5,14 76:12 81:2,10,18 81:20 83:3 110:21 156:18

informed (4) 9:7 49:17 69:19 128:11

infrastructure (4)

26:13 32:25 33:5,8 initial (1) 143:4 initiated (3) 54:25

131:3 133:7 injunction (1) 52:16 innocence (1) 77:11 innominate (1) 16:20 insistence (1) 2:4 Insofar (1) 7:24 inspected (1) 116:15 inspection (1) 105:11 instance (6) 56:9

59:13,14 120:21,23 128:6

instances (2) 57:9 128:17

instituted (1) 21:12 instructed (3) 49:20 85:10 113:21 instructing (1) 50:8 instruction (1) 50:7 instructions (2) 152:1

152:13 insufficient (1) 78:5 insurance (8) 70:1,19

72:5 112:16 131:10 131:17 143:6,15

intended (1) 21:10 interaction (1) 83:1 intercede (1) 8:6 interest (8) 30:21

35:15 60:17 135:25 136:13 143:16 152:6,8

interested (2) 25:20 135:6

interests (7) 56:6 59:20 151:4,22,23

151:24 152:16 interim (1) 59:5 intermission (1) 124:9 intermodal (7) 3:17

6:4,5 12:11,22 13:8 14:13

internal (3) 26:19

36:25 46:9

international (3) 2:5

114:7,8

internet (4) 3:5,10

4:21 9:3

Interpol (2) 114:9 115:4

interpretation (1)

119:13 interpreted (2) 42:15

138:13 interpreters (2)
107:13,14 interrogated (1) 136:2 interrogation (1)

113:7 interrupting (2) 84:5

125:7 intervention (1)

142:13 interview (5) 125:13

125:25 126:8 132:20,23

interviews (6) 130:3,6

132:2,5 133:1,2

intimidated (4)

135:14,20 136:24 136:25

intracorporate (3)

43:24 47:4 72:16 introducing (1) 5:24 investigated (2) 48:14

133:9 investigation (7) 49:9

49:15 52:2 53:14 56:23 131:6 133:7

investigations (5)

33:19 50:14 74:23 77:19 144:22

investigative (2) 48:21 68:11

investigator (31)

48:21 49:6,14 56:2 57:1 76:12 77:14 78:4,7,21 79:19 80:20 81:8 82:21 113:11,17 114:11 114:24 126:1,8,19 126:25 127:3,8,13 127:20 129:2,3,6 129:25 136:19

investigator’s (5)

75:24 76:10 79:1 127:25 136:7

investigators (6)

72:21 75:3,6,9 78:15 136:12 investigatory (1) 49:8 investment (2) 24:17

34:4

investor (4) 2:12

24:10 142:10,22

involve (2) 139:23

142:7

involved (11) 31:13 33:6 48:24 58:1 63:25 81:5 122:14 142:14 143:11 144:7 151:21

involves (1) 140:10 involving (2) 60:4

120:24

iron (1) 32:8 irrelevant (3) 23:7
121:21 123:14 islands (1) 16:1

issue (12) 17:15 25:12 61:22 69:25 70:9 72:3 75:17 104:15 107:1 114:8 124:6 149:9

issued (1) 72:15 issues (1) 123:15 itchy (1) 138:6

J

J1/20/1 (2) 62:2 105:6 J1/20/10 (1) 106:1 J1/20/4 (1) 105:7 J1/20/9 (4) 10:25 11:2

64:19 105:19

James (1) 11:9

January (4) 51:19 80:7

111:23 135:11 job (1) 21:20 join (1) 1:7

joint-stock (3) 113:8 131:5 150:15

judge (6) 43:7 66:17 71:12 78:20 79:21 129:12

judgment (1) 59:14 judgments (1) 59:5

Julia (4) 52:8 57:24

69:18 120:19

Julia’s (1) 56:7

July (4) 9:4 27:1 146:3

146:6

July/August (1)

146:10

June (2) 7:7,10

JUSTICE (153) 1:3,11

5:18 6:17 7:1,9,12 7:14,18,24 8:24 10:8 11:5,12,17 12:5 13:17 14:8,11 14:15 17:23 18:3,5 18:8,13 19:2,10,17 19:20,25 20:6,9,20 20:21,22,25 21:8 21:17 22:1,13 23:6 23:19 24:8 25:3,10 25:13,17 26:6,9,15 26:18,21 27:4,7,11 28:8,11,15,20 29:10 30:7,9,12,14 30:17,20 31:5 32:9 32:25 33:3,14,18 34:2,18 35:12,14 35:20 36:10,17 39:15,18 40:5,12 40:18 41:2,5,10,16 42:1,6,8,17 83:20 84:4,15,17,21,23 85:1 86:6,9,13,16 102:22,25 103:3 108:17 109:1,6 116:9,18,22 117:20 118:9,13 119:18,25 120:9 121:12 122:7 122:23 123:9,25 124:6,22 125:6 128:12 132:20 133:15,16,17,24 134:20,24 135:4,12 136:22 137:6,8,22 137:24 138:5,15 152:23 153:19,25 154:7,16,22 155:6 156:25 158:5,14

justifiable (1) 17:14 justification (2) 2:25
113:23

justified (7) 6:11 8:1 12:1 14:25 15:12 75:11 77:19

justify (7) 6:24 11:15 13:23 20:11 24:24 113:12 126:11

K

Kalininsky (1) 114:13

Kapustin (3) 65:6 80:6

81:11 keen (1) 28:14

keep (20) 13:21 44:16 44:23 45:19,25 46:13 47:23 49:16 58:23 59:18,19 80:12 81:23 82:10 82:12,17,19 83:4 120:18 125:1

keeping (1) 43:22 kept (8) 46:21 59:9 61:19 75:15,18 76:5,7 106:24

kick (1) 25:12 killed (1) 36:8 kind (10) 33:13,20

53:14 56:4 64:16 79:11 106:9 140:25 142:12 148:9

KIT (1) 34:25 knees (1) 36:6

knew (7) 30:15 52:15 52:17 134:1,2,3 135:21

know (55) 4:7,11 5:9 5:14 6:17,20 7:20 8:14,25 9:4 22:18 23:13 24:5 29:6 31:18 32:6 42:19 47:1 52:7,8 53:3,6 53:7,8 58:11 61:14 67:10 68:3 83:2 85:15,20 105:5,15 109:13,15 110:16 111:11 117:13 118:13 119:21 122:13,15 128:13 128:20 129:22,22 134:21 136:17 148:9,24 149:25 150:19 154:7 157:2 157:3

knowing (2) 39:19 123:18

knowledge (8) 6:24 16:2 43:6 122:25 123:18 135:19 139:15 149:22

known (4) 3:19 32:22 134:6 154:1

KPMG (1) 31:24

L

Lack (1) 29:16 laid (1) 31:15 Land (1) 59:15 language (4) 16:8

105:21 155:9,10 large (11) 12:17 13:16 17:20 28:23 32:21 47:14 55:12 64:12 113:14,15 144:3

late (2) 5:23 31:19 latest (1) 78:17 laughingly (1) 23:10

law (5) 43:23 50:19 120:17 123:5 129:19

lawful (1) 129:14 lawyer (8) 46:15 54:11 58:11,11

71:22 85:10 110:8 117:3

lawyers (5) 26:3 70:25 145:5,7,16

laying (2) 28:17 31:12 lead (1) 145:17 leading (3) 17:24

110:1 113:20 learned (5) 11:6 43:12

102:13 107:11 109:25

leasing (2) 35:23 36:9 leave (7) 18:17,22,25 25:22 85:8,11

137:24

Leaving (1) 26:9 led (3) 110:3 117:21

145:2 leery (1) 26:10

left (5) 41:4 81:7 120:13 136:4,18
left-hand (1) 34:22 legal (7) 49:1 66:16

69:2 143:19 145:5 145:14,15

legitimate (1) 119:14 lender (8) 1:16 2:10 2:11,11,13 24:10

37:17 38:10 lenders (4) 2:8 22:3

31:7 38:25 lending (1) 26:14 lest (1) 84:9

let’s (8) 13:25 27:4 44:7 45:1 46:15 50:12 119:22 132:9

letter (8) 108:12,17 108:21 110:9,25 111:25 112:4 134:18

letters (1) 133:25 level (2) 118:12

146:12

leveraged (2) 35:23 36:8

levied (1) 4:2 Levitskaya (12) 75:4,4

82:15 113:17 114:11,24 128:15 130:9 135:16,20,25 136:2

liability (2) 150:11,16 liaise (1) 137:12

lied (1) 38:15 life (1) 23:21

light (4) 6:11 19:20 23:23 25:11

limit (1) 125:1 limited (5) 52:18

118:2 150:10,11,16 limits (1) 116:8

line (6) 70:20 120:3 121:9 133:20,22 134:20

lines (2) 53:14 147:12 liquidation (1) 36:5 liquidity (2) 8:9

142:25

list (15) 25:18,18,20 35:5 63:5,5 105:25 106:2,21 108:9,13 109:17 113:15 128:21 145:24

listed (3) 121:25 122:10 145:22
listen (1) 10:9 lists (1) 108:24 literally (1) 108:23 litigation (1) 145:9 little (8) 5:23 6:1

12:14 116:22 121:12 130:13 136:3 156:11

lives (2) 48:1,1 LLC (1) 69:19

loan (5) 131:5,16,21 131:22 144:23

loans (2) 72:15 140:19 local (1) 26:4

location (1) 12:24 logistical (2) 4:16

123:4 logistics (1) 124:3 London (3) 103:10

104:6 110:7 long (11) 18:14,22

22:7 31:13 43:19 65:18 118:16 124:21 133:13 149:24 152:25

longer (7) 10:8 13:4 13:21 48:1 51:3 106:15 114:19

look (42) 9:9,9 13:20 18:19 20:14 22:16 25:23 35:14 36:23 37:21 48:9 51:5 53:12 64:5,11,25 65:13,14,17 66:2,3 69:10 71:14 73:7 105:4 107:21 109:7 109:17 113:1 122:17 125:10,17 126:4 130:20 132:7 133:23 135:8 138:22 142:25 143:13,13 146:23

looked (7) 11:1,25 71:13 79:19 108:4 112:6 122:1

looking (14) 2:13,15 8:12 14:23 27:6 32:9,11 34:20 35:9 111:4,17 125:8 130:9 143:10

looks (10) 37:24 54:4 69:23 78:11 104:11 125:2,20,24 138:23 139:9

Lord (125) 1:10 5:9,9 6:21 7:19,19 8:1,21 8:22,25,25 9:14,21 10:11,24,24 11:6 11:16 16:14 17:22 17:23 18:2,4,6,9,14 18:25 19:19 20:4 20:10,14,19 36:15 36:16,18 39:11,12 39:13,16,22 40:8 40:13,15 41:11,15 41:15 42:2,4,7,10 43:13,14,15 83:14 83:16,22 84:7,10 84:16,16,19,22,25 85:14,14 86:7,8,12 86:15 103:5 105:3 105:24 107:17 112:9 115:14,14,19 115:20 116:9,14,19 117:1,20,23 118:8 118:21,21 119:15 119:15,18,24

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

164

March 3, 2016 Day 21 Redacted

120:16 123:24 124:16 125:4 128:20 131:8 133:14,23 137:14 137:20,23,23 138:1 138:1,11,11,16,17 139:17 152:21 153:5,5,12,12 154:14,17,23,23 155:21 156:20,24 158:6,9,16

Lord’s (2) 39:14 117:25

Lordship (33) 1:4 5:9 5:15 8:6,22 10:25 11:3 12:15 18:20 19:1 36:18 40:23 41:21,23 48:16 54:6 60:19 62:4 64:10 66:18 74:25 77:21 79:13 84:2 102:5 107:8 124:3 134:23 138:17 154:20,24,25 155:8

Lordship’s (7) 12:7 37:9 67:17 74:22 105:3 108:11 153:24

lose (1) 23:15

lost (2) 127:1 153:6 lot (10) 13:4 14:20 23:17 29:17 30:2

35:24 63:23 120:8 124:15 151:15

lots (4) 11:17 30:2 49:13 57:14

low (3) 31:11 33:4 34:10

lower (2) 6:10 14:1

Lt (2) 82:14 135:16

Luba (2) 15:24 16:10

Lukina (2) 144:18,19 lump (1) 17:10 lunch (3) 83:24 85:2

104:25

Luncheon (1) 102:2

M

Macquarie (4) 33:8

36:3,6 38:6

mad (1) 41:4 Madame (3) 75:3,4

135:10

main (2) 47:17 146:2 maintain (1) 146:7 major (2) 130:9,11 majority (1) 119:9 making (6) 46:16 48:1

61:20 63:2 147:5 153:8

Malysheva (10)

125:25 130:4 132:3 132:12,24 142:19 143:4 144:13 151:12 152:14

Malysheva’s (1)

142:23

man (2) 29:23 39:9 manage (4) 15:18 30:21 140:18

143:15 managed (1) 140:22 management (6)

140:5 142:15 143:7 143:8,21 145:3

manager (1) 30:11 manages (1) 141:16 managing (3) 140:11

142:11 143:11 mandated (1) 15:18 mandatory (1) 44:14 March (9) 1:1 66:10

103:16,20,22 104:1 111:25 146:3 157:6

margins (1) 12:20 Marine (8) 69:19

141:3,19,20 142:16 142:20 143:12,18

marker (1) 115:17 market (5) 1:21,25 8:12 12:19 22:3

markets (1) 16:6 Martin (1) 11:9 mass (2) 117:8,12 match (1) 30:5 material (23) 3:10

5:12,24 7:21 8:23 9:16,22 11:21 17:25 40:14 44:2 58:4 115:24 116:14 116:19 117:1,2,3 118:22 122:6,12 155:2,5

materially (2) 64:6 120:17

materials (18) 44:13 47:19 55:14 58:2 113:11 114:1 120:22,23 122:17 125:14 126:2,15,24 127:13,16,17 128:10 129:5

matter (21) 6:9 10:11 17:9 18:23 41:14 46:4 49:5 65:21 68:13,23 69:16 72:5 73:8,10 76:1 76:13,14 81:6 85:10 102:13 116:2

matters (21) 18:11,24 40:14 49:24 50:8 50:10,13,20 51:3 54:17 58:12 59:3 62:12 63:25 64:13 67:21 70:15 83:25 84:11 115:18 120:12

maximum (2) 147:15 152:17

mea (1) 41:3

mean (36) 6:2 13:17 17:1,8 18:4 25:25 26:12 28:13 29:16 30:10 31:10,12 32:1 33:15 35:1 48:7 52:23 56:8 62:8,10 72:7 77:9 83:8 127:2,19 137:4 140:17,20 141:9 142:15 144:3 146:6,17 147:25 149:20,21

means (4) 2:18 46:18 52:3 120:20

meant (7) 36:4 42:11 66:23 73:24 83:9 127:17 148:1 measure (2) 114:14

115:4 measured (1) 33:16 media (2) 154:18,23 mediate (1) 144:17 meet (2) 54:18 85:6 meeting (37) 44:8,11

44:12,15,25 45:3,7 45:12,14,16 46:1,5 46:20 47:11,18

48:3 54:13 65:7,11 80:6,8,10,13,14,18 81:9,12,14,14,17 81:20 82:14,18 83:8,10,12 103:4
meetings (5) 44:5 46:21 47:15 48:5 65:5

member (1) 47:6 members (1) 47:5 memo (1) 21:22 memoranda (1) 64:15 memorandum (5) 4:1

23:23 24:1,17 36:22

memory (2) 117:21 146:21

mention (1) 61:13 mentioned (24) 3:6 4:19 21:3 46:12 47:12,23 48:19

54:8 60:10 62:23 63:16 68:9 73:24 80:15 104:14 106:4 106:20 108:22 110:14 111:11 122:13 134:14 136:7 144:12

mentioning (1) 70:3 mentions (1) 110:25 Mercury (3) 145:19

146:4,4 merely (1) 31:8 met (1) 135:5 mez (1) 33:10

mezzanine (2) 33:10 38:7

micro (1) 32:10 midst (1) 15:21 MIKHAIL (2) 42:14

158:7

million (26) 15:6,19 16:11,16,17 22:15 23:12,14,14 26:9 27:14,19,21 28:3 28:16,25 33:9 36:24 37:4,20 38:12,18 131:5,16 131:21 148:16

mind (9) 42:9 62:25 63:24 84:20,21 110:1 113:2 120:14 152:4

minded (1) 41:11 mine (2) 52:4 61:4 minimal (3) 11:22

56:12,22 minus (1) 28:13 minute (1) 115:13 minutes (10) 4:19

18:17 41:17 44:15 44:17 46:21 83:18 125:5 127:5 133:1 minutiae (1) 122:16

Misha (1) 109:11 misleading (1) 38:20 mistaken (3) 110:2

111:23 147:1

misunderstanding (2)

46:23 110:19 mixture (1) 16:19 Mm (1) 37:23 mode (1) 85:19 model (7) 2:21 8:19

14:18 15:6,9,11 16:2

moment (5) 15:22 39:22 84:24 104:9 152:21

Monday (3) 153:9,13

153:15

Mondays (3) 103:24

103:24 104:2 money (12) 13:25

15:13 23:9 29:17 32:13 38:16,19,19 39:4 68:3 71:3 152:18

month (1) 7:13 morning (7) 1:3,8 18:2

107:17 108:6 110:3 121:13

morph (1) 142:10 Morskoy (4) 113:7 131:5 132:21

144:23 motion (1) 121:15 move (3) 8:21 12:4

86:9

movements (2) 14:4,6 moving (1) 3:21 multi-dimensional (1)

13:7

mutual (1) 82:23

N

Nadejda (1) 135:10 naively (1) 23:2 name (5) 4:22 32:5

136:24 137:1 138:18

names (2) 80:14 134:13

naming (1) 15:16 natural (1) 38:10 nature (5) 43:25

66:12 82:4 121:4 131:7

Nazarov (59) 40:16 42:12,13,14,21 43:1,12,15 44:21 46:17 47:10 51:17 53:19 56:16 59:1 59:10 60:2 61:16 62:1,6 64:19 66:3 67:22 69:7 70:12 70:16 71:4 74:4 75:18 80:5,7 81:5 81:13 82:9 83:9,14 85:1 102:6 103:1,6 103:8 104:18,23 105:17 106:5,17 107:4,16 109:23 111:17 113:1 115:11 120:9 125:7 130:1 133:14,18 137:11 158:7

Nazarov’s (1) 11:1 necessarily (1) 38:5 necessary (8) 40:1

44:16 103:11,14 104:5 115:3 117:8 120:8

need (33) 4:18,25 5:22 7:21 8:14 18:11 42:18 45:19 46:2,9 59:13 63:4 66:17 67:15 68:18 75:16 83:20 84:1 103:3,9 104:24 107:3 109:14 111:16 115:16 116:7 125:21 126:13 127:23 137:18 140:24 149:5 156:21

needed (11) 29:8 49:9

57:11 60:12,13 65:21 66:4 103:12 121:2,6 122:22

needs (12) 40:2 47:1 49:21 59:15 61:11 78:22 84:11 86:10 103:19 107:8 110:5 119:16

negative (1) 136:17 negatively (1) 81:5 negotiating (1) 15:4 negotiation (1) 149:4 neither (2) 81:11

123:14 nervous (1) 136:21

never (7) 23:23 30:15 58:3 60:2 62:19 64:21 151:18

nevertheless (1)

73:14

new (2) 24:25 66:6 news (1) 109:11 nice (1) 2:17 Nigeria (2) 15:21

30:18 nightmare (1) 123:4 no-no (1) 29:4

non (3) 5:7 11:13 122:8

non-existent (1) 48:23 normal (3) 8:11 142:1

153:8 normally (3) 28:12

61:11 106:6 nose (1) 22:4

note (15) 9:17 35:8 44:10,23 45:5,16 46:10 47:11 80:9 80:10 81:19 82:10 82:17 83:9,10

notebook (4) 47:17

47:23,24 83:11

notebooks (3) 47:25

48:4,7 noted (1) 46:22

notes (18) 9:6 44:5,6 45:14 46:13,17,20 47:17 48:1 80:12 81:21 82:12,19,24 83:1,4,8,13

Notice (2) 114:10

115:4 noting (1) 47:16

November (9) 25:17 65:16,17 66:1 105:11 108:24 109:4,8,16

number (5) 9:10 71:14 72:9 133:6 141:9

numbers (1) 133:8

O

oath (3) 71:6 104:18 111:9
object (1) 102:20 objection (2) 122:23

123:3 obligation (3) 42:2

128:7,16 obliged (1) 106:12 observed (1) 136:23

obtain (4) 75:10 81:17 115:4 140:24

obtained (2) 130:2 131:21

obtaining (1) 2:5 obvious (2) 64:3 70:2

obviously (27) 53:7,9 53:10,10 55:16 56:10,22 57:12,24 58:2 59:16 85:17 85:20 86:1 107:16 115:17,20 120:20 120:25 125:14 127:25 128:6 152:3 153:16,20 154:6 156:15

occasion (3) 47:10 66:1 114:6

occasionally (1)

120:14

occasions (2) 140:7,10 October (9) 11:3

62:17 66:18 107:23 108:21 110:10 121:25 134:9,12

odd (1) 10:15 oddly (1) 112:21 OECD (1) 21:10 offence (2) 78:23

136:14

offer (3) 19:9 39:25 64:17

office (1) 41:4

official (9) 45:11,17,19 46:7 58:18 78:16 79:20 80:21 82:21

officious (1) 83:5 offshore (1) 13:2 Oh (1) 37:13 Okay (1) 125:6

OMG (15) 4:6,11 31:1 105:16 135:15,19 136:3,23 142:1 144:17 149:24 151:25 152:6,9,18

OMG’s (3) 36:25 147:14 149:21

OMGP (1) 37:25 once (7) 10:20 23:21

58:24 83:9 126:10 130:19 156:15

one-hour (1) 44:8 one-off (1) 58:16 one-page (1) 21:22 ones (1) 72:9 oneself (1) 46:8 ongoing (1) 45:15 opaque (1) 23:1 open (6) 45:12 102:4

129:2,4 150:15 158:12

opened (1) 129:14 openly (1) 82:23 opens (1) 127:11 operating (2) 12:25

44:4

operation (3) 13:19 122:3 141:1

opinion (5) 74:17,18 74:21 78:2,5 opponents (1) 56:3 opportunities (1) 3:19 opportunity (6) 5:19

12:8 43:3 84:2 124:18 132:1

opposed (5) 2:11 3:18 12:11 52:2 150:12

optimistic (2) 7:5 10:18

Opus (2) 156:5,13 oral (2) 121:3 151:10 orally (1) 121:4 order (64) 10:25 11:2

11:4,11 20:11 46:14,22 62:3,8,13

62:16,17,18,18,19 62:24 63:3,7,7,9,9 63:13 66:8,18 67:17 75:5,10,10 76:24 82:22 104:15 104:16 105:3,8 106:10 108:11,19 110:4,12,17 111:1 112:3 114:7,9,10 115:4,5 122:8,25 126:11 127:9 128:2 129:6 134:2,3,4,6 134:10,11,12,22 137:25 153:14 156:24

ordered (4) 108:23 109:3,12 110:13

orderly (1) 30:23 ordinary (1) 38:5 organisation (3) 29:16

31:1 36:8 organisational (2)
29:18 40:25 original (8) 59:2,6,8,9

59:16,19 125:23,24 originally (4) 69:4

80:9 143:7 144:20 originals (1) 58:20

Oslo (8) 69:19 141:3 141:19,20 142:16 142:20 143:12,18

ought (2) 68:19 139:5 outliers (1) 17:18 outline (1) 78:15 outside (5) 41:9 52:15

114:11,20 115:3 outsize (1) 5:3 outsource (1) 140:23 overall (3) 75:19

144:14 148:18 overanxious (1) 85:23 overnight (1) 36:9 owed (1) 128:15 owned (3) 22:24 32:3

150:17

owner (3) 140:21,24 141:15

owners (2) 37:25 38:16

owns (1) 33:8

Oxus (2) 11:8 37:19

P

pack (4) 13:18,24 35:25 41:4 packed (1) 123:17 page (38) 16:13,14 27:11,12 35:11

36:24 37:2,11,15 42:22,25 51:20,22 69:10 70:5 105:19 106:19,19 107:21 107:22 109:8 111:14,15 125:9,11 125:12 130:17,18 130:18 132:14 133:18,20 138:23 138:25 139:4,6,8 158:2

pages (3) 36:21 111:8 139:4

paid (15) 19:6 22:17 23:12,14 31:7 39:19 51:7 68:6,15 68:19 146:19 148:3 148:14 149:20,24

painting (1) 14:7 paper (2) 55:10 82:5

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

165

March 3, 2016 Day 21 Redacted

papers (3) 4:12 7:9 124:25 42:12,13,21,25 practising (1) 43:16 139:24 140:1
20:2 perfectly (3) 10:4 48:9,10 51:23 precisely (2) 32:7 proceed (2) 1:9 5:10
paradigm (1) 22:22 17:14 102:18 53:15,17 62:1 76:11 proceedings (45)
paragraph (38) 5:20 performed (2) 141:10 64:19 66:3 67:22 predicate (1) 8:7 46:25 49:25 50:24
5:25 10:15 11:7 152:3 69:9 70:14 80:4 predict (1) 142:12 57:7,20,23 58:1,6
24:10 27:12,16 period (4) 8:3 49:12 81:13 82:13 85:3,8 prefer (2) 17:18 42:17 60:4,8,12 61:5,6,22
43:15 48:10 51:5,9 150:7 152:11 85:11 102:5 103:6 preferable (2) 85:17 62:3,13 66:4 70:16
54:11 64:22 65:6 permissible (1) 41:10 105:7,22 109:9,13 103:17 72:6,10 75:6,7
71:13 74:4,6 77:5 permission (4) 60:24 112:19 138:11,18 premium (2) 14:8,11 110:6,8 112:1,11
79:18 80:5 81:13 61:2 67:12 103:2 139:3,4,17 155:18 preparation (1) 115:22 116:24
82:7,13 105:8,16 permit (1) 76:2 pleasure (1) 136:4 153:22 118:25 119:2,5
105:20 130:20,22 permitting (1) 76:16 pledged (1) 140:19 prepare (1) 47:19 120:12 121:20
134:25 135:13 person (5) 9:20 82:21 pledges (1) 144:9 prepared (11) 22:3 122:12,14,15
146:23 147:1,8,11 114:23 115:5 plus (2) 28:13 64:1 40:2 42:23 48:2 127:11 128:14,14
147:12,23 149:17 129:24 pm (7) 85:2 102:1,3 51:13 67:16,24 129:1 134:4 135:22
149:18 personal (8) 21:18 103:4 138:8,10 68:25 102:9 135:2 145:16 149:5,5
paragraphs (3) 65:5 34:24 35:5,24 36:7 157:5 135:3 process (6) 13:1 16:5
70:3 106:19 56:8,20 121:24 point (29) 9:19 13:8 preparing (3) 9:25 24:16 127:4 145:20
pardon (1) 115:9 persons (2) 136:7,12 23:5,22 25:7 33:18 121:23 153:21 156:23
parent (1) 37:3 persuaded (1) 27:23 33:18 37:2,9 38:24 presence (2) 135:8,10 procuring (1) 16:21
park (1) 22:16 persuasive (3) 23:18 44:24,24 51:17 present (4) 14:24 produce (6) 4:5 58:4
parked (1) 25:3 39:9,11 62:7 68:11 72:7 46:23 81:11 131:20 60:3,7 81:2 105:10
part (18) 24:12 29:5 pertained (2) 134:10 80:19 103:3 114:17 presently (1) 51:7 produced (4) 11:14
36:7 45:22 54:22 134:11 117:17,25 118:1 preserve (3) 79:24 77:14 78:4 79:21
55:3,15 56:11 pertaining (8) 65:5 119:5 122:17 146:8,8 Producing (1) 156:11
57:10 66:10 76:17 66:13 67:17 73:4 126:16 127:3 133:4 president (2) 21:14,22 profession (1) 24:15
77:18 79:2 105:9 80:22 115:23 144:5 153:23 pressing (3) 31:24 professional (1)
105:14 134:17 131:15 133:2 points (5) 18:16 47:18 32:6 33:21 143:24
136:22 143:17 pertains (2) 113:6,7 47:20,21 83:19 pressure (1) 110:20 professionals (1)
participant (1) 69:18 Petersburg (20) 5:1 police (1) 55:1 presumably (3) 57:18 58:17
participation (2) 48:23 6:19 13:9,13 14:5,9 port (10) 15:3,24 17:9 76:5 84:23 professors (1) 30:2
111:25 14:12 43:17 47:4 18:14,24 22:19 presume (3) 34:11 profitable (1) 16:7
participatory (2) 48:15 57:7 67:10 27:25 28:1 142:20 56:8 68:17 progress (1) 138:3
150:9,12 104:11 114:13 143:7 presumption (1) project (24) 2:21
particular (9) 22:24 120:24 130:8 Port’s (1) 143:18 77:11 14:18,23 15:7,18
49:25 62:24 63:3 138:19 140:15,18 portions (2) 156:7,7 pretty (4) 13:15 25:5 15:24 27:13,18
63:13 72:7 124:17 143:17 Ports (1) 105:16 26:10 31:11 28:9,22 29:3 37:20
141:22 155:5 petition (2) 45:18 posed (1) 124:9 prevent (1) 26:20 38:12 39:2 141:6
particularly (2) 124:20 114:14 position (14) 22:10 previous (4) 50:5 141:25 142:9,17
125:2 petitioning (1) 78:19 45:16 47:19 78:16 106:19 142:4 155:3 143:11,14 145:23
parties (4) 57:1,11 petitions (1) 78:16 78:21 79:1 80:1,23 previously (3) 25:22 148:7,9 151:21
61:3 62:5 photocopied (1) 86:4 107:6 121:16 112:2 117:16 projected (2) 27:13,18
parties’ (1) 122:16 57:16 149:7 155:22 157:3 price (3) 16:16 31:14 projections (1) 8:15
partly (1) 83:24 photocopies (2) 79:25 possession (22) 48:4 36:4 projects (7) 15:13,14
partners (2) 15:8 113:10 53:17 55:5 59:11 prices (2) 3:8,8 15:16 16:2 33:5,13
33:25 photograph (2) 41:3 63:6 65:20 69:8 Principe (1) 16:1 141:12
parts (1) 54:24 41:23 72:21,24 73:2 principle (2) 44:24 promulgated (1)
party (6) 61:4,7 72:1 photographed (2) 79:17 106:20 61:24 34:16
80:21 110:7 140:23 57:16 79:14 110:15,15 112:10 printouts (1) 9:2 proper (2) 48:2
Pasha (1) 109:19 photographic (1) 76:9 112:12 113:3 116:5 prior (5) 21:9 60:25 129:13
pass (1) 78:7 photographs (11) 116:5 121:11 66:6 84:1 150:23 properly (3) 34:13
passages (4) 156:1,8 40:24 42:5 76:3,6,6 134:11,16 prioritised (1) 77:2 84:13 129:15
156:14,19 76:7,18 113:11 possible (12) 38:10 private (15) 83:18 property (5) 2:14,14
passed (4) 3:13 60:17 120:21 127:17 39:23 82:20 85:21 84:3 85:12,15,16 23:4,11 59:14
79:11 81:25 130:2 104:22 109:15 86:9,17 155:15 proportionality (1)
passports (1) 56:10 phrase (1) 110:12 111:14 117:11 156:2,7,14,15,17 124:7
Pause (4) 108:3 phraseology (1) 19:4 136:2,13 152:17 156:19 158:11 proportionate (1)
111:10 133:15,22 physical (1) 12:24 154:21 privilege (8) 53:4 123:21
Pavel (2) 61:3,8 pick (5) 15:23 18:10 possibly (13) 7:4 60:23 79:24 104:25 propose (1) 19:12
pay (3) 17:10 67:7 37:8 38:24 138:4 50:15,15 59:4 106:11 110:16 proposed (3) 63:11
68:24 picked (4) 26:3,4 32:2 65:19 107:2 113:5 123:10,23 67:9 102:15
payment (7) 22:15 33:25 113:14,17,25 114:1 privileged (6) 55:16 prosecution (1)
51:13 67:24 68:13 picking (1) 20:25 133:1 152:13 106:10,15 128:18 128:10
68:16 147:18 150:5 picture (1) 14:7 post (2) 72:18 143:13 129:11 137:15 prosecutor’s (1) 79:2
payments (3) 131:22 piece (1) 25:6 posts (2) 154:19,23 probably (12) 5:15 prosecutors (2) 78:12
149:6,7 pieces (1) 78:6 potential (4) 1:16 13:13,17 16:25 79:15
pen (1) 36:11 piling (1) 31:12 2:10 24:10 58:5 18:25 21:8 26:12 protected (1) 110:16
penalties (1) 21:18 place (6) 15:20 53:8 potentially (5) 25:20 29:20 31:7 32:2 prove (1) 128:2
penny (1) 148:2 83:12 111:12 129:4 62:15 71:10 72:2 82:20 115:9 provenance (2) 18:21
people (8) 10:21 22:3 148:3 116:2 problem (13) 13:10 124:19
38:6 40:11 130:7 placed (1) 74:14 pounds (1) 38:18 15:16 22:1 30:19 provide (8) 19:4 33:23
136:18,24 137:5 plagiarise (1) 12:7 power (2) 58:21 59:17 61:17,19,23 76:21 42:2 73:3 109:12
people’s (1) 156:9 plain (1) 38:13 powers (2) 23:18 59:9 76:23 84:20 102:11 113:23 127:20
perceive (1) 34:2 plan (2) 4:6,11 practical (1) 49:1 141:17 142:24 128:16
perceived (1) 29:12 plans (1) 75:7 practice (10) 43:19,21 problems (1) 155:9 provided (17) 21:14
percentage (5) 148:18 plate (1) 104:12 44:4,10 45:5 46:16 procedural (4) 82:4 35:24 66:14,17
148:19 149:12 play (2) 119:6,6 46:24 47:2 58:20 114:21 129:6,7 70:7 81:20,22,24
150:2,3 please (39) 1:4 25:14 74:1 procedure (5) 75:12 110:23 113:4,12
perception (2) 118:3 27:1 36:20 41:21 Practices (1) 21:11 127:9 129:18 121:2 126:11 135:7

142:8 143:24 145:18

providers (1) 33:23 providing (3) 50:17 61:18 113:22 provisional (1) 18:10 provoke (1) 130:16

PSC (1) 28:22

public (6) 5:19 10:17 10:22 85:21 102:22 156:2

published (1) 3:4 pulled (1) 41:3 punch (1) 120:3 purchase (2) 16:16

132:25 purchased (2) 143:14

150:25 purchaser (1) 32:4 purchasing (1) 150:24 purdah (1) 41:11 purely (6) 104:14

118:11 119:11,12 140:7,7

purpose (4) 28:22 81:17 137:19 155:17

purposes (6) 8:19 58:4 60:4,8,12 75:25

pursuant (2) 105:2 134:3

pursued (2) 56:24 117:23

pushing (1) 119:12 put (34) 2:23 5:13,15 8:19 10:21 19:9 22:4 26:10 28:5 29:14,23 32:15 33:22 36:24 37:3 37:25 38:7,16,18 38:20 49:10 50:8 52:21 56:5 57:2 76:11 78:4 80:14 104:12 105:24 110:20 115:16 142:17 156:15

putting (2) 18:15

19:15

PwC (1) 31:25

Q

qualify (1) 127:23 quality (3) 125:19 130:15 132:10

quasi (2) 33:10 38:8 question (26) 12:7

16:15 22:18 24:6 31:2,23 34:7,19 37:8,14 45:10,10 61:8 70:21 72:3 73:8,9 105:25 118:2 119:2,3 124:8 129:25 154:20 155:9,10

questionable (8)

74:10 77:8,9,10,23 80:2 116:17 118:4
questioned (1) 79:4 questioning (3) 36:14

116:16 117:4 questions (38) 1:15

2:4,20 10:1,3 11:17 17:22 20:21,22 26:23 36:14,16 39:13,14 42:15 43:13 53:2 67:19 69:16 84:6 106:12

107:17 112:9 115:22 117:20 119:16,17 121:1 133:14,16 135:5 136:20 137:9,9 138:13 155:25 158:5,14

quick (3) 1:4 9:9 18:18 quickly (4) 19:12

108:2 111:7,17 quite (20) 8:4,11,17 11:23 15:8 21:1

23:22 27:20 30:15 53:10 54:23 63:25 64:1 107:4 116:7 118:16 134:1 144:3 151:15 154:5

quiz (1) 116:23

R

raise (5) 5:14 15:6,13 15:18 32:21
raised (6) 10:6 15:10 15:10 23:20 29:17 124:18

range (3) 10:19 11:23 122:19

rate (2) 6:12 147:2 rated (1) 77:15 rates (1) 6:5 re-examination (21)

1:9,13 5:12,17,23 6:23 10:5 17:24 19:13,14,23 86:14 102:15,21 103:1,7 109:24 119:13 123:13 158:4,13

re-examine (2) 83:17 118:6

re-examining (1)

83:21 re-read (2) 43:3

105:20 re-registering (1)

131:23 reaction (1) 38:10

reactivated (1) 68:12 read (11) 43:7 105:22 106:2 107:11 108:2

109:9 129:16 132:15 139:12 147:8,11

reading (5) 19:20 22:8 126:14 142:7 145:1

reads (1) 74:6 Reagan’s (1) 21:15 real (2) 30:9 34:8 realisation (6) 145:20

148:2,15 149:12 150:2,3

realise (1) 5:22 realised (3) 37:6 144:9 148:5 realistic (1) 6:22 reality (1) 17:12

really (65) 6:13 13:21 14:2 18:22 21:1 22:22 26:15 30:7 34:2 35:14 38:21 44:7,21,22,24 52:21 56:16,22 58:7,16 59:6,21 60:13 70:10 74:18 74:21,22 83:9,13 83:22,23 84:1,8,9 85:23 117:5,6,7,8 117:13,25 118:11 118:22 119:2,5,7,8

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

166

March 3, 2016 Day 21 Redacted

119:10,11,19 120:4 refers (1) 130:7 remnants (1) 50:5 resumed (1) 49:11
120:4,13 122:15 reflect (1) 44:17 removing (1) 3:21 retained (3) 50:1 59:4
123:13 124:8 reflection (1) 12:4 remuneration (6) 116:11
125:24 128:20 refresh (1) 130:24 146:13,14 147:6 retrospect (1) 6:11
132:1 133:19 134:5 refreshed (1) 108:6 148:2,8,12 return (3) 10:11 39:25
153:10,13 154:2 refrigerated (1) 5:3 Renord (2) 145:12 125:3
156:21 regard (42) 44:20 46:4 146:4 revealed (1) 22:21
reason (8) 30:20 47:12,13 65:24 renounced (1) 50:7 revelation (1) 32:14
39:22 52:11,19 66:9,15 67:1,2,5,20 repaid (2) 2:14 142:25 review (2) 74:19
70:12 129:4 135:24 68:9 72:8,12,19,19 repay (3) 2:15 142:21 127:16
153:10 73:3 74:15 75:5 143:3 reviewed (3) 78:12
reasonable (1) 105:10 77:19 79:3 80:2 repeat (1) 1:22 79:14 146:12
reasonably (1) 154:4 103:22 106:18,21 repeated (1) 108:9 reviewing (1) 79:17
reasons (2) 78:24 106:22 108:8,13 replace (1) 145:2 revise (2) 108:5 147:6
156:10 109:11 112:1 117:4 replacement (1) revisit (1) 9:14
recall (15) 1:17 21:8 124:23 131:1,13,16 145:10 rich (1) 35:22
58:7 59:25 107:25 131:18,22 132:24 replies (1) 56:2 Richard (1) 29:25
111:6,21 112:8,12 134:7,8 135:6 replying (1) 109:19 right (72) 3:2,3 4:13
115:21,25 130:5 136:9 report (4) 2:5,7 3:6 9:16 11:21,22 19:3
131:11,19 132:4 regarded (2) 124:11 46:9 22:2,7,8 31:5 34:7
recalls (1) 73:9 141:6 represent (6) 48:12 35:20 37:11,13,16
receive (3) 56:21 regarding (1) 115:2 48:16 49:20,23 40:5 41:5,16 45:24
148:21 150:4 regards (4) 65:7 110:6 50:22 51:2 49:18 50:21 51:22
received (18) 54:21 122:23 124:24 representing (2) 55:6 53:22 54:1,3 55:17
55:22 56:2,3,13,18 regimented (1) 43:23 75:25 57:23 58:6 60:21
57:10 73:5 113:10 region (2) 27:14,19 reputable (2) 22:7 62:22 71:19 77:24
126:14 134:18 registered (1) 59:14 38:25 78:13,14 79:15
146:13,14 147:5,18 registration (2) 59:18 reputation (1) 24:15 85:19 102:14,16,22
148:1 156:5,12 133:6 repute (1) 2:6 108:16 109:1 111:6
receiving (1) 107:25 Registry (1) 59:15 request (17) 34:25 114:3 115:6 119:18
reckon (1) 73:11 relate (7) 8:3 57:22 54:13 58:15,18 123:6 127:16
recognise (1) 111:18 59:2 72:3,6 84:12 73:2,5,14 83:17 128:19 131:25
recollect (1) 126:15 131:12 108:12,18 110:4,10 134:5,24 137:7
recollection (4) 58:7 related (10) 50:19 110:11,18 113:18 138:4,5 139:10
108:7 120:5 130:24 57:15 120:17,23 121:15 134:2 140:3,8,12 143:22
recollections (1) 125:14 126:2 130:9 requested (2) 40:23 145:13,14 146:5,11
130:16 131:4,20 142:24 113:19 146:16,21 148:14
recommendation (1) relates (3) 7:24 34:19 requests (4) 66:11,11 150:22 151:22
43:25 126:16 75:11 107:17 152:23 153:19
record (17) 9:19 44:11 relating (4) 41:12 require (1) 63:23 154:7
44:23 45:6,11,25 44:20 116:23 131:9 required (5) 19:8 ringfence (2) 31:6,17
48:5 55:11 76:5,9 relation (24) 11:1 49:16 104:7 112:1 rise (4) 13:14 17:5
79:16 82:10,17 12:11 43:22 44:9 114:18 103:3 124:9
83:12 125:13,25 48:13 49:19,23 research (2) 9:5 10:2 risk (8) 25:24 28:23
126:8 50:13,23 57:19 researched (1) 10:16 31:10,11,15 34:10
recorded (3) 38:4 69:25 70:17 105:1 reserve (2) 102:14,16 153:12 154:3
151:5,9 106:9,12,13 127:5 resolution (1) 114:12 risks (1) 26:16
records (11) 43:22 130:5 132:4 141:3 resolve (2) 76:13 River (1) 15:20
44:2 50:18 53:22 141:10 142:1 142:5 Robin (3) 1:12 11:9
55:7 60:15 64:2,6 144:23 151:25 resolved (1) 156:2 158:3
64:14 73:20 82:12 relationship (3) 61:7 resorted (1) 29:13 rogue’s (1) 42:10
recover (1) 152:17 63:17 73:25 resources (3) 36:25 role (4) 48:22 141:10
recovery (2) 147:15 release (1) 39:21 53:4 66:21 146:19 148:21
148:18 released (2) 39:17 respect (17) 41:12 rolled (1) 24:3
recruit (1) 31:3 40:9 54:16,24 82:23 roubles (1) 38:1
red (4) 22:5 38:14 relevant (19) 1:20,24 86:13 102:19 118:7 RPC (4) 155:12 156:13
114:10 115:4 10:22 16:21 55:15 120:16,22 127:24 156:20,22
REDACTED (16) 86:18 55:15 61:20 117:12 127:24 128:5,22,25 RUB (4) 32:20 131:5
87:1 88:1 89:1 90:1 119:20 120:11 129:20,21 145:8 131:16 148:16
91:1 92:1 93:1 94:1 121:21 122:9 123:1 respective (1) 122:16 rubicon (1) 156:16
95:1 96:1 97:1 98:1 123:7,13,21 124:12 respectively (1) 130:3 rude (1) 30:25
99:1 100:1 101:1 127:6,14 respects (2) 50:1 81:3 rule (3) 46:10 76:14
redemption (1) 35:19 reliable (2) 27:24 responded (2) 108:11 123:10
reduce (1) 28:24 83:11 109:16 rules (6) 27:22 43:21
reduced (1) 29:3 reluctant (1) 84:8 response (1) 108:14 43:24 119:13
reefer (1) 5:3 rely (7) 9:12 19:22 responsibilities (1) 121:16 123:19
refer (7) 5:19 62:11 23:3,24 24:2 38:23 152:3 ruling (1) 155:11
70:8 81:14 82:7 79:15 responsibility (1) run (4) 15:5 17:8 31:3
145:14 146:5 relying (6) 7:2,14 25:8 142:23 55:1
reference (4) 35:21 52:1 78:12,14 responsibly (1) 9:25 run-up (1) 127:12
36:24 63:2 64:23 remainder (1) 50:5 rest (4) 7:12 31:8 running (1) 143:18
referred (11) 3:23 remember (9) 2:12 72:20 103:23 Russia (16) 28:3,5
5:20 19:5 50:4 21:5 33:21 34:20 restraint (1) 114:14 50:14,24 52:15,15
63:14 82:14 107:16 35:11 82:15 112:18 restricted (1) 137:16 53:13 56:23 64:1
114:4 134:9,20 116:16 156:3 result (6) 28:24 46:21 70:18 74:8 77:12
146:6 remind (1) 112:3 47:8 55:5 126:14 102:7 106:8 123:11
referring (6) 17:1 reminded (3) 11:7 137:14 138:20
54:11 56:7 74:20 42:2 133:24 resulted (1) 150:24 Russian (34) 23:3
145:10 149:23 reminding (1) 32:12 results (1) 48:3 34:11,14 43:16,21

47:1 53:18 54:4 57:22 58:20 59:4 69:11 71:15 104:10 107:9,12 109:9 110:8 112:11 114:11,21,21 116:24 123:5 125:24 130:10,15 130:23 132:10,15 145:16 146:25 150:11,14

S

safe (1) 85:25 safeguard (1) 24:14 sale (5) 146:14,19

147:14 148:22 149:21

sales (1) 23:25 sales-minded (1)

23:25

Saltykova (2) 82:8 137:5

sanction (1) 113:19

São (2) 15:25 16:1 satisfied (1) 121:18 satisfy (3) 8:2 120:10

122:25 save (1) 153:16

Savelyev (3) 126:9 130:4 132:3

saw (4) 34:10,11,15 76:16

saying (17) 23:7 35:16 38:17 45:24 70:6 71:2,6,8 77:12,22 84:13 127:22 132:23 134:22 136:16,17 141:22

says (20) 10:15 24:17 27:12,17 31:25 52:24 62:8 71:14 78:22 79:7,20 108:21,21,23 109:2 109:5,10 115:10 132:22 136:9

scan (13) 111:2,5,7 112:21 130:17 131:17 132:1 144:8 145:3 148:15 150:2 150:8,17

Scandinavia (10) 70:1 70:19 72:5 112:16 131:10 143:15 146:7,15,18,20

scanned (2) 57:13

82:1 scans (1) 65:9

scenario (4) 17:19 29:8 31:6 143:2 schedule (11) 11:2

29:14 30:11 34:19 35:2,2 64:1,20 103:13 104:9 105:12

science (1) 6:2 scientific (2) 12:3,15 scope (10) 6:6 105:5

106:3 113:14 116:3 131:15,20 144:6 145:23,25

screen (13) 1:6 27:3 105:6 111:13,16 115:7,8 125:8,18 126:5,6 130:14 132:10

scroll (6) 42:25 105:6 105:19 106:1

132:14 147:2 scrolled (6) 112:22

115:12 125:9,21 130:18 155:3
se (2) 31:13 73:19 sea (1) 116:9 seal (1) 59:7 search (5) 63:15,23

105:10 109:12 114:8

searches (3) 62:4,11 75:11

searching (2) 38:9

68:14

second (13) 3:16 19:4 23:6 31:23 39:21 50:22 54:10 103:18 125:12 130:20 133:15 149:11,11

sections (1) 156:5 security (2) 23:11

39:3

see (68) 1:5 4:9 7:19 7:21 8:2 11:22 14:6 16:6,14 18:20 27:11 28:8,20 34:14 36:25 37:22 37:24 38:13 43:17 45:13 46:1 50:24 51:9,15 54:2,4 58:2 61:20 64:22,23,24 66:18 68:1 69:12 69:14,21 70:1,5,8 70:10,16 71:4,9,11 72:7 73:13 74:11 74:11 76:15 80:3 83:6 86:3 105:7,20 119:7,22 124:15 125:23 132:18 133:21 135:9 138:5 138:23 139:5 141:12 153:10,16 154:10

seeing (1) 152:21 seek (1) 23:9

seeking (3) 32:21 34:1 118:1

seen (15) 9:23,24 13:12 18:17 78:10 78:13 79:22 105:16 105:25 108:10 111:18,20 118:23 120:7 134:12

sees (4) 8:22 23:23 74:2 80:24

seize (1) 57:25 sell (1) 143:1 selling (1) 142:20 send (3) 41:5 73:14

118:19 sending (1) 76:22 sends (1) 1:6 senior (1) 33:11 sense (14) 10:14

26:16 31:17 39:25 42:11 52:13 58:18 122:3 136:5,5 141:20 142:2 155:1 156:16

sent (17) 30:10 57:14 64:20 75:22 76:18 82:1 111:24 116:1 116:11,15 120:1 122:2,24 123:17 127:6,8 133:25

sentence (5) 51:6 67:23 74:6 135:13 142:4

separate (3) 17:15

133:4,8

separately (3) 2:13

124:3 133:9

September (4) 35:1,3 35:6 62:17

series (1) 9:2 serious (3) 21:17

116:2 130:11

seriously (2) 21:24 23:15

served (1) 9:17 serves (1) 146:21 service (2) 140:8

142:8

services (8) 3:20 67:8 68:13,24 143:5,24 144:2 148:14

session (2) 85:12 102:22

set (6) 35:23 44:14 66:10 105:12 126:22 142:3

sets (1) 64:22 settlements (1) 67:7

Sevzapalians (1)

132:25

shades (2) 24:6 34:5 shape (1) 148:11 share (6) 20:12 32:18

32:20 36:3 38:5 71:3

shareholding (2)

144:8 150:8 shares (26) 69:25

70:19 72:4,14,17 73:4 112:15 131:9 131:24 132:25 143:14,16 150:9,9 150:10,12,12,14,15 150:16,21,24 151:1 151:5,6,8

sharp (1) 29:14 sheaf (1) 7:9

sheet (2) 23:22 31:12 shift (2) 13:23,24 ship (4) 13:2,14 14:9

14:12

ship-to-shore (1)

27:25

shipper (2) 3:13 6:12 shippers (1) 6:17 shipping (4) 3:4,12,14

4:20

ships (2) 12:22 13:15 short (7) 29:14 31:21 41:19 84:17 85:6

109:8 138:9 shortage (1) 27:23 show (4) 7:14 38:3 46:22 116:7

showed (2) 32:3 36:22

shown (10) 5:13 36:19 42:21 53:17 62:1 64:19 71:1 79:25 112:19 115:6

shows (2) 6:14 37:15 side (4) 34:22 42:5 85:25 102:12

sides (1) 128:11 sight (2) 24:4 129:13 signal (1) 112:23 signature (6) 43:1

54:5 73:8 139:5,6,7 signed (4) 54:1 71:2

135:11 139:9 significance (2) 1:15

2:9

significant (2) 17:10

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

167
March 3, 2016 Day 21 Redacted

21:2 155:23 42:22,23 43:4,9,16 109:3 110:13 48:16 59:1 60:19 thing (9) 13:3 23:8 thumb (1) 27:22

similar (8) 14:12 16:2 sooner (2) 42:8 48:10,20 50:21 subsequent (1) 65:25 62:2 77:22 79:13 24:9 28:14 33:3 Thursday (1) 1:1
22:12 29:18 73:8 103:19 51:18,18,25 54:8 subsequently (3) 46:2 79:25 82:24 102:17 47:8 59:21 78:17 tick (1) 34:6
141:9,10 148:23 sorry (20) 1:22 4:25 54:12 62:2 64:13 75:9 145:4 105:15 107:21 110:5 tide (1) 13:14
Simonova (2) 18:12 5:9 11:5 14:10 27:6 64:14,18 74:5 77:6 substance (2) 120:6 111:12 117:7 things (25) 13:8 24:12 tie (1) 32:5
18:24 36:13 40:8 41:2,3 78:3,19 79:18 80:4 132:1 118:14,16 119:25 45:4,5 49:7,7,8,10 tight (1) 12:20
simple (2) 14:2 46:5 44:21 62:2 69:4 80:7 82:7 112:2 substantial (3) 150:17 124:18 127:16 49:14 54:20 60:24 time (72) 4:5,18 6:8
simply (23) 22:5 41:7 109:19 118:21 135:1,2 138:24 150:19 154:8 130:12 143:17 62:4 68:7 73:22 7:2 8:16 9:8,19
45:20 47:16,22,25 125:7 137:24 152:7 139:1,12 140:14 substantiated (1) 148:12 154:2 77:16 79:22 82:9 12:17,22,23,25
47:25 61:14 68:22 153:15 156:5 141:5 142:6,16 129:15 taken (11) 23:17 124:7 144:7 145:8 13:21 14:17 15:12
71:15 73:25 79:10 sort (25) 5:10 13:18 144:16,24 145:1 successful (1) 16:4 46:20 52:14 103:24 145:22 150:23,25 18:8,20 21:4 23:2
80:14,22 86:3 22:22 25:23,24 146:24 147:5 suffer (1) 13:10 105:3 130:1,6 152:2 153:1 28:5 30:2 33:13
110:3 111:3 132:19 26:9,13 33:3 34:7 149:14 sufficient (2) 76:13 132:5 133:13 148:3 think (157) 1:19,23 49:6,12,12 63:23
134:9 136:25 44:6 45:15,25 statements (7) 23:16 132:18 149:8 2:11,20,22 4:9,9,17 63:24 65:7,18
143:24 150:1 151:7 46:10 47:23 52:10 71:10,21 78:17 sufficiently (1) 30:22 takes (4) 8:18 12:17 4:19 5:12,15 7:19 66:22 67:16 68:11
single (2) 133:6,10 62:15 68:4 72:3 79:20 133:11 156:9 suggest (3) 147:4,17 12:22 53:7 7:25 8:6,22,24 77:1 80:10 81:19
Sinopskaya (1) 138:20 74:21,23 76:23 states (5) 21:12 71:15 153:7 talk (1) 40:10 10:14,22 11:12,20 82:10 85:4 104:16
sir (23) 7:6,11,17 8:17 104:9 124:14 125:1 71:16 78:21,24 suggested (4) 6:15 talking (8) 7:20 9:16 12:8 13:11 14:16 109:14 110:20
14:3,14 19:9 20:24 156:16 statistic (1) 14:3 25:25 31:21 68:23 15:17 24:5 33:23 14:17 16:14,23,24 111:15 114:17
21:7,19,24 22:8 sorts (2) 50:16 64:25 status (2) 8:25 49:9 suggesting (2) 19:15 34:5 55:9 65:4 16:24 18:9,18 20:7 116:6 117:24
23:17 24:6 25:16 sought (3) 17:25 stay (1) 102:6 107:4 tariffs (3) 3:4 4:20,20 20:15,18,25 21:5 118:11,12,16 120:8
27:10 28:16 32:22 27:15 115:5 step (2) 142:18,18 sum (1) 17:10 team (3) 8:2 31:3 22:8,11 23:15,20 121:24,24 124:8
33:21 40:3 41:3 sounding (2) 35:17,18 steps (1) 102:17 summarise (2) 1:20 107:11 25:3,5,13,15,21 126:9,16 129:8,9
45:10,14 sour (1) 35:25 Stern (1) 36:10 3:9 technical (1) 119:12 26:25 29:7 32:2 131:23 133:4,21
sit (4) 42:17 44:25 source (8) 20:8 71:17 stop (2) 58:22,24 summary (3) 44:15 technology (1) 31:13 34:19,21 35:1 136:1,19,20 137:22
45:3 138:15 71:17,25 113:8,9 stopped (1) 149:24 144:10 152:15 tell (9) 11:18,19 21:22 36:22 37:14 39:1,7 144:5 145:9 148:6
site (1) 28:18 126:7,23 store (1) 55:4 summer (1) 144:20 28:25 41:22 45:4 40:12 41:11 45:24 148:23 150:7,17
situation (21) 19:7 sources (6) 5:19 10:17 stored (1) 73:22 Sunday (3) 53:20,21 74:25 80:17 155:18 49:5 51:17,18,19 151:17 152:22
28:4 31:18 32:23 10:23 56:25 75:8 story (1) 80:17 82:2 telling (1) 135:18 53:16,20,21 55:9 153:3,22 156:12
35:8 51:13,14 52:7 135:23 straight (2) 66:14 sunk (1) 37:19 ten (2) 26:12 83:18 58:3 59:10 60:1 times (2) 8:12 151:21
52:13 53:9 67:25 South (1) 25:21 102:25 supervening (1) tend (1) 45:25 62:12 63:11 65:13 timetable (1) 124:4
68:20 80:19,24 speak (4) 85:3 152:25 strange (1) 81:6 123:10 tendering (2) 15:3 69:6 70:6 71:1,20 timing (1) 103:12
81:4 136:16 137:3 153:1 155:7 stressing (1) 111:25 supplement (1) 21:10 16:5 73:1,16 75:16,16 today (16) 8:14 12:9
141:19,22 142:5 speaking (2) 68:16 stripped (2) 155:2,4 support (8) 29:24 term (2) 23:22 127:18 75:17,20 76:8 79:7 48:20 49:19 50:3
144:14 82:21 Stroilov (106) 1:4,13 64:12,17,17 126:21 terminal (44) 1:17 3:1 79:14 80:1,9,11 72:22 79:3 83:25
six (5) 3:3 4:20 8:12 specific (9) 46:25 1:14 5:18 6:14,21 126:22 127:10 3:12,18,23 4:3 5:2 82:1 83:4,16,23 103:4 104:4,10,18
26:12 35:19 47:21 62:18 105:2 8:21 9:21 12:4,6 129:6 5:6,8 8:11 13:9 84:7,19 85:14 86:2 104:20 113:24
skeleton (5) 22:20,22 106:21 122:7,8 14:16 17:21 19:11 supported (1) 121:16 15:19 16:9 17:9 86:6,6 104:24 133:6 139:15
24:19,20 25:24 129:24 131:15 19:19,22 20:4,7,19 supporting (1) 129:10 22:19 24:23 26:24 106:7 107:8,20,22 today’s (5) 3:7,8 8:12
skeletons (1) 22:13 specifically (3) 67:19 39:13,16 40:8,15 supports (1) 128:3 27:9 29:9 32:3,12 109:23 110:5 8:13 133:18
skeletons’ (1) 24:16 71:1 129:20 40:19 41:7,21 42:4 suppose (4) 15:15 70:19 72:4,8,13,15 111:20,20 112:5,14 told (19) 6:3 37:5,18
SKIF (18) 140:4,10,15 specify (2) 20:7 60:14 42:12,20,21 43:12 22:23 23:2 120:4 73:4 80:16 112:16 112:22 113:16 38:11,15 39:2,4
140:18 142:2,13 speed (2) 54:19 150:1 53:20 58:9,14 60:7 supposing (1) 2:7 131:2,10,13,15,19 115:11 116:10,20 52:1,12 53:21
143:11,14 144:7 spend (3) 4:18 30:2 60:20 61:3,8 62:25 sure (27) 4:17 8:4 131:24 133:1,3 116:22 117:2,10,20 65:18,22,24 66:7
145:5,7,16 150:7 67:16 63:4,15 64:5,11,20 41:10,13 44:7 45:8 144:24 145:3 117:25 118:6,10,16 82:8,10 110:2
150:21,24,25 151:6 spent (1) 77:2 64:25 65:10,14,25 62:10 63:12 83:11 146:15 148:4,22 118:17 119:18 135:18 147:18
152:8 split (1) 154:24 72:25 73:2,14 102:11 103:24 149:25 150:4 123:25 124:2,16,16 tolerably (1) 118:25
SKIF’s (1) 147:13 spoken (2) 135:15,19 75:22 76:19 81:25 106:2,5 115:14 terminals (4) 12:12 129:24 130:21 Tomé (2) 15:25 16:1
skin (1) 32:17 spot-on (1) 3:7 83:16,22 84:7,10 117:6 119:1 126:15 14:20 15:5 16:6 131:2 132:17 tomorrow (8) 102:6
Sklyarevsky (15) spotted (1) 35:6 84:22,25 85:15,22 128:2 131:18,25 terms (13) 14:17 136:10 137:8,16,18 138:4 152:24 153:3
138:1,11,12,17,19 St (20) 5:1 6:19 13:9 86:10 102:5,24 132:15 142:23 24:23 31:10,10 140:14 141:5 153:7,14 154:11
138:21,22,25 139:8 13:13 14:5,9,12 103:2,5,7,8 108:12 147:9,20 153:14 49:1,1 61:7 67:11 144:12,16 145:14 157:3
139:17,19 140:3 43:17 47:4 48:15 108:22 109:7 156:13,24 68:16,16 86:1 146:2,25 147:20,22 tooth (1) 26:2
147:4 152:23 57:7 67:10 104:11 110:10 115:19 surmise (1) 71:22 145:15 148:7 148:17 151:16 top (8) 7:4 16:14
158:15 114:13 120:24 117:6 118:8,10,17 surmised (2) 73:25 terribly (3) 13:17 152:21 153:13,20 26:12 29:7,7 33:11
slice (1) 16:8 130:8 138:19 118:24 119:7,16,24 114:1 125:19 130:15 154:9 155:14,16,17 63:19 107:22
slightly (5) 15:15 140:15,18 143:17 120:4 121:25 122:2 surnames (1) 134:13 test (1) 121:12 155:23,25 156:20 toppy (1) 12:1
22:18 28:15 39:25 stage (7) 14:25 26:8 122:24 123:24 surprised (2) 35:4 TEU (10) 3:7 4:3 5:7 157:1 topsy (2) 30:7,8
141:19 30:23,24 57:3 75:5 124:2,16 125:4,7 81:1 6:5 12:16,23 13:25 thinking (5) 10:1 total (1) 35:11
slower (1) 14:1 149:9 127:19 133:12 suspect (4) 11:15 14:1,2 16:11 32:16 58:12 107:19 totality (3) 23:1 77:16
slowly (1) 112:22 stages (2) 81:25 134:8 135:5 137:12 20:10 114:16 153:5 TEUs (1) 13:23 109:23 78:7
small (9) 12:22 13:15 107:21 139:18,19 152:20 suspended (7) 48:20 text (6) 53:18 54:4 thinks (5) 10:12 11:12 touched (1) 12:9
14:4 33:15 71:3 Stalevskaya (2) 130:4 153:5,20 154:4,13 49:1,4,7,10 50:6 71:13,15 132:23 78:22 117:19 tough (1) 154:7
72:9 117:23 154:20 132:4 158:4,8,13,17 67:4 135:9 119:16 trail (1) 20:12
155:8 stand (3) 43:9 84:24 Stroilov’s (1) 66:11 suspicion (2) 17:5,6 thank (29) 2:19 4:13 third (10) 56:25 57:11 training (3) 139:19,22
Smirnov (2) 144:13 141:5 structure (8) 29:16,18 suspicions (1) 77:18 14:15 17:21 19:10 61:3,4,7 71:25 72:1 139:23
154:15 standard (2) 5:7 25:21 29:24,25 30:4,9 Sutcliffe (2) 11:10,25 29:10 34:18 39:11 80:21 130:22 transaction (1) 146:4
social (2) 154:18,23 start (10) 16:10 29:5 32:11 33:12 Sworn (2) 42:14 158:7 39:12 40:6,7 41:8 140:22 transcript (7) 16:13
sold (1) 71:3 29:20 39:5 138:1,2 structured (1) 34:13 41:17 43:12 83:14 thought (11) 7:4 63:6 17:17 111:13,17
solicitors (3) 9:18,18 152:7 153:3,13 study (4) 66:21 75:16 T 104:23 109:1,6 63:20 73:18 118:5 112:4 125:25
59:23 154:9 104:13 133:22 tab (2) 27:1,8 112:7 115:6 133:12 118:23,25 121:5 133:19
Solon (2) 139:21,23 starting (1) 104:1 studying (1) 30:3 135:12 137:11,19 123:12 142:19 transcripts (7) 155:12
tactics (3) 44:20 54:16
solution (2) 123:16 starts (4) 8:10 53:18 stuffing (1) 3:20 137:20 138:21 153:15 155:13,15,16,22
74:17
124:1 129:8 142:9 subject (7) 10:4,6 29:1 152:20 155:6,19 thousand (1) 38:1 156:6,11
take (38) 4:1 6:2,13
somebody (2) 44:8 state (5) 15:20 44:17 53:4 69:16 102:10 thanked (1) 41:16 three (7) 6:8 12:17 transfer (9) 69:25
9:1 10:8 15:4 18:23
45:1 59:17 71:17 115:3 123:9 THC (1) 8:18 15:5 32:3 55:13 70:10,18 72:4,14
25:24 26:15 31:6
somewhat (1) 141:23 stated (2) 22:20 29:11 submission (2) 6:14 THCs (1) 3:23 130:1 147:12 72:17 73:3 112:15
35:7 39:24 42:4
soon (6) 1:7 64:8 statement (45) 9:17 10:13 thereabouts (3) 65:16 throughput (2) 13:21 131:9
44:5,10 47:16
104:19,22 109:15 10:21 19:4 39:23 submit (3) 108:23 66:7 85:3 18:14 transhipment (6) 3:18

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

168

March 3, 2016 Day 21 Redacted

6:4 12:12,21 13:4 106:16,18 111:3 verified (2) 52:25 53:1
13:22 116:3 125:13 131:1 verify (1) 53:11
translated (2) 105:23 140:3 144:6 145:15 version (8) 36:22
150:14 145:18 147:9,20 130:15,21,23 135:7
translation (5) 112:20 148:10 156:25 135:9 146:25,25
113:3 125:23 127:2 understanding (6) versions (1) 122:2
150:13 14:21 63:21 70:21 vessel (2) 12:16,23
translators (1) 107:10 70:22 141:2 156:12 view (9) 14:25 18:10
transpired (1) 64:8 understood (7) 44:19 122:17 124:12,23
transpires (1) 24:18 45:10 58:14 80:19 132:12 153:6,23,24
transportation (2) 107:1 110:9 136:11 viewed (1) 133:10
104:15 123:4 undertake (2) 24:11 Vinarsky (8) 64:15
travelling (1) 109:20 104:18 65:6 80:6,16,23
treat (2) 19:12,20 undertook (1) 145:6 135:14,17 136:9
treated (5) 66:11 67:4 undisclosed (1) virtually (3) 48:23
67:21 81:4 110:18 121:10 49:2 142:12
triage (1) 122:3 unfortunately (4) vis-a-vis (1) 142:21
trial (4) 23:8 42:23 103:22 109:20 Vitaly (14) 31:2 32:7
43:10 103:10 134:6 149:7 48:13 50:7 52:6,12
tried (2) 64:5 144:17 unfounded (1) 77:20 54:13 56:21 60:24
trilateral (1) 140:25 unidentified (2) 136:6 61:1,7 63:8 67:13
trip (1) 40:6 136:12 120:19
tripartite (2) 140:25 Union (1) 3:6 Vitaly’s (1) 56:7
141:14 unique (1) 141:13 Vladimir (3) 138:12,19
troubled (1) 35:4 United (1) 21:12 158:15
true (6) 22:15 25:2 unlawful (1) 78:9 volume (3) 12:19 44:1
33:17 43:6 51:1 unloading (1) 12:18 47:14
139:14 unorthodox (1) 11:19 voluminous (1) 55:11
trumped (2) 78:6 unrealistic (1) 2:23
79:12 unreasonable (1) 8:18 W
trust (4) 39:1 52:5,6 unsettle (1) 27:20 wait (5) 51:13 63:21
151:19 untruths (1) 39:5
67:24 68:25 139:17
trusted (1) 151:14 unusual (3) 17:10
waiting (1) 138:2
truth (1) 22:23 30:16 33:4
waive (1) 106:11
try (5) 61:9 109:21 update (5) 1:5 104:19
waived (1) 104:25
124:17 153:16 114:9 154:12,14
waiver (2) 105:5
155:4 upfront (1) 17:11
106:3
trying (12) 25:12 29:6 uploaded (1) 155:5
want (29) 9:14,15
78:7 83:2 102:20 upper (1) 10:19
10:9 14:9,12 18:8
115:23 116:3 urgent (4) 63:20
26:22 30:25 43:9
119:19 132:19 83:19,23,25
49:24,24 57:21
151:2 152:17 153:9 use (10) 6:18 15:8
68:3 70:12 74:18
turn (1) 139:4 31:22,24 38:7 46:2
74:18,21,22,25
turned (1) 156:4 77:1 83:24 121:19
86:8 106:5 111:3
turning (1) 149:17 145:19
115:15 116:21
turns (1) 38:19 useful (1) 81:3
117:6,13 120:4
two (31) 2:12 3:11 6:5 users (1) 11:22
132:17 133:21
12:25 17:18 31:2 usual (1) 32:19
wanted (7) 11:14 16:8
33:18,23 36:16 usually (2) 74:1
60:14 69:8 80:22
40:3 55:11,13 114:15
135:17 155:7
58:16 63:1 66:12 utmost (1) 104:8
wanting (1) 34:23
70:2 71:21 78:17
wants (3) 5:10 41:23
81:25 103:22 V
58:22
107:15 117:22
valuation (5) 2:5,17 warehouse (1) 13:19
118:5,15,17 120:10
8:13 22:17 23:3 warned (1) 81:3
120:13 122:24
value (11) 1:21,25 warning (2) 34:23
123:16,17 150:15
2:13 8:5,5 13:22 35:2
two-dimensional (1)
18:14 22:19,21 warrant (1) 114:8
13:6
23:4 35:10 Washington (1) 15:8
type (3) 5:8 14:5
value-added (1) 3:20 wasn’t (7) 26:3 28:16
45:17
valuer (1) 2:6 35:17 37:7 127:20
typing (1) 45:6
values (1) 26:6 144:4 151:12

various (14) 54:25 waste (1) 121:24
U
58:1 62:4,14 64:13 water (1) 42:18

UK (1) 46:15 70:7 79:10 82:9 way (39) 7:25 22:4
unavailability (1) 120:20,22 135:23 24:25 26:11 29:4
103:16 140:19 145:8 156:8 29:14 31:23 39:3
uncertainty (1) 40:22 Vasiliev (11) 54:1,7 43:23 44:3 57:2
undergrowth (2) 24:4 69:6,14 70:6 71:1,7 58:17 59:19 60:10
25:12 71:7,14,22 82:3 63:18 67:9 77:3
underneath (2) 29:24 Vasiliev’s (4) 54:5,22 78:5 80:23 85:22
30:9 55:2 69:23 108:10 110:11,18
understand (34) 7:7 vastly (1) 29:24 110:21 114:15
25:10 26:22 28:4 veracity (1) 35:9 118:24 119:1,4,20
44:21 49:3 56:16 verbatim (1) 109:2 127:19 129:14
61:1 62:6,6,8,10 verdict (3) 77:12 78:1 130:2,10 132:8
79:6,13 86:6,12 113:20 136:17 142:17
105:21,24 106:3,6 verdicts (1) 78:18 147:8 149:15

153:21 ways (1) 150:15 we’ll (1) 13:20

we’ve (4) 29:2 82:3 127:4 154:1

website (5) 155:13,14 155:17,23 156:16

Wednesday (2)

109:13,21 week (9) 21:16

109:22 154:8 155:14,15,16 156:3 156:17,19

weeks (2) 40:3 103:22 weight (4) 5:14 10:10

18:21 20:8 welcome (2) 41:7

84:2

went (7) 35:25 36:5 116:20,22 122:1 135:24 155:23

weren’t (3) 35:4

112:17 156:2 western (33) 1:17

26:24 27:9,22 31:4 31:9,24 32:3,7,12 70:19 72:4,8,13,15 73:4 80:16 112:16 131:2,10,13,15,19 131:24 133:1,3 144:24 145:3 146:15 148:4,22 149:25 150:4

whack (2) 29:7,7 whatsoever (1) 83:5 whilst (1) 21:20 white (1) 24:22 wholeheartedly (1)

33:24

Wightlink (1) 33:6 withdrawn (2) 16:25

20:16 withdrew (2) 85:13

137:21

Withers (2) 59:24 60:3

withhold (1) 123:23 withholding (1) 123:2 witness (74) 6:8,23

9:17,24 10:14,21 17:22 18:15 20:11 39:16 41:14 42:13 42:22,23 43:15 45:1 48:10 50:21 54:8,12 63:10 64:9 64:13,14,18 74:5 77:5 78:3 79:18 80:7 84:5,6,9,14,24 85:13 103:6 107:8 107:13 112:23,24 115:25 116:4,7,11 116:23 117:7,13,18 117:21 118:3,18,21 119:8 120:1 123:14 124:11,24 125:3 130:3 132:2,23 134:25 135:1 137:18,21 138:24 138:25 139:12 140:14 146:23 149:14 153:25 154:8

witness’s (4) 5:21 9:5

84:12 85:24 witnesses (3) 40:24

42:3,5 witnessing (1) 78:8 wonder (3) 3:9 62:1

83:17

wondering (4) 24:8 40:15 107:14 127:1
word (2) 52:22 150:14 words (9) 3:10 53:11 66:1 68:5 69:23

79:16 80:10 110:25 134:1

work (30) 39:3 47:7 47:19 51:7 54:9 60:13 67:1,4 68:10 68:10,15,18,19,21 122:4 135:22 141:7 142:9 143:19,20,21 144:3,7 145:2,5,15 145:23,25 146:11 152:11

worked (3) 7:3 35:22 130:7

working (5) 14:18,19 21:13 45:16 149:24

workload (2) 65:23 67:3

world (1) 26:13 worried (3) 6:1

136:15 153:25 worse (1) 10:24 worst (2) 29:8 143:2 worth (3) 32:20 80:18

123:17

wouldn’t (8) 34:3 38:3 38:14 55:19,20 71:12 123:3 143:12

write (1) 21:21 writing (5) 23:25 45:6

151:6,9,9 written (2) 44:11

79:14

wrong (5) 51:20 71:20 116:25 128:19 142:7

wrote (2) 66:6 134:8

X

X (4) 12:17,23 24:18 38:18

Y

year (3) 66:1,6 103:16 years (4) 8:10 48:25
63:22 80:8 yesterday (21) 1:15

3:6 11:1,3 12:7 13:6 14:17 15:10 15:11 16:13 21:3 22:9,24 23:17 25:1 29:6,11 32:2 36:23 38:22 153:21

Z

zero (1) 33:20

0

1

1 (14) 11:7 23:12,14 26:24 27:1 43:15 51:5,22 66:10 71:14 107:21 155:23 158:3,4

1.25 (1) 102:1

1.5 (1) 16:11

10 (10) 3:8 26:25 27:8 36:21 41:17 65:5 80:5 109:16 133:11 155:23

10-minute (1) 40:16

10,000 (1) 32:20

10.00 (5) 153:13,19 154:10 157:3,6 10.30 (2) 1:2 153:11

100 (5) 27:14,21 28:15,16 29:4
100,000 (2) 16:10 33:9

102 (1) 158:12

103 (1) 158:13

11 (14) 36:21 37:2 103:25 104:1 105:11 107:23 108:12,21,24 109:4 110:10 121:25 133:11 134:9

11-metre (1) 13:12

11.34 (1) 41:18

11.45 (1) 41:20

110 (1) 13:25

12 (3) 34:14 134:25 135:13

120/130 (1) 12:21 13 (1) 65:5 133 (1) 158:14

138 (2) 158:15,16

139 (1) 158:17

14 (3) 54:11 65:6 81:13

140 (4) 36:24 37:4,20 38:12

15 (3) 3:8 82:7 125:5

15,000 (1) 12:16

153 (1) 158:18

16 (1) 133:20

16,000 (1) 12:16

160 (2) 22:15 26:9

18 (2) 144:8 150:8

19 (2) 70:20 82:13

1982 (2) 21:25 22:1

1997 (1) 21:9

2

2 (2) 105:14 125:11

2.00 (1) 85:2

2.15 (1) 102:3

20 (5) 14:6 18:17 34:12 105:9 158:5

200 (5) 28:3,25 29:4,7 33:9

2007 (2) 37:15 43:20

2008 (14) 7:7,10,15 7:24 8:4,15 9:4,9 9:13 11:14 26:25 27:23 31:19 112:17

2009 (15) 50:13 53:25 69:11,17,23 71:16 112:17 144:20 145:4 146:3,3,6,10 149:11 150:7

2010 (9) 21:6 48:12 54:12 65:19 73:11 80:6 81:15 106:23 146:21

2011 (2) 49:5 146:22

2012 (1) 49:5

2014 (3) 51:19 80:8 135:11

2015 (10) 11:3 62:17 63:12 65:16 66:7 105:11 107:23 109:8 112:3 139:9

2016 (3) 1:1 111:24 157:6

210 (4) 3:7 7:3 8:18 11:21

22 (3) 24:10 34:12 104:1

220 (3) 16:17 27:19

29:7

22nd (1) 40:4

23 (2) 62:17,17

23rd (1) 40:4

25 (4) 35:1,3,6 135:11

26 (1) 139:9

27 (1) 25:17

280 (1) 5:6

3

3 (5) 1:1 9:4 23:14,21 32:24
3,000 (1) 12:23

3.31 (1) 138:8

3.42 (1) 138:10

30 (1) 148:16

300 (1) 15:6

35 (3) 5:20,25 10:15

350 (2) 5:1 6:7

355 (1) 5:7

36 (1) 158:6

3X (1) 24:18

4

4 (2) 151:24 157:6

4,000 (1) 12:23
4.10 (1) 138:6
4.15 (2) 103:4 137:25
4.19 (1) 157:5
4.45 (1) 138:7
40 (1) 16:16
41 (1) 16:13
42 (2) 158:7,8
43 (1) 158:9
450 (1) 5:4
48 (1) 114:19

5

5 (11) 53:25 64:22 69:11,23 74:4 77:5 79:18 105:20 148:20 149:3 151:24

5,000 (1) 32:20

50 (1) 28:13

50,000 (1) 16:10

500 (1) 15:19

500,000 (1) 16:10

50A (1) 138:20

54 (4) 146:23 147:1 147:23 149:17 56.5 (3) 131:5,16,21

6

6 (3) 111:14 148:20
149:3
60 (1) 14:4
64 (1) 133:19
65 (3) 133:18,20,22

7
7 (1) 27:11
75 (1) 111:14
76 (1) 111:15
7th (1) 154:6

8

83 (1) 158:10

86 (1) 158:11 8th (3) 154:1,4,5

9

9 (8) 26:25 36:21,24 105:8,19 106:19 109:8 133:22

9-metre (1) 13:13

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