Day 22

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

Day 22 — Redacted

March 4, 2016

Opus 2 International — Official Court Reporters

Phone: +44 (0)20 3008 5900

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

March 4, 2016 Day 22 — Redacted

1 Friday, 4 March 2016

2 (10.00 am)

3 (Proceedings delayed)

4 (10.06 am)

5 Housekeeping

6 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Yes, good morning, I am sorry to have

7 kept you.

8 MR BIRT: Good morning, my Lord. I get to my feet this

9 morning, interrupting the cross-examination, my Lord

10 asked for an update on the transcript and asked me to

11 give that update at 10.00 am this morning.

12 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Yes.

13 MR BIRT: The position is this — and I apologise in advance

14 for giving a slightly longer explanation than might be

15 anticipated — there is a danger that one underestimates

16 the logistical complexities of this and I am sure I have

17 been guilty of thinking it is simpler than it actually

18 is in the past, so I don’t want to be unduly lengthy but

19 it is just a little bit of a run-up in order to explain

20 where we are.

21 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Okay.

22 MR BIRT: My Lord may remember that we settled, the parties

23 and your Lordship, on the basis for the uploading of the

24 transcripts on Friday, 19 February, which is Day 13 at

25 the end of our first week in Paris. The first 10 days

1 I suggested this at the outset to your Lordship, about

2 the way it is done and the particular parts that need to

3 be redacted and the formatting that that needs to be —

4 the way it needs to be dealt with on the transcript.

5 So, just one example, at the top of some of

6 the day’s transcripts when we were in Paris, Magnum

7 quite properly inserted at the top a sort of warning to

8 say «Not for public circulation», and on the first set

9 of transcripts RPC got back with redactions, that

10 warning was still included. It seemed to me to be

11 unwise to put that version on the website, the public

12 might very well be confused, it had to be sent back to

13 Magnum and so on.

14 Those points are just being worked through. Because

15 once the transcripts are posted on the website, they are

16 then in public, RPC have wanted to check those sections

17 that have been marked «in private» and, indeed, the

18 sections that have not been marked «in private,» just to

19 check that the right bits accord, and I understand from

20 those who have been doing it that the job is not always

21 entirely straightforward. There have been some

22 occasions where we have slightly caught up two or three

23 lines after we have actually gone into private, if

24 my Lord knows what we mean.

25 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Absolutely.

1 3
1 of the trial transcripts were then uploaded to the RPC 1 MR BIRT: So there has been a check and, in part, probably
2 website that very day. There were two other transcripts 2 the length of time has been down to me because I have
3 that were then available, Days 11 and 12, but they were 3 urged those doing it to do it carefully.
4 not uploaded then, pending resolution of the query as to 4 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Rightly so.
5 which parts should be in public and which parts were in 5 MR BIRT: We think that none of this should cause a problem,
6 private, and that point was only resolved earlier this 6 but quite properly RPC wanted to check these sorts of
7 week. 7 points, rightly so.
8 Of the other days since then, Days 13 to 21, almost 8 It is also fair to say that they had asked me to
9 all of them have included some part of the hearing being 9 check the approach in a couple of respects that they
10 moved into private session for one reason or another, 10 were adopting, for example, they sent me an e-mail
11 two or three different reasons have presented themselves 11 yesterday morning that I wasn’t able to respond to until
12 for that. 12 I was out of court, so there are very small amounts of
13 The end of day transcripts that are circulated and 13 delay throughout the process, but none of them are
14 then appear on Magnum for us to view in court are, of 14 irresolvable, but each of them slightly adds to
15 course, transcripts of all the day’s events and those 15 the process.
16 include both the private and the public sessions, and 16 But once all these questions are resolved and the
17 where there has been part of a day in private, those 17 transcripts are ready, they are sent to the individual
18 day’s transcripts cannot be immediately uploaded onto 18 who manages the RPC website. She is not a member of
19 the website. 19 the litigation team, but once she has them and as part
20 The process that needs to take place, and that RPC 20 of her job she will upload them. She is obviously not
21 have asked Magnum to help with, is to produce a second 21 standing there 24/7 to upload them instantaneously, but
22 set of transcripts which redact those parts of 22 as soon as she reasonably can, she does so.
23 the transcripts that cover the in-private session, and 23 I am sorry for the length of time I am taking, but
24 this has involved a little bit more logistical to-ing 24 the short point is one can’t assume that this is just
25 and fro-ing than was perhaps anticipated when 25 a single click of the mouse and it is all done. Those
2 4
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

March 4, 2016 Day 22 — Redacted

1 at RPC who are managing this are also managing

2 the myriad of other huge logistical burdens that this

3 trial imposes, and RPC are, in some respects, doing the

4 work of two firms in this case and I should really

5 mention the logistical burdens on those at the junior

6 end at RPC who are working round the clock to do all of

7 the tasks of maintaining this trial and this is

8 an additional task that they have taken on and they are

9 doing it as and when they can, and I think we all paid

10 tribute to the efforts they made to move the trial to

11 Paris and back again in what, for me, was a remarkably

12 seamless fashion, but the upshot is that not each task

13 can be done at the same time, and I simply say that

14 there should be no criticism of them or RPC at all that

15 every single daily transcript has not yet been uploaded.

16 There was simply no basis at all for

17 Mr Arkhangelsky’s claim yesterday that RPC are for some

18 reason delaying this on purpose, which is what he

19 alleged, the sort of allegation that simply should not

20 be made.

21 The current position, my Lord, cutting to the chase,

22 is the transcript of the first few days of the trial

23 have been there for a good while. Days 13, 14, 17, 19

24 and 20 are also up on the website. Days 11 and 12 are

25 back with Opus 2 making some further minor changes to

1 There is not a dedicated team doing it in RPC, they

2 are trying to fit this around their other jobs in this

3 litigation and just managing the trial for the court and

4 both parties. I just must emphasise there is no

5 deliberate injection of delay here: it is being done as

6 and when it can, my Lord.

7 If there is anything else I can help you with,

8 I will endeavour to do so or to make further enquiries

9 if further enquiries need to be made, my Lord.

10 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Right. Well, I shall ask

11 Mr Arkhangelsky if he has any other points, but speaking

12 from my own part, I just wanted to say a couple of

13 things. One is that where there are gaps because of

14 the difficulties which I readily acknowledge, it is

15 particularly important that urgency be adopted, because

16 otherwise it looks so strange to the outsider if you get

17 days X, Y, and then there’s a gap and then you don’t

18 quite know, which to the uninitiated, and even more to

19 the suspicious, looks curious, so I just think there is

20 a bit of an urgency to try and get the sequence. That’s

21 the first point.

22 The second point is the largest element of the delay

23 was in my deciding what should be done about the

24 in-private sessions and, therefore, that is down to me

25 and I wish to acknowledge that.

5 7

1 the redactions and formatting, but once they are

2 received back and subject to a final check they can be

3 uploaded as well. There are four days that RPC are

4 still reviewing, that’s Days 15, 16, 18 and yesterday,

5 which was Day 21, to check that the right parts have

6 been redacted. There may be one or two issues that have

7 to be carefully checked and we may have to raise a point

8 with your Lordship. There was one day when we were in

9 Paris when Mr Arkhangelsky was being cross-examined and

10 we went into a private session. During the course of

11 that there were some questions on how he had come to

12 produce the document for this court that appeared to

13 bear the OMGP seal, but it transpired had been done by

14 some magical mystery that nobody quite understands, and

15 my Lord said at the end of that that that might be

16 a particular part which should not be in private.

17 We are going to try and come up with a solution at

18 this end. It may be that we have to run that past

19 your Lordship before putting it on the website.

20 I think at least two of those days are probably

21 unredacted entirely, but quite properly, given the

22 amount, the little sessions we have had going in and out

23 of private, RPC want to do their own check to make sure.

24 But obviously as soon as these can be dealt with, they

25 will be dealt with.

1 The third is that I am extremely grateful, as

2 I said, for the massive logistical work in both to-ing

3 and fro-ing to Paris, and I well understand that beneath

4 the surface, some unsung heroes are working extremely

5 hard, in difficult circumstances, because one would

6 ordinarily expect the burden to be shared.

7 MR BIRT: Quite, my Lord.

8 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: So please understand that in asking

9 for this I don’t, in any sense, underestimate the

10 difficulties.

11 The fourth thing is the general exhortation that it

12 be quite plain that the proceedings are public and

13 available to the public, and I know how hard everyone is

14 working towards that, and the final thing,

15 Mr Arkhangelsky, though I will hear from you very

16 shortly because we must get on with the witness, I have

17 not detected the least sign of any intentional delay in

18 this matter. I do think that one tends to underestimate

19 the sheer logistical burdens of a trial like this.

20 I well understand that you will say: well, they’ve got

21 great teams, and I have Mr Stroilov and my own efforts;

22 that is to slightly underestimate the fact that in

23 normal cases, solicitors do, in this jurisdiction,

24 cooperate in order to assist the court, and that

25 cooperation is not, for the very reasons that you make,

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

March 4, 2016 Day 22 — Redacted

1 available in this case, and I do think that accusing

2 people of intentional, or even dishonest delay, is to be

3 avoided. If there are good grounds, then of course,

4 upon cause shown, I would always take it terribly

5 seriously, but I think you would be best realising that

6 in 99.99 per cent of the instances in this jurisdiction,

7 and as far as I am aware, certainly in this case,

8 solicitors at every level and counsel take very

9 seriously their duties to assist the court process, and

10 I am very grateful for that, as far as I am concerned.

11 MR STROILOV: Perhaps it may be better if I address

12 your Lordship on that very briefly.

13 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Okay, Mr Stroilov.

14 MR STROILOV: My Lord, well, of course, we also acknowledge

15 the efforts of RPC team and logistical burdens, that’s

16 something we obviously feel and even for a large team

17 it’s a big job.

18 However, I am slightly concerned by a suggestion

19 from my learned friend that it can be properly given

20 a low priority; that is to say, people do it when they

21 have done all the other things they have to do.

22 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: I don’t think that’s quite what he

23 said. He said that there wasn’t a dedicated team, but

24 that the person putting it up on the RPC website was not

25 part of the litigation effort. I have made clear that

1 leave this on the footing that very great efforts are

2 being made; they will be redoubled because of the gaps,

3 and I think it would be utterly plain to everyone that

4 notwithstanding the logistical difficulties, every

5 effort is being made to ensure that this trial is not

6 only in public, but unusually — and it is unusual — is

7 available in early course to be seen on the transcript

8 to all concerned.

9 MR STROILOV: That’s right, my Lord. If I could just

10 address you for one minute, really, on that.

11 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Yes.

12 MR STROILOV: I would like to stress, again, there is quite

13 a considerable body of authority to the effect that in

14 terms of open justice, there is a very material

15 difference between contemporaneous reporting and it

16 becoming available at some time later.

17 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Mr Stroilov, it is a great luxury to

18 have a transcript, let alone a daily transcript, and let

19 alone one which is posted on the internet. The majority

20 of the cases I hear, notwithstanding that they are in

21 the High Court, and in certain instances, involve

22 a great deal of money, are not transcribed by Magnum and

23 are only transcribed days, if not weeks, later, in

24 reliance on the ordinary transcription process.

25 So the other side are paying for all this, they are

9 11

1 where there are gaps in the transcript, it is

2 particularly important that they be plugged with great

3 urgency, and I have absolutely no worry that RPC and all

4 concerned will have noted that and will make every

5 effort, and I would have thought that you will find

6 these transcripts, notwithstanding the difficulties, in

7 very early course.

8 But this sort of accusation of people who are

9 actually working extremely hard, and did a magnificent

10 job, as far as I am concerned, to accommodate the

11 difficulties in this case of your clients being

12 apparently unable to travel, it is rather disconcerting

13 to have accusations made which are likely to be quite

14 contrary to their outlook; do you see?

15 MR STROILOV: Yes, my Lord, I do accept it was over the top

16 and I do apologise.

17 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Well, in the excitement of the moment

18 these things can happen, but they happen more regularly

19 than I would like in this case.

20 MR STROILOV: I appreciate that, my Lord, and I think you

21 know why that is one of the perils of litigation in

22 person, in a way, but we will take it on board.

23 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: It is.

24 Anyway, Mr Arkhangelsky, and Mr Stroilov, I am

25 grateful for your moderation now and I think we should

1 using all their own resources to see to it. I think

2 that — I want to leave this and get back to the case,

3 but I think that you and your client should perhaps

4 acknowledge at some time that much is being done for

5 them in the utmost good faith at some personal cost to

6 many.

7 MR STROILOV: Yes, we do acknowledge that, my Lord.

8 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Yes.

9 MR STROILOV: Nevertheless, it would be a pity if that

10 effort is wasted, in a sense.

11 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: It won’t be wasted. I know it will be

12 done, and I think now, partly in deference to

13 the timetable, and partly as a matter of politeness to

14 the witness, we should get on.

15 MR STROILOV: Indeed, my Lord.

16 MR BIRT: My Lord, I certainly take that point. Can I just

17 underline the point your Lordship just made, which is

18 this is not being put as a low priority by those dealing

19 with it —

20 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: I know it isn’t. I was to leave off

21 this, I think, that I am entirely satisfied that every

22 effort is being made.

23 MR BIRT: It is being emphasised, this is an additional

24 service which is being provided not only by this court

25 but by RPC in this case. Mr Lord reminds me, this court

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

March 4, 2016 Day 22 — Redacted

1 is open. The realms of the public sit here every day

2 and —

3 MR LORD: Anyone can come.

4 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: No, no, it is obvious. Efforts well

5 beyond the usual are being made, including translation

6 into the language of people in the press in Russia. In

7 the ordinary course, this jurisdiction was chosen,

8 the language of this jurisdiction is English, and people

9 would, in the ordinary course, simply have to make do

10 with that. Every effort is being made and I think that

11 it is better to move on.

12 There are two points which at some point, but not

13 now, I wish to deal with: one is the position with

14 respect to Mrs Malysheva and her contract and the other

15 efforts to obtain documentation from her which I wish

16 an update on at some more convenient moment; and the

17 other is to work out when we are going to deal with

18 Mr Smirnov, because that does affect my planning as

19 well.

20 MR BIRT: My Lord, yes. Mr Arkhangelsky, you may have seen,

21 sent an e-mail this morning in relation to —

22 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: I saw a single-page e-mail which

23 referred to an e-mail from RPC which plainly attached

24 a letter which I have not seen.

25 MR BIRT: My Lord may remember that on 15 February in this

1 seconds, my Lord. I hope I don’t do any discourtesy to

2 your Lordship, I need to attend another meeting out of

3 court today. So if your Lordship doesn’t mind I will

4 disappear and hopefully reappear later.

5 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: I am grateful to you for mentioning

6 it. Very good, thank you.

7 Yes.

8 MR VLADIMIR ALEXANDROVICH SKLYAREVSKY (Continued)

9 (All questions and answers interpreted except where

10 otherwise indicated)

11 Cross-examination by MR STROILOV (Continued)

12 MR STROILOV: Good morning, Mr Sklyarevsky. Is it correct

13 that you have studied in this country in the Chartered

14 Institute of Marketing for two years?

15 A. That was the Russian branch of the institute you

16 mentioned, sir.

17 Q. What do you mean; was it in Russia, actually? Was it

18 in — did you study in Russia?

19 A. Yes, it was in Russia, in Moscow.

20 Q. Right. Thank you.

21 Now, to pick up a point I think you made yesterday,

22 well yesterday you explained how you understood your

23 position and that you were acting on behalf of the

24 client as opposed to your own interests in the case of

25 this project in relation to OMG assets; you do remember

13 15
1 court we outlined a proposal to your Lordship. There 1 that part of cross-examination?
2 had been a detailed letter, an explanation of 2 A. Yes.
3 the Russian law position. My Lord didn’t decide 3 Q. And to your knowledge, did Mr Smirnov take the same
4 anything on that date — 4 approach?
5 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: No. 5 A. As far as I know, to my knowledge, yes.
6 MR BIRT: — but encouraged the defendants to have a good 6 Q. I’m just trying to understand, in a way this — from
7 think about it and thought, without permitting, that it 7 your evidence and Mr Smirnov’s evidence, it seems to
8 might have been a sensible — 8 have been more or less a teamwork between Mr Smirnov,
9 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: And no answer has been achieved. 9 Mrs Malysheva and you; would you agree with that
10 I didn’t know whether the letter — 10 description?
11 MR BIRT: My Lord, we received absolutely no response at all 11 A. It was teamwork with regard to this specific project.
12 for more than a fortnight. We sent a chaser yesterday 12 Q. And so the three of you and the people working for you
13 morning with a slight tweak to the proposal. We 13 respectively, essentially this team was working in
14 received no response on the detail, and we received at 14 the interests of the Bank; is that correct?
15 9.10 this morning an e-mail in — 15 A. Most likely Smirnov and I were as a team, and
16 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Mr Birt, I’m sorry to cut you off, 16 Ms Malysheva was a client, a customer.
17 I don’t mean to be rude. I do want to deal with this 17 Q. So as between the three of you, really, Mrs Malysheva
18 but I want to deal with it at a more convenient time. 18 had the final say?
19 I just want to get this witness through in easy time 19 A. Yes.
20 before he has to leave, and so I do feel that we will 20 Q. Thank you. Now, I think you describe in paragraphs 22
21 have to deal with those other matters — I don’t mean 21 and 23 of your statement {B2/13/4}, {B2/13/17}, the
22 any discourtesy to you at all, it is simply the 22 first meeting where you learned about this situation,
23 pressures of time. 23 according to your evidence, so would it be a correct
24 MR BIRT: I completely understand, my Lord. 24 assumption that that meeting took place at some point
25 There is one final point which will take me 10 25 in February 2009? Is that likely?
14 16
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

March 4, 2016 Day 22 — Redacted

1 A. I do not recall exactly. Perhaps it was February or

2 early March. That was early 2009. It’s difficult to

3 recollect at this point in time.

4 Q. And that was really, again, looking back at yesterday’s

5 discussion, that was the consultancy aspect of your

6 work, wasn’t it?

7 A. Yes.

8 Q. And then if we could scroll down to paragraph 24,

9 {B2/13/5}, {B2/13/17}, I think you identify three

10 options which are generally available in a situation of

11 this kind, don’t you? That’s refinancing or

12 restructuring of the business, or selling the business

13 or a part of it. So that’s your summary of the options.

14 That seems very basic, doesn’t it, Mr Sklyarevsky?

15 That’s really ABC of problematic debts. Obviously you

16 know more about it than I, is it also axiomatic that if

17 refinancing is a realistic scenario, it is preferable to

18 anything else, and then if restructuring is — I mean,

19 you set these options out in the order in which you

20 would consider them: refinancing is best, restructuring

21 is second best, selling the business is the last resort;

22 would you agree with that proposition?

23 A. I did not put any priority to any of these approaches in

24 my witness statement; I simply list some basic

25 principles or approaches. There could be more of them.

1 Mrs Malysheva at that meeting, because she had some

2 experience and she would know the basics herself,

3 wouldn’t she?

4 A. Yes, but I’ve known Mrs Malysheva for 20 years and

5 I know her as a very good functional manager, but not

6 a businesswoman. She was a very good manager in the

7 Bank and her task was to return, recover, credits to

8 the Bank. My approach was business-oriented. If the

9 business has some value you can sell it and preserve the

10 value for the client, and then if we were to return,

11 recover the money for the Bank, that would be

12 preferable, for the Bank, it is to return the money to

13 the Bank. The business was of very little concern to

14 the Bank in many cases.

15 My approach was either to find an external investor

16 or external capital or find sources of financing to

17 resolve the problem of this or that client, considering

18 the business interest of the client.

19 Q. So at that meeting in the beginning of 2009,

20 Mrs Malysheva and you would discuss how these

21 principles, and your respective roles, would apply to

22 this specific situation with Oslo Marine Group, wouldn’t

23 you?

24 A. At the first meeting we did not discuss any roles. The

25 first meeting was purely the exchange of information.

17

1 With regard to a particular section, refinancing could

2 be a different type, selling the business could be

3 different, and likewise, restructuring presumes

4 different options as well. It says about a general

5 approach with regard to what my work involved, but it is

6 by no means a final list of the options available.

7 Q. No, of course, and again, in a way I am just trying to

8 pick your brains on understanding the basic approach to

9 a problem of this kind. Is it correct that, generally

10 speaking, that refinancing is the first thing to

11 consider before you consider restructuring a business,

12 and both are preferable, if realistic, to selling the

13 business?

14 A. Of course. To find external financing and to repay the

15 indebtedness before bank would have been the most

16 preferable step, but as a rule, that’s the most complex

17 step, because if the company is facing problems, the

18 problem needs to be studied and the problem would be not

19 just with that particular bank, but also with the

20 others, with the financial markets, with other banks,

21 other companies, et cetera.

22 Q. Yes. All this is still, it is rather a basic

23 introduction into your trade; that’s lesson one, isn’t

24 it?

25 So presumably that’s not how you advised

19

1 Mrs Malysheva asked me if I had any potential investors

2 or understanding of the insurance business, and also

3 business of ports. That was purely exchange information

4 about the Bank having a problem borrower, and I was

5 asked whether I had any expertise or the opportunity to

6 engage any capital in these spheres. There were no

7 discussions about any projects or roles, as such.

8 Q. Right, but you did discuss how these options you

9 identified, which you have broadly — under broad

10 headings you have identified as refinancing,

11 restructuring or selling, you did discuss how they would

12 apply to this specific situation with OMG, isn’t that

13 fair?

14 A. I never, in my work, discuss with the banks the

15 principles in the absence of the client. Yesterday

16 I mentioned it that all these projects are tripartite

17 agreements. People need to come to the negotiations

18 table: the proprietor, the Bank and the consultant, if

19 the consultant is required in the deal, and it is only

20 in this configuration that one can discuss the

21 particulars of any deal. The Bank is interested in

22 recovering the debt in the full amount. The Bank’s task

23 is to find a possible solution via a consultant or via

24 the client. I could not discuss any details with

25 Mrs Malysheva because Mr Arkhangelsky was not present.

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

March 4, 2016 Day 22 — Redacted

1 All my deals, all my operations, were built on the

2 tripartite principle.

3 Three parties need to come to the negotiations table

4 and agree. Problematic debt is very conflict-ridden,

5 and it is very difficult to talk to one party only. It

6 will lead to further conflict. My concern was that

7 Mr Arkhangelsky was not engaging in such negotiations,

8 therefore, I couldn’t, in February 2009 and in March,

9 I couldn’t have discussed the details of the deal.

10 I was purely exchanging information.

11 Q. Well, I am just trying to understand: so are you saying

12 that Mrs Malysheva did not really tell you the details

13 of this particular case?

14 A. At the first meeting we did not discuss this deal at

15 all. We discussed the problems with the borrower.

16 I did not know anything about the repo deal. I knew

17 that the Bank had a client working in the port and

18 insurance business which had problems with repayment.

19 My task was to understand whether I would be able to

20 deal with these sectors in these directions, and whether

21 I would be able to be of assistance to the Bank.

22 Q. I see. Now, may I ask you about the gentleman called

23 Alexey Berezin. I understand you knew him since you

24 were at university together; is that right?

25 A. Yes, when we were studying for our PhDs.

1 affairs, didn’t he?

2 A. The exchange of information with Mr Berezin occurred

3 only in March of 2009 when he perceived me as the

4 representative of the Bank, that I was acting for the

5 Bank of St Petersburg, and Mr Berezin knew that the

6 group had problems with the Bank of St Petersburg and

7 there were no limitation on confidentiality because he

8 was acting on behalf of his group and he was trying to

9 find a solution for them, together with me.

10 It was not a situation when a third party from the

11 street, a chap, a mate, would come in and he would tell

12 them of the problems.

13 Q. Right, so it was your understanding that Mr Berezin had

14 the authority to inform you, as a representative of

15 the Bank, about the loan taken by Western Terminal from

16 Morskoy Bank; was that your understanding at the time?

17 A. Yes. My understanding was that Mr Berezin was giving

18 all the information available which characterised the

19 current financial position of the group, and together

20 with him, we were looking for the solution.

21 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Did you take it that he was authorised

22 by Mr Arkhangelsky in that regard?

23 A. I thought that he was acting in the interests of

24 the group. He was the finance director. He was one of

25 the top managers.

21 23

1 Q. You actually lived in the same dormitory, didn’t you?

2 A. Yes, it is correct.

3 Q. And then he worked as part of your team in the company

4 called AVK?

5 A. Yes.

6 Q. And he then went on to work as the financial manager of

7 Oslo Marine Group?

8 A. As I found out in 2009, yes.

9 Q. So are you saying that between the time you worked

10 together in AVK and 2009, you didn’t know where he

11 worked?

12 A. No.

13 Q. Were you in contact with him at all?

14 A. No.

15 Q. Now, presumably — and I think it is obvious from his

16 job, that Mr Berezin owed certain duties of

17 confidentiality to Oslo Marine Group as its financial

18 manager; is that your understanding?

19 A. Yes, that’s my understanding.

20 Q. So he was not free to discuss financial affairs of

21 Oslo Marine Group with strangers, even if it was someone

22 who is a friend of his?

23 A. I understand, yes, that’s the case.

24 Q. But nevertheless, Mr Berezin did, at least on some

25 occasions, inform you about OMG’s confidential financial

1 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: But did he have the authority of

2 Mr Arkhangelsky, in your perception?

3 A. Yes, it seemed so to me. Moreover, Mr Berezin later on

4 tried to set up a meeting for me with Mr Arkhangelsky,

5 and I thought that all my meetings and actions with

6 Berezin and other employees of OMG were known, one way

7 or another, to Mr Arkhangelsky.

8 MR STROILOV: Isn’t it the case, Mr Sklyarevsky, that, in

9 fact, Mr Berezin was your spy within Oslo Marine Group?

10 A. No, it is not so.

11 Q. Right. At the time you learned about the Morskoy Bank

12 loan, you were not working for Sevzapalians, were you?

13 A. No, I wasn’t working there, no. It was a company of

14 the Renord Group.

15 Q. And you did not see yourself as acting on behalf of

16 Renord, did you?

17 A. At the time when I found out, no.

18 Q. So it was your understanding that, really, again, in

19 relation to this loan, you and Renord were simply

20 providing your services to the Bank and acting on behalf

21 of the Bank; is that right?

22 A. Yes.

23 Q. So having learned about the loan, I think you then say,

24 if we could look at paragraph 40 of your witness

25 statement, please. {B2/13/20}, {B2/13/7}. It appears

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

March 4, 2016 Day 22 — Redacted

1 that the next thing you did, you visited Morskoy Bank?

2 A. No, prior to that I met with Mrs Malysheva and

3 Mr Smirnov and discussed the situation, and

4 Mrs Malysheva considered — she was practically irate

5 when she found out that the loan was obtained for

6 a company which had been the subject of the repo deal

7 prior to that. Moreover, as far as it was known, the

8 Bank of St Petersburg did not see that loan, that

9 credit, because it was obtained by the Western Terminal

10 into other banks’ accounts; and, thirdly,

11 Mr Arkhangelsky for quite a while was incommunicado and

12 it was quite an emotional meeting at which Mrs Malysheva

13 demanded from me and from Mr Smirnov to find out whether

14 the credit was truly obtained and how was it that the

15 structure of the Western Alliance agreed to it.

16 Q. Right, and then you visited Morskoy Bank to make

17 enquiries, did you?

18 A. Yes, I was authorised from Sevzapalians, yes, quite

19 correct, and I went and visited the Marine Bank, the

20 Morskoy Bank.

21 Q. I’m sorry, I’m just wondering if anything was lost in

22 translation. Did you have a formal power of attorney to

23 act on behalf of Sevzapalians; is that the case?

24 A. Yes. I agreed with Mr Smirnov so that in Morskoy Bank

25 they will be able to talk to me. I obtained an

1 this risk existed or not. In this case, the bank

2 disclosed the information to me at what date the

3 protocol or the record was provided, end of March 2009,

4 the Morskoy Bank was also interested in the information

5 it received from me that it was a risk of fraud and the

6 Morskoy Bank decided to cooperate with me.

7 Q. Right, so just to be clear about that, the idea that

8 this is possibly a fraud, that was something you were

9 the first to raise with Morskoy Bank, isn’t that so?

10 A. Correct. Yes.

11 Q. Right. Thank you.

12 A. It was discussed at the meeting with Malysheva and with

13 Smirnov and I did not conceal from the Morskoy Bank that

14 there was a possibility of a risk that they had been

15 misled.

16 Q. Yes. Right, if I move on. Now I think you say that the

17 management of Western Terminal was replaced, meaning

18 that the director general was replaced, at the

19 shareholders’ conference on 7 April 2009, don’t you?

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. And on the same day, the shareholders’ conference of

22 Scan also replaced Mr Arkhangelsky as director general

23 of Scan with Mr Kuvshinov?

24 A. Yes.

25 Q. Were you at those shareholders’ conferences, or at one

25 27

1 official power of attorney from Northwestern Alliance

2 and on the basis of this power of attorney I went to the

3 Morskoy Bank.

4 Q. Just for the record, Northwestern Alliance and

5 Sevzapalians, it’s the same thing, it depends on whether

6 you translate the name of the company or not.

7 About what time do you think that happened?

8 A. It was either at the very end of March or the very first

9 days of April.

10 Q. Right, so to your knowledge, under the Russian loan

11 banking confidentiality, is a representative of a parent

12 company entitled to obtain from the bank financial

13 information of a subsidiary company?

14 A. It is a debated issue and various banks treat it

15 differently. The Marine Bank was very strict about

16 confidentiality and I did not receive any information

17 about the loan apart from one, that the record of the

18 approval was signed on 20 May of 2009, and the protocol,

19 the record, was not provided to me.

20 Moreover, the Morskoy Bank did not disclose the

21 terms of the loan to me but my discussions with

22 the Morskoy Bank was based on the principles whether it

23 was possibly fraud that was being committed in that

24 case, and as a representative of the proprietor, of

25 the owner of the company, I wanted to make sure whether

1 of them?

2 A. I did not — I wasn’t present. The lawyers of Renord

3 were present at the shareholders’ meetings.

4 Q. Yes. I think you say that a notice of Western Terminal

5 meeting was given to Oslo Marine Group Ports; is that

6 right?

7 A. Yes. Moreover, I can add that several days prior to

8 the meeting, I met with Berezin, Vasiliev and Kapustin,

9 who attended instead of Arkhangelsky, and I warned them

10 that we will replace the directors and that the meetings

11 will be held.

12 Q. Well, and you say that formal notice was given to

13 Mr Vinarsky as director general of Western Terminal.

14 A. I don’t remember having shown it in my witness

15 statement. I think it was sent to the address of the

16 Western Terminal, to Mr Vinarsky.

17 Q. And was any notice given to Mr Arkhangelsky as director

18 general of Scan, in relation to the Scan conference?

19 A. I don’t recall exactly, but I do know that in relation

20 to this meeting there was a very lengthy court

21 proceedings in Russia, and we won, as far as I know, and

22 all the notifications have been served in accordance to

23 the Russian law. At the moment, I don’t remember to

24 whom and when, and I personally did not deal with it.

25 Q. Yes, Mr Sklyarevsky, but I am afraid that some of these

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

March 4, 2016 Day 22 — Redacted

1 things will have to look afresh, whatever the Russian

2 court has decided previously, that’s the procedure, so

3 we will have to look at the actual evidence.

4 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: I think something has gone wrong. We

5 are hearing the Russian.

6 THE INTERPRETER: Sorry, I have here English and English.

7 The channels have switched to English and English.

8 (Pause).

9 MR STROILOV: And now it is Russian again. I just want that

10 to be …

11 THE INTERPRETER: We are back online.

12 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Thank you.

13 MR STROILOV: Now, Mr Arkhangelsky says that he learned

14 about the notice given to Mr Vinarsky around 10 March.

15 Can this be correct?

16 A. Hardly, it could hardly be the case because, I could be

17 mistaken, but as far as I remember, both Scandinavia and

18 the Western Terminal in, the articles of association,

19 20 days’ notice should be given for the meeting and

20 10 March, you see, and 7 April, well, I don’t know where

21 you got 10 March from.

22 Q. Right. So that’s why you, based on that requirement of

23 Russian law, that’s why you assume, as I gather from

24 your statement, that notice was given on 17 March; is

25 that where this date comes from in your statement?

1 the decision in any way, because Scandinavia was

2 100 per cent owned by Renord, and one of the Zelenov’s

3 company and 99 per cent of the Western Terminal belonged

4 to the West North Alliance. I did not deal with

5 notifications issues and I don’t have the information in

6 this regard.

7 Q. All I’m trying to establish is, really, the chronology

8 and the dates. So it follows — I think if we could

9 look at your statement at paragraph 43 {B2/13/21},

10 {B2/13/8}, where you say, if you look four lines from

11 the bottom in the English version:

12 «From memory the notices convening the shareholder

13 meetings of Scandinavia Insurance and Western Terminal

14 were dated 17 March 2009.»

15 That rather suggests that you have some recollection

16 of this.

17 A. Well, I do remember that notices were sent, but all the

18 details, honestly, I don’t remember. I do remember that

19 prior to writing the witness statement, I looked at the

20 articles of both the organisations and the 20 days, and

21 I do remember about the proceedings in Russia and it was

22 determined, and that is why I put 17 March in my witness

23 statement.

24 Q. So at least this version of events that notices were

25 sent on 17 March or earlier, that is consistent with

29 31

1 A. Probably so, because I looked at the documents, you see.

2 Q. Yes. Well, do you have copies of these notifications in

3 your possession, or the possession of SKIF, by any

4 chance?

5 A. I think that since my lawyers were dealing with it, with

6 the issue when the OMG was doubting — casting doubt

7 over the service of these notes, then personally,

8 I don’t have them.

9 Q. Right. At any rate it follows from this — well,

10 I think what you can remember is that you are confident

11 that the shareholders’ conferences took place on

12 7 April; are you sure of that?

13 A. Yes.

14 Q. So you can confirm that on oath?

15 A. Yes. I don’t remember whether it’s on the 7th, exactly,

16 but it was in the first part of April, sort of

17 around …

18 Q. Yes. And from that you calculate that on 17 March or

19 earlier, the notice was given; is that right?

20 A. You know, this issue has been studied in quite some

21 detail in the Russian courts. I don’t remember how

22 notices were served by the lawyers of Renord to

23 the company. I do remember that nothing irregular was

24 found in the Russian court in the notices, in

25 the serving of notices, and it would not have affected

1 your recollection of the events of March 2009; would

2 that be fair to say?

3 A. These were hardly my recollections, you see. This is

4 the document which I obtained from the Renord lawyers.

5 I do remember that the meeting of the shareholders was

6 several days prior to my birthday which is 9 April, you

7 see, and I do remember that Renord lawyers were drawing

8 up all these operations. I suppose, and it is

9 possible — I understand what you are driving at —

10 I suppose that the lawyers of Renord were backdating

11 their companies’ notifications, but once again, this

12 fact was scrutinised in detail in the Russian courts.

13 I was not part of those operations and I just remember

14 the Russian process, and also the documents.

15 So currently I’m saying that the meetings were on

16 7 April. The form and the shape of notifications

17 unfortunately I can’t tell you more than I know.

18 Q. Mr Sklyarevsky, I mean, obviously you were present at

19 the meeting where Mrs Malysheva instructed you and

20 Mr Smirnov to do whatever is necessary to replace the

21 management of two companies; isn’t that so?

22 A. Yes. Yes.

23 Q. Yes. So that was step one. Prior to that meeting, no

24 work could have started; isn’t that logical?

25 A. I think that this is a question that should be directed

30 32
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

March 4, 2016 Day 22 — Redacted

1 more at Mr Smirnov, because I think that preparation for

2 the replacement of the directors was prior to that

3 meeting. I was dealing with Malysheva and Smirnov and

4 I received clear instructions from Malysheva for the

5 first time when I obtained the information on the

6 Morskoy Bank. I suppose that Renord was preparing for

7 the change of directors. It could have been a possible

8 decision and it was a very logical decision considering

9 the chain of events.

10 It is possible that they convened a meeting for

11 a different reason, I don’t know.

12 Q. Obviously, Mr Sklyarevsky, you understood what I am

13 driving at, and let me better say it: the date of

14 Morskoy Bank loan is 30 March. So it is clear that the

15 decision to replace the management, on your evidence, it

16 seems that it has been taken before 17 March.

17 I put it to you that the decision had nothing to do

18 with Morskoy Bank loan.

19 A. My Lord, the question about the meeting of Malysheva

20 and Smirnov was quote emotional. Everyone wanted to do

21 something quickly. Malysheva’s position was that the

22 directors should be replaced quickly because

23 Mr Arkhangelsky is encumbering Western Terminal with

24 other loans taken from other banks, and the objective

25 was to replace the directors ASAP, immediately.

1 the management in two companies was only, to your

2 knowledge, taken in early April?

3 A. Yes.

4 Q. So let’s try to understand the chronology. When

5 Mr Berezin told you about Morskoy Bank loan, did he tell

6 you about it as something recent?

7 A. As about something that has just happened.

8 Q. Right. And then you had a meeting with Mrs Malysheva

9 and Mr Smirnov. Was it on the same day or …?

10 A. Well, literally the next day.

11 Q. And then you made enquiries to Morskoy Bank, and how

12 soon after the meeting did that happen?

13 A. I think it happened on the same day: literally we had

14 a meeting with Smirnov and Malysheva in the morning,

15 then I met Morskoy, then we met again. I think it was

16 on the same day, and in the evening, we met again with

17 Mrs Malysheva and Mr Smirnov to discuss the meeting

18 results, so it literally happened all in the same day.

19 I met Berezin several times and the last time was the

20 day before the meeting, and the three meetings happened

21 on the same day.

22 Q. Right, thanks.

23 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Can I just clarify one thing?

24 MR STROILOV: Yes, my Lord.

25 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: In paragraph 43 of your witness

33 35
1 I suppose that the Renord lawyers backdated the 1 statement, according to the English translation, it says
2 notices to the meeting participants. It’s quite likely 2 in the penultimate sentence:
3 to — might have been the case. I wasn’t part of it, 3 «From memory the notices convening the shareholder
4 but I assume it might have happened. I don’t think it 4 meetings of Scandinavia Insurance and Western Terminal
5 was a decision in principle. I don’t think it was 5 were dated 17 March 2009.»
6 important on what date the meeting participants were 6 I had read that, I must say, as giving some
7 notified. The content of their decision could not have 7 representation that you remembered notices being sent
8 been changed in any way, and that issue was studied in 8 out on that date. I think the effect of your evidence
9 great detail by the Russian courts. I don’t want to 9 is that you cannot, from memory or otherwise, really
10 speculate, I don’t want to speak for Renord, and I am 10 give evidence as to the true date of those notices; is
11 saying this based on information that I personally know. 11 that right?
12 The information about exchanging directors, replacing 12 A. I do not recall exactly the actual date, the true date,
13 directors, was communicated to me by Mrs Malysheva. She 13 of those notices. I only remember the exact date of
14 told me and Smirnov in April. 14 the decision about replacement of the directors being
15 Unfortunately, because she is not a party to 15 taken. I remember the date when Mrs Malysheva told me
16 the proceedings, I cannot be her advocate, but based on 16 to replace the directors.
17 the information available to me, that was taken after 17 From the documents put to me by Renord, I could see
18 decision — 18 that the notices were sent on 17 March, but I am not
19 Q. Quite, Mr — 19 sure whether they were sent on the day or they were
20 A. — at early April 2009, based on the Morskoy Bank. 20 backdated.
21 Q. Yes. Well, there is no need to argue or re-argue the 21 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Right. So that sentence is capable of
22 case, you have obviously argued in the Russian court, or 22 being a little bit inaccurate or misleading, isn’t it,
23 your lawyers did. I am just trying, really, to 23 because it might give the impression that you are
24 establish what you remember about the dates. 24 supporting the date of 17 March, but you are not. You
25 So is it your evidence that the decision to replace 25 think, actually, that they were dated on — they were
34 36
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

March 4, 2016 Day 22 — Redacted

1 made on some subsequent date?

2 A. My apologies, my Lord, for not wording myself correctly,

3 but I thought they were sent on 17 March, if I may

4 rephrase. When I was preparing my witness statement —

5 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Oh, you did think they were sent on

6 17 March? You thought they were sent on 17 March?

7 A. Correct, my Lord. Yes, I was looking at the documents

8 and I had the notices and I saw that they were sent on

9 17 March.

10 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: No, that’s slightly different. You

11 saw that the documents were dated 17 March, but are you

12 giving me evidence as to the date on which they were

13 sent?

14 A. The documents were sent by Renord to Renord’s company.

15 They were the same legal entities, and the actual

16 notices were dated as of 17 March.

17 However, because the legal entities, the companies

18 were the same, I don’t know whether the notices were

19 actually sent or that was done on 7 April, saying that

20 on 16 March the notice has been sent, because I was not

21 part of the process, and when I was preparing my witness

22 statement I looked at the notices, I saw 16 March as

23 a date, so I put that I recall that they were sent on

24 16 March.

25 However, I accept that if the decision to replace

1 I had formed the wrong impression that you were able to

2 tell me something more about the actual date on which

3 those notices were sent. I understand from your

4 clarification that you are not able to do that.

5 MR STROILOV: Thank you, my Lord.

6 Mr Sklyarevsky, what were you actually doing on

7 7 April 2009?

8 A. To be honest, I do not recall.

9 Q. You were not at the shareholders’ conferences, were you?

10 A. No, I was not.

11 Q. So why do you link them with your birthday two days

12 later if you were not personally participating in those

13 events, as you tell the court now?

14 A. Because it simply stuck in my memory that these dates,

15 well, for me, I understood full well that replacement of

16 directors is a serious step in the conflict, and my

17 insistence to have a meeting with Mr Arkhangelsky was

18 stemming from my desire to avoid the conflict.

19 Therefore, I recall very well the actual decision.

20 I don’t recall very well when the notice was sent,

21 however, I recall the meeting with Mrs Malysheva very

22 well, I remember very well the decision about replacing

23 the directors. I remember my efforts to try to speak

24 with Berezin and to meet with Mr Arkhangelsky.

25 I remember the conversation with OMG top managers.

37

1 the directors was made in early April and the notice was

2 as of 16 March, I accept that perhaps the Renord lawyers

3 have backdated them. That could have been the case,

4 because Mrs Malysheva’s requirement was to replace the

5 directors ASAP.

6 MR LORD: My Lord, I think it is fair to point the witness

7 to the next sentence in paragraph 43. I think it might

8 be fair. I know your Lordship has that in mind, but

9 I don’t think he is really, in that statement —

10 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: If you want me to point it out, I was

11 very well aware of it, yes.

12 MR LORD: I am sure you were, my Lord. I just think that in

13 fairness to the witness, I don’t think — he is talking

14 about a different meeting. If you read paragraphs 42

15 and 43, I think it is tolerably clear what he is saying.

16 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: I’m not sure.

17 MR STROILOV: Yes. May I take — I think now you have heard

18 what Mr Lord has said, so …

19 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Do, in fairness, if you want to read

20 the next sentence after and remind yourself, you have

21 always been clearer that the actual meeting was in April

22 because it was a couple of days here or there next to

23 your birthday. The sentence I was asking you about did

24 not relate to the date of the meeting, but the date on

25 which, in English terms, it was convened by notice.

39

1 I remember well the actual date of the meeting, of

2 the shareholders’ meeting, that was linked to my

3 birthday, but I recall these events, that there was

4 a link, a chain of events, and for me it was obvious

5 that we are on the war path and that was disturbing for

6 me.

7 Q. Well, isn’t it the case, really, from what you said

8 earlier, it seems likely that you only have the date

9 7 April in your mind from subsequent litigation, and the

10 documents you reviewed then, because SKIF really took

11 the lead in litigating on the Bank’s side, so to speak,

12 without really trying to …

13 A. Well, I am not sure what you are driving at, sir.

14 I know that the meeting of shareholders were held on

15 these dates. At least I had all the documents in that

16 regard, and Mr Smirnov and Renord lawyers informed me

17 about that, and I personally was not present at the

18 meetings.

19 However, I had no doubts that the meetings were,

20 indeed, held.

21 Q. So when were you informed of those meetings?

22 A. I do not recall exactly, but I think it would have been

23 on the same dates, so literally as soon as the meetings

24 have been held.

25 Q. So I take it from your references to litigation that you

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

March 4, 2016 Day 22 — Redacted

1 were involved in litigating the claims brought against

2 Sevzapalians as well as SKIF, were you?

3 A. Yes.

4 Q. So on what basis was it? Were SKIF lawyers representing

5 Sevzapalians? Were you still acting under power of

6 attorney? What was the legal basis of your involvement?

7 A. SKIF lawyers were acting based on the power of attorney.

8 Q. So how would that work? Would Sevzapalians have some

9 contract with SKIF for representation in those

10 proceedings, or how was it …

11 A. Under the Russian law it’s not required. A power of

12 attorney is quite enough.

13 Q. And so would SKIF be paid separately, or would these

14 people be paid separately for representing Sevzapalians?

15 A. No. No one was being paid, and I shall explain, it’s

16 an interesting point here that I would like to elaborate

17 on before the court. I think it’s a very important

18 circumstance, and it is linked to my participation in

19 these proceedings when the directors were replaced and

20 when, in early May 2009, the notices of criminal

21 proceedings were served.

22 Criminal proceedings were initiated in one day with

23 regard to unlawful replacement of directors, and in

24 actual fact, that was a very simple situation, when we

25 could have shown to the police that we did have the

1 reputation, and Mr Arkhangelsky’s lawyers came up with

2 an elegant solution. Effectively they tricked the

3 Russian courts, having stated that Mrs Arkhangelskaya

4 did not know about her husband’s actions, about

5 Mr Arkhangelsky’s actions in the share sale.

6 Therefore there was quite a debate in the Russian

7 court whether they are divorced or otherwise, Mr and

8 Mrs Arkhangelsky. However, starting from 7 April until

9 the end of summer, the main motivation was that

10 Mr Arkhangelsky attacked us.

11 Q. Mr Sklyarevsky, I’m sorry, my question was were SKIF

12 lawyers paid for representing Sevzapalians?

13 A. No, they were not. That was defence. It was my

14 personal defence and Mr Smirnov’s defence. We did not

15 pay each other for these services.

16 Q. Yes, so you were simply helping them because you

17 realised you were in the same boat; is that correct?

18 A. I was not helping them, because I met with

19 Oslo Marine Group Ports representatives, and the main

20 blow in these criminal litigation proceedings would have

21 been upon my shoulders and Mr Smirnov, therefore I had

22 to defend myself.

23 Q. Yes. So what you mean, when you describe your role

24 within the team as «legal work», so apart from those

25 proceedings, let me just try and understand the scope of

41 43

1 right to replace the directors.

2 However, in April 2009, OMG group served proceedings

3 about termination of the contracts of sale and purchase,

4 and here I would like to stress one important

5 circumstance: the cases were served for two reasons, the

6 first one being that at the moment of transaction in

7 2008, there was no meetings of sale and purchase, and

8 secondly, and that is the most complex basis, that is

9 Mrs Arkhangelskaya’s proceedings against OMG group

10 boards, against her husband, about the abuse of right,

11 about him abusing his right and selling the shares to

12 Renord companies, and here the important thing is, with

13 regard to the first basis, the Russian court could have

14 declared the transactions invalid, and invalidity is

15 determined at the moment of the court declaring so, and

16 subsequently, all the consequences follow the court

17 decision in that regard.

18 But with regard to Mrs Arkhangelskaya’s claim, the

19 transactions could have been declared null and void,

20 therefore the consequences of the transactions, there

21 would have been none. In the case of us losing the

22 claims, the criminal proceedings would have been

23 initiated lawfully, and I personally would have

24 suffered, and Mr Smirnov would have suffered. So that

25 was an issue of my personal safety, my personal

1 what you mean. You mean defending yourself and Renord

2 and the Bank — defending the criminal proceedings in

3 relation to the criminal complaint brought by

4 Mr Arkhangelsky; is that part of what you call «legal

5 work»?

6 A. Yes. However, do understand that there is a situation

7 with the Bank and there are relationships of

8 Mr Arkhangelsky with the Bank and, on the other hand,

9 there is a situation with claims being submitted in that

10 form, and the criminal proceedings personally against

11 employees of SKIF and Renord. In that case, I did not

12 care about the relationship between Mr Arkhangelsky and

13 the Bank; that’s their relationship. I thought I was

14 acting properly and did not trick anyone, and accusing

15 me in committing a crime, that was something I thought

16 baseless, and I was acting in my own interests.

17 Q. Right, and didn’t you see there being any conflict of

18 interest in terms of your, on one hand, working for the

19 Bank, providing your services to the Bank in relation to

20 a problematic debt, and at the same time, defending

21 yourself against criminal accusations? Wasn’t there any

22 potential conflict of interest there, at least?

23 A. I did not see a conflict of interest.

24 Q. No. Now, let’s go back to what your work involved. So

25 that was some defending of the criminal proceedings.

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

March 4, 2016 Day 22 — Redacted

1 Secondly, I think from what you have just explained,

2 and basically it relates to all claims seeking to set

3 aside the transfers of shares to original purchasers,

4 and all claims challenging the replacement of

5 management, and the transfer from original purchasers to

6 subsequent purchasers. There were quite a number of

7 them.

8 Does that include Mr Vinarsky’s employment claim?

9 Mr Vinarsky’s claim against Western Terminal, if I am

10 not mistaken, about his unfair — for unfair dismissal?

11 A. If you recall the employment dispute, yes. With regard

12 to — yes, with regard to his contractual employment

13 dispute, correct.

14 Q. And did it involve any — were you or SKIF legal team,

15 were you involved in any of the claims brought by the

16 Bank or by Renord against OMG, so to speak or against

17 Mr Arkhangelsky or OMG companies?

18 A. We did not take part in the Bank proceedings. I don’t

19 know about Renord claims. I don’t know that Renord has

20 brought any claims. Maybe there were some, but I do not

21 recall them.

22 Q. What I’m thinking about, and we will come to that in

23 some detail, possibly, there were proceedings,

24 enforcement proceedings, brought by Sevzapalians against

25 Western Terminal; do you recall that?

1 as 6 March in the Russian version. Then

2 27 February 2009. And if you read further to the bottom

3 of the page, really. (Pause).

4 A. Okay.

5 Q. Have you read to the bottom, perhaps you have read the

6 third part?

7 A. Yes.

8 Q. So it looks like, contrary to what you have just said,

9 that at least in this case, the Russian court found that

10 notifications were not duly given to Western Terminal.

11 A. Sir, would it be possible to come back to page number 1

12 of the document?

13 Q. Yes, could you please scroll down two pages in both

14 versions {D137/2280/1}, {D137/2280/6}.

15 A. The thing is, as far as I can see, that’s a decision of

16 the Kirov District Court, it is not an arbitrage court

17 of the Russian Federation, ie the commercial court, in

18 this particular case. It was about dismissal or the

19 termination of the employment contract of Mr Vinarsky.

20 As far as I recall, we also won that case in the court

21 of second instance. To be honest, it’s difficult for me

22 now to comment upon the proceedings because it was not

23 an arbitrage court, that was a district court. I do not

24 understand full well why the district courts studied the

25 issue of the dates of the meetings and the dates of

45 47

1 A. That happened later, when I already was not part of

2 the project — we were not part of that. I believe that

3 was 2010 or 2011. I do not recall exactly.

4 Q. Right. Thank you.

5 Now, turning back to the issue of shareholders’

6 meetings, could we call on the screen {D137/2280/1} and

7 the Russian version will be at {D137/2280/6}.

8 So, as you can see, that’s the decision of the

9 Russian first instance court in Mr Vinarsky’s claim

10 against Western Terminal for unfair dismissal. If we

11 could scroll down two pages, I think, in each version.

12 {D137/2280/3}, {D137/2280/8}.

13 So if around the middle of the page you can see the

14 paragraph starting:

15 «At the same time, the Court points out that the

16 defendant did not take into consideration the Court’s

17 proposal to extend the range of evidence.»

18 Can you see that, Mr Sklyarevsky?

19 A. Yes.

20 Q. «The defendant did not produce the register of incoming

21 documents in which the arrival of these documents to

22 ‘Zapadny Terminal’ … was registered.»

23 And I think it gives the date of March 6, doesn’t

24 it? Let me just — yes, and it gives the name 6 March.

25 I was just checking that there is a typo. «Mars» stands

1 sending notices, because that is a part of a corporate

2 dispute, and it falls within the jurisdiction of

3 the arbitrage court of the Russian Federation. To be

4 honest, now I’m not prepared to comment on this because

5 I don’t know what this is.

6 Q. I thought you said earlier — correct me if I am

7 wrong — I understood you to say earlier that SKIF legal

8 team was involved in Mr Vinarsky’s employment claim?

9 A. Yes.

10 Q. So was there any different employment claim by

11 Mr Vinarsky?

12 A. The thing is, first I do not see the totality of

13 the document. I do not see the court’s final decision,

14 and, indeed, SKIF was involved in these proceedings.

15 A group of lawyers was involved in that. Of course,

16 I am not a practising lawyer and I am not involved in

17 court proceedings. To be honest, what I have read at

18 the third page, I did not understand about the dates,

19 the 10th, the 25th. I have no such information. I do

20 not recall it. I don’t know how to comment upon this,

21 because I don’t have the information in this regard, and

22 I don’t want to speculate now.

23 As far as I understand, the issue pertaining to

24 Mr Vinarsky was not a corporate dispute; that was

25 an employment dispute and I shall reiterate, if I may,

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

March 4, 2016 Day 22 — Redacted

1 I’m quite surprised that the Kirov District Court was 1 to have that.
2 discussing these issues. I don’t recall it. 2 Could the Russian version be scrolled down one page
3 Q. So, to your recollection, where did Mr Vinarsky’s 3 {D137/2280/7}. Brilliant.
4 employment claim — where was it made? In what court? 4 So what I am saying is that Sevzapalians, according
5 A. To the Kirovsky District Court. 5 to this decision, is recorded as not attending by
6 Q. So why did you say you were surprised? I’m sorry, 6 choice, but making written submissions.
7 maybe — 7 A. Possible.
8 A. I’m surprised because this is not a corporate dispute; 8 Q. Then if you go three paragraphs down, the next two
9 this is an employment relationship dispute. The dispute 9 paragraphs are not important, but then there is
10 was about whether Mr Vinarsky was dismissed fairly or 10 a paragraph starting with the words:
11 otherwise, and whether he ought to be paid compensation. 11 «By the minutes of April 7, 2009, … general
12 This is not a dispute about whether the shareholders’ 12 shareholders’ meeting, the powers of Vinarsky DV as
13 meeting was held properly or not, whether the 13 General Director were terminated before time.»
14 shareholders had the powers to make decisions they made 14 Can you see that?
15 or not. That is an employment dispute between 15 A. Yes.
16 Western Terminal and Mr Vinarsky, and that is why I am 16 Q. Now, if we could scroll down, in the Russian version we
17 surprised that in the court decision it mentions the 17 only need the second page now {D137/2280/7}, and in
18 shareholders’ meeting and the notices. 18 the English text we need the bottom paragraph on the
19 I think the Kirovsky District Court, it doesn’t fall 19 same page. In the Russian it is the second paragraph
20 within their jurisdiction. They are there to determine 20 from bottom:
21 the employment relations, and I cannot comment upon this 21 «The representative of ‘Oslo Marine Group Ports’ …
22 because I did not see the main part of the court 22 owner of a share of 1 per cent in …»
23 decision. These are two different branches of the law: 23 Have you seen that?
24 corporate actions and employment relationships. 24 A. Yes.
25 Q. Just to be clear, SKIF was involved in this litigation, 25 Q. Then I perhaps, for completeness, if we could scroll

49

1 wasn’t it, in the employment claim by Mr Vinarsky.

2 I think you have said only 15 minutes before that SKIF

3 legal team was involved?

4 A. Firstly, we are not a legal group called SKIF. We have

5 a very strong legal team. And, secondly, our lawyers,

6 the representatives, must have been present at those

7 hearings, but I don’t see here, you see, anything about

8 him being present there in the recitals. It is quite

9 possible that the North West Alliance was not notified

10 of the meeting, because I can only see Erokhin and

11 Abarina as lawyers, and the representative of the North

12 West Alliance is not present. So it’s quite possible

13 that nobody was present at that sitting and we were not

14 notified.

15 If you look at the document, you see that there were

16 no representatives of SKIF there.

17 Q. Now, if we could scroll down one page in the English

18 version, but not in the Russian {D137/2280/2}, so would

19 you, Mr Vinarsky, read the bottom paragraph on page 1,

20 which is the top paragraph in the English version.

21 (Pause).

22 So you can see that Sevzapalians —

23 A. Sorry, do you awfully mind showing me page 2?

24 Q. Yes, if it could be scrolled down, and perhaps if there

25 is a hard copy, that would be convenient for the witness

51

1 down the English version one page down {D137/2280/3},

2 and it is still the bottom paragraph in the Russian

3 version on the page you see on the screen, and the top

4 paragraph on page 3 in the English version.

5 A. Yes.

6 Q. Yes, I think if we could scroll down the Russian

7 version, and I think if you could just read to the point

8 I have taken you to earlier, just to refresh your

9 recollection as to this decision. (Pause).

10 Your Lordship, when you have reached — when you no

11 longer need this page, I will ask you to read the top

12 paragraph on the next page, which is the bottom

13 paragraph on Mr Sklyarevsky’s —

14 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: How does that begin? «The defendant

15 maintains …»?

16 MR STROILOV: «The defendants maintains …», yes. (Pause).

17 So, Mr Sklyarevsky, have you read that page?

18 A. Yes, I have read it.

19 Q. So it seems, Mr Sklyarevsky, that the employment dispute

20 turned entirely on the fact whether there was a lawful

21 shareholders’ meeting where Mr Sklyarevsky was

22 dismissed.

23 A. I wanted to say the following: This court decision is

24 just one of the many court decisions of this issue.

25 This one was appealed in the court of second instance,

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

March 4, 2016 Day 22 — Redacted

1 in the appellate authority, and was won by us. 1 MR STROILOV: That’s right. That’s all I put to the witness
2 I’m sure that it would show a totally different text 2 and I will —
3 on the appeal version, and this issue has been studied. 3 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Yes.
4 It is quite difficult to take one court decision, take 4 MR STROILOV: — I’m actually — just, I think I should say,
5 it out of context and then talk that the meetings were 5 I am grateful for interventions of this kind because
6 held with breaches. 6 I think I have emphasised previously how little I have
7 As far as I know, OMG case, there were several court 7 reviewed, so I absolutely don’t mind this being said,
8 rulings in this case. It’s quite difficult for me 8 because I may well forget and ask an unfair question, so
9 because it was six or seven years ago. It’s difficult 9 that’s helpful.
10 to recall what was established in this particular case, 10 MR LORD: And that’s very fair. I’m not trying to take him
11 if the whole bundle of issues needs to be pulled 11 out of his course but I don’t want something to proceed
12 together, how the meetings were held, whether the change 12 on a false basis if I can avoid it.
13 of directors was done properly or improperly, then all 13 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: That’s fine. Is that a good moment
14 the decisions need to be pulled together, not just this 14 for a 10-minute break?
15 one, a more professional arbitrage ruling, and also 15 MR STROILOV: It is. I think we have interrupted ourselves
16 anything done on appeal. 16 anyway.
17 It is very difficult now for me to comment on some 17 (11.42 am)
18 isolated paragraphs, especially that it was appealed 18 (A short break)
19 later, and the facts that are enumerated here were 19 (11.55 am)
20 changed later and the appeal instances, cassation 20 MR STROILOV: May it please your Lordship. Now,
21 instances, which is a higher level than the district 21 Mr Sklyarevsky, just to clarify, what I’m not suggesting
22 court, did not establish that, you see. 22 to you is that the Russian court decisions I’ve taken
23 So I am now in a situation that I can’t neither 23 you to is right or wrong; I am not concerned with that
24 disprove or say something else. 24 at all. I want to ask you some questions about the
25 MR LORD: My Lord, sorry to interrupt, but there is in 25 facts.

53

1 the bundle the appeal court ruling in this case and

2 Dr Arkhangelsky has exhibited it in his BVI evidence, so

3 if this witness is going to have put to him that he is

4 wrong to say the matter was appealed and a different

5 outcome eventuated, then that needs to be very carefully

6 put in those circumstances. I will, of course,

7 re-examine, but Dr Arkhangelsky has himself exhibited

8 the appeal court ruling in relation to Mr Vinarsky’s

9 complaint.

10 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Yes. I would like to know where that

11 is, so within the break —

12 MR LORD: {D138/2317/1}, and Dr Arkhangelsky’s own evidence

13 at {M1/20/51}, paragraph 151.

14 MR STROILOV: I don’t want it on the screen for the moment.

15 I am grateful for the intervention, actually, but if I

16 could take it in my own —

17 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: I will let you take your course.

18 I had gathered that it was subject of appeal. I didn’t

19 take Mr Stroilov to be indicating that that was the

20 final answer.

21 MR LORD: I understand.

22 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: I think he was establishing that the

23 employment issue turned on the question, at least at the

24 first instance hearing, as to whether there had been

25 a valid decision, as I understand it.

55

1 Is it the fact that in this litigation in which you

2 were involved, your side, so to speak, Sevzapalians, and

3 Western Terminal, did not take into consideration the

4 court’s proposal to provide the register of incoming

5 documents of Western Terminal to call witnesses who are

6 alleged to have brought these notices to

7 Western Terminal, and all these points you have seen in

8 the decision. Is that correct, that as a matter of this

9 litigation, all these suggestions were not taken up by

10 your side?

11 A. I don’t remember that. If we were to base what we are

12 saying on what it says here, then the Western Terminal

13 did not oblige, but as it was reflected in the appellate

14 court, it could have been done but for some reason

15 didn’t find its way into the materials. I don’t

16 remember those proceedings. It’s difficult for me to

17 comment on them. I honestly did not — I don’t remember

18 it.

19 For me, of principal importance is the result which

20 the lawyers achieved when they won the case. The way

21 the proceedings were developing, what documents were

22 provided or not provided, I can’t really comment on it.

23 Q. As long as you know you have won, in the end, you don’t

24 care about the truth of the matter, don’t you?

25 A. No. I am concerned about the truth of the matter.

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

March 4, 2016 Day 22 — Redacted

1 I knew that the truth is what I was saying and the

2 proceedings, the technicalities, what documents were

3 supplied, furnished, you just pulled it out of the

4 context. I can’t comment on the fact which was

5 disproved later on. We need to look at the materials of

6 the later court decision why it was ruled that it was

7 not right.

8 Maybe the judge did not — there could be lots of

9 reasons why the judge ruled that, and the appellate

10 authority, the appellate court, considered it invalid.

11 Maybe they had more materials to disprove that. It is

12 difficult for me within the framework of these

13 proceedings without preparation to talk about it.

14 Firstly, I don’t remember, and, secondly, it’s a legal

15 process which requires to study the documents.

16 Q. That’s right. I think my Lord has the reference now to

17 the appeal decision, and my learned friend may take you

18 to it in re-examination. I don’t feel I need to do

19 that.

20 Now, again, is it your understanding that Mr Isakov,

21 to whom you have seen the reference in that decision,

22 that as a matter of fact, he was present at the meeting

23 as OMGP representative? To the best of your knowledge,

24 was he or was he not?

25 A. As far as I know, he was present. As far as I know from

1 Q. Right. Are you talking about the same meeting with

2 Mr Vasiliev which you describe in your witness

3 statement? I am just trying to find it.

4 A. Paragraph 44, sir.

5 Q. Thank you very much. Could we call it on the screen

6 {B2/13/8}, {B2/13/21}. Yes, I see.

7 I think what you say here is that after the

8 shareholders’ meeting but before the resolutions were

9 registered with the authorities, you say you had that

10 meeting. So which is the truth? You have said a minute

11 ago that you thought it was before the actual meeting,

12 and now you say it was — it seems to suggest that it

13 was after the meeting but before the minutes were

14 registered.

15 A. I would like to say that it doesn’t say in paragraph 44

16 that it happened afterwards. First it talks about the

17 decision being passed and the meeting being held. The

18 meeting happened on the same dates, and I recall that by

19 the time of the shareholders’ meeting on 7 April, I was

20 in contact with Mr Vasiliev. That means that the

21 meeting must have happened on the 6th or the 5th or

22 literally on the 7th. I remember our conversation with

23 Mr Vasiliev, when he asked me whether the meeting has

24 been scheduled and whether it will be held, and I told

25 him that: you should know about that. We had this

57 59

1 the documents and the record, he was present.

2 Q. Well, you did know, presumably, at the time from the

3 court proceedings that when examined in court, he denied

4 that he was there and he denied being OMGP

5 representative.

6 A. Based on what it says here, that is correct.

7 Q. What do you believe to be the truth? Not something

8 that’s recorded in the documents, but the truth of what

9 actually happened?

10 A. The truth is what I have seen with my own eyes because

11 I was not present in the meeting. Of course, I trust

12 the documents and I trust the lawyers that held the

13 meeting. I have no basis to mistrust Renord lawyers

14 that held the meeting. Moreover, I personally notified

15 the leading lawyer of OMG group, Mr Vasiliev, about the

16 meeting, and about the fact that we will change the

17 directors and will hold the meeting. I have no basis to

18 believe that no one attended the meeting from OMGP,

19 whether it was Mr Isakov or someone else, this is

20 something not known to me. I don’t know why Mr Isakov

21 has decided to retract his words and say that he wasn’t

22 present there subsequently.

23 Maybe he had the basis to surmise that he wanted to

24 provide false information to the court about the meeting

25 not being held. I don’t know.

1 conversation with Mr Vasiliev so… it’s very difficult

2 to remember what happened seven years ago, however, that

3 all happened in a very short space of time. It was on

4 5 April or 6 April or on 7 April, or thereabouts.

5 Q. So a rather busy beginning of April for you, wasn’t it?

6 A. Yes.

7 Q. And could we now have a look at D112 — I’m sorry, I’m

8 not sure that’s the one that I … sorry about this.

9 If we could call on the screen {D112/1631.1/6}, and

10 the Russian version I think will be at {D112/1631.1/16},

11 I’m guessing, in a way. Can we try 16? Now could we

12 scroll up, that’s a difference contract. Could we

13 scroll up the Russian version. {D112/1631.1/14}. Yes,

14 that’s correct.

15 So you can see, Mr Sklyarevsky, that is the contract

16 for the transfer of Scan shares from Medinvest to

17 Khortitsa, and that is dated 20 March. That seems to be

18 obviously only, on your recollection, on what you have

19 seen on the document, that’s only three days after the

20 alleged notice was given of the shareholders’ meetings.

21 A. Sir, I did not quite understand your question, here we

22 see the purchase for agreement and sale and you are

23 asking me about the notices.

24 Q. No, I’m not asking you anything for the moment, I just

25 want to show you a few documents.

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

March 4, 2016 Day 22 — Redacted

1 Now, if we could go to page {D112/1631.1/8.4} on the

2 same tab, that’s on the English screen, so to speak.

3 Sorry, there is an odd mixture of English and Russian.

4 Sorry.

5 Mr Sklyarevsky, do you understand any English?

6 I only want, really, the dates and the names, so if

7 that’s all right with you, I will just do the Russian,

8 just to establish the dates, the chronology. I have no

9 idea, is that sufficient to you to look at the English

10 text just to be able to confirm that the transfer of

11 Scan shares from Graham-Bell to Dom na Maloi Moike took

12 place on 24 March. Does that sound correct?

13 I can find the Russian version, I’m just keen to

14 avoid unnecessary delay if your English is sufficient to

15 look at that. It’s up to you, Mr Sklyarevsky.

16 Obviously you have a right to see the Russian version,

17 but I am afraid I am not being well organised enough to

18 find it quickly. I am finding it slowly.

19 Is that all right? {D112/1631.1/19}.

20 You can see that the next transfer from Dom na Maloi

21 Moike to Graham-Bell took place on 24 March; is that all

22 consistent with your recollection?

23 A. I can see that the agreement was entered into on

24 24 March.

25 Q. Yes.

1 the date of the agreement.

2 The important date is the day of registration of

3 moving the share to federal tax service. I understand

4 the certain importance of dates, but the thing is

5 Severo-Zapadnaya Agramaya Kompaniya, Northwestern

6 Agrarian Company, is selling something to Sevzapalians

7 or 26 March, it’s not something we can state, because

8 the decision could have been made later but the

9 agreement was entered into and backdated with that date.

10 These transactions were between Renord companies and

11 Renord companies were affiliated entities, so they could

12 have set any date between themselves.

13 Q. Yes, and you know of instances when — really when

14 documents can be dated not very strictly in the way you

15 have just described, when the transaction takes place

16 between Renord companies; you know of such instances or

17 do you just speculate?

18 A. That is a very common instance when the expenses are

19 attributed to a certain tax period. For example, some

20 companies had to show in the first quarter that the

21 shares were on their balance sheet and some companies

22 had to reflect that in the balance sheet in the second

23 quarter. Since they were affiliated entities, they were

24 a group of entities, they could have settled this

25 between themselves and set any dates.

61 63

1 A. Possibly it was registered and the shares were

2 transferred subsequently, a lot later.

3 Q. Yes. Then I am afraid my numbering is confused. I am

4 very sorry, my Lord, it’s my fault. Somehow my links

5 are not working properly.

6 Now, if we could go to 8.2 in the same tab

7 {D112/1631.1/8.2}, and the Russian version will be at

8 {D112/1631.1/18}.

9 MR LORD: It’s on the screen, I think, Mr Stroilov.

10 MR STROILOV: It’s on the screen. I’m grateful. I am being

11 slower than —

12 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Don’t worry.

13 MR STROILOV: Yes, so by my calculations that’s

14 chronologically the third transfer from an original

15 purchaser to a subsequent purchaser, and so that’s from

16 Severo-Zapadnaya Agramaya Kompaniya to Sevzapalians; is

17 that all —

18 A. I agree with you, sir, but we need to mention one

19 circumstance which I don’t know, and I wanted to draw

20 your attention and the court’s attention to it. These

21 agreements were entered into between Renord companies

22 and possibly the dates are not quite relevant because

23 the date of, say, 26 March or 24 March, where the date

24 that for various reasons, tax-based reasons or some

25 other reasons, was convenient for Renord to be stated as

1 Q. Yes, and if we could go to — still on the same tab,

2 page 4, please, is the English version {D112/1631.1/4}.

3 I will try to find the Russian, if someone does it

4 quicker, then I am grateful. {D112/1631.1/12}.

5 A. Sir, I can see the English version of the SKIF

6 transaction.

7 Q. Yes, and so that — and you see the Russian, 8.5, thank

8 you.

9 I think I am still going in order. So I think there

10 are two transfers dated 2 April and one of them is

11 obviously to you, and so in relation to this, do you

12 think it took place on 2 April or …

13 A. The agreement was entered into on 2 April. I do not

14 recall when I signed it, maybe on the same date, because

15 I was and am the director of SKIF, and with regard to

16 the shares being transferred to the federal tax service,

17 perhaps at some date after that subsequently, so indeed,

18 it was the beginning of April.

19 Q. Right, so around the same time when you were obviously

20 busy with your investigations on Morskoy loan and

21 discussions with Mr Smirnov.

22 A. Yes, yes.

23 Q. So do you recall that actually this transfer took place

24 as part of the same — should I say the same sequence of

25 events which you have described earlier?

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

March 4, 2016 Day 22 — Redacted

1 A. As far as I recall the situation was developing as

2 follows: Mr Smirnov, Mr Zelenov were concerned because

3 the project was moving towards a certain conflict.

4 Mr Smirnov did not require to have case proceedings with

5 regard to the companies. Mr Zelenov, I understand he

6 was involved with the agency of asset management, that

7 was Mr Zelenov’s company. They had some projects with

8 that company. They certainly did not need any court

9 proceedings, it was dangerous for them, and I remember

10 our conversation with Mrs Malysheva. Mr Smirnov was

11 asking her whether it was possible to change the

12 companies, and the second issue was with regard to my

13 participation in the project, and whether I myself could

14 purchase a share of one of the companies for SKIF.

15 I agreed, and that was in April.

16 Q. So was that, to your recollection, did these discussions

17 happen at the same meeting or sequence of meetings as

18 the discussions in relation to Morskoy Bank loan?

19 A. I think there were several meetings and it must have

20 been at one of them. I do not recall exactly whether we

21 have known about the Morskoy Bank at that point in time

22 or not, but we knew the situation was pretty dismal from

23 Mr Berezin, and we knew that there was no communication

24 between the Bank. The Bank has mistrust and aggression,

25 and the heat of aggression and mistrust on the part of

1 to you, that’s at page 1 of that, and the Russian

2 version will be — someone more brilliant than I has

3 found it, thank you. {D112/1631.1/1}, {D112/1631.1/9}.

4 So that is the last of the six, obviously, that is the

5 sale of Aqua-Ladoga to Anex-Finance, and that’s dated

6 6 April.

7 Mr Sklyarevsky, doesn’t it seem curious to you that

8 this sequence of dates starts only on 20 March, so only

9 three days until the date of the alleged notification of

10 shareholders’ meeting, and ends on 6 April; that is to

11 say the day before the alleged shareholders’ meeting?

12 A. I have no doubts that it has no connection. I also

13 recall clearly that all the key decisions, the

14 emotionally-charged decisions, were made in early April,

15 and I mean emotionally-charged such as replacing the

16 companies, replacing the directors.

17 With regard to the dates being spaced out in time,

18 the single reason for that is because — well, Renord

19 could have dated all of the agreements by the same date,

20 but because of financial services and legal services,

21 they had to spread them in time. I think Mr Smirnov

22 would probably be able to tell the reason why they did

23 so, because I simply don’t know.

24 Q. Yes. I do hope so. I do hope so.

25 A. However, there is no connection between 16 March — the

65

1 the Bank towards Mr Arkhangelsky was going up and up.

2 Q. And I think, is it the case that — well, never mind.

3 If we could, just to complete this sequence of

4 looking at documents, I would like to show you the

5 agreement between Gelios and Naziya, which you will

6 find — I think that’s page 8, oddly. {D112/1631.1/8},

7 so it is the same date, 2 April {D112/1631.1/16}.

8 I am just trying to establish this really, do you

9 recall this sequence of one agreement being signed on

10 one date and then in a few days another agreement, or to

11 your recollection it all happened around the same time

12 and dated at convenience, as you have described a moment

13 ago?

14 A. I do not recall the exact sequence. There was

15 a decision to replace the companies. There was

16 a certain legal reason there too, and I stated that in

17 my witness statements. However, I do not recall the

18 sequence very well. A decision has been made that

19 Mr Zelenov leaves, part of Renord companies ought to be

20 replaced —

21 Q. Yes.

22 A. — and SKIF gets on board.

23 Q. Yes. Just finally, just to complete, because I will ask

24 you some further questions about the dates, so that’s

25 the sixth and, therefore, final agreement I want to show

67

1 only connection is that there is some key points, start

2 of April, and around that the decisions have been made.

3 That key point happened in early April, so accordingly,

4 the meetings and the sales all revolve around that key

5 point. It could have been, you know, 10 or 15 days one

6 way or 10 or 15 days the other way. It’s very difficult

7 to restate the chronology now, but the chronology is —

8 and I already mentioned that Mrs Malysheva is

9 a functional manager. Her objective to replace the

10 directors was not to gain control over the companies,

11 but to get the function of control. That was

12 an important circumstance for her and for the Bank.

13 So her approach was as follows: the directors should

14 not manage the companies until the situation with

15 Mr Arkhangelsky is settled, and around the decision to

16 replace the directors and the decision to replace the

17 companies, this is what all the dates revolve around.

18 Q. That’s right. What I am suggesting to you,

19 Mr Sklyarevsky, is that these two processes, replacement

20 of management and the transfer of shareholding in Scan,

21 it’s clearly connected between each other, wouldn’t you

22 accept that? They are part of the same plan, aren’t

23 they?

24 A. Sir, could you please restate your question? I didn’t

25 seem to understand it.

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

March 4, 2016 Day 22 — Redacted

1 Q. I beg your pardon. That’s my fault. That’s my fault.

2 The decision to — whatever the chronology, putting

3 it aside for one moment, the decision to replace the

4 management in the two companies and the decision to

5 transfer the shares of Scan from the original purchasers

6 to subsequent purchasers, including SKIF, these two

7 decisions and these two steps are part of the same plan;

8 isn’t that a fair inference?

9 A. Possibly so. That was a decision to protect the repo

10 transaction.

11 Q. Quite. So, really, the main purpose of both these

12 steps, really — well, it’s a series of steps, but both

13 these sequences, was to protect the assets of both

14 companies from a potential lawsuit from

15 Oslo Marine Group’s side; is that your understanding?

16 A. There were two main messages and two main things that

17 Mrs Malysheva mentioned. The first one was to gain

18 control for the directors so that Mr Arkhangelsky would

19 not take out loans in other banks and not burden the

20 collaterals under other loans, and, secondly, indeed we

21 expected that Mr Arkhangelsky will dispute the

22 transactions under the repo transaction, and the Renord

23 part and the side of the Bank were getting ready for the

24 claims and getting ready for lengthy court proceedings,

25 and part of the companies that were the original

1 A. Yes.

2 Q. Then one of the documents you exhibit there, which is,

3 for those following it on the computer, second from the

4 bottom in that column of links, but generally speaking

5 it is {D128/2060/1}, the English version, and

6 {D128/2060/4} is the Russian version.

7 So, as you can see, this is the lease agreement, or

8 draft lease agreement, between Western Terminal and the

9 company called Gunard Enterprises Limited; is that

10 right?

11 A. Yes.

12 Q. Now, from the fact of it being exhibited to that

13 paragraph, it appears as if you are saying that Gunard

14 Enterprises Limited is your company, or a SKIF company;

15 is that what you are saying?

16 A. No. Gunard Enterprises is not my company. As far as

17 I know, that company belongs to Renord Group. It must

18 have been the lease agreement directly with SKIF, and

19 that was the main reference, that is what the reference

20 was to, to the draft of that document.

21 Q. So there was another proposed lease, in your discussions

22 that was — one of the scenarios you discussed at that

23 time was a possible lease of Western Terminal assets to

24 SKIF; is that what you are saying?

25 A. One second. I need to have a look.

69 71

1 purchasers didn’t feel comfortable to be part of that.

2 So SKIF came in, and in that project started — SKIF

3 started playing some role in the project and we bought

4 18 per cent of Scan.

5 But at that point in time, as far as I understand

6 from Mrs Malysheva, the main objective was to protect

7 the Bank’s interests and to stay in the repo

8 transaction, and she thought that Mr Arkhangelsky would

9 try to exit the repo transaction, plus, encumbering the

10 Western Terminal assets and the Scan assets with other

11 loans, and that’s what happened with Morskoy Bank.

12 That was the main logic behind it. We never had

13 an issue about how we’re going to manage

14 Western Terminal or how we’re going to manage

15 an insurance company. We didn’t even discuss that.

16 There was an issue of controlling the signature. And if

17 you mean this as part of a plan, then this is what I’m

18 trying to elucidate here.

19 Q. Right. Now, I think moving slightly on, in paragraph 52

20 of your witness statement you refer to round the middle,

21 before the square brackets, you see you refer to certain

22 documents and exhibit certain documents that propose

23 that SKIF should take an interest in the

24 Western Terminal assets; you see that, don’t you

25 {B2/13/10}, {B2/13/23}.

1 Q. What are you looking at, Mr Sklyarevsky, just for the

2 record?

3 A. I am looking at my witness statement, sir. I am trying

4 to understand what I’m referring to, because number

5 57-75, I’m not quite sure what these numbers signify.

6 I’m just trying to find them.

7 Q. Yes, well that — I am relying on the hyperlinks that

8 have been put there, but I trust and I would —

9 A. Sir, is it possible to bring them on the screen? Thank

10 you very much. Is it possible for me to have a look at

11 the references to document 57-75?

12 Q. Well, there is a hyperlink which suggests that that’s

13 the document, this lease agreement with Gunard. I don’t

14 know if, perhaps, I could try and find it, there is

15 a hard copy of the trial bundle, so if someone could try

16 and find this. I hope it has been checked. Is it the

17 same document which you have exhibited, to your

18 recollection?

19 A. No, I think that Gunard is Smirnov’s company, and there

20 was indeed a contract, an agreement there, and I did see

21 it in the materials of the case. It was a draft between

22 SKIF and the Western Terminal about the lease of some

23 footage of the territory. As far as I remember, it was

24 a decision of the Bank or a draft, and I do recollect

25 that we were talking with Malysheva. I can explain, you

70 72
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

March 4, 2016 Day 22 — Redacted

1 see, the situation, talk to Mrs Malysheva that we are 1 with SKIF, and possibly some other things; is that what
2 losing the court decisions in June, and based on that, 2 you intended to say?
3 these discussions arose. It was the decision of 3 A. Yes. That’s what I intended to say. I could provide
4 the Bank that it allows the pledger to lease SKIF land. 4 a wider explanation for the court of the situation,
5 Q. Well, I do hope someone from RPC will look into it, 5 because it is not in my witness statement that this
6 because it would be a pity if there is really a mistake 6 issue was to be studied, and I only found out that it
7 in the cross-referencing, because I relied completely on 7 cropped up when I was preparing. Therefore, I think
8 hyperlinks, so if there was a different agreement 8 that it would be of interest to the court, I could go
9 exhibited I would like, really — I hope RPC can 9 into details and provide more information about the
10 establish that and mention that. 10 situation.
11 MR LORD: Sorry, my Lord. Mr Stroilov might want — it 11 Q. Yes, I will be asking you about documents one-by-one
12 might be {D122/1940/1}, which is one of 12 Mr Sklyarevsky, and of course, if you want to say
13 the cross-reference links in the margin. 13 anything further, then Mr Lord, if he thinks wise, will
14 MR STROILOV: Yes, that’s a different one. That I meant to 14 re-examine you on this.
15 take too, but — 15 I would like to ask you about Gunard lease first,
16 MR LORD: Sorry. 16 but don’t worry, we will come to SKIF documents as well.
17 MR STROILOV: — what I mean is if someone could check that 17 So if we go back to {D128/2060/1} on one screen, and
18 pages 57 to 75 in Mr Sklyarevsky’s exhibit correspond to 18 {D128/2060/4} on the other.
19 the hyperlinks, there has been no mistake, just to be 19 Now, I would ask you, Mr Sklyarevsky, to look at
20 sure. 20 some of the specific terms of that lease agreement. So
21 MR LORD: All right. 21 if you could look at clause 1.3:
22 MR STROILOV: Yes, I will take you to other documents in 22 «The term of the Lease Agreement is set as 49 …
23 a moment, but your recollection is that there 23 years from the state registration of the Agreement.»
24 was a proposed lease agreement between Western Terminal 24 Right? Can you see that?
25 and SKIF; is that right? 25 A. Yes.
73 75

1 A. I don’t think there was an agreement there. There was

2 a decision of the Bank.

3 Q. Yes.

4 A. And there was a conversation with Ms Malysheva, between

5 me and Ms Malysheva about the situation. I don’t recall

6 that was —

7 Q. In which you described this. Yes. Thank you.

8 Now, if you could just go through the other

9 documents you have exhibited and we will come back

10 to …

11 Well, incidentally, while we are on Gunard lease, do

12 you know anything about that contract, the proposed

13 lease agreement between Western Terminal and Gunard?

14 A. Well, I only know that it was of the similar nature that

15 the one with SKIF, the structure of the deal was the

16 same as the proposed structure.

17 Q. Right, so do I understand you correctly: in that period,

18 in the summer of 2009, Mrs Malysheva, you, and

19 Mr Smirnov had discussions on the situation and what you

20 need to do to protect the assets in the light of

21 the developments in Russian courts? Sorry to ask such

22 a long question. I am just trying to summarise what you

23 have said.

24 The options you have discussed included a possible

25 lease agreement with Gunard, a possible lease agreement

1 Q. Then 2.1.1, and that’s whereby the lessor agrees to

2 transfer the property — I’m sorry, there is another

3 confusion with …

4 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: I think we are now getting the Russian

5 again.

6 MR STROILOV: Signal to us when it is fixed.

7 THE INTERPRETER: It is fixed.

8 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Thank you.

9 MR STROILOV: If we could now scroll down one page.

10 {D128/2060/2}, {D128/2060/5}, and if you could now look

11 at clause 3.1, you see that the rent is suggested as

12 $20,000 per month, including VAT. And in clause 3.3,

13 you can see that the entire rent is only payable on the

14 last day of the term of this agreement; so that’s to say

15 after 49 years.

16 If you can see, then, clause 5.2, then you can see

17 that it is extendable beyond that term, and then in 5.3

18 you can see that it can be terminated in relation to

19 certain possible provisions of Russian law.

20 Now, do you recall that agreement being discussed

21 with Mrs Malysheva and Mr Smirnov?

22 A. The terms I don’t remember. I do remember in principle

23 the conclusion of this agreement and what it was to

24 serve, in Malysheva’s opinion. I can relay that to you.

25 Q. Well, let me —

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

March 4, 2016 Day 22 — Redacted

1 A. The provisions of the agreement, no, I had nothing to do

2 with the terms of the agreement.

3 Q. Right. Well, I will make some … sorry.

4 I will put some questions to you, and then hopefully

5 you will give your explanations.

6 Will you agree that the terms of that contract are

7 uncommercial?

8 A. More so, more likely, but I wanted to stress that the

9 logic of Malysheva and the Bank presupposed no

10 conditions at all. For her, the conditions for the

11 lease were not important in the contract. The main task

12 of Malysheva, as I said before, was the control. To

13 her, it was important to control this plot of land, and

14 at the start of June, we lost the first instance to

15 Mr Arkhangelsky in the courts in relation to

16 the Julia Arkhangelskaya claim, and the Bank was very

17 sceptical about our chances of winning, you see.

18 At the same time, the main problem which existed was

19 that the Western Terminal was not the direct borrower of

20 the Bank; it was the pledger only, and the position of

21 Mrs Malysheva was that since the courts would be lost

22 and then Arkhangelsky will change the directors, then

23 the Bank must have additional instrument or leverage in

24 the form of the control over the land of

25 the Western Terminal, because the Western Terminal was

1 to talk about the property rights for the land being

2 passed to SKIF. So was it intended as a lease or as,

3 simply, a transfer of the freehold to SKIF? Do you

4 remember anything about that?

5 A. No. I discussed only the lease with Mrs Malysheva. The

6 purchase agreement was not discussed, but it is possible

7 that it is, you see, an internal document of the Bank.

8 Maybe she had her own ideas. As far as I know, we

9 didn’t revisit the issue.

10 Q. Yes. Well, just for completeness, I think — I’m not

11 sure, there is another document very much like that, and

12 I am happy to skip it. There is one which may be

13 interesting, it’s at {D136/2259/1} for the English, and

14 for the Russian you have {D136/2259/5}, I think. That’s

15 the beginning of the document.

16 If we could scroll down to, I think, two pages in

17 both cases, to the entry of 17 June. {D136/2259/3},

18 {D136/2259/7}. I just want you to — well, I’m

19 concerned about the translation being not perfect, so if

20 you could simply do me a favour and read out in Russian

21 the entry of 17 June 2009, just so that it is translated

22 and you identify …

23 A. «… to provide agreement to alienate with the Bank

24 keeping the pledge regarding Western Terminal to SKIF,

25 the property is pledged under the credit agreement

77

1 not the borrower, and the bankruptcy of the shipping

2 company in which pledged the landlord was only started

3 this bankruptcy, and there was going to elapse a lot of

4 time between the bankruptcy of the company before claims

5 to the Western Terminal.

6 Therefore, the lease agreement was discussed as

7 an additional — some form of an additional insurance

8 mechanism in case we were to lose in courts in interest.

9 Q. Thank you. And I understand that the rationale behind

10 the proposal to possibly transfer the assets to SKIF was

11 the same, wasn’t it?

12 A. Well, again, I didn’t discuss the terms. Malysheva

13 asked me whether I would mind if such a similar

14 agreement would be made to SKIF, and at the time

15 I wasn’t against it because I was absorbed in these

16 court proceedings and I thought that I was doing a very

17 bad job, because we were losing.

18 Q. Yes. If we could look at {D122/1934/2}, that’s the

19 Russian, and {D122/1934/1} for the English. I am afraid

20 that is not a perfect translation, but is that the

21 proposed decision you were talking about? That comes

22 from your exhibit, according to my hyperlinks. So is

23 that what you meant?

24 A. Yes.

25 Q. I just want to draw to your attention that here it seems

79

1 number 21.07…»

2 MR LORD: I’m not sure it has been fully translated,

3 Mr Stroilov.

4 MR STROILOV: Hasn’t it been? All I wanted is to identify

5 it and to make sure that also looks like the proposal

6 you were talking about a moment ago, and that’s what you

7 exhibit.

8 A. At the risk of repeating myself, we did not talk about

9 the sale. We were talked about the lease, but it is

10 possible that Malysheva — and again, it is the internal

11 documents of the Bank, I don’t know her activity there

12 and why she was taking those decisions. I do think that

13 this is the same situation, simply she was just seeking

14 extra reassurance and was preparing the documents in

15 the Bank if things were to turn very bad in the courts.

16 Q. Yes. So now well, it would only be possible to conclude

17 a contract of this kind after you, or the Bank, or

18 anyone on your side, any companies on your side, had

19 secured the operational control of Western Terminal and

20 Scan, isn’t that right?

21 A. Could you please repeat it, because you said «could it

22 be possible», so could you — maybe there was something

23 lost in translation, but I didn’t quite understand what

24 you meant.

25 Q. Well, it was only possible for Mrs Malysheva to carry on

78 80
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

March 4, 2016 Day 22 — Redacted

1 with this plan we have just discussed, a condition of

2 that was you had to have an operational control of the

3 two companies, if that makes sense?

4 A. I don’t think it is connected. It’s a legal

5 transaction. An operational control is just that:

6 operational control. If, for example, the deal with

7 Gunard went through, it did not — the lease does not

8 require operational control. It’s a legal transaction

9 only, it does not require control over the territory.

10 Q. Yes, so, really, to make it possible to make this kind

11 of lease agreement, it was really sufficient from your

12 point of view to replace the management of the two

13 companies; is that right?

14 A. Once again, at the risk of repeating myself, I’ve said

15 it before that I can’t be here a lawyer for Malysheva,

16 but I understand her logic. She was not interested in

17 managing the assets, she was interested in the control

18 of the assets, because if you are trying to drive to

19 the retainment of operational control there were

20 different events to that end.

21 Malysheva’s task was to freeze, to fix, with the

22 pledges of the Bank and the possibility of sale, because

23 Arkhangelsky was on the attack, not the Bank, not the

24 SKIF, not Renord. So I suppose that she, inside the

25 Bank, was working on various scenarios of how the events

1 I suppose that it is the same draft of the deals.

2 Q. The same purposes, presumably?

3 A. I think so, yes.

4 MR STROILOV: My Lord, I think it may be a convenient

5 moment, because I don’t want to embark on a long line

6 which would take us … we can start earlier, I suppose.

7 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Right. We will start at 1.55 pm.

8 Some of the translations in the documents we were

9 looking at were a bit ropey, I suspect manual. I think

10 at {D136/2259/3} there was a phrase, I think it was

11 «pro out» or something, I just didn’t understand it at

12 all.

13 MR STROILOV: Yes, it’s an unhelpful — I don’t think the

14 translation is terribly good.

15 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Look at the first line:

16 «Are Put Out requirements for the nonacceptance

17 writing off of the existing been overdue debts for…»

18 Repos, something, maybe?

19 MR STROILOV: My Lord, really the only reason I brought —

20 I thought it necessary to bring it up is to

21 cross-reference this to some other cross-examinations

22 you may recall.

23 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: I don’t know what «put out» means.

24 MR STROILOV: I think what it says is that the overdue

25 indebtedness had been partly repaid — overdue

81 83

1 will unravel, because if she were confident that the

2 cases in court will be won, then we were not.

3 Q. Right. And, of course, at that period of time obviously

4 SKIF was still one of the shareholders, or nominal

5 shareholders of Scan, isn’t that in June 2009?

6 A. Yes. Yes.

7 Q. If we could call on the screen document

8 {D122/1943.3/0.1} for the English version, and I suspect

9 {D122/1943.3/1} in the Russian version. So that is the

10 minutes of the management board meeting where these

11 matters were evidently discussed, and if we could scroll

12 down to {D122/1943.3/0.3} on the English screen, and on

13 the Russian screen — could we slowly scroll down the

14 Russian version so that … {D122/1943.3/5}. Yes, so

15 you will see the same decision being recorded there,

16 Mr Sklyarevsky.

17 Now could we scroll down both screens one page

18 {D122/1943.3/0.4}, {D122/1943.3/6}. Here you can see

19 the next item on the agenda. A similar decision, a

20 similar item rather, a similar decision or proposed

21 decision, about giving consent to Scan for a transfer,

22 as it suggests, of its own real estate, to the company

23 called Naziya.

24 Did you know about that proposed transaction?

25 A. No. I did not know about that transaction, but

1 indebtedness of interest.

2 MR LORD: My Lord, shall I arrange for that document to be

3 properly translated, because your Lordship might want to

4 see the other entries to get the context.

5 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Okay, thank you very much, yes.

6 MR LORD: And if there any others your Lordship wishes to be

7 translated, just tell us and we will do them.

8 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Thank you very much. 1.55 pm.

9 (12.55 pm)

10 (The Luncheon Adjournment)

11 (1.55 pm)

12 MR STROILOV: May it please your Lordship.

13 Mr Sklyarevsky, just a few points to continue my

14 questions from just before lunch. What I am suggesting

15 to you — whether it was a good cause or a bad cause we

16 are not going to argue at the moment — but the purpose

17 of changing the management in Western Terminal and Scan

18 was to enable the Bank, if necessary, to enter such

19 contracts, to arrange for such contracts, as a transfer

20 of the assets from those companies, or a lease of

21 the assets of those companies to SKIF or to Renord or to

22 whoever the Bank thought right; wouldn’t you agree

23 that’s logical?

24 A. This is incorrect. The logic is incorrect because

25 initially the directors were replaced in order to

82 84
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

March 4, 2016 Day 22 — Redacted

1 control the possible encumbrance of the pledges and the 1 relationships, and therefore …
2 additional creditors, and subsequently, only in June the 2 Q. I see. Now, isn’t it right that at a later stage the
3 idea came about, should the court cases be lost, to do 3 rights of Morskoy Bank under the loan agreement you were
4 these transactions. So the initial logic was different. 4 so unhappy about, they were assigned to Sevzapalians?
5 What you are saying here, sir, no, that logic wasn’t 5 As I understand it, Renord bought those rights for about
6 present. 6 half the amount of the loan.
7 Q. Right. Now, while we are still — well, we have been 7 A. I found about that from Mr Smirnov’s witness statements,
8 looking recently at paragraph 52 of that statement. Can 8 otherwise our paths didn’t cross work-wise, and we
9 we call it on the screen again, 52? That’s {B1/13/10}. 9 didn’t communicate. So the Western Terminal’s fate was
10 Now I want to move up from where we are looking in 10 of interest to me, because I wanted to be remunerated
11 a moment. I think the first two sentences you make it 11 for that work, and with regard to the fate of
12 clear you were not entirely happy with the fact it was 12 the assets, who manages them, who owns them, it wasn’t
13 Renord rather than SKIF who controlled the realisation 13 something that was of interest to me.
14 of assets; is that right? 14 Q. So you were not really involved in realisation of
15 A. Yes. 15 Western Terminal assets; is that what you are saying?
16 Q. And just to be clear, it was the Bank who had to choose 16 A. That is correct. I was not.
17 as between you two how to assign the roles? 17 Q. Well, then, what — forgive me if that’s a stupid
18 A. In the end, yes. 18 question, but then what do you expect to be remunerated
19 Q. And now if I could now ask you to look at Mr Smirnov’s 19 for?
20 witness statement, at {B2/12/9}, and the Russian — 20 A. I was expecting to be remunerated either for the sale of
21 I need paragraph 53 in the Russian version as well, 21 the assets either by Renord or by the Bank, and the Bank
22 which I guess will be somewhere in 123 or thereabouts. 22 will get Mr Arkhangelsky’s debt amount back, and
23 It could it be on the same tab. 23 I planned, and I still plan, to be remunerated on the
24 A. Would you like me to read? 24 part of that sum. That was my work and that’s what the
25 Q. I think it is being called up for you. Yes. {B2/12/25} 25 agreement was about. Should Renord itself buy the
85 87

1 So I would like you to read — well, in paragraph 53,

2 essentially Mr Smirnov makes it clear — what I am

3 interested in is the second sentence:

4 «But after OMG had defaulted, and over time,

5 Renord-Invest became interested in purchasing some of

6 the assets for its own investment projects and did so at

7 public auctions and for the market value.»

8 Mr Sklyarevsky, to your knowledge, couldn’t this

9 interest of Renord in the assets be the reason why the

10 Bank chose to entrust the process of realisation to

11 Renord rather than to you?

12 A. I don’t think so. One needs to understand the history

13 of SKIF and Renord coming about. Renord was created by

14 Mr Smirnov and he was the Bank’s employee. Most of

15 Renord’s employees used to be the Bank’s employees, the

16 ex-employees of the Bank, and they had good, close

17 working relationships with the Bank. Mr Smirnov decided

18 to go into business for himself, and his relationships

19 with the Bank were better than his relationship with

20 SKIF.

21 None of my employees worked for the Bank and

22 I didn’t work for the Bank either, so I had the

23 privilege of picking and choosing my projects or passing

24 them over to work with other banks to work with anyone.

25 Mr Smirnov had his own business, his own

1 actual site, as I can see from the case materials,

2 again, it doesn’t change the structure because,

3 presumably, Renord paid the Bank for its assets.

4 It wasn’t of interest who bought the asset, whether it

5 was Renord or some third party.

6 Q. So you know nothing, really, about the assignment of

7 Morskoy Bank loan; you don’t know anything about this?

8 A. I only know that I read it when preparing for the

9 proceedings.

10 Q. So did you read Mr Smirnov’s witness statement at the

11 time you were preparing your own?

12 A. That is correct.

13 Q. Now —

14 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: I’m sorry, I don’t mean to take you

15 out, but if you go back in the [draft] transcript,

16 please, to page 85 at lines 19 and 20. Mr Sklyarevsky

17 didn’t finish his sentence. I don’t know whether he

18 thought it was complete in itself, but I just wanted to

19 make clear, try and clarify in mind quite what he did

20 mean in saying:

21 «Mr Smirnov had his own business, his own

22 relationships, and therefore …»

23 I’m sorry to take you now, but I know it will be out

24 of context later. Do you want to finish the sentence or

25 explain why it is complete in itself?

86 88
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

March 4, 2016 Day 22 — Redacted

1 A. I could continue, my Lord. I think that if Mr Smirnov

2 took an interest in these assets, he should have bought

3 them from the Bank on market terms, and that was the

4 condition for me to receive my remuneration and that

5 would have been just, based on my understanding of

6 the procedure.

7 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Are you suggesting he did not, or are

8 you suggesting — what are you suggesting there?

9 A. I am suggesting that what I’ve read in Mr Smirnov’s

10 witness statement — and currently the Western Terminal

11 site was bought by Renord structures, or he might have

12 a joint business there, then that transaction should be

13 a just transaction, a proper transaction, and the Bank

14 under the transaction ought to have its money back, and

15 this is how — well, after all, that was the reason,

16 that was the core issue that gave rise to the distressed

17 debt.

18 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: So far as you are aware, is Mr Smirnov

19 and Renord-Invest very dependent on the Bank for its

20 business?

21 A. I think that their main business is BSP business,

22 although they do have other clients.

23 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Yes, thank you.

24 MR STROILOV: Thank you, my Lord.

25 Mr Sklyarevsky, I now would like to ask you

1 a complex reference {D176-D191/2918.1T/2508}. As you

2 can see, that is a printout on Mercury from the database

3 called SPARK, which I’m sure you know well, as a Russian

4 businessman.

5 Now, Mr Sklyarevsky, could I ask you a technical

6 question: is your English good enough to be comfortable

7 with this entry, because there is a Russian version but

8 it is structured rather differently, so it may delay

9 things if we try to navigate through both in parallel.

10 If you are comfortable with the English version, I will

11 just go on this; if you are not, we will have to do it

12 in parallel with the English and Russian version? Are

13 you comfortable to look at the English version, and are

14 you confident you will manage to understand what it is

15 about?

16 A. Yes.

17 Q. Right. So it seems, if we could scroll down one page

18 {D176-D191/2918.1T/2509} that the company was

19 incorporated on 23 March 2005, if you see the state

20 registration date, and then there is a table for that?

21 A. Yes.

22 Q. And then if you look a little further, there is a list

23 of historical shareholders, and if you scroll one page

24 down {D176-D191/2918.1T/2510}, so you will see as on the

25 date of registration, 100 per cent shareholder was Anton

89 91

1 something about the company called Mercury LLC on which

2 you give evidence in your statement. Can you tell the

3 court, it used to be your company, isn’t that right? So

4 did you originally —

5 A. Yes.

6 Q. — incorporate that company or did you acquire it from

7 someone else?

8 A. To be honest, I do not recall. I think I bought it from

9 someone. Honestly, I wouldn’t be able to recall now.

10 Q. And about what time do you think you bought it?

11 A. I think it was 2006, 2007 or thereabouts.

12 Q. Then I think if we look at paragraph … sorry, my Lord,

13 I am slightly lost in my own notes. If we could perhaps

14 look at paragraph 53 of your witness statement, where

15 you mention that in April 2010 you sold the shares to

16 Renord-Invest {B2/13/10}, {B2/13/23}.

17 A. In April 2011.

18 Q. Yes, so in that period while you owned that company,

19 what was the company’s business?

20 A. That was a shell company, it did not do any business of

21 its own. Initially the company, when I bought it,

22 I personally planned to open a pub in St Petersburg,

23 a beer house, for myself and my friends. It didn’t work

24 out, so that was in 2006, 2007.

25 Q. Now, I think if we could perhaps look at — well, it’s

1 Evaldovich Kuznetsov, and then you can see your name and

2 the date of the record being updated is 25 March 2010.

3 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Where is that? So sorry.

4 MR STROILOV: At the very top of this page, and it’s

5 a continuation of the table starting on the previous,

6 these are historic shareholders.

7 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: I see, yes.

8 MR STROILOV: So, Mr Sklyarevsky, does that remind you of

9 anything? Who is Mr Kuznetsov and did you buy the

10 company from him?

11 A. I know who Mr Kuznetsov is, and I know why I bought the

12 company from him. He is the brother of a friend of mine

13 who we planned to open the pub together with.

14 Q. Did you plan this with Anton Kuznetsov or with his

15 brother?

16 A. With his brother, but Anton Kuznetsov had to manage it.

17 Q. He was hired to manage it?

18 A. Yes, he was hired to start the project.

19 Q. Yes, so presumably at the time — is it the correct

20 date, the change of shareholding, is it correct that you

21 actually bought the company in March 2010, or is it

22 simply a technical change?

23 A. It works out — I just simply don’t remember when it

24 happened, so it must have happened in 2010. It was

25 an empty shell company, so it was unimportant. It’s not

90 92
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

March 4, 2016 Day 22 — Redacted

1 clear when it happened, and I recall that the project

2 was going over 2006 or 2007, so accordingly, I bought

3 the company in 2010.

4 Q. All right. So it was basically after the pub project

5 didn’t work out. The company remained a shell company

6 in the possession of Mr Kuznetsov, and subsequently you

7 bought it?

8 A. Yes. But the project, the pub project didn’t even

9 commence. It was simply RUB 10,000, it was just

10 a sleeping shell company, a registered legal entity,

11 that’s it.

12 Q. Mr Sklyarevsky, obviously RUB 10,000 charter capital

13 doesn’t mean that the assets are RUB 10,000. I’m not

14 saying necessarily that that was the case with Mercury,

15 but obviously RUB 10,000 may be misleading, may it not?

16 A. The company did not have any business and the charter

17 capital of RUB 10,000 was formed, but I don’t think it

18 had any other operations. The project did not commence

19 and the company was an empty company, and I don’t think

20 it ever had more than RUB 10,000.

21 Q. If you could now scroll up a little to

22 {D176-D191/2918.1T/2508} you will see near the bottom of

23 the page there is a «History of manager changes» and one

24 can see that apparently the director general was changed

25 on 1 January 2009 from Mr Kuznetsov to you. Why would

1 director general in January 2009?

2 A. To be honest, I do not remember. Most likely Anton

3 left, he needed to go somewhere. He needed to get the

4 company off his hands. To be honest, I do not recall

5 these events because they were not really that

6 important, it was just a technical function, a technical

7 company.

8 MR STROILOV: I beg your pardon, my Lord. My Magnum, for

9 some reason, logged out automatically, so I will have

10 to — I don’t think it will take longer than a couple of

11 minutes. I do apologise.

12 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Not at all. (Pause).

13 MR STROILOV: Could we now go to {D192/2918.2T/124}, and

14 I fear there is no English translation for that, I am

15 afraid, but these are the entries from the Russian Land

16 Registry. So I hope it will be clear from my questions

17 and Mr Sklyarevsky’s answers what they are about. If

18 not, we will have to think how to … I am sorry about

19 that.

20 Does that look, Mr Sklyarevsky, like an entry from

21 the Russian Land Registry?

22 A. Yes, it does.

23 Q. And now that, if you look at the entry 1 there, on

24 page 124, so you will see that this relates to a plot of

25 land with certain cadastral number which you can see at

93 95
1 that be the case? 1 the top line, and then you have in the bottom line of
2 A. As far as I recall, Anton Kuznetsov left. I’m not sure 2 section 1, you have the address, which is Leningrad
3 whether he left for another job or not, because our 3 region, Vyborg area, Selezneva Volost, Pridorozhneo?
4 project with his brother wasn’t even commenced. So 4 A. Yes.
5 apparently he had the company registered in his name and 5 Q. Now, isn’t it the case, Mr Sklyarevsky, that this was
6 I bought it out. First, I changed directors, I became 6 a plot of land owned by Western Terminal? You can see
7 its director, and I bought it out, because he didn’t 7 in section 2.2 at the bottom of the page that it was —
8 need the company and I needed it for my business, so 8 its registered owner was Western Terminal LLC?
9 I bought it out. 9 {D192/2918.2T/125}.
10 Q. It’s not really a job to be a director general of 10 A. Sir, did you mean 2.3 or 2.4?
11 a shell company, or is it? 11 Q. I am looking at — we will come to that later. I am
12 A. I agree, sir, it’s not a job. A project was planned and 12 looking at 2.2 at the moment. So that you could confirm
13 the manager was planned to have the project. The 13 for the court that here you can see that as between —
14 project didn’t happen, the company was then registered 14 that this plot of land was owned by Western Terminal
15 in the manager’s name and I bought it out. 15 LLC. I am afraid I have to take the benefit of your
16 Q. No, but it appears from your evidence — correct me if I 16 Russian as someone independent from me.
17 am wrong — that since the pub project didn’t work, that 17 A. Yes. 2.2 states that Western Terminal LLC, and it did
18 was approximately, from memory, I think you said, 2007 18 own this land plot, from 23 April 2008 until
19 and thereabouts, and then until about 2011, when you 19 29 November 2011.
20 provided the company to Renord as a holding company, the 20 Q. Yes. Thank you. Is that correct? Could you say the
21 company was not doing anything at all? 21 date when that stopped again? I think that’s the last
22 A. That is correct. Yes, the balance sheets were empty and 22 line in that section, so just above 2.3, what was the
23 they were submitted to the tax authorities, but there 23 date when it passed out of the ownership of
24 were no operations. 24 Western Terminal?
25 Q. And so what would be the purpose of changing the 25 A. 29 November 2010.
94 96
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

March 4, 2016 Day 22 — Redacted

1 Q. Yes, that’s right. Thank you. I think at some point it 1 documents when I was a general director, they were
2 looked as if it was 2011. 2 signed by me and they were provided by me to Renord, and
3 Now, if you then look at 2.4 you will see that 3 I think I emphasised in my witness statement — now I do
4 Mercury LLC is registered as the owner of that land 4 not recall — that I actually did that in the interests
5 plot, starting at 29 November 2010; can you see that? 5 of Renord-Invest, and that played a purely technical
6 A. Yes. 6 function.
7 Q. And so at that stage, I think you have just told the 7 Q. So you were, really, in that way, in your capacity —
8 court you were the shareholder and the director of 8 insofar as you were the shareholder of, and/or director
9 Mercury LLC? 9 of Mercury, you were actually at that time working on
10 A. I sold Mercury in April 2011, and here we see 10 behalf of Renord-Invest; is that what you are saying?
11 15.06.2011, as far as I can see, the date of state 11 A. Renord-Invest was using Mercury as one of its holding
12 registration of the title. By that time I was no 12 companies, and I played, actually, the function of
13 longer — perhaps I was a director and signed something 13 a technical director, a technical function.
14 for Renord, but I definitely was no longer 14 Q. So you were basically signing whatever documents
15 a shareholder, because I would have remembered that. 15 Mr Smirnov would ask you to sign; is that right?
16 Q. I think, Mr Sklyarevsky, are we looking at the same 16 A. Yes. Yes, that was the case. He was providing
17 line? I think in 2.4 you can see that the Mercury LLC 17 documents to me, his lawyers were sending documents to
18 right to this land plot was registered on 18 my lawyers, and I would sign them.
19 29 November 2010. 19 Q. So you wouldn’t really review them, would you?
20 A. Yes, you are correct, sir, 29.11.2010. 20 A. I completely trusted Mr Smirnov and we had no — well,
21 Q. So at that stage you still owned Mercury, isn’t that 21 we have the situations in reverse, when Mr Smirnov and
22 right? 22 his companies were used by me. So we trust each other
23 A. Yes. Yes, I did at that point in time. Most likely 23 completely.
24 that was another Renord transaction. Now I’m just 24 Q. All right. So really the court shouldn’t really infer
25 looking at what land plot we are discussing, because 25 a lot from the fact that at that period, you were the
97 99

1 Renord — one of the land plots assigned to

2 Western Terminal, I think it was Sestroretsk, I think

3 Renord registered that to Mercury. I do not recall the

4 figures.

5 Q. No, that’s not Sestroretsk. I’m just thinking how best

6 to show you.

7 A. I simply do not remember. It may be. Honestly I don’t

8 remember because I state in my witness statements that

9 Mercury transaction were purely technical for

10 Mr Smirnov, and all the transactions there were to do

11 with Renord companies. So in this particular case, I do

12 not remember these transactions. I would not be able to

13 comment upon them, but that’s something pertaining to

14 Renord. Mercury was transferred into management, and

15 I was the shareholder and director there, and

16 subsequently I sold it to him.

17 Q. No, what I am trying to establish, at what point in time

18 did you give Mercury to Renord as a holding company?

19 Wasn’t it at a later stage in 2011?

20 A. No. That was actually when Renord was selling the ROK 1

21 assets. I think it was 2010, early 2010. We need to

22 consult the documents because I don’t remember now.

23 Mercury — Mr Smirnov asked for a company in order

24 to consolidate two land plots, and I have given Mercury

25 into his management, and subsequently all the Mercury

1 registered shareholder. As far as you are concerned in

2 that period you held the company on behalf of Renord?

3 A. I don’t want to speculate, to invent some situations for

4 the court. I don’t want to tell about some events that

5 did not happen. That was the technical transaction and

6 I provided a company to Renord. Renord has their own

7 logic as to why they did these transactions.

8 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Is it difficult to incorporate

9 a company in Russia?

10 A. It is easy to do it now. It takes a couple of weeks.

11 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: And was that so in 2010?

12 A. Well, it took a little bit longer, just around a month,

13 about a month.

14 MR STROILOV: Yes, thank you, my Lord.

15 So your evidence is that, as far as that transfer of

16 a plot of land at Selezneva is concerned, that was

17 really an affair of Renord where you may have signed

18 documents but otherwise you had nothing to do with it?

19 A. Did you say Selezneva, sir?

20 Q. Yes, I did, Selezneva. The plot of land in

21 Seleznevskaya Volost and then it is marked as the

22 address — if you look at the address at page

23 {D192/2918.2T/124}.

24 A. I recall some documents that were not connected to

25 Western Terminal per se, as a terminal and its location.

98 100
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

March 4, 2016 Day 22 — Redacted

1 There were some land plots in some other places, and,

2 sorry, I was mistaken and I mentioned Sestroretsk.

3 I recall extremely vaguely that some such documents

4 existed.

5 Q. So from what you have said it appears that you, at any

6 rate, didn’t pay anything to Western Terminal for that

7 plot of land, did you?

8 A. I do not recall. I would not be able to comment on

9 this. I shall reiterate the company was a purely

10 technical one, and Renord would probably know if there

11 were any payments or not.

12 Q. So if any payments were made, they were not paid by you,

13 because presumably if you paid a substantial amount of

14 money —

15 A. Absolutely. If any payments were made, they were not

16 made by me, because if that company had a client and had

17 an accounting department that was all in Renord’s hands.

18 I had no idea what transactions were involved there.

19 Q. To your knowledge, was this plot of land at Selezneva

20 pledged to the Bank under any loan?

21 A. I don’t know. I don’t remember.

22 Q. I put it to you that it was not. So isn’t it the case,

23 Mr Sklyarevsky, that Mr Smirnov —

24 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: We are hearing the Russian again, I am

25 afraid.

1 If it could be called on two different screens,

2 should I give the reference again or do you have it?

3 {D192/2920/12}. Thank you very much.

4 So that seems to be a publication in a St Petersburg

5 business newspaper called Delovoi Petersburg and that

6 reports a public sale of land plot which I think is

7 mistakenly stated to be 34 hectares. In fact, if you

8 look at the text, it is actually 3.4 hectares, and

9 that’s approximately half of Onega Terminal, isn’t it?

10 That half of Onega Terminal was owned by LPK

11 Scandinavia, as opposed to Scan, where you have the

12 shares; is that correct?

13 You can see that this reports the auction sale

14 in January 2011; can you see that?

15 A. Yes, I can see that.

16 Q. And you can see that Mercury LLC — and then there is in

17 brackets an explanation that that company belongs to

18 SKIF — is named as a buyer; do you see that? That’s in

19 the second paragraph, you can see Mercury identified.

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. And that plot of land was sold for RUB 99,000.

22 A. Yes, that is quite correct. I know the story better

23 than the situation with the Western Terminal. The thing

24 is, one needs to clarify things, why SKIF company

25 features here, because I have a slightly different

101 103

1 THE INTERPRETER: My apologies.

2 MR STROILOV: I am grateful.

3 Isn’t it the case that Mr Smirnov and the Bank and

4 Renord simply used this situation where they had control

5 over Western Terminal LLC, to steal an unpledged asset?

6 A. I think that Renord was doing the transaction, having

7 agreed it with the Bank, and I hope that the sale of

8 that land plot would go to repaying the loan. If that

9 didn’t happen, it’s just something I’m not aware of.

10 I don’t think that Mr Smirnov has stolen that land plot,

11 or dissipated it in some other way, removed it some way.

12 It’s not his practice. As far as I understand, the

13 Bank’s problem is that the Bank has suffered high losses

14 on the loan of Mr Arkhangelsky, and all the assets of

15 the companies had to be used to repay the loan.

16 If that land plot was not pledged in any way,

17 I simply don’t know the fate of that land plot. It is

18 easy enough to check. Most likely it was either being

19 sold or is being sold and it would go towards repayment

20 of the Bank’s loan, because Mr Smirnov’s main function

21 was selling the assets in order to repay the loan.

22 Q. Thank you.

23 Now, if we could look at {D192/2920/12}, and I am

24 afraid there isn’t a good translation at the top, but

25 there is one at {N9/9/36}.

1 principle of organising my business rather than Renord.

2 All the companies in the SKIF group of companies

3 they belong to me one way or another, so managers do not

4 own my companies. SKIF belongs to me and if I buy some

5 technical company, be it Mercury or any other company,

6 I buy it in my name. Therefore, the newspaper having

7 considered that this is shareholders, they connected it

8 with SKIF.

9 Secondly, this deal, this transaction, was presented

10 to me by Mr Smirnov, who told me that there is a buyer

11 for the common plot Scandinavia, which consists of two

12 plots of the insurance company and LPK Scandinavia, and

13 this buyer wanted to purchase this common land plot as

14 one unit, and in order to do this deal, one needed to

15 buy out at an auction this LPK land plot, settle with

16 the Bank and carry out a number of actions.

17 I don’t want to issue any comment on this deal

18 because it was Renord who was doing the deal. I only

19 know the general things about it. I know that the

20 public auction or the tender was the sale of

21 an encumbered land lot. This land lot was encumbered

22 with a pledge in regard to St Petersburg Bank, RUB 600

23 million or RUB 700 million, and that is why the price is

24 so low: nobody wanted to buy this land lot which was

25 encumbered with such a huge debt, therefore I think that

102 104
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

March 4, 2016 Day 22 — Redacted

1 is quite transparent here.

2 Q. So what you are saying is that really, again, your own

3 participation in that is for technical reasons, in

4 reality that was handled by Mr Smirnov.

5 A. Yes, as I stated earlier, all the deals and operations

6 of Mercury with Renord when I was the director or a

7 shareholder, it was just a purely technical function on

8 my part.

9 Q. And presumably if you allowed your name to be associated

10 with this, you were confident that this transaction was

11 perfectly honest and above board?

12 A. Yes, because I was a director and a shareholder, you

13 see, and I trusted Smirnov and the Bank absolutely, and

14 I had nothing to fear or be ashamed of. I participated

15 in my personal capacity and I was the shareholder.

16 I did not see anything untoward, or any injustice,

17 either towards Mr Arkhangelsky or the Bank.

18 Q. Yes. And were you satisfied that the Bank is fully

19 aware of what Mr Smirnov is doing and there is no

20 problem on the Bank’s side with his plan?

21 A. Well, this deal was impossible to do without the Bank,

22 by which I mean subsequent unification of the land lots

23 and their subsequent sale and freeing them from the

24 pledge, this deal was a joint deal of Renord and the

25 Bank, and the Bank couldn’t have done it without Renord

1 MR STROILOV: No, that’s half of the Onega Terminal which

2 was owned by LPK Scandinavia. It’s just two

3 transactions in which Mercury was involved, that’s why

4 I’m asking Mr Sklyarevsky.

5 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: So this is Onega —

6 MR STROILOV: It’s Onega.

7 Now, could we perhaps look at {D149/2474/1} on one

8 screen, and {D149/2474/10} on the other. As you can

9 see, Mr Sklyarevsky, that is the contract between

10 Bank of St Petersburg and Mercury. So that is dated

11 17 June 2011, whereby the Bank writes under the loan

12 agreement — if you could scroll down one page on each

13 page {D149/2474/2}, {D149/2474/11}, and in clause 2.1,

14 you see the rights of the Bank under the loan agreement

15 with Onega are being assigned to Mercury.

16 A. Yes.

17 Q. And that was one of the two loan agreements, I think,

18 under which the LPK land at Onega Terminal, so the part

19 of the Onega Terminal we were looking at earlier, the

20 one sold for RUB 99,000, was pledged; right?

21 So you can see that the loan is — that the

22 indebtedness there towards the end of 2.1, you can see

23 that the indebtedness is in the region of … let me

24 see, RUB 450 million and something.

25 A. Yes.

105 107

1 and vice versa, Renord couldn’t have done it without the

2 Bank.

3 Q. So do you think — I know what you say about the

4 encumbrance, but do you, on the basis of your knowledge,

5 think that RUB 99,000 was a fair market price of that

6 asset?

7 A. You see, the price here was composite: it was the price

8 and the encumbrance. The fair value is compounded of

9 two parts: the price and the encumbrance. So here it is

10 RUB 99,000, plus 600 or 700 million, and that price

11 would be likely to be fair.

12 Q. You see, I don’t accept that it is, but I think we need

13 to move on.

14 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: What was your basis for understanding

15 that the land was pledged?

16 A. Well, firstly it was part of the tender provisions on

17 conditions, and secondly it was in the disclosure

18 documents for the tender or for the public auction, it

19 was the fact that this particular landlord is pledged in

20 relation to the loan, and I don’t remember the exact

21 amount. It was 600, or to the tune of 600 or

22 700 million. I remember it was a big sum. I think it

23 was the loan of LPK Scandinavia.

24 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: I think I might have confused myself.

25 Is this the land at Selezneva? No.

1 Q. And then there is a reference to the mortgage in 2.2.1,

2 and if we could scroll down {D149/2474/3},

3 {D149/2474/12}, then there is a reference to the assets

4 which were pledged, and then there are references in

5 2.2.2 and 2.2.3 to various guarantee agreements, and so

6 all these rights are being sold and as you can see,

7 being assigned to Mercury, and I think you can see that

8 in 2.3 that the price is set at RUB 14 million, RUB

9 14,300,000, approximately, just over that.

10 I just want to check that I am not … yes, then

11 there is, if we scroll down in 4.1, you can see that

12 Mercury had to pay that sum for all those rights

13 {D149/2474/4}, {D149/2474/13}.

14 Finally, if you could scroll down to section 7, it’s

15 page 14 in the Russian version. Yes, there we are.

16 {D149/2474/5}, {D149/2474/14}, so we can see your

17 signature and the seal of Mercury.

18 A. Quite right.

19 Q. So, Mr Sklyarevsky, to your knowledge was there any —

20 it does look like the pledge is being effectively sold

21 to Mercury rather cheaply, doesn’t it?

22 A. Yes. On the surface of things, yes. At first glance

23 when I saw this particular contract agreement and

24 I asked — I requested a meeting with Mr Smirnov and

25 I had a meeting and I received clarification from him

106 108
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

March 4, 2016 Day 22 — Redacted

1 regarding this particular transaction, and as far as

2 I know, this particular contract is an element of

3 a larger deal which consists of several agreements

4 between Renord and the Bank for the total value of

5 the sale of the assets, as far as I remember in

6 the region of RUB 500 million. I do remember this

7 amount because it was based on the sum that I was

8 receiving my remuneration, and the settlements between

9 Renord and the Bank, they were under several agreements,

10 part of which I know and part of which I don’t know.

11 The cession agreement for the amount which is stated

12 in this particular contract is one of the elements of

13 settlements between the Bank and Renord, and as far as

14 I know, the Bank received a considerable amount of

15 the 500 million, plus Mr Smirnov carried some costs for

16 the repairs, I think that he was doing some upgrade to

17 those landlords, and he was compensating for those

18 costs.

19 In addition, Mr Smirnov, on agreement with the Bank,

20 he paid at the time a commission to me for my activity,

21 I think that — in the region of RUB 30 million.

22 Therefore, yes, this particular contract looks strange,

23 but I wanted to draw your attention to the fact that it

24 needs to be constructed in the context of the whole

25 deal, the seller(?) and the landlords of the insurance

1 So, for completeness, if we could look at

2 {D149/2474/1}, {D149/2474/10}, and that is another

3 contract of the same kind — another contract of

4 the same kind of the same day between

5 Bank of St Petersburg and Mercury.

6 If we scroll down one page on each {D149/2474/2},

7 {D149/2474/11} you can see that your signature is there

8 on page 1, and on every page, I think. It is just so

9 that — I’m sorry, I’m just trying to be sure I am not

10 confusing this with any different — so there is

11 a reference in section 2 to another — I’m sorry, I must

12 be … I think I am lost in numbers somewhat.

13 I am sorry, my Lord, I will come back to this.

14 I think I am slightly confused by different contracts,

15 so I would like to double-check that I am getting it

16 right.

17 Now, Mr Sklyarevsky, I think — yes, I think I will

18 want to — I just wonder whether it is right to take it

19 out of sequence.

20 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Do you want a break now?

21 MR STROILOV: Perhaps, I think 10 minutes would be helpful,

22 my Lord.

23 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Instead of a break slightly later?

24 MR STROILOV: Yes, my Lord.

25 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Yes.

109

1 company, Mercury, the Bank and also ROK 1 which was

2 purchasing all of it. I can’t offer any comment on

3 whether it was fair value or not, fair price or not. It

4 is their settlements between them in the frame of

5 the whole system of contracts existing.

6 Q. All right. Well, we will try and put it into context,

7 just to unravel it all.

8 But it is your understanding, isn’t it, that prior

9 to the auction sale where that LPK land at Onega

10 Terminal was sold for RUB 99,000, so prior to that there

11 was an arrangement between the Bank, Renord and ROK 1,

12 a general settlement between these three entities as to

13 the realisation of that asset; is that your

14 understanding?

15 A. Yes. But I do apologise, your Honour, maybe I am the

16 wrong person to offer a witness statement here because

17 I only heard about this deal from Smirnov or

18 Mrs Malysheva, or I saw snippets of the documents, being

19 the director of Mercury. I know the general picture,

20 but I think it would be better to address questions

21 about the details to Mr Smirnov, because I think that it

22 is within his remit.

23 Q. Yes. I appreciate that, but perhaps you will tell the

24 court what you know and then, of course, I do hope that

25 Mr Smirnov will tell what he knows.

111

1 (2.55 pm)

2 (A short break)

3 (3.08 pm)

4 MR STROILOV: May it please your Lordship. I’m sorry, I got

5 lost in as few as two contracts, that shows how hopeless

6 I am, but now I have found my way between them.

7 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Good, that’s fine.

8 MR STROILOV: If we could go to {D149/2475/1} on one screen,

9 and {D149/2475/10} on the other, and I apologise to

10 Mr Sklyarevsky too.

11 So that is what I meant to show you. That is the

12 second contract of the same date, again, between the

13 Bank and yourself, and if we scroll, it’s fairly

14 similar, if you scroll down one page {D149/2475/2},

15 {D149/2475/11}, you will see in 2.1, that similarly the

16 debt of LPK Scandinavia, the debt rights, again assigned

17 from the Bank to Mercury.

18 You will see the amount of the debt. The principal

19 is 343 million or thereabouts, and the interest debt is

20 some 63 million, so 400 million or thereabouts, and

21 there are other small payments, so just over

22 400 million.

23 Then if you scroll down another page {D149/2475/3},

24 {D149/2475/12} you will see at the end of 2.2.1 there is

25 a reference to different assets, there are still parts

110 112
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

March 4, 2016 Day 22 — Redacted

1 of Onega Terminal and still parts of the LPK part, as 1 acting as the general director of a Renord company?
2 opposed to the Scan part of Onega Terminal. You see 2 A. No. Not at all.
3 that the rights under the alleged guarantee contracts 3 Q. Thank you. When you say that you sold the company
4 are also signed in 2.2.2 and 2.2.3, and then if you 4 shortly before this agreement — sorry not to take it
5 scroll down another page {D149/2475/4}, {D149/2475/13}, 5 not in strict chronological order — when you say that
6 I think something that, again, just to mention 6 you sold this company to Renord-Invest, so what was the
7 a peculiarity, and this relates to this agreement and to 7 sale price?
8 the previous agreement, there doesn’t seem to be any 8 A. For RUB 10,000.
9 deadline for payment, unless I have overlooked it, in 9 Q. So purely nominal?
10 which case I apologise. 10 A. Yes.
11 Then, finally, one further page down {D149/2475/5}, 11 Q. Thank you. Now, finally, if we …
12 {D149/2475/14} once again you can see your signature, 12 No, I think the word «finally» was misleading, I’m
13 Mercury seal, and Mr Platonov and somebody else signed 13 afraid, I’m sorry.
14 on behalf of the Bank, someone called Tikhomirova. 14 If we could — now, I’m sorry, I keep going back in
15 I just wanted to show it to you for completion and 15 time, and then forth, I’m sorry about that. Now,
16 so the court knows the scope of the agreement. 16 I understand that the other half, if I could put it
17 I beg your pardon, has everyone looked at the 17 roughly, the other half of Onega Terminal to the loan we
18 payment? I think it’s again not very high. It’s 18 have just looked at, that was owned by Scan at one time?
19 something in the region of — 19 A. First was owned by Scan and then Scan sold it.
20 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: It’s 12.5 million, isn’t it? Can we 20 Q. Yes, that’s right, but that’s what I —
21 go back to that? 21 A. Sold it at the sale.
22 MR STROILOV: Yes, it is at 2.3, I beg your Lordship’s 22 Q. And that was the sale through Russian Auction House,
23 pardon. So it is {D149/2475/3} in the English version, 23 wasn’t it?
24 clause 2.3, and in the Russian version it will probably 24 A. Absolutely. That is correct.
25 be {D149/2475/13}, so, again, that’s the amount for 25 Q. And do you recall the date of that sale?

113

1 which it was sold.

2 So these two agreements are really part of the same

3 deal, aren’t they, Mr Sklyarevsky? They were signed in

4 the same circumstances, on the same date, and…?

5 A. Judging from the documents, yes. By the way, 4.1 does

6 set out the payment term on the day of the execution of

7 the contract, unless I am mistaken. It says that:

8 «The Cessionary agrees to pay for the Rights of

9 Claim being assigned to it on the day that the Agreement

10 is concluded…»

11 Q. You are right, Mr Sklyarevsky, and thank you for

12 correcting me, I had overlooked that.

13 That, obviously the date of that, 17 June 2011, so

14 that appears to be after you have sold shareholding in

15 Mercury to Renord, but while you are still the director

16 general?

17 A. Correct.

18 Q. And I think it is correct, isn’t it, that you actually

19 continued to be the director general of Mercury until

20 the time when it was sold from Renord to ROK N1

21 Prichaly; is that right?

22 A. I am not sure, sitting here today, but most likely so.

23 I presume that that must be the case, but I have no

24 recollection of that.

25 Q. Yes. So, really, for you, you were not uncomfortable

115

1 A. I recall it was in the autumn 2009, but I may be wrong.

2 Q. That was 26 October 2009; does that sound right?

3 A. It does.

4 Q. So to your knowledge, that part of Onega Terminal, it

5 was really the most substantial asset of Scan, wasn’t

6 it?

7 A. I should think so. I suppose so.

8 Q. Right. So was SKIF involved in that sale in any way?

9 A. We were not involved in the organisation of the sale in

10 any way, and I do not recall whether a general meeting

11 of shareholders of Scandinavia was actually held whereby

12 a decision should be taken to sell it out of court

13 whereby Scandinavia had to give its consent to the Bank

14 to have the pledge sold out of court.

15 Now, if that general meeting of shareholders did

16 take place, then SKIF, as a member of the company, did

17 voice its concern, but I do not recall that.

18 In terms of corporate law, that should have taken

19 place even though I am not sure I can state that with

20 certainty.

21 Q. Well, presumably at that stage, I think you would, as

22 a shareholder of Scan, vote the way the Bank wanted you

23 to vote, isn’t that …? Because —

24 A. Yes.

25 Q. — you were acting on behalf of the Bank, so whatever

114 116
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

March 4, 2016 Day 22 — Redacted

1 Mrs Malysheva would tell you, you would vote.

2 A. Because of that and also because Scandinavia by that

3 time was in bankruptcy and it simply could not perform

4 its obligation vis-a-vis the Bank or vis-a-vis anyone

5 else for that matter, and the realisation of the asset

6 was one way to recover at least some money for the Bank.

7 Q. So that was, I think, some time earlier. I don’t quite

8 remember the date, but I accept there was

9 a settlement agreement between the new management of

10 Scan and the Bank whereby the asset would be sold

11 through Russian Auction House.

12 Now, but then as far as the actual sale on

13 26 October is concerned, do you have any first-hand

14 knowledge about it?

15 A. All I know is that Malysheva and Smirnov were concerned

16 to make sure that this was a transparent and public

17 transaction. Unfortunately, the value of assets is

18 a very iffy proposition in Russia and conflicts arise

19 when people have different expectations and the Russian

20 Auction House was precisely that kind of platform, and

21 the shareholders in this platform included Sberbank and

22 other major Russian banks and that platform was

23 positioned and presented as a platform that would allow

24 a fair value sale to be conducted. They charged rather

25 high commissions, but Malysheva and Smirnov opted in

1 on Magnum as a translation, but I don’t think there is

2 a Russian version, so if I could hand one to

3 the witness, perhaps two to the translators, if my

4 learned friends want the Russian original that’s fine,

5 and if we could go to {D146/2437.2/1}. (Handed) Could

6 that link be clicked so that we get the Excel table on

7 the screen? I think that was done before for

8 Mr Bromley-Martin, so hopefully that will …

9 Now, Mr Sklyarevsky, on the face of it, this table

10 seems to show that SKIF was involved in a business

11 project using the Scan land at Onega Terminal, isn’t

12 that right?

13 A. I have no idea where this spreadsheet comes from, to be

14 honest.

15 Q. Does it ring any bells?

16 A. I would need to have a look at the number of the loan

17 agreement, 25.09.09, and if we use the dates, and if

18 it’s Bank of St Petersburg, then most likely it is

19 a loan with respect to Antonenko(?) project, but once

20 again, I may well be wrong. I do know that SKIF did not

21 generate this kind of spreadsheet, I have never seen

22 this and I don’t think it could have ever been produced.

23 To be honest, I’m really at a loss. Maybe it comes from

24 Renord, but even there, I do not really see how this

25 would fit into Renord.

117 119

1 favour of that platform because they wanted to make sure

2 that this was a fair value, a fair participation, with

3 the maximum participation, and I recall that very well.

4 I remember why that particular platform was selected.

5 Q. Right, and so the winner of the auction was a company

6 called Solo LLC?

7 A. Solo, I think the name was.

8 Q. That is right, yes, perhaps it was lost in translation.

9 Yes, Solo. Is that a company controlled by Renord?

10 A. Yes.

11 Q. So in that transaction, that is to say, sale of assets

12 from — let me start again. I just want to formulate it

13 clearly.

14 Was SKIF LLC in any way involved in the sale of that

15 part of Onega Terminal from Scan to Solo through Russian

16 Auction House?

17 A. No. No. None at all. It had no involvement at all.

18 Q. And after the sale, was SKIF in any way involved in

19 the management or development of that asset?

20 A. No. I am not interested in that kind of assets, these

21 are not — this is not my speciality. We do not take

22 part in this.

23 Q. Are you quite sure of that, Mr Sklyarevsky?

24 A. Yes, I am.

25 Q. Thank you. For some odd reason, this document is only

1 Q. How quickly would you be able to check records? I don’t

2 know, you can perhaps check on your laptop, check the

3 number of the loan agreement and tell the court more

4 about it?

5 A. I think the lawyers asked me to disclose the Antonenko

6 contract and I believe that this is the contract, the

7 contract that somehow is related with the spreadsheet,

8 so I think I would ask the Bank’s lawyers to assist the

9 court in terms of confirming or denying this. Most

10 likely this is related to the Antonenko contract.

11 Q. Does the expression «Project Scandinavia» tell you

12 anything? It appears on the face of this table to have

13 lasted for some year and a half after all, slightly

14 more.

15 A. Well, this project was known in SKIF as OMG project. We

16 did not have a Scandinavia project, because there was

17 Scandinavia and then there was Western Terminal and

18 there was the OMG group, therefore Scandinavia

19 project — maybe it was part of Renord. To be honest,

20 I’m not the right person to ask that question.

21 Q. And obviously I think you see at the bottom, the small

22 box on the bottom and —

23 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: I am afraid the Russian is coming

24 through instead.

25 MR STROILOV: Again we have Russian, yes.

118 120
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

March 4, 2016 Day 22 — Redacted

1 THE INTERPRETER: I’m so sorry, my Lord, my mistake.

2 MR STROILOV: So at the bottom you can see a small box

3 headed «Onega», and, Mr Sklyarevsky, to your knowledge,

4 the only thing that connects Scandinavia and Onega and

5 possibly SKIF and the Bank, is the Scan land at Onega

6 Terminal; isn’t that a clear, and the only realistic

7 explanation?

8 A. I can neither confirm nor deny this, I am afraid.

9 I just don’t — what I can say is that SKIF did not take

10 part in these Russian Auction House operations, we did

11 not have any participation. We did not have any

12 interest with respect to those assets, and the loan

13 agreement that this makes reference to related to

14 a project that has nothing to do with this. Therefore,

15 why it says «Investment, income, expenses», and where

16 this comes from, I don’t know. My company never

17 generated this kind of spreadsheet.

18 Q. I am not suggesting that it did; it comes from the Bank.

19 Now, Mr Sklyarevsky, let’s try and unravel that

20 table and perhaps get to some truth. I think the first

21 thing — I wonder if you agree, that really the date in

22 the left column that refers — that doesn’t refer —

23 well, at the top — to 1 October 2009, rather that

24 refers to the whole month, October. I get that from the

25 beginning of period and end of period, further to

1 I honestly don’t recall.

2 Now, if this is the Antonenko loan agreement, then

3 if my memory serves me right, the total amount was RUB

4 1.5 billion, the total amount of investment, and so we

5 would need to check out the timeline, the cash flow of

6 the project. I cannot offer any comment with respect to

7 a spreadsheet that I am seeing for the first time in my

8 life.

9 Q. Now, if we could — perhaps on the other screen if we

10 could look at {I15/15/68}. That is a letter from the

11 Bank’s lawyers in these proceedings, setting out — if

12 you could just scan through it, what I am interested

13 in — basically, just for Mr Sklyarevsky’s benefit,

14 again, I don’t know how good your English is, it sets

15 out — if you scroll down to 69, you will see that it

16 sets out various assets {I15/15/69}, when they were

17 sold, to whom they were sold, for what price. I would

18 like, simply, first if we could look at 69. I will

19 scroll it down in a second. Perhaps if we can have the

20 bottom half of 69 and the top half of 70 on the screen,

21 that would be ideal {I15/15/70}. So it’s just the table

22 I am interested in.

23 So, as you can see, lines 3 and 4 are two Onega

24 Terminal assets, and that is — well, we won’t go

25 through identification, but I am sure I will be

121 123

1 the right. Does that look like a logical reading of

2 that table?

3 A. Well, it would be hard to disagree. You can see the

4 dates here.

5 Q. Yes, and then if we could look — if we look at the top

6 page, there is an «Investment» column. You see the

7 figure of — well, sorry, let me ask another question

8 first. Would you agree that, really, most likely the

9 amounts are calculated here in thousands of roubles

10 because if — well, simply because if it is something

11 like RUB 6.60, that’s not something that would have

12 interested you or the Bank? So these figures are likely

13 to be thousands of roubles.

14 So, for example, the top figure in «Investment»

15 probably means RUB 207,305,000?

16 A. Yes, if it refers to «Investment», then logically we

17 should assume that these are thousands of roubles.

18 Q. Yes. Now, just looking at the figures, I think the

19 biggest is at the top. Do you recall making any

20 investment in October 2009 in the amount of

21 RUB207 million or thereabouts.

22 A. Are you asking me about SKIF?

23 Q. Well, yes.

24 A. To be honest, I really have no recollection of this.

25 This was — mind you, this was seven years ago.

1 corrected if I am wrong, but that is the Scan land at

2 Onega Terminal, and you can see that it is marked as

3 being sold on 5 November 2009, so a few days after the

4 auction to Solo LLC, so I think that can be taken for

5 the Russian Auction House sale, no doubt about that.

6 Then you see the amount as paid and as received.

7 Now, would you like, I don’t think there is much

8 difference which you take because they are identical,

9 but I don’t know if you have a pocket calculator with

10 you, or perhaps you are better than I am at doing it

11 without a calculator, but if you put together the sum in

12 line 3, Onega Terminal asset 1, and line 4, Onega

13 Terminal asset 2, if you do the sum, the result is

14 RUB 207,305,344.16. Does that sound right?

15 A. Are you asking me a question about mathematics? In

16 terms of mathematics, it looks just about right. I’ve

17 done my calculus and I think I got more or less the same

18 amount.

19 Q. So if you try to approximate it to thousands of roubles

20 the figure you get is exactly identical to what you see

21 in the investment column for October on the other

22 screen.

23 A. Yes.

24 Q. So isn’t it a likely explanation that what actually

25 happened is that the money never actually left the Bank?

122 124
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

March 4, 2016 Day 22 — Redacted

1 It was advanced by the Bank to the SKIF account under

2 this loan agreement, then under whatever pretext, moved

3 from SKIF account to Solo account? Then that sum was

4 moved from Solo account to Russian Auction House account

5 in Bank of St Petersburg, and then credited back to

6 the Bank; does that make sense? Does that seem to be

7 the way how it was done?

8 A. I understand your logic. At long last I understand

9 where you are coming from. I had no dealings with Solo

10 at all. The loan agreement referenced here, if this is

11 the Antonenko contract, then most likely it is

12 Antonenko, it provided for a refurbishment of a property

13 in the centre of St Petersburg and it was an investment

14 contract. For all the settlements that I made SKIF

15 provided an investment report to the Bank to explain why

16 the payment had been made. The co-investor was Renord,

17 that is true, but all the documents, and this has

18 already been finalised, the property was refurbished,

19 sold to a Korean investor, so I provided all the

20 documents to show that all the investment had gone into

21 the refurbishment of that property.

22 The investment contract regime, as it were, does not

23 allow you to take money and transfer this money to some

24 other organisation without explaining the reason behind

25 the remittance. It is very difficult for me to provide

1 and ask them what this contract number refers to,

2 because this was disclosed by the Bank, after all.

3 What I can confirm is that out of the major projects

4 conducted in 2009, it was the Antonenko Street, property

5 number 2 project.

6 Q. Now, do you object if the Bank is asked to disclose

7 a copy of this loan agreement immediately? Presumably

8 the Bank —

9 A. I have no objection to that.

10 Q. Right. I will probably take it further. Now, so far as

11 you are concerned, and your recollection,

12 Mr Sklyarevsky, you are in a position to deny on oath

13 that you had any involvement in the actual payment of

14 this 207 million for those assets?

15 A. I can confirm that under oath. I was not aware of any

16 payments, and I’m sure SKIF could not have provided

17 funding to anyone, and it’s really a mystery to me how

18 these two figures are related.

19 There is some logic behind the contention that — so

20 there is some logic behind the contention that SKIF got

21 some money from the Bank to refurbish the building, then

22 transferred the money to Renord to buy the plot of land;

23 is that your logic, sir?

24 Q. Well, you tell the court if there is an explanation.

25 A. I’m just confirming that this never happened, this was

125 127

1 any comment with respect to this spreadsheet, which

2 I see for the first time ever, and if you believe that

3 the loan agreement for SKIF was basically to provide

4 funding for Renord transactions, I do not believe that

5 this is technically possible, that’s number one, and

6 number two, this is a question better asked of Renord.

7 I really cannot tell you that these figures do or do

8 not make sense, because in terms of mathematics, you are

9 absolutely right, but the investment contract, the

10 investment nature of the contract does not allow you to

11 siphon money off to the tune of 207 million for some

12 unrelated objectives or purposes. I do not recall any

13 major transactions on this project. Having said that,

14 I would need to refresh my recollection and read some

15 documents, but I had nothing to do with Solo.

16 Q. Would you be able — and presumably you, I imagine, as

17 a businessman, you have your laptop with you in London,

18 haven’t you?

19 A. I do have my laptop with me, yes.

20 Q. So would you be able to check it now, just search for

21 the number on your laptop, for the loan agreement

22 number, just to check what that loan agreement is?

23 A. Do you think I store all the loan agreements on my

24 laptop which are seven years old? I mean, I can call my

25 lawyers, I can ask them, I can call my finance service

1 never discussed, and SKIF never undertook any

2 transaction of that nature, ever.

3 Q. So as I understand it, your recollection for the moment

4 is — and I appreciate you have been surprised, but what

5 you think at the moment is that there was a loan from

6 the Bank to SKIF in relation to an investment project in

7 which SKIF and Renord were co-investing; is that

8 correct?

9 A. Yes. That was the case, yes.

10 Q. And so as part of that investment project, in some way,

11 that money advanced to SKIF under some genuine

12 transaction came to the possession of Renord; is that

13 what you are saying?

14 A. No. I just repeated your logic. I tried to make sure

15 that I understood your logic properly, ie the SKIF loan

16 was — that the SKIF loan agreement was a contract

17 related to the funding whereby Solo received some money.

18 I just wanted to make sure that I understood your logic

19 correctly. I am trying to understand how you are

20 comparing this table with the value for the realisation

21 of the assets. These are two different projects,

22 Antonenko and the OMG group situation, these are two

23 different things.

24 You are showing me a table which shows a figure

25 which is the same figure as the value of realisation,

126 128
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

March 4, 2016 Day 22 — Redacted

1 and you are saying that SKIF somehow took part in this.

2 So I’m just trying to understand your logic. How does

3 it happen so that you are saying that SKIF was involved

4 in this?

5 Q. Well, let’s try and consider possible explanations. Do

6 you think it possible at all that the coincidence of two

7 figures is just a coincidence?

8 A. Well, in terms of the theory of probability,

9 coincidences do happen, but such coincidences are very

10 rare.

11 Q. What I am suggesting, Mr Sklyarevsky, is that what

12 happened was fairly simple and was done by someone

13 without ever getting out of the Bank, someone sitting in

14 the Bank on the computer, just pressed a few buttons,

15 transferred this amount of money from the Bank’s own

16 funds to SKIF account, then from SKIF account to Solo

17 account, then from Solo account to Russian Auction House

18 account, and then back to the Bank, and that’s what this

19 transaction was. The whole chain was sham throughout.

20 What do you say to that?

21 A. I categorically take issue with this explanation once

22 again, and I will reiterate what I have just said, that

23 the Bank will disclose the contract. This contract was

24 an investment contract. There’s no way I could have

25 taken the money and sent it off to somewhere, to some

1 A. Well, of course, one may speculate that smack in

2 the centre of St Petersburg we were upgrading

3 a property, we sold it onto a Korean company for over

4 $100 million. You can call this a fictitious or sham

5 transaction, but I really don’t understand what you are

6 talking about. I see no — I see no relationship

7 between SKIF and the transaction related to the sale of

8 the assets by the Russian Auction House.

9 Q. All right. Well, just quickly, if you look down that

10 column in — well, if you look down further at the

11 investment column, do figures — and if you just take

12 your time, look further down the column, «Investment»,

13 «Income», and the dates; does any of it ring any bells?

14 (Pause).

15 A. This does not ring any bells with me personally.

16 Q. And then one more aspect I wanted to ask you about, it

17 appears in the second column from the right that the

18 interest rate was reduced several times. Does that

19 remind you of anything? Did that happen under any loan

20 agreement which you can recall?

21 A. It does remind me something about the refinancing

22 interest rate in the Russian Federation at that time,

23 because between 2009 and 2011, the refinancing interest

24 rate kept dropping.

25 Q. I see.

129 131
1 other organisation. It is, in principle, impossible due 1 If we could now move on to one more subject. I am
2 to the nature of the contract, because an investment 2 again lost in my papers. I think I have found it.
3 contract is not a contract that deals with working 3 Now, you will recall what you said earlier about the
4 capital or something. An investment contract is 4 LPK part of Onega Terminal, and there being a more
5 something that has to be supported with documentation. 5 general settlement. So I would like to show you another
6 If I have to refurbish a property, I have to pay the 6 document, {D146/2436.2/1} is the English version, and
7 builders. If I have to buy lifts, I pay Otis. I cannot 7 the Russian version starts at {D146/2436.2/4}. Is it
8 bring documents to the Bank to say that I have taken 8 readable? I hope so.
9 some money to invest that into the investment project 9 So you can see there is something — there is
10 and then it has ended up with Solo. 10 a stage plan, essentially, so just to … if it could be
11 In terms of SKIF, I do not recall at all — I mean, 11 scaled down for a moment, there is a «Stage 1» heading
12 we did have a co-investor, Renord, I do not recall at 12 on the first page, just so that you can see it.
13 all sending money to anyone for any other purposes. 13 I think now, perhaps, zoom it in so that it can be
14 Every remittance, every transfer, had a very specific 14 read. So you can see stage 1 gives you — stage 1 would
15 underpinning. It was done with a very specific 15 be for the loan of RUB 400 million, being taken in
16 objective, because otherwise the money could have been 16 Gavansky branch by ROK Prichaly, and then by these
17 squandered. I understand your logic. It’s very easy to 17 assets from Solo LLC, and then there is a list of
18 press a button and transfer 207 million from SKIF to 18 assets. I don’t know if you are in a position to
19 Solo, but SKIF has then to provide some supporting 19 confirm that this is the Scan land at Onega Terminal, or
20 documentation. There has to be a subject matter, there 20 former Scan land at Onega Terminal.
21 has to be some objective. Any investment contract is 21 A. In memory — by memory, yes.
22 monitored by the Central Bank. 22 Q. And then if we scroll down one page, you can see there
23 Q. Yes, so presumably, you and Renord and the Bank 23 is a — kind of sub stages, a list of sub stages there.
24 generated some sham contracts to explain each of 24 So have you read that?
25 the transactions? Isn’t that a likely explanation? 25 A. Yes, I have.
130 132
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

March 4, 2016 Day 22 — Redacted

1 Q. And then if we scroll — and you can see, I think, if it 1 MR STROILOV: I don’t quite promise it, but there is a good
2 could be zoomed out a little, you can see there is a — 2 chance.
3 I think the pages are not perfectly arranged, but there 3 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Right. What are you suggesting, shall
4 should be the heading «Stage 2» at the bottom left. 4 I rise for five or ten minutes and allow you to discuss
5 I just want that to be seen before we scroll down to 5 things with Mr Lord and his team, sort out what it is
6 what stage 2 is. I think that’s something 6 that you wish to ask for, if you can’t get it by
7 Mr Sklyarevsky can even see on the English version, if 7 agreement, and then it is unlikely we will return to
8 we could scroll down. 8 the cross-examination today. We shall return on Monday.
9 So you can see stage 2, and that is essentially — 9 Is that the expectation you are floating?
10 that’s ROK 1 Prichaly buying Mercury LLC 10 MR STROILOV: Yes, that’s my proposal. There is also an
11 {D146/2436.2/3}, {D146/2436.2/6} and thereby getting the 11 update on, I can think of at least one issue we would
12 LPK half of Onega Terminal. I mean, the part formerly 12 need to discuss in private, maybe some other urgent
13 owned by LPK Scandinavia. In the list of steps you can 13 housekeeping things —
14 see reference to the assignment of loan rights, to which 14 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: I see.
15 I took you earlier. 15 MR STROILOV: — but hopefully …
16 A. Yes. 16 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Very well. I really think that by
17 Q. And so you can also see the figures, that all seems to 17 latest, latest, 4.30 we will have done as much as I feel
18 match what I have shown you. 18 we can.
19 So does that look like an outline of that settlement 19 MR STROILOV: Yes, my Lord. Well, for my part, I hope to
20 you have mentioned before, that settlement between the 20 beat that estimate and to finish by 4.15, but I don’t
21 Bank, Renord, and the ROK Prichaly, where Mercury played 21 have much to say.
22 some role? 22 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Well, Mr Sklyarevsky, it sounds as if
23 A. I understood your question. As far as I recall, and 23 your job may be done, or at least largely done for
24 I have looked through it, the reasoning, the logic, was 24 today, but we will need you back on Monday, but I will
25 similar, but I could be erring as far as the details are 25 give you a clearer direction when I return.
133 135

1 concerned. Again, the document doesn’t have any

2 signature, it can’t be attributed.

3 So in all likelihood, the compiler of the document

4 tried to structure the deal, stage 1. As far as this

5 document corresponds to the actual deal, it is difficult

6 either to confirm or deny it.

7 At least this corresponds to what I know about this

8 particular deal. It does not contradict the figures.

9 MR STROILOV: Yes.

10 My Lord, I think in the light of this witness’s

11 evidence given on that loan agreement, I will probably

12 ask for a five-minute break to have a word with my

13 learned friends which may make it quicker, and then

14 perhaps I will need to address you in terms of possible

15 order for an urgent disclosure, because I do need to …

16 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Right, well I will rise for five

17 minutes. I don’t propose to sit very late this evening.

18 I think it has been quite a long week, and my attention

19 is not as it should be.

20 MR STROILOV: Yes, my Lord. I would suggest that once the

21 urgent housekeeping matters are addressed, I think

22 logically I am at a good breaking point and I am pleased

23 to say I am not doing as badly as I expected. There is

24 a good chance of finishing on Monday.

25 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Well done.

1 (4.02 pm)

2 (A short break)

3 (4.11 pm)

4 Housekeeping

5 MR STROILOV: May it please your Lordship. I think, for

6 once, I’m pleased to say, we are in agreement. The loan

7 agreement will be disclosed to me tomorrow and I reserve

8 the right to seek further disclosure if necessary, and

9 my learned friend reserves the right to argue against

10 it.

11 So just by way of update, I don’t think you need to

12 worry about anything for the moment.

13 MR LORD: That’s maybe putting it a bit too highly, my Lord,

14 but I know what Mr Stroilov means.

15 The position is, my Lord, that in view of the

16 witness’s consent, the loan agreement, so identified in

17 the earlier questioning, that can be disclosed.

18 Your Lordship will see when that is disclosed, today or

19 tomorrow, I reserve my position to make submissions

20 that, actually, it is not relevant to any issue in this

21 case which is why it wasn’t disclosed earlier. It

22 remains irrelevant to any issue in the case. It has

23 become an issue in the light of today’s questioning and

24 in those circumstances, and premised on the consent of

25 the borrower, as your Lordship will see, that document,

134 136
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

March 4, 2016 Day 22 — Redacted

1 that loan agreement, with those information, can be 1 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Just in point of detail, are the
2 disclosed, and your Lordship will see how it fits in 2 accounts of SKIF and the accounts of Mercury in
3 with what has been said today by the witness. 3 the papers in the bundles?
4 But since it does refer to some other agreements to 4 MR LORD: I don’t think they are, my Lord, no.
5 do with the subject matter of this loan agreement, 5 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Mr Sklyarevsky, as far as you are
6 which, as I repeat, is not relevant to anything in this 6 aware, do SKIF and Mercury have accounts dating back to
7 litigation, I am not accepting that this leads to some 7 the relevant periods which are publicly available?
8 trail of enquiry where we go on and on and on, that’s 8 A. As far as I know, both Mercury and SKIF have accounts,
9 obviously a matter to be debated subsequently, but so it 9 and they did have accounts for that period.
10 is absolutely clear, that’s the basis upon which this 10 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: I wonder whether it might be possible
11 document is going to be disclosed to Mr Stroilov. 11 to have copies of those made available.
12 So we are ad idem, but on that basis. 12 A. I think that we need to have statements. I can’t do it
13 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Yes, but if there are references and 13 in regards to Mercury, because Mercury is no longer my
14 if there is to be an argument and if that argument might 14 company and I have nothing to do with it, but as far as
15 be resolved in favour of further disclosure, my concern 15 SKIF is concerned, I’ll try. If it’s necessary, I’ll
16 is that the process should have been done in good time 16 try to find them if it’s needed.
17 to enable this witness to be asked about them if that 17 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: All right. Perhaps enquiry can be
18 eventuality arises. 18 made whether, in the case of Mercury, the accounts are
19 MR LORD: Yes. 19 public, in which case, anyone can get them.
20 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: So I want precautionary steps to be 20 MR LORD: My Lord, given the time it may be more sensible
21 taken. 21 for your Lordship to …
22 MR LORD: I understand. We will do that. But your Lordship 22 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: I would be grateful for that. I feel
23 can see that there are always commercial sensitivities 23 my attention is wavering in terms of cross-examination.
24 and commercial confidentialities involved, and simply 24 MR LORD: I understand.
25 because there is litigation, it doesn’t mean that a loan 25 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Mr Sklyarevsky, we are going to

137

1 agreement that doesn’t relate to anything in issue in

2 this case should spawn further disclosure, but we will

3 take the necessary prophylactic or precautionary

4 measures, but I am not accepting that simply because we

5 do that, everything falls into account.

6 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: No. I can see that there may be

7 an agreement or it maybe you are disagreed, but if

8 I thought that the further documents, even if

9 confidential, nevertheless had to be disclosed and

10 tested, then I wouldn’t want that to be an occasion of

11 difficulty in the swift process of conclusion of this

12 examination.

13 MR LORD: No, I understand that, my Lord, but your Lordship

14 will see quite quickly when you see this document what

15 it is about, and that’s the point I am making.

16 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Yes, I say nothing about that, I have

17 no idea what the document’s about.

18 MR LORD: I accept that, but the point I am making is that

19 any further disclosure should only be after one has

20 fairly looked at this and thought: is this relevant, and

21 is there any basis to go on from this document.

22 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: That will be for Mr Stroilov to have

23 a look at tomorrow and for me, reassured by Mr Stroilov

24 that my worries are over, to relax at the weekend.

25 MR LORD: Yes.

139

1 complete your cross-examination on Monday or Tuesday,

2 but not today. I hope you enjoy your weekend in London,

3 but please, you must not speak to anyone about this

4 case, however directly or indirectly, to anyone at all.

5 Enjoy yourself, think of anything else but this,

6 probably complementary instructions.

7 MR LORD: My Lord, the only caveat, of course, would be if

8 this witness is going to make some progress on accounts

9 he is going to have to speak to somebody, I think, in

10 his company to arrange to get those documents.

11 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: You are quite right, Mr Lord.

12 If when you get the accounts you need to speak to

13 Reynolds Porter or someone at Reynolds Porter —

14 MR LORD: My Lord, sorry, I understood the witness to be

15 saying he has to phone back to his people to say can

16 they get the accounts for the case.

17 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Are you concerned about that,

18 Mr Stroilov?

19 MR STROILOV: Well, I would request that that

20 conversation — I believe there would be some

21 Russian-speaking solicitors at RPC, I would like them to

22 be present at that conversation, just so that they are

23 satisfied there is nothing improper going on.

24 A. Sorry, if you don’t awfully mind, I should …

25 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Maybe my suggestion is more trouble

138 140
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

March 4, 2016 Day 22 — Redacted

1 than it is worth. Maybe we should just ask to see 1 [REDACTED]
2 whether there are public records and leave it with RPC. 2
3 MR LORD: My Lord, perhaps we can leave it we will make 3
4 whatever follow-ups we can do. I think I would prefer 4
5 to leave this witness in isolation, really. I think it 5
6 is going to be messy otherwise. 6
7 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: The problem is that people form 7
8 anxieties and it would be best, you are quite right, 8
9 I should have thought of that, let us go through the 9
10 professional route, if I can put it that way, without 10
11 involving Mr Sklyarevsky, at least at this stage. 11
12 MR LORD: I am taking it that what your Lordship is after is 12
13 not the bank statements; it’s the accounts. 13
14 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Yes, it’s whatever statements there 14
15 are of the position and prospects of the companies which 15
16 are publicly available. 16
17 MR LORD: I think your Lordship would accept that RPC may 17
18 need to speak to this witness only in relation to that 18
19 point, to establish that they have them. 19
20 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: I have entire faith in RPC to know 20
21 where the boundaries are. 21
22 MR LORD: They have permission from this witness to go and 22
23 make whatever enquiries with his company and people 23
24 there are to get a certain type of document. 24
25 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Do you object to that? 25
141 143
1 MR STROILOV: No, so long as it happens through RPC, 1 [REDACTED]
2 I don’t. 2
3 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: As I say, I have entire faith in… 3
4 MR LORD: Thank you, Mr Stroilov. 4
5 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: So do we have things to do? 5
6 MR LORD: Just the update, the confidential update. 6
7 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: We need to clear the court for that, 7
8 do we not? 8
9 MR LORD: We do. 9
10 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: So, for the avoidance of doubt, from 10
11 now is in private, and we had best ask that any persons 11
12 in court, including Mr Sklyarevsky, should leave. 12
13 Your weekend has begun. 13
14 MR STROILOV: My Lord, as a matter of good practice, what 14
15 I would prefer to happen on this occasion, if we say 15
16 removing the private, because — 16
17 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Very well, I was precipitate. We are 17
18 moving into private because there is confidential 18
19 material to be explained to me with respect to one of 19
20 the proposed witnesses, Mr Smirnov. 20
21 MR STROILOV: I am grateful. 21
22 (Hearing in private) 22
23 [REDACTED] 23
24 24
25 25
142 144
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

March 4, 2016 Day 22 — 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
145 147
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
146 148
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

March 4, 2016 Day 22 — 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 (Hearing in public)
13 13 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Right, public now. You have some
14 14 homework to do on Mrs Malysheva to determine whether the
15 15 arrangements which I think have been tweaked yesterday,
16 16 I think I understood from Mr Birt, with respect to how
17 17 we deal with what may be matters which are confidential
18 18 and, in fact, could be protected under Russian law, and
19 19 you must think about that and answer me soon.
20 20 MR STROILOV: I am sorry, my Lord, you will be horrified to
21 21 hear that I am not sure that the ball is in our court.
22 22 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: I’m sorry, I thought it was.
23 23 MR ARKHANGELSKY: Your Lordship, can I have a small word on
24 24 Malysheva, please?
25 25 MR BIRT: I’m quite happy to address your Lordship on this
149 151
1 [REDACTED] 1 point briefly, the state of play.
2 2 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Yes.
3 3 MR BIRT: My Lord will remember that we had this introduced
4 4 in front of your Lordship, I think it was two weeks ago
5 5 last Monday, that was on 15 January.
6 6 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Yes.
7 7 MR BIRT: We put forward a detailed proposal, we had set out
8 8 the Russian law over a number of pages. We addressed
9 9 that in court in front of your Lordship on Day 10, it
10 10 covers about ten pages of the transcript, I don’t think
11 11 we have to revert to that now, and while not deciding
12 12 anything, my Lord thought this was a practical solution,
13 13 a neat solution, and certainly worth consideration by
14 14 the defendants, it might be a way to deal with it.
15 15 With left it on the basis that we would await to
16 16 hear from the defendants in response, and we didn’t get
17 17 a response at all.
18 18 We wrote again on 3 March, which was yesterday
19 19 morning, chasing, and the little tweak was really
20 20 a clarification, that there were certain redactions that
21 21 we were not proposing to lift, even in respect of
22 22 the confidentiality club, that related to non financial
23 23 personal information, such as, I think it was a personal
24 24 address, a personal telephone number, and information
25 25 like that set out in the letter, my Lord, but we didn’t
150 152
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

March 4, 2016 Day 22 — Redacted

1 see that that was relevant at all, but clarifying that

2 the redactions would be lifted for a confidentiality

3 club, certainly in respect of the sort of financial

4 information that your Lordship had said you would like

5 to see.

6 So we heard nothing at all about that until 9.10

7 this morning when we received a short e-mail from

8 Mr Arkhangelsky which did not engage on the detail at

9 all, simply asked us to reconsider the position and

10 speed up the process, which seemed rather odd, given

11 that we have been waiting for a response from the

12 defendants for nearly three weeks, making some points

13 that we —

14 MR ARKHANGELSKY: Your Lordship, I’m sorry, that’s

15 absolutely not correct, and I just want to explain the

16 position. They are again misleading you, and they are

17 misleading —

18 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: No, no, Mr Arkhangelsky, the rules

19 of — Mr Arkhangelsky, the rules of the game are these:

20 that you speak consecutively, not all at the same time.

21 There are good reasons for that. I won’t understand

22 either of you and I will lose both your points if you

23 just yell at me against each other, so we will abide by

24 those rules. They are entirely necessary and I simply

25 will not accept interruption in this way.

1 which was expunged from the relevant contract are to be

2 given, point one.

3 Point two, and separately, there may be other

4 documentation which was expected from Mrs Malysheva,

5 which I glean is the primary concern of Mr Arkhangelsky,

6 and I will have to work out ways of dealing with that if

7 it is within your possession, custody, or power.

8 MR BIRT: My Lord, yes. Just in relation to Mr Stroilov’s

9 suggestion that the ball is in our court, we don’t see

10 how that can possibly be so. The only attempted shot

11 back over the net is Mr Arkhangelsky’s e-mail of this

12 morning at 9.10, where he says:

13 «It suddenly and surprisingly has become secret

14 without any explanation.»

15 We say: well, actually, we sent you a detailed

16 explanation on 15 February to which we haven’t received

17 any response.

18 Then what is surprising, and we would say entirely

19 unwarranted, is having sent us that communication at

20 9.10, we having heard nothing on this subject for nearly

21 three weeks, so he sends that to us at 9.10 this

22 morning, and then he forwards that to your clerk at

23 9.18, so some eight minutes later, saying:

24 «I would like to ask you to bring to the attention

25 of the judge the fact that documents in respect to

153 155

1 MR BIRT: My Lord, I am grateful.

2 He made some points that we don’t follow, and he

3 then says:

4 «Now suddenly and surprisingly it has become secret

5 without any explanation.»

6 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: When I read this e-mail I was worried

7 that I was completely losing my marbles, and I have just

8 gone back to the beginning of the day when you told me

9 exactly the same, I ventured that I had read the single

10 page that I had received this morning at 9.15 from

11 Mr Arkhangelsky, which referred to an e-mail, or

12 included an e-mail from RPC, but did not include the

13 attachment, or the preceding correspondence.

14 MR BIRT: Yes.

15 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: And, therefore, we would have to

16 address it once we had broken more of the back of

17 the witness.

18 Now, I don’t think that — I will hear

19 Mr Arkhangelsky when you have finished. I suspect this

20 is a matter where a little file of the correspondence

21 would be useful, once again, where the proposal with its

22 tweaks can be considered. I still suspect, but I will

23 hear Mr Stroilov and/or Mr Arkhangelsky on the point,

24 that we need to know what the attitude is to the

25 conditions under which the confidential information

1 Mrs Malysheva have not been disclosed in the proceedings

2 even though the judge asked about it more than a month

3 ago … I am sending you our correspondence with RPC on

4 which we still have not got any reply.»

5 So he is drawing to your Lordship’s attention,

6 complaining that we haven’t replied to an e-mail that he

7 sent at 9.10, eight minutes before he forwarded it on to

8 your Lordship, which in turn was his almost empty

9 response to a detailed proposal we had made some nearly

10 three weeks earlier.

11 I’m probably sounding slightly indignant at this,

12 my Lord, simply because it is entirely the other way

13 round.

14 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Don’t worry, don’t get indignant.

15 I want to know two things: one is, is the issue confined

16 to the conditions under which the so far deleted content

17 of the contract which I asked for are to be explained to

18 me? That is point one. That is a very discrete point

19 as I see it at present on the basis of the explanations

20 that have been given and the single-page e-mail that

21 I have sought, the ball in that regard is in the

22 defendants’ court to agree or not agree with the

23 proposal put, and if not agree, explain why and what

24 their substitute proposals are. That is that.

25 Now, if there are other documents or other

154 156
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

March 4, 2016 Day 22 — Redacted

1 enquiries, which are said to be outstanding as regards

2 Mrs Malysheva, and which are within the power of

3 the Bank to ameliorate, then that must be explained to

4 me.

5 MR BIRT: My Lord, yes. I can pick up that second point.

6 My Lord made an order back in September/October, the

7 order we can readily go back to, which is dated

8 both September and October —

9 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Yes.

10 MR BIRT: — requiring the Bank to —

11 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: It was sealed on 28 October but

12 referred to earlier matters.

13 MR BIRT: To request some documents, that is at {J1/20/5},

14 paragraph 12(c) of the order, and the Bank indeed

15 complied with that to make further reasonable enquiries

16 of those individuals, and specifically including

17 Mrs Malysheva, should they retain any of those

18 documents.

19 Then this was addressed in Mr McGregor’s fifth

20 witness statement, dated 4 November 2015, when he

21 confirmed in paragraphs 10.6 and 20.2 that the relevant

22 enquiries had been made and that no response had been

23 sent. So the Bank has, with respect, done exactly what

24 it was ordered, and Mrs Malysheva has not responded, and

25 it confirmed in that statement that there had been

1 MR BIRT: It will all be set out in the disclosure

2 statements. With two minutes I expect I can find them.

3 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Right.

4 MR BIRT: It may be more sensible if I just compile them in

5 a shortlist and send them over.

6 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Yes, it’s just so I can look at

7 the …

8 MR BIRT: Yes, I mean, Mr McGregor set out in, I think his

9 second witness statement served in the first half of

10 last year the scope of the RPC searches, including the

11 mailbox of each custodian and what had been able to be

12 searched and so on and so forth, so we will pull those

13 references together, my Lord, rather than me missing

14 something out on my feet from the computer.

15 Unless there is anything else I can —

16 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: No, thank you very much. Who wants to

17 go first, Mr Stroilov? Mr Arkhangelsky?

18 MR STROILOV: My Lord, I think it would be wiser if I just

19 say what I have to say at the moment, if Mr Arkhangelsky

20 needs to give me additional instructions I will add

21 something on Monday, or perhaps now.

22 My Lord, I’m sorry if I didn’t make myself quite

23 clear now that reference has been made to previous

24 hearings. It has been our position since 2013, really,

25 that the employment file of Mrs Malysheva is

157 159

1 no response. I am instructed that there still has been

2 no response to that, my Lord.

3 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Who nominated her as a custodian?

4 MR BIRT: I think she was a custodian from the outset when

5 custodians were first made back in the original

6 disclosure, when Baker & McKenzie were on the record.

7 She remained a custodian when RPC did further electronic

8 searches in early 2015, so all of her documents, if you

9 like, within the Bank, were all searched and relevant

10 documents disclosed. I think this was a request to see

11 if she had any still with her, even though she had left

12 the Bank.

13 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: She left in about June 2015.

14 MR BIRT: February 2015.

15 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: February 2015, I’m so

16 sorry. February 2015. So she was, as it were, a named

17 custodian in the employment of the Bank, really at all

18 material times during the process of standard

19 disclosure?

20 MR BIRT: My Lord, yes, and her documents were all searched

21 as part of two disclosure exercises undertaken first by

22 Baker & McKenzie —

23 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Where can I get a description of the

24 extent to which, if at all, her own computers, e-mails,

25 sources of information were checked?

1 a disclosable document in its entirety. It should have

2 been disclosed in 2013. If we are wrong about that, it

3 should have been disclosed clearly as soon as she

4 allegedly left the Bank. At the moment, the Bank is in

5 breach of the order for standard disclosure. I suggest

6 we should approach it in an orthodox way. They must

7 give disclosure. If they object to inspection they must

8 state their reasons and your Lordship should consider

9 that. For the moment, they are in breach of your order.

10 I don’t see why we should negotiate any compromised

11 solutions on that.

12 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Well, I wonder whether that is

13 entirely realistic. I quite take the point that —

14 I would share your view that prima facie any documents

15 relating to the employment relationship between the Bank

16 and Mrs Malysheva, having regard to the issues which

17 relate to her is likely to be a disclosable document.

18 I do not know whether any of that has been revealed,

19 and in case it has been unclear in the past, that is my

20 view, subject, of course, to being explained to me why

21 that provisional view is incorrect. That is one thing.

22 I fastened on one part of the file, which is the

23 termination contract, and I made entirely plain, and the

24 Bank have responded, by the production of that document

25 subject to various matters said to be confidential, and

158 160
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

March 4, 2016 Day 22 — Redacted

1 to be protected under a certain Russian legislation, of

2 which I am entirely unaware, and when I said that

3 I would like to see the deleted parts, the Bank came up

4 with a proposal as to conditions under which I could,

5 consistently with confidentiality and the provisions of

6 the Russian legislation — of which I am unaware — be

7 made available to me so that I can adjudicate on it.

8 It seems to me unrealistic for me to undo the work

9 I’ve already done, and to require a somewhat tortured

10 process of disclosure by lists, followed by inspection

11 as regards that document; and as regards any other

12 documents, I’ve already, I hope, crystallised my

13 provisional view, and if it is wrong Mr Lord or Mr Birt

14 will explain why that is so.

15 MR STROILOV: My Lord, there is an implied undertaking in

16 relation to disclosure, we are aware of it, and that’s

17 sufficient.

18 Obviously, just using a confidentiality club

19 wherever a party says there is something sensitive is

20 just going to undermine the whole system of disclosure.

21 I don’t see why it’s something that should be kept

22 exceptionally confidential.

23 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Well, if your answer is that you do

24 not accept the proposal, or that you would propose the

25 following instead, you are free to do that and then

1 wrong, but I think I said that as far as we are

2 concerned, that’s disclosable, they are in breach of

3 the order for standard disclosure, it is really not our

4 problem. We will invite inferences from that breach.

5 If they like to remedy it now, well and good.

6 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Well, if Mr Birt could, when he sends

7 me these references in Mr McGregor’s second or fifth

8 affidavit, add to the list of references the places in

9 the transcript where we discuss it, well and good. But

10 my general attitude is that I prefer to look forward and

11 not back, and to work out whether there are to be

12 conditions attached to the revelation of the details

13 which were expunged or not, and that is that.

14 But I think you must face the fact — and I can’t

15 remember the details and I apologise for that, there’s

16 quite a lot going on — that I seem to recollect that

17 there were specific provisions of the Russian law which

18 gave Mrs Malysheva some entitlements to the protection

19 of that information, and since I know nothing of that

20 law but would want not carelessly to trample all over

21 it, I wondered whether the solution put forward was

22 quite a neat one. But I may be wrong in that, and you

23 can tell me why not.

24 MR STROILOV: Seeing the time, perhaps not today, my Lord.

25 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: No, of course not, no.

161 163

1 I rule on it. But I can’t know where I am in a vacuum.

2 If your position, Mr Stroilov, is that though, under the

3 arrangements proposed, I would be entirely free to

4 adjudicate because it would have been led in evidence in

5 front of me, but subject to provisions for

6 confidentiality, if nevertheless you feel that this is

7 a matter which, consistently with the general

8 presumption that everything has to be open, however

9 embarrassing in the end, then you must submit that to

10 me. But what we can’t really have —

11 MR STROILOV: I thought I did.

12 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: — is them writing letters, you

13 knowing what your answer is but not sharing it with them

14 or with me, and for then me to receive e-mails critical

15 of the other side on a basis which wasn’t immediately

16 clear, if I can put it that way.

17 MR STROILOV: No, that was clearly a mess in our —

18 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: It doesn’t matter, but what I am

19 saying is, I can’t know what you think, unless you tell

20 me.

21 MR STROILOV: I thought I said that when it was first —

22 I probably put it poorly.

23 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: No, you never did. I am sure —

24 MR STROILOV: I set out that position, really, when that was

25 first proposed in court. I will be corrected if I am

1 MR BIRT: My Lord, I think Mr Stroilov may be misremembering

2 what he said in court, because I think he said

3 {Day10/67:15}: we have only recently had the letter and

4 I would reserve our position.

5 He expressed a few concerns. Your Lordship summed

6 up by saying {Day10/69:10}:

7 «I won’t press further on this, but that seems to me

8 a solution.»

9 In other words what we have proposed, but

10 encouraging Mr Stroilov to go away and think about it.

11 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Where is that? Day 10?

12 MR BIRT: It is Day 10, is stretches from {Day10/63:1} and

13 finishes at 73 with me saying:

14 «[Well there we go] We will wait to hear from the

15 defendants on the proposal we have made relating to

16 those particular documents.» {Day10/73:5}

17 So I don’t think anybody could be under any

18 misapprehension as to where things had been left,

19 my Lord.

20 In relation to the suggestion that we were in breach

21 of the standard disclosure order, we reject that, given

22 standard disclosure and it happens in every case that

23 another party comes up with some further documents they

24 want and there will have to be a debate about it.

25 But we certainly don’t accept the proposition that

162 164
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

March 4, 2016 Day 22 — Redacted

1 the whole of Mrs Malysheva’s employment file should be

2 disclosable; and, in fact, we don’t accept these

3 particular documents fall within the relevance test, but

4 we are not taking that point at this stage: we are

5 trying to be pragmatic and practical.

6 So without digging myself into a hole for the future

7 we are just saying: let’s deal with these documents

8 your Lordship has expressed an interest in, but there is

9 absolutely no reason why one should disregard the

10 position that we have taken in order to hold the ring

11 and protect everybody. I won’t go into further detail

12 on that now because that is for another day if

13 Mr Stroilov does intend to pursue the point.

14 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: It is for another day, but given the

15 anxieties expressed by Mr Arkhangelsky it is for a day

16 soon. That’s the first point.

17 The second point is, my own feeling is that the

18 terms and conditions under which Mrs Malysheva left the

19 Bank are likely to have to be tested against the terms

20 and conditions under which she served at the Bank, and

21 I regard those, for reasons which I can elaborate if

22 necessary, as likely to be relevant on the test.

23 MR BIRT: My Lord, we take that point, and while reserving

24 our position, I am not seeking to take my Lord on today,

25 given the time, and —

1 I can speak.

2 Can you hear me now?

3 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Yes, we can hear you. On you go.

4 MR ARKHANGELSKY: Yes, sorry, because I was hearing

5 Mr Sklyarevsky in Russian and when speaking, I need in

6 English.

7 So, your Lordship, it’s not any aggression, it’s —

8 maybe it’s, you know, we are so busy and you know, all

9 the correspondence from RPC, you know, just taking quite

10 a lot of our spare time which we have to use on the

11 witnesses, but just very briefly to tell you the reasons

12 why I think the suggestion of any confidentiality

13 agreements is absolutely unacceptable for us.

14 I completely am sure that Mr Stroilov —

15 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Well, I don’t want to cut across you,

16 but it is 5.00 on a Friday. I have reserved time at

17 which you can make all these points either through

18 Mr Stroilov or in unison. I don’t want a matinee

19 performance of an evening event which I have already

20 provided for.

21 Hone your points, make them absolutely the most

22 powerful you can, and I will adjudicate them, but

23 I don’t think we are going to make the progress you want

24 unless there is some — if there is some category of

25 documents which you maintain is still to be disclosed,

165 167
1 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: No, absolutely, but I say it not to be 1 mention it now so that everyone has it out in the open,
2 difficult, I say it in order for you to be able to test 2 and can prepare their views on it.
3 the position in case it is a matter which, on 3 MR ARKHANGELSKY: Your Lordship, just one minute, just for
4 reflection, can be dealt with more speedily. 4 your understanding, that these gentlemen from RPC, or
5 MR BIRT: My Lord, I understand, but we will wait for the 5 Mr Birt, they are speaking about any confidentiality
6 defendants to give us their reasoned view on our 6 things in respect to Malysheva, and they are referring
7 proposal and we are ready to debate that in front of 7 to the passport number or something, other funny things.
8 your Lordship whenever that has arrived, as long as 8 Just to remind you that all her private and confidential
9 I have more than the usual five minutes’ notice of it. 9 things been disclosed in the Levitskaya protocol, which
10 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: What I pencilled in, in what remains 10 been discussed already in the court. So, actually,
11 of my mind at 5.00 on Friday, is that we should seek to 11 there are no any confidential information available. So
12 deal with this when we conclude the cross-examination of 12 everything already been discussed and disclosed in
13 this witness, which seems to me as soon as is necessary. 13 the court, and everything relating to the salary of the
14 MR BIRT: Yes. 14 person is the public information as long as the Bank is
15 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: But we should try and bring shape to 15 open stock company, and all the payments they make to
16 it, if that would be — if that gives you a sufficient 16 the management as well as the two shareholders, it’s
17 warning. 17 included in their annual report. So just wanted to tell
18 MR STROILOV: Absolutely, my Lord. I agree. 18 it’s a kind of misleading information provided by RPC,
19 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Mr Arkhangelsky, have the matters 19 and I cannot understand what kind of Russian
20 which you wished to be ventilated been ventilated? 20 confidentiality things they are speaking about.
21 MR ARKHANGELSKY: Just two minutes, if possible? 21 That’s only what I wanted to tell, sorry for the
22 You see, it’s a problem with the voice, if they can 22 interruption.
23 switch it to English, please? Can you hear me? 23 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Thank you very much. All right, it
24 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: We can hear you well, yes. 24 seems to me you are probably going to object to
25 MR ARKHANGELSKY: No, no, I need in English, please, because 25 confidentiality and we will have to have a bit of a row
166 168
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

March 4, 2016 Day 22 — Redacted

1 about it.

2 MR BIRT: It is useful to have these points. We can take

3 them on board and we can consider them. In the normal

4 way, if we have these points, of course we will consider

5 them.

6 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Well as you know better than I,

7 especially in proceedings such as this where feelings

8 run high and the public may be interested, even if it is

9 a section of the public, it’s most unlikely that

10 confidentiality alone will triumph.

11 MR BIRT: My Lord, we understand that. There may be certain

12 things, one would think, about if somebody’s home

13 address is mentioned that that is irrelevant and,

14 my Lord, I just want to say one last thing, especially

15 in this case given what has been referred to as the —

16 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: I remember the hashtags.

17 MR BIRT: Quite right. My Lord, I don’t think I need to say

18 anything more. Your Lordship has the point well in

19 mind.

20 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: All right.

21 MR BIRT: Can I trespass on your Lordship’s patience, not to

22 address you, but there may be some other points that

23 I just flag now and we may deal with them in the same

24 slot, after Mr Sklyarevsky. There was one point we were

25 going to hear about today that we haven’t, which is the

1 is the source, and is there anything else.

2 There were also, we understand, other documents

3 which were on the memory stick that was given to Magnum,

4 which in turn has been given to us, documents other than

5 those referred to by Mr Arkhangelsky. We have asked:

6 were you intending to disclose those? If so, we will

7 look at them. Is there a problem if we look at them, we

8 would like to know, and we haven’t heard, we just sort

9 of keep getting these things ignored. Now, we can leave

10 it over until Monday or if it something we can have an

11 answer on in the next 30 seconds I would invite that

12 now, my Lord, and I don’t want to trespass on your time

13 more than necessary. I just want to flag that those are

14 four points on our agenda, as it were.

15 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Mr Stroilov, have you come to

16 a landing on these points or not?

17 MR STROILOV: I think my learned friend has indicated he is

18 not proposing to address them, so if I start flagging

19 them again and trying to do tit-for-tat in terms of —

20 then we will never finish.

21 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: I don’t regard it as tit-for-tat.

22 I did indicate that this is what I wanted to be done by

23 today, 4 March, I now recall. You are, to some extent,

24 fortunate that I feel that we have done enough for this

25 week, and I wish to release the court staff and the

169 171

1 signed protocol authorising Mr Stroilov.

2 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Oh, you are quite right, yes.

3 MR BIRT: The second point is that Mr Stroilov was going to

4 let you know the dates by which he could produce the

5 pleadings with the strikeout and the underlines.

6 I don’t think we have heard about that and my Lordship

7 was then going to sign the order.

8 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: No.

9 MR BIRT: The third point is we have had a signed statement

10 of truth, but it is a slightly odd document because it

11 is a single document and the page number doesn’t

12 actually tie up with the relevant page on the 70-page

13 Word document.

14 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: I see.

15 MR BIRT: So we may have to ask for a proper, signed

16 statement of truth on that.

17 The fourth issue, again, this may easily wait,

18 your Lordship will remember the documents and the videos

19 that Mr Arkhangelsky produced at the end of his

20 cross-examination.

21 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Oh yes.

22 MR BIRT: We think some of those weren’t disclosed before.

23 We have written about that. We haven’t yet had

24 an explanation, but we have asked in relation to those

25 that weren’t disclosable, where did they come from, what

1 transcribers, to whom many, many thanks for sitting yet

2 again late, but I don’t think you should regard that as

3 anything other than my feeling that we have done enough

4 for today that I don’t want to stretch the point.

5 I do think that the protocol, the signed pleading,

6 and your reasonable estimate as to when the highlighted

7 version, the tracked change version of the final

8 pleading or what at present is the final pleading, is

9 provided. I know that you have a lot on, but you did

10 have earlier time to prepare and whatever may be the

11 problems, we do have to keep things orderly, and this is

12 part of the order. All right?

13 MR STROILOV: Obviously I haven’t addressed you on that,

14 trying to save the time. I don’t propose to do it

15 immediately.

16 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Sorry?

17 MR STROILOV: I didn’t address you on these points, trying

18 to save the time.

19 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: No, you didn’t, because I’ve already

20 decided them. I said you should have done it by the 4th

21 in the case of the protocol, and you haven’t. I have

22 said that you should do the signed pleading by the 4th,

23 and you have not, and I said that I wanted to know by

24 today when your reasonable estimate for producing the

25 lined version was. I don’t want further argument on

170 172
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

March 4, 2016 Day 22 — Redacted

1 that. I have done that.

2 MR STROILOV: Yes, my Lord.

3 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Now I am allowing an indulgence,

4 partly for my own benefit, but I want to hear from you

5 on Monday what the position is in this regard.

6 MR STROILOV: Yes.

7 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: The only matter which is outstanding

8 from me, and which I will want to ventilate, is I have

9 been looking — and Mr Eschwege’s kindly sent me the Bar

10 rules, I don’t know what the solicitors’ guidance is —

11 I’ve been looking at other guidance, in case the matter

12 can be dealt with because you felt that what I had said

13 was too general to be useful, to see what we can arrange

14 as the ground rules for publicity via a McKenzie friend

15 are. I think it is a problem. You may all have seen,

16 I have not read in any detail, that there is a report on

17 McKenzie friends presently in issue and out for

18 consultation, and this is one of the matters which I am

19 sure will need to be addressed.

20 MR STROILOV: Yes, my Lord.

21 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: All right, at last we have got to

22 the end. I do thank everyone very much. I am sorry for

23 keeping you. I hope you get some sort of a weekend.

24 Unfortunately I have been landed with an earlier

25 case on Monday, because every other judge apparently is

173

1 deployed. I therefore must deal with that. I will mark

2 it not before 10.30 am. I think I am dealing with that

3 matter at 9.45 am, so I should be — I will do that in

4 another court, and so I shouldn’t delay you, but I can’t

5 hear you earlier than 10.30 am.

6 (5.07 pm)

7 (The court adjourned until 10.30 am on Monday,7 March 2016)

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 INDEX
2 PAGE
3 Housekeeping ………………………………….. 1
4 MR VLADIMIR ALEXANDROVICH ……………………… 15
5 SKLYAREVSKY (Continued) ………….
Cross-examination by MR STROILOV 15
6 (Continued)…………………………………
Housekeeping 136
7 (Hearing in private) …………………………. 142
8 (Hearing in public) ………………………….. 151
9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

175

174
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

176

March 4, 2016 Day 22 — Redacted

A

Abarina (1) 50:11 ABC (1) 17:15 abide (1) 153:23 able (16) 4:11 21:19

21:21 25:25 39:1,4 61:10 67:22 90:9 98:12 101:8 120:1 126:16,20 159:11 166:2

absence (1) 20:15 absolutely (15) 3:25 10:3 14:11 55:7 101:15 105:13 115:24 126:9 137:10 153:15 165:9 166:1,18

167:13,21 absorbed (1) 78:15 abuse (1) 42:10 abusing (1) 42:11 accept (12) 10:15

37:25 38:2 68:22 106:12 117:8 138:18 141:17 153:25 161:24 164:25 165:2

accepting (2) 137:7

138:4

accommodate (1)

10:10 accord (1) 3:19

account (11) 125:1,3,3 125:4,4 129:16,16 129:17,17,18 138:5

accounting (1) 101:17 accounts (11) 25:10 139:2,2,6,8,9,18

140:8,12,16 141:13 accusation (1) 10:8 accusations (2) 10:13

44:21

accusing (2) 9:1 44:14 achieved (2) 14:9

56:20 acknowledge (5) 7:14

7:25 9:14 12:4,7

acquire (1) 90:6 act (1) 25:23

acting (12) 15:23 23:4 23:8,23 24:15,20 41:5,7 44:14,16 115:1 116:25

actions (5) 24:5 43:4,5

49:24 104:16 activity (2) 80:11

109:20

actual (13) 29:3 36:12 37:15 38:21 39:2 39:19 40:1 41:24 59:11 88:1 117:12 127:13 134:5

ad (1) 137:12

add (3) 28:7 159:20 163:8

addition (1) 109:19 additional (7) 5:8

12:23 77:23 78:7,7 85:2 159:20

address (15) 9:11 11:10 28:15 96:2 100:22,22 110:20 134:14 151:25 152:24 154:16 169:13,22 171:18 172:17

addressed (5) 134:21

152:8 157:19

172:13 173:19 allow (4) 117:23 64:18 65:15 66:7 118:11,20 121:12 B2/12/9 (1) 85:20 168:14
adds (1) 4:14 125:23 126:10 67:6,10,14 68:2,3 123:16,24 127:14 B2/13/10 (2) 70:25 Bank’s (11) 20:22
adjourned (1) 174:7 135:4 90:15,17 96:18 128:21 131:8 90:16 40:11 70:7 86:14
Adjournment (1) allowed (1) 105:9 97:10 132:17,18 B2/13/17 (2) 16:21 86:15 102:13,20
84:10 allowing (1) 173:3 Aqua-Ladoga (1) 67:5 assign (1) 85:17 17:9 105:20 120:8
adjudicate (3) 161:7 allows (1) 73:4 arbitrage (4) 47:16,23 assigned (6) 87:4 98:1 B2/13/20 (1) 24:25 123:11 129:15
162:4 167:22 ameliorate (1) 157:3 48:3 53:15 107:15 108:7 B2/13/21 (2) 31:9 banking (1) 26:11
adopted (1) 7:15 amount (17) 6:22 area (1) 96:3 112:16 114:9 59:6 bankruptcy (4) 78:1,3
adopting (1) 4:10 20:22 87:6,22 argue (3) 34:21 84:16 assignment (2) 88:6 B2/13/23 (2) 70:25 78:4 117:3
advance (1) 1:13 101:13 106:21 136:9 133:14 90:16 banks (7) 18:20 20:14
advanced (2) 125:1 109:7,11,14 112:18 argued (1) 34:22 assist (3) 8:24 9:9 B2/13/4 (1) 16:21 26:14 33:24 69:19
128:11 113:25 122:20 argument (3) 137:14 120:8 B2/13/5 (1) 17:9 86:24 117:22
advised (1) 18:25 123:3,4 124:6,18 137:14 172:25 assistance (1) 21:21 B2/13/7 (1) 24:25 banks’ (1) 25:10
advocate (1) 34:16 129:15 arises (1) 137:18 associated (1) 105:9 B2/13/8 (2) 31:10 Bar (1) 173:9
affair (1) 100:17 amounts (2) 4:12 Arkhangelskaya (2) association (1) 29:18 59:6 base (1) 56:11
affairs (2) 22:20 23:1 122:9 43:3 77:16 assume (4) 4:24 29:23 back (31) 3:9,12 5:11 based (10) 26:22
affect (1) 13:18 and/or (2) 99:8 Arkhangelskaya’s (2) 34:4 122:17 5:25 6:2 12:2 17:4 29:22 34:11,16,20
affidavit (1) 163:8 154:23 42:9,18 assumption (1) 16:24 29:11 44:24 46:5 41:7 58:6 73:2 89:5
affiliated (2) 63:11,23 Anex-Finance (1) 67:5 Arkhangelsky (56) 6:9 attached (2) 13:23 47:11 74:9 75:17 109:7
afraid (11) 28:25 annual (1) 168:17 7:11 8:15 10:24 163:12 87:22 88:15 89:14 baseless (1) 44:16
61:17 62:3 78:19 answer (6) 14:9 54:20 13:20 20:25 21:7 attachment (1) 111:13 113:21 basic (4) 17:14,24
95:15 96:15 101:25 151:19 161:23 23:22 24:2,4,7 154:13 115:14 125:5 18:8,22
102:24 115:13 162:13 171:11 25:11 27:22 28:9 attack (1) 81:23 129:18 135:24 basically (5) 45:2 93:4
120:23 121:8 answers (2) 15:9 28:17 29:13 33:23 attacked (1) 43:10 139:6 140:15 154:8 99:14 123:13 126:3
afresh (1) 29:1 95:17 39:17,24 43:8,10 attempted (1) 155:10 154:16 155:11 basics (1) 19:2
agency (1) 65:6 anticipated (2) 1:15 44:4,8,12 45:17 attend (1) 15:2 157:6,7 158:5 basis (19) 1:23 5:16
agenda (2) 82:19 2:25 54:2,7 66:1 68:15 attended (2) 28:9 163:11 26:2 41:4,6 42:8,13
171:14 Anton (5) 91:25 92:14 69:18,21 70:8 58:18 backdated (4) 34:1 55:12 58:13,17,23
aggression (3) 65:24 92:16 94:2 95:2 77:15,22 81:23 attending (1) 51:5 36:20 38:3 63:9 106:4,14 137:10,12
65:25 167:7 Antonenko (8) 119:19 102:14 105:17 attention (8) 62:20,20 backdating (1) 32:10 138:21 152:15
ago (8) 53:9 59:11 120:5,10 123:2 151:23 153:8,14,18 78:25 109:23 bad (3) 78:17 80:15 156:19 162:15
60:2 66:13 80:6 125:11,12 127:4 153:19 154:11,19 134:18 139:23 84:15 bear (1) 6:13
122:25 152:4 156:3 128:22 154:23 155:5 155:24 156:5 badly (1) 134:23 beat (1) 135:20
Agramaya (2) 62:16 anxieties (2) 141:8 159:17,19 165:15 attitude (2) 154:24 Baker (2) 158:6,22 becoming (1) 11:16
63:5 165:15 166:19,21,25 167:4 163:10 balance (3) 63:21,22 beer (1) 90:23
Agrarian (1) 63:6 anybody (1) 164:17 168:3 170:19 171:5 attorney (6) 25:22 94:22 beg (4) 69:1 95:8
agree (13) 16:9 17:22 anyway (2) 10:24 Arkhangelsky’s (6) 26:1,2 41:6,7,12 ball (3) 151:21 155:9 113:17,22
21:4 62:18 77:6 55:16 5:17 43:1,5 54:12 attributed (2) 63:19 156:21 beginning (6) 19:19
84:22 94:12 121:21 apart (2) 26:17 43:24 87:22 155:11 134:2 bank (163) 16:14 60:5 64:18 79:15
122:8 156:22,22,23 apologies (2) 37:2 arose (1) 73:3 auction (16) 103:13 18:15,19 19:7,8,11 121:25 154:8
166:18 102:1 arrange (4) 84:2,19 104:15,20 106:18 19:12,13,14 20:4 begun (1) 142:13
agreed (4) 25:15,24 apologise (7) 1:13 140:10 173:13 110:9 115:22 20:18,21 21:17,21 behalf (9) 15:23 23:8
65:15 102:7 10:16 95:11 110:15 arranged (1) 133:3 117:11,20 118:5,16 23:4,5,6,15,16 24:15,20 25:23
agreement (68) 60:22 112:9 113:10 arrangement (1) 121:10 124:4,5 24:11,20,21 25:1,8 99:10 100:2 113:14
61:23 63:1,9 64:13 163:15 110:11 125:4 129:17 131:8 25:16,19,20,24 116:25
66:5,9,10,25 71:7,8 apparently (4) 10:12 arrangements (2) auctions (1) 86:7 26:3,12,15,20,22 believe (7) 46:2 58:7
71:18 72:13,20 93:24 94:5 173:25 151:15 162:3 authorised (2) 23:21 27:1,4,6,9,13 33:6 58:18 120:6 126:2
73:8,24 74:1,13,25 appeal (7) 53:3,16,20 arrival (1) 46:21 25:18 33:14,18 34:20 126:4 140:20
74:25 75:20,22,23 54:1,8,18 57:17 arrived (1) 166:8 authorising (1) 170:1 35:5,11 44:2,7,8,13 bells (3) 119:15
76:14,20,23 77:1,2 appealed (3) 52:25 articles (2) 29:18 authorities (2) 59:9 44:19,19 45:16,18 131:13,15
78:6,14 79:6,23,25 53:18 54:4 31:20 94:23 65:18,21,24,24 belong (1) 104:3
81:11 87:3,25 appear (1) 2:14 ASAP (2) 33:25 38:5 authority (5) 11:13 66:1 68:12 69:23 belonged (1) 31:3
107:12,14 108:23 appeared (1) 6:12 ashamed (1) 105:14 23:14 24:1 53:1 70:11 72:24 73:4 belongs (3) 71:17
109:11,19 113:7,8 appears (7) 24:25 aside (2) 45:3 69:3 57:10 74:2 77:9,16,20,23 103:17 104:4
113:16 114:9 115:4 71:13 94:16 101:5 asked (19) 1:10,10 automatically (1) 95:9 79:7,23 80:11,15 beneath (1) 8:3
117:9 119:17 120:3 114:14 120:12 2:21 4:8 20:1,5 autumn (1) 116:1 80:17 81:22,23,25 benefit (3) 96:15
121:13 123:2 125:2 131:17 59:23 78:13 98:23 available (14) 2:3 8:13 84:18,22 85:16 123:13 173:4
125:10 126:3,21,22 appellate (4) 53:1 108:24 120:5 126:6 9:1 11:7,16 17:10 86:10,16,17,19,21 Berezin (15) 21:23
127:7 128:16 56:13 57:9,10 127:6 137:17 153:9 18:6 23:18 34:17 86:22 87:3,21,21 22:16,24 23:2,5,13
131:20 134:11 apply (2) 19:21 20:12 156:2,17 170:24 139:7,11 141:16 88:3,7 89:3,13,19 23:17 24:3,6,9 28:8
135:7 136:6,7,16 appreciate (3) 10:20 171:5 161:7 168:11 101:20 102:3,7,13 35:5,19 39:24
137:1,5 138:1,7 110:23 128:4 asking (9) 8:8 38:23 AVK (2) 22:4,10 104:16,22 105:13 65:23
agreements (11) approach (8) 4:9 16:4 60:23,24 65:11 avoid (3) 39:18 55:12 105:17,18,21,25,25 best (7) 9:5 17:20,21
20:17 62:21 67:19 18:5,8 19:8,15 75:11 107:4 122:22 61:14 106:2 107:10,11,14 57:23 98:5 141:8
107:17 108:5 109:3 68:13 160:6 124:15 avoidance (1) 142:10 109:4,9,13,14,19 142:11
109:9 114:2 126:23 approaches (2) 17:23 aspect (2) 17:5 131:16 avoided (1) 9:3 110:1,11 111:5 better (9) 9:11 13:11
137:4 167:13 17:25 asset (11) 65:6 88:4 await (1) 152:15 112:13,17 113:14 33:13 86:19 103:22
agrees (2) 76:1 114:8 approval (1) 26:18 102:5 106:6 110:13 aware (8) 9:7 38:11 116:13,22,25 117:4 110:20 124:10
ALEXANDROVICH (2) approximate (1) 116:5 117:5,10 89:18 102:9 105:19 117:6,10 119:18 126:6 169:6
15:8 175:4 124:19 118:19 124:12,13 127:15 139:6 121:5,18 122:12 beyond (2) 13:5 76:17
Alexey (1) 21:23 approximately (3) assets (38) 15:25 161:16 124:25 125:1,5,6 big (2) 9:17 106:22
alienate (1) 79:23 94:18 103:9 108:9 69:13 70:10,10,24 awfully (2) 50:23 125:15 127:2,6,8 biggest (1) 122:19
allegation (1) 5:19 April (38) 26:9 27:19 71:23 74:20 78:10 140:24 127:21 128:6 billion (1) 123:4
alleged (6) 5:19 56:6 29:20 30:12,16 81:17,18 84:20,21 axiomatic (1) 17:16 129:13,14,18,23 Birt (46) 1:8,13,22 4:1
60:20 67:9,11 32:6,16 34:14,20 85:14 86:6,9 87:12 130:8,22,23 133:21 4:5 8:7 12:16,23
113:3 35:2 37:19 38:1,21 87:15,21 88:3 89:2 B 141:13 157:3,10,14 13:20,25 14:6,11
allegedly (1) 160:4 39:7 40:9 42:2 43:8 93:13 98:21 102:14 B1/13/10 (1) 85:9 157:23 158:9,12,17 14:16,24 151:16,25
Alliance (6) 25:15 51:11 59:19 60:4,4 102:21 108:3 109:5 160:4,4,15,24 152:3,7 154:1,14
B2/12/25 (1) 85:25
26:1,4 31:4 50:9,12 60:4,5 64:10,12,13 112:25 117:17 161:3 165:19,20 155:8 157:5,10,13

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

177

March 4, 2016 Day 22 — Redacted

158:4,14,20 159:1 159:4,8 161:13 163:6 164:1,12 165:23 166:5,14 168:5 169:2,11,17 169:21 170:3,9,15 170:22

birthday (4) 32:6 38:23 39:11 40:3

bit (8) 1:19 2:24 7:20 36:22 83:9 100:12 136:13 168:25

bits (1) 3:19 blow (1) 43:20

board (5) 10:22 66:22 82:10 105:11 169:3

boards (1) 42:10 boat (1) 43:17 body (1) 11:13 borrower (5) 20:4

21:15 77:19 78:1 136:25

bottom (17) 31:11 47:2,5 50:19 51:18 51:20 52:2,12 71:4 93:22 96:1,7 120:21,22 121:2 123:20 133:4

bought (16) 70:3 87:5 88:4 89:2,11 90:8 90:10,21 92:11,21 93:2,7 94:6,7,9,15 boundaries (1) 141:21 box (2) 120:22 121:2

brackets (2) 70:21 103:17

brains (1) 18:8 branch (2) 15:15

132:16 branches (1) 49:23 breach (5) 160:5,9

163:2,4 164:20 breaches (1) 53:6 break (8) 54:11 55:14

55:18 111:20,23 112:2 134:12 136:2

breaking (1) 134:22 briefly (3) 9:12 152:1

167:11

brilliant (2) 51:3 67:2 bring (5) 72:9 83:20 130:8 155:24

166:15 broad (1) 20:9 broadly (1) 20:9 broken (1) 154:16

Bromley-Martin (1)

119:8

brother (4) 92:12,15

92:16 94:4 brought (7) 41:1 44:3

45:15,20,24 56:6 83:19

BSP (1) 89:21 builders (1) 130:7 building (1) 127:21 built (1) 21:1

bundle (3) 53:11 54:1 72:15

bundles (1) 139:3 burden (2) 8:6 69:19 burdens (4) 5:2,5 8:19

9:15

business (26) 17:12 17:12,21 18:2,11 18:13 19:9,13,18 20:2,3 21:18 86:18 86:25 88:21 89:12 89:20,21,21 90:19

90:20 93:16 94:8 103:5 104:1 119:10

business-oriented (1)

19:8 businessman (2) 91:4

126:17

businesswoman (1)

19:6

busy (3) 60:5 64:20 167:8

button (1) 130:18 buttons (1) 129:14 buy (8) 87:25 92:9 104:4,6,15,24 127:22 130:7 buyer (3) 103:18

104:10,13 buying (1) 133:10 BVI (1) 54:2

C

cadastral (1) 95:25 calculate (1) 30:18 calculated (1) 122:9 calculations (1) 62:13 calculator (2) 124:9,11 calculus (1) 124:17 call (10) 44:4 46:6

56:5 59:5 60:9 82:7 85:9 126:24,25 131:4

called (12) 21:22 22:4 50:4 71:9 82:23 85:25 90:1 91:3 103:1,5 113:14 118:6

capable (1) 36:21 capacity (2) 99:7

105:15

capital (5) 19:16 20:6 93:12,17 130:4

care (2) 44:12 56:24 carefully (3) 4:3 6:7

54:5

carelessly (1) 163:20 carried (1) 109:15 carry (2) 80:25 104:16 case (58) 5:4 9:1,7

10:11,19 12:2,25 15:24 21:13 22:23 24:8 25:23 26:24 27:1 29:16 34:3,22 38:3 40:7 42:21 44:11 47:9,18,20 53:7,8,10 54:1 56:20 65:4 66:2 72:21 78:8 88:1 93:14 94:1 96:5 98:11 99:16 101:22 102:3 113:10 114:23 128:9 136:21,22 138:2 139:18,19 140:4,16 160:19 164:22 166:3 169:15 172:21 173:11,25

cases (7) 8:23 11:20 19:14 42:5 79:17 82:2 85:3

cash (1) 123:5 cassation (1) 53:20 casting (1) 30:6 categorically (1)

129:21 category (1) 167:24 caught (1) 3:22 cause (4) 4:5 9:4

84:15,15

caveat (1) 140:7 45:20 69:24 78:4 34:13 134:1 139:15 consistent (2) 31:25
cent (6) 9:6 31:2,3 clarification (3) 39:4 communication (2) 140:17 163:2 61:22
51:22 70:4 91:25 108:25 152:20 65:23 155:19 concerns (1) 164:5 consistently (2) 161:5
Central (1) 130:22 clarify (4) 35:23 55:21 companies (37) 18:21 conclude (2) 80:16 162:7
centre (2) 125:13 88:19 103:24 32:21 35:1 37:17 166:12 consists (2) 104:11
131:2 clarifying (1) 153:1 42:12 45:17 62:21 concluded (1) 114:10 109:3
certain (14) 11:21 clause (6) 75:21 76:11 63:10,11,16,20,21 conclusion (2) 76:23 consolidate (1) 98:24
22:16 63:4,19 65:3 76:12,16 107:13 65:5,12,14 66:15 138:11 constructed (1)
66:16 70:21,22 113:24 66:19 67:16 68:10 condition (2) 81:1 109:24
76:19 95:25 141:24 clear (17) 9:25 27:7 68:14,17 69:4,14 89:4 consult (1) 98:22
152:20 161:1 33:4,14 38:15 69:25 80:18 81:3 conditions (9) 77:10 consultancy (1) 17:5
169:11 49:25 85:12,16 81:13 84:20,21 77:10 106:17 consultant (3) 20:18
certainly (6) 9:7 12:16 86:2 88:19 93:1 98:11 99:12,22 154:25 156:16 20:19,23
65:8 152:13 153:3 95:16 121:6 137:10 102:15 104:2,2,4 161:4 163:12 consultation (1)
164:25 142:7 159:23 141:15 165:18,20 173:18
certainty (1) 116:20 162:16 companies’ (1) 32:11 conducted (2) 117:24 contact (2) 22:13
cession (1) 109:11 clearer (2) 38:21 company (76) 18:17 127:4 59:20
Cessionary (1) 114:8 135:25 22:3 24:13 25:6 conference (3) 27:19 contemporaneous (1)
cetera (1) 18:21 clearly (5) 67:13 68:21 26:6,12,13,25 27:21 28:18 11:15
chain (3) 33:9 40:4 118:13 160:3 30:23 31:3 37:14 conferences (3) 27:25 content (2) 34:7
129:19 162:17 63:6 65:7,8 70:15 30:11 39:9 156:16
challenging (1) 45:4 clerk (1) 155:22 71:9,14,14,16,17 confident (4) 30:10 contention (2) 127:19
chance (3) 30:4 click (1) 4:25 72:19 78:2,4 82:22 82:1 91:14 105:10 127:20
134:24 135:2 clicked (1) 119:6 90:1,3,6,18,20,21 confidential (10) context (6) 53:5 57:4
chances (1) 77:17 client (10) 12:3 15:24 91:18 92:10,12,21 22:25 138:9 142:6 84:4 88:24 109:24
change (9) 33:7 53:12 16:16 19:10,17,18 92:25 93:3,5,5,10 142:18 151:17 110:6
58:16 65:11 77:22 20:15,24 21:17 93:16,19,19 94:5,8 154:25 160:25 continuation (1) 92:5
88:2 92:20,22 101:16 94:11,14,20,20,21 161:22 168:8,11 continue (2) 84:13
172:7 clients (2) 10:11 89:22 95:4,7 98:18,23 confidentialities (1) 89:1
changed (4) 34:8 clock (1) 5:6 100:2,6,9 101:9,16 137:24 continued (5) 15:8,11
53:20 93:24 94:6 close (1) 86:16 103:17,24 104:5,5 confidentiality (14) 114:19 175:4,5
changes (2) 5:25 club (3) 152:22 153:3 104:12 110:1 115:1 22:17 23:7 26:11 contract (41) 13:14
93:23 161:18 115:3,6 116:16 26:16 152:22 153:2 41:9 47:19 60:12
changing (2) 84:17 co-investing (1) 128:7 118:5,9 121:16 161:5,18 162:6 60:15 72:20 74:12
94:25 co-investor (2) 125:16 131:3 139:14 167:12 168:5,20,25 77:6,11 80:17
channels (1) 29:7 130:12 140:10 141:23 169:10 107:9 108:23 109:2
chap (1) 23:11 coincidence (2) 129:6 168:15 configuration (1) 109:12,22 111:3,3
characterised (1) 129:7 company’s (1) 90:19 20:20 112:12 114:7 120:6
23:18 coincidences (2) comparing (1) 128:20 confined (1) 156:15 120:6,7,10 125:11
charged (1) 117:24 129:9,9 compensating (1) confirm (8) 30:14 125:14,22 126:9,10
charter (2) 93:12,16 collaterals (1) 69:20 109:17 61:10 96:12 121:8 127:1 128:16
Chartered (1) 15:13 column (8) 71:4 compensation (1) 127:3,15 132:19 129:23,23,24 130:2
chase (1) 5:21 121:22 122:6 49:11 134:6 130:3,3,4,21 155:1
chaser (1) 14:12 124:21 131:10,11 compile (1) 159:4 confirmed (2) 157:21 156:17 160:23
chasing (1) 152:19 131:12,17 compiler (1) 134:3 157:25 contracts (8) 42:3
cheaply (1) 108:21 come (14) 6:11,17 complaining (1) 156:6 confirming (2) 120:9 84:19,19 110:5
check (17) 3:16,19 4:1 13:3 20:17 21:3 complaint (2) 44:3 127:25 111:14 112:5 113:3
4:6,9 6:2,5,23 23:11 45:22 47:11 54:9 conflict (7) 21:6 39:16 130:24
73:17 102:18 74:9 75:16 96:11 complementary (1) 39:18 44:17,22,23 contractual (1) 45:12
108:10 120:1,2,2 111:13 170:25 140:6 65:3 contradict (1) 134:8
123:5 126:20,22 171:15 complete (5) 66:3,23 conflict-ridden (1) contrary (2) 10:14
checked (3) 6:7 72:16 comes (7) 29:25 78:21 88:18,25 140:1 21:4 47:8
158:25 119:13,23 121:16 completely (6) 14:24 conflicts (1) 117:18 control (16) 68:10,11
checking (1) 46:25 121:18 164:23 73:7 99:20,23 confused (4) 3:12 69:18 77:12,13,24
choice (1) 51:6 comfortable (4) 70:1 154:7 167:14 62:3 106:24 111:14 80:19 81:2,5,6,8,9
choose (1) 85:16 91:6,10,13 completeness (3) confusing (1) 111:10 81:17,19 85:1
choosing (1) 86:23 coming (3) 86:13 51:25 79:10 111:1 confusion (1) 76:3 102:4
chose (1) 86:10 120:23 125:9 completion (1) 113:15 connected (4) 68:21 controlled (2) 85:13
chosen (1) 13:7 commence (2) 93:9 complex (3) 18:16 81:4 100:24 104:7 118:9
chronological (1) 93:18 42:8 91:1 connection (3) 67:12 controlling (1) 70:16
115:5 commenced (1) 94:4 complexities (1) 1:16 67:25 68:1 convened (2) 33:10
chronologically (1) comment (14) 47:22 complied (1) 157:15 connects (1) 121:4 38:25
62:14 48:4,20 49:21 composite (1) 106:7 consecutively (1) convenience (1) 66:12
chronology (6) 31:7 53:17 56:17,22 compounded (1) 153:20 convenient (5) 13:16
35:4 61:8 68:7,7 57:4 98:13 101:8 106:8 consent (4) 82:21 14:18 50:25 62:25
69:2 104:17 110:2 123:6 compromised (1) 116:13 136:16,24 83:4
circulated (1) 2:13 126:1 160:10 consequences (2) convening (2) 31:12
circulation (1) 3:8 commercial (3) 47:17 computer (3) 71:3 42:16,20 36:3
circumstance (4) 137:23,24 129:14 159:14 consider (7) 17:20 conversation (7)
41:18 42:5 62:19 commission (1) computers (1) 158:24 18:11,11 129:5 39:25 59:22 60:1
68:12 109:20 conceal (1) 27:13 160:8 169:3,4 65:10 74:4 140:20
circumstances (4) 8:5 commissions (1) concern (5) 19:13 considerable (2) 140:22
54:6 114:4 136:24 117:25 21:6 116:17 137:15 11:13 109:14 cooperate (2) 8:24
claim (11) 5:17 42:18 committed (1) 26:23 155:5 consideration (3) 27:6
45:8,9 46:9 48:8,10 committing (1) 44:15 concerned (18) 9:10 46:16 56:3 152:13 cooperation (1) 8:25
49:4 50:1 77:16 common (3) 63:18 9:18 10:4,10 11:8 considered (4) 25:4 copies (2) 30:2 139:11
114:9 104:11,13 55:23 56:25 65:2 57:10 104:7 154:22 copy (3) 50:25 72:15
claims (10) 41:1 42:22 communicate (1) 87:9 79:19 100:1,16 considering (2) 19:17 127:7
44:9 45:2,4,15,19 communicated (1) 117:13,15 127:11 33:8 core (1) 89:16

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

178

March 4, 2016 Day 22 — Redacted

corporate (5) 48:1,24

49:8,24 116:18 correct (31) 15:12

16:14,23 18:9 22:2 25:19 27:10 29:15 37:7 43:17 45:13 48:6 56:8 58:6 60:14 61:12 87:16 88:12 92:19,20 94:16,22 96:20 97:20 103:12,22 114:17,18 115:24 128:8 153:15

corrected (2) 124:1 162:25

correcting (1) 114:12 correctly (3) 37:2

74:17 128:19 correspond (1) 73:18 correspondence (4)

154:13,20 156:3 167:9

corresponds (2) 134:5

134:7 cost (1) 12:5

costs (2) 109:15,18 counsel (1) 9:8 country (1) 15:13 couple (5) 4:9 7:12

38:22 95:10 100:10 course (23) 2:15 6:10

9:3,14 10:7 11:7 13:7,9 18:7,14 48:15 54:6,17 55:11 58:11 75:12 82:3 110:24 131:1 140:7 160:20 163:25 169:4

court (86) 2:14 4:12 6:12 7:3 8:24 9:9 11:21 12:24,25 14:1 15:3 28:20 29:2 30:24 34:22 39:13 41:17 42:13 42:15,16 43:7 46:9 46:15 47:9,16,16 47:17,20,23,23 48:3,17 49:1,4,5,17 49:19,22 52:23,24 52:25 53:4,7,22 54:1,8 55:22 56:14 57:6,10 58:3,3,24 65:8 69:24 73:2 75:4,8 78:16 82:2 85:3 90:3 96:13 97:8 99:24 100:4 110:24 113:16 116:12,14 120:3,9 127:24 142:7,12 151:21 152:9 155:9 156:22 162:25 164:2 168:10,13 171:25 174:4,7

court’s (4) 46:16 48:13 56:4 62:20

courts (10) 30:21 32:12 34:9 43:3 47:24 74:21 77:15 77:21 78:8 80:15

cover (1) 2:23 covers (1) 152:10 created (1) 86:13 credit (3) 25:9,14

79:25 credited (1) 125:5 creditors (1) 85:2 credits (1) 19:7 crime (1) 44:15

criminal (9) 41:20,22

42:22 43:20 44:2,3 44:10,21,25

critical (1) 162:14 criticism (1) 5:14 cropped (1) 75:7 cross (1) 87:8 cross-examination (9)

1:9 15:11 16:1 135:8 139:23 140:1 166:12 170:20 175:5

cross-examinations …

83:21 cross-examined (1)

6:9 cross-reference (2)

73:13 83:21 cross-referencing (1)

73:7

crystallised (1) 161:12 curious (2) 7:19 67:7 current (2) 5:21 23:19 currently (2) 32:15

89:10

custodian (5) 158:3,4 158:7,17 159:11 custodians (1) 158:5

custody (1) 155:7 customer (1) 16:16 cut (2) 14:16 167:15 cutting (1) 5:21

D

D112 (1) 60:7

D112/1631.1/1 (1)

67:3

D112/1631.1/12 (1)

64:4

D112/1631.1/14 (1)

60:13

D112/1631.1/16 (2)

60:10 66:7

D112/1631.1/18 (1)

62:8

D112/1631.1/19 (1)

61:19

D112/1631.1/4 (1)

64:2

D112/1631.1/6 (1)

60:9

D112/1631.1/8 (1)

66:6

D112/1631.1/8.2 (1)

62:7

D112/1631.1/8.4 (1)

61:1

D112/1631.1/9 (1)

67:3

D122/1934/1 (1)

78:19

D122/1934/2 (1)

78:18

D122/1940/1 (1)

73:12

D122/1943.3/0.1 (1)

82:8

D122/1943.3/0.3 (1)

82:12

D122/1943.3/0.4 (1)

82:18

D122/1943.3/1 (1)

82:9

D122/1943.3/5 (1)

82:14

D122/1943.3/6 (1)

82:18

D128/2060/1 (2) 71:5 75:17

D128/2060/2 (1) 91:1 93:22 152:14 165:7 deployed (1) 174:1 120:5 127:6 129:23
76:10 D176-D191/2918.1T… 166:12 169:23 describe (3) 16:20 171:6
D128/2060/4 (2) 71:6 91:18 174:1 43:23 59:2 disclosed (17) 27:2
75:18 D176-D191/2918.1T… dealing (5) 12:18 30:5 described (4) 63:15 127:2 136:7,17,18
D128/2060/5 (1) 91:24 33:3 155:6 174:2 64:25 66:12 74:7 136:21 137:2,11
76:10 D192/2918.2T/124 (2) dealings (1) 125:9 description (2) 16:10 138:9 156:1 158:10
D136/2259/1 (1) 95:13 100:23 deals (4) 21:1 83:1 158:23 160:2,3 167:25
79:13 D192/2918.2T/125 (1) 105:5 130:3 desire (1) 39:18 168:9,12 170:22
D136/2259/3 (2) 96:9 dealt (5) 3:4 6:24,25 detail (9) 14:14 30:21 disclosure (18) 106:17
79:17 83:10 D192/2920/12 (2) 166:4 173:12 32:12 34:9 45:23 134:15 136:8
D136/2259/5 (1) 102:23 103:3 debate (3) 43:6 139:1 153:8 165:11 137:15 138:2,19
79:14 daily (2) 5:15 11:18 164:24 166:7 173:16 158:6,19,21 159:1
D136/2259/7 (1) danger (1) 1:15 debated (2) 26:14 detailed (4) 14:2 160:5,7 161:10,16
79:18 dangerous (1) 65:9 137:9 152:7 155:15 156:9 161:20 163:3
D137/2280/1 (2) 46:6 database (1) 91:2 debt (10) 20:22 21:4 details (9) 20:24 21:9 164:21,22
47:14 date (46) 14:4 27:2 44:20 87:22 89:17 21:12 31:18 75:9 disconcerting (1)
D137/2280/2 (1) 29:25 33:13 34:6 104:25 112:16,16 110:21 133:25 10:12
50:18 36:8,10,12,12,13 112:18,19 163:12,15 discourtesy (2) 14:22
D137/2280/3 (2) 36:15,24 37:1,12 debts (2) 17:15 83:17 detected (1) 8:17 15:1
46:12 52:1 37:23 38:24,24 decide (1) 14:3 determine (2) 49:20 discrete (1) 156:18
D137/2280/6 (2) 46:7 39:2 40:1,8 46:23 decided (5) 27:6 29:2 151:14 discuss (15) 19:20,24
47:14 62:23,23 63:1,2,9 58:21 86:17 172:20 determined (2) 31:22 20:8,11,14,20,24
D137/2280/7 (2) 51:3 63:12 64:14,17 deciding (2) 7:23 42:15 21:14 22:20 35:17
51:17 66:7,10 67:9,19 152:11 developing (2) 56:21 70:15 78:12 135:4
D137/2280/8 (1) 91:20,25 92:2,20 decision (47) 31:1 65:1 135:12 163:9
46:12 96:21,23 97:11 33:8,8,15,17 34:5,7 development (1) discussed (15) 21:9,15
D138/2317/1 (1) 112:12 114:4,13 34:18,25 36:14 118:19 25:3 27:12 71:22
54:12 115:25 117:8 37:25 39:19,22 developments (1) 74:24 76:20 78:6
D146/2436.2/1 (1) 121:21 42:17 46:8 47:15 74:21 79:5,6 81:1 82:11
132:6 dated (14) 31:14 36:5 48:13 49:17,23 difference (3) 11:15 128:1 168:10,12
D146/2436.2/3 (1) 36:25 37:11,16 51:5 52:9,23 53:4 60:12 124:8 discussing (2) 49:2
133:11 60:17 63:14 64:10 54:25 56:8 57:6,17 different (23) 2:11 97:25
D146/2436.2/4 (1) 66:12 67:5,19 57:21 59:17 63:8 18:2,3,4 33:11 discussion (1) 17:5
132:7 107:10 157:7,20 66:15,18 68:15,16 37:10 38:14 48:10 discussions (8) 20:7
D146/2436.2/6 (1) dates (22) 31:8 34:24 69:2,3,4,9 72:24 49:23 53:2 54:4 26:21 64:21 65:16
133:11 39:14 40:15,23 73:3 74:2 78:21 73:8,14 81:20 85:4 65:18 71:21 73:3
D146/2437.2/1 (1) 47:25,25 48:18 82:15,19,20,21 103:1,25 111:10,14 74:19
119:5 59:18 61:6,8 62:22 116:12 112:25 117:19 dishonest (1) 9:2
D149/2474/1 (2) 63:4,25 66:24 67:8 decisions (10) 49:14 128:21,23 dismal (1) 65:22
107:7 111:2 67:17 68:17 119:17 52:24 53:14 55:22 differently (2) 26:15 dismissal (3) 45:10
D149/2474/10 (2) 122:4 131:13 170:4 67:13,14 68:2 69:7 91:8 46:10 47:18
107:8 111:2 dating (1) 139:6 73:2 80:12 difficult (16) 8:5 17:2 dismissed (2) 49:10
D149/2474/11 (2) day (30) 1:24 2:2,13 declared (2) 42:14,19 21:5 47:21 53:4,8,9 52:22
107:13 111:7 2:17 6:5,8 13:1 declaring (1) 42:15 53:17 56:16 57:12 disprove (2) 53:24
D149/2474/12 (1) 27:21 35:9,10,13 dedicated (2) 7:1 9:23 60:1 68:6 100:8 57:11
108:3 35:16,18,20,21 defaulted (1) 86:4 125:25 134:5 166:2 disproved (1) 57:5
D149/2474/13 (1) 36:19 41:22 63:2 defence (3) 43:13,14 difficulties (5) 7:14 dispute (12) 45:11,13
108:13 67:11 76:14 111:4 43:14 8:10 10:6,11 11:4 48:2,24,25 49:8,9,9
D149/2474/14 (1) 114:6,9 152:9 defend (1) 43:22 difficulty (1) 138:11 49:12,15 52:19
108:16 154:8 164:11,12 defendant (3) 46:16 digging (1) 165:6 69:21
D149/2474/2 (2) 165:12,14,15 46:20 52:14 direct (1) 77:19 disregard (1) 165:9
107:13 111:6 day’s (3) 2:15,18 3:6 defendants (7) 14:6 directed (1) 32:25 dissipated (1) 102:11
D149/2474/3 (1) Day10/63:1 (1) 52:16 152:14,16 direction (1) 135:25 distressed (1) 89:16
108:2 164:12 153:12 164:15 directions (1) 21:20 district (7) 47:16,23
D149/2474/4 (1) Day10/67:15 (1) 166:6 directly (2) 71:18 47:24 49:1,5,19
108:13 164:3 defendants’ (1) 140:4 53:21
D149/2474/5 (1) Day10/69:10 (1) 156:22 director (23) 23:24 disturbing (1) 40:5
108:16 164:6 defending (4) 44:1,2 27:18,22 28:13,17 divorced (1) 43:7
D149/2475/1 (1) Day10/73:5 (1) 44:20,25 51:13 64:15 93:24 document (32) 6:12
112:8 164:16 deference (1) 12:12 94:7,10 95:1 97:8 32:4 47:12 48:13
D149/2475/10 (1) days (24) 1:25 2:3,8,8 definitely (1) 97:14 97:13 98:15 99:1,8 50:15 60:19 71:20
112:9 5:22,23,24 6:3,4,20 delay (8) 4:13 7:5,22 99:13 105:6,12 72:11,13,17 79:7
D149/2475/11 (1) 7:17 11:23 26:9 8:17 9:2 61:14 91:8 110:19 114:15,19 79:11,15 82:7 84:2
112:15 28:7 31:20 32:6 174:4 115:1 118:25 132:6 134:1
D149/2475/12 (1) 38:22 39:11 60:19 delayed (1) 1:3 directors (26) 28:10 134:3,5 136:25
112:24 66:10 67:9 68:5,6 delaying (1) 5:18 33:2,7,22,25 34:12 137:11 138:14,21
D149/2475/13 (2) 124:3 deleted (2) 156:16 34:13 36:14,16 141:24 160:1,17,24
113:5,25 days’ (1) 29:19 161:3 38:1,5 39:16,23 161:11 170:10,11
D149/2475/14 (1) deadline (1) 113:9 deliberate (1) 7:5 41:19,23 42:1 170:13
113:12 deal (37) 11:22 13:13 Delovoi (1) 103:5 53:13 58:17 67:16 document’s (1)
D149/2475/2 (1) 13:17 14:17,18,21 demanded (1) 25:13 68:10,13,16 69:18 138:17
112:14 20:19,21 21:9,14 denied (2) 58:3,4 77:22 84:25 94:6 documentation (4)
D149/2475/3 (2) 21:16,20 25:6 deny (3) 121:8 127:12 disagree (1) 122:3 13:15 130:5,20
112:23 113:23 28:24 31:4 74:15 134:6 disagreed (1) 138:7 155:4
D149/2475/4 (1) 81:6 104:9,14,17 denying (1) 120:9 disappear (1) 15:4 documents (64) 30:1
113:5 104:18 105:21,24 department (1) disclosable (5) 160:1 32:14 36:17 37:7
D149/2475/5 (1) 105:24 109:3,25 101:17 160:17 163:2 165:2 37:11,14 40:10,15
113:11 110:17 114:3 134:4 dependent (1) 89:19 170:25 46:21,21 56:5,21
D176-D191/2918.1T… 134:5,8 151:17 depends (1) 26:5 disclose (5) 26:20 57:2,15 58:1,8,12

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

179

March 4, 2016 Day 22 — Redacted

60:25 63:14 66:4 70:22,22 71:2 73:22 74:9 75:11 75:16 80:11,14 83:8 98:22 99:1,14 99:17,17 100:18,24 101:3 106:18 110:18 114:5 125:17,20 126:15 130:8 138:8 140:10 155:25 156:25 157:13,18 158:8,10 158:20 160:14 161:12 164:16,23 165:3,7 167:25 170:18 171:2,4

doing (14) 3:20 4:3 5:3,9 7:1 39:6 78:16 94:21 102:6 104:18 105:19 109:16 124:10 134:23

Dom (2) 61:11,20 dormitory (1) 22:1 double-check (1)

111:15

doubt (3) 30:6 124:5 142:10

doubting (1) 30:6 doubts (2) 40:19

67:12

Dr (3) 54:2,7,12 draft (6) 71:8,20 72:21,24 83:1

88:15

draw (3) 62:19 78:25 109:23

drawing (2) 32:7 156:5

drive (1) 81:18 driving (3) 32:9 33:13

40:13

dropping (1) 131:24 due (1) 130:1

duly (1) 47:10 duties (2) 9:9 22:16 DV (1) 51:12

E

e-mail (12) 4:10 13:21 13:22,23 14:15 153:7 154:6,11,12 155:11 156:6,20

e-mails (2) 158:24 162:14

earlier (21) 2:6 30:19 31:25 40:8 48:6,7 52:8 64:25 83:6 105:5 107:19 117:7 132:3 133:15 136:17,21 156:10 157:12 172:10 173:24 174:5

early (12) 10:7 11:7 17:2,2 34:20 35:2 38:1 41:20 67:14 68:3 98:21 158:8

easily (1) 170:17 easy (4) 14:19 100:10

102:18 130:17 effect (2) 11:13 36:8 effectively (2) 43:2

108:20

effort (6) 9:25 10:5 11:5 12:10,22 13:10

efforts (7) 5:10 8:21 9:15 11:1 13:4,15

39:23 141:20 142:3 exhibit (5) 70:22 71:2 142:3 finished (1) 154:19
eight (2) 155:23 156:7 entirely (12) 3:21 6:21 73:18 78:22 80:7 fall (2) 49:19 165:3 finishes (1) 164:13
either (10) 19:15 26:8 12:21 52:20 85:12 exhibited (6) 54:2,7 falls (2) 48:2 138:5 finishing (1) 134:24
86:22 87:20,21 153:24 155:18 71:12 72:17 73:9 false (2) 55:12 58:24 firms (1) 5:4
102:18 105:17 156:12 160:13,23 74:9 far (37) 9:7,10 10:10 first (42) 1:25,25 3:8
134:6 153:22 161:2 162:3 exhortation (1) 8:11 16:5 25:7 28:21 5:22 7:21 16:22
167:17 entirety (1) 160:1 existed (3) 27:1 77:18 29:17 47:15,20 18:10 19:24,25
elaborate (2) 41:16 entities (6) 37:15,17 101:4 48:23 53:7 57:25 21:14 26:8 27:9
165:21 63:11,23,24 110:12 existing (2) 83:17 57:25 65:1 70:5 30:16 33:5 42:6,13
elapse (1) 78:3 entitled (1) 26:12 110:5 71:16 72:23 79:8 46:9 48:12 54:24
electronic (1) 158:7 entitlements (1) exit (1) 70:9 89:18 94:2 97:11 59:16 63:20 69:17
elegant (1) 43:2 163:18 expect (3) 8:6 87:18 100:1,15 102:12 75:15 77:14 83:15
element (2) 7:22 entity (1) 93:10 159:2 109:1,5,13 117:12 85:11 94:6 108:22
109:2 entries (2) 84:4 95:15 expectation (1) 135:9 127:10 133:23,25 115:19 121:20
elements (1) 109:12 entrust (1) 86:10 expectations (1) 134:4 139:5,8,14 122:8 123:7,18
elucidate (1) 70:18 entry (5) 79:17,21 117:19 156:16 163:1 126:2 132:12 158:5
embark (1) 83:5 91:7 95:20,23 expected (3) 69:21 fashion (1) 5:12 158:21 159:9,17
embarrassing (1) enumerated (1) 53:19 134:23 155:4 fastened (1) 160:22 162:21,25 165:16
162:9 Erokhin (1) 50:10 expecting (1) 87:20 fate (3) 87:9,11 first-hand (1) 117:13
emotional (2) 25:12 erring (1) 133:25 expenses (2) 63:18 102:17 firstly (3) 50:4 57:14
33:20 Eschwege’s (1) 173:9 121:15 fault (3) 62:4 69:1,1 106:16
emotionally-charge… especially (3) 53:18 experience (1) 19:2 favour (3) 79:20 118:1 fit (2) 7:2 119:25
67:14,15 169:7,14 expertise (1) 20:5 137:15 fits (1) 137:2
emphasise (1) 7:4 essentially (4) 16:13 explain (9) 1:19 41:15 fear (2) 95:14 105:14 five (3) 134:16 135:4
emphasised (3) 12:23 86:2 132:10 133:9 72:25 88:25 125:15 features (1) 103:25 166:9
55:6 99:3 establish (8) 31:7 130:24 153:15 February (10) 1:24 five-minute (1)
employee (1) 86:14 34:24 53:22 61:8 156:23 161:14 13:25 16:25 17:1 134:12
employees (5) 24:6 66:8 73:10 98:17 explained (6) 15:22 21:8 47:2 155:16 fix (1) 81:21
44:11 86:15,15,21 141:19 45:1 142:19 156:17 158:14,15,16 fixed (2) 76:6,7
employment (19) established (1) 53:10 157:3 160:20 federal (2) 63:3 64:16 flag (2) 169:23 171:13
45:8,11,12 47:19 establishing (1) 54:22 explaining (1) 125:24 Federation (3) 47:17 flagging (1) 171:18
48:8,10,25 49:4,9 estate (1) 82:22 explanation (13) 1:14 48:3 131:22 floating (1) 135:9
49:15,21,24 50:1 estimate (3) 135:20 14:2 75:4 103:17 feel (8) 9:16 14:20 flow (1) 123:5
52:19 54:23 158:17 172:6,24 121:7 124:24 57:18 70:1 135:17 follow (2) 42:16 154:2
159:25 160:15 et (1) 18:21 127:24 129:21 139:22 162:6 follow-ups (1) 141:4
165:1 Evaldovich (1) 92:1 130:25 154:5 171:24 followed (1) 161:10
empty (4) 92:25 93:19 evening (3) 35:16 155:14,16 170:24 feeling (2) 165:17 following (3) 52:23
94:22 156:8 134:17 167:19 explanations (3) 77:5 172:3 71:3 161:25
enable (2) 84:18 event (1) 167:19 129:5 156:19 feelings (1) 169:7 follows (4) 30:9 31:8
137:17 events (12) 2:15 expressed (3) 164:5 feet (2) 1:8 159:14 65:2 68:13
encouraged (1) 14:6 31:24 32:1 33:9 165:8,15 felt (1) 173:12 footage (1) 72:23
encouraging (1) 39:13 40:3,4 64:25 expression (1) 120:11 fictitious (1) 131:4 footing (1) 11:1
164:10 81:20,25 95:5 expunged (2) 155:1 fifth (2) 157:19 163:7 forget (1) 55:8
encumbered (3) 100:4 163:13 figure (5) 122:7,14 forgive (1) 87:17
104:21,21,25 eventuality (1) 137:18 extend (1) 46:17 124:20 128:24,25 form (5) 32:16 44:10
encumbering (2) eventuated (1) 54:5 extendable (1) 76:17 figures (9) 98:4 77:24 78:7 141:7
33:23 70:9 everybody (1) 165:11 extent (2) 158:24 122:12,18 126:7 formal (2) 25:22 28:12
encumbrance (4) 85:1 evidence (17) 16:7,7 171:23 127:18 129:7 formatting (2) 3:3 6:1
106:4,8,9 16:23 29:3 33:15 external (3) 18:14 131:11 133:17 formed (2) 39:1 93:17
endeavour (1) 7:8 34:25 36:8,10 19:15,16 134:8 former (1) 132:20
ended (1) 130:10 37:12 46:17 54:2 extra (1) 80:14 file (4) 154:20 159:25 formerly (1) 133:12
ends (1) 67:10 54:12 90:2 94:16 extremely (4) 8:1,4 160:22 165:1 formulate (1) 118:12
enforcement (1) 100:15 134:11 10:9 101:3 final (10) 6:2 8:14 forth (2) 115:15
45:24 162:4 eyes (1) 58:10 14:25 16:18 18:6 159:12
engage (2) 20:6 153:8 evidently (1) 82:11 48:13 54:20 66:25 fortnight (1) 14:12
engaging (1) 21:7 ex-employees (1) F 172:7,8 fortunate (1) 171:24
English (37) 13:8 29:6 86:16 face (3) 119:9 120:12 finalised (1) 125:18 forward (3) 152:7
29:6,7,7 31:11 36:1 exact (3) 36:13 66:14 finally (5) 66:23 163:10,21
163:14
38:25 50:17,20 106:20 108:14 113:11 forwarded (1) 156:7
facie (1) 160:14
51:18 52:1,4 61:2,3 exactly (10) 17:1 115:11,12 forwards (1) 155:22
facing (1) 18:17
61:5,9,14 64:2,5 28:19 30:15 36:12 finance (2) 23:24 found (10) 22:8 24:17
fact (19) 8:22 24:9
71:5 78:19 79:13 40:22 46:3 65:20 126:25 25:5 30:24 47:9
32:12 41:24 52:20
82:8,12 91:6,10,12 124:20 154:9 financial (10) 18:20 67:3 75:6 87:7
56:1 57:4,22 58:16
91:13 95:14 113:23 157:23 22:6,17,20,25 112:6 132:2
71:12 85:12 99:25
123:14 132:6 133:7 examination (1) 23:19 26:12 67:20 four (3) 6:3 31:10
103:7 106:19
166:23,25 167:6 138:12 152:22 153:3 171:14
109:23 151:18
enjoy (2) 140:2,5 examined (1) 58:3 financing (2) 18:14 fourth (2) 8:11 170:17
155:25 163:14
enquiries (8) 7:8,9 example (5) 3:5 4:10 19:16 frame (1) 110:4
165:2
25:17 35:11 141:23 63:19 81:6 122:14 find (18) 10:5 18:14 framework (1) 57:12
facts (2) 53:19 55:25
157:1,15,22 Excel (1) 119:6 19:15,16 20:23 fraud (3) 26:23 27:5,8
fair (15) 4:8 20:13
enquiry (2) 137:8 exceptionally (1) 23:9 25:13 56:15 free (3) 22:20 161:25
32:2 38:6,8 55:10
139:17 161:22 59:3 61:13,18 64:3 162:3
69:8 106:5,8,11
ensure (1) 11:5 exchange (3) 19:25 66:6 72:6,14,16 freehold (1) 79:3
110:3,3 117:24
enter (1) 84:18 20:3 23:2 139:16 159:2 freeing (1) 105:23
118:2,2
entered (4) 61:23 exchanging (2) 21:10 finding (1) 61:18 freeze (1) 81:21
fairly (4) 49:10 112:13
62:21 63:9 64:13 34:12 fine (3) 55:13 112:7 Friday (4) 1:1,24
129:12 138:20
Enterprises (3) 71:9 excitement (1) 10:17 119:4 166:11 167:16
fairness (2) 38:13,19
71:14,16 execution (1) 114:6 finish (4) 88:17,24 friend (7) 9:19 22:22
faith (3) 12:5 141:20
entire (3) 76:13 exercises (1) 158:21 135:20 171:20 57:17 92:12 136:9

171:17 173:14 friends (4) 90:23

119:4 134:13 173:17

fro-ing (2) 2:25 8:3 front (4) 152:4,9 162:5 166:7

full (3) 20:22 39:15 47:24

fully (2) 80:2 105:18 function (7) 68:11 95:6 99:6,12,13 102:20 105:7 functional (2) 19:5

68:9

funding (3) 126:4 127:17 128:17 funds (1) 129:16

funny (1) 168:7 furnished (1) 57:3 further (24) 5:25 7:8,9

21:6 47:2 66:24 75:13 91:22 113:11 121:25 127:10 131:10,12 136:8 137:15 138:2,8,19 157:15 158:7 164:7 164:23 165:11 172:25

future (1) 165:6

G

gain (2) 68:10 69:17 game (1) 153:19 gap (1) 7:17

gaps (3) 7:13 10:1 11:2

gather (1) 29:23 gathered (1) 54:18 Gavansky (1) 132:16 Gelios (1) 66:5 general (24) 8:11 18:4

27:18,22 28:13,18 51:11,13 93:24 94:10 95:1 99:1 104:19 110:12,19 114:16,19 115:1 116:10,15 132:5 162:7 163:10 173:13

generally (3) 17:10 18:9 71:4

generate (1) 119:21 generated (2) 121:17

130:24 gentleman (1) 21:22 gentlemen (1) 168:4 genuine (1) 128:11 getting (7) 69:23,24

76:4 111:15 129:13 133:11 171:9

give (12) 1:11 36:10 36:23 77:5 90:2 98:18 103:2 116:13 135:25 159:20 160:7 166:6

given (23) 6:21 9:19 28:5,12,17 29:14 29:19,24 30:19 47:10 60:20 98:24 134:11 139:20 153:10 155:2 156:20 164:21 165:14,25 169:15 171:3,4

gives (4) 46:23,24 132:14 166:16

giving (5) 1:14 23:17

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

180

March 4, 2016 Day 22 — Redacted

36:6 37:12 82:21 142:15 153:18 154:6,15 immediately (5) 2:18 injection (1) 7:5
glance (1) 108:22 happened (22) 26:7 156:14 157:9,11 33:25 127:7 162:15 injustice (1) 105:16
glean (1) 155:5 34:4 35:7,13,18,20 158:3,13,15,23 172:15 inserted (1) 3:7
go (29) 44:24 51:8 46:1 58:9 59:16,18 159:3,6,16 160:12 implied (1) 161:15 inside (1) 81:24
61:1 62:6 64:1 74:8 59:21 60:2,3 66:11 161:23 162:12,18 importance (2) 56:19 insistence (1) 39:17
75:8,17 86:18 68:3 70:11 92:24 162:23 163:6,25 63:4 insofar (1) 99:8
88:15 91:11 95:3 92:24 93:1 124:25 164:11 165:14 important (12) 7:15 inspection (2) 160:7
95:13 102:8,19 127:25 129:12 166:1,10,15,19,24 10:2 34:6 41:17 161:10
112:8 113:21 119:5 happens (2) 142:1 167:3,15 168:23 42:4,12 51:9 63:2 instance (6) 46:9
123:24 137:8 164:22 169:6,16,20 170:2 68:12 77:11,13 47:21 52:25 54:24
138:21 141:9,22 happy (3) 79:12 85:12 170:8,14,21 171:15 95:6 63:18 77:14
157:7 159:17 151:25 171:21 172:16,19 imposes (1) 5:3 instances (6) 9:6
164:10,14 165:11 hard (6) 8:5,13 10:9 173:3,7,21 impossible (2) 105:21 11:21 53:20,21
167:3 50:25 72:15 122:3 hired (2) 92:17,18 130:1 63:13,16
going (25) 6:17,22 hashtags (1) 169:16 historic (1) 92:6 impression (2) 36:23 instantaneously (1)
13:17 54:3 64:9 headed (1) 121:3 historical (1) 91:23 39:1 4:21
66:1 70:13,14 78:3 heading (2) 132:11 history (2) 86:12 improper (1) 140:23 institute (2) 15:14,15
84:16 93:2 115:14 133:4 93:23 improperly (1) 53:13 instructed (2) 32:19
137:11 139:25 headings (1) 20:10 hold (2) 58:17 165:10 in-private (2) 2:23 158:1
140:8,9,23 141:6 hear (14) 8:15 11:20 holding (3) 94:20 7:24 instructions (3) 33:4
161:20 163:16 151:21 152:16 98:18 99:11 inaccurate (1) 36:22 140:6 159:20
167:23 168:24 154:18,23 164:14 hole (1) 165:6 incidentally (1) 74:11 instrument (1) 77:23
169:25 170:3,7 166:23,24 167:2,3 home (1) 169:12 include (3) 2:16 45:8 insurance (8) 20:2
good (26) 1:6,8 5:23 169:25 173:4 174:5 homework (1) 151:14 154:12 21:18 31:13 36:4
9:3 12:5 14:6 15:6 heard (6) 38:17 Hone (1) 167:21 included (6) 2:9 3:10 70:15 78:7 104:12
15:12 19:5,6 55:13 110:17 153:6 honest (12) 39:8 74:24 117:21 109:25
83:14 84:15 86:16 155:20 170:6 171:8 47:21 48:4,17 90:8 154:12 168:17 intend (1) 165:13
91:6 102:24 112:7 hearing (9) 2:9 29:5 95:2,4 105:11 including (6) 13:5 intended (3) 75:2,3
123:14 134:22,24 54:24 101:24 119:14,23 120:19 69:6 76:12 142:12 79:2
135:1 137:16 142:22 151:12 122:24 157:16 159:10 intending (1) 171:6
142:14 153:21 167:4 175:7,8 honestly (5) 31:18 income (2) 121:15 intentional (2) 8:17
163:5,9 hearings (2) 50:7 56:17 90:9 98:7 131:13 9:2
Graham-Bell (2) 61:11 159:24 123:1 incoming (2) 46:20 interest (19) 19:18
61:21 heat (1) 65:25 Honour (1) 110:15 56:4 44:18,22,23 70:23
grateful (12) 8:1 9:10 hectares (2) 103:7,8 hope (14) 15:1 67:24 incommunicado (1) 75:8 78:8 84:1 86:9
10:25 15:5 54:15 held (14) 28:11 40:14 67:24 72:16 73:5,9 25:11 87:10,13 88:4 89:2
55:5 62:10 64:4 40:20,24 49:13 95:16 102:7 110:24 incorporate (2) 90:6 112:19 121:12
102:2 139:22 53:6,12 58:12,14 132:8 135:19 140:2 100:8 131:18,22,23 165:8
142:21 154:1 58:25 59:17,24 161:12 173:23 incorporated (1) interested (11) 20:21
great (6) 8:21 10:2 100:2 116:11 hopefully (4) 15:4 91:19 27:4 81:16,17 86:3
11:1,17,22 34:9 help (2) 2:21 7:7 77:4 119:8 135:15 incorrect (3) 84:24,24 86:5 118:20 122:12
ground (1) 173:14 helpful (2) 55:9 hopeless (1) 112:5 160:21 123:12,22 169:8
grounds (1) 9:3 111:21 horrified (1) 151:20 indebtedness (5) interesting (2) 41:16
group (23) 19:22 22:7 helping (2) 43:16,18 house (10) 90:23 18:15 83:25 84:1 79:13
22:17,21 23:6,8,19 heroes (1) 8:4 115:22 117:11,20 107:22,23 interests (6) 15:24
23:24 24:9,14 28:5 high (5) 11:21 102:13 118:16 121:10 independent (1) 16:14 23:23 44:16
42:2,9 43:19 48:15 113:18 117:25 124:5 125:4 129:17 96:16 70:7 99:4
50:4 51:21 58:15 169:8 131:8 INDEX (1) 175:1 internal (2) 79:7 80:10
63:24 71:17 104:2 higher (1) 53:21 housekeeping (6) 1:5 indicate (1) 171:22 internet (1) 11:19
120:18 128:22 highlighted (1) 172:6 134:21 135:13 indicated (2) 15:10 interpreted (1) 15:9
Group’s (1) 69:15 highly (1) 136:13 136:4 175:3,6 171:17 INTERPRETER (5) 29:6
guarantee (2) 108:5 HILDYARD (144) 1:6 huge (2) 5:2 104:25 indicating (1) 54:19 29:11 76:7 102:1
113:3 1:12,21 3:25 4:4 husband (1) 42:10 indignant (2) 156:11 121:1
guess (1) 85:22 7:10 8:8 9:13,22 husband’s (1) 43:4 156:14 interrupt (1) 53:25
guessing (1) 60:11 10:17,23 11:11,17 hyperlink (1) 72:12 indirectly (1) 140:4 interrupted (1) 55:15
guidance (2) 173:10 12:8,11,20 13:4,22 hyperlinks (4) 72:7 individual (1) 4:17 interrupting (1) 1:9
173:11 14:5,9,16 15:5 73:8,19 78:22 individuals (1) 157:16 interruption (2)
guilty (1) 1:17 23:21 24:1 29:4,12 indulgence (1) 173:3 153:25 168:22
Gunard (10) 71:9,13 35:23,25 36:21 I infer (1) 99:24 intervention (1) 54:15
71:16 72:13,19 37:5,10 38:10,16 I15/15/68 (1) 123:10 inference (1) 69:8 interventions (1) 55:5
74:11,13,25 75:15 38:19 52:14 54:10 inferences (1) 163:4 introduced (1) 152:3
I15/15/69 (1) 123:16
81:7 54:17,22 55:3,13 inform (2) 22:25 introduction (1) 18:23
I15/15/70 (1) 123:21
62:12 76:4,8 83:7 23:14 invalid (2) 42:14
idea (6) 27:7 61:9
H 83:15,23 84:5,8 information (28) 57:10
85:3 101:18 119:13
half (11) 87:6 103:9 88:14 89:7,18,23 19:25 20:3 21:10 invalidity (1) 42:14
138:17
92:3,7 95:12 100:8 23:2,18 26:13,16 invent (1) 100:3
103:10 107:1 ideal (1) 123:21
100:11 101:24 27:2,4 31:5 33:5 invest (1) 130:9
115:16,17 120:13 ideas (1) 79:8
106:14,24 107:5 34:11,12,17 48:19 investigations (1)
123:20,20 133:12 idem (1) 137:12
111:20,23,25 112:7 48:21 58:24 75:9 64:20
159:9 identical (2) 124:8,20
113:20 120:23 137:1 152:23,24 investment (23) 86:6
hand (3) 44:8,18 identification (1)
134:16,25 135:3,14 153:4 154:25 121:15 122:6,14,16
119:2 123:25
135:16,22 137:13 158:25 163:19 122:20 123:4
Handed (1) 119:5 identified (4) 20:9,10
137:20 138:6,16,22 168:11,14,18 124:21 125:13,15
handled (1) 105:4 103:19 136:16
139:1,5,10,17,22 informed (2) 40:16,21 125:20,22 126:9,10
hands (2) 95:4 101:17 identify (3) 17:9 79:22
139:25 140:11,17 initial (1) 85:4 128:6,10 129:24
happen (11) 10:18,18 80:4
140:25 141:7,14,20 initially (2) 84:25 130:2,4,9,21
35:12 65:17 94:14 iffy (1) 117:18
141:25 142:3,5,7 90:21 131:11,12
100:5 102:9 129:3 ignored (1) 171:9
142:10,17 151:13 initiated (2) 41:22 investor (2) 19:15
129:9 131:19 imagine (1) 126:16
151:22 152:2,6 42:23 125:19

investors (1) 20:1 92:3,7 95:12 100:8
invite (2) 163:4 100:11 101:24
171:11 106:14,24 107:5
involve (2) 11:21 111:20,23,25 112:7
45:14 113:20 120:23
involved (23) 2:24 134:16,25 135:3,14
18:5 41:1 44:24 135:16,22 137:13
45:15 48:8,14,15 137:20 138:6,16,22
48:16 49:25 50:3 139:1,5,10,17,22
56:2 65:6 87:14 139:25 140:11,17
101:18 107:3 116:8 140:25 141:7,14,20
116:9 118:14,18 141:25 142:3,5,7
119:10 129:3 142:10,17 151:13
137:24 151:22 152:2,6
involvement (3) 41:6 153:18 154:6,15
118:17 127:13 156:14 157:9,11
involving (1) 141:11 158:3,13,15,23
irate (1) 25:4 159:3,6,16 160:12
irregular (1) 30:23 161:23 162:12,18
irrelevant (2) 136:22 162:23 163:6,25
169:13 164:11 165:14
irresolvable (1) 4:14 166:1,10,15,19,24
Isakov (3) 57:20 58:19 167:3,15 168:23
58:20 169:6,16,20 170:2
isolated (1) 53:18 170:8,14,21 171:15
isolation (1) 141:5 171:21 172:16,19
issue (27) 26:14 30:6 173:3,7,21
30:20 34:8 42:25
46:5 47:25 48:23 K
52:24 53:3 54:23 Kapustin (1) 28:8
65:12 70:13,16
keen (1) 61:13
75:6 79:9 89:16
keep (3) 115:14 171:9
104:17 129:21
172:11
135:11 136:20,22
keeping (2) 79:24
136:23 138:1
173:23
156:15 170:17
kept (3) 1:7 131:24
173:17
161:21
issues (5) 6:6 31:5
key (4) 67:13 68:1,3,4
49:2 53:11 160:16
Khortitsa (1) 60:17
item (2) 82:19,20
kind (14) 17:11 18:9

55:5 80:17 81:10
J
111:3,4 117:20
J1/20/5 (1) 157:13
118:20 119:21
January (4) 93:25 95:1 121:17 132:23
103:14 152:5 168:18,19
job (10) 3:20 4:20 kindly (1) 173:9
9:17 10:10 22:16 Kirov (2) 47:16 49:1
78:17 94:3,10,12 Kirovsky (2) 49:5,19
135:23 knew (6) 21:16,23
jobs (1) 7:2 23:5 57:1 65:22,23
joint (2) 89:12 105:24 know (97) 7:18 8:13
judge (5) 57:8,9 10:21 12:11,20
155:25 156:2 14:10 16:5 17:16
173:25 19:2,5 21:16 22:10
Judging (1) 114:5 28:19,21 29:20
Julia (1) 77:16 30:20 32:17 33:11
June (9) 73:2 77:14 34:11 37:18 38:8
79:17,21 82:5 85:2 40:14 43:4 45:19
107:11 114:13 45:19 48:5,20 53:7
158:13 54:10 56:23 57:25
junior (1) 5:5 57:25 58:2,20,25
jurisdiction (6) 8:23 59:25 62:19 63:13
9:6 13:7,8 48:2 63:16 67:23 68:5
49:20 71:17 72:14 74:12
justice (145) 1:6,12,21 74:14 79:8 80:11
3:25 4:4 7:10 8:8 82:24,25 83:23
9:13,22 10:17,23 88:6,7,8,17,23 91:3
11:11,14,17 12:8 92:11,11 101:10,21
12:11,20 13:4,22 102:17 103:22
14:5,9,16 15:5 104:19,19 106:3
23:21 24:1 29:4,12 109:2,10,10,14
35:23,25 36:21 110:19,24 117:15
37:5,10 38:10,16 119:20 120:2
38:19 52:14 54:10 121:16 123:14
54:17,22 55:3,13 124:9 132:18 134:7
62:12 76:4,8 83:7 136:14 139:8
83:15,23 84:5,8 141:20 154:24
88:14 89:7,18,23 156:15 160:18

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

181

March 4, 2016 Day 22 — Redacted

162:1,19 163:19 167:8,8,9 169:6 170:4 171:8 172:9 172:23 173:10

knowing (1) 162:13 knowledge (12) 16:3 16:5 26:10 35:2

57:23 86:8 101:19 106:4 108:19 116:4 117:14 121:3

known (6) 19:4 24:6 25:7 58:20 65:21 120:15

knows (3) 3:24 110:25 113:16

Kompaniya (2) 62:16

63:5

Korean (2) 125:19

131:3

Kuvshinov (1) 27:23 Kuznetsov (8) 92:1,9 92:11,14,16 93:6

93:25 94:2

L

land (42) 73:4 77:13 77:24 79:1 95:15 95:21,25 96:6,14 96:18 97:4,18,25 98:1,24 100:16,20 101:1,7,19 102:8 102:10,16,17 103:6 103:21 104:13,15 104:21,21,24 105:22 106:15,25 107:18 110:9 119:11 121:5 124:1 127:22 132:19,20

landed (1) 173:24 landing (1) 171:16 landlord (2) 78:2

106:19 landlords (2) 109:17

109:25 language (2) 13:6,8 laptop (5) 120:2

126:17,19,21,24 large (1) 9:16 largely (1) 135:23 larger (1) 109:3 largest (1) 7:22 lasted (1) 120:13 late (2) 134:17 172:2 latest (2) 135:17,17 law (11) 14:3 28:23

29:23 41:11 49:23 76:19 116:18 151:18 152:8 163:17,20

lawful (1) 52:20 lawfully (1) 42:23 lawsuit (1) 69:14 lawyer (3) 48:16 58:15 81:15

lawyers (26) 28:2 30:5 30:22 32:4,7,10 34:1,23 38:2 40:16 41:4,7 43:1,12 48:15 50:5,11 56:20 58:12,13 99:17,18 120:5,8 123:11 126:25

lead (2) 21:6 40:11 leading (1) 58:15 leads (1) 137:7 learned (10) 9:19

16:22 24:11,23 29:13 57:17 119:4

134:13 136:9 LLC (14) 90:1 96:8,15 13:25 14:3,11,24 70:6,12 71:19 106:5 memory (9) 31:12
171:17 96:17 97:4,9,17 15:1 33:19 35:24 77:11,18 89:21 Marketing (1) 15:14 36:3,9 39:14 94:18
lease (24) 71:7,8,18 102:5 103:16 118:6 37:2,7 38:6,6,12,12 102:20 markets (1) 18:20 123:3 132:21,21
71:21,23 72:13,22 118:14 124:4 38:18 39:5 53:25 maintain (1) 167:25 Mars (1) 46:25 171:3
73:4,24 74:11,13 132:17 133:10 53:25 54:12,21 maintaining (1) 5:7 massive (1) 8:2 mention (6) 5:5 62:18
74:25,25 75:15,20 loan (54) 23:15 24:12 55:10 57:16 62:4,9 maintains (2) 52:15 match (1) 133:18 73:10 90:15 113:6
75:22 77:11 78:6 24:19,23 25:5,8 73:11,11,16,21 52:16 mate (1) 23:11 168:1
79:2,5 80:9 81:7,11 26:10,17,21 33:14 75:13 80:2 83:4,19 major (3) 117:22 material (3) 11:14 mentioned (7) 15:16
84:20 33:18 35:5 64:20 84:2,2,6 89:1,24 126:13 127:3 142:19 158:18 20:16 68:8 69:17
leave (9) 11:1 12:2,20 65:18 87:3,6 88:7 90:12 95:8 100:14 majority (1) 11:19 materials (5) 56:15 101:2 133:20
14:20 141:2,3,5 101:20 102:8,14,15 111:13,22,24 121:1 making (6) 5:25 51:6 57:5,11 72:21 88:1 169:13
142:12 171:9 102:20,21 106:20 134:10,20 135:5,19 122:19 138:15,18 mathematics (3) mentioning (1) 15:5
leaves (1) 66:19 106:23 107:11,14 136:13,13,15 153:12 124:15,16 126:8 mentions (1) 49:17
led (1) 162:4 107:17,21 115:17 137:19,22 138:13 Maloi (2) 61:11,20 matinee (1) 167:18 Mercury (43) 90:1
left (12) 94:2,3 95:3 119:16,19 120:3 138:13,18,25 139:4 Malysheva (58) 13:14 matter (19) 8:18 91:2 93:14 97:4,9
121:22 124:25 121:12 123:2 125:2 139:4,20,20,24 16:9,16,17 19:1,4 12:13 54:4 56:8,24 97:10,17,21 98:3,9
133:4 152:15 125:10 126:3,21,22 140:7,7,11,14,14 19:20 20:1,25 56:25 57:22 117:5 98:14,18,23,24,25
158:11,13 160:4 126:23 127:7 128:5 141:3,3,12,17,22 21:12 25:2,4,12 130:20 137:5,9 99:9,11 103:16,19
164:18 165:18 128:15,16 131:19 142:4,6,9,14 27:12 32:19 33:3,4 142:14 154:20 104:5 105:6 107:3
legal (16) 37:15,17 132:15 133:14 151:20 152:3,12,25 33:19 34:13 35:8 162:7,18 166:3 107:10,15 108:7,12
41:6 43:24 44:4 134:11 136:6,16 154:1 155:8 156:12 35:14,17 36:15 173:7,11 174:3 108:17,21 110:1,19
45:14 48:7 50:3,4,5 137:1,5,25 157:5,6 158:2,20 39:21 65:10 68:8 matters (8) 14:21 111:5 112:17
57:14 66:16 67:20 loans (4) 33:24 69:19 159:13,18,22 69:17 70:6 72:25 82:11 134:21 113:13 114:15,19
81:4,8 93:10 69:20 70:11 161:13,15 163:24 73:1 74:4,5,18 151:17 157:12 133:10,21 139:2,6
legislation (2) 161:1,6 location (1) 100:25 164:1,19 165:23,24 76:21 77:9,12,21 160:25 166:19 139:8,13,13,18
length (2) 4:2,23 logged (1) 95:9 166:5,18 169:11,14 78:12 79:5 80:10 173:18 mess (1) 162:17
lengthy (3) 1:18 28:20 logic (17) 70:12 77:9 169:17 171:12 80:25 81:15 110:18 maximum (1) 118:3 messages (1) 69:16
69:24 81:16 84:24 85:4,5 173:2,20 117:1,15,25 151:14 McGregor (1) 159:8 messy (1) 141:6
Leningrad (1) 96:2 100:7 125:8 127:19 Lordship (41) 1:23 3:1 151:24 155:4 156:1 McGregor’s (2) 157:19 met (7) 25:2 28:8
lesson (1) 18:23 127:20,23 128:14 6:8,19 9:12 12:17 157:2,17,24 159:25 163:7 35:15,15,16,19
lessor (1) 76:1 128:15,18 129:2 14:1 15:2,3 38:8 160:16 163:18 McKenzie (4) 158:6,22 43:18
let’s (5) 35:4 44:24 130:17 133:24 52:10 55:20 84:3,6 165:18 168:6 173:14,17 middle (2) 46:13
121:19 129:5 165:7 logical (4) 32:24 33:8 84:12 112:4 136:5 Malysheva’s (5) 33:21 mean (22) 3:24 14:17 70:20
letter (6) 13:24 14:2 84:23 122:1 136:18,25 137:2,22 38:4 76:24 81:21 14:21 15:17 17:18 million (20) 104:23,23
14:10 123:10 logically (2) 122:16 138:13 139:21 165:1 32:18 43:23 44:1,1 106:10,22 107:24
152:25 164:3 134:22 141:12,17 151:23 manage (6) 68:14 67:15 70:17 73:17 108:8 109:6,15,21
letters (1) 162:12 logistical (8) 1:16 2:24 151:25 152:4,9 70:13,14 91:14 88:14,20 93:13 112:19,20,20,22
level (2) 9:8 53:21 5:2,5 8:2,19 9:15 153:4,14 156:8 92:16,17 96:10 105:22 113:20 122:21
leverage (1) 77:23 11:4 160:8 164:5 165:8 management (16) 126:24 130:11 126:11 127:14
Levitskaya (1) 168:9 London (2) 126:17 166:8 167:7 168:3 27:17 32:21 33:15 133:12 137:25 130:18 131:4
life (1) 123:8 140:2 169:18 170:6,18 35:1 45:5 65:6 159:8 132:15
lift (1) 152:21 long (8) 56:23 74:22 Lordship’s (3) 113:22 68:20 69:4 81:12 meaning (1) 27:17 mind (12) 15:3 38:8
lifted (1) 153:2 83:5 125:8 134:18 156:5 169:21 82:10 84:17 98:14 means (5) 18:6 59:20 40:9 50:23 55:7
lifts (1) 130:7 142:1 166:8 168:14 lose (2) 78:8 153:22 98:25 117:9 118:19 83:23 122:15 66:2 78:13 88:19
light (3) 74:20 134:10 longer (7) 1:14 52:11 losing (4) 42:21 73:2 168:16 136:14 122:25 140:24
136:23 95:10 97:13,14 78:17 154:7 manager (7) 19:5,6 meant (4) 73:14 78:23 166:11 169:19
likelihood (1) 134:3 100:12 139:13 loss (1) 119:23 22:6,18 68:9 93:23 80:24 112:11 mine (1) 92:12
likewise (1) 18:3 look (48) 24:24 29:1,3 losses (1) 102:13 94:13 measures (1) 138:4 minor (1) 5:25
limitation (1) 23:7 31:9,10 50:15 57:5 lost (10) 25:21 77:14 manager’s (1) 94:15 mechanism (1) 78:8 minute (3) 11:10
Limited (2) 71:9,14 60:7 61:9,15 71:25 77:21 80:23 85:3 managers (3) 23:25 Medinvest (1) 60:16 59:10 168:3
line (8) 83:5,15 96:1,1 72:10 73:5 75:19 90:13 111:12 112:5 39:25 104:3 meet (1) 39:24 minutes (12) 50:2
96:22 97:17 124:12 75:21 76:10 78:18 118:8 132:2 manages (2) 4:18 meeting (67) 15:2 51:11 59:13 82:10
124:12 83:15 85:19 90:12 lot (9) 62:2 78:3 99:25 87:12 16:22,24 19:1,19 95:11 111:21
lined (1) 172:25 90:14,25 91:13,22 104:21,21,24 managing (4) 5:1,1 19:24,25 21:14 134:17 135:4
lines (4) 3:23 31:10 95:20,23 97:3 163:16 167:10 7:3 81:17 24:4 25:12 27:12 155:23 156:7 159:2
88:16 123:23 100:22 102:23 172:9 manual (1) 83:9 28:5,8,20 29:19 166:21
link (3) 39:11 40:4 103:8 107:7 108:20 lots (2) 57:8 105:22 marbles (1) 154:7 32:5,19,23 33:3,10 minutes’ (1) 166:9
119:6 111:1 119:16 122:1 low (3) 9:20 12:18 March (48) 1:1 17:2 33:19 34:2,6 35:8 misapprehension (1)
linked (2) 40:2 41:18 122:5,5 123:10,18 104:24 21:8 23:3 26:8 27:3 35:12,14,17,20 164:18
links (3) 62:4 71:4 131:9,10,12 133:19 LPK (12) 103:10 29:14,20,21,24 38:14,21,24 39:17 misleading (6) 36:22
73:13 138:23 159:6 104:12,15 106:23 30:18 31:14,22,25 39:21 40:1,2,14 93:15 115:12
list (7) 17:24 18:6 163:10 171:7,7 107:2,18 110:9 32:1 33:14,16 36:5 49:13,18 50:10 153:16,17 168:18
91:22 132:17,23 looked (8) 30:1 31:19 112:16 113:1 132:4 36:18,24 37:3,6,6,9 51:12 52:21 57:22 misled (1) 27:15
133:13 163:8 37:22 97:2 113:17 133:12,13 37:11,16,20,22,24 58:11,13,14,16,17 misremembering (1)
lists (1) 161:10 115:18 133:24 lunch (1) 84:14 38:2 46:23,24 47:1 58:18,24 59:1,8,10 164:1
literally (5) 35:10,13 138:20 Luncheon (1) 84:10 60:17 61:12,21,24 59:11,13,17,18,19 missing (1) 159:13
35:18 40:23 59:22 looking (17) 17:4 luxury (1) 11:17 62:23,23 63:7 67:8 59:21,23 65:17 mistake (3) 73:6,19
litigating (2) 40:11 23:20 37:7 66:4 67:25 91:19 92:2 67:10,11 82:10 121:1
41:1 72:1,3 83:9 85:8,10 M 92:21 152:18 108:24,25 116:10 mistaken (4) 29:17
litigation (12) 4:19 7:3 96:11,12 97:16,25 M1/20/51 (1) 54:13 171:23 174:7 116:15 45:10 101:2 114:7
9:25 10:21 40:9,25 107:19 122:18 margin (1) 73:13 meetings (20) 24:5 mistakenly (1) 103:7
magical (1) 6:14
43:20 49:25 56:1,9 173:9,11 Marine (11) 19:22 28:3,10 31:13 mistrust (3) 58:13
magnificent (1) 10:9
137:7,25 looks (6) 7:16,19 47:8 22:7,17,21 24:9 32:15 35:20 36:4 65:24,25
Magnum (8) 2:14,21
little (12) 1:19 2:24 80:5 109:22 124:16 25:19 26:15 28:5 40:18,19,21,23 mixture (1) 61:3
3:6,13 11:22 95:8
6:22 19:13 36:22 Lord (123) 1:8,9,22 43:19 51:21 69:15 42:7 46:6 47:25 moderation (1) 10:25
119:1 171:3
55:6 91:22 93:21 3:24 5:21 6:15 7:6 mark (1) 174:1 53:5,12 60:20 Moike (2) 61:11,21
mailbox (1) 159:11
100:12 133:2 7:9 8:7 9:14 10:15 marked (4) 3:17,18 65:17,19 68:4 moment (23) 10:17
main (13) 43:9,19
152:19 154:20 10:20 11:9 12:7,15 100:21 124:2 member (2) 4:18 13:16 28:23 42:6
49:22 69:11,16,16
lived (1) 22:1 12:16,25 13:3,20 market (3) 86:7 89:3 116:16 42:15 54:14 55:13

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

182

March 4, 2016 Day 22 — Redacted

60:24 66:12 69:3 73:23 80:6 83:5 84:16 85:11 96:12 128:3,5 132:11 136:12 159:19 160:4,9
Monday (9) 134:24 135:8,24 140:1 152:5 159:21 171:10 173:5,25

Monday,7 (1) 174:7 money (19) 11:22 19:11,12 89:14 101:14 117:6

124:25 125:23,23 126:11 127:21,22 128:11,17 129:15 129:25 130:9,13,16

monitored (1) 130:22 month (5) 76:12

100:12,13 121:24 156:2

morning (15) 1:6,8,9 1:11 4:11 13:21 14:13,15 15:12 35:14 152:19 153:7 154:10 155:12,22

Morskoy (26) 23:16 24:11 25:1,16,20 25:24 26:3,20,22 27:4,6,9,13 33:6,14 33:18 34:20 35:5 35:11,15 64:20 65:18,21 70:11 87:3 88:7

mortgage (1) 108:1 Moscow (1) 15:19 motivation (1) 43:9 mouse (1) 4:25 move (6) 5:10 13:11

27:16 85:10 106:13 132:1

moved (3) 2:10 125:2 125:4

moving (4) 63:3 65:3 70:19 142:18

myriad (1) 5:2 mystery (2) 6:14

127:17

N

N1 (1) 114:20

N9/9/36 (1) 102:25 name (8) 26:6 46:24

92:1 94:5,15 104:6 105:9 118:7

named (2) 103:18 158:16

names (1) 61:6 nature (4) 74:14

126:10 128:2 130:2 navigate (1) 91:9 Naziya (2) 66:5 82:23 near (1) 93:22

nearly (3) 153:12 155:20 156:9 neat (2) 152:13

163:22 necessarily (1) 93:14 necessary (10) 32:20

83:20 84:18 136:8 138:3 139:15 153:24 165:22 166:13 171:13

need (37) 3:2 7:9 15:2 20:17 21:3 34:21 51:17,18 52:11 53:14 57:5,18

62:18 65:8 71:25 74:20 85:21 94:8 98:21 106:12 119:16 123:5 126:14 134:14,15 135:12,24 136:11 139:12 140:12 141:18 142:7 154:24 166:25 167:5 169:17 173:19

needed (5) 94:8 95:3 95:3 104:14 139:16

needs (10) 2:20 3:3,4 18:18 53:11 54:5 86:12 103:24 109:24 159:20

negotiate (1) 160:10 negotiations (3) 20:17

21:3,7

neither (2) 53:23

121:8

net (1) 155:11

never (11) 20:14 66:2 70:12 119:21 121:16 124:25 127:25 128:1,1 162:23 171:20

nevertheless (4) 12:9 22:24 138:9 162:6

new (1) 117:9 newspaper (2) 103:5

104:6

nominal (2) 82:4 115:9

nominated (1) 158:3 non (1) 152:22 nonacceptance (1)

83:16

normal (2) 8:23 169:3

North (3) 31:4 50:9,11

Northwestern (3)

26:1,4 63:5 noted (1) 10:4 notes (2) 30:7 90:13 notice (13) 28:4,12,17

29:14,19,24 30:19 37:20 38:1,25 39:20 60:20 166:9

notices (22) 30:22,24 30:25 31:12,17,24 34:2 36:3,7,10,13 36:18 37:8,16,18 37:22 39:3 41:20 48:1 49:18 56:6 60:23

notification (1) 67:9 notifications (6) 28:22

30:2 31:5 32:11,16 47:10

notified (4) 34:7 50:9 50:14 58:14

notwithstanding (3)

10:6 11:4,20

November (6) 96:19 96:25 97:5,19 124:3 157:20

null (1) 42:19 number (18) 45:6

47:11 72:4 80:1 95:25 104:16 119:16 120:3 126:5 126:6,21,22 127:1 127:5 152:8,24 168:7 170:11

numbering (1) 62:3 numbers (2) 72:5

111:12

O

oath (3) 30:14 127:12 127:15
object (4) 127:6 141:25 160:7 168:24

objection (1) 127:9 objective (5) 33:24 68:9 70:6 130:16

130:21 objectives (1) 126:12 obligation (1) 117:4 oblige (1) 56:13 obtain (2) 13:15 26:12 obtained (6) 25:5,9,14

25:25 32:4 33:5 obvious (3) 13:4
22:15 40:4 obviously (20) 4:20

6:24 9:16 17:15 32:18 33:12 34:22 60:18 61:16 64:11 64:19 67:4 82:3 93:12,15 114:13 120:21 137:9 161:18 172:13

occasion (2) 138:10 142:15

occasions (2) 3:22 22:25

occurred (1) 23:2 October (8) 116:2

117:13 121:23,24 122:20 124:21 157:8,11

odd (4) 61:3 118:25 153:10 170:10

oddly (1) 66:6 offer (3) 110:2,16

123:6 official (1) 26:1
Oh (3) 37:5 170:2,21 Okay (4) 1:21 9:13

47:4 84:5 old (1) 126:24

OMG (15) 15:25 20:12 24:6 30:6 39:25 42:2,9 45:16,17 53:7 58:15 86:4 120:15,18 128:22

OMG’s (1) 22:25

OMGP (4) 6:13 57:23 58:4,18

once (13) 3:15 4:16 4:19 6:1 32:11 81:14 113:12 119:19 129:21 134:20 136:6 154:16,21

one-by-one (1) 75:11 Onega (26) 103:9,10 107:1,5,6,15,18,19

110:9 113:1,2 115:17 116:4 118:15 119:11 121:3,4,5 123:23 124:2,12,12 132:4 132:19,20 133:12

online (1) 29:11 open (7) 11:14 13:1

90:22 92:13 162:8 168:1,15

operational (6) 80:19 81:2,5,6,8,19 operations (7) 21:1 32:8,13 93:18

94:24 105:5 121:10

opinion (1) 76:24

opportunity (1) 20:5 152:8,10 95:12 131:14 planning (1) 13:18
opposed (3) 15:24 paid (11) 5:9 41:13,14 pay (6) 43:15 101:6 platform (6) 117:20
103:11 113:2 41:15 43:12 49:11 108:12 114:8 130:6 117:21,22,23 118:1
opted (1) 117:25 88:3 101:12,13 130:7 118:4
options (7) 17:10,13 109:20 124:6 payable (1) 76:13 Platonov (1) 113:13
17:19 18:4,6 20:8 papers (2) 132:2 paying (1) 11:25 play (1) 152:1
74:24 139:3 payment (5) 113:9,18 played (3) 99:5,12
Opus (1) 5:25 paragraph (27) 17:8 114:6 125:16 133:21
order (21) 1:19 8:24 24:24 31:9 35:25 127:13 playing (1) 70:3
17:19 64:9 84:25 38:7 46:14 50:19 payments (6) 101:11 pleading (4) 172:5,8,8
98:23 102:21 50:20 51:10,18,19 101:12,15 112:21 172:22
104:14 115:5 52:2,4,12,13 54:13 127:16 168:15 pleadings (1) 170:5
134:15 157:6,7,14 59:4,15 70:19 peculiarity (1) 113:7 please (15) 8:8 24:25
160:5,9 163:3 71:13 85:8,21 86:1 pencilled (1) 166:10 47:13 55:20 64:2
164:21 165:10 90:12,14 103:19 pending (1) 2:4 68:24 80:21 84:12
166:2 170:7 172:12 157:14 penultimate (1) 36:2 88:16 112:4 136:5
ordered (1) 157:24 paragraphs (6) 16:20 people (12) 9:2,20 140:3 151:24
orderly (1) 172:11 38:14 51:8,9 53:18 10:8 13:6,8 16:12 166:23,25
ordinarily (1) 8:6 157:21 20:17 41:14 117:19 pleased (2) 134:22
ordinary (3) 11:24 parallel (2) 91:9,12 140:15 141:7,23 136:6
13:7,9 pardon (4) 69:1 95:8 perceived (1) 23:3 pledge (5) 79:24
organisation (3) 116:9 113:17,23 perception (1) 24:2 104:22 105:24
125:24 130:1 parent (1) 26:11 perfect (2) 78:20 108:20 116:14
organisations (1) Paris (5) 1:25 3:6 5:11 79:19 pledged (8) 78:2
31:20 6:9 8:3 perfectly (2) 105:11 79:25 101:20
organised (1) 61:17 part (52) 2:9,17 4:1,19 133:3 102:16 106:15,19
organising (1) 104:1 6:16 7:12 9:25 16:1 perform (1) 117:3 107:20 108:4
original (7) 45:3,5 17:13 22:3 30:16 performance (1) pledger (2) 73:4 77:20
62:14 69:5,25 32:13 34:3 37:21 167:19 pledges (2) 81:22 85:1
119:4 158:5 44:4 45:18 46:1,2 perils (1) 10:21 plot (22) 77:13 95:24
originally (1) 90:4 47:6 48:1 49:22 period (9) 63:19 74:17 96:6,14,18 97:5,18
orthodox (1) 160:6 64:24 65:25 66:19 82:3 90:18 99:25 97:25 100:16,20
Oslo (9) 19:22 22:7,17 68:22 69:7,23,25 100:2 121:25,25 101:7,19 102:8,10
22:21 24:9 28:5 70:1,17 87:24 139:9 102:16,17 103:6,21
43:19 51:21 69:15 105:8 106:16 periods (1) 139:7 104:11,13,15
Otis (1) 130:7 107:18 109:10,10 permission (1) 141:22 127:22
ought (3) 49:11 66:19 113:1,2 114:2 permitting (1) 14:7 plots (4) 98:1,24
89:14 116:4 118:15,22 person (5) 9:24 10:22 101:1 104:12
outcome (1) 54:5 120:19 121:10 110:16 120:20 plugged (1) 10:2
outline (1) 133:19 128:10 129:1 132:4 168:14 plus (3) 70:9 106:10
outlined (1) 14:1 133:12 135:19 personal (8) 12:5 109:15
outlook (1) 10:14 158:21 160:22 42:25,25 43:14 pm (9) 83:7 84:8,9,11
outset (2) 3:1 158:4 172:12 105:15 152:23,23 112:1,3 136:1,3
outsider (1) 7:16 participants (2) 34:2,6 152:24 174:6
outstanding (2) 157:1 participated (1) personally (10) 28:24 pocket (1) 124:9
173:7 105:14 30:7 34:11 39:12 point (47) 2:6 4:24 6:7
overdue (3) 83:17,24 participating (1) 39:12 40:17 42:23 44:10 7:21,22 12:16,17
83:25 participation (6) 41:18 58:14 90:22 131:15 13:12 14:25 15:21
overlooked (2) 113:9 65:13 105:3 118:2 persons (1) 142:11 16:24 17:3 38:6,10
114:12 118:3 121:11 pertaining (2) 48:23 41:16 52:7 65:21
owed (1) 22:16 particular (18) 3:2 98:13 68:3,5 70:5 81:12
owned (10) 31:2 6:16 18:1,19 21:13 Petersburg (13) 23:5,6 97:1,23 98:17
90:18 96:6,14 47:18 53:10 98:11 25:8 90:22 103:4,5 134:22 138:15,18
97:21 103:10 107:2 106:19 108:23 104:22 107:10 139:1 141:19 152:1
115:18,19 133:13 109:1,2,12,22 111:5 119:18 125:5 154:23 155:2,3
owner (4) 26:25 51:22 118:4 134:8 164:16 125:13 131:2 156:18,18 157:5
96:8 97:4 165:3 PhDs (1) 21:25 160:13 165:4,13,16
ownership (1) 96:23 particularly (2) 7:15 phone (1) 140:15 165:17,23 169:18
owns (1) 87:12 10:2 phrase (1) 83:10 169:24 170:3,9
particulars (1) 20:21 pick (3) 15:21 18:8 172:4
P parties (3) 1:22 7:4 157:5 points (19) 3:14 4:7
page (47) 46:13 47:3 21:3 picking (1) 86:23 7:11 13:12 46:15
partly (4) 12:12,13 picture (1) 110:19 56:7 68:1 84:13
47:11 48:18 50:17
83:25 173:4 pity (2) 12:9 73:6 153:12,22 154:2
50:19,23 51:2,17
parts (9) 2:5,5,22 3:2 place (10) 2:20 16:24 167:17,21 169:2,4
51:19 52:1,3,4,11
6:5 106:9 112:25 30:11 61:12,21 169:22 171:14,16
52:12,17 61:1 64:2
113:1 161:3 63:15 64:12,23 172:17
66:6 67:1 76:9
party (6) 21:5 23:10 116:16,19 police (1) 41:25
82:17 88:16 91:17
34:15 88:5 161:19 places (2) 101:1 163:8 politeness (1) 12:13
91:23 92:4 93:23
164:23 plain (3) 8:12 11:3 poorly (1) 162:22
95:24 96:7 100:22
passed (3) 59:17 79:2 160:23 port (1) 21:17
107:12,13 108:15
96:23 plainly (1) 13:23 Porter (2) 140:13,13
111:6,8,8 112:14
passing (1) 86:23 plan (8) 68:22 69:7 ports (3) 20:3 28:5
112:23 113:5,11
passport (1) 168:7 70:17 81:1 87:23 43:19
122:6 132:12,22
path (1) 40:5 92:14 105:20 Ports’ (1) 51:21
154:10 170:11,12
paths (1) 87:8 132:10 position (23) 1:13
175:2
patience (1) 169:21 planned (5) 87:23 5:21 13:13 14:3
pages (7) 46:11 47:13
Pause (7) 29:8 47:3 90:22 92:13 94:12 15:23 23:19 33:21
73:18 79:16 133:3
50:21 52:9,16 94:13 77:20 127:12

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

183

March 4, 2016 Day 22 — Redacted

132:18 136:15,19 presumes (1) 18:3 produced (2) 119:22
141:15 153:9,16 presumption (1) 170:19
159:24 162:2,24 162:8 producing (1) 172:24
164:4 165:10,24 presupposed (1) 77:9 production (1) 160:24
166:3 173:5 pretext (1) 125:2 professional (2) 53:15
positioned (1) 117:23 pretty (1) 65:22 141:10
possession (5) 30:3,3 previous (3) 92:5 progress (2) 140:8
93:6 128:12 155:7 113:8 159:23 167:23
possibility (2) 27:14 previously (2) 29:2 project (32) 15:25
81:22 55:6 16:11 46:2 65:3,13
possible (28) 20:23 price (10) 104:23 70:2,3 92:18 93:1,4
32:9 33:7,10 47:11 106:5,7,7,9,10 93:8,8,18 94:4,12
50:9,12 51:7 65:11 108:8 110:3 115:7 94:13,14,17 119:11
71:23 72:9,10 123:17 119:19 120:11,15
74:24,25 76:19 Prichaly (4) 114:21 120:15,16,19
79:6 80:10,16,22 132:16 133:10,21 121:14 123:6
80:25 81:10 85:1 Pridorozhneo (1) 96:3 126:13 127:5 128:6
126:5 129:5,6 prima (1) 160:14 128:10 130:9
134:14 139:10 primary (1) 155:5 projects (7) 20:7,16
166:21 principal (2) 56:19 65:7 86:6,23 127:3
possibly (10) 26:23 112:18 128:21
27:8 45:23 62:1,22 principle (5) 21:2 34:5 promise (1) 135:1
69:9 75:1 78:10 76:22 104:1 130:1 proper (2) 89:13
121:5 155:10 principles (4) 17:25 170:15
posted (2) 3:15 11:19 19:21 20:15 26:22 properly (10) 3:7 4:6
potential (3) 20:1 printout (1) 91:2 6:21 9:19 44:14
44:22 69:14 prior (9) 25:2,7 28:7 49:13 53:13 62:5
power (8) 25:22 26:1 31:19 32:6,23 33:2 84:3 128:15
26:2 41:5,7,11 110:8,10 property (9) 76:2 79:1
155:7 157:2 priority (3) 9:20 12:18 79:25 125:12,18,21
powerful (1) 167:22 17:23 127:4 130:6 131:3
powers (2) 49:14 private (17) 2:6,10,16 prophylactic (1) 138:3
51:12 2:17 3:17,18,23 proposal (15) 14:1,13
practical (2) 152:12 6:10,16,23 135:12 46:17 56:4 78:10
165:5 142:11,16,18,22 80:5 135:10 152:7
practically (1) 25:4 168:8 175:7 154:21 156:9,23
practice (2) 102:12 privilege (1) 86:23 161:4,24 164:15
142:14 pro (1) 83:11 166:7
practising (1) 48:16 probability (1) 129:8 proposals (1) 156:24
pragmatic (1) 165:5 probably (13) 4:1 6:20 propose (4) 70:22
precautionary (2) 30:1 67:22 101:10 134:17 161:24
137:20 138:3 113:24 122:15 172:14
preceding (1) 154:13 127:10 134:11 proposed (11) 71:21
precipitate (1) 142:17 140:6 156:11 73:24 74:12,16
precisely (1) 117:20 162:22 168:24 78:21 82:20,24
prefer (3) 141:4 problem (14) 4:5 18:9 142:20 162:3,25
142:15 163:10 18:18,18 19:17 164:9
preferable (4) 17:17 20:4 77:18 102:13 proposing (2) 152:21
18:12,16 19:12 105:20 141:7 163:4 171:18
premised (1) 136:24 166:22 171:7 proposition (3) 17:22
preparation (2) 33:1 173:15 117:18 164:25
57:13 problematic (3) 17:15 proprietor (2) 20:18
prepare (2) 168:2 21:4 44:20 26:24
172:10 problems (6) 18:17 prospects (1) 141:15
prepared (1) 48:4 21:15,18 23:6,12 protect (5) 69:9,13
preparing (7) 33:6 172:11 70:6 74:20 165:11
37:4,21 75:7 80:14 procedure (2) 29:2 protected (2) 151:18
88:8,11 89:6 161:1
present (18) 20:25 proceed (1) 55:11 protection (1) 163:18
28:2,3 32:18 40:17 proceedings (36) 1:3 protocol (6) 26:18
50:6,8,12,13 57:22 8:12 28:21 31:21 27:3 168:9 170:1
57:25 58:1,11,22 34:16 41:10,19,21 172:5,21
85:6 140:22 156:19 41:22 42:2,9,22 provide (8) 56:4 58:24
172:8 43:20,25 44:2,10 75:3,9 79:23
presented (3) 2:11 44:25 45:18,23,24 125:25 126:3
104:9 117:23 47:22 48:14,17 130:19
presently (1) 173:17 56:16,21 57:2,13 provided (15) 12:24
preserve (1) 19:9 58:3 65:4,9 69:24 26:19 27:3 56:22
press (3) 13:6 130:18 78:16 88:9 123:11 56:22 94:20 99:2
164:7 156:1 169:7 100:6 125:12,15,19
pressed (1) 129:14 process (14) 2:20 4:13 127:16 167:20
pressures (1) 14:23 4:15 9:9 11:24 168:18 172:9
presumably (12) 32:14 37:21 57:15 providing (3) 24:20
18:25 22:15 58:2 86:10 137:16 44:19 99:16
83:2 88:3 92:19 138:11 153:10 provisional (2) 160:21
101:13 105:9 158:18 161:10 161:13
116:21 126:16 processes (1) 68:19 provisions (6) 76:19
127:7 130:23 produce (4) 2:21 6:12 77:1 106:16 161:5
presume (1) 114:23 46:20 170:4 162:5 163:17

pub (5) 90:22 92:13 93:4,8 94:17
public (22) 2:5,16 3:8 3:11,16 8:12,13 11:6 13:1 86:7 103:6 104:20 106:18 117:16 139:19 141:2 151:12,13 168:14 169:8,9 175:8

publication (1) 103:4 publicity (1) 173:14 publicly (2) 139:7

141:16 pull (1) 159:12

pulled (3) 53:11,14 57:3

purchase (6) 42:3,7 60:22 65:14 79:6 104:13

purchaser (2) 62:15 62:15

purchasers (6) 45:3,5 45:6 69:5,6 70:1 purchasing (2) 86:5

110:2

purely (8) 19:25 20:3 21:10 98:9 99:5 101:9 105:7 115:9

purpose (4) 5:18 69:11 84:16 94:25

purposes (3) 83:2 126:12 130:13 pursue (1) 165:13

put (24) 3:11 12:18 17:23 31:22 33:17 36:17 37:23 54:3,6 55:1 72:8 77:4 83:16,23 101:22 110:6 115:16 124:11 141:10 152:7 156:23 162:16,22 163:21

putting (4) 6:19 9:24 69:2 136:13

Q

quarter (2) 63:20,23 query (1) 2:4 question (15) 32:25

33:19 43:11 54:23 55:8 60:21 68:24 74:22 87:18 91:6 120:20 122:7 124:15 126:6 133:23

questioning (2)

136:17,23 questions (9) 4:16

6:11 15:9 55:24 66:24 77:4 84:14 95:16 110:20

quicker (2) 64:4 134:13

quickly (6) 33:21,22 61:18 120:1 131:9 138:14

quite (48) 3:7 4:6 6:14 6:21 7:18 8:7,12 9:22 10:13 11:12 25:11,12,18 30:20 34:2,19 41:12 43:6 45:6 49:1 50:8,12 53:4,8 60:21 62:22 69:11 72:5 80:23 88:19 103:22 105:1 108:18 117:7 118:23 134:18

135:1 138:14 140:11 141:8 151:25 159:22 160:13 163:16,22 167:9 169:17 170:2
quote (1) 33:20

R

raise (2) 6:7 27:9 range (1) 46:17 rare (1) 129:10 rate (5) 30:9 101:6

131:18,22,24 rationale (1) 78:9 re-argue (1) 34:21 re-examination (1)

57:18 re-examine (2) 54:7

75:14 reached (1) 52:10

read (24) 36:6 38:14 38:19 47:2,5,5 48:17 50:19 52:7 52:11,17,18 79:20 85:24 86:1 88:8,10 89:9 126:14 132:14 132:24 154:6,9 173:16

readable (1) 132:8 readily (2) 7:14 157:7 reading (1) 122:1 ready (4) 4:17 69:23

69:24 166:7 real (1) 82:22 realisation (7) 85:13

86:10 87:14 110:13 117:5 128:20,25

realised (1) 43:17 realising (1) 9:5 realistic (4) 17:17

18:12 121:6 160:13 reality (1) 105:4 really (55) 5:4 11:10

16:17 17:4,15 21:12 24:18 31:7 34:23 36:9 38:9 40:7,10,12 47:3 56:22 61:6 63:13 66:8 69:11,12 73:6 73:9 81:10,11 83:19 87:14 88:6 94:10 95:5 99:7,19 99:24,24 100:17 105:2 114:2,25 116:5 119:23,24 121:21 122:8,24 126:7 127:17 131:5 135:16 141:5 152:19 158:17 159:24 162:10,24 163:3

realms (1) 13:1 reappear (1) 15:4 reason (14) 2:10 5:18

33:11 56:14 66:16 67:18,22 83:19 86:9 89:15 95:9 118:25 125:24 165:9

reasonable (3) 157:15 172:6,24

reasonably (1) 4:22 reasoned (1) 166:6 reasoning (1) 133:24 reasons (12) 2:11 8:25 42:5 57:9 62:24,24

62:25 105:3 153:21 160:8 165:21

167:11 reassurance (1) 80:14 reassured (1) 138:23 recall (54) 17:1 28:19

36:12 37:23 39:8 39:19,20,21 40:3 40:22 45:11,21,25 46:3 47:20 48:20 49:2 53:10 59:18 64:14,23 65:1,20 66:9,14,17 67:13 74:5 76:20 83:22 90:8,9 93:1 94:2 95:4 98:3 99:4 100:24 101:3,8 115:25 116:1,10,17 118:3 122:19 123:1 126:12 130:11,12 131:20 132:3 133:23 171:23

receive (3) 26:16 89:4 162:14

received (13) 6:2 14:11,14,14 27:5 33:4 108:25 109:14 124:6 128:17 153:7 154:10 155:16

receiving (1) 109:8 recitals (1) 50:8 recollect (3) 17:3

72:24 163:16

recollection (15)

31:15 32:1 49:3 52:9 60:18 61:22 65:16 66:11 72:18 73:23 114:24 122:24 126:14 127:11 128:3

recollections (1) 32:3 reconsider (1) 153:9 record (8) 26:4,17,19 27:3 58:1 72:2 92:2

158:6

recorded (3) 51:5 58:8 82:15

records (2) 120:1

141:2

recover (3) 19:7,11 117:6

recovering (1) 20:22 redact (1) 2:22 redacted (12) 3:3 6:6

142:23 143:1 144:1 145:1 146:1 147:1 148:1 149:1 150:1 151:1

redactions (4) 3:9 6:1 152:20 153:2

redoubled (1) 11:2 reduced (1) 131:18 refer (4) 70:20,21 121:22 137:4 reference (13) 57:16 57:21 71:19,19

91:1 103:2 108:1,3 111:11 112:25 121:13 133:14 159:23

referenced (1) 125:10 references (7) 40:25

72:11 108:4 137:13 159:13 163:7,8

referred (5) 13:23 154:11 157:12 169:15 171:5

referring (2) 72:4

168:6

refers (4) 121:22,24 122:16 127:1

refinancing (8) 17:11 17:17,20 18:1,10 20:10 131:21,23

reflect (1) 63:22 reflected (1) 56:13 reflection (1) 166:4 refresh (2) 52:8

126:14 refurbish (2) 127:21

130:6 refurbished (1)

125:18

refurbishment (2)

125:12,21

regard (25) 16:11 18:1 18:5 23:22 31:6 40:16 41:23 42:13 42:17,18 45:11,12 48:21 64:15 65:5 65:12 67:17 87:11 104:22 156:21 160:16 165:21 171:21 172:2 173:5

regarding (2) 79:24 109:1

regards (4) 139:13

157:1 161:11,11 regime (1) 125:22 region (5) 96:3 107:23

109:6,21 113:19 register (2) 46:20 56:4 registered (12) 46:22

59:9,14 62:1 93:10 94:5,14 96:8 97:4 97:18 98:3 100:1

registration (5) 63:2 75:23 91:20,25 97:12

Registry (2) 95:16,21 regularly (1) 10:18 reiterate (3) 48:25

101:9 129:22 reject (1) 164:21 relate (3) 38:24 138:1

160:17

related (7) 120:7,10 121:13 127:18 128:17 131:7 152:22

relates (3) 45:2 95:24 113:7

relating (3) 160:15 164:15 168:13 relation (19) 13:21

15:25 24:19 28:18 28:19 44:3,19 54:8 64:11 65:18 76:18 77:15 106:20 128:6 141:18 155:8 161:16 164:20 170:24

relations (1) 49:21 relationship (6) 44:12

44:13 49:9 86:19 131:6 160:15

relationships (6) 44:7 49:24 86:17,18 87:1 88:22

relax (1) 138:24 relay (1) 76:24 release (1) 171:25 relevance (1) 165:3 relevant (11) 62:22

136:20 137:6 138:20 139:7 153:1 155:1 157:21 158:9 165:22 170:12

reliance (1) 11:24 relied (1) 73:7

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

184
March 4, 2016 Day 22 — Redacted

relying (1) 72:7 repeating (2) 80:8 restate (2) 68:7,24 round (3) 5:6 70:20 save (2) 172:14,18 51:19 52:25 63:22 102:21

remained (2) 93:5 81:14 restructuring (6) 156:13 saw (6) 13:22 37:8,11 65:12 71:3,25 86:3 send (1) 159:5
158:7 rephrase (1) 37:4 17:12,18,20 18:3 route (1) 141:10 37:22 108:23 103:19 112:12 sending (4) 48:1
remains (2) 136:22 replace (15) 28:10 18:11 20:11 row (1) 168:25 110:18 123:19 131:17 99:17 130:13 156:3
166:10 32:20 33:15,25 result (2) 56:19 RPC (33) 2:1,20 3:9,16 saying (27) 21:11 22:9 157:5 159:9 163:7 sends (2) 155:21
remarkably (1) 5:11 34:25 36:16 37:25 124:13 4:6,18 5:1,3,6,14 32:15 34:11 37:19 165:17 170:3 163:6
remedy (1) 163:5 38:4 42:1 66:15 results (1) 35:18 5:17 6:3,23 7:1 38:15 51:4 56:12 secondly (7) 42:8 45:1 sense (5) 8:9 12:10
remember (52) 1:22 68:9,16,16 69:3 retain (1) 157:17 9:15,24 10:3 12:25 57:1 71:13,15,24 50:5 57:14 69:20 81:3 125:6 126:8
13:25 15:25 28:14 81:12 retainment (1) 81:19 13:23 73:5,9 85:5 87:15 88:20 104:9 106:17 sensible (3) 14:8
28:23 29:17 30:10 replaced (7) 27:17,18 retract (1) 58:21 140:21 141:2,17,20 93:14 99:10 105:2 seconds (2) 15:1 139:20 159:4
30:15,21,23 31:17 27:22 33:22 41:19 return (6) 19:7,10,12 142:1 154:12 156:3 128:13 129:1,3 171:11 sensitive (1) 161:19
31:18,18,21 32:5,7 66:20 84:25 135:7,8,25 158:7 159:10 167:9 140:15 155:23 secret (2) 154:4 sensitivities (1)
32:13 34:24 36:13 replacement (6) 33:2 revealed (1) 160:18 168:4,18 162:19 164:6,13 155:13 137:23
36:15 39:22,23,25 36:14 39:15 41:23 revelation (1) 163:12 RUB (24) 93:9,12,13 165:7 section (7) 18:1 96:2,7 sent (28) 3:12 4:10,17
40:1 56:11,16,17 45:4 68:19 reverse (1) 99:21 93:15,17,20 103:21 says (11) 18:4 29:13 96:22 108:14 13:21 14:12 28:15
57:14 59:22 60:2 replacing (4) 34:12 revert (1) 152:11 104:22,23 106:5,10 36:1 56:12 58:6 111:11 169:9 31:17,25 36:7,18
65:9 72:23 76:22 39:22 67:15,16 review (1) 99:19 107:20,24 108:8,8 83:24 114:7 121:15 sections (2) 3:16,18 36:19 37:3,5,6,8,13
76:22 79:4 92:23 replied (1) 156:6 reviewed (2) 40:10 109:6,21 110:10 154:3 155:12 sectors (1) 21:20 37:14,19,20,23
95:2 98:7,8,12,22 reply (1) 156:4 55:7 115:8 122:11,15 161:19 secured (1) 80:19 39:3,20 129:25
101:21 106:20,22 repo (6) 21:16 25:6 reviewing (1) 6:4 123:3 124:14 Sberbank (1) 117:21 see (138) 10:14 12:1 155:15,19 156:7
109:5,6 117:8 69:9,22 70:7,9 revisit (1) 79:9 132:15 scaled (1) 132:11 21:22 24:15 25:8 157:23 173:9
118:4 152:3 163:15 report (3) 125:15 revolve (2) 68:4,17 RUB207 (1) 122:21 scan (29) 27:22,23 29:20 30:1 32:3,7 sentence (8) 36:2,21
169:16 170:18 168:17 173:16 Reynolds (2) 140:13 rude (1) 14:17 28:18,18 60:16 36:17 44:17,23 38:7,20,23 86:3
remembered (2) 36:7 reporting (1) 11:15 140:13 rule (2) 18:16 162:1 61:11 68:20 69:5 46:8,13,18 47:15 88:17,24
97:15 reports (2) 103:6,13 right (98) 3:19 6:5 ruled (2) 57:6,9 70:4,10 80:20 82:5 48:12,13 49:22 sentences (1) 85:11
remind (5) 38:20 92:8 Repos (1) 83:18 7:10 11:9 15:20 rules (5) 153:18,19,24 82:21 84:17 103:11 50:7,7,10,15,22 separately (3) 41:13
131:19,21 168:8 representation (2) 20:8 21:24 23:13 173:10,14 113:2 115:18,19,19 51:14 52:3 53:22 41:14 155:3
reminds (1) 12:25 36:7 41:9 24:11,21 25:16 ruling (3) 53:15 54:1,8 116:5,22 117:10 59:6 60:15,22 September (1) 157:8
remit (1) 110:22 representative (8) 26:10 27:7,11,16 rulings (1) 53:8 118:15 119:11 61:16,20,23 64:5,7 September/October…
remittance (2) 125:25 23:4,14 26:11,24 28:6 29:22 30:9,19 run (2) 6:18 169:8 121:5 123:12 124:1 70:21,24 71:7 157:6
130:14 50:11 51:21 57:23 35:8,22 36:11,21 run-up (1) 1:19 132:19,20 72:20 73:1 75:24 sequence (9) 7:20
removed (1) 102:11 58:5 42:1,10,11 44:17 Russia (8) 13:6 15:17 Scandinavia (19) 76:11,13,16,16,18 64:24 65:17 66:3,9
removing (1) 142:16 representatives (3) 46:4 55:1,23 57:7 15:18,19 28:21 29:17 31:1,13 36:4 77:17 79:7 82:15 66:14,18 67:8
remunerated (4) 43:19 50:6,16 57:16 59:1 61:7,16 31:21 100:9 117:18 103:11 104:11,12 82:18 84:4 87:2 111:19
87:10,18,20,23 representing (3) 41:4 61:19 64:19 68:18 Russian (85) 14:3 106:23 107:2 88:1 91:2,19,24 sequences (1) 69:13
remuneration (2) 89:4 41:14 43:12 70:19 71:10 73:21 15:15 26:10 28:23 112:16 116:11,13 92:1,7 93:22,24 series (1) 69:12
109:8 reputation (1) 43:1 73:25 74:17 75:24 29:1,5,9,23 30:21 117:2 120:11,16,17 95:24,25 96:6,13 serious (1) 39:16
Renord (88) 24:14,16 request (3) 140:19 77:3 80:20 81:13 30:24 32:12,14 120:18 121:4 97:3,5,10,11,17 seriously (2) 9:5,9
24:19 28:2 30:22 157:13 158:10 82:3 83:7 84:22 34:9,22 41:11 133:13 103:13,14,15,16,18 serve (1) 76:24
31:2 32:4,7,10 33:6 requested (1) 108:24 85:7,14 87:2 90:3 42:13 43:3,6 46:7,9 scenario (1) 17:17 103:19 105:13,16 served (7) 28:22
34:1,10 36:17 require (4) 65:4 81:8 91:17 93:4 97:1,18 47:1,9,17 48:3 scenarios (2) 71:22 106:7,12 107:9,14 30:22 41:21 42:2,5
37:14 38:2 40:16 81:9 161:9 97:22 99:15,24 50:18 51:2,16,19 81:25 107:21,22,24 108:6 159:9 165:20
42:12 44:1,11 required (2) 20:19 107:20 108:18 52:2,6 55:22 60:10 sceptical (1) 77:17 108:7,11,16 111:7 serves (1) 123:3
45:16,19,19 58:13 41:11 110:6 111:16,18 60:13 61:3,7,13,16 scheduled (1) 59:24 112:15,18,24 113:2 service (5) 12:24 30:7
62:21,25 63:10,11 requirement (2) 29:22 114:11,21 115:20 62:7 64:3,7 67:1 scope (3) 43:25 113:12 119:24 63:3 64:16 126:25
63:16 66:19 67:18 38:4 116:2,8 118:5,8 71:6 74:21 76:4,19 113:16 159:10 120:21 121:2 122:3 services (5) 24:20
69:22 71:17 81:24 requirements (1) 119:12 120:20 78:19 79:14,20 screen (20) 46:6 52:3 122:6 123:15,23 43:15 44:19 67:20
84:21 85:13 86:9 83:16 122:1 123:3 124:14 82:9,13,14 85:20 54:14 59:5 60:9 124:2,6,20 126:2 67:20
86:11,13,13 87:5 requires (1) 57:15 124:16 126:9 85:21 91:3,7,12 61:2 62:9,10 72:9 131:6,6,25 132:9 serving (1) 30:25
87:21,25 88:3,5 requiring (1) 157:10 127:10 131:9,17 95:15,21 96:16 75:17 82:7,12,13 132:12,14,22 133:1 session (3) 2:10,23
89:11 94:20 97:14 reserve (3) 136:7,19 134:16 135:3 136:8 101:24 108:15 85:9 107:8 112:8 133:2,7,9,14,17 6:10
97:24 98:1,3,11,14 164:4 136:9 139:17 113:24 115:22 119:7 123:9,20 135:14 136:18,25 sessions (3) 2:16 6:22
98:18,20 99:2 reserved (1) 167:16 140:11 141:8 117:11,19,22 124:22 137:2,23 138:6,14 7:24
100:2,6,6,17 reserves (1) 136:9 151:13 159:3 118:15 119:2,4 screens (2) 82:17 138:14 141:1 153:1 Sestroretsk (3) 98:2,5
101:10 102:4,6 reserving (1) 165:23 168:23 169:17,20 120:23,25 121:10 103:1 153:5 155:9 156:19 101:2
104:1,18 105:6,24 resolution (1) 2:4 170:2 172:12 124:5 125:4 129:17 scroll (32) 17:8 46:11 158:10 160:10 set (15) 2:22 3:8
105:25 106:1 109:4 resolutions (1) 59:8 173:21 131:8,22 132:7 47:13 50:17 51:16 161:3,21 166:22 17:19 24:4 45:2
109:9,13 110:11 resolve (1) 19:17 rightly (2) 4:4,7 151:18 152:8 161:1 51:25 52:6 60:12 170:14 173:13 63:12,25 75:22
114:15,20 115:1 resolved (3) 2:6 4:16 rights (10) 79:1 87:3,5 161:6 163:17 167:5 60:13 76:9 79:16 seeing (2) 123:7 108:8 114:6 152:7
118:9 119:24,25 137:15 107:14 108:6,12 168:19 82:11,13,17 91:17 163:24 152:25 159:1,8
120:19 125:16 resort (1) 17:21 112:16 113:3 114:8 Russian-speaking (1) 91:23 93:21 107:12 seek (2) 136:8 166:11 162:24
126:4,6 127:22 resources (1) 12:1 133:14 140:21 108:2,11,14 111:6 seeking (3) 45:2 80:13 sets (2) 123:14,16
128:7,12 130:12,23 respect (12) 13:14 ring (4) 119:15 131:13 112:13,14,23 113:5 165:24 setting (1) 123:11
133:21 119:19 121:12 131:15 165:10 S 123:15,19 132:22 seen (11) 11:7 13:20 settle (1) 104:15
Renord’s (3) 37:14 123:6 126:1 142:19 rise (3) 89:16 134:16 safety (1) 42:25 133:1,5,8 13:24 51:23 56:7 settled (3) 1:22 63:24
86:15 101:17 151:16 152:21 135:4 scrolled (2) 50:24 51:2 57:21 58:10 60:19 68:15
salary (1) 168:13
Renord-Invest (7) 153:3 155:25 risk (5) 27:1,5,14 80:8 scrutinised (1) 32:12 119:21 133:5 settlement (5) 110:12
sale (28) 42:3,7 43:5
86:5 89:19 90:16 157:23 168:6 81:14 se (1) 100:25 173:15 117:9 132:5 133:19
60:22 67:5 80:9
99:5,10,11 115:6 respective (1) 19:21 ROK (7) 98:20 110:1 seal (3) 6:13 108:17 selected (1) 118:4 133:20
81:22 87:20 102:7
rent (2) 76:11,13 respectively (1) 16:13 110:11 114:20 113:13 Selezneva (6) 96:3 settlements (4) 109:8
103:6,13 104:20
repaid (1) 83:25 respects (2) 4:9 5:3 132:16 133:10,21 sealed (1) 157:11 100:16,19,20 109:13 110:4
105:23 109:5 110:9
repairs (1) 109:16 respond (1) 4:11 role (3) 43:23 70:3 seamless (1) 5:12 101:19 106:25 125:14
115:7,21,22,25
repay (3) 18:14 responded (2) 157:24 133:22 search (1) 126:20 Seleznevskaya (1) seven (4) 53:9 60:2
116:8,9 117:12,24
102:15,21 160:24 roles (4) 19:21,24 searched (3) 158:9,20 100:21 122:25 126:24
118:11,14,18 124:5
repaying (1) 102:8 response (10) 14:11 20:7 85:17 159:12 sell (2) 19:9 116:12 Severo-Zapadnaya (2)
131:7
repayment (2) 21:18 14:14 152:16,17 ropey (1) 83:9 searches (2) 158:8 seller (1) 109:25 62:16 63:5
sales (1) 68:4
102:19 153:11 155:17 roubles (4) 122:9,13 159:10 selling (9) 17:12,21 Sevzapalians (16)
satisfied (3) 12:21
repeat (2) 80:21 137:6 156:9 157:22 158:1 122:17 124:19 second (21) 2:21 7:22 18:2,12 20:11 24:12 25:18,23
105:18 140:23
repeated (1) 128:14 158:2 roughly (1) 115:17 17:21 47:21 51:17 42:11 63:6 98:20 26:5 41:2,5,8,14

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

185

March 4, 2016 Day 22 — Redacted

43:12 45:24 50:22 simple (2) 41:24 118:23 119:9 121:3 53:25 60:7,8 61:3,4 starting (5) 43:8 46:14 Stroilov’s (1) 155:8
51:4 56:2 62:16 129:12 121:19 127:12 62:4 73:11,16 51:10 92:5 97:5 strong (1) 50:5
63:6 87:4 simpler (1) 1:17 129:11 133:7 74:21 76:2 77:3 starts (2) 67:8 132:7 structure (5) 25:15
sham (3) 129:19 simply (27) 5:13,16,19 135:22 139:5,25 88:14,23 90:12 state (8) 63:7 75:23 74:15,16 88:2
130:24 131:4 13:9 14:22 17:24 141:11 142:12 92:3 95:18 101:2 91:19 97:11 98:8 134:4
shape (2) 32:16 24:19 39:14 43:16 167:5 169:24 175:4 111:9,11,13 112:4 116:19 152:1 160:8 structured (1) 91:8
166:15 67:23 79:3,20 Sklyarevsky’s (4) 115:4,13,14,15 stated (6) 43:3 62:25 structures (1) 89:11
share (5) 43:5 51:22 80:13 92:22,23 52:13 73:18 95:17 121:1 122:7 140:14 66:16 103:7 105:5 stuck (1) 39:14
63:3 65:14 160:14 93:9 98:7 102:4,17 123:13 140:24 151:20,22 109:11 studied (7) 15:13
shared (1) 8:6 117:3 122:10 sleeping (1) 93:10 153:14 158:16 statement (30) 16:21 18:18 30:20 34:8
shareholder (12) 123:18 137:24 slight (1) 14:13 159:22 167:4 17:24 24:25 28:15 47:24 53:3 75:6
31:12 36:3 91:25 138:4 153:9,24 slightly (14) 1:14 3:22 168:21 172:16 29:24,25 31:9,19 study (2) 15:18 57:15
97:8,15 98:15 99:8 156:12 4:14 8:22 9:18 173:22 31:23 36:1 37:4,22 studying (1) 21:25
100:1 105:7,12,15 single (5) 4:25 5:15 37:10 70:19 90:13 sort (8) 3:7 5:19 10:8 38:9 59:3 70:20 stupid (1) 87:17
116:22 67:18 154:9 170:11 103:25 111:14,23 30:16 135:5 153:3 72:3 75:5 85:8,20 sub (2) 132:23,23
shareholders (12) single-page (2) 13:22 120:13 156:11 171:8 173:23 88:10 89:10 90:2 subject (10) 6:2 25:6
32:5 40:14 49:14 156:20 170:10 sorts (1) 4:6 90:14 99:3 110:16 54:18 130:20 132:1
82:4,5 91:23 92:6 siphon (1) 126:11 slot (1) 169:24 sought (1) 156:21 157:20,25 159:9 137:5 155:20
104:7 116:11,15 sir (16) 15:16 40:13 slower (1) 62:11 sound (3) 61:12 116:2 170:9,16 160:20,25 162:5
117:21 168:16 47:11 59:4 60:21 slowly (2) 61:18 82:13 124:14 statements (7) 66:17 submissions (2) 51:6
shareholders’ (17) 62:18 64:5 68:24 smack (1) 131:1 sounding (1) 156:11 87:7 98:8 139:12 136:19
27:19,21,25 28:3 72:3,9 85:5 94:12 small (5) 4:12 112:21 sounds (1) 135:22 141:13,14 159:2 submit (1) 162:9
30:11 39:9 40:2 96:10 97:20 100:19 120:21 121:2 source (1) 171:1 states (1) 96:17 submitted (2) 44:9
46:5 49:12,18 127:23 151:23 sources (2) 19:16 stay (1) 70:7 94:23
51:12 52:21 59:8 sit (2) 13:1 134:17 Smirnov (54) 13:18 158:25 steal (1) 102:5 subsequent (7) 37:1
59:19 60:20 67:10 site (2) 88:1 89:11 16:3,8,15 25:3,13 space (1) 60:3 stemming (1) 39:18 40:9 45:6 62:15
67:11 sitting (4) 50:13 25:24 27:13 32:20 spaced (1) 67:17 step (4) 18:16,17 69:6 105:22,23
shareholding (3) 114:22 129:13 33:1,3,20 34:14 spare (1) 167:10 32:23 39:16 subsequently (9)
68:20 92:20 114:14 172:1 35:9,14,17 40:16 SPARK (1) 91:3 steps (5) 69:7,12,12 42:16 58:22 62:2
shares (10) 42:11 45:3 situation (22) 16:22 42:24 43:21 64:21 spawn (1) 138:2 133:13 137:20 64:17 85:2 93:6
60:16 61:11 62:1 17:10 19:22 20:12 65:2,4,10 67:21 speak (12) 34:10 stick (1) 171:3 98:16,25 137:9
63:21 64:16 69:5 23:10 25:3 41:24 74:19 76:21 86:2 39:23 40:11 45:16 stock (1) 168:15 subsidiary (1) 26:13
90:15 103:12 44:6,9 53:23 65:1 86:14,17,25 88:21 56:2 61:2 140:3,9 stolen (1) 102:10 substantial (2) 101:13
sharing (1) 162:13 65:22 68:14 73:1 89:1,18 98:10,23 140:12 141:18 stopped (1) 96:21 116:5
sheer (1) 8:19 74:5,19 75:4,10 99:15,20,21 101:23 153:20 167:1 store (1) 126:23 substitute (1) 156:24
sheet (2) 63:21,22 80:13 102:4 103:23 102:3,10 104:10 speaking (6) 7:11 story (1) 103:22 suddenly (2) 154:4
sheets (1) 94:22 128:22 105:4,13,19 108:24 18:10 71:4 167:5 straightforward (1) 155:13
shell (5) 90:20 92:25 situations (2) 99:21 109:15,19 110:17 168:5,20 3:21 suffered (3) 42:24,24
93:5,10 94:11 100:3 110:21,25 117:15 speciality (1) 118:21 strange (2) 7:16 102:13
shipping (1) 78:1 six (2) 53:9 67:4 117:25 142:20 specific (7) 16:11 109:22 sufficient (5) 61:9,14
short (6) 4:24 55:18 sixth (1) 66:25 Smirnov’s (8) 16:7 19:22 20:12 75:20 strangers (1) 22:21 81:11 161:17
60:3 112:2 136:2 SKIF (83) 30:3 40:10 43:14 72:19 85:19 130:14,15 163:17 street (2) 23:11 127:4 166:16
153:7 41:2,4,7,9,13 43:11 87:7 88:10 89:9 specifically (1) 157:16 stress (3) 11:12 42:4 suggest (3) 59:12
shortlist (1) 159:5 44:11 45:14 48:7 102:20 speculate (5) 34:10 77:8 134:20 160:5
shortly (2) 8:16 115:4 48:14 49:25 50:2,4 snippets (1) 110:18 48:22 63:17 100:3 stretch (1) 172:4 suggested (2) 3:1
shot (1) 155:10 50:16 64:5,15 sold (24) 90:15 97:10 131:1 stretches (1) 164:12 76:11
shoulders (1) 43:21 65:14 66:22 69:6 98:16 102:19,19 speed (1) 153:10 strict (2) 26:15 115:5 suggesting (10) 55:21
show (11) 53:2 60:25 70:2,2,23 71:14,18 103:21 107:20 speedily (1) 166:4 strictly (1) 63:14 68:18 84:14 89:7,8
63:20 66:4,25 98:6 71:24 72:22 73:4 108:6,20 110:10 spheres (1) 20:6 strikeout (1) 170:5 89:8,9 121:18
112:11 113:15 73:25 74:15 75:1 114:1,14,20 115:3 spread (1) 67:21 Stroilov (104) 8:21 129:11 135:3
119:10 125:20 75:16 78:10,14 115:6,19,21 116:14 spreadsheet (6) 9:11,13,14 10:15 suggestion (5) 9:18
132:5 79:2,3,24 81:24 117:10 123:17,17 119:13,21 120:7 10:20,24 11:9,12 140:25 155:9
showing (2) 50:23 82:4 84:21 85:13 124:3 125:19 131:3 121:17 123:7 126:1 11:17 12:7,9,15 164:20 167:12
128:24 86:13,20 103:18,24 solicitors (3) 8:23 9:8 spy (1) 24:9 15:11,12 24:8 29:9 suggestions (1) 56:9
shown (4) 9:4 28:14 104:2,4,8 116:8,16 140:21 squandered (1) 29:13 35:24 38:17 suggests (3) 31:15
41:25 133:18 118:14,18 119:10 solicitors’ (1) 173:10 130:17 39:5 52:16 54:14 72:12 82:22
shows (2) 112:5 119:20 120:15 Solo (15) 118:6,7,9,15 square (1) 70:21 54:19 55:1,4,15,20 sum (7) 87:24 106:22
128:24 121:5,9 122:22 124:4 125:3,4,9 St (12) 23:5,6 25:8 62:9,10,13 73:11 108:12 109:7
side (10) 11:25 40:11 125:1,3,14 126:3 126:15 128:17 90:22 103:4 104:22 73:14,17,22 76:6,9 124:11,13 125:3
56:2,10 69:15,23 127:16,20 128:1,6 129:16,17 130:10 107:10 111:5 80:3,4 83:4,13,19 summarise (1) 74:22
80:18,18 105:20 128:7,11,15,16 130:19 132:17 119:18 125:5,13 83:24 84:12 89:24 summary (1) 17:13
162:15 129:1,3,16,16 solution (9) 6:17 131:2 92:4,8 95:8,13 summed (1) 164:5
sign (4) 8:17 99:15,18 130:11,18,19 131:7 20:23 23:9,20 43:2 staff (1) 171:25 100:14 102:2 107:1 summer (2) 43:9
170:7 139:2,6,8,15 152:12,13 163:21 stage (15) 87:2 97:7 107:6 111:21,24 74:18
Signal (1) 76:6 skip (1) 79:12 164:8 97:21 98:19 116:21 112:4,8 113:22 supplied (1) 57:3
signature (5) 70:16 Sklyarevsky (56) 15:8 solutions (1) 160:11 132:10,11,14,14 120:25 121:2 134:9 supported (1) 130:5
108:17 111:7 15:12 17:14 24:8 somebody (2) 113:13 133:4,6,9 134:4 134:20 135:1,10,15 supporting (2) 36:24
113:12 134:2 28:25 32:18 33:12 140:9 141:11 165:4 135:19 136:5,14 130:19
signed (14) 26:18 39:6 43:11 46:18 somebody’s (1) stages (2) 132:23,23 137:11 138:22,23 suppose (8) 32:8,10
64:14 66:9 97:13 52:17,19,21 55:21 169:12 standard (5) 158:18 140:18,19 142:1,4 33:6 34:1 81:24
99:2 100:17 113:4 60:15 61:5,15 67:7 somewhat (2) 111:12 160:5 163:3 164:21 142:14,21 151:20 83:1,6 116:7
113:13 114:3 170:1 68:19 72:1 75:12 161:9 164:22 154:23 159:17,18 sure (31) 1:16 6:23
170:9,15 172:5,22 75:19 82:16 84:13 soon (8) 4:22 6:24 standing (1) 4:21 161:15 162:2,11,17 26:25 30:12 36:19
signify (1) 72:5 86:8 88:16 89:25 35:12 40:23 151:19 stands (1) 46:25 162:21,24 163:24 38:12,16 40:13
signing (1) 99:14 91:5 92:8 93:12 160:3 165:16 start (7) 68:1 77:14 164:1,10 165:13 53:2 60:8 72:5
similar (7) 74:14 95:20 96:5 97:16 166:13 83:6,7 92:18 166:18 167:14,18 73:20 79:11 80:2,5
78:13 82:19,20,20 101:23 107:4,9 sorry (46) 1:6 4:23 118:12 171:18 170:1,3 171:15,17 91:3 94:2 111:9
112:14 133:25 108:19 111:17 14:16 25:21 29:6 started (4) 32:24 70:2 172:13,17 173:2,6 114:22 116:19
similarly (1) 112:15 112:10 114:3,11 43:11 49:6 50:23 70:3 78:2 173:20 175:5 117:16 118:1,23

123:25 127:16 128:14,18 151:21 162:23 167:14 173:19

surface (2) 8:4 108:22 surmise (1) 58:23 surprised (5) 49:1,6,8

49:17 128:4 surprising (1) 155:18 surprisingly (2) 154:4

155:13

suspect (4) 82:8 83:9 154:19,22

suspicious (1) 7:19 swift (1) 138:11 switch (1) 166:23 switched (1) 29:7 system (2) 110:5

161:20

T

tab (4) 61:2 62:6 64:1 85:23
table (12) 20:18 21:3 91:20 92:5 119:6,9 120:12 121:20 122:2 123:21 128:20,24

take (44) 2:20 9:4,8 10:22 12:16 14:25 16:3 23:21 38:17 40:25 45:18 46:16 53:4,4 54:16,17,19 55:10 56:3 57:17 69:19 70:23 73:15 73:22 83:6 88:14 88:23 95:10 96:15 111:18 115:4 116:16 118:21 121:9 124:8 125:23 127:10 129:21 131:11 138:3 160:13 165:23,24 169:2

taken (18) 5:8 23:15 33:16,24 34:17 35:2 36:15 52:8 55:22 56:9 116:12 116:18 124:4 129:25 130:8 132:15 137:21 165:10

takes (2) 63:15 100:10 talk (7) 21:5 25:25

53:5 57:13 73:1 79:1 80:8

talked (1) 80:9 talking (6) 38:13 59:1

72:25 78:21 80:6 131:6

talks (1) 59:16 task (7) 5:8,12 19:7

20:22 21:19 77:11 81:21

tasks (1) 5:7

tax (4) 63:3,19 64:16 94:23

tax-based (1) 62:24 team (14) 4:19 7:1 9:15,16,23 16:13 16:15 22:3 43:24 45:14 48:8 50:3,5

135:5 teams (1) 8:21

teamwork (2) 16:8,11 technical (13) 91:5

92:22 95:6,6 98:9 99:5,13,13 100:5

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

186

March 4, 2016 Day 22 — Redacted

101:10 104:5 105:3 85:22 90:11 94:19 88:5 170:9 89:13,14 97:24
105:7 112:19,20 122:21 thirdly (1) 25:10 98:9 100:5 102:6
technicalities (1) 57:2 thing (15) 8:11,14 thought (22) 10:5 104:9 105:10 109:1
technically (1) 126:5 18:10 25:1 26:5 14:7 23:23 24:5 117:17 118:11
telephone (1) 152:24 35:23 42:12 47:15 37:3,6 44:13,15 128:2,12 129:19
tell (22) 21:12 23:11 48:12 63:4 103:23 48:6 59:11 70:8 131:5,7
32:17 35:5 39:2,13 121:4,21 160:21 78:16 83:20 84:22 transactions (14)
67:22 84:7 90:2 169:14 88:18 138:8,20 42:14,19,20 63:10
100:4 110:23,25 things (24) 7:13 9:21 141:9 151:22 69:22 85:4 98:10
117:1 120:3,11 10:18 29:1 69:16 152:12 162:11,21 98:12 100:7 101:18
126:7 127:24 75:1 80:15 91:9 thousands (4) 122:9 107:3 126:4,13
162:19 163:23 103:24 104:19 122:13,17 124:19 130:25
167:11 168:17,21 108:22 128:23 three (14) 2:11 3:22 transcribed (2) 11:22
ten (2) 135:4 152:10 135:5,13 142:5 16:12,17 17:9 21:3 11:23
tender (3) 104:20 156:15 164:18 35:20 51:8 60:19 transcribers (1) 172:1
106:16,18 168:6,7,9,20 67:9 110:12 153:12 transcript (11) 1:10
tends (1) 8:18 169:12 171:9 155:21 156:10 3:4 5:15,22 10:1
term (4) 75:22 76:14 172:11 tie (1) 170:12 11:7,18,18 88:15
76:17 114:6 think (201) 4:5 5:9 Tikhomirova (1) 152:10 163:9
terminal (70) 23:15 6:20 7:19 8:18 9:1 113:14 transcription (1)
25:9 27:17 28:4,13 9:5,22 10:20,25 time (62) 4:2,23 5:13 11:24
28:16 29:18 31:3 11:3 12:1,3,12,21 11:16 12:4 14:18 transcripts (13) 1:24
31:13 33:23 36:4 13:10 14:7 15:21 14:19,23 17:3 22:9 2:1,2,13,15,18,22
45:9,25 46:10 16:20 17:9 22:15 23:16 24:11,17 2:23 3:6,9,15 4:17
47:10 49:16 56:3,5 24:23 26:7 27:16 26:7 33:5 35:19 10:6
56:7,12 70:10,14 28:4,15 29:4 30:5 44:20 46:15 51:13 transfer (17) 45:5
70:24 71:8,23 30:10 31:8 32:25 58:2 59:19 60:3 60:16 61:10,20
72:22 73:24 74:13 33:1 34:4,5 35:13 64:19 65:21 66:11 62:14 64:23 68:20
77:19,25,25 78:5 35:15 36:8,25 37:5 67:17,21 70:5 69:5 76:2 78:10
79:24 80:19 84:17 38:6,7,9,12,13,15 71:23 77:18 78:4 79:3 82:21 84:19
87:15 89:10 96:6,8 38:17 40:22 41:17 78:14 82:3 86:4 100:15 125:23
96:14,17,24 98:2 45:1 46:11,23 88:11 90:10 92:19 130:14,18
100:25,25 101:6 49:19 50:2 52:6,7 97:12,23 98:17 transferred (5) 62:2
102:5 103:9,10,23 54:22 55:4,6,15 99:9 109:20 114:20 64:16 98:14 127:22
107:1,18,19 110:10 57:16 59:7 60:10 115:15,18 117:3,7 129:15
113:1,2 115:17 62:9 64:9,9,12 123:7 126:2 131:12 transfers (2) 45:3
116:4 118:15 65:19 66:2,6 67:21 131:22 137:16 64:10
119:11 120:17 70:19 72:19 74:1 139:20 153:20 translate (1) 26:6
121:6 123:24 124:2 75:7 76:4 79:10,14 163:24 165:25 translated (4) 79:21
124:12,13 132:4,19 79:16 80:12 81:4 167:10,16 171:12 80:2 84:3,7
132:20 133:12 83:3,4,9,10,13,24 172:10,14,18 translation (11) 13:5
Terminal’ (1) 46:22 85:11,25 86:12 timeline (1) 123:5 25:22 36:1 78:20
Terminal’s (1) 87:9 89:1,21 90:8,10,11 times (3) 35:19 79:19 80:23 83:14
terminated (2) 51:13 90:12,25 93:17,19 131:18 158:18 95:14 102:24 118:8
76:18 94:18 95:10,18 timetable (1) 12:13 119:1
termination (3) 42:3 96:21 97:1,7,16,17 tit-for-tat (2) 171:19 translations (1) 83:8
47:19 160:23 98:2,2,21 99:3 171:21 translators (1) 119:3
terms (21) 11:14 102:6,10 103:6 title (1) 97:12 transparent (2) 105:1
26:21 38:25 44:18 104:25 106:3,5,12 to-ing (2) 2:24 8:2 117:16
75:20 76:22 77:2,6 106:22,24 107:17 today (13) 15:3 transpired (1) 6:13
78:12 89:3 116:18 108:7 109:16,21 114:22 135:8,24 travel (1) 10:12
120:9 124:16 126:8 110:20,21 111:8,12 136:18 137:3 140:2 treat (1) 26:14
129:8 130:11 111:14,17,17,21 163:24 165:24 trespass (2) 169:21
134:14 139:23 113:6,18 114:18 169:25 171:23 171:12
165:18,19 171:19 115:12 116:7,21 172:4,24 trial (9) 2:1 5:3,7,10
terribly (2) 9:4 83:14 117:7 118:7 119:1 today’s (1) 136:23 5:22 7:3 8:19 11:5
territory (2) 72:23 119:7,22 120:5,8 told (7) 34:14 35:5 72:15
81:9 120:21 121:20 36:15 59:24 97:7 tribute (1) 5:10
test (3) 165:3,22 122:18 124:4,7,17 104:10 154:8 trick (1) 44:14
166:2 126:23 128:5 129:6 tolerably (1) 38:15 tricked (1) 43:2
tested (2) 138:10 132:2,13 133:1,3,6 tomorrow (3) 136:7 tried (3) 24:4 128:14
165:19 134:10,18,21 136:19 138:23 134:4
text (4) 51:18 53:2 135:11,16 136:5,11 top (16) 3:5,7 10:15 tripartite (2) 20:16
61:10 103:8 139:4,12 140:5,9 23:25 39:25 50:20 21:2
thank (31) 15:6,20 141:4,5,17 151:15 52:3,11 92:4 96:1 triumph (1) 169:10
16:20 27:11 29:12 151:16,19 152:4,10 102:24 121:23 trouble (1) 140:25
39:5 46:4 59:5 64:7 152:23 154:18 122:5,14,19 123:20 true (3) 36:10,12
67:3 72:9 74:7 76:8 158:4,10 159:8,18 tortured (1) 161:9 125:17
78:9 84:5,8 89:23 162:19 163:1,14 total (3) 109:4 123:3,4 truly (1) 25:14
89:24 96:20 97:1 164:1,2,10,17 totality (1) 48:12 trust (4) 58:11,12 72:8
100:14 102:22 167:12,23 169:12 totally (1) 53:2 99:22
103:3 114:11 115:3 169:17 170:6,22 tracked (1) 172:7 trusted (2) 99:20
115:11 118:25 171:17 172:2,5 trade (1) 18:23 105:13
142:4 159:16 173:15 174:2 trail (1) 137:8 truth (10) 56:24,25
168:23 173:22 thinking (3) 1:17 trample (1) 163:20 57:1 58:7,8,10
thanks (2) 35:22 45:22 98:5 transaction (29) 42:6 59:10 121:20
172:1 thinks (1) 75:13 63:15 64:6 69:10 170:10,16
theory (1) 129:8 third (7) 8:1 23:10 69:22 70:8,9 81:5,8 try (19) 6:17 7:20 35:4
thereabouts (7) 60:4 47:6 48:18 62:14 82:24,25 89:12,13 39:23 43:25 60:11

64:3 70:9 72:14,15 88:19 91:9 110:6 121:19 124:19 129:5 139:15,16 166:15
trying (24) 7:2 16:6 18:7 21:11 23:8 31:7 34:23 40:12 55:10 59:3 66:8 70:18 72:3,6 74:22 81:18 98:17 111:9 128:19 129:2 165:5 171:19 172:14,17

Tuesday (1) 140:1 tune (2) 106:21

126:11

turn (3) 80:15 156:8 171:4

turned (2) 52:20 54:23

turning (1) 46:5 tweak (2) 14:13

152:19 tweaked (1) 151:15 tweaks (1) 154:22 two (50) 2:2,11 3:22

5:4 6:6,20 13:12 15:14 32:21 35:1 39:11 42:5 46:11 47:13 49:23 51:8 64:10 68:19 69:4,6 69:7,16,16 79:16 81:3,12 85:11,17 98:24 103:1 104:11 106:9 107:2,17 112:5 114:2 119:3 123:23 126:6 127:18 128:21,22 129:6 152:4 155:3 156:15 158:21 159:2 166:21 168:16

type (2) 18:2 141:24 typo (1) 46:25

U

unable (1) 10:12 unacceptable (1)
167:13

unaware (2) 161:2,6 unclear (1) 160:19 uncomfortable (1)

114:25

uncommercial (1)

77:7 underestimate (3) 8:9

8:18,22 underestimates (1)

1:15

underline (1) 12:17 underlines (1) 170:5 undermine (1) 161:20 underpinning (1)

130:15 understand (52) 3:19

8:3,8,20 14:24 16:6 21:11,19,23 22:23 32:9 35:4 39:3 43:25 44:6 47:24 48:18,23 54:21,25 60:21 61:5 63:3 65:5 68:25 70:5 72:4 74:17 78:9 80:23 81:16 83:11 86:12 87:5 91:14 102:12 115:16 125:8,8 128:3,19 129:2 130:17 131:5

137:22 138:13 139:24 153:21 166:5 168:19 169:11 171:2 understanding (15)
18:8 20:2 22:18,19 23:13,16,17 24:18 57:20 69:15 89:5 106:14 110:8,14 168:4

understands (1) 6:14 understood (9) 15:22 33:12 39:15 48:7 128:15,18 133:23 140:14 151:16

undertaken (1)

158:21 undertaking (1)

161:15 undertook (1) 128:1 undo (1) 161:8 unduly (1) 1:18 unfair (4) 45:10,10

46:10 55:8

unfortunately (4)

32:17 34:15 117:17 173:24

unhappy (1) 87:4 unhelpful (1) 83:13 unification (1) 105:22 unimportant (1) 92:25 uninitiated (1) 7:18 unison (1) 167:18 unit (1) 104:14 university (1) 21:24 unlawful (1) 41:23 unnecessary (1) 61:14 unpledged (1) 102:5 unravel (3) 82:1 110:7

121:19 unrealistic (1) 161:8 unredacted (1) 6:21 unrelated (1) 126:12 unsung (1) 8:4 untoward (1) 105:16 unusual (1) 11:6 unusually (1) 11:6 unwarranted (1)

155:19 unwise (1) 3:11 update (7) 1:10,11

13:16 135:11 136:11 142:6,6

updated (1) 92:2 upgrade (1) 109:16 upgrading (1) 131:2 upload (2) 4:20,21 uploaded (5) 2:1,4,18

5:15 6:3 uploading (1) 1:23 upshot (1) 5:12 urged (1) 4:3 urgency (3) 7:15,20

10:3

urgent (3) 134:15,21 135:12

use (2) 119:17 167:10 useful (3) 154:21

169:2 173:13 usual (2) 13:5 166:9 utmost (1) 12:5 utterly (1) 11:3

V

vacuum (1) 162:1 vaguely (1) 101:3 valid (1) 54:25 value (11) 19:9,10

86:7 106:8 109:4 110:3 117:17,24 118:2 128:20,25

various (6) 26:14 62:24 81:25 108:5 123:16 160:25

Vasiliev (6) 28:8 58:15 59:2,20,23 60:1

VAT (1) 76:12 ventilate (1) 173:8 ventilated (2) 166:20

166:20 ventured (1) 154:9 versa (1) 106:1 version (43) 3:11

31:11,24 46:7,11 47:1 50:18,20 51:2 51:16 52:1,3,4,7 53:3 60:10,13 61:13,16 62:7 64:2 64:5 67:2 71:5,6 82:8,9,14 85:21 91:7,10,12,13 108:15 113:23,24 119:2 132:6,7 133:7 172:7,7,25

versions (1) 47:14 vice (1) 106:1 videos (1) 170:18 view (8) 2:14 81:12

136:15 160:14,20 160:21 161:13 166:6

views (1) 168:2 Vinarsky (11) 28:13

28:16 29:14 47:19 48:11,24 49:10,16 50:1,19 51:12

Vinarsky’s (6) 45:8,9 46:9 48:8 49:3 54:8

vis-a-vis (2) 117:4,4 visited (3) 25:1,16,19 VLADIMIR (2) 15:8

175:4

voice (2) 116:17

166:22 void (1) 42:19

Volost (2) 96:3 100:21 vote (3) 116:22,23

117:1

Vyborg (1) 96:3

W

wait (3) 164:14 166:5 170:17
waiting (1) 153:11 want (51) 1:18 6:23

12:2 14:17,18,19 29:9 34:9,10 38:10 38:19 48:22 54:14 55:11,24 60:25 61:6 66:25 73:11 75:12 78:25 79:18 83:5 84:3 85:10 88:24 100:3,4 104:17 108:10 111:18,20 118:12 119:4 133:5 137:20 138:10 153:15 156:15 163:20 164:24 167:15,18 167:23 169:14 171:12,13 172:4,25 173:4,8

wanted (24) 3:16 4:6 7:12 26:25 33:20 52:23 58:23 62:19 77:8 80:4 87:10

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

187

March 4, 2016 Day 22 — Redacted

88:18 104:13,24 109:23 113:15 116:22 118:1 128:18 131:16 168:17,21 171:22 172:23
wants (1) 159:16 war (1) 40:5 warned (1) 28:9 warning (3) 3:7,10

166:17

wasn’t (21) 4:11 9:23 17:6 24:13 28:2 34:3 44:21 50:1 58:21 60:5 78:11 78:15 85:5 87:12 88:4 94:4 98:19 115:23 116:5 136:21 162:15

wasted (2) 12:10,11 wavering (1) 139:23 way (38) 3:2,4 10:22

16:6 18:7 24:6 31:1 34:8 56:15,20 60:11 63:14 68:6,6 99:7 102:11,11,16 104:3 112:6 114:5 116:8,10,22 117:6 118:14,18 125:7 128:10 129:24 136:11 141:10 152:14 153:25 156:12 160:6 162:16 169:4

ways (1) 155:6 we’re (2) 70:13,14 website (8) 2:2,19

3:11,15 4:18 5:24 6:19 9:24

week (4) 1:25 2:7 134:18 171:25

weekend (4) 138:24 140:2 142:13 173:23

weeks (6) 11:23 100:10 152:4 153:12 155:21 156:10

went (5) 6:10 22:6 25:19 26:2 81:7

weren’t (2) 170:22,25

West (3) 31:4 50:9,12

Western (50) 23:15 25:9,15 27:17 28:4 28:13,16 29:18 31:3,13 33:23 36:4 45:9,25 46:10 47:10 49:16 56:3,5 56:7,12 70:10,14 70:24 71:8,23 72:22 73:24 74:13 77:19,25,25 78:5 79:24 80:19 84:17 87:9,15 89:10 96:6 96:8,14,17,24 98:2 100:25 101:6 102:5 103:23 120:17

wider (1) 75:4 winner (1) 118:5 winning (1) 77:17 wise (1) 75:13 wiser (1) 159:18

wish (5) 7:25 13:13,15 135:6 171:25

wished (1) 166:20 wishes (1) 84:6 witness (41) 8:16

12:14 14:19 17:24 24:24 28:14 31:19

31:22 35:25 37:4 37:21 38:6,13 50:25 54:3 55:1 59:2 66:17 70:20 72:3 75:5 85:20 87:7 88:10 89:10 90:14 98:8 99:3 110:16 119:3 137:3 137:17 140:8,14 141:5,18,22 154:17 157:20 159:9 166:13

witness’s (2) 134:10 136:16

witnesses (3) 56:5 142:20 167:11 won (6) 28:21 47:20

53:1 56:20,23 82:2 wonder (4) 111:18

121:21 139:10 160:12

wondered (1) 163:21 wondering (1) 25:21 word (4) 115:12

134:12 151:23 170:13

wording (1) 37:2 words (3) 51:10 58:21

164:9

work (23) 5:4 8:2 13:17 17:6 18:5 20:14 22:6 32:24 41:8 43:24 44:5,24 86:22,24,24 87:11 87:24 90:23 93:5 94:17 155:6 161:8 163:11

work-wise (1) 87:8 worked (5) 3:14 22:3 22:9,11 86:21 working (15) 5:6 8:4

8:14 10:9 16:12,13 21:17 24:12,13 44:18 62:5 81:25 86:17 99:9 130:3

works (1) 92:23 worried (1) 154:6 worries (1) 138:24 worry (5) 10:3 62:12 75:16 136:12

156:14 worth (2) 141:1

152:13

wouldn’t (7) 19:3,22 68:21 84:22 90:9 99:19 138:10

writes (1) 107:11 writing (3) 31:19 83:17 162:12 written (2) 51:6

170:23

wrong (14) 29:4 39:1 48:7 54:4 55:23 94:17 110:16 116:1 119:20 124:1 160:2 161:13 163:1,22

wrote (1) 152:18

X

X (1) 7:17

Y

Y (1) 7:17

year (2) 120:13 159:10

years (8) 15:14 19:4 53:9 60:2 75:23 76:15 122:25

126:24 yell (1) 153:23

yesterday (9) 4:11 5:17 6:4 14:12 15:21,22 20:15 151:15 152:18

yesterday’s (1) 17:4

Z

Zapadny (1) 46:22

Zelenov (3) 65:2,5

66:19

Zelenov’s (2) 31:2

65:7

zoom (1) 132:13 zoomed (1) 133:2

0

1

1 (19) 47:11 50:19 51:22 67:1 93:25 95:23 96:2 98:20 110:1,11 111:8 121:23 124:12 132:11,14,14 133:10 134:4 175:3

1.3 (1) 75:21

1.5 (1) 123:4

1.55 (3) 83:7 84:8,11

10 (11) 1:25 14:25 29:14,20,21 68:5,6 111:21 152:9 164:11,12

10-minute (1) 55:14

10,000 (7) 93:9,12,13 93:15,17,20 115:8

10.00 (2) 1:2,11

10.06 (1) 1:4

10.30 (3) 174:2,5,7

10.6 (1) 157:21

100 (3) 31:2 91:25 131:4

10th (1) 48:19

11 (2) 2:3 5:24

11.42 (1) 55:17

11.55 (1) 55:19

12 (2) 2:3 5:24

12(c) (1) 157:14 12.5 (1) 113:20 12.55 (1) 84:9 123 (1) 85:22 124 (1) 95:24

13 (3) 1:24 2:8 5:23

136 (1) 175:6

14 (3) 5:23 108:8,15

14,300,000 (1) 108:9

142 (1) 175:7

15 (9) 6:4 13:25 50:2 68:5,6 152:5 155:16 175:4,5

15.06.2011 (1) 97:11

151 (2) 54:13 175:8

16 (7) 6:4 37:20,22,24 38:2 60:11 67:25

17 (20) 5:23 29:24 30:18 31:14,22,25 33:16 36:5,18,24 37:3,6,6,9,11,16 79:17,21 107:11 114:13

18 (2) 6:4 70:4

19 (3) 1:24 5:23 88:16

2

2 (12) 5:25 50:23 64:10,12,13 66:7

111:11 124:13 127:5 133:4,6,9

2.1 (3) 107:13,22 112:15

2.1.1 (1) 76:1

2.2 (3) 96:7,12,17 2.2.1 (2) 108:1 112:24 2.2.2 (2) 108:5 113:4 2.2.3 (2) 108:5 113:4

2.3 (5) 96:10,22 108:8 113:22,24
2.4 (3) 96:10 97:3,17

2.55 (1) 112:1

20 (8) 5:24 19:4 26:18 29:19 31:20 60:17 67:8 88:16

20,000 (1) 76:12

20.2 (1) 157:21

2005 (1) 91:19

2006 (3) 90:11,24 93:2
2007 (4) 90:11,24 93:2 94:18
2008 (2) 42:7 96:18

2009 (31) 16:25 17:2 19:19 21:8 22:8,10 23:3 26:18 27:3,19 31:14 32:1 34:20 36:5 39:7 41:20 42:2 47:2 51:11 74:18 79:21 82:5 93:25 95:1 116:1,2 121:23 122:20 124:3 127:4 131:23

2010 (12) 46:3 90:15 92:2,21,24 93:3 96:25 97:5,19 98:21,21 100:11 2011 (11) 46:3 90:17 94:19 96:19 97:2

97:10 98:19 103:14 107:11 114:13 131:23

2013 (2) 159:24 160:2

2015 (6) 157:20 158:8 158:13,14,15,16
2016 (2) 1:1 174:7

207 (3) 126:11 127:14 130:18
207,305,000 (1)

122:15

207,305,344.16 (1)

124:14 21 (2) 2:8 6:5
21.7 (1) 80:1

22 (1) 16:20

23 (3) 16:21 91:19 96:18
24 (5) 17:8 61:12,21 61:24 62:23
24/7 (1) 4:21 25 (1) 92:2
25.09.09 (1) 119:17 25th (1) 48:19
26 (4) 62:23 63:7 116:2 117:13
27 (1) 47:2

28 (1) 157:11

29 (4) 96:19,25 97:5 97:19
29.11.2010 (1) 97:20

3

3 (4) 52:4 123:23 124:12 152:18
3.08 (1) 112:3

3.1 (1) 76:11

3.3 (1) 76:12

3.4 (1) 103:8 9.45 (1) 174:3
30 (3) 33:14 109:21 99 (1) 31:3
171:11 99,000 (5) 103:21
34 (1) 103:7 106:5,10 107:20
343 (1) 112:19 110:10
99.99 (1) 9:6
4
4 (6) 1:1 64:2 123:23
124:12 157:20
171:23
4.02 (1) 136:1
4.1 (2) 108:11 114:5
4.11 (1) 136:3
4.15 (1) 135:20
4.30 (1) 135:17
40 (1) 24:24
400 (3) 112:20,22
132:15
42 (1) 38:14
43 (4) 31:9 35:25 38:7
38:15
44 (2) 59:4,15
450 (1) 107:24
49 (2) 75:22 76:15
4th (2) 172:20,22

5

5 (2) 60:4 124:3

5.00 (2) 166:11 167:16

5.07 (1) 174:6

5.2 (1) 76:16

5.3 (1) 76:17

500 (2) 109:6,15

52 (3) 70:19 85:8,9

53 (3) 85:21 86:1 90:14
57 (1) 73:18

57-75 (2) 72:5,11 5th (1) 59:21

6

6 (6) 46:23,24 47:1 60:4 67:6,10
6.60 (1) 122:11

600 (4) 104:22 106:10
106:21,21
63 (1) 112:20
69 (3) 123:15,18,20
6th (1) 59:21

7

7 (12) 27:19 29:20 30:12 32:16 37:19 39:7 40:9 43:8 51:11 59:19 60:4 108:14

70 (1) 123:20

70-page (1) 170:12

700 (3) 104:23 106:10 106:22

73 (1) 164:13

75 (1) 73:18

7th (2) 30:15 59:22

8

8 (1) 66:6

8.2 (1) 62:6

8.5 (1) 64:7

85 (1) 88:16

9
9 (1) 32:6
9.10 (6) 14:15 153:6
155:12,20,21 156:7
9.15 (1) 154:10
9.18 (1) 155:23

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