Day 29

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

Day 29 — Redacted

March 18, 2016

Opus 2 International — Official Court Reporters

Phone: +44 (0)20 3008 5900

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

March 18, 2016 Day 29 — Redacted

1 Friday, 18 March 2016

2 (9.15 am)

3 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Yes, good morning.

4 Good morning, Mr Savelyev.

5 MR STROILOV: May it please your Lordship, I am not sure

6 what is happening with the videolink, and I am not sure

7 whether Mr Arkhangelsky is there but unable to connect.

8 There was something on but in a very unclear way,

9 earlier this morning, and then switched off. I would

10 suggest that, in the circumstances, we should start and

11 then, if necessary, Mr Arkhangelsky catch up with

12 this —

13 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: As long as you are content with that,

14 that is certainly fine by me and I assume by Mr Lord.

15 Yes, it is very dark indeed today. Normally we have

16 a picture, even if it is not quite — is it switched off

17 or is it?

18 MR BIRT: I understand — we are in contact with people at

19 the other end and they are trying to place a call, they

20 are trying to make it work. I can’t tell you where they

21 have got to but we have people working on it.

22 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Thank you so much. Thank you.

23 MR ALEXANDER VASILIEVITCH SAVELYEV (Continued)

24 Cross-examination by MR STROILOV (Continued)

25 (All questions and answers interpreted except where

1 depositors (this is why the regulator should monitor and

2 prevent such activities).»

3 Then perhaps before I ask you — I will skip

4 paragraph 29, I don’t think it is that important, but

5 just in fairness I will read paragraph 30 as well:

6 «In theory, it is not impossible or unlawful for

7 a bank to ‘outsource’ the ‘bad bank’ functions to

8 a third-party assets management company. However,

9 throughout my involvement in Russian banking industry,

10 I have never heard of any bank entering such

11 an arrangement in practice. It would be considered

12 highly unusual, and any bank entering such

13 an arrangement would have to put in place specific

14 safeguards (a) to comply with the Central Bank

15 regulations and (b) to protect its own interest in

16 maximising recovery…»

17 I think I will pause here and ask you whether you

18 agree with this find and I will go to specific points

19 which Professor Guriev is making on that.

20 A. No, my Lord, I disagree. At that point in time in 2008,

21 such repo transactions were done by virtually all the

22 banks. That was a common practice. That was done by

23 VTB Bank and by Sberbank and by other banks. As far as

24 I recall from the press reports, VTB did such

25 transactions with regard to DON-Stroy, that was

1 3

1 otherwise indicated)

2 MR STROILOV: Good morning, Mr Savelyev.

3 A. Good morning, sir.

4 Q. I would like to show you some further points made by

5 Professor Guriev in his expert report. If we could,

6 please, go to {E2/10/10}. Before I read out to you

7 specific passages, may I ask you this: do you agree that

8 the repo arrangement with Oslo Marine Group in this case

9 was a highly unusual repo arrangement?

10 A. No, I disagree, sir.

11 Q. Right. If I could read to you the points which

12 Professor Guriev is making, I will read to you

13 paragraph 28. It is titled «Transfer to third parties»,

14 then he writes this:

15 «The arrangement of transferring the debtors’ assets

16 to companies or individuals not directly controlled by

17 a bank was not common. Indeed, it would be considered

18 wrongful by both the regulator and a bank’s board. The

19 reason for this is very simple. The assets that were

20 the collateral for the bank’s loan should have been

21 returned to the bank or to its subsidiaries. If these

22 assets were handed over to individuals or companies not

23 controlled by the bank, it would be an example of

24 defrauding the bank’s shareholders (hence it would be

25 the board’s duty to stop such transactions) and bank’s

1 a construction company. There are plenty of other

2 examples with regard to repo transactions that at that

3 point in time were performed. Also the Central Bank of

4 the Russian Federation of shareholders and depositors,

5 they are concerned by the fact whether the Bank lost the

6 collateral with regard to the pledges or not. If the

7 pledges remain within the Bank, and in that specific

8 time the pledges remained within the Bank for the whole

9 time period, in that case there is no damage to

10 the Bank, no prejudice to the Bank. In any case, sale

11 of the pledges that eventually happened, all the money

12 were received by the Bank, and I would like to say that

13 I and my shareholders and my depositors and members of

14 the Bank’s board have at the heart of our interest to

15 get the highest possible recovery when the assets of

16 the borrower are sold, because the motivational system

17 at that point in time, and my motivational system, and

18 that one of the board members, completely depended on

19 the Bank’s profit.

20 A contract was entered into with myself, between the

21 supervisory board and myself, where it was stated that

22 my bonus depends on the final results on the profit, on

23 the Bank’s profit, a percentage thereof.

24 Also, we, as a bank, were always interested in order

25 to maximise the profits for the Bank’s capitalisation,

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

March 18, 2016 Day 29 — Redacted

1 otherwise if the Bank’s profit would decrease, then the

2 shareholders would be required to enter into additional

3 insurance for the Bank and put more funds in.

4 So the Bank was completely interested in maximising

5 recovery from the sale of the assets, and these assets

6 in this specific case were always pledged to the Bank.

7 Q. Mr Savelyev, the point Professor Guriev is making, and

8 I wonder, perhaps, if you have been disadvantaged by not

9 seeing the context for yourself, the point he is making

10 is that it is unusual to transfer the assets under

11 a repo contract to a third party as opposed to a bank or

12 its subsidiary; do you understand that point?

13 A. I understand, but unfortunately I haven’t got the

14 Russian version to hand, but still I would like to

15 assert one more time that such transactions at that

16 point in time, my Lord, were common practice. One could

17 cite, and I am not prepared — one could cite many

18 examples when such repo transactions were registered by

19 all the banks in the Russian Federation.

20 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: I think we have to be very precise

21 here. Repo arrangements, your evidence is that

22 arrangements for shares, in effect, to be subject to

23 the Bank’s control under a repurchase agreement for

24 security purposes, you say is common. But I think

25 the further question is, was it common in the context of

1 transaction you referred to in relation to VTB Bank and

2 Donstroy, presumably that involved VTB Capital

3 subsidiary of the Bank, didn’t it?

4 A. Possibly. Now I cannot say exactly to his Lordship.

5 Q. Now, if we could scroll down one page —

6 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Have you any reason to suppose that it

7 wasn’t VTB Capital, because I understood that your

8 evidence yesterday was that it was all very well for big

9 banks as opposed to commercial banks because they had

10 subsidiaries where they could take doubtful …

11 A. No, my Lord, I have no other reasons.

12 MR STROILOV: Now, what Professor Guriev says further, you

13 remember he referred to that further to his point, he

14 said that he will expect some safeguards to be in place,

15 and then he makes the following points in (a)

16 Professor Guriev says:

17 «Even if the assets were held by a third party on

18 behalf of the bank, eg under an agency contract, the

19 bank would still have to show those assets on its

20 balance sheet.»

21 Do you agree with that?

22 A. No, I disagree. In the event of a third party or

23 someone that the Bank transferred the assets to under

24 a repo transaction, and I am stressing, again, the way

25 we negotiated with Mr Arkhangelsky into temporary

5

1 repo transactions for the purchase party to be someone

2 other than the Bank, a third party not controlled by the

3 Bank, not a subsidiary of the Bank, nothing to do with

4 the Bank; was that common?

5 A. Yes, that was common, my Lord.

6 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: And could you tell me the examples of

7 banks of your sort of size which did not have the

8 equivalent of the capital company that you were

9 referring to yesterday, where third parties were the

10 purchasers?

11 A. My Lord, I could only speak for my bank. Now, I do not

12 recall information about the other bank. I cited one

13 case with regard to VTB Bank when they were entering the

14 DON-Stroy repo transaction.

15 With regard to my bank, I would like to cite

16 an example with a Moscow client of the Bank, quite well

17 known in the Russian market. There was a scandalous

18 procedure when a company, Vash Finansoviy Popechitel,

19 Mr Vasily Boiko, was serviced by the Bank, by our bank,

20 and we did a repo deal with him against the pledge of

21 a land plot. That was also a company not belonging to

22 the Bank, and when Mr Vasily Boiko performed all his

23 obligations vis-a-vis the Bank, all the assets were

24 returned to him.

25 MR STROILOV: Mr Savelyev, just to be clear, so the repo

7

1 ownership, because he promised to pay back to the Bank

2 and to uphold all the terms of the credit agreements

3 with the Bank, and we presumed that the company would

4 temporarily hold these shares and then hand them back to

5 the borrower should the borrower uphold his obligations

6 vis-a-vis the Bank. We thought, and we knew, that these

7 assets being pledged to the Bank after the sale, all the

8 money would be received by the Bank.

9 MR STROILOV: Mr Savelyev, the next paragraph, (b),

10 Professor Guriev says:

11 «Any agreement ‘outsourcing’ assets management to

12 a third party would be in writing. Indeed, I would

13 expect an unusual contract of this kind, involving

14 significant risks for the bank, to be very carefully

15 drafted by professional lawyers to protect the bank’s

16 rights and interests, and ensure it was enforceable

17 through the courts.»

18 Don’t you find it unusual that there was no written

19 agreement between the Bank and Renord in this case?

20 A. Firstly, I would not be able to assert, my Lord, that

21 there was a written agreement or otherwise. This is not

22 something known to me.

23 Also, taking into account the fact that

24 Mrs Malysheva and Mr Smirnov knew each other for a long

25 time and trusted each other and worked together for many

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

March 18, 2016 Day 29 — Redacted

1 years, not just at the Bank, but, as far as I recall,

2 also at AVK company, I think that a decision was made by

3 Mrs Malysheva, and I do support her in this regard.

4 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: How could it be in the interests of

5 your bank not to have a written record of valuable

6 assets and a written agreement as to how they were to be

7 held and disposed of?

8 A. My Lord, taking into account the fact that the assets

9 that were transferred to third parties were held in

10 pledge at the Bank, a pledge to the Bank and the Bank

11 had a full right and title in the assets as a collateral

12 against the pledges, de jure, the assets held by third

13 parties were still in control of the Bank, because they

14 were pledged to the Bank.

15 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: But not all of them were. If there is

16 any value left in the shares, they are valuable assets

17 in themselves, aren’t they?

18 A. Possibly, my Lord.

19 MR STROILOV: Thank you, my Lord.

20 Then the next point Professor Guriev is making is,

21 in an arrangement of this kind, he says in (c):

22 «I would expect the remuneration to the asset

23 management companies to be agreed in very clear and

24 detailed terms.»

25 It appears that this hasn’t been done in this case;

1 there are two things, aren’t there: one is the pledge,

2 which takes place on day one, and then some time later

3 there is the repurchase arrangement, which concerns only

4 the shares, and you have explained to me that the repo

5 transaction related to the shares, and you have said

6 that the shares — that wasn’t quite so important a

7 document, because the Bank already had the benefit of

8 the pledges.

9 But I think what I took the question to be was do

10 you agree with Professor Guriev that the outsourcing the

11 asset management of the collateral, because by then the

12 purchaser under the repo would be the controller of

13 the company, and able to sell those assets, albeit

14 subject to a pledge, do you agree that that would be

15 unusual?

16 A. My Lord, I disagree. To sell the assets which are

17 pledged, it is impossible, and you are completely

18 spot-on with regard to what concerns the shares.

19 I think I fully agree with you about the fact that the

20 pledge was registered just for the Bank, but only the

21 shares were transferred, however, to sell a pledge to

22 a third party or to the shareholder, to the acting

23 shareholder itself, is not possible without the Bank’s

24 involvement. I am talking about the pledge itself.

25 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: But I thought that the rationale for

9 11

1 do you find that unusual, Mr Savelyev?

2 A. I don’t think this is unusual because the asset that was

3 registered under the repo transactions was pledged to

4 the Bank.

5 Q. And then in paragraph 31, Professor Guriev makes this

6 point:

7 «In addition, such an unusual decision as

8 ‘outsourcing’ asset management of the collateral could

9 only be taken by a collegial body such as the Credit

10 Committee and/or the Executive Committee (‘Pravlenie’).»

11 Do you find it unusual that the decision has not

12 been taken in a formal way by the credit committee or

13 the executive committee?

14 A. With regard to the pledge, I don’t think that that was

15 without the credit committee or the executive committee

16 involvement, because for the pledge to be re-registered

17 from one legal entity to another legal entity, this is

18 a mandatory procedure and it has to be agreed with the

19 executive committee and the major credit committee of

20 the Bank.

21 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Is that an answer to that question,

22 Mr Stroilov?

23 MR STROILOV: I am not sure. Let me ask it again, just in

24 case.

25 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: The reason I ask that is I think that

1 the repo was to ensure that the company could not sell

2 the assets to defeat or erode the value of the pledge.

3 I thought that was the whole rationale; isn’t that

4 right?

5 A. My Lord, well with the help of managing the company, the

6 company can be encumbered, management can encumber the

7 company despite the Bank having the pledges. It can be

8 encumbered with new loans, new debts that would be

9 registered to the company, and thus create the company’s

10 loans bigger than the pledges held by the Bank, and in

11 the event of bankruptcy or bankruptcy proceedings,

12 whoever has more assets in the loan would be entitled to

13 appoint a receiver for the company overall.

14 However, the pledge that the Bank held in any case

15 would be returned to the Bank to the extent up to

16 80 per cent of the value of the sale, that’s according

17 to the statute.

18 So in any case, even if the loans would be new, even

19 if the new loans would exceed it, and other people would

20 be heading the receivership of the company, the pledge

21 cannot be sold to anyone else and the Bank, any bank,

22 would receive a minimum of 80 per cent of the sale

23 proceeds. This is the statute in the Russian

24 Federation.

25 However, if someone is managing the assets for their

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

March 18, 2016 Day 29 — Redacted

1 own interests, it’s possible to encumber the company as

2 a whole, and such practice does exist. I would like to

3 cite an example of Viaton Group(?), it is a large group

4 operating in the Russian markets, and it took five years

5 for the banks, and they still cannot get Viaton to pay

6 under the loans, because legally Viaton has mounted

7 a very strong defence. They protect their assets and

8 no one can get anything from them, and in this specific

9 case, in our proceedings, if you have a look, about ten

10 banks were extending loans to Mr Arkhangelsky’s group,

11 Oslo Marine, not a single bank got back a single rouble

12 from the loan portfolio extended to Mr Arkhangelsky.

13 We are the only bank, thanks to the repo

14 transaction, and thanks to the fact that we did not

15 allow the assets to be encumbered, and then there was

16 quite a stand-off on the part of Mr Arkhangelsky, we

17 were the only bank that was able to get the money back

18 and save the money. I completely agree with you,

19 your Lordship. Ownership of the company via the shares

20 can always encumber the company by new loans, and

21 therefore I am of the opinion that as of today — of

22 course we didn’t know that then — Mr Arkhangelsky is

23 a fraudster. He swindled all the Russian banks that he

24 took loans from, and the only bank that got at least

25 something back from him is the Bank of St Petersburg,

1 nor banks had sufficient liquidity. The assets that the

2 banks received were quite sufficient. There were lots

3 of assets that were available for sale and they were all

4 discounted. There were no buyers, for all practical

5 purposes, and it was really a miracle at that time that

6 we managed to sell an asset by using the auction scheme

7 or the court bailiffs, and recover at least some money,

8 because even at a huge discount, no one was buying

9 anything; there were simply no buyers, and our bank

10 faced a very difficult situation because we not only had

11 Mr Arkhangelsky as one of the defaulting borrowers; we

12 had other problem assets and so we were trying to do our

13 best to get rid of the toxic assets over a short period

14 of time.

15 Q. Mr Savelyev, if you could answer the question. I am

16 sorry, I am anxious to try and do my best to finish

17 today.

18 In your experience of repo transactions, is it

19 normal for the shares to be sold and then possibly

20 resold at a nominal price, at RUB 10,000, as in this

21 case?

22 A. Yes, considering the encumbrances, I mean the debts,

23 that is, that is normal.

24 Q. Thank you. Now if you could go back to the memorandum,

25 that will be at {D107/1537/1}, and the Russian version

13

1 only thanks to the fact that we defended our pledges via

2 the repo transaction for the shares. This is why we

3 managed to get at least some amounts back. Not a single

4 bank managed to do the same.

5 MR STROILOV: My Lord, may I press on?

6 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Sure, yes.

7 MR STROILOV: Now, Mr Savelyev, really just to get back to

8 the point, I am just asking you about any features which

9 appear to be unusual in this repo transaction as opposed

10 to other repo transactions.

11 So I think you said that in your experience it is

12 usual to use the third parties to hold the collateral or

13 the shares, and I think you also said that the relative

14 informality of that arrangement is also something that

15 doesn’t surprise you; is that a fair summary of your

16 answers?

17 A. Yes.

18 Q. Now, in your experience, is it normal for the so-called

19 sale under the repo contracts, so sale and then resale,

20 to take place at a nominal price as opposed to

21 substantial price; is that normal in your experience?

22 A. My Lord, may I explain to your Lordship that between

23 2008 and 2009 there was an economic crisis and the gist

24 of it was that everyone went illiquid. The major

25 problem was the lack of liquidity. Neither enterprises

15

1 starts at {D107/1537/3}.

2 If you could scroll down one page {D107/1537/4}.

3 Now, what I would like to draw your attention to, is

4 the first line {D107/1537/2} in clause 2:

5 «After the complete fulfilment of the Group’s

6 obligations to the Bank, sale and purchase transactions

7 in reverse will be carried out…»

8 So «complete fulfilment», so that refers not to

9 a specific loan, not to a specific payment, but that

10 seems to say that shares would only be returned after

11 OMG repaid all its debts to the last rouble; is that

12 normal in your experience of repo transactions?

13 A. No, it is not, and I believe that the memorandum and

14 those specific transactions mentioned in the memorandum,

15 this is what they mean by the full performance: only

16 those loans which are listed in the memorandum. This is

17 what the memorandum means, the way I read it.

18 Q. Okay. Now, if I could move to a slightly different

19 subject. Mr Savelyev, obviously the Bank’s borrowers

20 are very different, they range from very small ones who

21 take out loans in thousands of roubles, to very big ones

22 who take loans in billions. Do you understand what I am

23 saying?

24 A. Yes.

25 Q. And presumably the time after the global financial

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

March 18, 2016 Day 29 — Redacted

1 crisis, some months after the global financial crisis

2 were quite a difficult time for the Bank, wasn’t it?

3 A. Yes, we were going through some hard times, my Lord.

4 Q. So that period of time, at the end of 2008, the

5 beginning of 2009, do you remember that period well?

6 A. No, not very well.

7 Q. And do you remember the problems you had in terms of —

8 with borrowers following the financial crisis?

9 A. Yes, that I do remember.

10 Q. Would you be able to give the court an estimate.

11 I appreciate you wouldn’t have exact figures, but

12 approximately, as of the end of 2008, how many of

13 the Bank’s borrowers would have outstanding debts in

14 the billions of roubles. Not in millions, in billions;

15 how many would be there?

16 A. My Lord, I do recall that that was about 6 per cent of

17 the total loan portfolio.

18 Now, what the amount of the portfolio at that time

19 was I do not recall, but at any rate, say it was, for

20 instance, 200 billion, so 6 per cent of the 200 billion

21 would be a lot of money for a bank which does not have

22 a very large capital base, and I agree with Mr Guriev

23 where he says that everyone — not just our bank,

24 everyone was facing very severe problems.

25 Q. Just let me understand your answer correctly. So what

1 just ask Mr Savelyev to read the relevant passage, and

2 I do apologise, my Lord.

3 Now, if you could first go to page 1 {D197/2960/1}.

4 Now, Mr Savelyev, this seems to be an interview you have

5 given to Vedomosti newspaper in January 2012. That’s

6 a verbatim interview; do you recall that?

7 A. Well, journalists never do verbatim reports, they are

8 very creative people, so they write whatever they

9 believe needs to be written. With respect to what

10 I said, this is not a verbatim report. We are looking

11 at a newspaper.

12 Q. Fair enough, that’s why I wanted to ask you about

13 specific things you are recorded as saying and ask you

14 whether you have said them.

15 It suggests at the top that it was published on

16 26 January 2012. Mr Savelyev, do you recall giving

17 an interview to Vedomosti around that time?

18 A. My apologies, Mr Stroilov, the date I see here,

19 3 March 2016. Oh no, sorry, my apologies. Yes, yes

20 I agree. Yes, it says 26 January 2012, so that’s when

21 the document was downloaded, 13 March 2016. Yes, yes,

22 I agree with you, sir.

23 Q. Yes, and so do you recall giving that interview?

24 A. Yes. I do recall that.

25 Q. Now, if we could scroll down to {D197/2960/3}, and here

17 19
1 you are saying, 6 per cent were very big borrowers. So 1 you talk, I would summarise in general terms, and you
2 6 per cent of the loan portfolio would be borrowers who 2 can look at the page, now you talk about the importance
3 borrowed in billions as opposed to millions; is that 3 of working directly with clients and keeping in touch
4 what you are saying? 4 with clients, seeing them. Is that a fair summary of
5 A. Yes. 5 the scene?
6 Q. So just to use your figures, 6 per cent of 200 billion 6 A. Yes, that is true.
7 would be 12 billion; that sounds right. 7 Q. And now if you could read just above the subheading, the
8 A. I said approximately, I’m not sure about the total 8 question and answer just above the subheading which
9 figure. This is a ballpark figure. 9 starts with the reference to 35,000 clients; could you
10 Q. Of course, and I am not trying to catch you out in that. 10 please read that out so that it is translated to
11 So it may be 12 billion plus or minus quite 11 my Lord? The last one above the subheading in
12 a significant margin of error. 12 the middle of the page.
13 So out of that, let’s say, 12 billion, 4 billion 13 A. «You have 35,000 clients —»
14 were owed by OMG? 14 Is this the question you are referring to,
15 A. Yes. 15 Mr Stroilov?
16 Q. So that seems to imply that OMG was among, let’s say, 16 Q. That’s right, thank you, Mr Savelyev, yes.
17 three or four or five of the biggest borrowers of 17 A. «For 11 years I have been working in this Bank and
18 the Bank. 18 I have regular meetings with a huge number of clients.
19 A. Yes, that was the case. 19 I have up to 30 meetings a week and if I meet with
20 Q. Now, could we please go — I am sorry, that’s not the 20 a client once a year, a client who has strategic
21 right reference. I wanted to … 21 questions, strategic issues that he needs some
22 Yes, if we could please go to {D197/2960/3}, and 22 assistance on, that would only work for the better and
23 I am afraid it is, again, a document which is only in 23 to the benefit of everyone. I do not have meetings with
24 Russian. I will try to find — there must be 24 them on a daily basis. Also considering the
25 a mechanical translation somewhere. I will probably 25 macroeconomic situation, people are not investing as
18 20
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

March 18, 2016 Day 29 — Redacted

1 much as they used to invest in the past. They do not

2 inject money into business projects or into capital

3 projects. They are monitoring the revenue-to-debt

4 ratio, and are trying to make sure they do not end up in

5 an unpredictable situation. So the borrowers have been

6 treading much more carefully and so, from a strategic

7 point of view, this is good for the potential quality of

8 the loan portfolio.»

9 Q. Mr Savelyev, I think what you seem to be indicating here

10 is that, really, over the course of your work at the

11 Bank, for 11 years, it has always been your practice to

12 have a lot of meetings with clients, up to 30 per week;

13 is that a fair summary of what you are indicating in

14 this interview?

15 A. Yes.

16 Q. And is this true?

17 A. Yes.

18 Q. Presumably that would mean that you would be well

19 acquainted at least with the biggest borrowers of

20 the Bank; would you agree with that?

21 A. Yes.

22 Q. And that suggests that — well, let me start again. So

23 the Bank was lending to Oslo Marine Group from 2006 to

24 2008, early 2009. That’s the period when your relations

25 with OMG were active, you were working with them?

1 took place in 2006, and Mr Guz also participated?

2 A. No, this is not true. This is not true.

3 Q. And your memory is clear enough to deny this

4 categorically on oath?

5 A. Absolutely. I did not have meetings with

6 Mr Arkhangelsky in 2006.

7 Q. And subsequently in the period between the spring of

8 2006 and the end of 2008, it was quite a usual practice

9 for Mr Belykh, when he had his own meetings with

10 Mr Arkhangelsky, if there were some important issues to

11 take him to your office for a meeting? Isn’t that the

12 case?

13 A. This only happened once in November 2008, but other than

14 that, I fully trust my deputies. The deputies work

15 directly with clients, with directors of offices,

16 including Mr Belykh, whose responsibilities included

17 working with clients.

18 Just for his Lordship’s benefit, if I may, I would

19 like to say that Mr Arkhangelsky had never raised

20 $4 billion worth of debt from the Bank as a one-off

21 operation. It all started with RUB 100 million,

22 RUB 200 million, and then by the year 2008, I fully

23 agree with Mr Stroilov in the sense that he was then

24 a large borrower of the Bank, and I came to know him,

25 I met him because he was a large borrower. Over

21

1 A. No.

2 Q. I mean, the business relations between the Bank and OMG

3 continued.

4 A. Between the Bank and the OMG group, yes.

5 Q. And in that period you had dozens of meetings with

6 Mr Arkhangelsky, didn’t you?

7 A. No. I only met Mr Arkhangelsky on two occasions:

8 in November and then in December, and there had been no

9 prior meetings with Mr Arkhangelsky before that time.

10 It was the office, Investrbank, acting through the

11 director of Investrbank, and Mr Belykh, who at that time

12 was reporting to Mr Guz, who was the deputy chairman of

13 the board.

14 So those were the people who were working with

15 Mr Arkhangelsky at that time.

16 Q. Now, Mr Savelyev, I want you to be very clear about

17 this: are you saying you are not sure and you don’t

18 remember, or are you in a position to deny categorically

19 that you had any meetings with Mr Arkhangelsky except

20 those two?

21 A. Well, we may have rubbed shoulders at some social events

22 in the city, but in my office I only had two meetings

23 with Mr Arkhangelsky, which was at the end of November

24 and then at the end of December.

25 Q. Now, isn’t it the case that your first meeting in fact

23

1 a certain period of time, he had become a large borrower

2 and that large borrower was asking for an appointment,

3 he was asking to see me.

4 Q. And, Mr Savelyev, wasn’t the usual practice of Mr Guz

5 when he had his own meetings with Mr Arkhangelsky in

6 2006 to 2008, on occasions to take him to your office

7 when there was some important issue to discuss?

8 A. No. He did not bring Mr Arkhangelsky to my office and

9 I had not seen him prior to November 2008.

10 Q. And you are absolutely sure of that?

11 A. Yes.

12 Q. And isn’t it the case, Mr Savelyev, that at one of

13 the meetings you had with Mr Arkhangelsky in 2006, you

14 discussed the issue of personal guarantees?

15 A. My Lord, I never discussed personal guarantees. This is

16 not part of my remit. This is done by risk assessment

17 people and the deputy who is in charge of the operations

18 conducted by the Bank’s offices, so this is not part of

19 my responsibilities.

20 Q. And isn’t it the case that on that occasion you told

21 Mr Arkhangelsky that loans to OMG would not need to be

22 secured by his personal guarantees?

23 A. Could you be more specific, Mr Stroilov? When you said

24 «then», what exactly do you mean? Which year are you

25 referring to?

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

March 18, 2016 Day 29 — Redacted

1 Q. Well, let me start again. At some point in 2008 you

2 personally told Mr Arkhangelsky that he would not need

3 to provide personal guarantees to secure loans to OMG;

4 isn’t that so?

5 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: In 2008?

6 MR STROILOV: I beg your pardon, did I say that?

7 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: You did.

8 MR STROILOV: I’m terribly sorry.

9 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: That’s all right.

10 MR STROILOV: Let me start again, Mr Savelyev, just ignore

11 this.

12 At one point in 2006 you told Mr Arkhangelsky that

13 he would not need to provide any personal guarantees to

14 secure OMG loans; is that correct?

15 A. No.

16 Q. And your memory of that period is good enough to be able

17 to deny this on oath categorically?

18 A. As I was preparing for these proceedings, we

19 double-checked all my diaries and we did not have any

20 meetings with Mr Arkhangelsky at that time. Once again,

21 we only met twice with him: in November and in December

22 and I had never had any prior meetings with him.

23 Q. Couldn’t there be meetings which had not been diarised

24 previously, but something that happened ad hoc, for

25 example, if Mr Belykh or Mr Guz had their own meetings

1 press reports, but I do not know when or where.

2 Q. So is that all you remember about Mr Piotrovsky’s career

3 in business after leaving the police service? You don’t

4 recall anything else which may be of interest to this

5 court?

6 A. Correct.

7 Q. And isn’t it the case that Mr Piotrovsky was appointed

8 to — was given the job of an economic security adviser

9 to the CEO of Baltic Fuel Company?

10 A. That is possible.

11 Q. Right. Back to his position as a head of the police

12 in — I’m sorry, did you say when he was the head of

13 the police in St Petersburg? I am not sure you said

14 that.

15 But do you accept that he was the head of

16 St Petersburg police in the period between 2006 and

17 2009?

18 A. Yes.

19 Q. And did you know him personally in that period?

20 A. I did.

21 Q. And isn’t it the case that in 2007, there were certain

22 investigations initiated by Mr Piotrovsky against

23 Mr Arkhangelsky?

24 A. I’m not aware of this.

25 Q. And isn’t it the case that in August or September 2007

25 27
1 with Mr Arkhangelsky and then at the end of it took him 1 Mr Belykh organised a meeting between you and
2 to your office? 2 Mr Arkhangelsky to discuss that?
3 A. Once again, I would like to confirm for your Lordship’s 3 A. No.
4 benefit that we may have met at some city social events. 4 Q. And in the course of that meeting, you telephoned
5 I do not recall meeting Mr Arkhangelsky at that time, 5 Mr Piotrovsky and asked him to put a stop to persecution
6 but this, I would not rule that out, but in terms of 6 of Mr Arkhangelsky.
7 what Mr Stroilov is now alleging, ie that Belykh or Guz 7 A. My Lord, I have already answered in the negative to
8 had brought Mr Arkhangelsky to my office, this I can 8 the previous question posed by Mr Stroilov, and I repeat
9 totally deny. 9 the answer, which is also no.
10 Q. Now, Mr Savelyev, do you know the gentleman called 10 Q. That’s not a truthful answer.
11 Vladislav Piotrovsky? 11 Now, Mr Savelyev, do you consider that you have
12 A. I do. 12 complied with your disclosure obligations in these
13 Q. And who is that? 13 proceedings?
14 A. What period of time are you referring to? 14 A. Yes, I consider I have complied.
15 Q. Well, can you generally describe to the court who 15 Q. Now, if you could please go to {P1/2/1}, and the Russian
16 Mr Piotrovsky is? 16 version is at {P1/2/4}. As you can see, Mr Savelyev,
17 A. He was the head of the internal affairs department of 17 that’s your disclosure statement, dated 4 July 2013.
18 the City of St Petersburg and of the Leningrad region. 18 Do you recall that document?
19 Q. And subsequently, after retiring from that position, or 19 A. Yes, I have seen this document before.
20 leaving that position, what did he do? 20 Q. And if we could just scroll down on the Russian screen
21 A. And then, my Lord, I was not monitoring the career of 21 to page 5 and on the English screen to page 2.
22 the heads of the police department. I know from press 22 {P1/2/2}, {P1/2/5}. So you think you have signed both
23 reports that he joined a company, the name of which 23 versions on 4 July, 2013; does that look right?
24 I now forget. I know that he was with Sistema, 24 A. Yes.
25 IFC Sistema and again, this is something I know from 25 Q. And then if we could again scroll up one page each, on
26 28
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

March 18, 2016 Day 29 — Redacted

1 each screen {P1/2/1}, {B1/2/4}, here you say that — if

2 you can see, in a way, the statement is — you state

3 that you:

4 «…have carried out a reasonable and proportionate

5 search to locate all the documents which I am required

6 to disclose under the order made by the court on

7 15 February 2013.»

8 Then you indicate that the search was carried out in

9 your office at Malookhtinsky Prospekt 64A, but nowhere

10 else. So you do recall that?

11 A. This is what it says here, yes.

12 Q. And you stand by that statement. It is still true; do

13 you confirm it is true to the best of your knowledge and

14 belief?

15 A. As far as I recall.

16 Q. I beg your pardon, the reference to the order is to

17 the order for standard disclosure. We can look at the

18 order if necessary, but if you understand what «standard

19 disclosure» means.

20 So essentially, you were required to search for any

21 relevant documents; did you do so?

22 A. Yes, in my office.

23 Q. Now, if we could now go to {N22/53/11}.

24 Now, let me explain the context. I think that will

25 be good. After the disclosure was given on behalf of

1 Q. And in the left column you can see it is titled «Your

2 request», and that is a quotation from my previous

3 letter to Baker & McKenzie, and what it says is this:

4 «It is your clients’ case that the meeting between

5 Mr Savelyev and Mr Arkhangelsky took place in

6 late November 2008, and that was where Mr Arkhangelsky

7 requested a personal loan. It is the Defendants’ case

8 that the meeting in fact took place in

9 early December 2008, ie after the alleged date of

10 the personal loan. Please disclose all documents

11 concerning arrangements for the meeting and which may

12 shed light on its real date, for example Mr Savelyev’s

13 business diaries for the relevant period, e-mails,

14 notes, et cetera.»

15 Then in the right column you see the response from

16 Baker & McKenzie, which is as follows:

17 «Available relevant documents have been disclosed.

18 No documents have been found which clarify the actual

19 date.»

20 Mr Savelyev, would you agree that it is quite

21 impossible that Baker & McKenzie would make such

22 a statement if it wasn’t true to the best of their

23 knowledge?

24 A. Sir, could you please repeat your question with regard

25 to Baker & McKenzie? I didn’t understand your question.

29 31
1 the Bank and yourself, Mr Savelyev, I wrote a letter to 1 Q. Baker & McKenzie would only put this assertion in this
2 your then English lawyers, Baker & McKenzie, to make 2 letter if it was true to the best of their knowledge; do
3 various criticisms of that disclosure; do you follow 3 you agree?
4 that? 4 A. I think so, yes.
5 A. I don’t follow because the document I had then was in 5 Q. So that means that no calendar entries giving the dates
6 Russian. I don’t know what this document is. 6 of your meetings were found at that stage; isn’t that
7 Q. It doesn’t matter, I’m explaining to you what happened. 7 logical?
8 After the disclosure was given, we made a number of 8 A. I think not, because these entries are always stored on
9 criticisms of that disclosure, just saying: well, you 9 a hard drive.
10 should have searched for this and that and that, as is 10 Q. I will be corrected if I am wrong, but if I remember
11 usually done. 11 correctly, the calendar entries which have been
12 This, what you see on the screen, is the response of 12 subsequently disclosed, were only disclosed at the same
13 your lawyers, Baker & McKenzie, dated 20 November 2013, 13 time as you made your witness statement in these
14 which sets out my questions and their answer to that on 14 proceedings.
15 your behalf; does that make sense? 15 A. Possibly.
16 A. Yes, I understand. 16 Q. So by what magic did those calendar entries come into
17 Q. Now if we could scroll down to page 21 {N22/53/21} and 17 existence between 2013 and 2015?
18 in the middle of the page, point 10, that is the point 18 A. I think they didn’t come into existence; they were
19 titled «Time of meeting between Mr Savelyev and 19 always stored at the hard drive of the PC.
20 Mr Arkhangelsky in late November or 20 Q. If so, if that is true, Mr Savelyev, do you accept that
21 early December 2008»; is that correct? 21 you were in breach of your disclosure obligations.
22 Well, obviously you can’t say that, I am just 22 A. No, I didn’t breach any obligations. I would like to
23 reading it. Do you follow that? So that’s the issue 23 formulate my answer more precisely, and to be able to
24 that we have identified. 24 see what it says in Russian, because I don’t understand
25 A. Yes, yes, I do understand. 25 what it says here, and what you clarified, sir, I don’t
30 32
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

March 18, 2016 Day 29 — Redacted

1 think I’ve understood it fully. 1 five-minute break to assist the transcribers.
2 Q. Let me read it again. The quotation from my request to 2 MR STROILOV: I think that is fair, my Lord.
3 Baker & McKenzie is as follows: 3 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: This is when suits you in terms of
4 «It is your clients’ case that the meeting between 4 the progress of your cross-examination to have a break,
5 Mr Savelyev and Mr Arkhangelsky took place in 5 does it?
6 late November 2008, and that was where Mr Arkhangelsky 6 MR STROILOV: Quite, my Lord, very much so, because later on
7 requested a personal loan. It is the defendants’ case 7 it might be quite inconvenient, and I think two breaks,
8 that the meeting in fact took place in 8 perhaps if we could reduce the lunch break to 50 minutes
9 early December 2008, ie after the alleged date of 9 but have two 10-minute breaks that could be a good idea,
10 the personal loan. Please disclose all documents 10 given that we have a long morning, and I am grateful for
11 concerning arrangements for the meeting and which may 11 that.
12 shed light on its real date, for example Mr Savelyev’s 12 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Let’s see how we go.
13 business diaries for the relevant period, e-mails, 13 (10.31 am)
14 notes, et cetera.» 14 (A short break)
15 A. My Lord, in my witness statement, in my evidence at the 15 (10.42 am)
16 BVI court or elsewhere, I erroneously stated, and 16 MR STROILOV: May it please your Lordship.
17 I apologise before the court because of that, I said 17 Mr Savelyev, you made reference earlier to witness
18 that there were three meetings, and one of the meetings 18 statements you made in BVI proceedings and in French
19 is described here by Mr Stroilov. He asserts that the 19 proceedings, didn’t you?
20 meeting did take place, based on this text, but I don’t 20 A. Yes.
21 understand what the text says. It has been asserted 21 Q. And just to be clear, if we go to your witness statement
22 that it happened in early December. I did not meet 22 at {B1/1/1}, and then if we scroll down, respectively,
23 Mr Arkhangelsky in early December; I met him at the end 23 to {B1/1/11} and I think the Russian version of that
24 of November and at the end of December. 24 will be {B1/1/25}. I am looking at 46.2. I think, just
25 Q. We will come to that. The question is, there was — and 25 to be sure, I think you make a mistake, you say the BVI
33 35
1 you asked me to read again this exchange, and I am not 1 witness statement was made on 29 December 2012. In
2 sure you see the point, or perhaps you pretend not to 2 reality it was 29 December 2011, isn’t that correct?
3 see the point: There was a request to disclose any 3 I think that’s a mistake. (Pause).
4 documents which shed light on the date of your meeting 4 Do you agree with that, Mr Savelyev? We can look at
5 with Mr Arkhangelsky, for example, and I quote: 5 the statement, but obviously BVI proceedings stopped in
6 «… Mr Savelyev’s business diaries for the relevant 6 the beginning of 2012, so that would be December 2011;
7 period, e-mails, notes, et cetera.» 7 would you agree with that?
8 To which the response from your lawyers was, and 8 A. Possibly, yes.
9 I quote: 9 Q. Well, we will look at that.
10 «Available relevant documents have been disclosed. 10 So would you agree that at the time you made the BVI
11 No documents have been found which clarify the actual 11 statement in 2011, or even if it was 2012, your
12 date.» 12 recollection of the events was much fresher than it is
13 Now, Mr Savelyev, I put it to you that this suggests 13 now?
14 that at that time, Baker & McKenzie stated on your 14 A. My Lord, can I just say that if I gave evidence, then
15 behalf, and with your authority, that there were no such 15 that evidence, speaking from memory, that was given
16 documents as the calendar entries which you exhibited. 16 after 6 April 2012 rather than in the year 2011, because
17 A. Possibly your correspondence, because it is your 17 I recall that people came to the hospital where I was,
18 correspondence with Baker & McKenzie, it’s not my 18 and asked me to give evidence because it was extremely
19 correspondence with them. 19 difficult for me even to sign.
20 Q. Indeed it isn’t. 20 Now, whether I signed the evidence in — was it
21 I wonder, my Lord, if a short break now — is it too 21 whether in Nice or in the BVI, I do not recall exactly,
22 early? I’m just concerned that I wouldn’t want a break 22 but it was in 2012.
23 for a while once I embark on the next line. 23 Q. So when did you get into the hospital?
24 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Well, it will be quite a long stretch, 24 A. After 6 April 2012.
25 but if you want a break now, we may have another 25 Q. Right. Let me — now, if we could please go to — just
34 36
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

March 18, 2016 Day 29 — Redacted

1 to save time, I think I would just like to draw your

2 attention to paragraph 48, where you confirm — I just

3 wonder if … I think yes, you confirm that the matters

4 contained in those statement were true:

5 «I believed that the matters contained in those

6 statements were true when I made them.»

7 Do you see the second and third line of

8 paragraph 48? Do you confirm that, that you didn’t make

9 things up? At the time you gave that evidence, you

10 believed it to be true?

11 A. May I just add that I had a health issue starting on

12 6 April, and until 16 May, so it was less than a month,

13 and I was in no condition at that time really to think

14 clearly or write clearly, and obviously I made some

15 mistakes which I then corrected in my second witness

16 statement, and I did apologise to the court for having

17 made those mistakes.

18 Q. Well, you referred to the second witness statement, do

19 you mean the statement we see on the screen, just to be

20 sure we know what we are talking about?

21 A. I am referring to the next witness statement that

22 I prepared for the London proceedings.

23 Q. I think you are making — if we could scroll down one

24 page on each screen, this is the statement where you —

25 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: If you read paragraph 48 to yourself,

1 confusion comes from. At the top of the page in

2 the English version, actually, the last digit in that

3 date is kind of blotted. Can you confirm that in

4 the Russian version you see that statement to be dated

5 at the top right, and then the last line of the top

6 right, 29 December 2011?

7 A. The document I have in front of me, the English text

8 says 29 December 2012 and the Russian document says

9 29 December 2011.

10 Q. Yes. I suggest to you that the Russian document

11 contains the correct date.

12 A. Well, I wouldn’t be too sure, really.

13 Q. And if we could scroll down to the — on the Russian

14 screen to page 29 and on the English screen to page 13

15 {M1/10/29}, {M1/10/13}.

16 So, Mr Savelyev, now looking at this, do you agree

17 that this statement is dated December 2011, not 2012?

18 A. Here, yes, but this is not my handwriting here. I am

19 looking at the date. This is not my handwriting. It is

20 my signature, but not my handwriting beneath my

21 signature.

22 Q. Mr Savelyev, would you agree that you would have only

23 served a witness statement in BVI proceedings while BVI

24 proceedings were ongoing?

25 A. Yes, I agree with that.

37 39

1 that may remind you.

2 MR STROILOV: Could we have the Russian version? Could we

3 have two pages: the top of page 26 and the bottom of

4 page 25. I am sorry, but it is not … yes, if we could

5 scroll up the English version again, sorry about that

6 {B1/1/25}, {B1/1/26}, {B1/1/12}. Scroll up the English

7 version and Mr Savelyev will say when you reach the end

8 of the page and if he wants to read. {B1/1/11}.

9 So is that what you meant when you referred to

10 correction of earlier errors?

11 A. Yes. I say here that there are some inaccuracies here,

12 including the dates and the number of my meetings with

13 Mr Arkhangelsky.

14 Q. What I just want to establish is that you are not saying

15 that there was some additional witness statement which

16 you served in BVI where you correct errors: this is what

17 you mean. There was no previous statement where you

18 also correct those alleged errors?

19 A. That is correct.

20 Q. Now, if we could have a look at —

21 A. I also gave evidence to Mrs Levitskaya.

22 Q. We will come to that, Mr Savelyev, don’t worry. If we

23 go to {M1/10/1}, and on the other screen I think if we

24 have page 16, I guess that would be the first page.

25 {M1/10/15}, if possible. I guess that may be where the

1 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: I don’t know whether this is a very

2 important point, but I think the court stamp is

3 3 January 2012 —2011.

4 MR LORD: Yes, my Lord, if it helps, we accept it is

5 a mistake. It is 2011. Mr Stroilov is absolutely

6 right.

7 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: I mean, I am sorry to interrupt, but

8 it may be this is something of a detail.

9 MR STROILOV: I am not very keen to spend too much time on

10 it.

11 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: No.

12 MR STROILOV: Yes, so Mr Savelyev, that would be before your

13 unfortunate accident, wouldn’t that? You weren’t in

14 hospital in December 2012?

15 A. No, I was not.

16 Q. And so in December 2011, your recollection of the events

17 of 2008/2009 would be fresher than it is now; do you

18 agree with that?

19 A. No, not really. I would say it was more or less the

20 same quality of recollection.

21 Q. Okay. If we could please go to {M1/10/5} in the English

22 version, and I think {M1/10/20} in the Russian. I am

23 after paragraph 19. Mr Savelyev, I wonder, if there is

24 a hard copy it would be helpful if you have it in case

25 you want to look at the context, but having set out the

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

March 18, 2016 Day 29 — Redacted

1 alleged meeting at the end of November in relation to 1 A. I am happy to explain. When I was giving that evidence
2 the alleged personal loan, there is a section of 2 I meant the meeting on 25 December, but because it had
3 the statement entitled «Second Meeting in 3 already been a long time and it was at a meeting with
4 Early December», where you say, in paragraph 19 you set 4 Mr Arkhangelsky, and we discussed the matters which
5 out people who attended the meeting. In paragraph 20 5 I set out in my witness statement, and what I had in
6 you say that Mr Arkhangelsky told you about the 6 mind was the meeting on the 25th, not in early December.
7 financial difficulties and requested restructuring of 7 We did not have a meeting with Mr Arkhangelsky in
8 the loan repayments. 8 early December, and I would like to reiterate once again
9 If you could just scan read, I am not asking you 9 that I apologised to the court for having made that
10 to — I am not going to — well, just scan read through 10 mistake.
11 this. We can scroll down the English text. The Russian 11 Now, what Mr Stroilov is saying where he alleges
12 is a bit longer so it’s okay to keep it {M1/10/6}. 12 that I have made it up, this refers to 25 December and
13 So then you explain in paragraph 21 that 13 I set this out, recalling what had taken place at
14 restructuring of the group’s loans is not something 14 the December meeting, and I obviously got confused about
15 those present at the meeting could decide on the spot. 15 the exact dates.
16 Then you explain in subparagraph (a) that you had to 16 Q. Just to be clear, I am not alleging that you made it up,
17 obtain the approval of the management board. 17 I am just looking for an explanation.
18 If we could now scroll down the Russian screen 18 What I am suggesting is that there was a meeting in
19 {M1/10/21}, and then you explain that the management 19 early December, and it was broadly — not, perhaps, very
20 board also couldn’t take the decision immediately, some 20 particular, but broadly as you describe in this
21 review had to be conducted. 21 statement.
22 Now, Mr Savelyev, did you make all this up? 22 Now, if you could please look further, you describe
23 A. At that point in time, I did make a mistake and I did 23 the period —
24 apologise to the court for that mistake. As I have 24 A. My apologies, my Lord, I would like to respond to that.
25 already mentioned today, we only had two meetings. At 25 First of all, we said that I had made this up. I am

41

1 that time I did write that we had had three meetings, it

2 was a mistake and I do recognise that this was

3 a mistake.

4 Q. Mr Savelyev, if you — unless you made it up, I suppose

5 an inevitable conclusion is either that you had some

6 recollection of that meeting in early December, or that

7 there was some documentary record of it, looking at this

8 evidence; would you agree?

9 A. No. That meeting had never taken place. We do not use

10 paper, we use e-correspondence, hard disk, e-mails.

11 Mr Stroilov, once again, I did apologise to the court

12 for having made a mistake and having misled the court.

13 Q. Thank you, Mr Savelyev. I am not really pressing for

14 a further apology. I am just trying — what I am on,

15 I am trying to understand how this mistake, if it was

16 a mistake, could have happened. I put it to you that

17 there are three possibilities: either you have just made

18 up quite a detailed story, you have simply made it up;

19 the second possibility is at the time of making this

20 statement you had some genuine recollection of these

21 events, and the third possibility is that at the time

22 you made this statement there was some documentary

23 record of these events, and I think that covers all

24 possibilities which might explain how this evidence

25 could have been given.

43

1 quoting from the transcript. So my answer was that

2 I did not make this up; this had actually happened, but

3 this happened at a meeting on 25 December.

4 Number two, in early December, we did not have

5 a meeting, my Lord. We have only had two meetings, in

6 late November and in late December.

7 Q. Yes. If we could read out the next section, which is

8 titled «Period between the Second and Third Meeting».

9 Again, I am not suggesting a very careful reading,

10 but you explain in paragraph 22 that Ms Mironova and her

11 team at Investrbank were asked to review the financial

12 position of the group and what might be the solution for

13 its difficulties.

14 Then if we could scroll down the English version

15 {M1/10/7}, then in paragraph 24 — are you looking at

16 the paper version, Mr Savelyev? Will you be able to

17 look over the page? I am afraid it goes through —

18 again, I am on paragraph 24; do you have the paper

19 version?

20 A. Mr Stroilov, I have page 7, paragraph 24, the first

21 three lines of 24. This is what I have on the screen.

22 I am not looking at the paper document, I am looking at

23 the screen.

24 Q. Okay, when you have reached the end of the page just

25 say, and I will cause it to be scrolled down.

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

March 18, 2016 Day 29 — Redacted

1 So you refer to a working meeting of the management

2 board shortly after that second meeting, and the

3 solution which was agreed by the members of

4 the management board on restructuring and on repo.

5 A. Could we scroll down to page 8, please?

6 Q. Yes, please.

7 A. Thank you. (Pause).

8 Yes, this is true.

9 Q. Then if you just speed-read through the rest of

10 the page, you explain the rationale for the repo, you

11 explain the restructuring, and then if we could scroll

12 down both screens {M1/10/23}, {M1/10/8}.

13 A. Sorry, could I be given time to finish this? I am not

14 done yet, sorry.

15 Q. I am not really asking you to read this, I — well,

16 okay, just take your time, in fairness.

17 A. I would really like to read this, if you don’t mind, if

18 I may.

19 Q. Yes, please.

20 My Lord, would you like the English text to be

21 scrolled up too? {M1/10/7}. Whatever your Lordship

22 prefers can be…

23 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Sorry, I was reading a bit but then

24 the page changed.

25 MR STROILOV: Yes, should it be scrolled down back to where

1 you made it up.

2 Well, you refer to a meeting of the management board

3 and some deliberations of the management board; surely

4 you were in a position to find out the date?

5 A. I possibly was in that position, but after the meeting

6 on 25 December, the things that happened are exactly the

7 things that I set out in my statement.

8 Q. Now, Mr Savelyev, isn’t it the truth that, in fact, at

9 that stage you were telling the truth: there were two

10 meetings and the narrative you set out in this statement

11 is quite logical?

12 A. No. What is logical and what is accurate is my latest

13 witness statement where I describe the two meetings at

14 the end of November and at the end of December, and this

15 is also something that was reflected in my diary.

16 Q. Now, Mr Savelyev, isn’t it logical that if the client

17 requests a restructuring at quite a massive scale and

18 the Bank has to make a decision on additional security,

19 there should be two meetings: that first the request is

20 made, and then the parties take time to consider it, and

21 then they meet again to finalise the deal; isn’t that

22 a more logical explanation of what happened? Doesn’t

23 that make more sense to you?

24 A. No, because Investrbank, which was an office of BSP,

25 Mr Belykh and Mr Guz kept working with this client on

45 47
1 you were, my Lord? 1 an ongoing basis. Online they kept monitoring the
2 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Down to 27, please, {M1/10/8}. 2 developments, they had numerous meetings with him to
3 A. Thank you, I am done. 3 discuss all those matters.
4 MR STROILOV: Now, could we scroll down the Russian screen 4 Now, with respect to myself, I only discussed the
5 {M1/10/23}. So having — again, if you just speed-read, 5 grace period, or the postponement at the end
6 again, you explain in some detail the rationale of 6 of November, with a view to avoid a default situation
7 the repo arrangement as you say it was developed by the 7 with respect to interest payments, and at the end
8 management board at a working meeting, and after that 8 of December we discussed on the whole the situation with
9 you come to the third meeting at the end of December. 9 respect to each individual loan.
10 Mr Savelyev, did you make it all up? The working 10 Q. Now, Mr Savelyev, isn’t it the case that if there was
11 meeting of the management board, all the deliberations, 11 that meeting in the first half of December, really the
12 did that happen, or did you make it up in that 12 only purpose of that meeting could only be to request
13 statement? 13 quite a massive restructuring of the group’s loans, such
14 A. My Lord, I was giving evidence on the basis of my 14 as a six-month moratorium?
15 recollection of the 25 December meeting. I have not 15 A. No. We did not have that meeting in early December.
16 made anything up at all, I just got confused about the 16 Q. And the reason why you deny that now is because you want
17 dates, ie early December versus 25 December. 17 to deny the moratorium.
18 Mr Arkhangelsky and myself discussed matters on 18 A. No, this is not true.
19 25 December, all these matters are set out here, and my 19 Q. Now, let’s —
20 recollection, as per my witness statement, is based on 20 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: I’m so sorry, might I look at the next
21 the meeting dated 25 December and so Mr Stroilov, once 21 page of the BVI witness statement very quickly?
22 again, you just said that I had made this up. Once 22 MR STROILOV: Yes, if it could be scrolled down.
23 again, I did not make this up; this is based on my 23 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: I am so sorry, thank you very much.
24 recollection of the 25 December meeting. 24 {M1/10/9}.
25 Q. That was a question; I am not making an assertion that 25 MR STROILOV: I wonder, should I show Mr Savelyev what
46 48
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

March 18, 2016 Day 29 — Redacted

1 your Lordship is looking at in Russian?

2 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: I am so sorry.

3 MR STROILOV: Not at all {M1/10/24}. Just signal to me when

4 you would like me to continue, my Lord.

5 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Thank you.

6 MR STROILOV: Now, Mr Savelyev, I would like to ask you

7 about what happened at the meeting of 25 December in any

8 event.

9 So there were a number of people present, a number

10 of your colleagues from the Bank at that meeting,

11 I think you mentioned that.

12 Now, what I suggest to you is that at the end of the

13 meeting you had a one-on-one conversation with

14 Mr Arkhangelsky. Everybody left and you — at the end

15 of that meeting there was a one-on-one meeting between

16 you and Mr Arkhangelsky.

17 A. No.

18 Q. Are you sure of that?

19 A. Yes.

20 Q. So your recollection of that meeting is clear enough to

21 deny that on oath?

22 A. Yes.

23 Q. Now, at that meeting you made personal threats against

24 Mr Arkhangelsky, didn’t you? Don’t worry —

25 A. No.

1 the Bank, the market would have known it the next day

2 and no one would have worked with us as a bank. The

3 number of large clients in St Petersburg, such as

4 Mr Arkhangelsky, there are very few of them, there may

5 be 10 or 20 of them, or maybe 30, but no more than that.

6 All of them interact at some meetings, all of them

7 supply information to each other, and if I would have

8 dared, or someone of the Bank’s employees would have

9 dared to behave in such a way using threats, that would

10 have been the end of our banking business in

11 St Petersburg. That is simply not possible. That is

12 unreal. We would have never allowed ourselves to behave

13 in such a way because we always loved and respected and

14 valued our clients and, thanks to this, we have 56 legal

15 entities being our clients as of today.

16 Q. Mr Savelyev, would you please focus on the question.

17 A. This is not true. This is a lie. I am saying here in

18 court under oath: I deny this. There were no threats

19 either towards Mr Arkhangelsky or towards his family.

20 There were none of that. That is a plain lie.

21 Q. I asked you about your understanding of the reasons why

22 Mr Arkhangelsky agreed to the repo; are you saying that

23 was a commercially sensible deal for him?

24 A. For him it was the only chance to avoid default as of

25 the end of the year 2008. If he would have had

49 51

1 Q. Don’t bother looking at the papers, just answer the

2 questions. You made threats against Mr Arkhangelsky and

3 his family.

4 A. No.

5 Q. Now, are you saying, then, that — unless you made those

6 threats, what could be the reason for Mr Arkhangelsky

7 agreeing to transfer quite valuable shares to companies

8 nominated by you?

9 A. My Lord, I would like to clarify to your Lordship with

10 regard to the alleged threats that were thought up by

11 Mr Arkhangelsky.

12 Q. Now, Mr Savelyev, answer my question: what do you

13 perceive to be the reason why Mr Arkhangelsky agreed to

14 the repo transaction?

15 A. The reason was the only one: If the Bank at the end

16 of December would have announced default for

17 Mr Arkhangelsky, all the banks issuing loans to him

18 would have enforced all the assets of

19 the Oslo Marine Group, and since he, at that point in

20 time, could not uphold the obligations, Mr Arkhangelsky

21 asked to restructure the loan, and that was his request,

22 it came from him.

23 My Lord, I would like to clarify that if we, being

24 the local bank, threatened our clients and demanded from

25 him, using threats, to uphold any obligations vis-a-vis

1 a situation of default from one of the banks, all the

2 banks would have enforced the pledges, and would have,

3 at the same time, put claims in against him, and that’s

4 why he came into the Bank with a request, asking us to

5 restructure his loans, and that was the real reason of

6 Mr Arkhangelsky paying me a visit.

7 Q. And so presumably if you say this was a commercial deal,

8 you mean that Mr Arkhangelsky got something in return

9 for transferring the shares? Are you saying that?

10 A. My Lord, he received restructuring. That’s once.

11 Secondly, that was just before the new year holidays

12 when Mr Arkhangelsky was leaving my office. He shook my

13 hand, he wished me happy new year, and after the

14 meeting, my Lord, Mr Arkhangelsky’s lawyers and

15 Oslo Marine Group lawyers, they cooperated with the Bank

16 for a lengthy period of time, and starting from early

17 2009, he was writing letters that were shown to me on

18 e-mail, he wrote to the Bank, saying:

19 «Kind regards, respectfully yours, Mr Arkhangelsky.»

20 If I would have threatened him, intimidated him, he

21 would never have behaved in such a way. He would have

22 never written a letter to me saying «kind regards» or

23 that he respects me. He would have never wished me

24 happy forthcoming new year and shaken my hand.

25 Q. Do you really recall receiving those letters at the

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

March 18, 2016 Day 29 — Redacted

1 time?

2 A. There were some letters from Mr Arkhangelsky sent by

3 e-mail, and these letters are appended in my statements,

4 witness statements, as far as I recall, in my last

5 witness statements where Mr Arkhangelsky was writing,

6 «respectfully yours», or «kind regards to Mr Savelyev».

7 Q. My question is do you actually recall receiving any

8 letters from Mr Arkhangelsky in 2009? Do you actually

9 remember that, yes or no?

10 A. We could find it in my witness statement. I did

11 recall —

12 Q. Do you have any recollection of receiving letters from

13 Mr Arkhangelsky in 2009: yes or no?

14 A. Yes.

15 Q. Thank you.

16 Now, could we look again at the memorandum,

17 {D107/1537/1}, and the Russian version starts at

18 {D107/1537/3}, and I think it’s better to scroll down

19 one page, because the first page is just the preamble,

20 really {D107/1537/4}, {D107/1537/2}.

21 Now, Mr Savelyev, this memorandum does not record

22 the terms of the loan, the restructuring, does it?

23 (Pause).

24 A. Why not? Every loan agreement is stated here.

25 Q. I am talking about the terms of the loan restructuring

1 A. Yes.

2 Q. I understand that the meeting took place on 25 December.

3 The memorandum was signed on 30 December. The shares

4 were — the repo contracts were also signed on 30 or

5 31 December; is that correct, to your knowledge, as

6 a chronology?

7 A. My Lord, I would like to clarify before your Lordship

8 that here in the memorandum there is provision number 2,

9 when it says:

10 «After the complete performance of the Group’s

11 obligations before the Bank, there will be a reverse

12 repo agreement at the prices that will be signed between

13 the buyers and the current owners of Western Terminal

14 and the insurance company.»

15 Sorry, I was just looking at the first page because

16 the second page was not displayed on my screen.

17 Q. I think you are looking at the second page, so if you

18 can scroll down just so my Lord knows what you are

19 talking about?

20 A. No, no, I have the first page on my screen, sir.

21 Q. Yes, and that’s not the provision you have just cited,

22 so if you could scroll down the English version so

23 my Lord sees what you are talking about.

24 Mr Savelyev, do you agree that the meeting took

25 place on 25 December. I was asking you about

53 55

1 agreed in the end of December. You have just said that

2 in exchange for repo, you agreed to restructure the

3 loans. Well, the terms of that restructuring are not

4 recorded in the memorandum, are they?

5 A. Sir, would it be possible to have sight of the first

6 page, please?

7 Q. Yes, please. If we could scroll up both pages.

8 {D107/1537/1}, {D107/1537/3}.

9 A. Yes, I agree with you, sir, it says:

10 «In order to secure the loans extended to

11 the Group…»

12 Q. It also, as we discussed yesterday, I think you accept

13 the memorandum does not identify the purchaser

14 companies?

15 A. Yes.

16 Q. So it’s fair to say that the memorandum records only

17 part of the deal you in fact reached with

18 Mr Arkhangelsky?

19 A. The memorandum records which group is indebted to

20 the Bank under the agreements, and how the group should

21 uphold its obligations and within what time periods.

22 Q. Yes, what I say, it does not record all the terms of

23 your agreement with Mr Arkhangelsky.

24 A. Yes.

25 Q. So you agree with me: it does not record all the terms?

1 chronology, and will you please focus on the questions.

2 The meeting took place on 25 December; yes?

3 A. Yes.

4 Q. The memorandum was signed on 30 December.

5 A. Yes, it says so here.

6 Q. Then the repo contracts were also signed on 30 December,

7 or possibly plus or minus one day; do you agree with

8 that?

9 A. I don’t know about that. I don’t know when they were

10 signed.

11 Q. And the additional agreements to the corporate loan

12 agreements were only prepared in January 2009, and then

13 backdated to 29 or 30 December; do you agree with that?

14 A. Yes.

15 Q. So it follows, did it not, that there was an oral

16 agreement reached on 25 December, and then various

17 documents executed to implement that oral agreement;

18 would you agree with that description of what happened?

19 A. My Lord, I think there were agreements on 25 December.

20 After 25 December, I think a decision was made by the

21 Bank’s board to agree to the restructuring. Without

22 that, there would have been a default at the end of the

23 year, and the additional agreements were drawn up based

24 on the board’s decision in January, reflecting what we

25 agreed with Mr Arkhangelsky.

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

March 18, 2016 Day 29 — Redacted

1 Q. Thank you. One of the things you agreed to

2 on 25 December was a general six-month moratorium on all

3 payments from the group to the Bank, isn’t that so?

4 A. No, my Lord, this is not the case. Mr Arkhangelsky at

5 the meeting, as far as I recall, he did request that,

6 however, the word «restructuring», by that, that would

7 have been a restructuring in terms of each credit

8 agreement. It was not possible to defer all the loan

9 agreements for six months because all of them have

10 different duration, different maturity dates, and to

11 take different amounts with different maturity dates and

12 put them all into some moratorium, it’s not something

13 that the Bank could do.

14 As far as I recall, from what Mrs Volodina was

15 saying with regard to PetroLes loan, the maturity was

16 remaining based on the initial agreements and contracts

17 with the Bank.

18 Q. Do you mean you recall Mrs Volodina saying that at the

19 meeting, or are you referring to something else?

20 A. No, Mrs Volodina discussed it at the meeting.

21 Q. Now, if we could go back to your witness statement at

22 {B1/1/7} on one screen, and I think if — well, page 21

23 is probably a good guess. I need paragraph 30.

24 {B1/1/21}. Will you please read paragraph 30,

25 Mr Savelyev, of your witness statement. (Pause).

1 A. Thank you, sir.

2 Q. Now, Mr Savelyev, do you accept that in relation to some

3 of the loans there was a six-month moratorium on all

4 payments? Not necessarily all loans, but some loans?

5 A. Possibly for some of the loans, yes.

6 Q. And the intention of your agreement with Mr Arkhangelsky

7 would be this: that there have been — well, let me just

8 put it to you point by point, and you can correct me if

9 anything is wrong.

10 So where the loan expires after the end

11 of June 2009, then the interest is rolled-up to the end

12 of June 2009? Do you accept that?

13 Perhaps if we could, again, look at the memorandum

14 so that you have the list of loans with their dates,

15 that might refresh your recollection. So that’s, again,

16 {D107/1537/1} on one screen, and {D107/1537/3} on the

17 other.

18 Yes, it is not very convenient, because we can’t

19 look at the full list of loans, so we will have to

20 scroll up and down. I am just thinking how best to do

21 it. Let’s say, if you look at 1.1.1, so there is

22 a reference to an LPK Scandinavia loan expiring on

23 27 November. So with a loan of this kind, do you accept

24 that you agreed to roll-up all interest payments and

25 commission payments to the end of June 2009? (Pause)

57 59

1 A. Okay.

2 Q. Mr Savelyev, what you say in your witness statement is

3 that you do not recall that from the meeting, you just

4 believe Mrs Volodina’s witness statement?

5 A. Yes.

6 Q. That’s right? I think you suggested a minute ago that

7 you actually recalled her saying that in the meeting,

8 and I think in the witness statement you say you don’t

9 recall that but you believe what she is saying now. So

10 which is that?

11 A. Now, when I am speaking to you, sir, I know this, and

12 I mentioned what I said based on my knowledge that I had

13 given in my witness statement. That’s okay.

14 Q. Mr Savelyev, do you actually have any recollection in

15 your mind of Mrs Volodina saying these things at the

16 meeting?

17 A. No, but I read my witness statement where Mrs Volodina

18 revealed that information to me, and today I am saying

19 that she told me this information, Mrs Volodina.

20 Q. Yes, thank you, Mr Savelyev. Will you please focus on,

21 really, the evidence you can give, because the evidence

22 of other people my Lord has read and can read as many

23 times as he likes, whereas you — well, I am really

24 aiming to finish this cross-examination today, so time

25 is precious.

1 If you don’t remember, say you don’t remember.

2 A. I’m sorry, sir, where does it say June? There is not

3 a single date saying June. There is 30 November,

4 27 November, 31 December. June is not mentioned here.

5 Q. I’m sorry, Mr Savelyev, if I didn’t make it clear. I am

6 just suggesting using the memorandum as an aide-memoire

7 so you see the loans and their dates of expiry, and I’m

8 just trying to figure out with you what the agreements

9 were in relation to various loans.

10 So if you have a loan — well, I’m just trying to

11 understand the general approach that was taken, if that

12 makes sense. There are a number of loans which only

13 expire after the six-month period which Mr Arkhangelsky

14 requested. Do you accept that under those loans, you

15 agreed not to require interest payments until the end

16 of June? Do you accept that?

17 A. No, my Lord. I disagree. I would like to say that,

18 again, we are coming back to the situation where

19 Mr Stroilov is asking me a question with regard to 1.1.1

20 item, but he means the whole of the memorandum. June is

21 not mentioned in 1.1.1, and his question was with regard

22 to item 1.1.1. I have read it, but the question was

23 with regard to the totality of this document, of

24 the memorandum. Restructuring was with regard to each

25 credit agreement separately. The Bank could not take

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

March 18, 2016 Day 29 — Redacted

1 all the credit agreements with different maturities,

2 different amounts, and roll them all up into one

3 moratorium of six months long.

4 I also wanted to mention, with some specific loans

5 we did not agree at all that we would provide any

6 moratorium, for example, with regard to PetroLes.

7 Q. Now, Mr Savelyev, I mean, I don’t know if it is my fault

8 or if it is your fault, but when I am asking you

9 a question, you answer the question, it doesn’t matter

10 what document is there. The first focus should be on my

11 questions.

12 So I am not asking you to look at the memorandum and

13 tell me what you see there, I am asking you what your

14 evidence is: did you or did you not agree to

15 a moratorium on interest under loans which expired after

16 the end of June 2009?

17 A. Well, firstly, the word «moratorium», it’s not the word

18 we use at the Bank, we use the word «restructuring».

19 Secondly, I confirm again, before his Lordship, that

20 for each specific loan agreement, the Bank has signed

21 restructuring with Mr Arkhangelsky, but all the dates

22 were different, and overall, the way you are putting it,

23 Mr Stroilov, about the six-month moratorium, that didn’t

24 happen.

25 Q. Now, I just wonder if we are talking about the same

1 A. Yes.

2 Q. So —

3 A. Yes, for one of the credit agreements.

4 Q. Right. So that’s one.

5 If we now go to — I’m just wondering how to do it

6 quickest. If we could look at the — I hope that will

7 be clear enough. If we could look at {D106/1520/1}, and

8 then {D106/1520/3} on the other screen.

9 I am not doing it very elegantly, Mr Savelyev,

10 sometimes I take you to the decision, sometimes to

11 the additional agreement, and I must say there is no

12 deep meaning in that; I just take you to the document

13 I find the quickest.

14 So that’s for another of the loans. Now, if you

15 read out the new version — well, if you read out

16 clause 1 of this agreement which sets out the new

17 version of clause 3.8 of the loan agreement, this seems

18 to introduce a moratorium on all payments under that

19 loan agreement until 28 … no, sorry.

20 I think it is another addendum which is consistent

21 with a six-month moratorium on any payments under this

22 particular loan; would you agree with that?

23 A. Which borrower are you referring to?

24 Q. Onega.

25 A. Onega, just the one? Okay, Mr Stroilov, for us to put

61 63

1 thing. I accept that in a number of additional loan

2 agreements which were executed in relation to specific

3 corporate loan agreements, you don’t find that date, but

4 what I am suggesting to you is that at the meeting of

5 25 December, you gave Mr Arkhangelsky your word that

6 whatever formalities are necessary will be followed, and

7 he wouldn’t need to pay anything until the end

8 of June 2009. That’s the substance of your agreement;

9 what do you say to that?

10 A. No, this is not the case.

11 Q. Now, do you accept — well, I think I will have to take

12 you through individual loans, even though I am anxious

13 of the time.

14 Now, if we look at {D105/1479.4/0.1} on one screen,

15 and {D105/1479.4/1} on the other screen.

16 That is the decision — so, Mr Savelyev, isn’t that

17 the decision of the board? It is dated 24 December, but

18 I think it has been accepted on your behalf that it has

19 been backdated, and in reality, it was prepared after

20 the meeting of 25 December. Do you agree with that?

21 A. Yes, my Lord.

22 Q. And as you can see, under one of the loan agreements,

23 what you see is consistent with there being a moratorium

24 on the payment of interest and commission payments until

25 28 June 2009.

1 an end to this dispute, may I suggest that you read the

2 loan agreement with PetroLes, where the memorandum says

3 that it’s until 5 March 2009. We can continue trying to

4 compete with each other with respect to whether or not

5 there was a moratorium in place, but we can put a full

6 stop, we can put an end here to this dispute if you read

7 the contract with respect to PetroLes, it makes

8 reference to March 2009. This was the main contract

9 which we did not extend, which we did not restructure,

10 and that’s why there is no additional agreement.

11 I agree with what you have just shown to me. Some

12 of the agreements, some of the loans were extended by

13 six months, but not all of them, and just for your

14 benefit and for your better understanding, the maturity

15 of the PetroLes contract was still 5 March 2009; it did

16 not change. I hope you are not going to challenge this,

17 are you?

18 Q. Mr Savelyev, I am afraid we are not going to debate with

19 you, you are here to answer my questions, I am afraid,

20 these are the rules.

21 Now, I think I understand you are saying that

22 PetroLes was an exception to the moratorium; can you

23 name any other exceptions, or should we go through it

24 loan-by-loan?

25 A. We have to go by each loan separately because I did sign

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

March 18, 2016 Day 29 — Redacted

1 the moratorium, this is my signature, but I did not 1 Q. Yes.
2 recall all the dates. 2 A. But I am not sure I understand what annex it is
3 Q. Just in fairness, you did not mean to say «I signed the 3 referring to.
4 moratorium», you said «I signed the memorandum», didn’t 4 Q. It is slightly complex because it was amended several
5 you? 5 times. So I am going to take you to the annex, which
6 A. Yes, sorry, my apologies, I meant memorandum. Thank 6 was up-to-date as of the end of 2008, with your
7 you, Mr Stroilov, for drawing my attention to this. 7 permission. There will be an objection if my learned
8 Q. If we could now look at — I just wonder how to do it in 8 friends think I must do it more thoroughly, but I think
9 the quickest way. Let’s try {D105/1479.1/0.1}. That’s 9 if I can fast-forward to the additional agreement of
10 another decision pursuant to your deal with 10 30 June, which is at — sorry, to the additional
11 Mr Arkhangelsky, that’s another Onega loan. That’s the 11 agreement of 27 June 2008, which is at {D50/874/1}, and
12 first Onega loan as opposed to the second Onega loan 12 the Russian version starts at {D50/874/4}. That
13 and, as you can see, that also sets out the deadline for 13 extends — well, the final — as you can see, the final
14 interest and commissions. They are all rolled-up to 14 expiry date is now set as 27 June 2009, and then there
15 28 June. 15 is a new annex 1, which you can look at if you scroll
16 Now, I think now we will have to look at the — 16 down to page 3 on the Russian — on the English screen
17 well, let me put to you a proposition. I don’t know how 17 and page 6 on the Russian screen — sorry, the other way
18 well you remember these things. Apart from interest, 18 around {D50/874/3}, {D50/874/6}. If it could be zoomed
19 the additional agreement at which we can look, it also 19 in so it can be seen.
20 rolls-up the schedule of capital repayments over the 20 So that was the date of repayments of that
21 course of the first half of this loan. It is rolled-up 21 particular loan as it was at the time of your agreement
22 to the date of maturity. I think I will have to check 22 with Mr Arkhangelsky in December 2008; do you follow
23 this, I will have to look at the document, in fairness. 23 this, Mr Savelyev?
24 I think we have to go to the actual loan agreement, 24 A. To be honest, not very well, Mr Stroilov; could you
25 and then to the addenda, I am afraid. I am anxious 25 kindly be more specific as to what is it exactly that
65 67
1 about the time, but we have to. So if we could go to 1 you expect me to understand, if you don’t mind.
2 {D13/301/1}, and then the Russian version will be 2 Q. Mr Savelyev, it is a very long question because I have
3 starting at {D13/301/9}, I think. 3 to put a few documents to you to show you what the
4 I see that it was amended several times. That’s one 4 position was.
5 of the loan agreements, again, with Onega. I think it 5 So, at the time you had that meeting with
6 is — I beg your pardon, it is actually the — that loan 6 Mr Arkhangelsky and reached the agreement on
7 was extended to end of June 2009, so maturity date and 7 25 December 2008, the schedule of repayments under this
8 27 June 2009 are the same date. 8 loan was as you see on the screen; that is to say
9 I suppose you accept, Mr Savelyev, that it was 9 RUB 4.6 million were due at the end of December, at the
10 extended. If you look at — I am sorry, we probably 10 end of January, February, and so on until June.
11 have to scroll down one page on each screen. 11 A. Yes, this is the case.
12 {D13/301/2}, {D13/301/10}. 12 Q. And then if you now go to the final addenda that was
13 If you can see on clause 3.2, so the normal — it is 13 signed pursuant to your agreement of the end
14 an extendable loan, so the original repayment date was 14 of December, that’s at {D106/1493/1}, and the Russian
15 for 29 June, and then it was extended to 28 June 2008, 15 version starts at {D106/1493/3}. Then if you read
16 and then it was again extended to 27 June 2009. We can 16 out — really if you read out clause 1 and clause 2,
17 go through all the addenda if necessary, but I don’t 17 I hope I didn’t make it totally incomprehensible. If
18 think you will argue against that. Can you see 3.2? 18 you read out clause 1 and clause 2 to about the middle,
19 A. Yes, I can see this. 19 until the corrections to … I think if you read this
20 Q. And there is a reference to the repayment schedule, 20 page out, it is clear that the schedule of repayments is
21 which is next to the loan agreement and is a part of it. 21 dis-applied, all the payments are rolled-up to
22 So you can see that. 22 27 June 2009; do you accept that?
23 A. Which paragraph are you referring to, Mr Stroilov? 23 A. Which contracts do you refer to? Which borrower are you
24 Q. I’m still at 3.2. 24 referring to?
25 A. It does refer to some annex. 25 Q. That’s Onega.
66 68
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

March 18, 2016 Day 29 — Redacted

1 A. Possibly Onega, yes, but there are so many documents

2 here that I am not sure that I can recall all the

3 documents that have just been turned up. If it says

4 that it is rolled-up until the end of June, well then

5 I agree, that’s what it says.

6 Q. Mr Savelyev, what I’m asking you about, you have agreed

7 previously that these addenda reflect the agreement you

8 have reached with Mr Arkhangelsky at the meeting on

9 25 December. I think you have agreed with that, haven’t

10 you?

11 MR LORD: My Lord, I think we have to be a bit careful here

12 as to the way it is put. My understanding was there was

13 an agreement to do some restructuring and it would then

14 be worked out afterwards. It seems to be working it

15 backwards. I’m not sure that that’s what the witness

16 said. Does your Lordship see — I’m not sure exactly

17 what — whether the case is that all this was agreed, is

18 the case being run that at this meeting of 25 December

19 there was specific agreement along the lines of all

20 these addenda. Is that actually what is being put?

21 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: I am very hesitant, but let me say

22 what I had understood, and you must correct me, and

23 I fear this is going to take a long time if we really

24 progress along this route.

25 My understanding is that Mr Savelyev accepts that

1 end of June. I don’t think the Bank is denying the

2 effect of those, and I don’t think Mr Savelyev is

3 putting them in doubt. So it may be that one has to —

4 I will leave it to you, but maybe one should focus on

5 the agreements where there is no such record.

6 MR LORD: And also, my Lord, it is important to note that

7 there is no challenge to the validity of all the

8 additional agreements. I won’t go through them all now,

9 I don’t want to pre-empt the questioning, but it is also

10 right to note that the defendants accept that each

11 additional agreement, effectively an addenda to each

12 loan, is a valid and binding addenda or variations

13 of~…

14 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Mr Stroilov, I don’t want to spoil

15 your cross-examination in any way, but my impression

16 from this witness is that he neither would, nor could,

17 deny the effectiveness of any agreement or sequence of

18 agreements providing for the extension of the loan and

19 it’s not the Bank’s position that any of those

20 agreements aren’t effective in accordance with their

21 terms. So it’s no good going to those because you will

22 be able to cut them up at the end of the day and rely on

23 them for their full terms and effect.

24 But if there are — and I say no more because you

25 warned me against it — if there are loans which are not

69 71

1 there may have been an agreement, as it were, in

2 principle for the extension of interest-free payments,

3 and possibly principal repayments, which were then to be

4 worked out loan-by-loan. There was no general date, but

5 it was to be worked out loan-by-loan.

6 But his point is that in the case of the PetroLes

7 loan, there was no such agreement that expired

8 in March 2009, and his point is that — right or

9 wrong — he says that that is a body blow, possibly

10 a knockout blow, he would say, to there having been any

11 overall agreement that all loans, principal and

12 interest, should be extended to the end of June 2009.

13 Now, going through each and every loan may be

14 a slight waste of time because I don’t think they are

15 denied. I think that the extensions are as they say

16 they are, and so far as I am aware, the odd man out, and

17 the only odd man out that I am aware of, is PetroLes.

18 MR STROILOV: I beg your pardon. If we are to continue this

19 discussion, I am afraid it has to be not in the presence

20 of Mr Savelyev. I’m sorry.

21 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: All right. Carry on. But I wonder

22 whether we could agree that in respect of all documents

23 which, on their face, state whether by a single document

24 or by reference to a sequence of additional agreements,

25 that the loan or interest or both was extended until the

1 the subject of such further agreements, then maybe those

2 are the ones we should focus on; do you see what I mean?

3 MR STROILOV: Yes, my Lord. Perhaps, since it has been

4 interrupted anyway, perhaps it is a good moment for the

5 second 10-minute break and I will think how to go on.

6 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: I don’t want you to waste the precious

7 time you have in going through documents which are

8 agreed and asking him whether he agrees them, because it

9 is a waste of time.

10 MR STROILOV: Yes, my Lord. I will think during the break

11 how to shorten this.

12 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: I am sorry to interrupt, but I think

13 otherwise it may take us some time.

14 (12.05 pm)

15 (A short break)

16 (12.15 pm)

17 MR LORD: My Lord, I have one point to make about this line

18 of questioning. I won’t cut across anything Mr Stroilov

19 is really asking about but it is really just one little

20 marker about specificity. On [draft] page 67 today

21 Mr Stroilov put a question that had built into it

22 a proposition that there was an agreement reached on

23 25 December 2008, and I have just gone back to the most

24 recent version of the pleading where I think the

25 agreement that is now relied upon, the contractual

70 72
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

March 18, 2016 Day 29 — Redacted

1 agreement, is said to have been entered into on or

2 around 30 December 2008, and that was paragraph 117(a)

3 and 180(a) of the latest version of the pleading.

4 I really don’t want to interrupt, I am not really taking

5 a point, it’s just I don’t want to have to tidy things

6 up at the end of today — the time is short —

7 needlessly, and I had understood that that was the date

8 we were looking and therefore questions that seem to

9 assume an agreement at the 25 December meeting, I don’t

10 know whether that fits in with this case or not.

11 Perhaps Mr Stroilov could just clarify the case, please.

12 MR STROILOV: Really, to be honest, I didn’t think of it.

13 Well, I thought, really, in or around 30 December seems

14 to cover 25 December. I think at the time we pleaded

15 this we were not sure about the date of the meeting.

16 Now that the claimant said in witness statements that it

17 was the 25th, and we are prepared to accept that for all

18 present purposes.

19 MR LORD: Sorry, that’s a very recent amendment, I think.

20 That’s one of the sort of trial amendments that’s come

21 in, so that’s been done after all the …

22 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Did it used to state 25th?

23 MR LORD: I’m not sure if it had a date before, I’m not sure

24 it did.

25 MR STROILOV: It used to say «in or around 30 December»

1 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: And so far your position has been that

2 it was made on or around 30 December. You have been,

3 I think, suggesting that it might have been made on the

4 25th. You need to clarify which you say it was. If

5 this departs from your pleading, in due course you will

6 have to seek leave to amend your pleading to reflect the

7 case as you eventually determined it to be.

8 MR STROILOV: Yes, my Lord, I understood what Mr Lord said,

9 but I would like to think about it and there is no time

10 to think about it.

11 Okay, I will have to be thinking about it as I go

12 along, I suppose, really.

13 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Well, I don’t know what you are

14 suggesting to me.

15 MR STROILOV: Nothing, really. I am just —

16 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Ruminating.

17 MR STROILOV: — marking a difficulty I have. That’s one of

18 the difficulties.

19 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: I mean, I take your point, and you can

20 think about it over the short adjournment, although

21 I know you have other things to do, but this is right at

22 the heart of your case, isn’t it, as to whether there

23 was, and if there was, what it was —

24 MR STROILOV: Yes.

25 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: — an agreement, and so this is one of

73 75

1 throughout. Well, the exact date has never been given

2 until witness statements were exchanged, so perhaps,

3 ideally, perhaps I should have kind of corrected and

4 clarified that by amendment to our pleadings.

5 MR LORD: The only relevance is this: that it should be put

6 quite clearly what is being suggested, what the

7 exchanges were at any particular point in time or

8 meeting, and it wouldn’t necessarily be fair to

9 a witness to sort of jumble up dates if those dates

10 might be important in terms of a sequence of what may be

11 alleged to be contractually binding exchanges, putting

12 it neutrally. But I would prefer, if we could, if

13 possible, just make it clear as we go, the contractual

14 case that is being run, when it is said to have arisen

15 and so on, please.

16 MR STROILOV: Right. That’s really a point I would rather

17 I had an opportunity to think about, rather than have to

18 carry on.

19 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: You are suggesting that there was

20 an agreement made and you are testing with this witness

21 that proposition.

22 MR STROILOV: Yes.

23 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Mr Lord’s point is, in testing that

24 proposition, you must say what your position is.

25 MR STROILOV: I understand the point.

1 the things which I think you would have to establish

2 fairly particularly, and therefore I imagine that you

3 would have thought about it — I don’t mean it

4 critically — of all the things to be thinking of, this

5 is one of the top priorities, isn’t it?

6 MR STROILOV: Yes.

7 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: But, you know, I don’t want to be

8 critical or to box you in, but the point has been made,

9 and I think you probably will have to spend a little bit

10 of time over the short adjournment just sort of thinking

11 it through.

12 MR STROILOV: Yes.

13 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: It’s a very — there’s an awful lot

14 going on, Mr Stroilov, I quite appreciate.

15 MR LORD: I’m not being critical. I think out of fairness

16 to the witness, I don’t want to get into the position we

17 had yesterday where I have let a line of questioning go

18 and I should have flagged something up. I am taking

19 your Lordship’s exhortation where I think that will not

20 interrupt the flow of the questioning, which I don’t

21 think it does, it is just saying: can we know where we

22 stand, please, really, that is all.

23 MR STROILOV: Okay, well, let me try.

24 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: But don’t be taken out of course. If

25 you want to take it later and, if necessary, come back,

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

March 18, 2016 Day 29 — Redacted

1 you do that. We were on these various agreements and

2 I didn’t seek to take you out of your course either, but

3 just to try and shorten things, given the pressures on

4 time and given the confirmation that the Bank are not

5 seeking to deny the validity and effect of

6 the agreements we see.

7 MR STROILOV: Yes. Well, okay, I will do my best, my Lord,

8 in the circumstances.

9 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: All right. You go on as you see fit.

10 MR STROILOV: Yes, if I may, yes.

11 Now, Mr Savelyev, just before the short break we

12 have looked at three specific documents reflecting the

13 changes made to three of the corporate loan agreements.

14 In each of them, we have seen a date at the end

15 of July 2009, either 27th or 28th.

16 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: June, do you mean?

17 MR STROILOV: I beg your pardon, 27 or 28 June.

18 Now, what I am suggesting to you is that — well, we

19 can look into more agreements. A lot of them really

20 bring all the payments up to one of these dates,

21 27/28 June. Do you accept that, that there will be

22 a lot of such agreements?

23 A. Not a lot of, but there are specific agreements with

24 regard to 27 June, and we’ve discussed them here today.

25 I think these are three agreements, but there are

1 request prolongation of all agreements for six months,

2 but the Bank did not agree to do it for each loan and

3 did not defer the payments for six months for all items.

4 In particular, I also mentioned here, I’m not sure

5 whether I stated all the agreements mentioned in

6 the memorandum, but for example, the personal loan

7 agreements, the PetroLes agreements, are different. The

8 dates there are different. One could understand that,

9 one could see that, that the PetroLes loan only was

10 for March. Therefore, overall, there were no such

11 understandings reached, but there was such a request on

12 the part of Mr Arkhangelsky, and we did extend part of

13 the loans for six months.

14 MR STROILOV: Right.

15 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Who was to determine which of

16 the loans were and which were not to be extended to the

17 end of June? You explained that there was a request

18 from Mr Arkhangelsky; who was to determine if it wasn’t

19 agreed by you on 25 December, which ones were and which

20 ones were not to be extended?

21 A. My Lord, there should be a board decision, the board of

22 the Bank. The collective intelligence should be at work

23 here, and the board made a decision with regard to

24 the maturity dates for these loan agreements, with

25 regard to time periods.

77 79

1 agreements with different dates.

2 Q. Yes, well I just — trying to speed things up, I want

3 you to accept that I can show you quite a number of

4 agreements with the same dates, or we can go one-by-one,

5 but just to do my best to enable you to finish today,

6 will you accept that there is quite a number of them,

7 not just three, there will be more?

8 A. We have discussed three agreements, sir, today, and

9 these three agreements, yes, I confirm that the date was

10 27 June 2009.

11 Q. Right. Do you accept that this is not coincidental,

12 that three agreements roll-up payments under three loans

13 to the same date?

14 A. Possibly.

15 Q. Rather that reflects some more general agreement reached

16 at your meeting with Mr Arkhangelsky.

17 A. No, this is not the case.

18 Q. Do you recall references being made at the meeting to

19 the end of June 2009?

20 A. The meeting with whom, sir?

21 Q. The meeting between you and Mr Arkhangelsky on

22 25 December 2008. Do you recall that there were

23 references being made to the end of June 2009 as

24 a significant date?

25 A. I do not deny, my Lordship, that Mr Arkhangelsky did

1 MR STROILOV: Now, Mr Savelyev, if we could look at the

2 personal loan addenda. If we could perhaps look at the

3 decision of the board in relation to the personal loan.

4 Now, if you look at {D105/1479.3/0.1}, and

5 {D105/1479.3/1} on the other screen.

6 Now, Mr Savelyev, just to be clear about this, we

7 say that the so-called personal loan was a fictitious

8 loan arranged to avoid a default without

9 Mr Arkhangelsky’s knowledge. I am just making it clear

10 so that it’s not suggested that by putting this to you

11 I am admitting that there was a real personal loan.

12 As you can see, this seems to be a decision as to

13 what you do about that personal loan, so to speak,

14 following your agreement with Mr Arkhangelsky. If you

15 look at clauses 1 and 4 of this decision, that suggests

16 that the repayment date was extended for one year — it

17 was previously 31 December 2008, it’s now extended to

18 2009 — and then the interest is again rolled-up to

19 28 June 2009. So that’s another loan, or alleged loan,

20 that was amended consistently with a six-month

21 moratorium; do you accept that?

22 A. My Lord, please note 1.1, item 1.1 of the approval sheet

23 where it says: Extension to loan contract to

24 Mr Arkhangelsky in the amount of RUB 130 million until

25 31 December 2009:

78 80
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

March 18, 2016 Day 29 — Redacted

1 «To provide Mr Arkhangelsky with an extension to

2 loan contract…»

3 And:

4 «To set the deadline [in item 4] for the payment of

5 interest from 21 November 2008 to 20 June 2009…»

6 That means when the interest should be paid but not

7 when the main amount of the loan should be paid off, and

8 the main loan of RUB 130 million, the deadline was set

9 of 31 December 2009, so that obviously is a different

10 date to the six-month moratorium that Mr Stroilov is

11 alleging to have taken place.

12 Q. Isn’t this decision consistent with a six-month

13 moratorium? Would you accept that?

14 A. No, my Lord. I do not accept that with regard to

15 the main amount of the loan. I accept that is

16 concerning the interest, because it does say, to set the

17 deadline, the payment of interest from 21 November 2009

18 to 20 June 2009, and for the main amount of the loan

19 until 31 December 2009, that would be a correct way of

20 putting it, Mr Stroilov.

21 Q. But surely, Mr Savelyev, the effect of that decision,

22 assuming for the moment that there is a personal loan,

23 the effect of that decision is that all the payments

24 that were due between 25 December and 28 June, are no

25 longer due; do you understand?

1 week — those agreements, they do reflect a more general

2 agreement which you had reached at the meeting with

3 Mr Arkhangelsky in the end of December 2008?

4 A. No.

5 Q. Haven’t you accepted, about an hour ago, I am afraid,

6 that part of the deal you made with Mr Arkhangelsky at

7 your meeting at the end of December 2008 was

8 a restructuring of OMG loans to the Bank? Do you accept

9 that?

10 A. Yes, I accept that that was a restructuring with each

11 specific loan agreement separately. It says so in

12 the memorandum and in the board decision.

13 Q. It doesn’t say so in the memorandum, and I think we have

14 been through this. But that was something you and

15 Mr Arkhangelsky orally agreed at the meeting, isn’t that

16 so?

17 A. No. (Pause).

18 Q. Well, I think I will leave that line and probably come

19 back to it.

20 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Do you mind if I ask one question?

21 MR STROILOV: Yes, sure, my Lord.

22 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: I think the general point being put to

23 you, but Mr Stroilov will warn me off if this is not so,

24 is that on your version of events, Mr Arkhangelsky

25 couldn’t know what, if anything, he was getting in

81

1 A. No, I do not.

2 Q. Now, the position —

3 A. It is clearly saying here in the approval sheet

4 for an item submitted to the meeting of the management

5 board, the main amount is paid up, should be paid until

6 31 December 2009, and the interest should be paid over

7 the period from 21 November 2009 to 20 June 2009, but no

8 later than 28 June 2009. This is about the interest,

9 not about the main amount of the loan. Are you trying

10 to confuse me here, sir?

11 Q. I am suggesting to you that this is a decision made

12 pursuant to the agreement you reached with

13 Mr Arkhangelsky at the end of December 2008; isn’t that

14 so?

15 A. Yes.

16 Q. And you can see that whatever — now, I will put it

17 again. I take the point that the dates — that it

18 postpones capital repayment and interest payments to

19 different dates, but isn’t it consistent with the

20 allegation that the substance of the agreement was

21 a six-month moratorium on all payments?

22 A. No, this is not true.

23 Q. Now, Mr Savelyev, surely all those individual

24 agreements — and I have been warned against going

25 through all of them, lest this goes well into next

83

1 return for agreeing to the repo, because you are saying

2 that there was no commitment by the Bank at all, and

3 that it just had to be worked out in due course which of

4 the loans would and which would not be extended. Is

5 that your case?

6 A. No, my Lord, because at that meeting, as far as I know

7 at this point in time, we have discussed definitely that

8 we will not be able to extend the PetroLes loan, and the

9 Bank was not agreeing to that.

10 After that, the correspondent banking documents were

11 passed. We could glean from them today that with regard

12 to a part of the loans, we acceded to Mr Arkhangelsky’s

13 request, but not to another part of the loan. That is

14 the whole point, the whole problem. There was no

15 general moratorium, as put by Mr Stroilov, for six

16 months. I agree and I admit that it is true for the

17 part of the loans, but not for all the loans across the

18 board, and Mr Arkhangelsky knew about that at the

19 meeting, and also, my Lord, in order to sign

20 a memorandum that was entered into by the Bank, as far

21 as I understand, Mr Arkhangelsky had plenty of time

22 either to agree or to disagree with it. He could have

23 refused, for some reasoning of his, to sign that

24 memorandum. Should he not be aware of something, or

25 should something be unclear to him out of the things

82 84
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

March 18, 2016 Day 29 — Redacted

1 discussed at the meeting, he clearly knew that with

2 regard to the part of the loans, he would not get their

3 restructuring for six months. It was told him.

4 As I said today, from Ms Volodina’s statement that

5 became known to me, there was definitely no agreement

6 with regard to PetroLes with Mr Arkhangelsky. He was at

7 the meeting with me at 21 December, and he was told

8 about that. He had to know about the fact that the Bank

9 did not agree. Mr Arkhangelsky, it was important for

10 him not to have a general default across the

11 Oslo Marine group of companies at that point in time,

12 and the Bank — and he acceded to his request,

13 understanding that that’s a major borrower,

14 understanding that he had intentions to carry on the

15 business with the Bank, we helped him out.

16 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: The thing is, I know this is disputed,

17 but on your version, you made clear what Mr Arkhangelsky

18 would not get, and you have identified as what he would

19 not get, an extension of the PetroLes loan. Now, that

20 may be disputed, but that’s what you say.

21 My interest was in establishing what, pursuant to

22 your discussions, Mr Arkhangelsky knew he would get,

23 because he is signing on the line for the purchase of —

24 for the shares, subject to repurchase. Now, what could

25 he, according to you, take it that he would get for OMG?

1 if everyone is content with that. I mean, it is

2 slightly — it’s not good, really, in terms of speed and

3 in terms of — I am afraid it has been a little … it’s

4 not going — I did have a sequence in mind which I would

5 have to rearrange now.

6 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Well, if you think it is quicker

7 simply for — my intervention was not intended to throw

8 you off, it was intended to quicken up. If it hasn’t

9 and you feel you just have to return to the sequence,

10 you do that. Let us take one step at a time.

11 I am perfectly happy to break now. When would you

12 like to come back?

13 MR STROILOV: Well, I mean, perhaps let’s make it 1.30 pm.

14 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: 1.30 pm.

15 MR STROILOV: Frankly, no, I don’t think I will finish

16 today. No, I don’t think that. I will keep doing my

17 best, but it has been difficult.

18 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Right. Well, I don’t want to slow

19 anything up by asking questions such as availability or

20 anything else.

21 MR LORD: My Lord, this witness can’t stay in this country.

22 He has to go back tomorrow. They are a sequence of very

23 important meetings for the Bank, hugely important

24 meetings. Strategic IFRS meetings, audit meetings and

25 so on. We’ve investigated videolinking up at some stage

85 87

1 A. My Lord, all the understandings, the oral understandings

2 made in the meeting of 21 December with me were signed

3 by Mr Arkhangelsky in the way of a memorandum, and all

4 the exact dates and terms of repayment for each loan are

5 stated there, so he had to know about it.

6 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: We can’t go over old ground, but you

7 know the memorandum doesn’t mention any extensions, it

8 just identifies loans, but there we are.

9 Mr Stroilov, I hope I haven’t cut across you in any

10 way, but those are — I’m not sure.

11 MR STROILOV: My Lord, I wonder if perhaps it makes sense to

12 have an early lunch break to give me more time to think.

13 Would it be inconvenient for anyone to start at 1.40?

14 MR LORD: My Lord, I am only anxious that we do try and

15 finish the witness today, that is all, I don’t know how

16 we are going.

17 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: How are we — I want to be

18 accommodating, but previously you had rather suggested

19 that we should cut down the lunch break and sort of

20 extend this session until later. Now — I don’t mean

21 this at all critically, but just for clarification,

22 I want to know how you are doing in order to assess

23 whether you think that we should be having a shorter

24 lunch break, as you have previously thought we should.

25 MR STROILOV: Yes, well perhaps 1.30 would be a good idea,

1 on Monday for a period of time but that, I am afraid, is

2 going to be the position. He cannot come back next week

3 to England. He has to go back.

4 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: We may have to interpose witnesses,

5 I don’t know.

6 MR LORD: Or else to have a videolink on Monday to try to

7 finish him off.

8 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Monday may not be the best, because

9 Monday may either be taken up with Ms Mironova or for

10 preparation with for Ms Mironova, so we may have to

11 interpose Ms Mironova.

12 MR LORD: My Lord, the difficulty is, this witness is

13 obviously a party. He needs to give instructions and

14 some of these meetings next week may well raise matters

15 to do with the litigation, so without going into any

16 privileged matters, they are very important meetings,

17 long-planned with a view to the timetable in this case,

18 not arranged —

19 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: What are you suggesting, Mr Lord? The

20 way you put things sometimes, I don’t quite know what

21 you are suggesting to me. You are saying that you must

22 get your way in this because otherwise — what are you

23 suggesting?

24 MR LORD: I am not suggesting that. We left it yesterday

25 that I would inquire into whether it was possible to

86 88
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

March 18, 2016 Day 29 — Redacted

1 complete the evidence on Monday by videolink, and it is 1 MR STROILOV: Well, what I want to avoid are part days, half
2 not — I’m not trying to be difficult. 2 days, so if I am in court I want it to be as full a day
3 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: I thought you were going to assess two 3 as possible. I don’t think I will be able to start with
4 things: one was whether he could stay until Monday, and 4 Ms Mironova before Easter, really, it’s going to be
5 my understanding of what you tell me is that it is 5 terrible, but I’m not given a choice. I am not able to.
6 extremely difficult for him to do so. 6 I am pushed to … beyond.
7 MR LORD: Unfortunately not. Yes, unfortunately he can’t. 7 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Should I take it from that that you
8 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: It is extremely difficult for him to 8 will want to start on the Monday or not, or …
9 do so, and the other is whether at some point — 9 MR STROILOV: If there is a videolink and if I have to
10 I didn’t realise it was only Monday, because I think 10 attend to complete the cross-examination, I do want
11 Mr Stroilov has been fairly clear that Monday is going 11 Ms Mironova to be available so that the remainder of
12 to be a difficult day, whether at some point we could 12 the day can be spent on her.
13 arrange, if we had to, videolinking, and I think you are 13 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Okay. Mr Lord is right then, you
14 saying yes, and you would prefer it to be on Monday. 14 would prefer a full Monday.
15 MR LORD: Prefer it because that has more of a gap, given 15 Is it worth my, contrary to every promise I have
16 the other commitments, which I am happy to tell 16 made, would it be helpful for me to seek to extend
17 your Lordship once this witness is not in the witness 17 Thursday, or not?
18 box, on the rest of next week. I thought that would be 18 MR STROILOV: It would be, yes.
19 a better day to try to fashion the videolink slot, 19 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Mr Lord?
20 because then we could finish off this witness before we 20 MR LORD: Well, we have to finish. We really have to finish
21 get to any other witnesses. I wasn’t trying to be 21 Ms Mironova by Easter so this trial doesn’t just — it
22 difficult. 22 will be derailed.
23 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: I agree it would be convenient, of 23 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: If I extended Thursday, would that
24 course it would, but I think that we were wondering 24 give you a little bit more time to prepare for
25 whether we would start with Ms Mironova on Monday, and 25 Ms Mironova and start later with her, or not?
89 91
1 that was one of the things Mr Stroilov was going to 1 MR STROILOV: Well, it will, of course, be helpful, and, of
2 consider, whether he wanted more prep time or earlier 2 course, being guillotined on Ms Mironova, she is one of
3 start time. 3 the most important witnesses. I’m going to do my best,
4 MR LORD: I think we left it, my Lord, we would finish — 4 it will be terrible, but I would like to have more time,
5 Mr Stroilov didn’t want to have to come to London for 5 because when you come unprepared, you actually need more
6 part of a day, so I think we did leave it, to be fair, 6 time.
7 that we would complete Mr Savelyev on Monday, and 7 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Yes. All right. I will see what
8 Mr Stroilov indicated that he would like to go straight 8 I can do.
9 onto Ms Mironova, albeit that that is after Mr Savelyev. 9 Are we still on course for 1.30 or given
10 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: I am sure you are right. I will just 10 the events that have happened is that too …
11 have a look at the transcript. 11 MR STROILOV: I would suggest 1.40. I have printing to do,
12 MR LORD: And, therefore, I have been working on the premise 12 I have some thinking to do, I have some preparations to
13 that the court and Mr Stroilov would like to complete 13 do.
14 this witness on Monday and then move on — seemingly to 14 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Yes. All right, well 1.40 pm. But
15 move onto Ms Mironova straightaway. That was how it was 15 bear in mind the real risk that face-to-face, this may
16 definitely left. I’m pretty sure that was how it was 16 be your last go with this witness.
17 left yesterday. 17 MR STROILOV: Yes, my Lord. I will have to prioritise
18 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: I see, well, I am so sorry — 18 topics.
19 MR LORD: I am not in any way being unhelpful, I was 19 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: All right, I will have a think about
20 actually trying to be helpful, I am sorry we are at 20 it and I will read the transcript.
21 cross purposes. 21 Mr Savelyev, we will continue during the afternoon.
22 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: I will have a look. We will break 22 We will start at 1.40, so usual rules: don’t discuss it
23 now. 23 with anybody and I will see you at 1.40 pm.
24 Mr Stroilov, do you think you will want to start 24 (12.52 pm)
25 with Ms Mironova on Monday? 25 (The Luncheon Adjournment)
90 92
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

March 18, 2016 Day 29 — Redacted

1 (1.40 pm)

2 MR STROILOV: May it please your Lordship. May I just

3 briefly make a couple of housekeeping points just that

4 so you are aware. I may ask for a slightly earlier

5 short break because, once again, I need to rush for

6 papers which are being printed out as we speak.

7 Secondly, I hope I am not misunderstood in any way,

8 I absolutely don’t mean it critically, but I am coming

9 to the part of the cross-examination where it is rather

10 important for its effectiveness that interruptions are

11 kept to what is really necessary.

12 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: I will try and keep quiet.

13 MR STROILOV: I absolutely don’t mean it in any …

14 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: No, no. At some point you will tell

15 me about future conduct, but you don’t want to deal with

16 that now.

17 MR STROILOV: Yes, absolutely, my Lord.

18 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: You don’t?

19 MR STROILOV: No, I don’t want to deal with anything in

20 particular, my Lord, I just wanted to make these two

21 points so that you are aware, and I will press on.

22 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: At some point today we will have to

23 work out what happens on Monday, if anything.

24 MR STROILOV: Quite, my Lord. I am happy to deal with it

25 now.

1 his meeting and he can then attend other meetings in

2 the week. As I said, I can tell your Lordship what they

3 are, if we need to, but there are a series of other

4 meetings, and the Monday meeting, I think it has been

5 moved, I think it’s been shifted in order that we

6 can …

7 There have been attempts, I think, behind

8 Mr Savelyev’s back, as it were, to move the meeting on

9 the day, with the strategy committee, in order to be

10 able to accommodate the videolink cross-examination that

11 we thought we might need, thinking it would be best to

12 start it to try to run on and finish it in the ordinary

13 way starting on Monday morning. Then this witness would

14 be clear, in all respects: clear from here and clear to

15 get on with his business, if possible.

16 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: You would be wanting to start early on

17 the Monday?

18 MR LORD: Starting at 9.00 or 9.30 with a view to trying to

19 finish him off in half a day really. We were meant to

20 be finishing today so we would hope there isn’t going to

21 be very much to leave for Monday and it may be just

22 re-examination and questions from your Lordship. It may

23 be we can get the bulk of the cross-examination done

24 today. I don’t know.

25 MR STROILOV: I’m not very hopeful in that regard, I’m sorry

93

1 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: With all respect, I don’t like

2 interrupting, but it just struck me over the short

3 adjournment that Mr Savelyev’s meeting is at 10.00 am

4 our time. I have no idea how long it is down for.

5 Mr Savelyev, do you know how long your meeting is

6 likely to last on Monday?

7 A. My Lord, my meeting starts at 14.00 hours, 2.00 pm.

8 THE INTERPRETER: Which is 11.00 am London time.

9 A. How long it will last will depend on how many questions

10 the members will have to discuss and this is all related

11 to strategy. I think it will last between an hour and

12 a half and two hours, my Lord.

13 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Right. So there is three hours’

14 difference between us and St Petersburg; is that right?

15 A. Yes, my Lord, three hours’ difference. 9.00 in

16 the morning in London corresponds to 12 noon in

17 St Petersburg.

18 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Right. If you were to be

19 cross-examined by video, when would be the proposal that

20 you should be so? Do you know, Mr Lord; can you help

21 me?

22 MR LORD: My Lord, I think the hope was it would be Monday

23 morning, that we would try to arrange things so we could

24 start on Monday morning to complete the witness in two

25 hours or so, all being well, so that he could then go to

95

1 to say, I’m not very hopeful. I suppose really, until

2 the end of the day I’m not in a position even to

3 estimate, hopeless as my estimates are.

4 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: All right. We will not waste time.

5 We will return to this at the end of the day or towards

6 the end of the day.

7 MR STROILOV: Yes, my Lord, I’m grateful.

8 Mr Savelyev, the assets pledged to the Bank by Scan

9 were sold through the Russian Auction House, were they

10 not?

11 A. Part of the assets were sold by the bailiffs via

12 a public sale organised by the bailiffs service and part

13 of it was auctioned off by the Russian Auction House.

14 Q. And I am talking about the public sale, or so-called

15 public sale, by Russian Auction House on

16 26 October 2009; are you aware of it?

17 A. No, I am not aware of this. If you can refresh my

18 memory, I would be grateful.

19 Q. Well, that was the very first sale of OMG assets

20 following the alleged default. Does that remind you?

21 It took place the same year, 2009, towards the end of

22 the year.

23 A. No, I do not recall what was the first asset that was

24 sold off via the Russian Auction House.

25 Q. I think that it was one of the first, if not the first

94 96
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

March 18, 2016 Day 29 — Redacted

1 ever sale of banking pledges through Russian Auction

2 House, I mean the first ever in Russia. That was

3 a historic event, in a sense.

4 A. My Lord, I was not dealing with this matter, so whether

5 it was the first or the last asset to be auctioned off

6 via the Russian Auction House, I really do not know.

7 Q. Are you aware who was dealing with this matter on behalf

8 of the Bank?

9 A. A decision was made by the management board as to who

10 was going to oversee which problem borrower, and

11 Mrs Malysheva, Irina Vladimirovna Malysheva, who was in

12 charge of the distressed assets of Oslo Marine Group,

13 acting on behalf of the Bank, obviously.

14 Q. To your recollection, when was that decision made by the

15 management board?

16 A. I am not sure I can give you the exact date, but all the

17 distressed assets and borrowers were distributed amongst

18 various members of the board, and every member of

19 the board was in charge of his group of borrowers, and

20 OMG, Oslo Marine Group, was within the remit of

21 Mrs Malysheva.

22 Q. To your recollection, approximately when was that

23 decision taken?

24 A. I really do not recall, my Lord, sitting here today,

25 it’s been a long time, and I really do not know when

1 point towards the end of 2008, wasn’t it?

2 A. Yes.

3 Q. And would there be a written record of that decision by

4 the management board?

5 A. I have no knowledge of this.

6 Q. I beg your pardon, Mr Savelyev. Surely if there was

7 a decision of the management board, there would be

8 a written record of it, wouldn’t there?

9 A. I am not saying that there was a decision made by the

10 board as to who was responsible for which borrowers.

11 There was an oral agreement that was reached amongst the

12 members of the board, whereby the responsibilities were

13 allocated, but that decision was made in an oral way,

14 and so Mrs Malysheva was then responsible for

15 Oslo Marine Group.

16 Q. I don’t think that’s what you said, but let me move on.

17 So, Mr Savelyev, are you saying that you personally

18 were not involved in organising the sale through Russian

19 Auction House at all?

20 A. That is correct.

21 Q. You are in a position to deny that on oath: you had no

22 personal involvement?

23 A. No, I was not dealing with this.

24 Q. Do you know the gentleman called Mr Andrey Stepanenko?

25 A. Yes, I do, my Lord.

97

1 that decision was made.

2 Having said that, so far as I know today, after our

3 meeting that took place on 25 December, Mr Arkhangelsky

4 went to see Mrs Malysheva and they discussed the

5 deadlines for the restructuring and the restructuring in

6 general. That was something that Malysheva was handling

7 and she was dealing with those matters.

8 Q. So does it mean that the management board decision took

9 place before 25 December 2008?

10 A. No, I don’t think so.

11 Q. So by the time Mrs Malysheva began making the

12 arrangements for the repo deal, to your recollection was

13 that borrower allocated to her by the management board

14 decision?

15 A. Possibly so, but I really have no recollection of that

16 sitting here today.

17 Q. Well, surely, Mr Savelyev, you can give some indication

18 as to when, some range of dates? It couldn’t be earlier

19 than the end of 2008, could it?

20 A. Hardly so.

21 Q. And presumably it couldn’t be later than early 2009?

22 A. It was before that time, yes.

23 Q. It was before 2009, wasn’t it?

24 A. Yes.

25 Q. So this OMG case was allocated to Mrs Malysheva at some

99

1 Q. And he is the head of Russian Auction House, isn’t he?

2 A. Yes, I know.

3 Q. And he was also at that time municipal official,

4 a member of Mrs Matvienko’s administration, wasn’t he?

5 A. Yes.

6 Q. So what was his position?

7 A. I do not recall that at this point in time.

8 Q. He was the chairman of the property foundation of

9 the municipal government of St Petersburg, was he not?

10 A. Possibly, I just don’t know that.

11 Q. Now, subsequently, Mr Stepanenko told Mr Arkhangelsky

12 that he had been asked to organise that sale by

13 Mrs Matvienko personally.

14 A. I do not know what Mr Stepanenko discussed with

15 Mrs Valentina Matvienko, but I think that this would

16 have been impossible. Mrs Matvienko never deals with

17 the commercial projects, she is a serious politician,

18 someone who never fiddles with commercial matters, she

19 simply is not interested in that, so I have no

20 information to support that allegation.

21 Q. Mr Savelyev, isn’t it the case that you asked

22 Mrs Matvienko to assist in facilitating that transaction

23 through Russian Auction House?

24 A. No, this is not true. My Lord, if I may, to assist

25 your Lordship I would like to say that in my capacity of

98 100
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

March 18, 2016 Day 29 — Redacted

1 the CEO and a top manager of the Bank who is sure of

2 himself, I have never asked anyone to assist the Bank in

3 overcoming our woes or problems. I would then project

4 the image of a weak, incompetent manager if I started

5 running around asking people for assistance. I would

6 have never afforded that and I would have never allowed

7 myself to do that. I would have never allowed myself to

8 go and see people, raise complaints, and I’m saying this

9 under oath. We had a very strong management team, I was

10 the chairman of the management board of the Bank and one

11 of the shareholders of the Bank and we had never shown

12 any weak points of the Bank to the powers that be,

13 because that would have caused damage to the Bank.

14 Moreover, if the Bank’s clients had known that the

15 Bank is using this kind of leverage, I do not believe

16 that anyone would have wanted to work with the Bank.

17 Q. Now, Mr Savelyev, are you aware who bought the assets at

18 that public auction?

19 A. No, I do not.

20 Q. Are you saying that you do not know this even now,

21 today? As a party to this case —

22 A. I do know this today, but I did not know that at that

23 point in time because I was not dealing with those

24 matters. Which date are you referring to? If you are

25 asking me about today, then my answer is: yes, I do,

1 Onega, and a number of other assets that I do not recall

2 from memory, but I could consult the memorandum, yes, it

3 says Vyborg Shipping Company, Onega, Scandinavia,

4 PetroLes.

5 Q. You are naming the borrowers, aren’t you? Where are you

6 looking? What is the piece of paper you are looking at?

7 A. I am looking at the memorandum, sir.

8 Q. Yes, and I am asking you what assets were pledged; do

9 you remember that? Can you name the assets that were

10 pledged under OMG loans?

11 A. I do not recall all of them.

12 Q. Well, name those you do remember.

13 A. Well, Western Terminal, Scandinavia and Onega. These

14 are the ones I remember.

15 Q. Now, Mr Savelyev, the assets sold through Russian

16 Auction House were (a) half of, or part of the Onega

17 Terminal, which was owned by Scandinavia, and (b) a plot

18 of land in Sestroretsk that was owned by Scandinavia.

19 Now, can you — now that I have identified them, can you

20 tell the court more about this auction?

21 A. I wouldn’t be able to say anything because I wasn’t

22 involved in that, my Lord. With regard to the details

23 of the sale of these assets, it’s not something known to

24 me.

25 Q. A few minutes ago, Mr Savelyev, you asked me to identify

101 103

1 I do know that, but at that time I did not.

2 Q. Yes, so will you please tell the court who bought the

3 assets through the Russian Auction House?

4 A. I think it was Renord-Invest, but not all the assets,

5 just one of the assets.

6 Q. Quite, and do you — let me start again. Well, it was,

7 just speaking of the Russian Auction House sale and

8 obviously we will come to other assets later.

9 A. Mr Stroilov, I would like to make sure that his Lordship

10 knows which asset we are talking to when we are

11 referring to the auction conducted by the Russian

12 Auction House because I still do not know which asset

13 you are referring to and which auction you are referring

14 to. For us to stay focused, if you state specifically

15 which asset you are referring to, then I would be more

16 than happy to assist.

17 Q. Right, Mr Savelyev. Then I am leaving Russian Auction

18 House for the moment.

19 Do you remember what assets of Oslo Marine Group

20 were pledged to the Bank? Can you name the assets you

21 do remember today?

22 A. I do not recall all of them exactly, but I say in my

23 statement, or I’ve seen somewhere else, that that was

24 Scandinavia, Western Terminal, based on the loan

25 agreements and on the memorandum that was also including

1 the assets that were sold, didn’t you?

2 A. Yes.

3 Q. You were playing for time, weren’t you?

4 A. No.

5 Q. Can we please go to {D132/2174/1}, and the Russian

6 version will be at {D132/2174/3}.

7 Now, let’s just look at the names you see there. Do

8 you know Mr Raev?

9 A. No, I do not.

10 Q. Isn’t Mr Raev the deputy of Mr Stepanenko?

11 A. Possibly so.

12 Q. And wasn’t he also working under Mr Stepanenko’s

13 supervision in the property foundation, that’s to say,

14 part of the municipal administration?

15 A. My Lord, I wouldn’t be able to know where Mr Raev

16 worked. I was not interested in his career in any way.

17 Q. Right. Now, you can see that the commission which was

18 conducting the sale included a representative of

19 Bank of St Petersburg, Ms Grosheva; can you see that?

20 A. I can see.

21 Q. It does not seem to include any representative of Scan

22 or of Oslo Marine Group, does it?

23 A. Yes.

24 Q. And Russian Auction House was conducting that auction

25 and an agency agreement with the Bank, was it not?

102 104
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

March 18, 2016 Day 29 — Redacted

1 A. Most likely that’s the case.

2 Q. Yes. So now you can see the names of bidders, and I am

3 afraid, again, it’s not very convenient, but as you can

4 see, bidder number 1 was Limited Liability Company

5 Kiperort, you then see it here. I wonder if could be

6 half scrolled down, I apologise for that, on both

7 screens, so that we have the whole table, if that can be

8 done {D132/2174/2}, {D132/2174/4}. And the other one as

9 well.

10 So, Mr Savelyev, you can see that the bidders at the

11 auction are recorded as Kiperort and Solo.

12 A. Yes, I can see that.

13 Q. Now, can you confirm to the court that Solo refers to

14 the same Solo company which we discussed earlier in your

15 cross-examination a number of times, and which had been

16 a shareholder of the Bank?

17 A. Yes.

18 Q. At that point in time, in 2009, the Bank still

19 controlled that company, did it not?

20 A. No.

21 Q. So at what time, to your knowledge, did Solo pass out of

22 the Bank’s control?

23 A. As far as I recall, that was in 2005 or 2006, and the

24 Bank did not control Solo even before that.

25 Q. So did it ever control Solo?

1 clarity.

2 Q. Mr Savelyev, will you please repeat your clarification,

3 I think it was mistranslated. You made a clarification,

4 you said you were referring earlier to another asset,

5 and I think you said «which was sold by Russian Auction

6 House», but it was interpreted as «it was not sold by

7 Russian Auction House», so please clarify what it is,

8 what did you refer to when you said Renord bought the

9 asset?

10 A. I did not mean the Russian Auction House. I meant the

11 asset that you were asking questions about. I said that

12 one of the assets was sold by the Oslo Marine Group, and

13 it was bought by Renord-Invest. I did not mean the

14 Russian Auction House. Perhaps you are right, sir, and

15 something was lost in translation, because from the very

16 start, I told you that I don’t know what assets you

17 meant when you are talking about the sale by the Russian

18 Auction House. Moreover, I was not involved in that

19 actual process. So it’s only natural that I might be

20 able to confuse things.

21 Q. Right. Now, if you can look at the second column in

22 that table you see kind of spreading over two pages. In

23 the second column from the right you can see the name of

24 the representative of Solo, and that’s someone called

25 LV Arinina, but there seems to be no mention of Kiperort

105

1 A. No, never.

2 Q. Now, is it your case that Solo was a company controlled

3 by Renord-Invest?

4 A. I’m not saying this is my case.

5 Q. Is it your case that Kiperort is a company controlled by

6 Renord-Invest?

7 A. Again, I don’t know this.

8 Q. Now, Mr Savelyev, I think you indicated earlier that, to

9 your knowledge, it was Renord-Invest who bought the

10 assets at the Russian Auction House sale, haven’t you?

11 A. My Lord, I would like it to be clear to your Lordship

12 what I am saying. I was saying that I do not know what

13 asset is meant, whether the first one or the second one,

14 with regard to the sale conducted by the Russian Auction

15 House. When I was speaking of Renord-Invest, I meant

16 a completely different asset that was not sold by

17 Russian Auction House.

18 Q. I am sorry, again, I wonder if the translation was not

19 quite correct. Do you say you were talking about

20 an asset which the Russian Auction House did not sell?

21 Can you repeat the last answer? You were talking about

22 another asset which, what?

23 A. My Lord, may I say —

24 Q. No, will you —

25 A. May I describe the way it looks, for your Lordship’s

107

1 attending.

2 Mr Savelyev, doesn’t that suggest to you that only

3 one bidder was, in practice, participating in

4 the auction?

5 A. No.

6 Q. Now, Mr Savelyev, I put it to you that Solo was

7 a company controlled by Renord-Invest at that point in

8 time.

9 A. I wouldn’t be able to assert this.

10 Q. And ultimately it was controlled by the Bank’s

11 management through Renord-Invest?

12 A. No.

13 Q. And Kiperort was also a company controlled by

14 Renord-Invest, wasn’t it?

15 A. I wouldn’t be able to know.

16 Q. And ultimately it was controlled by the Bank’s

17 management through Renord-Invest, wasn’t it?

18 A. No, this is not true.

19 Q. Now, if you look at the figures there, well, I just

20 wonder if …

21 Now, Mr Savelyev, it appears that the Bank was in

22 control of the auction, was it not?

23 A. No.

24 Q. Well, you had the Bank’s representative in

25 the commission, didn’t you?

106 108
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

March 18, 2016 Day 29 — Redacted

1 A. That’s pledged to the Bank so there should have been

2 a Bank’s representative because the property that was

3 pledged to the Bank was being sold and the Bank had to

4 put their representative forward because the property

5 was pledged. That’s normal.

6 Q. Then the auction house was acting under an agency

7 agreement with the Bank, was it not?

8 A. This is not something known to me for sure. Possibly

9 this was so.

10 Q. And then the management of Russian Auction House was

11 controlled by subordinates of Mrs Matvienko, wasn’t it?

12 A. Sir, could you please repeat your question?

13 Q. The top managers of Russian Auction House, Mr Stepanenko

14 and Mr Raev, were subordinates of Mrs Matvienko, were

15 they not?

16 A. Yes.

17 Q. And so it follows that if the Bank was in any way

18 unhappy with the way the auction was organised, it had

19 a number of means to intervene?

20 A. No. That was an open auction and anyone could bid

21 there, but as I already said to his Lordship, at that

22 point in time no one in the Russian Federation was

23 willing to buy any assets, and that open sale, that open

24 auction would have given anyone who would put up a price

25 higher than is stated in this protocol, in the minutes,

1 aware of that?

2 A. Possibly that could be the case, but I do not now recall

3 when exactly that happened.

4 Q. Now, Mr Savelyev, I put it to you that the so-called

5 public sale through Russian Auction House was a sham

6 transaction.

7 A. That is impossible. That is a public auction, a public

8 sale. Should Russian Auction House, as far as

9 I understand, behave in such a way as to enter into sham

10 transactions, it would have had no trust towards it

11 whatsoever; it operated in the Russian markets in

12 a quite successful way.

13 Q. Let me just sum up again, so the participants of that

14 deal were Scandinavia Insurance, which was controlled by

15 Renord on behalf of the Bank; is that right? I am just

16 listing the participants of that process.

17 A. Yes.

18 Q. Then another participant was the Bank itself.

19 A. Yes, being the pledger.

20 Q. Then another participant was Russian Auction House as

21 a company, was it not?

22 A. The participant of —

23 Q. Of the process of realisation of assets?

24 A. Yes.

25 Q. And Russian Auction House was an agent of the Bank at

109 111

1 that person would have easily purchased that asset

2 should there have been any additional bidders. There

3 were no restrictions with conducting the auction.

4 Q. Now, Mr Savelyev, at that time, Scan was controlled by

5 Renord, was it not?

6 A. I am not sure how you mean when you are saying Scan:

7 what company is that?

8 Q. Scandinavia Insurance Company.

9 A. Sir, you were saying that — who controlled that

10 company?

11 Q. I’m saying that Renord controlled Scandinavia Insurance

12 Company in the second half of 2009.

13 A. Possibly. If that was stated in the repo deal.

14 Q. And Renord held the shareholding in Scan on behalf of

15 the Bank, was it not?

16 A. Possibly, but if you look at the agreement, that was

17 reflected in the memorandum, the agreement with

18 Mr Arkhangelsky, then from the operative point of view,

19 the directors of the company, they were in place. They

20 were from the Oslo Marine Group, and this is the way we

21 agreed.

22 Q. So are you saying, Mr Savelyev, that you are not aware

23 that the directors of Western Terminal and

24 Scandinavia Insurance were replaced in the beginning —

25 in the first half of 2009? Are you saying you are not

1 that stage?

2 A. It was selling the pledge held by the Bank at

3 an auction. In this way, yes, it was performing the

4 Bank’s request.

5 Q. And it is also controlled by high ranking officials from

6 Mrs Matvienko’s administration; isn’t that a correct

7 statement?

8 A. I think that all of the Russian Auction House was not

9 controlled by the administration, but the management who

10 worked at the St Petersburg Government were the

11 subordinates.

12 Q. Now, one bidder is a company in the Renord Group, is it

13 not? I am talking about Kiperort.

14 A. My Lord, I would like to say one more time that I was

15 not deeply involved in this process of selling the

16 assets, so I would not be able to say before

17 your Lordship about whether this was correct or not,

18 because I don’t know who owned Kiperort at that point in

19 time. I would not be able to assert that because

20 I simply don’t know.

21 Q. I put it to you that both bidders were controlled by the

22 same people, namely by Renord Group.

23 A. Possibly this is the case, but it’s not something known

24 to me.

25 Q. So that was a collusive deal, was it not?

110 112
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

March 18, 2016 Day 29 — Redacted

1 A. This is not true. 1 Mr Savelyev, that was a lie, wasn’t it?
2 Q. And it was carried out at gross undervalue? 2 A. I do not know what the correspondent who wrote this
3 A. This is not true, and I would like to assert one more 3 article actually means. What I said, and this is what
4 time that in the period of liquidity crisis in the 4 I meant, that this is the Solo that we have been
5 Russian markets, no assets, no one wanted to buy any 5 discussing in the course of the proceedings.
6 assets because enterprises and companies had no funds to 6 Q. Right, and what is suggested there is that a journalist
7 purchase such assets. Also, in that time period, banks 7 contacted Bank of St Petersburg to inquire whether it
8 virtually stopped issuing loans because they had plenty 8 was the same Solo; isn’t that what the article suggests
9 of problems of their own that they had to deal with. 9 to you?
10 Thus, to obtain funds in order to purchase any assets in 10 A. My Lord, I cannot tell your Lordship who was speaking
11 that time period, it was something very difficult to do. 11 with the journalist or what the journalist meant when
12 Assets were all sold at rock-bottom prices and there 12 she wrote this piece. I simply would like to confirm
13 were still no bidders, no purchasers. 13 that I was not dealing with this, I was not structuring
14 Q. And the purpose of this so-called auction was to ensure 14 this transaction, so please don’t try to use this
15 that the assets end up in the hands of Renord? 15 against me. It’s the first time ever that I see this
16 A. No. 16 material and I cannot comment, or I cannot offer any
17 Q. This was a fraud, Mr Savelyev, was it not? 17 comment as to what the journalist has actually written
18 A. No. No, you are misleading the court. 18 here.
19 Q. Can we please look at {D192/2921/0.01}, and then 19 Q. Well, I am asking just for your opinion, really, at this
20 {D192/2921/5} on the other screen. If it could be 20 point. Isn’t it clear from this article that the answer
21 zoomed in so that Mr Savelyev can see it. 21 given by the Bank, by someone in the Bank, to
22 Now, Mr Savelyev, this is an article published in a 22 the journalist, was untrue?
23 reputable business newspaper, Kommersant, on 23 A. Why not? It says one of them, until 2007, had been
24 27 October 2009; can you see that? Can you see that, 24 a shareholder in St Petersburg with 12.93 per cent of
25 that it is Kommersant and it is 27 October 2009? 25 shares. One of the 50 different Solo LLCs, that’s what
113 115

1 A. Yes, I can see that.

2 Q. And that is an article about the sale through Russian

3 Auction House which we have just discussed?

4 A. Yes.

5 Q. Now, if we could scroll down the English version, and if

6 possible, half scroll down the Russian version

7 {D192/2921/0.02}, I am interested in the last paragraph

8 on this page and then in the next page. I am sorry,

9 I am being unlucky in that respect all the time

10 {D192/2921/6}. If it could be sorted out and scrolled

11 down, just so that Mr Savelyev can see it.

12 So as you can see, I am looking at the paragraph

13 which goes over the page in the Russian version, and in

14 the English version really the paragraph at the top:

15 «The organisers refused to provide contact

16 details …»

17 And so on, to the end of that paragraph. If you

18 could just read that paragraph, Mr Savelyev. (Pause).

19 A. Yes, I have read it.

20 Q. Now, I am looking at the sentence, in particular which

21 states — the penultimate sentence in this paragraph:

22 «Bank St Petersburg said that the winner of

23 the auction was another Solo LLC which has nothing to do

24 with Nikolai Lokai, but refused to provide more detailed

25 information.»

1 it says here.

2 So I think, perhaps, you and I are talking about the

3 same Solo, if this is the Solo that had been

4 a shareholder in the Bank, in that case, it’s the same

5 Solo that we have been referring to in this court.

6 Now, who was giving that interview on behalf of

7 the Bank, I really don’t know, nor do I know what that

8 person actually meant by saying this.

9 Q. Mr Savelyev, are you aware of any reason why

10 a representative of the Bank would tell such a lie to

11 a journalist?

12 A. I am not afraid — I can’t offer any comments to

13 the court. I do not know who was giving the interview,

14 nor do I know what the journalist meant by writing this.

15 Q. Mr Savelyev, were you personally involved in any way in

16 the enforcement of Western Terminal pledge?

17 A. In a very indirect way, my Lord. Only through the

18 decision made by the board of which I was member and in

19 which I took part. Now this was handled by my deputies,

20 and by the Bank’s lawyers.

21 Q. Which deputies?

22 A. I have already mentioned, I believe, that this had been

23 part of Mrs Malysheva’s responsibilities. She had been

24 overseeing the process on behalf of the Bank from A to

25 Z.

114 116
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

March 18, 2016 Day 29 — Redacted

1 Q. And by saying from A to Z, what you really mean is since

2 the end of 2008 until her departure from the Bank; is

3 that what you mean?

4 A. Yes.

5 Q. Now, are you aware of the fact that one of

6 the original — sorry, let me start again.

7 You do know that a Renord Company called

8 Sevzapalians was acting as the purchaser company holding

9 the shares of Western Terminal on behalf of the Bank

10 under the repo arrangement?

11 A. No, my Lord, I have no recollection of this.

12 Q. Now, you do recall the — generally speaking, you do

13 recall the mechanics of the repo arrangement, don’t you?

14 A. No, my Lord. I was not involved in the details. On

15 25 December Mr Arkhangelsky and myself agreed on

16 a memorandum which he signed and which I signed as well,

17 and this is all I could do for Oslo Marine Group at that

18 point in time. I was no longer involved in this process

19 going forward.

20 Q. Are you aware of the fact that the land at Onega

21 Terminal owned by LPK Scandinavia, not by

22 Scandinavia Insurance, but LPK Scandinavia, was also

23 sold to a Renord Company called Mercury?

24 A. No, I’m not aware of this.

25 Q. And are you aware of the fact that the Western Terminal

1 to say anything. I simply do not know. I know that ROK

2 purchased some of the OMG assets, but which, exactly,

3 assets those were, I am afraid I cannot tell you.

4 Q. Mr Savelyev, we may come back to the process of

5 realisation to look at it in more detail. What I would

6 like to ask you now is this: you intended from the

7 start, from December 2008, really, that all the assets

8 would end up in the hands of Renord, didn’t you?

9 A. No. This is not true. We were happy to sell those

10 assets to whoever would like to buy them in order to

11 maximise the value at the highest price possible at that

12 point in time in order to maximise the recovery in

13 the interests of the Bank.

14 After all, my bonuses and those of the other members

15 of the board depended on the bottom line of the Bank,

16 and we, as a bank, had a vested interest in maximising

17 the price that we would be able to receive. But, as

18 I have already mentioned, unfortunately at that time,

19 there were very few willing buyers at that time.

20 MR STROILOV: Now, my Lord, I think I will ask for

21 a 10-minute break just for me to get the prints I want

22 to get, because it’s just that the documents in the

23 Russian versions are illegible on Magnum, and I am keen

24 to make sure that Mr Savelyev can read them.

25 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: How long?

117 119

1 was also sold to Renord?

2 A. Yes, today I think I mentioned this.

3 Q. Isn’t it the case, Mr Savelyev, that virtually all

4 pledges were, so to speak, bought by Renord.

5 A. No, this is not the case. Some pieces of collateral

6 were purchased by other companies, and I am afraid I do

7 not recall the names.

8 Q. Do you recall any exceptions to that? Do you recall —

9 can you name a company or can you name an asset, just so

10 that I have some idea what you are talking about and

11 I can help then.

12 A. So far as I can recall, one of the plots of land that

13 had something to do with Oslo Marine Group was purchased

14 by a company that I think — that was carrying on some

15 port-related business, it was engaged in port

16 activities. I am afraid I do not recall the name of

17 that company.

18 Q. Are you talking about Baltic Fuel Company?

19 A. No, my Lord, it was a different asset.

20 Q. And you are talking about ROK N1 Prichaly?

21 A. Possibly, yes. Most likely it was ROK, yes. You have

22 refreshed my memory and I think it was ROK.

23 Q. To your knowledge did ROK N1 Prichaly buy any of

24 the assets at a public auction?

25 A. I cannot tell you, sitting here today. I would not like

1 MR STROILOV: Well, perhaps to be on the safe side, 2.55,

2 I am confident I will manage by that time. If it is

3 2.50, I may be a couple of minutes late, if it is 2.55

4 I will …

5 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: I will come back at 2.50 and you can

6 call me in whenever you are ready.

7 MR STROILOV: I am grateful, my Lord.

8 (2.42 pm)

9 (A short break)

10 (2.53 pm)

11 MR STROILOV: May it please your Lordship.

12 Now, Mr Savelyev, can you please be shown

13 {D138/2304/1}, and the Russian version in poorer quality

14 is at {D138/2304/5}. I think I will have the paper

15 version if that’s what you prefer, but if you are okay

16 looking at the screen, look at the screen. Just say if

17 you want the paper version, if you have any difficulty

18 reading from the screen. It’s not terribly good

19 quality.

20 So, Mr Savelyev, that’s the record of your interview

21 to Investigator Levitskaya which you referred to

22 earlier, didn’t you?

23 A. Yes.

24 Q. And I think you mention in your witness statement that

25 you accept you signed it, don’t you?

118 120
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

March 18, 2016 Day 29 — Redacted

1 A. Yes.

2 Q. And I think actually you signed it seven times, if I am

3 not mistaken, let’s go page-by-page and see what each

4 signature is about. I think on the page you see on the

5 screen, you see your signature under your identification

6 data, and I think for whatever reason, there are two

7 signatures, I’m not sure why.

8 Then at the bottom you sign to confirm you have been

9 warned of the criminal responsibility for giving false

10 evidence. If we could scroll down in the English

11 version, it’s at the second page in the English version,

12 but on the first in the Russian. {D138/2304/2}.

13 It’s at the very bottom of the Russian version and

14 in the middle of page 2 in the English version; do you

15 see that, Mr Savelyev?

16 A. Yes, I do.

17 Q. And then if we go further — well, if we could scroll

18 down the Russian version just one page {D138/2304/6},

19 then you can see that on each page you signed the actual

20 substantive evidence, if you can scroll down further we

21 will come back to this {D138/2304/7}. So you signed the

22 page in the middle and then you signed below to confirm?

23 A. Yes, absolutely, I have no objection.

24 Q. And then if we could scroll down the English version to

25 {D138/2304/3}, and you can see that the bottom signature

1 next page in the Russian version, and it starts at this

2 page in the English version but doesn’t finish

3 {B1/1/26}, let me read it out in full just to be sure

4 you followed it:

5 «As regard the minutes of my interview with

6 Ms Levitskaya, not only is incorrect as regards the

7 timing and number of my meetings with Mr Arkhangelsky,

8 it is also incorrect as regards discussions at our

9 25 December 2008 meeting. I have not been able to

10 identify now, given the long passage of time, why these

11 errors were made and why I did not notice them at the

12 time. I acknowledge that I signed this document but

13 I could not have read it carefully at the time. I did

14 not give the interview my full attention or properly

15 explain what happened. I apologise for any confusion

16 caused by these errors.»

17 So you can see this is the explanation you have

18 given. So it appears, Mr Savelyev, that not only did

19 you sign the minutes, that’s one thing, but you actually

20 talked to the investigator, didn’t you?

21 A. Yes, it was a short meeting and within the criminal

22 proceedings against Oslo Marine Group and the

23 Morskoy Bank, I was giving evidence to Mrs Levitskaya,

24 and since that was to do with the criminal proceedings

25 linked to the Morskoy Bank and Oslo Marine Group,

121 123

1 you have, before that in handwriting you confirm that

2 the minutes were read personally. What does it mean?

3 Does it mean you read them to yourself, or does it mean

4 they were read out to you, aloud?

5 A. I think most likely if I say personally, that means that

6 I read it personally, or maybe not.

7 Q. Now, if you could look at your witness statement, just

8 to remind you what you say about this. Let me find the

9 witness statement. I beg your pardon. (Pause).

10 That’s in {B1/1/13}, close to the end, if I’m not

11 mistaken. No, it’s higher than that, it is {B1/1/11},

12 and I think in the Russian version it will be about

13 {B1/1/24}, but I am after paragraph 46.3. {B1/1/25}.

14 So what you explain there is the second part of this

15 subparagraph is your comment, really, on the document:

16 «While I cannot now be certain, I believe that I

17 only met Ms Levitskaya briefly since she needed evidence

18 from me as the Chairman of the Bank and that after that,

19 she dealt mainly with my subordinates in this regard

20 (I do not now recall who). While I acknowledge that

21 I signed these ‘minutes’, I have no recollection of

22 these minutes being prepared and I do not now know who

23 did so. I cannot recall whether I read the document

24 before signing it.»

25 Then if we can go to paragraph 50, and that’s on the

1 I wasn’t really concerned at that point in time about

2 that. I was asked to give evidence to Mrs Levitskaya

3 within the criminal proceedings linked to Morskoy Bank,

4 so I didn’t really focus on my evidence. The

5 conversation with Mrs Levitskaya was quite short. She

6 has prepared this evidence, I have signed it and

7 I confirmed that this signature, also including what it

8 says there, that it was done personally, it is my

9 signature.

10 Actually, I did not study this document carefully

11 because it didn’t concern the Bank of St Petersburg; it

12 concerned the Morskoy Bank, so I didn’t focus on this

13 evidence. It was prepared for me, I’ve signed it, and

14 all the seven signatures, as Mr Stroilov was putting it,

15 and the fact that I put the signature saying that I am

16 personally informed of this, yes, I did do that myself,

17 and I confirm that.

18 Q. Obviously you have given it some thought while preparing

19 your witness statement, haven’t you? You know this

20 document now, don’t you?

21 A. That happened at that point in time very briefly, and

22 today this evidence, yes, I know it, and it’s not

23 correct, and I reported to the court about that.

24 Q. And these minutes, they accurately record what you

25 actually told the investigator, do they not?

122 124
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

March 18, 2016 Day 29 — Redacted

1 A. No, they do not accurately record it. The thing is that

2 when the minutes were drafted, I wasn’t personally

3 present. It was brought to me, I signed it over a very

4 brief period of time.

5 Q. Did you actually meet the investigator?

6 A. Yes, I did.

7 Q. So what you are saying is that you met the investigator,

8 then you went away and the minutes were drafted, and

9 then they were brought to you and you signed them; is

10 that correct?

11 A. Yes, correct.

12 Q. And are you saying that the minutes do not accurately

13 record what you actually said at the interview?

14 A. Yes, that’s correct.

15 Q. That is your evidence on oath, is it not?

16 A. Yes.

17 Q. Why don’t you say that in your witness statement?

18 A. I actually do say that. With regard to the minutes of

19 my —

20 THE INTERPRETER: The witness is quoting a particular point,

21 point number 50.

22 A. That’s what I’m saying in paragraph 50 {B1/1/11}:

23 «As regards the minutes of my interview with Ms

24 Levitskaya, not only is this incorrect as regards the

25 timing and number of my meetings…»

1 time: yes or no?

2 A. No, it does not accurately record it.

3 Q. So you do remember what you actually said to

4 the investigator at the time, do you not?

5 A. No.

6 Q. And nevertheless, you are prepared to deny on oath that

7 the minutes have misrecorded what you say?

8 A. Yes.

9 Q. If we could go back to the actual document at

10 {D138/2304/1}, and the Russian version at {D138/2304/5}

11 and then scroll down one page on each screen

12 {D138/2304/2}, {D138/2304/6}. Now, if we could read

13 through the … if we could read out the two — if we

14 could, for a start, if you could read the paragraph

15 starting from the words:

16 «In November 2008 …»

17 Having set out the background you say:

18 «In November 2008 I found out from the employees of

19 my reception, that VD Arkhangelsky, the managing

20 director of Oslo Marine Group wants to meet with me to

21 discuss the loan repayments due to the banks accrued by

22 the whole group.»

23 Then you say:

24 «This meeting took place in December 2008.»

25 Pausing here. According to this record you did not

125 127
1 Yes, I confirm that I did sign the said document. 1 mention any personal loan; do you accept that?
2 MR STROILOV: If you could scroll up, just so that my Lord 2 A. Yes.
3 follows what the witness is reading. 3 Q. And do you accept that in the actual conversation with
4 Yes, you do, but you do not suggest that the 4 the investigator you did not mention any personal loan?
5 investigator misrecorded what you say {B1/1/11}. 5 A. Yes. And I would like to say again that I didn’t focus,
6 A. I am not suggesting this in my witness statement, but 6 because it did not concern the Bank of St Petersburg, it
7 now when you put this question to me about this, I’m 7 concerned another bank.
8 saying exactly what I think. 8 Q. Yes.
9 Q. So you do recall clearly enough what you actually said 9 A. And possibly I have missed that out.
10 to the investigator to be able to say on oath that she 10 Q. Yes. If we could now read the most substantive part of
11 misrecorded what you said? 11 it. Let me read it out just to be sure that you know
12 A. Yes, I am saying under oath that I have signed the 12 what I am talking about. You will follow it in
13 minutes and I have not treated it diligently with 13 the Russian text and simultaneously I will read it out:
14 attention. I didn’t focus on it when I signed it, 14 «This meeting took place in December 2008. VD
15 because it did not pertain the Bank of St Petersburg, 15 Arkhangelsky explained that Oslo Marine Group faced
16 and it dealt with the criminal proceedings linked to 16 serious financial difficulties and it was not able to
17 Oslo Marine Group, and Morskoy Bank. 17 finalise the outgoing projects on its own; the group
18 Q. Mr Savelyev, do you or do you not remember what you 18 accumulated significant indebtedness with other banks
19 actually said to the investigator, Ms Levitskaya? 19 and this indebtedness exceeds the value of all assets of
20 A. Now I do not recall exactly, but I am stating to you, 20 Oslo Marine Group. In addition, Arkhangelsky said that
21 my Lordship, that here there is part of the evidence 21 due to these financial problems, several companies are
22 that I have provided that is not correct, because by 22 under a threat of bankruptcy; among these companies
23 signing the minutes, I did not study it in detail, even 23 there were companies of the pledger and the companies of
24 though I did affix my personal signature. 24 the guarantor (for the loan granted to the group). In
25 Q. Do the minutes accurately record what you said at the 25 addition, Arkhangelsky clarified that the only solution
126 128
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

March 18, 2016 Day 29 — Redacted

1 from this situation was the sale of business of

2 Western Terminal LLC and SO Scandinavia LLC in order to

3 preserve its assets and development of its business

4 potential.»

5 Then if we could scroll down in the English version,

6 but not the Russian {D138/2304/3}:

7 «Given that the interests of the bank were duly

8 protected by way of security of assets and by the

9 guarantee of the stipulated companies of

10 Oslo Marine Group I supported the proposed actions of

11 Arkhangelsky as the bank is always interested in

12 the successful expansion of its borrowers and in

13 long-term relationships with them. However, I had to

14 deny Arkhangelsky’s request relating to assistance in

15 sale of these companies because this type of activity is

16 not included in my responsibilities as the manager of

17 the bank. In January 2009 I found out from the

18 employees of the bank, I cannot remember from whom, that

19 both companies owned by Arkhangelsky were sold. I am

20 not aware to whom these companies were sold.

21 Unfortunately the sale of businesses of these companies

22 slightly postponed the financial collapse.

23 Oslo Marine Group and the Bank —»

24 I think it is mistranslated slightly. Mr Savelyev,

25 if you could read out in Russian the last sentence in

1 actually, they were of no interest to me, so I didn’t

2 focus on the evidence, I didn’t focus on the

3 conversation with the investigator, because it had

4 nothing to do with the Bank of St Petersburg or me

5 personally.

6 Q. But you gave — you told her a lie, didn’t you?

7 A. I didn’t pay attention to what it said here in this text

8 and I can confirm this one more time before the court.

9 As you know today, I did proffer my apologies to

10 the court for the confusion that came about due to these

11 errors that occurred in my evidence given to

12 Ms Levitskaya.

13 Q. Incidentally, were you ever in contact with

14 Ms Levitskaya before or after that interview?

15 A. My Lord, I saw her for the first and last time in my

16 life when we had that interview with regard to

17 the criminal proceedings of the Morskoy Bank. I have

18 never met her again after that, I haven’t seen her.

19 Q. Yes. Further you say:

20 «I did not have any discussions with Arkhangelsky

21 except from the above mentioned and I never met him

22 anymore.»

23 This is not true, is it?

24 A. I would like to say that I have made many confusions in

25 these minutes, and you quite rightfully doubt every

129

1 that paragraph, starting from «unfortunately», starting

2 from «(Russian word)»; you do understand that, don’t

3 you?

4 A. «Unfortunately the sale of the business of the said

5 companies only somewhat delayed the financial fiasco of

6 Oslo Marine Group, and the Bank was forced to protect

7 its rights in court.»

8 Q. Right, so Mr Savelyev, this text is a totally false

9 account of the repo transaction, is it not?

10 A. It doesn’t say anything about repo transaction here. It

11 says about the sale of the company.

12 Q. Yes, and you knew that there had been no sale?

13 A. Why are you saying that? We did enter into a repo

14 transaction.

15 Q. Now, you claimed in your interview to the investigator

16 that you were not involved in the so-called sale?

17 A. I keep claiming this as well. I was not involved in

18 the sale.

19 Q. Isn’t it clear from these passages that you sought to

20 misrepresent to the investigator that the Bank had no

21 interest in that transaction?

22 A. No, this is not true. I would like to confirm before

23 his Lordship that simply that was criminal case to do

24 with different legal entities that were not related to

25 the Bank, and I was asked to give evidence, and

131

1 line, whether that is true or not, but please believe

2 me, first, I did proffer my apologies for the confusion

3 before the court, and, secondly, I was not interested at

4 all in someone else’s criminal proceedings, so of course

5 I did sign the minutes, and I confirm this signature,

6 all the signatures are mine, and I did admit this in

7 court, that part of this evidence, as you are saying,

8 sir, is not just.

9 Q. What I am suggesting to you, just so that there is no

10 misunderstanding about it, is not that there has been

11 any confusion or mistake, but that you knowingly gave

12 false evidence?

13 A. This is not true.

14 Q. Now, if we could read the next paragraph:

15 «During this meeting either beforehand [I think it

16 means ‘or beforehand’] we did not discuss the issues

17 related to extension of the loan repayment by the group

18 of companies or (issues) in relation to repayments under

19 the loan, the discussion of these questions relates to

20 powers of the management board of the bank and

21 Arkhangelsky did not contact the bank with these sort of

22 requests.»

23 So you expressly deny that there was any

24 restructuring of the loans or any moratorium on

25 payments? Isn’t that the burden of that paragraph?

130 132
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

March 18, 2016 Day 29 — Redacted

1 A. Possibly that is, but I would like to confirm before his

2 Lordship one more time that I did not read these minutes

3 carefully. I have signed it very quickly and it’s true

4 that I signed in haste and affixed my seven signatures,

5 and I did apologise before the court for that, and these

6 minutes are not correct.

7 Q. «In no way I forced Arkhangelsky to sell a group of

8 companies, moreover, he initiated this.»

9 Now this sounds familiar, doesn’t it, Mr Savelyev?

10 I think we have heard this today.

11 A. Yes, this is so.

12 Q. And then if we could scroll down the Russian version

13 {D138/2304/7}, now I am looking at — there are two very

14 brief paragraphs in the end and then — I’m looking at

15 the very end of the substantive part:

16 «Out of court settlement was concluded with the

17 director of SO Scandinavia LLC which was sold on

18 a public auction at the market price. The proceeds from

19 the auction partially covered the indebtedness of

20 Oslo Marine Group before the bank.»

21 So, Mr Savelyev, the record of your evidence makes

22 it quite clear that at the time, you were well familiar

23 with the allegations Mr Arkhangelsky was making against

24 you; do you accept that?

25 A. No.

1 companies, moreover, he initiated this.»

2 This was your response to the allegations that you

3 made threats against him, wasn’t it?

4 A. No, this is not true.

5 Q. Then your evidence, if we can scroll down the Russian

6 version again {D138/2304/7}, the paragraph starting

7 with:

8 «Out of court settlement was concluded with the

9 director of SO Scandinavia LLC which was sold on

10 a public auction at the market price.»

11 That’s a response to the allegation of a fraudulent

12 sale at gross undervalue, is it not?

13 A. No. My Lord, may I clarify to your Lordship that these

14 minutes had nothing to do with the proceedings between

15 Mr Arkhangelsky and the Bank of St Petersburg. These

16 minutes of the interview that we are looking at now —

17 and I did admit that it was incorrect and I did sign

18 it — again, I would like to say that that is to do with

19 the criminal case against Mr Arkhangelsky initiated by

20 the Morskoy Bank, and Ms Levitskaya came to me because

21 of the criminal proceedings of the Morskoy Bank and

22 I was giving my evidence to Ms Levitskaya within the

23 criminal proceedings investigated by her, pertaining to

24 the Morskoy Bank and the Oslo Marine Group. That’s why

25 I did admit today before the court that the minutes were

133

1 Q. This evidence was your answer to Mr Arkhangelsky’s

2 allegations.

3 A. No. This evidence was in response to the claim of

4 Morskoy Bank in the criminal proceedings against

5 Oslo Marine Group and against Mr Arkhangelsky.

6 Q. So clearly you responded to an allegation that there had

7 been an agreed moratorium by a denial that you ever

8 discussed any restructuring of the loans, didn’t you?

9 A. Sir, could you please repeat? Your question was very

10 long; could you please shorten it.

11 Q. If you could scroll up the Russian version again

12 {D138/2304/6}. Now, I am looking at what is the third

13 paragraph from the bottom in the Russian version, which

14 states:

15 «I did not have any discussions with Arkhangelsky

16 except from the above mentioned…»

17 Then:

18 «During this meeting [or before it] … we did not

19 discuss the issues related to extension of the loan

20 repayment by the group of companies or (issues) in

21 relation to repayments under the loan…»

22 That was your response to Mr Arkhangelsky’s

23 allegation that you agreed a moratorium, wasn’t it?

24 A. No, this is not the case.

25 Q. «In no way I forced Arkhangelsky to sell a group of

135

1 incorrect. Of course we can look at every comma and

2 make me culpable for it, but I do admit that it’s

3 incorrect, even though I signed it, because I didn’t

4 focus because it did not have anything to do with the

5 Bank of St Petersburg, it was a different case, and I,

6 as the Bank, had nothing to do with that case.

7 Therefore I signed it without focusing on it properly.

8 So any line that Mr Stroilov will put to me today as

9 an allegation, of course I will agree with him, because

10 for me these minutes did not mean much at the time, and

11 I agree with Mr Stroilov that he is saying that some

12 lines out of the minutes are incorrect. He’s blaming

13 me, but it doesn’t mean that I thought so at the time,

14 this is the way I thought at that point in time.

15 Q. I’m not sure what you meant by the last sentence. So

16 are you saying that at the time you gave that evidence

17 you believed it to be true? I’m sorry, I may have

18 misheard. Did you say that?

19 A. Mr Stroilov, I said that this evidence was prepared

20 after my conversation with Ms Levitskaya. When it was

21 brought to me, I signed it quite quickly, and I did not

22 study it carefully, attentively, and I do not deny that

23 I did affix my signatures, and I did say that

24 I personally was familiarised with the minutes.

25 However, there are some patently incorrect things in

134 136
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

March 18, 2016 Day 29 — Redacted

1 what was prepared for me, and I did sign them and

2 I bring my apologies again before the court for these

3 incorrect statements and evidence, and for the fact that

4 we are discussing them at such length today.

5 Q. Now, Mr Savelyev, just so that you know, the purpose of

6 this questioning is not to squeeze further apologies out

7 of you. I am trying to establish why did you tell this

8 series of lies to the investigator, and I am suggesting

9 that you wanted to distance the Bank from the repo

10 transaction; is that so?

11 A. No, this is not true. I did not pay attention to this

12 evidence because it had nothing to do with the

13 Bank of St Petersburg.

14 Q. Are you aware of any reason why the investigator might

15 want to distance the Bank from the repo transaction?

16 A. No, I am not. I don’t know Ms Levitskaya very well,

17 I only met her once, very briefly, and I don’t think

18 that she had any thoughts along the lines of criminal

19 proceedings between the Morskoy Bank and

20 Mr Arkhangelsky. That definitely didn’t concern the

21 Bank of St Petersburg, I mean my interview by

22 Ms Levitskaya, she certainly didn’t mean anything here.

23 Q. Do you know what that criminal case was about?

24 A. Not exactly, but I recall from the press reports that

25 the Morskoy Bank called — I think they blamed

1 necessary ones.

2 So I think the facts as alleged by the investigator

3 are summarised on the second page of the English

4 version, if you could scroll that down on the screen

5 {D138/2293/2}, so Mr Savelyev, you will start from the

6 bottom of the first page, starting from the words,

7 «(Russian word)».

8 If I may just ask you to read through from these

9 words to the top of page 3, where it says — where it

10 comes to the bottom line saying it’s a criminal offence

11 under article 159.

12 If your Lordship could read through this page and

13 just signal to me when you have read to the bottom.

14 (Pause).

15 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Yes, I have read that.

16 MR STROILOV: If we could just scroll down in the English

17 version, and my Lord could you read to the text in bold,

18 «namely in committing an offence …» just so we have

19 a complete summary of that document. I don’t want to

20 take anything out of context. {D138/2293/3} (Pause).

21 I just want to be sure that the witness has the

22 whole picture. (Pause).

23 Have you read to the —

24 A. Yes, I have, but to be honest, Mr Stroilov, I do not

25 understand very well what it says here. It says,

137 139

1 Mr Arkhangelsky in fraudulently obtaining some loan.

2 I do not recall the exact loan, but if you look at the

3 press report, perhaps you will get more detail about

4 that. I remember there were claims saying — something

5 to do with fraud claims put forward by the Morskoy Bank,

6 but I don’t remember the gist of them.

7 Q. I think I can give you something better, you will have

8 an official document which summarises the allegations.

9 Just a moment. I am afraid there is something — there

10 is a logistical side to it. (Pause).

11 If we could go to {D138/2293/1}, and I think the

12 Russian version, if I remember correctly, is terrible,

13 so I’m going to hand to you the printout, which is

14 better. I think that is unreadable, so if this could be

15 handed around, one for my learned friends. (Handed).

16 I think your Lordship doesn’t need the Russian

17 version, do you? I just don’t want to swamp you with

18 unnecessary papers. Let me keep one, one for my learned

19 friends, one for the witness, one for the translators,

20 and if anyone wants a second one, just give it to them.

21 I don’t know if my learned friends would welcome one, or

22 the translators are likely to. (Handed).

23 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Am I getting one? I think not.

24 MR STROILOV: I don’t think your Lordship will want me to

25 swamp you with unnecessary papers; there are too many

1 apparently, that Mr Vinarsky had misused the

2 RUB 56 million that it had received from Morskoy Bank,

3 and then it was remitted to the terminal, but what the

4 gist of this is, I am really not sure, and this is very

5 thick legalese, and to be honest, my vision is no longer

6 as good as — for me to be able to concentrate on this.

7 I can see that there are certain claims that are

8 being raised, certain grievances against Vinarsky and

9 Arkhangelsky that are being raised by Morskoy Bank, the

10 total amount is RUB 56 million but I am not sure

11 I understand the essence of the case that they are

12 making.

13 Q. Let me try and help you, Mr Savelyev, just to summarise

14 what I understand the criminal case to be based on.

15 A. Yes, please.

16 Q. It is alleged that Mr Arkhangelsky procured

17 Western Terminal LLC to take a loan from Morskoy Bank.

18 The reason why that is alleged to be fraudulent is that

19 it is said that Western Terminal by that time had been

20 sold to another company Sevzapalians, it was no longer

21 an Oslo Marine Group company, whereas Mr Arkhangelsky

22 misled Morskoy Bank to assume that it was. That is the

23 gist of the allegation; do you follow that?

24 A. Yes, I do. But, my Lord, it also needs to be mentioned

25 that for a certain period of time, Mr Arkhangelsky had

138 140
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

March 18, 2016 Day 29 — Redacted

1 been running the company, those assets, as per 1 A. One of the members of my staff, I do not recall exactly
2 an agreement between himself and the Bank and he had 2 who it was.
3 appointed the directors. Now, what period of time they 3 Q. Well, perhaps you can try. Who could it possibly —
4 are referring to here, I’m not sure I can deduce that 4 could it be Mrs Malysheva?
5 from this text. 5 A. I don’t know. I cannot confirm this to his Lordship,
6 Now, if it was Mr Vinarsky, he was reporting to 6 sitting here today.
7 Mr Arkhangelsky at that time and he was running this 7 Q. Because perhaps if we could look at the evidence. If we
8 asset, so even though there was a repo transaction that 8 could begin, I think it needs to be handed around, the
9 had been entered into, the operational control over the 9 Russian version, because I don’t expect — the Russian
10 company was being exercised by a director who was not 10 version will be terrible, and on the screen, if we could
11 our director. 11 please have {D137/2278/1} — for some reason — my
12 Q. That’s right, Mr Savelyev, I suggest to you that you 12 Magnum has been fine, I think it will be 1. And if you
13 actually understood it much better than you are now 13 could just hand this around to — not to my Lord, but to
14 indicating. The matter which the investigator had to 14 everyone else. (Handed).
15 establish was whether or not Western Terminal was still 15 If we could perhaps scroll down on the screen the
16 owned by Mr Arkhangelsky at the time he took the loan 16 English version, because obviously the first page is
17 out of Morskoy Bank; do you understand that? 17 just … {D137/2278/2}.
18 A. No, I do not, and I cannot confirm this because I do not 18 Again, Mr Savelyev, you don’t need the first page
19 know what period of time you are referring to, so to be 19 because it is just the name and her confirmation that
20 honest I really cannot make head or tail of this. 20 she knows about criminal responsibility and so on. So
21 Q. And so, Mr Savelyev, obviously the investigator, 21 what I would like you to do, if you could turn to
22 assuming she was doing her job more or less adequately, 22 the next page, over the page, and just read the
23 she would be focusing on the question whether or not the 23 paragraph starting from the words:
24 so-called sale of Western Terminal was a genuine sale or 24 «In December 2008 …»
25 not. 25 That’s really the gist, and the most important.
141 143

1 A. My Lord, I really do not know what was going through the

2 investigator’s head at that time with respect to

3 Western Terminal, or what they meant by this. Once

4 again, I would like to confirm that I was never

5 following the matter in any active manner apart from the

6 two meetings that I had had with Mr Arkhangelsky.

7 Let me also add, if I may: you may try to trip me up

8 and catch me on the basis of my evidence or

9 Arkhangelsky’s evidence or other witness’s evidence or

10 the criminal case: if I was not looking into the matter,

11 if I was not dealing with the matter, there is nothing

12 I can say about this sitting here today.

13 Q. Now, Mr Savelyev, the point I am making is that the

14 investigator asked you certain questions, and we can

15 only assume what those questions might have been, and in

16 response, you told her a lie, a false tale from

17 beginning to end; isn’t that so?

18 A. No, it is not true. I mentioned to his Lordship and

19 I am happy to confirm this today, that my answers to

20 Mrs Levitskaya were not properly worded. I did not

21 draft these minutes or that record. I have been asked

22 to sign off on the minutes within the framework of

23 the Morskoy Bank criminal case, but it’s not to say that

24 I was doing something wittingly.

25 Q. Who asked you to sign those minutes?

1 A. «At the end of December 2008 …»?

2 Q. Yes, well, please read it to yourself and I can read it

3 out in English. The Russian copy is the best that we

4 have. I hope it is all right for your eyesight. If

5 not, I will read it to you in English so that you have

6 it translated in reverse in the headphones. I am afraid

7 that’s — I can read it in Russian because it’s —

8 A. No, no, it’s okay, don’t waste your time, I think I can

9 read this. (Pause).

10 Yes, I have read this.

11 Q. So she also misrepresents the repo transaction as

12 a genuine sale of the company from OMG to Sevzapalians,

13 doesn’t she? (Pause).

14 Well, if you could …

15 A. I don’t think it makes reference to Sevzapalians here.

16 It mentions a Mr Vasiliev and a Mr Gavrilov, but which

17 company they act on behalf of, I don’t think it says at

18 all, the way I read the text.

19 Q. If you could read further from the paragraph

20 I identified for you. I am talking about the paragraph

21 starting:

22 «I proposed ‘Sevzapalians’ LLC as a purchase of

23 ‘Zapadny Terminal’ …»

24 It is the second page in your version and the second

25 in the English version, as it is. To the bottom of

142 144
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

March 18, 2016 Day 29 — Redacted

1 the page. 1 capital.»
2 A. Is that the last page? 2 So, Mr Savelyev, Mrs Malysheva told the investigator
3 Q. No. 3 in substance exactly the same tale as you did.
4 A. I don’t have that. 4 A. Why «tale»? I told you, it was a mistake. I had made
5 Q. You have three pages. 5 a mistake.
6 A. I thought you said the last page? 6 Q. She also misrepresents the repo as a genuine sale from
7 Q. I beg your pardon, Mr Savelyev, the page in the middle. 7 OMG to Sevzapalians, doesn’t she?
8 It’s a three-page document, so if you read the second 8 A. Well, I don’t know what she meant when she was being
9 page. 9 interviewed by Mrs Levitskaya. I was not in attendance.
10 A. Yes, I can see what it says here. 10 Q. And she also — you see the minutes now. They record
11 Q. Yes, and at the bottom paragraph on that page is one 11 her as falsely indicating that the Bank had no interest
12 which corresponds to the bottom paragraph in the English 12 in that transaction. Can’t you see that? (Pause).
13 version, actually. You can see that she describes her 13 Mr Savelyev, isn’t it clear that the burden of that
14 alleged negotiations with Mr Gavrilov, and when my Lord 14 evidence is to distance the Bank from that transaction?
15 is ready, I will ask to scroll it down, the English 15 A. No, I don’t think so. I believe that she may have been
16 version, and Mr Savelyev has the whole paragraph before 16 inattentive when giving evidence to Ms Levitskaya and
17 him. 17 she signed off on this record exactly the same way
18 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Yes, I have found it in the paper 18 I did. When we signed our respective records, our
19 version, but whenever is convenient to everybody. 19 intention was not at all to conceal anything because
20 MR STROILOV: Yes, will you please scroll it down 20 repo transactions are registered in EGRUL, in
21 {D137/2278/3}. 21 the register. You can always find trace of that, or in
22 Have you read to the bottom of the page, 22 SPARK — either in SPARK or in EGRUL. What is there to
23 Mr Savelyev? 23 conceal in the first place, and why would one conceal
24 A. This paragraph here that I offered — does it say «sold» 24 anything?
25 or «proposed»? I think it says: I proposed 25 Q. So are you saying, Mr Savelyev, that you can find in
145 147

1 Sevzapalians which was headed by Mr Gavrilov.

2 Q. Yes, but have you read to the bottom of the page?

3 A. No, not yet.

4 Q. Please do so.

5 A. Okay, thank you. (Pause)

6 Yes, I have read it.

7 Q. Just for completeness, look at the last page,

8 {D137/2278/3} over the page, and I would like to draw

9 your attention to the first paragraph there, the

10 paragraph which says:

11 «At the request of Gavrilov … on the basis of

12 documents provided by Arkhangelsky VD, an independent

13 evaluation of 100 per cent share in ‘Zapadny Terminal’

14 LLC’s share capital was performed. According to

15 the expert evaluation, this value amounted to about

16 RUB 12,000.»

17 A. Yes, I can see this.

18 Q. And then just skipping the next paragraph, just two

19 short ones:

20 «Later, I learned from Gavrilov … that

21 Arkhangelsky … decided to sell 99 per cent of

22 the share capital for RUB 9,900. This price suited

23 Gavrilov…

24 «I do not know why Arkhangelsky … decided to sell

25 just 99 per cent of ‘Zapadny Terminal’ LLC’s share

1 the public sources in EGRUL or SPARK or whatever public

2 source, at that time you could see that the sale of

3 Western Terminal shares was not a genuine sale but it

4 was a part of a repo transaction for the benefit of the

5 Bank; is that what you are saying?

6 A. Well, if it was a repo transaction and if the title

7 changed hands from one corporate to another corporate,

8 I am sure that was registered or recorded somewhere.

9 Q. What would be registered, Mr Savelyev — and correct me

10 if I am wrong, obviously you understand this, you have

11 more experience in this kind of thing — what would be

12 registered would be the change of shareholder of

13 Western Terminal from OMG Ports to Sevzapalians.

14 A. I think so, yes.

15 Q. But nowhere in public databases would there be

16 an indication that this is a part of a repo transaction

17 in the interests of the Bank.

18 A. Well, I’m not sure about that. I’m not a lawyer and

19 I do not know whether that would be recorded. I cannot

20 tell you. Once again, I was not dealing with this

21 matter. I was not involved in this transaction.

22 Q. And in that evidence, another notable feature of that

23 evidence is that Mrs Malysheva presents Sevzapalians as

24 just a company managed by Mr Gavrilov. It does not

25 mention Renord or Mr Smirnov, and she does not make all

146 148
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

March 18, 2016 Day 29 — Redacted

1 the justifications of these events she offers and you 1 the words:
2 offer in these proceedings. 2 «I work for ‘Bank St Petersburg’ …»
3 A. Well, judging from this record, that is the case, yes. 3 Let me take you through it, it may be quicker:
4 Q. And she also claims in this evidence that the shares 4 «I work for ‘Bank St Petersburg’ JSC since 2006 as
5 were worthless; that the market price was, whatever, it 5 the Head of the corporate financial projects department
6 was RUB 12,000, and that was an independent valuation, 6 of the corporate finance service.»
7 doesn’t she? 7 Would you accept that this is correct and
8 A. My Lord, may I mention for the benefit of your Lordship 8 Ms Stalevskaya does work for the Bank?
9 that when valuers look at the value of the company, they 9 A. Yes.
10 obviously look at the liabilities, the debts that the 10 Q. «My direct superior is Malysheva Irina Vladimirovna.
11 company has outstanding, and they definitely compare the 11 In December 2008, she informed me that ‘Oslo Marine’
12 market value of the assets and the debts outstanding. 12 Group, the bank’s borrower, was selling one of
13 So if there is a company which is encumbered by 13 the group’s legal entities, ‘Zapadny Terminal’ LLC.
14 loans that it had taken out, obviously one has to look 14 Malysheva … asked me to help with this transaction and
15 at the value of the assets and then one has to deduct 15 gave me the contact telephone numbers of the seller and
16 the liabilities, the debts. Now, what they meant at 16 the purchaser; I was requested to provide technical
17 that time, what the value of the assets was, what debts 17 support to the transaction: transmission of documents,
18 or loans outstanding the company had, I cannot tell you 18 coordination of the parties to the transaction,
19 sitting here today, but I believe that the valuation was 19 transmission of information.»
20 such, was the way it was because the company had been 20 Then she names a few people, again, Mr Gavrilov,
21 encumbered. It had some debts, it had some loans which 21 Mr Vasiliev, and in the next paragraph, you see the
22 had not been repaid. 22 assertion:
23 Q. Now, Mr Savelyev, let’s face the obvious truth: 23 «In the beginning of December 2008, I received from
24 Mrs Malysheva gave false evidence to corroborate your 24 Gavrilov … a list of documents requested for the
25 false evidence; isn’t that obvious from what you have 25 evaluation of the 100 per cent share in the share
149 151

1 just seen?

2 A. I would like to state one more time before his Lordship

3 that all the minutes, both with regard to the interviews

4 of Ms Malysheva and myself, had nothing to do with the

5 Bank of St Petersburg. So it’s quite possible that

6 Ms Malysheva did give the evidence she did give, taking

7 into account that she also didn’t focus and it was not

8 something to do with the Bank.

9 Morskoy Bank was having a case against Oslo Marine

10 and I think Ms Malysheva didn’t focus on it in the same

11 way as I didn’t focus on it. I don’t see any ill intent

12 and I cannot confirm before his Lordship that that was

13 done intentionally.

14 Q. Could you please call on the screen {D137/2279/1}.

15 Again, I don’t expect — I think the Russian version

16 will start at {D137/2279/3}. I think it is okay. If

17 necessary, I can give paper versions to whoever asks for

18 it, but I think the Russian version is okay.

19 So that is the minute of the evidence given by

20 another of your employees, Tatiana Stalevskaya in

21 the same case. Do you see that, Mr Savelyev?

22 A. Yes.

23 Q. Do you accept that Tatiana Stalevskaya is an employee of

24 the Bank? Can we scroll down both screens?

25 Well, you can see the introduction, starting from

1 capital of ‘Zapadny Terminal’ LLC. I forwarded this

2 list to Vasiliev … and, a little bit later, I received

3 from him copies of the requested documents including

4 balance sheets, copies of ownership certificates,

5 et cetera. I do not remember the list exactly.

6 I transmitted these documents to Gavrilov…»

7 I don’t think, unless any objection is taken,

8 I don’t think it’s important to read the whole

9 statement. If we could scroll down the English version

10 one page {D137/2279/3}, and Mr Savelyev that will be the

11 second paragraph from the bottom on your page, on the

12 page you see, and the top paragraph in the English

13 version:

14 «I do not know why the head of ‘Oslo Marine’ Group

15 Arkhangelsky … decided to sell ‘Zapadny Terminal’ LLC

16 or why a share of 99 per cent in the share capital was

17 sold. These issues were not discussed in my presence

18 and I was not interested in them.»

19 And I think that’s sufficient for present purposes.

20 Now, Ms Savelyev, this is also a false account of what

21 happened, isn’t it?

22 A. I would like to confirm before his Lordship one more

23 time, I don’t think this is a false account, I think

24 it’s an erroneous account, because it did not concern

25 the Bank of St Petersburg. So that’s why I think no one

150 152
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

March 18, 2016 Day 29 — Redacted

1 at the Bank focused on this evidence. I, of course,

2 would not be able to speak for Ms Stalevskaya, but

3 I think she did not do this intentionally. I think

4 simply she didn’t focus.

5 Q. Like you, like Mrs Malysheva, Ms Stalevskaya is recorded

6 as misrepresenting that repo — that genuine sale of

7 shares, isn’t she?

8 A. My Lord, if this is not something that concerns the

9 Bank of St Petersburg, I don’t think the Bank employees

10 ought to focus on the evidence that we now see here

11 before us. Each of them gave their evidence the way

12 they saw fit at that point in time, and I am more than

13 confident that no one paid any attention to someone

14 else’s criminal case and they didn’t focus on what they

15 were saying in their evidence.

16 Q. If that is true, Mr Savelyev, isn’t it remarkable that

17 three employees of the Bank make a series of exactly the

18 same mistakes with exactly the same effect in terms of

19 misrepresenting the facts?

20 A. Possibly, but I would like to say that we have

21 a memorandum signed by the Bank and by Mr Arkhangelsky.

22 We have the agreements, the loan agreements, the

23 additional agreements thereto, where completely the

24 contrary is asserted, and they show that Mr Arkhangelsky

25 did it of his own accord. He agreed with everything, he

1 Bank is in the right and we are defending our interests

2 here in court with dignity because we were not paid.

3 Q. May I stop you. Your case will be argued by

4 professionals in due course, Mr Savelyev. What I am

5 putting to you is this: that the only explanation for

6 the same lie being told to the investigator as formal

7 evidence by three employees of the Bank is collusion.

8 A. I would like to say that this is not the case because

9 these minutes had nothing to do with the agreement with

10 Oslo Marine Group.

11 Q. And the reason why you sought to conceal the repo

12 transaction was because you knew it was fraudulent.

13 A. No, this is not true. The repo transaction was agreed

14 and Mr Arkhangelsky did it of his own free will, and he,

15 trying to avoid default at the end of 2008, has of his

16 own free will signed all the documents, and I don’t see

17 any fraudulent activity here. The Bank was defending

18 its interests in the way it could, and I would like to

19 say it was standard practice entering into a repo

20 transaction. We did go over that in court already, and

21 we had to put up a defence in order to get the amounts

22 back, the amounts that were pledged to the Bank, as much

23 as possible, and the Bank was doing its utmost to

24 maximise the recovery, to recover the pledged assets,

25 and I don’t understand what do the minutes with regard

153 155

1 affixed his signature, and I am not sure what these

2 minutes that we are now discussing have to do with this.

3 We have a fact. The fact is that between the Bank and

4 Mr Arkhangelsky, a memorandum was signed of their own

5 will. We have confirmed several times that that was

6 Mr Arkhangelsky’s free will. Whatever these minutes say

7 does not change the essence of the memorandum and the

8 gist of the credit agreements concluded after our

9 meeting with Mr Arkhangelsky on 25 December.

10 In any case, the agreements were signed by both

11 parties and we were performing them to the extent that

12 we could, and to the extent it was stated in

13 the memorandum.

14 If we are coming back to the minutes concerning the

15 criminal case between Mr Arkhangelsky and the

16 Morskoy Bank, I don’t understand the connection of that

17 to our memorandum. The minutes have no connection to

18 the memorandum signed by us.

19 Q. Mr Savelyev, you do understand the connection much

20 better than you pretend, don’t you?

21 A. Why should I pretend, Mr Stroilov? I am saying exactly

22 what I think here in court. I don’t have any reason to

23 pretend because it was the Bank who wasn’t paid back, it

24 wasn’t the Bank taking the loan from someone and not

25 paying it back. I think the Bank is right here. The

1 to Oslo Marine Group and the Morskoy Bank have to do

2 with that, and why are we discussing them for such

3 a long time?

4 Q. Mr Savelyev, do you accept that Renord held the shares

5 in Western Terminal in 2009 on behalf of the Bank, don’t

6 you?

7 A. After the agreement signed by Mr Arkhangelsky, possibly

8 Western Terminal was registered to Renord, but here in

9 these minutes that we are looking at, it says some

10 Sevzapalians, whether that company was owned by Renord

11 or not is not something that I can assert today for

12 sure.

13 Q. Are you seriously saying on oath that you don’t know

14 what that is about, and that Sevzapalians is a Renord

15 Company?

16 A. My Lord, one more time, I confirm here in court that

17 I was not involved in the sale and purchase transaction,

18 so all the details and the questions put to me today,

19 I simply cannot know for sure, I cannot give a specific

20 answer to the court because I was never inside that

21 deal. I had two meetings, I reported everything about

22 these two meetings to the court, then it was up to

23 the Bank’s employees and I would not be able to assert

24 anything about this, either for or against it.

25 Q. Mr Savelyev, you have seen the references to a gentleman

154 156
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

March 18, 2016 Day 29 — Redacted

1 called Mr Gavrilov in these minutes recently, haven’t

2 you?

3 A. I saw it, but I don’t know who Mr Gavrilov is.

4 Q. He is a Renord employee who acts as director general of

5 Sevzapalians, or acted as director general of

6 Sevzapalians at that time.

7 A. Possibly he was a Renord employee, possibly not,

8 I wouldn’t be able to assert that for sure.

9 Q. I would like to show you the evidence he gave to

10 Colonel Levitskaya. That’s at {D135/2224/1}, my Magnum

11 is being slightly funny in terms of page numbers.

12 I think the Russian version will be terrible and I will

13 have to hand up printouts. (Handed).

14 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Mr Stroilov, at some point I think we

15 should have another five-minute break for the benefit of

16 the transcribers. Is that a good moment, or not a good

17 moment?

18 MR STROILOV: Perhaps now is a good moment.

19 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Five minutes?

20 MR STROILOV: Yes, five minutes and I will aim to finish by

21 4.40. I am sorry, my Lord, but I will do my best to

22 gallop through the remaining material.

23 MR LORD: That is very helpful. My Lord, do I understand

24 that Mr Stroilov might finish, he has nearly finished?

25 MR STROILOV: No, sorry, I mean finish for today, and there

1 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Yes. I think I may need to have

2 a discussion with you in the absence of the witness as

3 to what sort of further evidence is required.

4 MR STROILOV: Yes, that may be helpful, indeed, and you

5 could really help me to cut it, my Lord.

6 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: All right. Five minutes.

7 (4.17 pm)

8 (A short break)

9 (4.26 pm)

10 MR STROILOV: May it please your Lordship. If we could call

11 on the screen {D135/2224/1}, and to be honest I forgot,

12 did I hand to the witness the Russian version of

13 interview of Mr Gavrilov? I have, yes.

14 So if we could look at that, so you can see that

15 is —

16 A. Yes, I have Pavel Alexandrovich Gavrilov’s interview

17 here. Thank you.

18 Q. That’s right. Yes, just so you know, in case you don’t,

19 Mr Gavrilov was a Renord employee who was acting as

20 director general of Sevzapalians, so he was in control

21 of Western Terminal shares on behalf of the Bank; do you

22 understand that?

23 A. Well, in his evidence he says as the director general of

24 Sevzapalians, Sevzapalians had an opportunity to

25 purchase an asset. He is not saying that he is a Renord

157 159
1 is — no, I am sorry if I raised false hopes now. There 1 employee. I would not be able to assert it because
2 is still a lot I need to put to this witness. 2 I don’t know Mr Gavrilov.
3 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: There is still a lot, did you say? 3 Q. Quite, that’s the point. If you could scroll down one
4 MR STROILOV: I’m afraid a lot, yes. 4 page in the English version {D135/2224/3}. Have you
5 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Well, at the risk of spoiling my five 5 read the first paragraph of the substantive evidence,
6 minutes and the break, what does «a lot» mean? 6 Mr Savelyev?
7 MR STROILOV: Well, you will be terrified to hear I now 7 A. No. When did I have time to do that?
8 think it may be up to another day. 8 Q. It’s just that you commented on the evidence so I was
9 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: A day? 9 wondering how much you have read, in the meantime? How
10 MR STROILOV: Yes. 10 much have you read?
11 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: That is rather spoiling the five 11 A. I saw an excerpt and I read it out. I didn’t read the
12 minutes, yes. Okay. I will think about that. 12 rest of it.
13 MR LORD: My Lord, just one point: in order to test the 13 Q. I see. You will have this on the second page, it is
14 videolink with Russia, they need to do various technical 14 a large paragraph, half a page-paragraph on the second
15 things and it may cut off or affect the supply to Nice, 15 page, and we have it on the screen, the first
16 I think, but someone is going to try and test this at 16 substantive paragraph, and that’s really …
17 4.30, so I would ask permission for us to do that to try 17 Yes, so if you could read that paragraph through and
18 to make sure that we have achieved the hook-up that we 18 say when you are done, sir.
19 need for Monday, if that is all right. 19 A. Sir, would you like me to read the top paragraph or the
20 MR STROILOV: I think perhaps Mr Arkhangelsky can just, out 20 bottom paragraph?
21 of courtesy, Mr Arkhangelsky can confirm that he is okay 21 Q. The top paragraph starting {D135/2224/2}:
22 to be following it on Magnum from 4.30? 22 «In December 2008 …»
23 MR ARKHANGELSKY: Yes, this is not a problem, of course. 23 A. Thank you very much. (Pause).
24 MR STROILOV: He said it is all right, so it is all right, 24 Yes, I’ve read it.
25 yes. 25 Q. So can you see, Mr Savelyev, Mr Gavrilov also
158 160
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

March 18, 2016 Day 29 — Redacted

1 misrepresents the transaction as a genuine sale of 1 witnesses with respect to a totally different criminal
2 a company; can you see that? 2 case that has nothing to do with the Bank? What do they
3 A. Yes, I can see this. 3 have to do with a repayment of debts outstanding with
4 Q. And he also claims, like Mrs Malysheva I think has 4 respect to the Bank, because you are asking questions
5 claimed, that the shares were valued by an independent 5 within the framework of a criminal case involving
6 valuer, can you see that? 6 Morskoy Bank, not BSP.
7 A. Yes, I can see this. 7 Q. These are the events which this court is rather
8 Q. And he claims that they were worthless, doesn’t he? 8 interested in, and Mr Gavrilov gave the investigator
9 A. No. He does not say that. He says that they are worth 9 a totally false version of these events, did he not?
10 value of assets minus value of liabilities and 10 A. Well, I would neither confirm nor deny this because I do
11 obligations. 11 not know Mr Gavrilov, I still have not met him, and
12 Q. Now, if you could, perhaps, scroll down one page on the 12 there is really nothing I can say in support of
13 screen {D135/2224/3}, if you just really scan through 13 Mr Gavrilov or against Mr Gavrilov. I think that he set
14 the second half of your first page, Mr Savelyev, so just 14 out his vision the way he thought appropriate when he
15 after that paragraph, you just scan through. I don’t 15 was being interviewed by Mrs Levitskaya.
16 ask you to read it carefully. 16 Q. And his false evidence is remarkably consistent with the
17 The point I want to make to you is that Mr Gavrilov 17 false evidence of Mrs Malysheva, is it not?
18 seems to make no mention of the Bank’s interest in the 18 A. Why false? I think that they set out their
19 transaction; do you accept that? He just goes through 19 understanding, their perception, their vision, the way
20 details which are not significant. I think the 20 they saw things and that’s the way they explained that
21 substantive paragraph I will ask you to read is on the 21 to the investigator. I do not think that they were
22 next page, so that’s the third page in your clip, 22 false.
23 Mr Savelyev. No, I’m sorry, Mr Savelyev, the third page 23 Q. And that false evidence is also remarkably consistent
24 in your clip, the very bottom paragraph starting from: 24 with your false evidence to the investigator, is it not?
25 «I decided not to replace the director general …» 25 A. In my evidence I provided some wrong information.
161 163

1 And in Russian it starts from, «(Russian word) …»

2 and so on. So if you could read that paragraph as well.

3 A. Yes, I have read this.

4 Q. If you could turn over the page and read it to the end,

5 and this is a continuation. (Pause).

6 So, really, again, no need to read it very

7 carefully. What I want to point out to you,

8 Mr Savelyev, is that he does not link the replacement of

9 management of Western Terminal with the alleged default

10 of OMG in its obligations to the Bank. He does not

11 indicate any connection with that, does he?

12 A. My Lord, I think that he is answering the investigator’s

13 questions in accordance with the way the investigator

14 formulates her questions. If she is not asking him

15 about any transactions that he is aware of, he is not

16 answering along those lines, he answers the way he would

17 have answered in his capacity as the general director of

18 Sevzapalians, and I think that this is quite

19 appropriate.

20 And yet, Mr Stroilov, could you kindly let me know

21 whether it would be right to say that because in these

22 proceedings we have a memorandum signed by

23 Mr Arkhangelsky and the Bank and it sets out all the

24 details and you say that the details are accurate, why

25 are you turning up some records of interviews of

1 I apologise to the court and I acknowledge that I had

2 set out some mistaken information, erroneous

3 information, and I signed the record, but this has

4 nothing to do with the evidence given by Mr Gavrilov,

5 whom I do not know.

6 Q. Now, Mr Savelyev, I think you may have seen in that

7 evidence, you may have not, there is a gentleman called

8 Andrey Maslennikov, who was a Renord employee and who

9 was appointed the director general of Western Terminal

10 by Renord. Do you know about that?

11 A. No, I do not.

12 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Before we go onto that, I have been

13 passed a note indicating that the test which is sought

14 of the videolinks is now proposed.

15 I don’t mean I have been watching the clock with the

16 exactness this may illustrate, but it is now 4.40 pm, as

17 you indicated you might finish; would this be a good

18 time to test the links, and if it is a good time or if

19 it isn’t, how much more time do you have today?

20 MR STROILOV: I am afraid it may be between five and ten

21 minutes, if it’s all right for the purpose of testing,

22 I would rather finish this line.

23 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: All right, do we know how long it

24 takes to test the videolinks or can it be done while we

25 are chatting? (Pause).

162 164
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

March 18, 2016 Day 29 — Redacted

1 (Discussion re videolink)

2 MR STROILOV: Yes, I am grateful, my Lord. I am really

3 trying to bring that line, at least, to an end.

4 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Yes.

5 MR STROILOV: So if we could, again, I expect there will

6 be — yes, the Russian version is unthinkable. If we

7 could go to {D132/2167/1}. If we could hand around the

8 Russian versions in hard copies.

9 One for the witness, one for the interpreters.

10 I don’t think my Lord needs one. (Handed).

11 So, Mr Savelyev, I think I explained to you,

12 Mr Maslennikov was the director general of

13 Western Terminal appointed by Renord on the Bank’s

14 instructions. The Bank instructed Renord to change the

15 management of the company and Renord appointed

16 Mr Maslennikov.

17 A. I know nothing about this, Mr Stroilov.

18 Q. Take it from me, that’s your own case.

19 Now, if we could scroll — so this is his interview

20 as the victim of the alleged crime of Mr Arkhangelsky.

21 Since we have finished that point, Mr Savelyev, I put it

22 to you that it was his complaint that actually triggered

23 the whole criminal investigation.

24 A. My Lord, there were 11 criminal cases against

25 Oslo Marine Group and Mr Arkhangelsky. At the request

1 A. Which, saying «with respect to the substance of

2 the case, here is what I have to say …»?

3 Q. Yes, Mr Savelyev, if you could read those two

4 paragraphs, one big and the other just three-line

5 paragraph. (Pause).

6 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: I am sorry, which ones do you want me

7 to read?

8 MR STROILOV: Just the first substantive paragraph:

9 «As to the merits of criminal proceedings …»

10 Just the background.

11 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Yes, «I worked at OJSC …».

12 MR STROILOV: And then the next three-line one.

13 So have you read that, Mr Savelyev?

14 A. I have just finished the first paragraph.

15 Q. Yes, well, then just this brief three-line paragraph,

16 just for completeness.

17 A. Yes, I have read this.

18 Q. So Mr Maslennikov is recorded here to misrepresent to

19 the authorities that Sevzapalians was a genuine parent

20 company of Western Terminal, was he not?

21 A. I don’t know what he is really asserting here.

22 Q. Yes. He indicates that Sevzapalians actually bought

23 Western Terminal from Oslo Marine Group Ports, doesn’t

24 he?

25 A. No, I think that Gavrilov, Pavel Gavrilov, said that he

165 167

1 of various banks and various individuals, and obviously

2 I am not aware of all those 11 cases, nor do I remember

3 them.

4 Now, the complaint filed by Morskoy Bank, I don’t

5 think it has anything to do with Mr Maslennikov’s

6 complaint, if there was one, so I am not sure

7 I understand why I have to answer that question. For

8 all I know, Mr Maslennikov may have filed an application

9 or a complaint, but that may have triggered a totally

10 different criminal case. I just know nothing about

11 this.

12 Q. Mr Savelyev, what is the source of your knowledge of

13 the fact that there are 11 criminal cases against

14 Mr Arkhangelsky, not 10 or 12. What is the source of

15 your knowledge of that?

16 A. I knew that from the mass media or one of my employees

17 mentioned that to me, so far as I can recall, I’m not

18 sure I recall what the source was, but I am sure we can

19 double-check on that and you will see that it was

20 approximately that number of cases.

21 Q. Yes, if we could now scroll down one page on the screen,

22 and in your copy, Mr Savelyev, if you just turn over the

23 page and read the top two paragraphs {D132/2167/2}.

24 My Lord, these are the top two paragraphs of

25 the substantive —

1 had been offered the position of the CEO of

2 Western Terminal LLC.

3 Q. And, Mr Savelyev, again, this background, so to speak,

4 which he sets out, it is not true but it corroborates

5 the false evidence given by you, Mrs Malysheva and

6 others, the evidence we have been discussing for this

7 afternoon, does it not?

8 A. Well, I just want to confirm that I do not believe that

9 this is false evidence. I think that these records of

10 the various interviews have to do solely with the

11 Morskoy Bank criminal case. They have nothing to do

12 with BSP or the memorandum that BSP entered into with

13 Mr Arkhangelsky. I don’t think they are related to that

14 in any way at all.

15 Q. Mr Savelyev, what you call Morskoy Bank criminal case

16 was started by a Renord employee acting on behalf of

17 the Bank, that was Mr Maslennikov’s complaint which

18 started it.

19 A. I am not aware of this, my Lord. I do not know who

20 filed what complaint, when, and I’ve never seen

21 Maslennikov and I do not know who he is. There is

22 nothing I can say with regard to this matter, or maybe

23 it was initiated by someone else, for all I know.

24 I just have no knowledge of this.

25 Q. Mr Savelyev, do you see the point, I have shown you the

166 168
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

March 18, 2016 Day 29 — Redacted

1 evidence given. It’s formal evidence, subject to

2 the penalty of perjury, evidence given by three people

3 from the Bank and two people from Renord in relation to

4 the same events, and the five of you tell exactly the

5 same lie.

6 A. I think I have already mentioned on a number of

7 occasions that I do not know why Maslennikov or other

8 people were giving the evidence to Mrs Levitskaya as per

9 these records of interviews, but I do know for a fact

10 that these records and these pieces of evidence were

11 given within the framework of the Morskoy Bank criminal

12 case.

13 Now, why Morskoy Bank filed a criminal complaint

14 against Mr Arkhangelsky and what the gist of their

15 grievances was, I don’t know, I was not involved in

16 this, nor have I ever worked for or with Morskoy Bank.

17 Q. Mr Savelyev, that’s not a truthful answer. I have been

18 careful to draw to your attention a document summarising

19 the criminal case.

20 A. I am totally open with you and I am giving you

21 appropriate answers. I am telling you what I know and

22 what I do not know. Now I confirm once again that

23 I simply am not aware of the allegations that you are

24 making.

25 Q. The only logical explanation for what we have seen this

1 the loans including interest rather than just making

2 declarations to that effect, he would be able to live

3 anywhere in the world freely, including in Russia. One

4 simply has to perform one’s obligations vis-a-vis one’s

5 counterparties.

6 So it’s not because of this criminal case opened and

7 investigated by Mrs Levitskaya; it’s Mr Arkhangelsky’s

8 fault. He had been duping all the banks, including BSP,

9 and he had been dissipating the assets to pay various

10 bribes, as he has acknowledged, or to charter vessels or

11 whatever other things he has been coming up with.

12 That’s the gist of the matter, that’s the problem. He

13 has not been acting appropriately in terms of performing

14 his obligations under the loans that he had taken out

15 from the various banks that he had been dealing with.

16 Q. Mr Savelyev, now you have acknowledged in your witness

17 statement that your evidence to Investigator Levitskaya

18 was not true, haven’t you?

19 A. Yes, and I apologised to the court. I said that the

20 evidence had been incorrect, and I said that I was not

21 focused on the matter, and that’s the reason that I did

22 not pay sufficient or appropriate attention. I did not

23 treat this seriously.

24 Q. So you are you saying it’s not a big deal, it’s just

25 false evidence?

169 171

1 afternoon, the only possible explanation is some form of

2 collusion between the Bank and Renord in relation to

3 giving this false account to the investigator; isn’t

4 that so?

5 A. No.

6 Q. And the reason why you sought to conceal the repo

7 transaction was because you knew it was fraudulent.

8 A. No. We were not concealing this transaction. It was in

9 the public domain. It had been signed by

10 Mr Arkhangelsky himself, and this was an attempt to

11 protect the interests of the Bank in order to be able to

12 enforce the assets that had been pledged as collateral

13 to the Bank.

14 Q. Are you aware that on the basis of this criminal case

15 an international search warrant was issued against

16 Mr Arkhangelsky?

17 A. Possibly so. I am just not aware of this.

18 Q. So it is as a result of your false evidence that

19 Mr Arkhangelsky cannot travel here to participate in his

20 own trial.

21 A. I believe that Mr Arkhangelsky cannot come here, or go

22 to any other country because he had taken out loans from

23 many banks and never repaid those, and that is the

24 essence of the matter. That’s the reason why he is

25 being in Nice — he is in isolation now. Had he repaid

1 A. I don’t think this is false evidence. I believe that

2 because of the lack of time I signed off on the record

3 without focusing my attention on the actual text of

4 the record, even though I did say that I had read it

5 personally. I don’t think I actually read it. It was

6 brought to my office by one of the members of the staff,

7 I signed off on seven occasions and that was it. It was

8 a very brief episode in my banking activity and I did

9 not really pay much attention, nor was I in any way

10 focused on this.

11 Q. What steps have you now taken to inform the investigator

12 that your evidence was incorrect and shouldn’t be relied

13 on?

14 A. Should Mrs Levitskaya send me a request to that effect,

15 I will give new evidence.

16 Q. Do you intend to do anything about this unless you

17 receive a request from Colonel Levitskaya?

18 A. I think that after this meeting, after this hearing

19 today and after the market has read the transcript, that

20 request will definitely come my way and I will respond

21 to that, and I will give the evidence as per the

22 evidence that I have been giving today as per the

23 obligations imposed on me by the statute.

24 MR STROILOV: Thank you.

25 My Lord, I do apologise, it is 5.00 pm and I think

170 172
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

March 18, 2016 Day 29 — Redacted

1 I am finished for today, but not generally, I am afraid. 1 [REDACTED]
2 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Yes. It’s been a very long day and we 2
3 have not completed your cross-examination, Mr Savelyev. 3
4 So we have to discuss what we do about that. It may be, 4
5 without any discourtesy to you, that I will ask you to 5
6 leave so that I can discuss with counsel what the 6
7 position should be. 7
8 Mr Savelyev, I don’t know when you are planning to 8
9 go back. I don’t know what time your flight is and that 9
10 sort of thing. Are you staying until tomorrow? What 10
11 are your present plans? 11
12 A. My Lord, my flight is on Saturday morning. I do not 12
13 recall the exact time. 13
14 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Well, subject to any different 14
15 intelligence you receive from your lawyers, I am afraid 15
16 that the rules that we have always reminded ourselves 16
17 of, that you may not discuss your evidence or anything 17
18 relating to this case with anybody, remains in place, 18
19 and that is doubly important if and when you are 19
20 returning to Russia because I am sure that people will 20
21 seek to interest you in conversation and put you in 21
22 difficult positions. However difficult the position is, 22
23 the fact is, you must not. 23
24 We will let you go. You must be very tired. I, 24
25 myself, will leave in no more than 10 minutes’ time, 25
173 175
1 which is already rather late, and we will just have to 1 [REDACTED]
2 discuss how we proceed. I am sorry if this ultimately 2
3 ends up causing difficulties to you. 3
4 A. Thank you, my Lord, and I will definitely keep in mind 4
5 all your instructions. 5
6 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Thank you very much. 6
7 (The witness withdrew) 7
8 Housekeeping 8
9 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: You may wish to wait outside for the 9
10 five or ten minutes, but no doubt Mr Lord’s instructing 10
11 solicitors will attend to that sort of thing. 11
12 Well, I should think we had best be in private, 12
13 actually. 13
14 (Hearing in private) 14
15 [REDACTED] 15
16 16
17 17
18 18
19 19
20 20
21 21
22 22
23 23
24 24
25 25
174 176
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

March 18, 2016 Day 29 — 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
177 179
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
178 180
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

March 18, 2016 Day 29 — 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
181 183
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
182 184
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

March 18, 2016 Day 29 — 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
185 187
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
186 188
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

March 18, 2016 Day 29 — 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
189 191
1 [REDACTED] 1 [REDACTED]
2 2
3 3
4 4
5 5
6 6
7 7
8 8
9 9 (5.26 pm)
10 10 (The court adjourned until 9.15 am on
11 11 Monday, 21 March 2016)
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
190 192
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

March 18, 2016 Day 29 — Redacted

1 INDEX
2 PAGE
3 MR ALEXANDER VASILIEVITCH SAVELYEV ……………….1
4 (Continued) …………..
Cross-examination by MR STROILOV 1
5 (Continued)…………………………………
Housekeeping 174
6 (Hearing in private) …………………………. 174
7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

193

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

194

March 18, 2016 Day 29 — Redacted

A

able (30) 8:20 11:13 13:17 17:10 25:16 32:23 44:16 71:22 84:8 91:3,5 95:10 103:21 104:15 107:20 108:9,15 112:16,19 119:17 123:9 126:10 128:16 140:6 153:2 156:23 157:8 160:1 170:11 171:2

absence (1) 159:2 absolutely (7) 23:5

24:10 40:5 93:8,13 93:17 121:23

acceded (2) 84:12 85:12

accept (33) 27:15 32:20 40:4 54:12 59:2,12,23 60:14 60:16 62:1,11 66:9 68:22 71:10 73:17 77:21 78:3,6,11 80:21 81:13,14,15 83:8,10 120:25 128:1,3 133:24 150:23 151:7 156:4 161:19

accepted (2) 62:18 83:5

accepts (1) 69:25 accident (1) 40:13 accommodate (1)

95:10 accommodating (1)
86:18

accord (1) 153:25 account (8) 8:23 9:8

130:9 150:7 152:20 152:23,24 170:3

accrued (1) 127:21 accumulated (1)

128:18

accurate (2) 47:12

162:24 accurately (5) 124:24

125:1,12 126:25 127:2

achieved (1) 158:18 acknowledge (3)

122:20 123:12 164:1

acknowledged (2)

171:10,16 acquainted (1) 21:19 act (1) 144:17

acted (1) 157:5 acting (8) 11:22 22:10

97:13 109:6 117:8 159:19 168:16 171:13

actions (1) 129:10 active (2) 21:25 142:5 activities (2) 3:2

118:16 activity (3) 129:15

155:17 172:8

acts (1) 157:4

actual (8) 31:18 34:11 65:24 107:19 121:19 127:9 128:3 172:3

ad (1) 25:24

add (2) 37:11 142:7 addenda (8) 65:25 66:17 68:12 69:7

69:20 71:11,12

80:2 80:14 82:12,20 162:16 131:20 132:21 107:12,16 109:23 B1/1/12 (1) 38:6
addendum (1) 63:20 83:2,11 85:5 99:11 answers (5) 1:25 133:7,23 134:5,15 111:23 112:16 B1/1/13 (1) 122:10
addition (3) 10:7 104:25 109:7 14:16 142:19 134:25 135:15,19 113:5,6,7,10,12,15 B1/1/21 (1) 57:24
128:20,25 110:16,17 141:2 162:16 169:21 137:20 138:1 140:9 118:24 119:2,3,7 B1/1/24 (1) 122:13
additional (16) 5:2 155:9 156:7 anxious (4) 15:16 140:16,21,25 141:7 119:10 128:19 B1/1/25 (3) 35:24
38:15 47:18 56:11 agreements (47) 8:2 62:12 65:25 86:14 141:16 142:6 129:3,8 141:1 38:6 122:13
56:23 62:1 63:11 54:20 56:11,12,19 anybody (2) 92:23 146:12,21,24 149:12,15,17 B1/1/26 (2) 38:6
64:10 65:19 67:9 56:23 57:9,16 60:8 173:18 152:15 153:21,24 155:24 161:10 123:3
67:10 70:24 71:8 61:1 62:2,3,22 63:3 anymore (1) 131:22 154:4,9,15 155:14 170:12 171:9 B1/1/7 (1) 57:22
71:11 110:2 153:23 64:12 66:5 70:24 anyway (1) 72:4 156:7 158:20,21,23 assist (5) 35:1 100:22 B1/2/4 (1) 29:1
adequately (1) 141:22 71:5,8,18,20 72:1 apart (2) 65:18 142:5 162:23 165:20,25 100:24 101:2 back (29) 8:1,4 13:11
adjourned (1) 192:10 77:1,6,13,19,22,23 apologies (8) 19:18,19 166:14 168:13 102:16 13:17,25 14:3,7
adjournment (4) 77:25 78:1,4,8,9,12 43:24 65:6 131:9 169:14 170:10,16 assistance (3) 20:22 15:24 27:11 45:25
75:20 76:10 92:25 79:1,5,7,7,24 82:24 132:2 137:2,6 170:19,21 101:5 129:14 57:21 60:18 72:23
94:3 83:1 102:25 153:22 apologise (10) 19:2 Arkhangelsky’s (10) assume (4) 1:14 73:9 76:25 83:19 87:12
administration (4) 153:22,23 154:8,10 33:17 37:16 41:24 13:10 52:14 80:9 140:22 142:15 87:22 88:2,3 95:8
100:4 104:14 112:6 agrees (1) 72:8 42:11 105:6 123:15 84:12 129:14 134:1 assuming (2) 81:22 119:4 120:5 121:21
112:9 aide-memoire (1) 133:5 164:1 172:25 134:22 142:9 154:6 141:22 127:9 154:14,23,25
admit (5) 84:16 132:6 60:6 apologised (2) 43:9 171:7 attempt (1) 170:10 155:22 173:9
135:17,25 136:2 aim (1) 157:20 171:19 arrange (2) 89:13 attempts (1) 95:7 backdated (2) 56:13
admitting (1) 80:11 aiming (1) 58:24 apology (1) 42:14 94:23 attend (3) 91:10 95:1 62:19
adviser (1) 27:8 albeit (2) 11:13 90:9 apparently (1) 140:1 arranged (2) 80:8 174:11 background (3)
affairs (1) 26:17 ALEXANDER (2) 1:23 appear (1) 14:9 88:18 attendance (1) 147:9 127:17 167:10
affect (1) 158:15 193:3 appears (3) 9:25 arrangement (11) 2:8 attended (1) 41:5 168:3
affix (2) 126:24 Alexandrovich (1) 108:21 123:18 2:9,15 3:11,13 9:21 attending (1) 108:1 backwards (1) 69:15
136:23 159:16 appended (1) 53:3 11:3 14:14 46:7 attention (13) 16:3 bad (1) 3:7
affixed (2) 133:4 allegation (7) 82:20 application (1) 166:8 117:10,13 37:2 65:7 123:14 bailiffs (3) 15:7 96:11
154:1 100:20 134:6,23 appoint (1) 12:13 arrangements (5) 5:21 126:14 131:7 96:12
afforded (1) 101:6 135:11 136:9 appointed (5) 27:7 5:22 31:11 33:11 137:11 146:9 Baker (10) 30:2,13
afraid (20) 18:23 140:23 141:3 164:9 165:13 98:12 153:13 169:18 31:3,16,21,25 32:1
44:17 64:18,19 allegations (5) 133:23 165:15 article (6) 113:22 171:22 172:3,9 33:3 34:14,18
65:25 70:19 83:5 134:2 135:2 138:8 appointment (1) 24:2 114:2 115:3,8,20 attentively (1) 136:22 balance (2) 7:20 152:4
87:3 88:1 105:3 169:23 appreciate (2) 17:11 139:11 auction (54) 15:6 96:9 ballpark (1) 18:9
116:12 118:6,16 alleged (15) 31:9 33:9 76:14 asked (16) 28:5 34:1 96:13,15,24 97:1,6 Baltic (2) 27:9 118:18
119:3 138:9 144:6 38:18 41:1,2 50:10 approach (1) 60:11 36:18 44:11 50:21 99:19 100:1,23 bank (244) 2:17,21,23
158:4 164:20 173:1 74:11 80:19 96:20 appropriate (4) 51:21 100:12,21 101:18 102:3,7,11 3:7,10,12,14,23 4:3
173:15 139:2 140:16,18 162:19 163:14 101:2 103:25 124:2 102:12,13,17 4:5,7,8,10,10,12,24
afternoon (3) 92:21 145:14 162:9 169:21 171:22 130:25 142:14,21 103:16,20 104:24 5:3,4,6,11 6:2,3,3,4
168:7 170:1 165:20 appropriately (1) 142:25 151:14 104:24 105:11 6:11,12,13,15,16
agency (3) 7:18 alleges (1) 43:11 171:13 asking (22) 14:8 24:2 106:10,14,17,20 6:19,19,22,23 7:1,3
104:25 109:6 alleging (3) 26:7 43:16 approval (3) 41:17 24:3 41:9 45:15 107:5,7,10,14,18 7:18,19,23 8:1,3,6
agent (1) 111:25 81:11 80:22 82:3 52:4 55:25 60:19 108:4,22 109:6,10 8:7,8,14,19 9:1,5
ago (3) 58:6 83:5 allocated (3) 98:13,25 approximately (4) 61:8,12,13 69:6 109:13,18,20,24 9:10,10,10,13,14
103:25 99:13 17:12 18:8 97:22 72:8,19 87:19 110:3 111:5,7,8,20 10:4,20 11:7,20
agree (43) 2:7 3:18 allow (1) 13:15 166:20 101:5,25 103:8 111:25 112:3,8 12:7,10,14,15,21
7:21 11:10,14,19 allowed (3) 51:12 April (3) 36:16,24 107:11 115:19 113:14 114:3,23 12:21 13:11,13,17
13:18 17:22 19:20 101:6,7 37:12 162:14 163:4 118:24 133:18,19 13:24,25 14:4 15:9
19:22 21:20 23:23 aloud (1) 122:4 argue (1) 66:18 asks (1) 150:17 135:10 16:6 17:2,21,23
31:20 32:3 36:4,7 amend (1) 75:6 argued (1) 155:3 assert (9) 5:15 8:20 auctioned (2) 96:13 18:18 20:17 21:11
36:10 39:16,22,25 amended (3) 66:4 Arinina (1) 107:25 108:9 112:19 113:3 97:5 21:20,23 22:2,4
40:18 42:8 54:9,25 67:4 80:20 arisen (1) 74:14 156:11,23 157:8 audit (1) 87:24 23:20,24 30:1
55:24 56:7,13,18 amendment (2) 73:19 Arkhangelsky (146) 160:1 August (1) 27:25 47:18 49:10 50:15
56:21 61:5,14 74:4 1:7,11 7:25 13:12 asserted (2) 33:21 authorities (1) 167:19 50:24 51:1,2 52:4
62:20 63:22 64:11 amendments (1) 13:16,22 15:11 153:24 authority (1) 34:15 52:15,18 54:20
69:5 70:22 79:2 73:20 22:6,7,9,15,19,23 asserting (1) 167:21 availability (1) 87:19 55:11 57:3,13,17
84:16,22 85:9 amount (8) 17:18 23:6,10,19 24:5,8 assertion (3) 32:1 available (4) 15:3 60:25 61:18,20
89:23 136:9,11 80:24 81:7,15,18 24:13,21 25:2,12 46:25 151:22 31:17 34:10 91:11 71:1 77:4 79:2,22
agreed (23) 9:23 82:5,9 140:10 25:20 26:1,5,8 asserts (1) 33:19 AVK (1) 9:2 83:8 84:2,9,20 85:8
10:18 45:3 50:13 amounted (1) 146:15 27:23 28:2,6 30:20 assess (2) 86:22 89:3 avoid (5) 48:6 51:24 85:12,15 87:23
51:22 54:1,2 56:25 amounts (5) 14:3 31:5,6 33:5,6,23 assessment (1) 24:16 80:8 91:1 155:15 96:8 97:8,13 101:1
57:1 59:24 60:15 57:11 61:2 155:21 34:5 38:13 41:6 asset (22) 9:22 10:2,8 aware (25) 27:24 101:2,10,11,12,13
69:6,9,17 72:8 155:22 43:4,7 46:18 49:14 11:11 15:6 96:23 70:16,17 84:24 101:15,16 102:20
79:19 83:15 110:21 and/or (1) 10:10 49:16,24 50:2,6,11 97:5 102:10,12,15 93:4,21 96:16,17 104:19,25 105:16
117:15 134:7,23 Andrey (2) 99:24 50:13,17,20 51:4 106:13,16,20,22 97:7 101:17 110:22 105:18,24 108:21
153:25 155:13 164:8 51:19,22 52:6,8,12 107:4,9,11 110:1 111:1 116:9 117:5 109:1,3,3,7,17
agreeing (3) 50:7 84:1 annex (4) 66:25 67:2 52:19 53:2,5,8,13 118:9,19 141:8 117:20,24,25 110:15 111:15,18
84:9 67:5,15 54:18,23 56:25 159:25 129:20 137:14 111:25 112:2
agreement (58) 5:23 announced (1) 50:16 57:4 59:6 60:13 assets (77) 2:15,19,22 162:15 166:2 114:22 115:7,21,21
8:11,19,21 9:6 answer (20) 10:21 61:21 62:5 65:11 3:8 4:15 5:5,5,10 168:19 169:23 116:4,7,10,24
53:24 54:23 55:12 15:15 17:25 20:8 67:22 68:6 69:8 6:23 7:17,19,23 8:7 170:14,17 117:2,9 119:13,15
56:16,17 57:8 59:6 28:9,10 30:14 78:16,21,25 79:12 8:11 9:6,8,11,12,16 awful (1) 76:13 119:16 122:18
60:25 61:20 62:8 32:23 44:1 50:1,12 79:18 80:14,24 11:13,16 12:2,12 123:23,25 124:3,11
63:11,16,17,19 61:9 64:19 101:25 81:1 82:13 83:3,6 12:25 13:7,15 15:1 B 124:12 126:15,17
64:2,10 65:19,24 106:21 115:20 83:15,24 84:18,21 15:3,12,13 50:18 b (3) 3:15 8:9 103:17 128:6,7 129:7,11
66:21 67:9,11,21 134:1 156:20 166:7 85:6,9,17,22 86:3 96:8,11,19 97:12 129:17,18,23 130:6
B1/1/1 (1) 35:22
68:6,13 69:7,13,19 169:17 98:3 100:11 110:18 97:17 101:17 102:3 130:20,25 131:4,17
B1/1/11 (5) 35:23
70:1,7,11 71:11,17 answered (2) 28:7 117:15 123:7 102:4,5,8,19,20 132:20,21 133:20
38:8 122:11 125:22
72:22,25 73:1,9 162:17 127:19 128:15,20 103:1,8,9,15,23 134:4 135:15,20,21
126:5
74:20 75:25 78:15 answering (2) 162:12 128:25 129:11,19 104:1 106:10 135:24 136:5,6

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

195

March 18, 2016 Day 29 — Redacted

137:9,13,15,19,21 137:25 138:5 140:2 140:9,17,22 141:2 141:17 142:23 147:11,14 148:5,17 150:5,8,9,24 151:2 151:4,8 152:25 153:1,9,9,17,21 154:3,16,23,24,25 155:1,7,17,22,23 156:1,5 159:21 162:10,23 163:2,4 163:6 165:14 166:4 168:11,15,17 169:3 169:11,13,16 170:2 170:11,13

bank’ (1) 3:7

bank’s (30) 2:18,20,24 2:25 4:14,19,23,25 5:1,23 8:15 11:23 16:19 17:13 24:18 51:8 56:21 71:19 101:14 105:22 108:10,16,24 109:2 112:4 116:20 151:12 156:23 161:18 165:13

banking (5) 3:9 51:10 84:10 97:1 172:8 bankruptcy (3) 12:11 12:11 128:22

banks (21) 3:22,23 5:19 6:7 7:9,9 13:5 13:10,23 15:1,2 50:17 52:1,2 113:7 127:21 128:18 166:1 170:23 171:8 171:15

base (1) 17:22

based (8) 33:20 46:20 46:23 56:23 57:16 58:12 102:24 140:14

basis (6) 20:24 46:14 48:1 142:8 146:11 170:14

bear (1) 92:15 beforehand’ (1)
132:16

beg (8) 25:6 29:16 66:6 70:18 77:17 99:6 122:9 145:7

began (1) 98:11 beginning (5) 17:5

36:6 110:24 142:17 151:23

behalf (16) 7:18 29:25 30:15 34:15 62:18 97:7,13 110:14 111:15 116:6,24 117:9 144:17 156:5 159:21 168:16

behave (3) 51:9,12 111:9

behaved (1) 52:21 belief (1) 29:14 believe (13) 16:13

19:9 58:4,9 101:15 116:22 122:16 132:1 147:15 149:19 168:8 170:21 172:1

believed (3) 37:5,10 136:17

belonging (1) 6:21 Belykh (7) 22:11 23:9

23:16 25:25 26:7 28:1 47:25

beneath (1) 39:20

benefit (8) 11:7 20:23 23:18 26:4 64:14 148:4 149:8 157:15

best (15) 15:13,16 29:13 31:22 32:2 59:20 77:7 78:5 87:17 88:8 92:3 95:11 144:3 157:21 174:12

better (8) 20:22 53:18 64:14 89:19 138:7 138:14 141:13 154:20

beyond (1) 91:6 bid (1) 109:20

bidder (3) 105:4 108:3 112:12

bidders (5) 105:2,10 110:2 112:21 113:13

big (5) 7:8 16:21 18:1 167:4 171:24

bigger (1) 12:10 biggest (2) 18:17

21:19

billion (8) 17:20,20 18:6,7,11,13,13 23:20

billions (4) 16:22 17:14,14 18:3 binding (2) 71:12

74:11

BIRT (1) 1:18

bit (6) 41:12 45:23 69:11 76:9 91:24 152:2

blamed (1) 137:25 blaming (1) 136:12 blotted (1) 39:3 blow (2) 70:9,10 board (36) 2:18 4:14

4:18,21 22:13 41:17,20 45:2,4 46:8,11 47:2,3 56:21 62:17 79:21 79:21,23 80:3 82:5 83:12 84:18 97:9 97:15,18,19 98:8 98:13 99:4,7,10,12 101:10 116:18 119:15 132:20

board’s (2) 2:25 56:24 body (2) 10:9 70:9

Boiko (2) 6:19,22 bold (1) 139:17 bonus (1) 4:22 bonuses (1) 119:14 borrowed (1) 18:3 borrower (13) 4:16

8:5,5 23:24,25 24:1 24:2 63:23 68:23 85:13 97:10 98:13 151:12

borrowers (14) 15:11 16:19 17:8,13 18:1 18:2,17 21:5,19 97:17,19 99:10 103:5 129:12

bother (1) 50:1 bottom (17) 38:3

119:15 121:8,13,25 134:13 139:6,10,13 144:25 145:11,12 145:22 146:2 152:11 160:20 161:24

bought (7) 101:17 102:2 106:9 107:8 107:13 118:4

167:22

box (2) 76:8 89:18 breach (2) 32:21,22 break (22) 34:21,22

34:25 35:1,4,8,14 72:5,10,15 77:11 86:12,19,24 87:11 90:22 93:5 119:21 120:9 157:15 158:6 159:8

breaks (2) 35:7,9 bribes (1) 171:10 brief (4) 125:4 133:14

167:15 172:8 briefly (4) 93:3 122:17

124:21 137:17 bring (4) 24:8 77:20 137:2 165:3

broadly (2) 43:19,20 brought (5) 26:8

125:3,9 136:21 172:6

BSP (5) 47:24 163:6 168:12,12 171:8

built (1) 72:21 bulk (1) 95:23 burden (2) 132:25

147:13 business (14) 21:2

22:2 27:3 31:13 33:13 34:6 51:10 85:15 95:15 113:23 118:15 129:1,3 130:4

businesses (1) 129:21 buy (4) 109:23 113:5 118:23 119:10

buyers (4) 15:4,9 55:13 119:19 buying (1) 15:8

BVI (10) 33:16 35:18 35:25 36:5,10,21 38:16 39:23,23 48:21

C

c (1) 9:21

calendar (4) 32:5,11 32:16 34:16

call (5) 1:19 120:6 150:14 159:10 168:15

called (8) 26:10 99:24 107:24 117:7,23 137:25 157:1 164:7

capacity (2) 100:25 162:17

capital (12) 6:8 7:2,7 17:22 21:2 65:20 82:18 146:14,22 147:1 152:1,16 capitalisation (1) 4:25 career (3) 26:21 27:2

104:16

careful (3) 44:9 69:11 169:18

carefully (8) 8:14 21:6 123:13 124:10 133:3 136:22 161:16 162:7

carried (4) 16:7 29:4,8 113:2

carry (3) 70:21 74:18 85:14

carrying (1) 118:14 case (83) 2:8 4:9,10

5:6 6:13 8:19 9:25 10:24 12:14,18

13:9 15:21 18:19 claimed (2) 130:15 commitments (1) 153:13
22:25 23:12 24:12 161:5 89:16 confirm (30) 26:3
24:20 27:7,21,25 claiming (1) 130:17 committee (9) 10:10 29:13 37:2,3,8 39:3
31:4,7 33:4,7 40:24 claims (7) 52:3 138:4 10:10,12,13,15,15 61:19 78:9 105:13
48:10 57:4 62:10 138:5 140:7 149:4 10:19,19 95:9 115:12 121:8,22
68:11 69:17,18 161:4,8 committing (1) 139:18 122:1 124:17 126:1
70:6 73:10,11 clarification (3) 86:21 common (7) 2:17 3:22 130:22 131:8 132:5
74:14 75:7,22 107:2,3 5:16,24,25 6:4,5 133:1 141:18 142:4
78:17 84:5 88:17 clarified (3) 32:25 companies (22) 2:16 142:19 143:5
98:25 100:21 74:4 128:25 2:22 9:23 50:7 150:12 152:22
101:21 105:1 106:2 clarify (9) 31:18 34:11 54:14 85:11 113:6 156:16 158:21
106:4,5 111:2 50:9,23 55:7 73:11 118:6 128:21,22,23 163:10 168:8
112:23 116:4 118:3 75:4 107:7 135:13 128:23 129:9,15,19 169:22
118:5 130:23 clarity (1) 107:1 129:20,21 130:5 confirmation (2) 77:4
134:24 135:19 clause (8) 16:4 63:16 132:18 133:8 143:19
136:5,6 137:23 63:17 66:13 68:16 134:20 135:1 confirmed (2) 124:7
140:11,14 142:10 68:16,18,18 company (61) 3:8 4:1 154:5
142:23 149:3 150:9 clauses (1) 80:15 6:8,18,21 8:3 9:2 confuse (2) 82:10
150:21 153:14 clear (23) 6:25 9:23 11:13 12:1,5,6,7,9 107:20
154:10,15 155:3,8 22:16 23:3 35:21 12:13,20 13:1,19 confused (2) 43:14
159:18 163:2,5 43:16 49:20 60:5 13:20 26:23 27:9 46:16
165:18 166:10 63:7 68:20 74:13 55:14 103:3 105:4 confusion (5) 39:1
167:2 168:11,15 80:6,9 85:17 89:11 105:14,19 106:2,5 123:15 131:10
169:12,19 170:14 95:14,14,14 106:11 108:7,13 110:7,8 132:2,11
171:6 173:18 115:20 130:19 110:10,12,19 confusions (1) 131:24
cases (4) 165:24 166:2 133:22 147:13 111:21 112:12 connect (1) 1:7
166:13,20 clearly (7) 37:14,14 117:7,8,23 118:9 connection (4) 154:16
catch (3) 1:11 18:10 74:6 82:3 85:1 118:14,17,18 154:17,19 162:11
142:8 126:9 134:6 130:11 140:20,21 consider (4) 28:11,14
categorically (3) 22:18 client (5) 6:16 20:20 141:1,10 144:12,17 47:20 90:2
23:4 25:17 20:20 47:16,25 148:24 149:9,11,13 considered (2) 2:17
cause (1) 44:25 clients (13) 20:3,4,9 149:18,20 156:10 3:11
caused (2) 101:13 20:13,18 21:12 156:15 161:2 considering (2) 15:22
123:16 23:15,17 50:24 165:15 167:20 20:24
causing (1) 174:3 51:3,14,15 101:14 company’s (1) 12:9 consistent (6) 62:23
cent (13) 12:16,22 clients’ (2) 31:4 33:4 compare (1) 149:11 63:20 81:12 82:19
17:16,20 18:1,2,6 clip (2) 161:22,24 compete (1) 64:4 163:16,23
115:24 146:13,21 clock (1) 164:15 complaint (7) 165:22 consistently (1) 80:20
146:25 151:25 close (1) 122:10 166:4,6,9 168:17 construction (1) 4:1
152:16 coincidental (1) 78:11 168:20 169:13 consult (1) 103:2
Central (2) 3:14 4:3 collapse (1) 129:22 complaints (1) 101:8 contact (5) 1:18
CEO (3) 27:9 101:1 collateral (8) 2:20 4:6 complete (9) 16:5,8 114:15 131:13
168:1 9:11 10:8 11:11 55:10 89:1 90:7,13 132:21 151:15
certain (7) 24:1 27:21 14:12 118:5 170:12 91:10 94:24 139:19 contacted (1) 115:7
122:16 140:7,8,25 colleagues (1) 49:10 completed (1) 173:3 contained (2) 37:4,5
142:14 collective (1) 79:22 completely (6) 4:18 contains (1) 39:11
certainly (2) 1:14 collegial (1) 10:9 5:4 11:17 13:18 content (2) 1:13 87:1
137:22 collusion (2) 155:7 106:16 153:23 context (5) 5:9,25
certificates (1) 152:4 170:2 completeness (2) 29:24 40:25 139:20
cetera (4) 31:14 33:14 collusive (1) 112:25 146:7 167:16 continuation (1)
34:7 152:5 Colonel (2) 157:10 complex (1) 67:4 162:5
chairman (4) 22:12 172:17 complied (2) 28:12,14 continue (4) 49:4 64:3
100:8 101:10 column (4) 31:1,15 comply (1) 3:14 70:18 92:21
122:18 107:21,23 conceal (5) 147:19,23 continued (5) 1:23,24
challenge (2) 64:16 come (18) 32:16,18 147:23 155:11 22:3 193:3,4
71:7 33:25 38:22 46:9 170:6 contract (9) 4:20 5:11
chance (1) 51:24 73:20 76:25 83:18 concealing (1) 170:8 7:18 8:13 64:7,8,15
change (4) 64:16 87:12 88:2 90:5 concentrate (1) 140:6 80:23 81:2
148:12 154:7 92:5 102:8 119:4 concern (4) 124:11 contracts (5) 14:19
165:14 120:5 121:21 128:6 137:20 55:4 56:6 57:16
changed (2) 45:24 170:21 172:20 152:24 68:23
148:7 comes (2) 39:1 139:10 concerned (5) 4:5 contractual (2) 72:25
changes (1) 77:13 coming (4) 60:18 93:8 34:22 124:1,12 74:13
charge (3) 24:17 154:14 171:11 128:7 contractually (1)
97:12,19 comma (1) 136:1 concerning (4) 31:11 74:11
charter (1) 171:10 comment (3) 115:16 33:11 81:16 154:14 contrary (2) 91:15
chatting (1) 164:25 115:17 122:15 concerns (3) 11:3,18 153:24
check (1) 65:22 commented (1) 160:8 153:8 control (8) 5:23 9:13
choice (1) 91:5 comments (1) 116:12 concluded (3) 133:16 105:22,24,25
chronology (2) 55:6 commercial (4) 7:9 135:8 154:8 108:22 141:9
56:1 52:7 100:17,18 conclusion (1) 42:5 159:20
circumstances (2) commercially (1) condition (1) 37:13 controlled (18) 2:16
1:10 77:8 51:23 conduct (1) 93:15 2:23 6:2 105:19
cite (4) 5:17,17 6:15 commission (4) 59:25 conducted (4) 24:18 106:2,5 108:7,10
13:3 62:24 104:17 41:21 102:11 108:13,16 109:11
cited (2) 6:12 55:21 108:25 106:14 110:4,9,11 111:14
city (3) 22:22 26:4,18 commissions (1) conducting (3) 104:18 112:5,9,21
claim (1) 134:3 65:14 104:24 110:3 controller (1) 11:12
claimant (1) 73:16 commitment (1) 84:2 confident (2) 120:2 convenient (4) 59:18

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

196

March 18, 2016 Day 29 — Redacted

89:23 105:3 145:19

conversation (6)

49:13 124:5 128:3 131:3 136:20 173:21

cooperated (1) 52:15 coordination (1)

151:18

copies (3) 152:3,4 165:8

copy (3) 40:24 144:3 166:22

corporate (7) 56:11 62:3 77:13 148:7,7 151:5,6

correct (24) 25:14 27:6 30:21 36:2 38:16,18,19 39:11 55:5 59:8 69:22 81:19 99:20 106:19 112:6,17 124:23 125:10,11,14 126:22 133:6 148:9 151:7

corrected (3) 32:10 37:15 74:3

correction (1) 38:10 corrections (1) 68:19 correctly (3) 17:25

32:11 138:12 correspondence (3)

34:17,18,19 correspondent (2)
84:10 115:2 corresponds (2) 94:16

145:12 corroborate (1)
149:24 corroborates (1)
168:4 counsel (1) 173:6 counterparties (1)

171:5 country (2) 87:21

170:22

couple (2) 93:3 120:3 course (20) 13:22

18:10 21:10 28:4 65:21 75:5 76:24 77:2 84:3 89:24 92:1,2,9 115:5 132:4 136:1,9 153:1 155:4 158:23

court (43) 15:7 17:10 26:15 27:5 29:6 33:16,17 37:16 40:2 41:24 42:11 42:12 43:9 51:18 90:13 91:2 102:2 103:20 105:13 113:18 116:5,13 124:23 130:7 131:8 131:10 132:3,7 133:5,16 135:8,25 137:2 154:22 155:2 155:20 156:16,20 156:22 163:7 164:1 171:19 192:10

courtesy (1) 158:21 courts (1) 8:17 cover (1) 73:14 covered (1) 133:19 covers (1) 42:23 create (1) 12:9 creative (1) 19:8 credit (10) 8:2 10:9,12

10:15,19 57:7 60:25 61:1 63:3 154:8

crime (1) 165:20 criminal (35) 121:9
123:21,24 124:3 126:16 130:23 131:17 132:4 134:4 135:19,21,23 137:18,23 139:10 140:14 142:10,23 143:20 153:14 154:15 163:1,5 165:23,24 166:10 166:13 167:9 168:11,15 169:11 169:13,19 170:14 171:6

crisis (5) 14:23 17:1,1 17:8 113:4

critical (2) 76:8,15 critically (3) 76:4 86:21 93:8

criticisms (2) 30:3,9 cross (1) 90:21 cross-examination (…

1:24 35:4 58:24 71:15 91:10 93:9 95:10,23 105:15 173:3 193:4

cross-examined (1)

94:19 culpable (1) 136:2 current (1) 55:13 cut (6) 71:22 72:18

86:9,19 158:15 159:5

D

D105/1479.1/0.1 (1)

65:9

D105/1479.3/0.1 (1)

80:4

D105/1479.3/1 (1)

80:5

D105/1479.4/0.1 (1)

62:14

D105/1479.4/1 (1)

62:15

D106/1493/1 (1)

68:14

D106/1493/3 (1)

68:15

D106/1520/1 (1) 63:7 D106/1520/3 (1) 63:8

D107/1537/1 (4)

15:25 53:17 54:8 59:16

D107/1537/2 (2) 16:4 53:20

D107/1537/3 (4) 16:1 53:18 54:8 59:16

D107/1537/4 (2) 16:2 53:20

D13/301/1 (1) 66:2 D13/301/10 (1) 66:12 D13/301/2 (1) 66:12 D13/301/9 (1) 66:3

D132/2167/1 (1)

165:7

D132/2167/2 (1)

166:23

D132/2174/1 (1)

104:5

D132/2174/2 (1)

105:8

D132/2174/3 (1)

104:6

D132/2174/4 (1)

105:8

D135/2224/1 (2)

157:10 159:11 89:19 90:6 91:2,12 defence (2) 13:7 166:10 173:14
D135/2224/2 (1) 95:9,19 96:2,5,6 155:21 difficult (12) 15:10
160:21 158:8,9 173:2 defendants (1) 71:10 17:2 36:19 87:17
D135/2224/3 (2) days (2) 91:1,2 defendants’ (2) 31:7 89:2,6,8,12,22
160:4 161:13 de (1) 9:12 33:7 113:11 173:22,22
D137/2278/1 (1) deadline (4) 65:13 defended (1) 14:1 difficulties (5) 41:7
143:11 81:4,8,17 defending (2) 155:1 44:13 75:18 128:16
D137/2278/2 (1) deadlines (1) 98:5 155:17 174:3
143:17 deal (17) 6:20 47:21 defer (2) 57:8 79:3 difficulty (3) 75:17
D137/2278/3 (2) 51:23 52:7 54:17 definitely (7) 84:7 88:12 120:17
145:21 146:8 65:10 83:6 93:15 85:5 90:16 137:20 digit (1) 39:2
D137/2279/1 (1) 93:19,24 98:12 149:11 172:20 dignity (1) 155:2
150:14 110:13 111:14 174:4 diligently (1) 126:13
D137/2279/3 (2) 112:25 113:9 defrauding (1) 2:24 direct (1) 151:10
150:16 152:10 156:21 171:24 delayed (1) 130:5 directly (3) 2:16 20:3
D138/2293/1 (1) dealing (9) 97:4,7 deliberations (2) 23:15
138:11 98:7 99:23 101:23 46:11 47:3 director (14) 22:11
D138/2293/2 (1) 115:13 142:11 demanded (1) 50:24 127:20 133:17
139:5 148:20 171:15 denial (1) 134:7 135:9 141:10,11
D138/2293/3 (1) deals (1) 100:16 denied (1) 70:15 157:4,5 159:20,23
139:20 dealt (2) 122:19 deny (17) 22:18 23:3 161:25 162:17
D138/2304/1 (2) 126:16 25:17 26:9 48:16 164:9 165:12
120:13 127:10 debate (1) 64:18 48:17 49:21 51:18 directors (4) 23:15
D138/2304/2 (2) debt (1) 23:20 71:17 77:5 78:25 110:19,23 141:3
121:12 127:12 debtors’ (1) 2:15 99:21 127:6 129:14 dis-applied (1) 68:21
D138/2304/3 (2) debts (10) 12:8 15:22 132:23 136:22 disadvantaged (1) 5:8
121:25 129:6 16:11 17:13 149:10 163:10 disagree (6) 2:10 3:20
D138/2304/5 (2) 149:12,16,17,21 denying (1) 71:1 7:22 11:16 60:17
120:14 127:10 163:3 department (3) 26:17 84:22
D138/2304/6 (3) December (99) 22:8 26:22 151:5 disclose (4) 29:6
121:18 127:12 22:24 25:21 30:21 departs (1) 75:5 31:10 33:10 34:3
134:12 31:9 33:9,22,23,24 departure (1) 117:2 disclosed (4) 31:17
D138/2304/7 (3) 36:1,2,6 39:6,8,9 depend (1) 94:9 32:12,12 34:10
121:21 133:13 39:17 40:14,16 depended (2) 4:18 disclosure (9) 28:12
135:6 41:4 42:6 43:2,6,8 119:15 28:17 29:17,19,25
D192/2921/0.01 (1) 43:12,14,19 44:3,4 depends (1) 4:22 30:3,8,9 32:21
113:19 44:6 46:9,15,17,17 depositors (3) 3:1 4:4 discount (1) 15:8
D192/2921/0.02 (1) 46:19,21,24 47:6 4:13 discounted (1) 15:4
114:7 47:14 48:8,11,15 deputies (4) 23:14,14 discourtesy (1) 173:5
D192/2921/5 (1) 49:7 50:16 54:1 116:19,21 discuss (12) 24:7 28:2
113:20 55:2,3,5,25 56:2,4 deputy (3) 22:12 48:3 92:22 94:10
D192/2921/6 (1) 56:6,13,16,19,20 24:17 104:10 127:21 132:16
114:10 57:2 60:4 62:5,17 derailed (1) 91:22 134:19 173:4,6,17
D197/2960/1 (1) 19:3 62:20 67:22 68:7,9 describe (5) 26:15 174:2
D197/2960/3 (2) 68:14 69:9,18 43:20,22 47:13 discussed (18) 24:14
18:22 19:25 72:23 73:2,9,13,14 106:25 24:15 43:4 46:18
D50/874/1 (1) 67:11 73:25 75:2 78:22 described (1) 33:19 48:4,8 54:12 57:20
D50/874/3 (1) 67:18 79:19 80:17,25 describes (1) 145:13 77:24 78:8 84:7
D50/874/4 (1) 67:12 81:9,19,24 82:6,13 description (1) 56:18 85:1 98:4 100:14
D50/874/6 (1) 67:18 83:3,7 85:7 86:2 despite (1) 12:7 105:14 114:3 134:8
daily (1) 20:24 98:3,9 117:15 detail (5) 40:8 46:6 152:17
damage (2) 4:9 119:7 123:9 127:24 119:5 126:23 138:3 discussing (5) 115:5
101:13 128:14 143:24 detailed (3) 9:24 137:4 154:2 156:2
dared (2) 51:8,9 144:1 151:11,23 42:18 114:24 168:6
dark (1) 1:15 154:9 160:22 details (7) 103:22 discussion (4) 70:19
data (1) 121:6 decide (1) 41:15 114:16 117:14 132:19 159:2 165:1
databases (1) 148:15 decided (4) 146:21,24 156:18 161:20 discussions (4) 85:22
date (33) 19:18 31:9 152:15 161:25 162:24,24 123:8 131:20
31:12,19 33:9,12 decision (32) 9:2 10:7 determine (2) 79:15 134:15
34:4,12 39:3,11,19 10:11 41:20 47:18 79:18 disk (1) 42:10
47:4 60:3 62:3 56:20,24 62:16,17 determined (1) 75:7 displayed (1) 55:16
65:22 66:7,8,14 63:10 65:10 79:21 developed (1) 46:7 disposed (1) 9:7
67:14,20 70:4 73:7 79:23 80:3,12,15 development (1) dispute (2) 64:1,6
73:15,23 74:1 81:12,21,23 82:11 129:3 disputed (2) 85:16,20
77:14 78:9,13,24 83:12 97:9,14,23 developments (1) dissipating (1) 171:9
80:16 81:10 97:16 98:1,8,14 99:3,7,9 48:2 distance (3) 137:9,15
101:24 99:13 116:18 diaries (4) 25:19 147:14
dated (6) 28:17 30:13 declarations (1) 171:2 31:13 33:13 34:6 distressed (2) 97:12
39:4,17 46:21 decrease (1) 5:1 diarised (1) 25:23 97:17
62:17 deduce (1) 141:4 diary (1) 47:15 distributed (1) 97:17
dates (21) 32:5 38:12 deduct (1) 149:15 difference (2) 94:14 document (27) 11:7
43:15 46:17 57:10 deep (1) 63:12 94:15 18:23 19:21 28:18
57:11 59:14 60:7 deeply (1) 112:15 different (22) 16:18 28:19 30:5,6 39:7,8
61:21 65:2 74:9,9 default (10) 48:6 16:20 57:10,10,11 39:10 44:22 60:23
77:20 78:1,4 79:8 50:16 51:24 52:1 57:11 61:1,2,22 61:10 63:12 65:23
79:24 82:17,19 56:22 80:8 85:10 78:1 79:7,8 81:9 70:23 122:15,23
86:4 98:18 96:20 155:15 162:9 82:19 106:16 123:12 124:10,20
day (17) 11:2 51:1 defaulting (1) 15:11 115:25 118:19 126:1 127:9 138:8
56:7 71:22 89:12 defeat (1) 12:2 130:24 136:5 163:1 139:19 145:8

169:18 documentary (2) 42:7

42:22 documents (25) 29:5

29:21 31:10,17,18 33:10 34:4,10,11 34:16 56:17 68:3 69:1,3 70:22 72:7 77:12 84:10 119:22 146:12 151:17,24 152:3,6 155:16

doing (6) 63:9 86:22 87:16 141:22 142:24 155:23

domain (1) 170:9 DON-Stroy (2) 3:25

6:14

Donstroy (1) 7:2 double-check (1)

166:19 double-checked (1)

25:19

doubly (1) 173:19 doubt (3) 71:3 131:25

174:10 doubtful (1) 7:10

downloaded (1) 19:21 dozens (1) 22:5

draft (2) 72:20 142:21 drafted (3) 8:15 125:2

125:8

draw (4) 16:3 37:1 146:8 169:18 drawing (1) 65:7

drawn (1) 56:23 drive (2) 32:9,19 due (9) 68:9 75:5 81:24,25 84:3 127:21 128:21

131:10 155:4 duly (1) 129:7 duping (1) 171:8 duration (1) 57:10 duty (1) 2:25

E

e-correspondence (1)

42:10

e-mail (2) 52:18 53:3 e-mails (4) 31:13

33:13 34:7 42:10

E2/10/10 (1) 2:6 earlier (10) 1:9 35:17

38:10 90:2 93:4 98:18 105:14 106:8 107:4 120:22

early (19) 21:24 30:21 31:9 33:9,22,23 34:22 41:4 42:6 43:6,8,19 44:4 46:17 48:15 52:16 86:12 95:16 98:21

easily (1) 110:1 Easter (2) 91:4,21 economic (2) 14:23

27:8

effect (9) 5:22 71:2,23 77:5 81:21,23 153:18 171:2 172:14

effective (1) 71:20 effectively (1) 71:11 effectiveness (2)

71:17 93:10 EGRUL (3) 147:20,22

148:1

either (10) 42:5,17

51:19 77:2,15

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

197

March 18, 2016 Day 29 — Redacted

84:22 88:9 132:15 147:22 156:24

elegantly (1) 63:9 else’s (2) 132:4

153:14 embark (1) 34:23

employee (7) 150:23 157:4,7 159:19 160:1 164:8 168:16

employees (9) 51:8 127:18 129:18 150:20 153:9,17 155:7 156:23 166:16

enable (1) 78:5 encumber (3) 12:6

13:1,20 encumbered (5) 12:6

12:8 13:15 149:13 149:21

encumbrances (1)

15:22 ends (1) 174:3

enforce (1) 170:12 enforceable (1) 8:16 enforced (2) 50:18

52:2

enforcement (1)

116:16 engaged (1) 118:15 England (1) 88:3 English (32) 28:21

30:2 38:5,6 39:2,7 39:14 40:21 41:11 44:14 45:20 55:22 67:16 114:5,14 121:10,11,14,24 123:2 129:5 139:3 139:16 143:16 144:3,5,25 145:12 145:15 152:9,12 160:4

ensure (3) 8:16 12:1 113:14

enter (3) 5:2 111:9 130:13

entered (5) 4:20 73:1 84:20 141:9 168:12

entering (4) 3:10,12 6:13 155:19

enterprises (2) 14:25

113:6

entities (3) 51:15

130:24 151:13

entitled (2) 12:12

41:3

entity (2) 10:17,17 entries (5) 32:5,8,11

32:16 34:16 episode (1) 172:8 equivalent (1) 6:8 erode (1) 12:2 erroneous (2) 152:24

164:2 erroneously (1) 33:16 error (1) 18:12 errors (6) 38:10,16,18

123:11,16 131:11 essence (3) 140:11

154:7 170:24 essentially (1) 29:20 establish (4) 38:14

76:1 137:7 141:15 establishing (1) 85:21 estimate (2) 17:10

96:3 estimates (1) 96:3 et (4) 31:14 33:14

34:7 152:5

evaluation (3) 146:13 146:15 151:25
event (4) 7:22 12:11 49:8 97:3

events (12) 22:21 26:4 36:12 40:16 42:21,23 83:24 92:10 149:1 163:7 163:9 169:4

eventually (2) 4:11 75:7

everybody (2) 49:14 145:19

evidence (90) 5:21 7:8 33:15 36:14,15,18 36:20 37:9 38:21 42:8,24 43:1 46:14 58:21,21 61:14 89:1 121:10,20 122:17 123:23 124:2,4,6,13,22 125:15 126:21 130:25 131:2,11 132:7,12 133:21 134:1,3 135:5,22 136:16,19 137:3,12 142:8,9,9 143:7 147:14,16 148:22 148:23 149:4,24,25 150:6,19 153:1,10 153:11,15 155:7 157:9 159:3,23 160:5,8 163:16,17 163:23,24,25 164:4 164:7 168:5,6,9 169:1,1,2,8,10 170:18 171:17,20 171:25 172:1,12,15 172:21,22 173:17

exact (7) 17:11 43:15 74:1 86:4 97:16 138:2 173:13

exactly (20) 7:4 24:24 36:21 47:6 67:25 69:16 102:22 111:3 119:2 126:8,20 137:24 143:1 147:3 147:17 152:5 153:17,18 154:21 169:4

exactness (1) 164:16 example (9) 2:23 6:16 13:3 25:25 31:12 33:12 34:5 61:6

79:6

examples (3) 4:2 5:18 6:6

exceed (1) 12:19 exceeds (1) 128:19 exception (1) 64:22 exceptions (2) 64:23

118:8

excerpt (1) 160:11 exchange (2) 34:1

54:2 exchanged (1) 74:2

exchanges (2) 74:7,11 executed (2) 56:17

62:2

executive (4) 10:10,13 10:15,19

exercised (1) 141:10 exhibited (1) 34:16 exhortation (1) 76:19 exist (1) 13:2 existence (2) 32:17,18 expansion (1) 129:12 expect (7) 7:14 8:13

9:22 68:1 143:9

150:15 165:5 experience (6) 14:11 14:18,21 15:18 16:12 148:11

expert (2) 2:5 146:15 expire (1) 60:13 expired (2) 61:15 70:7 expires (1) 59:10 expiring (1) 59:22 expiry (2) 60:7 67:14 explain (13) 14:22

29:24 41:13,16,19 42:24 43:1 44:10 45:10,11 46:6 122:14 123:15

explained (5) 11:4 79:17 128:15 163:20 165:11 explaining (1) 30:7

explanation (6) 43:17 47:22 123:17 155:5 169:25 170:1

expressly (1) 132:23 extend (5) 64:9 79:12 84:8 86:20 91:16 extendable (1) 66:14 extended (15) 13:12 54:10 64:12 66:7

66:10,15,16 70:12 70:25 79:16,20 80:16,17 84:4 91:23

extending (1) 13:10 extends (1) 67:13 extension (7) 70:2

71:18 80:23 81:1 85:19 132:17 134:19

extensions (2) 70:15

86:7

extent (3) 12:15

154:11,12

extremely (3) 36:18

89:6,8 eyesight (1) 144:4

F

face (2) 70:23 149:23 face-to-face (1) 92:15 faced (2) 15:10

128:15 facilitating (1) 100:22 facing (1) 17:24

fact (22) 4:5 8:23 9:8 11:19 13:14 14:1 22:25 31:8 33:8 47:8 54:17 85:8 117:5,20,25 124:15 137:3 154:3,3 166:13 169:9 173:23

facts (2) 139:2 153:19 fair (8) 14:15 19:12

20:4 21:13 35:2 54:16 74:8 90:6 fairly (2) 76:2 89:11 fairness (5) 3:5 45:16 65:3,23 76:15

false (22) 121:9 130:8 132:12 142:16 149:24,25 152:20 152:23 158:1 163:9 163:16,17,18,22,23 163:24 168:5,9 170:3,18 171:25 172:1

falsely (1) 147:11 familiar (2) 133:9,22

familiarised (1) 58:20 61:10 71:4 gallop (1) 157:22 72:7 76:14 82:24
136:24 72:2 124:4,12 gap (1) 89:15 86:16 87:4 88:2,15
family (2) 50:3 51:19 126:14 128:5 131:2 Gavrilov (24) 144:16 89:3,11 90:1 91:4
far (15) 3:23 9:1 29:15 131:2 136:4 150:7 145:14 146:1,11,20 92:3 95:20 97:10
53:4 57:5,14 70:16 150:10,11 153:4,10 146:23 148:24 117:19 138:13
75:1 84:6,20 98:2 153:14 151:20,24 152:6 142:1 158:16
105:23 111:8 focused (4) 102:14 157:1,3 159:13,19 good (20) 1:3,4 2:2,3
118:12 166:17 153:1 171:21 160:2,25 161:17 21:7 25:16 29:25
fashion (1) 89:19 172:10 163:8,11,13,13 35:9 57:23 71:21
fast-forward (1) 67:9 focusing (3) 136:7 164:4 167:25,25 72:4 86:25 87:2
fault (3) 61:7,8 171:8 141:23 172:3 Gavrilov’s (1) 159:16 120:18 140:6
fear (1) 69:23 follow (6) 30:3,5,23 general (18) 20:1 57:2 157:16,16,18
feature (1) 148:22 67:22 128:12 60:11 70:4 78:15 164:17,18
features (1) 14:8 140:23 83:1,22 84:15 government (2) 100:9
February (2) 29:7 followed (2) 62:6 85:10 98:6 157:4,5 112:10
68:10 123:4 159:20,23 161:25 grace (1) 48:5
Federation (4) 4:4 following (6) 7:15 162:17 164:9 granted (1) 128:24
5:19 12:24 109:22 17:8 80:14 96:20 165:12 grateful (5) 35:10 96:7
feel (1) 87:9 142:5 158:22 generally (3) 26:15 96:18 120:7 165:2
fiasco (1) 130:5 follows (5) 31:16 33:3 117:12 173:1 grievances (2) 140:8
fictitious (1) 80:7 56:15 109:17 126:3 gentleman (4) 26:10 169:15
fiddles (1) 100:18 forced (3) 130:6 133:7 99:24 156:25 164:7 Grosheva (1) 104:19
figure (3) 18:9,9 60:8 134:25 genuine (8) 42:20 gross (2) 113:2 135:12
figures (3) 17:11 18:6 forget (1) 26:24 141:24 144:12 ground (1) 86:6
108:19 forgot (1) 159:11 147:6 148:3 153:6 group (52) 2:8 13:3,3
filed (4) 166:4,8 form (1) 170:1 161:1 167:19 13:10 21:23 22:4
168:20 169:13 formal (3) 10:12 155:6 getting (2) 83:25 44:12 50:19 52:15
final (4) 4:22 67:13,13 169:1 138:23 54:11,19,20 57:3
68:12 formalities (1) 62:6 gist (8) 14:23 138:6 85:11 97:12,19,20
finalise (2) 47:21 formulate (1) 32:23 140:4,23 143:25 99:15 102:19
128:17 formulates (1) 162:14 154:8 169:14 104:22 107:12
finance (1) 151:6 forthcoming (1) 52:24 171:12 110:20 112:12,22
financial (10) 16:25 forward (3) 109:4 give (19) 17:10 36:18 117:17 118:13
17:1,8 41:7 44:11 117:19 138:5 58:21 86:12 88:13 123:22,25 126:17
128:16,21 129:22 forwarded (1) 152:1 91:24 97:16 98:17 127:20,22 128:15
130:5 151:5 found (6) 31:18 32:6 123:14 124:2 128:17,20,24
Finansoviy (1) 6:18 34:11 127:18 130:25 138:7,20 129:10,23 130:6
find (12) 3:18 8:18 129:17 145:18 150:6,6,17 156:19 132:17 133:7,20
10:1,11 18:24 47:4 foundation (2) 100:8 172:15,21 134:5,20,25 135:24
53:10 62:3 63:13 104:13 given (28) 19:5 27:8 140:21 151:12
122:8 147:21,25 four (1) 18:17 29:25 30:8 35:10 152:14 155:10
fine (2) 1:14 143:12 framework (3) 142:22 36:15 42:25 45:13 156:1 165:25
finish (19) 15:16 163:5 169:11 58:13 74:1 77:3,4 167:23
45:13 58:24 78:5 Frankly (1) 87:15 89:15 91:5 92:9 group’s (5) 16:5 41:14
86:15 87:15 88:7 fraud (2) 113:17 138:5 109:24 115:21 48:13 55:10 151:13
89:20 90:4 91:20 fraudster (1) 13:23 123:10,18 124:18 guarantee (1) 129:9
91:20 95:12,19 fraudulent (5) 135:11 129:7 131:11 guarantees (5) 24:14
123:2 157:20,24,25 140:18 155:12,17 150:19 164:4 168:5 24:15,22 25:3,13
164:17,22 170:7 169:1,2,11 guarantor (1) 128:24
finished (4) 157:24 fraudulently (1) 138:1 giving (15) 19:16,23 guess (3) 38:24,25
165:21 167:14 free (3) 154:6 155:14 32:5 43:1 46:14 57:23
173:1 155:16 116:6,13 121:9 guillotined (1) 92:2
finishing (1) 95:20 freely (1) 171:3 123:23 135:22 Guriev (11) 2:5,12
first (37) 16:4 19:3 French (1) 35:18 147:16 169:8,20 3:19 5:7 7:12,16
22:25 38:24 43:25 fresher (2) 36:12 170:3 172:22 8:10 9:20 10:5
44:20 47:19 48:11 40:17 glean (1) 84:11 11:10 17:22
53:19 54:5 55:15 Friday (1) 1:1 global (2) 16:25 17:1 Guz (6) 22:12 23:1
55:20 61:10 65:12 friends (4) 67:8 go (47) 2:6 3:18 15:24 24:4 25:25 26:7
65:21 96:19,23,25 138:15,19,21 18:20,22 19:3 47:25
96:25 97:2,5 front (1) 39:7 28:15 29:23 35:12
106:13 110:25 Fuel (2) 27:9 118:18 35:21 36:25 38:23 H
115:15 121:12 fulfilment (2) 16:5,8 40:21 57:21 63:5 half (12) 48:11 65:21
131:15 132:2 139:6 full (9) 9:11 16:15 64:23,25 65:24
91:1 94:12 95:19
143:16,18 146:9 59:19 64:5 71:23 66:1,17 68:12 71:8
103:16 105:6
147:23 160:5,15 91:2,14 123:3,14 72:5 74:13 75:11
110:12,25 114:6
161:14 167:8,14 fully (4) 11:19 23:14 76:17 77:9 78:4
160:14 161:14
firstly (2) 8:20 61:17 23:22 33:1 86:6 87:22 88:3
hand (9) 5:14 8:4
fit (2) 77:9 153:12 functions (1) 3:7 90:8 92:16 94:25
52:13,24 138:13
fits (1) 73:10 funds (3) 5:3 113:6,10 101:8 104:5 121:3
143:13 157:13
five (10) 13:4 18:17 funny (1) 157:11 121:17 122:25
159:12 165:7
157:19,20 158:5,11 further (13) 2:4 5:25 127:9 138:11
handed (8) 2:22
159:6 164:20 169:4 7:12,13 42:14 155:20 164:12
138:15,15,22 143:8
174:10 43:22 72:1 121:17 165:7 170:21 173:9
143:14 157:13
five-minute (2) 35:1 121:20 131:19 173:24
165:10
157:15 137:6 144:19 159:3 goes (4) 44:17 82:25
handled (1) 116:19
flagged (1) 76:18 future (1) 93:15 114:13 161:19
handling (1) 98:6
flight (2) 173:9,12 going (26) 17:3 41:10
hands (3) 113:15
flow (1) 76:20 G 64:16,18 67:5
119:8 148:7
focus (19) 51:16 56:1 69:23 70:13 71:21

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

198

March 18, 2016 Day 29 — Redacted

handwriting (4) 39:18 39:19,20 122:1
happen (2) 46:12 61:24

happened (17) 4:11 23:13 25:24 30:7 33:22 42:16 44:2,3 47:6,22 49:7 56:18 92:10 111:3 123:15 124:21 152:21

happening (1) 1:6 happens (1) 93:23 happy (9) 43:1 52:13

52:24 87:11 89:16 93:24 102:16 119:9 142:19

hard (6) 17:3 32:9,19 40:24 42:10 165:8

haste (1) 133:4 head (9) 26:17 27:11

27:12,15 100:1 141:20 142:2 151:5 152:14

headed (1) 146:1 heading (1) 12:20 headphones (1) 144:6 heads (1) 26:22 health (1) 37:11

hear (1) 158:7

heard (2) 3:10 133:10 hearing (3) 172:18

174:14 193:6 heart (2) 4:14 75:22 held (9) 7:17 9:7,9,12

12:10,14 110:14 112:2 156:4
help (6) 12:5 94:20 118:11 140:13 151:14 159:5

helped (1) 85:15 helpful (6) 40:24

90:20 91:16 92:1 157:23 159:4

helps (1) 40:4 hesitant (1) 69:21 high (1) 112:5 higher (2) 109:25

122:11 highest (2) 4:15

119:11

highly (2) 2:9 3:12 HILDYARD (102) 1:3
1:13,22 5:20 6:6 7:6 9:4,15 10:21,25 11:25 14:6 25:5,7,9 34:24 35:3,12 37:25 40:1,7,11 45:23 46:2 48:20 48:23 49:2,5 69:21 70:21 71:14 72:6 72:12 73:22 74:19 74:23 75:1,13,16 75:19,25 76:7,13 76:24 77:9,16 79:15 83:20,22 85:16 86:6,17 87:6 87:14,18 88:4,8,19 89:3,8,23 90:10,18 90:22 91:7,13,19 91:23 92:7,14,19 93:12,14,18,22 94:1,13,18 95:16 96:4 119:25 120:5 138:23 139:15 145:18 157:14,19 158:3,5,9,11 159:1 159:6 164:12,23 165:4 167:6,11 173:2,14 174:6,9

historic (1) 97:3 hoc (1) 25:24 hold (2) 8:4 14:12 holding (1) 117:8 holidays (1) 52:11 honest (6) 67:24

73:12 139:24 140:5 141:20 159:11

hook-up (1) 158:18 hope (8) 63:6 64:16 68:17 86:9 93:7

94:22 95:20 144:4 hopeful (2) 95:25 96:1 hopeless (1) 96:3 hopes (1) 158:1 hospital (3) 36:17,23

40:14

hour (2) 83:5 94:11 hours (3) 94:7,12,25 hours’ (2) 94:13,15 house (33) 96:9,13,15

96:24 97:2,6 99:19 100:1,23 102:3,7 102:12,18 103:16 104:24 106:10,15 106:17,20 107:6,7 107:10,14,18 109:6 109:10,13 111:5,8 111:20,25 112:8 114:3

housekeeping (3)

93:3 174:8 193:5 huge (2) 15:8 20:18 hugely (1) 87:23

I

idea (4) 35:9 86:25 94:4 118:10
ideally (1) 74:3 identification (1)

121:5 identified (4) 30:24

85:18 103:19 144:20

identifies (1) 86:8 identify (3) 54:13 103:25 123:10

IFC (1) 26:25

IFRS (1) 87:24 ignore (1) 25:10 ill (1) 150:11 illegible (1) 119:23 illiquid (1) 14:24 illustrate (1) 164:16 image (1) 101:4 imagine (1) 76:2

immediately (1) 41:20 implement (1) 56:17 imply (1) 18:16 importance (1) 20:2 important (16) 3:4

11:6 23:10 24:7 40:2 71:6 74:10 85:9 87:23,23 88:16 92:3 93:10 143:25 152:8 173:19

imposed (1) 172:23 impossible (5) 3:6

11:17 31:21 100:16 111:7

impression (1) 71:15 inaccuracies (1) 38:11 inattentive (1) 147:16

Incidentally (1)

131:13 include (1) 104:21 included (3) 23:16

104:18 129:16 80:18 81:5,6,16,17
including (8) 23:16 82:6,8,18 85:21
38:12 102:25 124:7 119:16 130:21
152:3 171:1,3,8 131:1 147:11
incompetent (1) 161:18 171:1
101:4 173:21
incomprehensible (1) interest-free (1) 70:2
68:17 interested (9) 4:24
inconvenient (2) 35:7 5:4 100:19 104:16
86:13 114:7 129:11 132:3
incorrect (11) 123:6,8 152:18 163:8
125:24 135:17 interests (9) 8:16 9:4
136:1,3,12,25 13:1 119:13 129:7
137:3 171:20 148:17 155:1,18
172:12 170:11
indebted (1) 54:19 internal (1) 26:17
indebtedness (3) international (1)
128:18,19 133:19 170:15
independent (3) interpose (2) 88:4,11
146:12 149:6 161:5 interpreted (2) 1:25
INDEX (1) 193:1 107:6
indicate (2) 29:8 INTERPRETER (2) 94:8
162:11 125:20
indicated (4) 2:1 90:8 interpreters (1) 165:9
106:8 164:17 interrupt (4) 40:7
indicates (1) 167:22 72:12 73:4 76:20
indicating (5) 21:9,13 interrupted (1) 72:4
141:14 147:11 interrupting (1) 94:2
164:13 interruptions (1)
indication (2) 98:17 93:10
148:16 intervene (1) 109:19
indirect (1) 116:17 intervention (1) 87:7
individual (3) 48:9 interview (20) 19:4,6
62:12 82:23 19:17,23 21:14
individuals (3) 2:16,22 116:6,13 120:20
166:1 123:5,14 125:13,23
industry (1) 3:9 130:15 131:14,16
inevitable (1) 42:5 135:16 137:21
inform (1) 172:11 159:13,16 165:19
informality (1) 14:14 interviewed (2) 147:9
information (10) 6:12 163:15
51:7 58:18,19 interviews (4) 150:3
100:20 114:25 162:25 168:10
151:19 163:25 169:9
164:2,3 intimidated (1) 52:20
informed (2) 124:16 introduce (1) 63:18
151:11 introduction (1)
initial (1) 57:16 150:25
initiated (5) 27:22 invest (1) 21:1
133:8 135:1,19 investigated (3) 87:25
168:23 135:23 171:7
inject (1) 21:2 investigation (1)
inquire (2) 88:25 165:23
115:7 investigations (1)
inside (1) 156:20 27:22
instance (1) 17:20 investigator (28)
instructed (1) 165:14 120:21 123:20
instructing (1) 174:10 124:25 125:5,7
instructions (3) 88:13 126:5,10,19 127:4
165:14 174:5 128:4 130:15,20
insurance (7) 5:3 131:3 137:8,14
55:14 110:8,11,24 139:2 141:14,21
111:14 117:22 142:14 147:2 155:6
intelligence (2) 79:22 162:13 163:8,21,24
173:15 170:3 171:17
intend (1) 172:16 172:11
intended (3) 87:7,8 investigator’s (2)
119:6 142:2 162:12
intent (1) 150:11 investing (1) 20:25
intention (2) 59:6 Investrbank (4) 22:10
147:19 22:11 44:11 47:24
intentionally (2) involved (13) 7:2
150:13 153:3 99:18 103:22
intentions (1) 85:14 107:18 112:15
interact (1) 51:6 116:15 117:14,18
interest (29) 3:15 4:14 130:16,17 148:21
27:4 48:7 59:11,24 156:17 169:15
60:15 61:15 62:24 involvement (4) 3:9
65:14,18 70:12,25 10:16 11:24 99:22

involving (2) 8:13 163:5
Irina (2) 97:11 151:10 isolation (1) 170:25 issue (4) 24:7,14

30:23 37:11 issued (1) 170:15 issues (7) 20:21 23:10

132:16,18 134:19 134:20 152:17

issuing (2) 50:17 113:8

item (5) 60:20,22 80:22 81:4 82:4

items (1) 79:3

J

January (8) 19:5,16,20 40:3 56:12,24 68:10 129:17

job (2) 27:8 141:22 joined (1) 26:23 journalist (7) 115:6,11

115:11,17,22

116:11,14 journalists (1) 19:7 JSC (1) 151:4 judging (1) 149:3

July (3) 28:17,23

77:15

jumble (1) 74:9

June (39) 59:11,12,25 60:2,3,4,16,20 61:16 62:8,25 65:15 66:7,8,15,15 66:16 67:10,11,14 68:10,22 69:4 70:12 71:1 77:16 77:17,21,24 78:10 78:19,23 79:17 80:19 81:5,18,24 82:7,8

jure (1) 9:12 JUSTICE (102) 1:3,13

1:22 5:20 6:6 7:6 9:4,15 10:21,25 11:25 14:6 25:5,7,9 34:24 35:3,12 37:25 40:1,7,11 45:23 46:2 48:20 48:23 49:2,5 69:21 70:21 71:14 72:6 72:12 73:22 74:19 74:23 75:1,13,16 75:19,25 76:7,13 76:24 77:9,16 79:15 83:20,22 85:16 86:6,17 87:6 87:14,18 88:4,8,19 89:3,8,23 90:10,18 90:22 91:7,13,19 91:23 92:7,14,19 93:12,14,18,22 94:1,13,18 95:16 96:4 119:25 120:5 138:23 139:15 145:18 157:14,19 158:3,5,9,11 159:1 159:6 164:12,23 165:4 167:6,11 173:2,14 174:6,9

justifications (1) 149:1

K

keen (2) 40:9 119:23 keep (6) 41:12 87:16 93:12 130:17

138:18 174:4

keeping (1) 20:3 kept (3) 47:25 48:1
93:11

kind (11) 8:13 9:21 39:3 52:19,22 53:6 59:23 74:3 101:15 107:22 148:11

kindly (2) 67:25 162:20

Kiperort (7) 105:5,11 106:5 107:25 108:13 112:13,18

knew (9) 8:6,24 84:18 85:1,22 130:12 155:12 166:16 170:7

knockout (1) 70:10 know (102) 13:22

23:24 26:10,22,24 26:25 27:1,19 30:6 37:20 40:1 56:9,9 58:11 61:7 65:17 73:10 75:13,21 76:7,21 83:25 84:6 85:8,16 86:5,7,15 86:22 88:5,20 94:5 94:20 95:24 97:6 97:25 98:2 99:24 100:2,10,14 101:20 101:22,22 102:1,12 104:8,15 106:7,12 107:16 108:15 112:18,20 115:2 116:7,7,13,14 117:7 119:1,1 122:22 124:19,22 128:11 131:9 137:5 137:16,23 138:21 141:19 142:1 143:5 146:24 147:8 148:19 152:14 156:13,19 157:3 159:18 160:2 162:20 163:11 164:5,10,23 165:17 166:8,10 167:21 168:19,21,23 169:7 169:9,15,21,22 173:8,9

knowingly (1) 132:11 knowledge (13) 29:13 31:23 32:2 55:5 58:12 80:9 99:5

105:21 106:9 118:23 166:12,15 168:24

known (8) 6:17 8:22 51:1 85:5 101:14 103:23 109:8 112:23

knows (3) 55:18 102:10 143:20

Kommersant (2)

113:23,25

L

lack (2) 14:25 172:2 land (4) 6:21 103:18 117:20 118:12 large (8) 13:3 17:22 23:24,25 24:1,2 51:3 160:14

late (7) 30:20 31:6 33:6 44:6,6 120:3 174:1

latest (2) 47:12 73:3 lawyer (1) 148:18 lawyers (8) 8:15 30:2

30:13 34:8 52:14 52:15 116:20 173:15

learned (5) 67:7 138:15,18,21 146:20

leave (7) 71:4 75:6 83:18 90:6 95:21 173:6,25

leaving (4) 26:20 27:3 52:12 102:17

left (7) 9:16 31:1 49:14 88:24 90:4 90:16,17

legal (5) 10:17,17 51:14 130:24 151:13

legalese (1) 140:5 legally (1) 13:6 lending (1) 21:23 length (1) 137:4 lengthy (1) 52:16 Leningrad (1) 26:18 lest (1) 82:25

let’s (10) 18:13,16 35:12 48:19 59:21 65:9 87:13 104:7 121:3 149:23

letter (4) 30:1 31:3 32:2 52:22

letters (6) 52:17,25

53:2,3,8,12 leverage (1) 101:15 Levitskaya (26) 38:21 120:21 122:17 123:6,23 124:2,5 125:24 126:19 131:12,14 135:20 135:22 136:20 137:16,22 142:20 147:9,16 157:10

163:15 169:8 171:7 171:17 172:14,17

liabilities (3) 149:10

149:16 161:10

Liability (1) 105:4

lie (8) 51:17,20 115:1 116:10 131:6 142:16 155:6 169:5

lies (1) 137:8 life (1) 131:16

light (3) 31:12 33:12 34:4

likes (1) 58:23 Limited (1) 105:4 line (14) 16:4 34:23

37:7 39:5 72:17 76:17 83:18 85:23 119:15 132:1 136:8 139:10 164:22 165:3

lines (5) 44:21 69:19 136:12 137:18 162:16

link (1) 162:8 linked (3) 123:25

124:3 126:16 links (1) 164:18 liquidity (3) 14:25

15:1 113:4 list (5) 59:14,19

151:24 152:2,5 listed (1) 16:16 listing (1) 111:16 litigation (1) 88:15 little (5) 72:19 76:9

87:3 91:24 152:2 live (1) 171:2

LLC (11) 114:23 129:2

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

199

March 18, 2016 Day 29 — Redacted

129:2 133:17 135:9 113:19 119:5
140:17 144:22 120:16 122:7 136:1
151:13 152:1,15 138:2 143:7 146:7
168:2 149:9,10,14 159:14
LLC’s (2) 146:14,25 looked (1) 77:12
LLCs (1) 115:25 looking (26) 19:10
loan (91) 2:20 12:12 35:24 39:16,19
13:12 16:9 17:17 42:7 43:17 44:15
18:2 21:8 31:7,10 44:22,22 49:1 50:1
33:7,10 41:2,8 48:9 55:15,17 73:8
50:21 53:22,24,25 103:6,6,7 114:12
56:11 57:8,15 114:20 120:16
59:10,22,23 60:10 133:13,14 134:12
61:20 62:1,3,22 135:16 142:10
63:17,19,22 64:2 156:9
64:25 65:11,12,12 looks (1) 106:25
65:21,24 66:5,6,14 Lord (141) 1:14 3:20
66:21 67:21 68:8 5:16 6:5,11 7:11
70:7,13,25 71:12 8:20 9:8,18,19
71:18 77:13 79:2,6 11:16 12:5 14:5,22
79:9,24 80:2,3,7,8 17:3,16 19:2 20:11
80:11,13,19,19,23 24:15 26:21 28:7
81:2,7,8,15,18,22 33:15 34:21 35:2,6
82:9 83:11 84:8,13 36:14 40:4,4 43:24
85:19 86:4 102:24 44:5 45:20 46:1,14
127:21 128:1,4,24 49:4 50:9,23 52:10
132:17,19 134:19 52:14 55:7,18,23
134:21 138:1,2 56:19 57:4 58:22
140:17 141:16 60:17 62:21 69:11
153:22 154:24 69:11 71:6,6 72:3
loan-by-loan (3) 64:24 72:10,17,17 73:19
70:4,5 73:23 74:5 75:8,8
loans (57) 12:8,10,18 76:15 77:7 79:21
12:19 13:6,10,20 80:22 81:14 83:21
13:24 16:16,21,22 84:6,19 86:1,11,14
24:21 25:3,14 86:14 87:21,21
41:14 48:13 50:17 88:6,12,12,19,24
52:5 54:3,10 59:3,4 89:7,15 90:4,4,12
59:4,5,14,19 60:7,9 90:19 91:13,19,20
60:12,14 61:4,15 92:17 93:17,20,24
62:12 63:14 64:12 94:7,12,15,20,22
70:11 71:25 78:12 94:22 95:18 96:7
79:13,16 83:8 84:4 97:4,24 99:25
84:12,17,17 85:2 100:24 103:22
86:8 103:10 113:8 104:15 106:11,23
132:24 134:8 112:14 115:10
149:14,18,21 116:17 117:11,14
170:22 171:1,14 118:19 119:20
local (1) 50:24 120:7 126:2 131:15
locate (1) 29:5 135:13 139:17
logical (6) 32:7 47:11 140:24 142:1
47:12,16,22 169:25 143:13 145:14
logistical (1) 138:10 149:8 153:8 156:16
Lokai (1) 114:24 157:21,23,23
London (4) 37:22 90:5 158:13,13 159:5
94:8,16 162:12 165:2,10,24
long (18) 1:13 8:24 166:24 168:19
34:24 35:10 43:3 172:25 173:12
61:3 68:2 69:23 174:4
94:4,5,9 97:25 Lord’s (2) 74:23
119:25 123:10 174:10
134:10 156:3 Lordship (37) 1:5 7:4
164:23 173:2 13:19 14:22 35:16
long-planned (1) 45:21 49:1 50:9
88:17 55:7 61:19 69:16
long-term (1) 129:13 78:25 89:17 93:2
longer (5) 41:12 81:25 95:2,22 100:25
117:18 140:5,20 102:9 106:11
look (48) 13:9 20:2 109:21 112:17
28:23 29:17 36:4,9 115:10 120:11
38:20 40:25 43:22 126:21 130:23
44:17 48:20 53:16 133:2 135:13
59:13,19,21 61:12 138:16,24 139:12
62:14 63:6,7 65:8 142:18 143:5 149:8
65:16,19,23 66:10 150:2,12 152:22
67:15 77:19 80:1,2 159:10
80:4,15 90:11,22 Lordship’s (4) 23:18
104:7 107:21 26:3 76:19 106:25
108:19 110:16 lost (2) 4:5 107:15

lot (10) 17:21 21:12 76:13 77:19,22,23 158:2,3,4,6

lots (1) 15:2 loved (1) 51:13

LPK (3) 59:22 117:21 117:22

lunch (4) 35:8 86:12 86:19,24

Luncheon (1) 92:25

LV (1) 107:25

M

M1/10/1 (1) 38:23 M1/10/13 (1) 39:15 M1/10/15 (1) 38:25 M1/10/20 (1) 40:22 M1/10/21 (1) 41:19 M1/10/23 (2) 45:12

46:5

M1/10/24 (1) 49:3 M1/10/29 (1) 39:15 M1/10/5 (1) 40:21 M1/10/6 (1) 41:12 M1/10/7 (2) 44:15

45:21

M1/10/8 (2) 45:12 46:2

M1/10/9 (1) 48:24 macroeconomic (1)

20:25 magic (1) 32:16

Magnum (4) 119:23 143:12 157:10 158:22

main (7) 64:8 81:7,8 81:15,18 82:5,9 major (3) 10:19 14:24

85:13

making (15) 2:12 3:19 5:7,9 9:20 37:23 42:19 46:25 80:9 98:11 133:23 140:12 142:13 169:24 171:1

Malookhtinsky (1)

29:9

Malysheva (23) 8:24 9:3 97:11,11,21 98:4,6,11,25 99:14 143:4 147:2 148:23 149:24 150:4,6,10 151:10,14 153:5 161:4 163:17 168:5

Malysheva’s (1)

116:23

man (2) 70:16,17 manage (1) 120:2 managed (4) 14:3,4 15:6 148:24 management (30) 3:8 8:11 9:23 10:8

11:11 12:6 41:17 41:19 45:1,4 46:8 46:11 47:2,3 82:4 97:9,15 98:8,13 99:4,7 101:9,10 108:11,17 109:10 112:9 132:20 162:9 165:15

manager (3) 101:1,4 129:16

managers (1) 109:13 managing (3) 12:5,25

127:19 mandatory (1) 10:18 manner (1) 142:5 March (9) 1:1 19:19

19:21 64:3,8,15 122:5 132:16 134:16 140:24 misused (1) 140:1
70:8 79:10 192:11 meant (16) 38:9 43:2 142:18 166:17 moment (7) 72:4
margin (1) 18:12 65:6 95:19 106:13 169:6 81:22 102:18 138:9
Marine (33) 2:8 13:11 106:15 107:10,17 mentions (1) 144:16 157:16,17,18
21:23 50:19 52:15 115:4,11 116:8,14 Mercury (1) 117:23 Monday (25) 88:1,6,8
85:11 97:12,20 136:15 142:3 147:8 merits (1) 167:9 88:9 89:1,4,10,11
99:15 102:19 149:16 met (11) 22:7 23:25 89:14,25 90:7,14
104:22 107:12 mechanical (1) 18:25 25:21 26:4 33:23 90:25 91:8,14
110:20 117:17 mechanics (1) 117:13 122:17 125:7 93:23 94:6,22,24
118:13 123:22,25 media (1) 166:16 131:18,21 137:17 95:4,13,17,21
126:17 127:20 meet (5) 20:19 33:22 163:11 158:19 192:11
128:15,20 129:10 47:21 125:5 127:20 middle (6) 20:12 money (7) 4:11 8:8
129:23 130:6 meeting (95) 22:25 30:18 68:18 121:14 13:17,18 15:7
133:20 134:5 23:11 26:5 28:1,4 121:22 145:7 17:21 21:2
135:24 140:21 30:19 31:4,8,11 million (7) 23:21,22 monitor (1) 3:1
150:9 155:10 156:1 33:4,8,11,20 34:4 68:9 80:24 81:8 monitoring (3) 21:3
165:25 167:23 41:1,3,5,15 42:6,9 140:2,10 26:21 48:1
Marine’ (2) 151:11 43:2,3,6,7,14,18 millions (2) 17:14 month (1) 37:12
152:14 44:3,5,8 45:1,2 18:3 months (9) 17:1 57:9
marker (1) 72:20 46:8,9,11,15,21,24 mind (8) 43:6 45:17 61:3 64:13 79:1,3
market (7) 6:17 51:1 47:2,5 48:11,12,15 58:15 68:1 83:20 79:13 84:16 85:3
133:18 135:10 49:7,10,13,15,15 87:4 92:15 174:4 moratorium (25)
149:5,12 172:19 49:20,23 52:14 mine (1) 132:6 48:14,17 57:2,12
markets (3) 13:4 55:2,24 56:2 57:5 minimum (1) 12:22 59:3 61:3,6,15,17
111:11 113:5 57:19,20 58:3,7,16 minus (3) 18:11 56:7 61:23 62:23 63:18
marking (1) 75:17 62:4,20 68:5 69:8 161:10 63:21 64:5,22 65:1
Maslennikov (7) 69:18 73:9,15 74:8 minute (2) 58:6 65:4 80:21 81:10
164:8 165:12,16 78:16,18,20,21 150:19 81:13 82:21 84:15
166:8 167:18 82:4 83:2,7,15 84:6 minutes (48) 35:8 132:24 134:7,23
168:21 169:7 84:19 85:1,7 86:2 103:25 109:25 morning (11) 1:3,4,9
Maslennikov’s (2) 94:3,5,7 95:1,4,8 120:3 122:2,22 2:2,3 35:10 94:16
166:5 168:17 98:3 123:9,21 123:5,19 124:24 94:23,24 95:13
mass (1) 166:16 127:24 128:14 125:2,8,12,18,23 173:12
massive (2) 47:17 132:15 134:18 126:13,23,25 127:7 Morskoy (29) 123:23
48:13 154:9 172:18 131:25 132:5 133:2 123:25 124:3,12
material (2) 115:16 meetings (41) 20:18 133:6 135:14,16,25 126:17 131:17
157:22 20:19,23 21:12 136:10,12,24 134:4 135:20,21,24
matter (13) 30:7 61:9 22:5,9,19,22 23:5,9 142:21,22,25 137:19,25 138:5
97:4,7 141:14 24:5,13 25:20,22 147:10 150:3 154:2 140:2,9,17,22
142:5,10,11 148:21 25:23,25 32:6 154:6,14,17 155:9 141:17 142:23
168:22 170:24 33:18,18 38:12 155:25 156:9 157:1 150:9 154:16 156:1
171:12,21 41:25 42:1 44:5 157:19,20 158:6,12 163:6 166:4 168:11
matters (11) 37:3,5 47:10,13,19 48:2 159:6 164:21 168:15 169:11,13
43:4 46:18,19 48:3 51:6 87:23,24,24 174:10 169:16
88:14,16 98:7 87:24 88:14,16 minutes’ (2) 122:21 Moscow (1) 6:16
100:18 101:24 95:1,4 123:7 173:25 motivational (2) 4:16
maturities (1) 61:1 125:25 142:6 miracle (1) 15:5 4:17
maturity (7) 57:10,11 156:21,22 Mironova (13) 44:10 mounted (1) 13:6
57:15 64:14 65:22 member (3) 97:18 88:9,10,11 89:25 move (5) 16:18 90:14
66:7 79:24 100:4 116:18 90:9,15,25 91:4,11 90:15 95:8 99:16
Matvienko (6) 100:13 members (9) 4:13,18 91:21,25 92:2 moved (1) 95:5
100:15,16,22 45:3 94:10 97:18 misheard (1) 136:18 municipal (3) 100:3,9
109:11,14 99:12 119:14 143:1 misleading (1) 113:18 104:14
Matvienko’s (2) 100:4 172:6 misled (2) 42:12
112:6 memorandum (42) 140:22 N
maximise (4) 4:25 15:24 16:13,14,16 misrecorded (3) 126:5 N1 (2) 118:20,23
119:11,12 155:24 16:17 53:16,21 126:11 127:7
N22/53/11 (1) 29:23
maximising (3) 3:16 54:4,13,16,19 55:3 misrepresent (2)
N22/53/21 (1) 30:17
5:4 119:16 55:8 56:4 59:13 130:20 167:18
name (10) 26:23
McKenzie (10) 30:2,13 60:6,20,24 61:12 misrepresenting (2)
64:23 102:20 103:9
31:3,16,21,25 32:1 64:2 65:4,6 79:6 153:6,19
103:12 107:23
33:3 34:14,18 83:12,13 84:20,24 misrepresents (3)
118:9,9,16 143:19
mean (38) 15:22 86:3,7 102:25 144:11 147:6 161:1
names (4) 104:7
16:15 21:18 22:2 103:2,7 110:17 missed (1) 128:9
105:2 118:7 151:20
24:24 37:19 38:17 117:16 153:21 mistake (14) 35:25
naming (1) 103:5
40:7 52:8 57:18 154:4,7,13,17,18 36:3 40:5 41:23,24
narrative (1) 47:10
61:7 65:3 72:2 162:22 168:12 42:2,3,12,15,16
natural (1) 107:19
75:19 76:3 77:16 memory (6) 23:3 43:10 132:11 147:4
nearly (1) 157:24
86:20 87:1,13 93:8 25:16 36:15 96:18 147:5
necessarily (2) 59:4
93:13 97:2 98:8 103:2 118:22 mistaken (3) 121:3
74:8
107:10,13 110:6 mention (9) 61:4 86:7 122:11 164:2
necessary (8) 1:11
117:1,3 122:2,3,3 107:25 120:24 mistakes (3) 37:15,17
29:18 62:6 66:17
136:10,13 137:21 128:1,4 148:25 153:18
76:25 93:11 139:1
137:22 157:25 149:8 161:18 mistranslated (2)
150:17
158:6 164:15 mentioned (17) 16:14 107:3 129:24
need (17) 24:21 25:2
meaning (1) 63:12 41:25 49:11 58:12 misunderstanding (1)
25:13 57:23 62:7
means (9) 16:17 60:4,21 79:4,5 132:10
75:4 92:5 93:5 95:3
29:19 32:5 60:20 116:22 118:2 misunderstood (1)
95:11 138:16
81:6 109:19 115:3 119:18 131:21 93:7

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

200
March 18, 2016 Day 29 — Redacted

143:18 158:2,14,19 32:21,22 50:20,25 operating (1) 13:4 45:10,24 48:21 particularly (1) 76:2 116:8 9:14 10:3 11:17

159:1 162:6 54:21 55:11 161:11 operation (1) 23:21 53:19,19 54:6 parties (8) 2:13 6:9 personal (22) 24:14 96:8 102:20 103:8
needed (1) 122:17 162:10 171:4,14 operational (1) 141:9 55:15,16,17,20 9:9,13 14:12 47:20 24:15,22 25:3,13 103:10 109:1,3,5
needlessly (1) 73:7 172:23 operations (1) 24:17 57:22 66:11 67:16 151:18 154:11 31:7,10 33:7,10 155:22,24 170:12
needs (6) 19:9 20:21 obtain (2) 41:17 operative (1) 110:18 67:17 68:20 72:20 party (9) 5:11 6:1,2 41:2 49:23 79:6 pledger (2) 111:19
88:13 140:24 143:8 113:10 opinion (2) 13:21 114:8,8,13 121:4 7:17,22 8:12 11:22 80:2,3,7,11,13 128:23
165:10 obtaining (1) 138:1 115:19 121:11,14,18,19,22 88:13 101:21 81:22 99:22 126:24 pledges (12) 4:6,7,8
negative (1) 28:7 obvious (2) 149:23,25 opportunity (2) 74:17 123:1,2 127:11 pass (1) 105:21 128:1,4 4:11 9:12 11:8 12:7
negotiated (1) 7:25 obviously (16) 16:19 159:24 139:3,6,9,12 passage (2) 19:1 personally (14) 25:2 12:10 14:1 52:2
negotiations (1) 30:22 36:5 37:14 opposed (6) 5:11 7:9 143:16,18,22,22 123:10 27:19 99:17 100:13 97:1 118:4
145:14 43:14 81:9 88:13 14:9,20 18:3 65:12 144:24 145:1,2,6,7 passages (2) 2:7 116:15 122:2,5,6 plenty (3) 4:1 84:21
neither (3) 14:25 97:13 102:8 124:18 oral (5) 56:15,17 86:1 145:9,11,22 146:2 130:19 124:8,16 125:2 113:8
71:16 163:10 141:21 143:16 99:11,13 146:7,8 152:10,11 passed (2) 84:11 131:5 136:24 172:5 plot (2) 6:21 103:17
neutrally (1) 74:12 148:10 149:10,14 orally (1) 83:15 152:12 157:11 164:13 pertain (1) 126:15 plots (1) 118:12
never (25) 3:10 19:7 166:1 order (17) 4:24 29:6 160:4,13,15 161:12 patently (1) 136:25 pertaining (1) 135:23 plus (2) 18:11 56:7
23:19 24:15 25:22 occasion (1) 24:20 29:16,17,18 54:10 161:14,22,22,23 pause (21) 3:17 36:3 Petersburg (25) 13:25 pm (16) 72:14,16
42:9 51:12 52:21 occasions (4) 22:7 84:19 86:22 95:5,9 162:4 166:21,23 45:7 53:23 57:25 26:18 27:13,16 87:13,14 92:14,23
52:22,23 74:1 24:6 169:7 172:7 113:10 119:10,12 193:2 59:25 83:17 114:18 51:3,11 94:14,17 92:24 93:1 94:7
100:16,18 101:2,6 occurred (1) 131:11 129:2 155:21 page-by-page (1) 122:9 138:10 100:9 104:19 120:8,10 159:7,9
101:6,7,11 106:1 October (3) 96:16 158:13 170:11 121:3 139:14,20,22 144:9 112:10 114:22 164:16 172:25
131:18,21 142:4 113:24,25 ordinary (1) 95:12 page-paragraph (1) 144:13 146:5 115:7,24 124:11 192:9
156:20 168:20 odd (2) 70:16,17 organise (1) 100:12 160:14 147:12 160:23 126:15 128:6 131:4 point (67) 3:20 4:3,17
170:23 offence (2) 139:10,18 organised (3) 28:1 pages (4) 38:3 54:7 162:5 164:25 167:5 135:15 136:5 5:7,9,12,16 7:13
nevertheless (1) offer (3) 115:16 96:12 109:18 107:22 145:5 Pausing (1) 127:25 137:13,21 150:5 9:20 10:6 14:8 21:7
127:6 116:12 149:2 organisers (1) 114:15 paid (8) 81:6,7 82:5,5 Pavel (2) 159:16 152:25 153:9 25:1,12 30:18,18
new (12) 12:8,8,18,19 offered (2) 145:24 organising (1) 99:18 82:6 153:13 154:23 167:25 Petersburg’ (2) 151:2 34:2,3 40:2 41:23
13:20 52:11,13,24 168:1 original (2) 66:14 155:2 pay (8) 8:1 13:5 62:7 151:4 50:19 59:8,8 70:6,8
63:15,16 67:15 offers (1) 149:1 117:6 paper (9) 42:10 44:16 131:7 137:11 171:9 PetroLes (14) 57:15 72:17 73:5 74:7,16
172:15 office (12) 22:10,22 Oslo (35) 2:8 13:11 44:18,22 103:6 171:22 172:9 61:6 64:2,7,15,22 74:23,25 75:19
newspaper (3) 19:5 23:11 24:6,8 26:2,8 21:23 50:19 52:15 120:14,17 145:18 paying (2) 52:6 70:6,17 79:7,9 84:8 76:8 82:17 83:22
19:11 113:23 29:9,22 47:24 85:11 97:12,20 150:17 154:25 85:6,19 103:4 84:7,14 85:11 89:9
Nice (3) 36:21 158:15 52:12 172:6 99:15 102:19 papers (4) 50:1 93:6 payment (4) 16:9 picture (2) 1:16 89:12 93:14,22
170:25 offices (2) 23:15 24:18 104:22 107:12 138:18,25 62:24 81:4,17 139:22 99:1 100:7 101:23
Nikolai (1) 114:24 official (2) 100:3 110:20 117:17 paragraph (63) 2:13 payments (18) 48:7 piece (2) 103:6 115:12 105:18 108:7
nominal (2) 14:20 138:8 118:13 123:22,25 3:4,5 8:9 10:5 37:2 57:3 59:4,24,25 pieces (2) 118:5 109:22 110:18
15:20 officials (1) 112:5 126:17 127:20 37:8,25 40:23 41:4 60:15 62:24 63:18 169:10 112:18 115:20
nominated (1) 50:8 Oh (1) 19:19 128:15,20 129:10 41:5,13 44:10,15 63:21 68:21 70:2 Piotrovsky (5) 26:11 117:18 119:12
noon (1) 94:16 OJSC (1) 167:11 129:23 130:6 44:18,20 57:23,24 77:20 78:12 79:3 26:16 27:7,22 28:5 124:1,21 125:20,21
normal (7) 14:18,21 okay (19) 16:18 40:21 133:20 134:5 66:23 73:2 114:7 81:23 82:18,21 Piotrovsky’s (1) 27:2 136:14 142:13
15:19,23 16:12 41:12 44:24 45:16 135:24 140:21 114:12,14,17,18,21 132:25 place (26) 1:19 3:13 153:12 157:14
66:13 109:5 58:1,13 63:25 150:9 151:11 122:13,25 125:22 PC (1) 32:19 7:14 11:2 14:20 158:13 160:3
Normally (1) 1:15 75:11 76:23 77:7 152:14 155:10 127:14 130:1 penalty (1) 169:2 23:1 31:5,8 33:5,8 161:17 162:7
notable (1) 148:22 91:13 120:15 144:8 156:1 165:25 132:14,25 134:13 penultimate (1) 33:20 42:9 43:13 165:21 168:25
note (4) 71:6,10 80:22 146:5 150:16,18 167:23 135:6 143:23 114:21 55:2,25 56:2 64:5 points (7) 2:4,11 3:18
164:13 158:12,21 ought (1) 153:10 144:19,20 145:11 people (19) 1:18,21 81:11 96:21 98:3,9 7:15 93:3,21
notes (3) 31:14 33:14 old (1) 86:6 outgoing (1) 128:17 145:12,16,24 146:9 12:19 19:8 20:25 110:19 127:24 101:12
34:7 OMG (20) 16:11 18:14 outside (1) 174:9 146:10,18 151:21 22:14 24:17 36:17 128:14 147:23 police (5) 26:22 27:3
notice (1) 123:11 18:16 21:25 22:2,4 outsource’ (1) 3:7 152:11,12 160:5,14 41:5 49:9 58:22 173:18 27:11,13,16
November (22) 22:8 24:21 25:3,14 83:8 outsourcing (1) 11:10 160:16,17,19,20,21 101:5,8 112:22 plain (1) 51:20 politician (1) 100:17
22:23 23:13 24:9 85:25 96:19 97:20 outsourcing’ (2) 8:11 161:15,21,24 162:2 151:20 169:2,3,8 planning (1) 173:8 poorer (1) 120:13
25:21 30:13,20 98:25 103:10 119:2 10:8 167:5,8,14,15 173:20 plans (1) 173:11 Popechitel (1) 6:18
31:6 33:6,24 41:1 144:12 147:7 outstanding (5) 17:13 paragraphs (4) 133:14 perceive (1) 50:13 playing (1) 104:3 port (1) 118:15
44:6 47:14 48:6 148:13 162:10 149:11,12,18 163:3 166:23,24 167:4 percentage (1) 4:23 pleaded (1) 73:14 port-related (1)
59:23 60:3,4 81:5 once (16) 20:20 23:13 overall (4) 12:13 pardon (8) 25:6 29:16 perception (1) 163:19 pleading (4) 72:24 118:15
81:17 82:7 127:16 25:20 26:3 34:23 61:22 70:11 79:10 66:6 70:18 77:17 perfectly (1) 87:11 73:3 75:5,6 portfolio (5) 13:12
127:18 42:11 43:8 46:21 overcoming (1) 101:3 99:6 122:9 145:7 perform (1) 171:4 pleadings (1) 74:4 17:17,18 18:2 21:8
number (21) 20:18 46:22 52:10 89:17 oversee (1) 97:10 parent (1) 167:19 performance (2) please (47) 1:5 2:6 Ports (2) 148:13
30:8 38:12 44:4 93:5 137:17 142:3 overseeing (1) 116:24 part (28) 13:16 24:16 16:15 55:10 18:20,22 20:10 167:23
49:9,9 51:3 55:8 148:20 169:22 owed (1) 18:14 24:18 54:17 66:21 performed (3) 4:3 28:15 31:10,24 posed (1) 28:8
60:12 62:1 78:3,6 one’s (2) 171:4,4 owned (7) 103:17,18 79:12,12 83:6 6:22 146:14 33:10 35:16 36:25 position (20) 22:18
103:1 105:4,15 one-by-one (1) 78:4 112:18 117:21 84:12,13,17 85:2 performing (3) 112:3 40:21 43:22 45:5,6 26:19,20 27:11
109:19 123:7 one-off (1) 23:20 129:19 141:16 90:6 91:1 93:9 154:11 171:13 45:19 46:2 51:16 44:12 47:4,5 68:4
125:21,25 166:20 one-on-one (2) 49:13 156:10 96:11,12 103:16 period (29) 4:9 15:13 54:6,7 56:1 57:24 71:19 74:24 75:1
169:6 49:15 owners (1) 55:13 104:14 116:19,23 17:4,5 21:24 22:5 58:20 73:11 74:15 76:16 82:2 88:2
numbers (2) 151:15 Onega (13) 63:24,25 ownership (3) 8:1 122:14 126:21 23:7 24:1 25:16 76:22 80:22 93:2 96:2 99:21 100:6
157:11 65:11,12,12 66:5 13:19 152:4 128:10 132:7 26:14 27:16,19 102:2 104:5 107:2 168:1 173:7,22
numerous (1) 48:2 68:25 69:1 103:1,3 133:15 148:4,16 31:13 33:13 34:7 107:7 109:12 positions (1) 173:22
103:13,16 117:20 P partially (1) 133:19 43:23 44:8 48:5 113:19 115:14 possibilities (2) 42:17
O ones (9) 16:20,21 P1/2/1 (2) 28:15 29:1 participant (3) 111:18 52:16 60:13 82:7 120:11,12 132:1 42:24
72:2 79:19,20 111:20,22 88:1 113:4,7,11 134:9,10 140:15 possibility (2) 42:19
oath (11) 23:4 25:17 P1/2/2 (1) 28:22
103:14 139:1 participants (2) 125:4 140:25 141:3 143:11 144:2 42:21
49:21 51:18 99:21 P1/2/4 (1) 28:16
146:19 167:6 111:13,16 141:19 145:20 146:4 possible (17) 4:15
101:9 125:15 P1/2/5 (1) 28:22
ongoing (2) 39:24 participate (1) 170:19 periods (2) 54:21 150:14 159:10 11:23 13:1 27:10
126:10,12 127:6 page (86) 7:5 16:2
48:1 participated (1) 23:1 79:25 pledge (15) 6:20 9:10 38:25 51:11 54:5
156:13 19:3 20:2,12 28:21
Online (1) 48:1 participating (1) 108:3 perjury (1) 169:2 9:10 10:14,16 11:1 57:8 74:13 88:25
objection (3) 67:7 28:21,25 30:17,18
open (4) 109:20,23,23 particular (8) 43:20 permission (2) 67:7 11:14,20,21,24 91:3 95:15 114:6
121:23 152:7 37:24 38:3,4,8,24
169:20 63:22 67:21 74:7 158:17 12:2,14,20 112:2 119:11 150:5
obligations (15) 6:23 38:24 39:1,14,14
opened (1) 171:6 79:4 93:20 114:20 persecution (1) 28:5 116:16 155:23 170:1
8:5 16:6 28:12 44:17,20,24 45:5
operated (1) 111:11 125:20 person (2) 110:1 pledged (15) 5:6 8:7 possibly (30) 7:4 9:18

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

201

March 18, 2016 Day 29 — Redacted

15:19 32:15 34:17 36:8 47:5 56:7 59:5 69:1 70:3,9 78:14 98:15 100:10 104:11 109:8 110:13,16 111:2 112:23 118:21 128:9 133:1 143:3 153:20 156:7 157:7 157:7 170:17

postponed (1) 129:22 postponement (1)

48:5

postpones (1) 82:18 potential (2) 21:7

129:4

powers (2) 101:12 132:20

practical (1) 15:4 practice (9) 3:11,22

5:16 13:2 21:11 23:8 24:4 108:3 155:19

Pravlenie’ (1) 10:10 pre-empt (1) 71:9 preamble (1) 53:19 precious (2) 58:25

72:6 precise (1) 5:20

precisely (1) 32:23 prefer (5) 74:12 89:14

89:15 91:14 120:15 prefers (1) 45:22 prejudice (1) 4:10 premise (1) 90:12 prep (1) 90:2 preparation (1) 88:10 preparations (1)

92:12 prepare (1) 91:24

prepared (11) 5:17 37:22 56:12 62:19 73:17 122:22 124:6 124:13 127:6 136:19 137:1

preparing (2) 25:18 124:18

presence (2) 70:19 152:17

present (6) 41:15 49:9 73:18 125:3 152:19 173:11

presents (1) 148:23 preserve (1) 129:3 press (7) 3:24 14:5 26:22 27:1 93:21

137:24 138:3 pressing (1) 42:13 pressures (1) 77:3 presumably (5) 7:2

16:25 21:18 52:7 98:21

presumed (1) 8:3 pretend (4) 34:2 154:20,21,23 pretty (1) 90:16 prevent (1) 3:2

previous (3) 28:8 31:2 38:17

previously (5) 25:24 69:7 80:17 86:18 86:24

price (10) 14:20,21 15:20 109:24 119:11,17 133:18 135:10 146:22 149:5

prices (2) 55:12 113:12

Prichaly (2) 118:20,23 principal (2) 70:3,11 principle (1) 70:2 printed (1) 93:6 printing (1) 92:11 printout (1) 138:13 printouts (1) 157:13 prints (1) 119:21 prior (3) 22:9 24:9

25:22 priorities (1) 76:5 prioritise (1) 92:17

private (3) 174:12,14 193:6

privileged (1) 88:16 probably (5) 18:25 57:23 66:10 76:9

83:18 problem (6) 14:25

15:12 84:14 97:10 158:23 171:12

problems (5) 17:7,24 101:3 113:9 128:21

procedure (2) 6:18 10:18

proceed (1) 174:2 proceedings (26)

12:11 13:9 25:18 28:13 32:14 35:18 35:19 36:5 37:22 39:23,24 115:5 123:22,24 124:3 126:16 131:17 132:4 134:4 135:14 135:21,23 137:19 149:2 162:22 167:9

proceeds (2) 12:23 133:18

process (7) 107:19 111:16,23 112:15 116:24 117:18 119:4

procured (1) 140:16 professional (1) 8:15 professionals (1)

155:4

Professor (10) 2:5,12 3:19 5:7 7:12,16 8:10 9:20 10:5 11:10

proffer (2) 131:9 132:2

profit (4) 4:19,22,23 5:1

profits (1) 4:25 progress (2) 35:4

69:24 project (1) 101:3

projects (5) 21:2,3 100:17 128:17 151:5

prolongation (1) 79:1 promise (1) 91:15 promised (1) 8:1 properly (3) 123:14

136:7 142:20

property (4) 100:8

104:13 109:2,4

proportionate (1)

29:4

proposal (1) 94:19 proposed (5) 129:10

144:22 145:25,25 164:14

proposition (4) 65:17

72:22 74:21,24

Prospekt (1) 29:9 protect (5) 3:15 8:15

13:7 130:6 170:11

protected (1) 129:8 protocol (1) 109:25 provide (7) 25:3,13 61:5 81:1 114:15

114:24 151:16 provided (3) 126:22

146:12 163:25 providing (1) 71:18 provision (2) 55:8,21 public (14) 96:12,14

96:15 101:18 111:5 111:7,7 118:24 133:18 135:10 148:1,1,15 170:9

published (2) 19:15 113:22

purchase (8) 6:1 16:6 85:23 113:7,10 144:22 156:17 159:25

purchased (4) 110:1

118:6,13 119:2 purchaser (4) 11:12

54:13 117:8 151:16 purchasers (2) 6:10

113:13 purpose (4) 48:12

113:14 137:5 164:21

purposes (5) 5:24 15:5 73:18 90:21 152:19

pursuant (4) 65:10 68:13 82:12 85:21

pushed (1) 91:6

put (36) 3:13 5:3 28:5 32:1 34:13 42:16 52:3 57:12 59:8 63:25 64:5,6 65:17 68:3 69:12,20 72:21 74:5 82:16 83:22 84:15 88:20 108:6 109:4,24 111:4 112:21 124:15 126:7 136:8 138:5 155:21 156:18 158:2 165:21 173:21

putting (7) 61:22 71:3 74:11 80:10 81:20 124:14 155:5

Q

quality (4) 21:7 40:20 120:13,19
question (27) 5:25 10:21 11:9 15:15 20:8,14 28:8 31:24 31:25 33:25 46:25 50:12 51:16 53:7 60:19,21,22 61:9,9 68:2 72:21 83:20 109:12 126:7 134:9 141:23 166:7

questioning (5) 71:9 72:18 76:17,20 137:6

questions (19) 1:25 20:21 30:14 50:2 56:1 61:11 64:19 73:8 87:19 94:9 95:22 107:11 132:19 142:14,15 156:18 162:13,14 163:4

quicken (1) 87:8 quicker (2) 87:6 151:3 quickest (3) 63:6,13

65:9

quickly (3) 48:21 133:3 136:21

quiet (1) 93:12 quite (33) 1:16 6:16

11:6 13:16 15:2 17:2 18:11 23:8 31:20 34:24 35:6,7 42:18 47:11,17 48:13 50:7 74:6 76:14 78:3,6 88:20 93:24 102:6 106:19 111:12 124:5 131:25 133:22 136:21 150:5 160:3 162:18

quotation (2) 31:2 33:2

quote (2) 34:5,9 quoting (2) 44:1

125:20

R

Raev (4) 104:8,10,15 109:14
raise (2) 88:14 101:8 raised (4) 23:19 140:8

140:9 158:1 range (2) 16:20 98:18 ranking (1) 112:5 rate (1) 17:19

ratio (1) 21:4 rationale (4) 11:25

12:3 45:10 46:6 re-examination (1)
95:22 re-registered (1)

10:16 reach (1) 38:7

reached (11) 44:24 54:17 56:16 68:6 69:8 72:22 78:15 79:11 82:12 83:2 99:11

read (92) 2:6,11,12 3:5 16:17 19:1 20:7 20:10 33:2 34:1 37:25 38:8 41:9,10 44:7 45:15,17 57:24 58:17,22,22 60:22 63:15,15 64:1,6 68:15,16,18 68:19 92:20 114:18 114:19 119:24 122:2,3,4,6,23 123:3,13 127:12,13 127:14 128:10,11 128:13 129:25 132:14 133:2 139:8 139:12,13,15,17,23 143:22 144:2,2,5,7 144:9,10,18,19 145:8,22 146:2,6 152:8 160:5,9,10 160:11,11,17,19,24 161:16,21 162:2,3 162:4,6 166:23 167:3,7,13,17 172:4,5,19

reading (5) 30:23 44:9 45:23 120:18 126:3

ready (2) 120:6 145:15

real (5) 31:12 33:12 52:5 80:11 92:15

realisation (2) 111:23 119:5

realise (1) 89:10

reality (2) 36:2 62:19 148:19 153:5 173:18
really (57) 14:7 15:5 167:18 relation (10) 7:1 41:1
21:10 37:13 39:12 records (7) 54:16,19 59:2 60:9 62:2 80:3
40:19 42:13 45:15 147:18 162:25 132:18 134:21
45:17 48:11 52:25 168:9 169:9,10 169:3 170:2
53:20 58:21,23 recover (2) 15:7 relations (2) 21:24
68:16 69:23 72:19 155:24 22:2
72:19 73:4,4,12,13 recovery (5) 3:16 4:15 relationships (1)
74:16 75:12,15 5:5 119:12 155:24 129:13
76:22 77:19 87:2 REDACTED (19) relative (1) 14:13
91:4,20 93:11 174:15 175:1 176:1 relevance (1) 74:5
95:19 96:1 97:6,24 177:1 178:1 179:1 relevant (7) 19:1
97:25 98:15 114:14 180:1 181:1 182:1 29:21 31:13,17
115:19 116:7 117:1 183:1 184:1 185:1 33:13 34:6,10
119:7 122:15 124:1 186:1 187:1 188:1 relied (2) 72:25
124:4 140:4 141:20 189:1 190:1 191:1 172:12
142:1 143:25 159:5 192:1 rely (1) 71:22
160:16 161:13 reduce (1) 35:8 remain (1) 4:7
162:6 163:12 165:2 refer (5) 45:1 47:2 remainder (1) 91:11
167:21 172:9 66:25 68:23 107:8 remained (1) 4:8
rearrange (1) 87:5 reference (9) 18:21 remaining (2) 57:16
reason (18) 2:19 7:6 20:9 29:16 35:17 157:22
10:25 48:16 50:6 59:22 64:8 66:20 remains (1) 173:18
50:13,15 52:5 70:24 144:15 remarkable (1) 153:16
116:9 121:6 137:14 references (3) 78:18 remarkably (2) 163:16
140:18 143:11 78:23 156:25 163:23
154:22 155:11 referred (5) 7:1,13 remember (24) 7:13
170:6,24 171:21 37:18 38:9 120:21 17:5,7,9 22:18 27:2
reasonable (1) 29:4 referring (19) 6:9 32:10 53:9 60:1,1
reasoning (1) 84:23 20:14 24:25 26:14 65:18 102:19,21
reasons (2) 7:11 51:21 37:21 57:19 63:23 103:9,12,14 126:18
recall (54) 3:24 6:12 66:23 67:3 68:24 127:3 129:18 138:4
9:1 17:16,19 19:6 101:24 102:11,13 138:6,12 152:5
19:16,23,24 26:5 102:13,15 107:4 166:2
27:4 28:18 29:10 116:5 141:4,19 remind (3) 38:1 96:20
29:15 36:17,21 refers (3) 16:8 43:12 122:8
52:25 53:4,7,11 105:13 reminded (1) 173:16
57:5,14,18 58:3,9 reflect (3) 69:7 75:6 remit (2) 24:16 97:20
65:2 69:2 78:18,22 83:1 remitted (1) 140:3
96:23 97:24 100:7 reflected (2) 47:15 remuneration (1) 9:22
102:22 103:1,11 110:17 Renord (31) 8:19
105:23 111:2 reflecting (2) 56:24 107:8 110:5,11,14
117:12,13 118:7,8 77:12 111:15 112:12,22
118:8,12,16 122:20 reflects (1) 78:15 113:15 117:7,23
122:23 126:9,20 refresh (2) 59:15 118:1,4 119:8
137:24 138:2 143:1 96:17 148:25 156:4,8,10
166:17,18 173:13 refreshed (1) 118:22 156:14 157:4,7
recalled (1) 58:7 refused (3) 84:23 159:19,25 164:8,10
recalling (1) 43:13 114:15,24 165:13,14,15
receive (4) 12:22 regard (33) 3:25 4:2,6 168:16 169:3 170:2
119:17 172:17 6:13,15 9:3 10:14 Renord-Invest (10)
173:15 11:18 31:24 50:10 102:4 106:3,6,9,15
received (7) 4:12 8:8 57:15 60:19,21,23 107:13 108:7,11,14
15:2 52:10 140:2 60:24 61:6 77:24 108:17
151:23 152:2 79:23,25 81:14 repaid (4) 16:11
receiver (1) 12:13 84:11 85:2,6 95:25 149:22 170:23,25
receivership (1) 12:20 103:22 106:14 repayment (8) 66:14
receiving (3) 52:25 122:19 123:5 66:20 80:16 82:18
53:7,12 125:18 131:16 86:4 132:17 134:20
reception (1) 127:19 150:3 155:25 163:3
recognise (1) 42:2 168:22 repayments (9) 41:8
recollection (18) regards (7) 52:19,22 65:20 67:20 68:7
36:12 40:16,20 53:6 123:6,8 68:20 70:3 127:21
42:6,20 46:15,20 125:23,24 132:18 134:21
46:24 49:20 53:12 region (1) 26:18 repeat (6) 28:8 31:24
58:14 59:15 97:14 register (1) 147:21 106:21 107:2
97:22 98:12,15 registered (9) 5:18 109:12 134:9
117:11 122:21 10:3 11:20 12:9 replace (1) 161:25
record (24) 9:5 42:7 147:20 148:8,9,12 replaced (1) 110:24
42:23 53:21 54:22 156:8 replacement (1) 162:8
54:25 71:5 99:3,8 regular (1) 20:18 repo (54) 2:8,9 3:21
120:20 124:24 regulations (1) 3:15 4:2 5:11,18,21 6:1
125:1,13 126:25 regulator (2) 2:18 3:1 6:14,20,25 7:24
127:2,25 133:21 reiterate (1) 43:8 10:3 11:4,12 12:1
142:21 147:10,17 related (6) 11:5 94:10 13:13 14:2,9,10,19
149:3 164:3 172:2 130:24 132:17 15:18 16:12 45:4
172:4 134:19 168:13 45:10 46:7 50:14
recorded (7) 19:13 relates (1) 132:19 51:22 54:2 55:4,12
54:4 105:11 148:8 relating (2) 129:14 56:6 84:1 98:12

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

202

March 18, 2016 Day 29 — Redacted

110:13 117:10,13 130:9,10,13 137:9 137:15 141:8 144:11 147:6,20 148:4,6,16 153:6 155:11,13,19 170:6
report (3) 2:5 19:10 138:3

reported (2) 124:23 156:21

reporting (2) 22:12 141:6

reports (5) 3:24 19:7 26:23 27:1 137:24

representative (7)

104:18,21 107:24 108:24 109:2,4 116:10

repurchase (3) 5:23 11:3 85:24

reputable (1) 113:23 request (20) 31:2 33:2 34:3 47:19 48:12 50:21 52:4 57:5 79:1,11,17 84:13

85:12 112:4 129:14 146:11 165:25 172:14,17,20

requested (7) 31:7 33:7 41:7 60:14 151:16,24 152:3 requests (2) 47:17

132:22 require (1) 60:15

required (4) 5:2 29:5 29:20 159:3

resale (1) 14:19 resold (1) 15:20 respect (13) 19:9 48:4

48:7,9 64:4,7 70:22 94:1 114:9 142:2 163:1,4 167:1

respected (1) 51:13 respectfully (2) 52:19

53:6

respective (1) 147:18 respectively (1) 35:22 respects (2) 52:23

95:14 respond (2) 43:24

172:20 responded (1) 134:6 response (8) 30:12

31:15 34:8 134:3 134:22 135:2,11 142:16

responsibilities (5)

23:16 24:19 99:12 116:23 129:16

responsibility (2)

121:9 143:20

responsible (2) 99:10

99:14

rest (3) 45:9 89:18

160:12 restrictions (1) 110:3 restructure (4) 50:21

52:5 54:2 64:9 restructuring (24)

41:7,14 45:4,11 47:17 48:13 52:10 53:22,25 54:3 56:21 57:6,7 60:24 61:18,21 69:13 83:8,10 85:3 98:5,5 132:24 134:8

result (1) 170:18 results (1) 4:22 retiring (1) 26:19

return (4) 52:8 84:1 87:9 96:5
returned (4) 2:21 6:24 12:15 16:10

returning (1) 173:20 revealed (1) 58:18 revenue-to-debt (1)

21:3

reverse (3) 16:7 55:11 144:6

review (2) 41:21 44:11

rid (1) 15:13

right (54) 2:11 9:11 12:4 18:7,21 20:16 25:9 27:11 28:23 31:15 36:25 39:5,6 40:6 58:6 63:4 70:8 70:21 71:10 74:16 75:21 77:9 78:11 79:14 87:18 90:10 91:13 92:7,14,19 94:13,14,18 96:4 102:17 104:17 107:14,21,23 111:15 115:6 130:8 141:12 144:4 154:25 155:1 158:19,24,24 159:6 159:18 162:21 164:21,23

rightfully (1) 131:25 rights (2) 8:16 130:7 risk (3) 24:16 92:15

158:5 risks (1) 8:14

rock-bottom (1)

113:12

ROK (5) 118:20,21,22 118:23 119:1

roll (1) 61:2 roll-up (2) 59:24

78:12 rolled-up (6) 59:11

65:14,21 68:21 69:4 80:18

rolls-up (1) 65:20 rouble (2) 13:11 16:11 roubles (2) 16:21

17:14 route (1) 69:24

RUB (11) 15:20 23:21 23:22 68:9 80:24 81:8 140:2,10 146:16,22 149:6

rubbed (1) 22:21 rule (1) 26:6

rules (3) 64:20 92:22 173:16

Ruminating (1) 75:16 run (3) 69:18 74:14

95:12 running (3) 101:5

141:1,7 rush (1) 93:5

Russia (4) 97:2 158:14 171:3 173:20

Russian (100) 3:9 4:4 5:14,19 6:17 12:23 13:4,23 15:25 18:24 28:15,20 30:6 32:24 35:23 38:2 39:4,8,10,13 40:22 41:11,18 46:4 49:1 53:17 66:2 67:12,16,17 68:14 96:9,13,15 96:24 97:1,6 99:18 100:1,23 102:3,7

102:11,17 103:15 104:5,24 106:10,14 106:17,20 107:5,7 107:10,14,17 109:10,13,22 111:5 111:8,11,20,25 112:8 113:5 114:2 114:6,13 119:23 120:13 121:12,13 121:18 122:12 123:1 127:10 128:13 129:6,25 130:2 133:12 134:11,13 135:5 138:12,16 139:7 143:9,9 144:3,7 150:15,18 157:12 159:12 162:1,1 165:6,8

S

safe (1) 120:1 safeguards (2) 3:14
7:14

sale (44) 4:10 5:5 8:7 12:16,22 14:19,19 15:3 16:6 96:12,14 96:15,19 97:1 99:18 100:12 102:7 103:23 104:18 106:10,14 107:17 109:23 111:5,8 114:2 129:1,15,21 130:4,11,12,16,18 135:12 141:24,24 144:12 147:6 148:2 148:3 153:6 156:17 161:1

Saturday (1) 173:12 save (2) 13:18 37:1

Savelyev (160) 1:4,23 2:2 5:7 6:25 8:9 10:1 14:7 15:15 16:19 19:1,4,16 20:16 21:9 22:16 24:4,12 25:10 26:10 28:11,16 30:1,19 31:5,20 32:20 33:5 34:13 35:17 36:4 38:7,22 39:16,22 40:12,23 41:22 42:4,13 44:16 46:10 47:8 47:16 48:10,25 49:6 50:12 51:16 53:6,21 55:24 57:25 58:2,14,20 59:2 60:5 61:7 62:16 63:9 64:18 66:9 67:23 68:2 69:6,25 70:20 71:2 77:11 80:1,6 81:21 82:23 90:7,9 92:21 94:5 96:8 98:17 99:6,17 100:21 101:17 102:17 103:15,25 105:10 106:8 107:2 108:2 108:6,21 110:4,22 111:4 113:17,21,22 114:11,18 115:1 116:9,15 118:3 119:4,24 120:12,20 121:15 123:18 126:18 129:24 130:8 133:9,21 137:5 139:5 140:13 141:12,21 142:13

143:18 145:7,16,23 screens (3) 45:12 sees (1) 55:23 34:4
147:2,13,25 148:9 105:7 150:24 sell (12) 11:13,16,21 sheet (3) 7:20 80:22
149:23 150:21 scroll (47) 7:5 16:2 12:1 15:6 106:20 82:3
152:10,20 153:16 19:25 28:20,25 119:9 133:7 134:25 sheets (1) 152:4
154:19 155:4 156:4 30:17 35:22 37:23 146:21,24 152:15 shifted (1) 95:5
156:25 160:6,25 38:5,6 39:13 41:11 seller (1) 151:15 Shipping (1) 103:3
161:14,23,23 162:8 41:18 44:14 45:5 selling (3) 112:2,15 shook (1) 52:12
164:6 165:11,21 45:11 46:4 53:18 151:12 short (15) 15:13 34:21
166:12,22 167:3,13 54:7 55:18,22 send (1) 172:14 35:14 72:15 73:6
168:3,15,25 169:17 59:20 66:11 67:15 sense (6) 23:23 30:15 75:20 76:10 77:11
171:16 173:3,8 114:5,6 121:10,17 47:23 60:12 86:11 93:5 94:2 120:9
193:3 121:20,24 126:2 97:3 123:21 124:5
Savelyev’s (5) 31:12 127:11 129:5 sensible (1) 51:23 146:19 159:8
33:12 34:6 94:3 133:12 134:11 sent (1) 53:2 shorten (3) 72:11 77:3
95:8 135:5 139:4,16 sentence (4) 114:20 134:10
saw (5) 131:15 153:12 143:15 145:15,20 114:21 129:25 shorter (1) 86:23
157:3 160:11 150:24 152:9 160:3 136:15 shortly (1) 45:2
163:20 161:12 165:19 separately (3) 60:25 shoulders (1) 22:21
saying (61) 16:23 18:1 166:21 64:25 83:11 show (7) 2:4 7:19
18:4 19:13 22:17 scrolled (6) 44:25 September (1) 27:25 48:25 68:3 78:3
30:9 38:14 43:11 45:21,25 48:22 sequence (6) 70:24 153:24 157:9
50:5 51:17,22 52:9 105:6 114:10 71:17 74:10 87:4,9 shown (5) 52:17
52:18,22 57:15,18 search (4) 29:5,8,20 87:22 64:11 101:11
58:7,9,15,18 60:3 170:15 series (3) 95:3 137:8 120:12 168:25
64:21 76:21 82:3 searched (1) 30:10 153:17 side (2) 120:1 138:10
84:1 88:21 89:14 second (26) 37:7,15 serious (2) 100:17 sight (1) 54:5
99:9,17 101:8,20 37:18 41:3 42:19 128:16 sign (12) 36:19 64:25
106:4,12,12 110:6 44:8 45:2 55:16,17 seriously (2) 156:13 84:19,23 121:8
110:9,11,22,25 65:12 72:5 106:13 171:23 123:19 126:1 132:5
116:8 117:1 124:15 107:21,23 110:12 served (2) 38:16 135:17 137:1
125:7,12,22 126:8 121:11 122:14 39:23 142:22,25
126:12 130:13 138:20 139:3 service (3) 27:3 96:12 signal (2) 49:3 139:13
132:7 136:11,16 144:24,24 145:8 151:6 signature (12) 39:20
138:4 139:10 152:11 160:13,14 serviced (1) 6:19 39:21 65:1 121:4,5
147:25 148:5 161:14 session (1) 86:20 121:25 124:7,9,15
153:15 154:21 secondly (4) 52:11 Sestroretsk (1) 103:18 126:24 132:5 154:1
156:13 159:25 61:19 93:7 132:3 set (15) 40:25 41:4 signatures (5) 121:7
167:1 171:24 section (2) 41:2 44:7 43:5,13 46:19 47:7 124:14 132:6 133:4
says (37) 7:12,16 8:10 secure (3) 25:3,14 47:10 67:14 81:4,8 136:23
9:21 17:23 19:20 54:10 81:16 127:17 signed (46) 28:22
29:11 31:3 32:24 secured (1) 24:22 163:13,18 164:2 36:20 55:3,4,12
32:25 33:21 39:8,8 security (4) 5:24 27:8 sets (5) 30:14 63:16 56:4,6,10 61:20
54:9 55:9 56:5 64:2 47:18 129:8 65:13 162:23 168:4 65:3,4 68:13 86:2
69:3,5 70:9 80:23 see (86) 19:18 24:3 settlement (2) 133:16 117:16,16 120:25
83:11 103:3 115:23 28:16 29:2 30:12 135:8 121:2,19,21,22
116:1 124:8 130:11 31:1,15 32:24 34:2 seven (4) 121:2 122:21 123:12
139:9,25,25 144:17 34:3 35:12 37:7,19 124:14 133:4 172:7 124:6,13 125:3,9
145:10,25 146:10 39:4 60:7 61:13 severe (1) 17:24 126:12,14 133:3,4
156:9 159:23 161:9 62:22,23 65:13 Sevzapalians (18) 136:3,7,21 147:17
Sberbank (1) 3:23 66:4,13,18,19,22 117:8 140:20 147:18 153:21
scale (1) 47:17 67:13 68:8 69:16 144:12,15 146:1 154:4,10,18 155:16
scan (9) 41:9,10 96:8 72:2 77:6,9 79:9 147:7 148:13,23 156:7 162:22 164:3
104:21 110:4,6,14 80:12 82:16 90:18 156:10,14 157:5,6 170:9 172:2,7
161:13,15 92:7,23 98:4 101:8 159:20,24,24 significant (5) 8:14
scandalous (1) 6:17 104:7,17,19,20 162:18 167:19,22 18:12 78:24 128:18
Scandinavia (16) 105:2,4,5,10,12 Sevzapalians’ (1) 161:20
59:22 102:24 103:3 107:22,23 113:21 144:22 signing (3) 85:23
103:13,17,18 110:8 113:24,24 114:1,11 shaken (1) 52:24 122:24 126:23
110:11,24 111:14 114:12 115:15 sham (2) 111:5,9 simple (1) 2:19
117:21,22,22 129:2 121:3,4,5,15,19,25 share (8) 146:13,14 simply (13) 15:9 42:18
133:17 135:9 123:17 140:7 146:22,25 151:25 51:11 87:7 100:19
scene (1) 20:5 145:10,13 146:17 151:25 152:16,16 112:20 115:12
schedule (4) 65:20 147:10,12 148:2 shareholder (6) 11:22 119:1 130:23 153:4
66:20 68:7,20 150:11,21,25 11:23 105:16 156:19 169:23
scheme (1) 15:6 151:21 152:12 115:24 116:4 171:4
screen (39) 28:20,21 153:10 155:16 148:12 simultaneously (1)
29:1 30:12 37:19 159:14 160:13,25 shareholders (5) 2:24 128:13
37:24 38:23 39:14 161:2,3,6,7 166:19 4:4,13 5:2 101:11 single (5) 13:11,11
39:14 41:18 44:21 168:25 shareholding (1) 14:3 60:3 70:23
44:23 46:4 55:16 seeing (2) 5:9 20:4 110:14 sir (22) 2:3,10 19:22
55:20 57:22 59:16 seek (4) 75:6 77:2 shares (25) 5:22 8:4 31:24 32:25 54:5,9
62:14,15 63:8 91:16 173:21 9:16 11:4,5,6,18,21 55:20 58:11 59:1
66:11 67:16,17 seeking (1) 77:5 13:19 14:2,13 60:2 78:8,20 82:10
68:8 80:5 113:20 seemingly (1) 90:14 15:19 16:10 50:7 103:7 107:14
120:16,16,18 121:5 seen (11) 24:9 28:19 52:9 55:3 85:24 109:12 110:9 132:8
127:11 139:4 67:19 77:14 102:23 115:25 117:9 148:3 134:9 160:18,19
143:10,15 150:14 131:18 150:1 149:4 153:7 156:4 Sistema (2) 26:24,25
159:11 160:15 156:25 164:6 159:21 161:5 sitting (6) 97:24 98:16
161:13 166:21 168:20 169:25 shed (3) 31:12 33:12 118:25 142:12

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

203

March 18, 2016 Day 29 — Redacted

143:6 149:19 specific (20) 2:7 3:13 102:23 112:7 study (3) 124:10
situation (8) 15:10 3:18 4:7 5:6 13:8 120:24 122:7,9 126:23 136:22
20:25 21:5 48:6,8 16:9,9,14 19:13 124:19 125:17 subheading (3) 20:7,8
52:1 60:18 129:1 24:23 61:4,20 62:2 126:6 152:9 171:17 20:11
six (8) 57:9 61:3 64:13 67:25 69:19 77:12 statements (8) 35:18 subject (7) 5:22 11:14
79:1,3,13 84:15 77:23 83:11 156:19 37:6 53:3,4,5 73:16 16:19 72:1 85:24
85:3 specifically (1) 102:14 74:2 137:3 169:1 173:14
six-month (10) 48:14 specificity (1) 72:20 states (2) 114:21 submitted (1) 82:4
57:2 59:3 60:13 speed (2) 78:2 87:2 134:14 subordinates (4)
61:23 63:21 80:20 speed-read (2) 45:9 stating (1) 126:20 109:11,14 112:11
81:10,12 82:21 46:5 statute (3) 12:17,23 122:19
size (1) 6:7 spend (2) 40:9 76:9 172:23 subparagraph (2)
skip (1) 3:3 spent (1) 91:12 stay (3) 87:21 89:4 41:16 122:15
skipping (1) 146:18 spoil (1) 71:14 102:14 subsequently (4) 23:7
slight (1) 70:14 spoiling (2) 158:5,11 staying (1) 173:10 26:19 32:12 100:11
slightly (7) 16:18 67:4 spot (1) 41:15 step (1) 87:10 subsidiaries (2) 2:21
87:2 93:4 129:22 spot-on (1) 11:18 Stepanenko (5) 99:24 7:10
129:24 157:11 spreading (1) 107:22 100:11,14 104:10 subsidiary (3) 5:12 6:3
slot (1) 89:19 spring (1) 23:7 109:13 7:3
slow (1) 87:18 squeeze (1) 137:6 Stepanenko’s (1) substance (4) 62:8
small (1) 16:20 St (27) 13:25 26:18 104:12 82:20 147:3 167:1
Smirnov (2) 8:24 27:13,16 51:3,11 steps (1) 172:11 substantial (1) 14:21
148:25 94:14,17 100:9 stipulated (1) 129:9 substantive (8)
so-called (7) 14:18 104:19 112:10 stop (4) 2:25 28:5 121:20 128:10
80:7 96:14 111:4 114:22 115:7,24 64:6 155:3 133:15 160:5,16
113:14 130:16 124:11 126:15 stopped (2) 36:5 161:21 166:25
141:24 128:6 131:4 135:15 113:8 167:8
social (2) 22:21 26:4 136:5 137:13,21 stored (2) 32:8,19 successful (2) 111:12
sold (23) 4:16 12:21 150:5 151:2,4 story (1) 42:18 129:12
15:19 96:9,11,24 152:25 153:9 straight (1) 90:8 sufficient (4) 15:1,2
103:15 104:1 staff (2) 143:1 172:6 straightaway (1) 152:19 171:22
106:16 107:5,6,12 stage (4) 32:6 47:9 90:15 suggest (8) 1:10 39:10
109:3 113:12 87:25 112:1 strategic (4) 20:20,21 49:12 64:1 92:11
117:23 118:1 Stalevskaya (5) 21:6 87:24 108:2 126:4 141:12
129:19,20 133:17 150:20,23 151:8 strategy (2) 94:11 suggested (5) 58:6
135:9 140:20 153:2,5 95:9 74:6 80:10 86:18
145:24 152:17 stamp (1) 40:2 stressing (1) 7:24 115:6
solely (1) 168:10 stand (2) 29:12 76:22 stretch (1) 34:24 suggesting (16) 43:18
solicitors (1) 174:11 stand-off (1) 13:16 Stroilov (134) 1:5,24 44:9 60:6 62:4
Solo (16) 105:11,13 standard (3) 29:17,18 2:2 6:25 7:12 8:9 74:19 75:3,14
105:14,21,24,25 155:19 9:19 10:22,23 14:5 77:18 82:11 88:19
106:2 107:24 108:6 start (22) 1:10 21:22 14:7 19:18 20:15 88:21,23,24 126:6
114:23 115:4,8,25 25:1,10 86:13 23:23 24:23 25:6,8 132:9 137:8
116:3,3,5 89:25 90:3,24 91:3 25:10 26:7 28:8 suggests (5) 19:15
solution (3) 44:12 91:8,25 92:22 33:19 35:2,6,16 21:22 34:13 80:15
45:3 128:25 94:24 95:12,16 38:2 40:5,9,12 115:8
somewhat (1) 130:5 102:6 107:16 117:6 42:11 43:11 44:20 suited (1) 146:22
sorry (38) 15:16 18:20 119:7 127:14 139:5 45:25 46:4,21 suits (1) 35:3
19:19 25:8 27:12 150:16 48:22,25 49:3,6 sum (1) 111:13
38:4,5 40:7 45:13 started (4) 23:21 60:19 61:23 63:25 summarise (2) 20:1
45:14,23 48:20,23 101:4 168:16,18 65:7 66:23 67:24 140:13
49:2 55:15 60:2,5 starting (15) 37:11 70:18 71:14 72:3 summarised (1) 139:3
63:19 65:6 66:10 52:16 66:3 95:13 72:10,18,21 73:11 summarises (1) 138:8
67:10,17 70:20 95:18 127:15 130:1 73:12,25 74:16,22 summarising (1)
72:12 73:19 90:18 130:1 135:6 139:6 74:25 75:8,15,17 169:18
90:20 95:25 106:18 143:23 144:21 75:24 76:6,12,14 summary (4) 14:15
114:8 117:6 136:17 150:25 160:21 76:23 77:7,10,17 20:4 21:13 139:19
157:21,25 158:1 161:24 79:14 80:1 81:10 superior (1) 151:10
161:23 167:6 174:2 starts (8) 16:1 20:9 81:20 83:21,23 supervision (1)
sort (9) 6:7 73:20 74:9 53:17 67:12 68:15 84:15 86:9,11,25 104:13
76:10 86:19 132:21 94:7 123:1 162:1 87:13,15 89:11 supervisory (1) 4:21
159:3 173:10 state (5) 29:2 70:23 90:1,5,8,13,24 91:1 supply (2) 51:7
174:11 73:22 102:14 150:2 91:9,18 92:1,11,17 158:15
sorted (1) 114:10 stated (9) 4:21 33:16 93:2,13,17,19,24 support (4) 9:3
sought (4) 130:19 34:14 53:24 79:5 95:25 96:7 102:9 100:20 151:17
155:11 164:13 86:5 109:25 110:13 119:20 120:1,7,11 163:12
170:6 154:12 124:14 126:2 136:8 supported (1) 129:10
sounds (2) 18:7 133:9 statement (51) 28:17 136:11,19 138:24 suppose (5) 7:6 42:4
source (4) 148:2 29:2,12 31:22 139:16,24 145:20 66:9 75:12 96:1
166:12,14,18 32:13 33:15 35:21 154:21 157:14,18 sure (51) 1:5,6 10:23
sources (1) 148:1 36:1,5,11 37:4,16 157:20,24,25 158:4 14:6 18:8 21:4
SPARK (3) 147:22,22 37:18,19,21,24 158:7,10,20,24 22:17 24:10 27:13
148:1 38:15,17 39:4,17 159:4,10 162:20 34:2 35:25 37:20
speak (6) 6:11 80:13 39:23 41:3 42:20 164:20 165:2,5,17 39:12 49:18 67:2
93:6 118:4 153:2 42:22 43:5,21 167:8,12 172:24 69:2,15,16 73:15
168:3 46:13,20 47:7,10 193:4 73:23,23 79:4
speaking (6) 36:15 47:13 48:21 53:10 strong (2) 13:7 101:9 83:21 86:10 90:10
58:11 102:7 106:15 57:21,25 58:2,4,8 struck (1) 94:2 90:16 97:16 101:1
115:10 117:12 58:13,17 85:4 structuring (1) 115:13 102:9 109:8 110:6

119:24 121:7 123:3 128:11 136:15 139:21 140:4,10 141:4 148:8,18 154:1 156:12,19 157:8 158:18 166:6 166:18,18 173:20

surely (5) 47:3 81:21 82:23 98:17 99:6

surprise (1) 14:15 swamp (2) 138:17,25 swindled (1) 13:23 switched (2) 1:9,16 system (2) 4:16,17

T

table (2) 105:7 107:22 tail (1) 141:20
take (29) 7:10 14:20 16:21,22 23:11 24:6 33:20 41:20 45:16 47:20 57:11 60:25 62:11 63:10 63:12 67:5 69:23 72:13 75:19 76:25 77:2 82:17 85:25 87:10 91:7 139:20 140:17 151:3 165:18

taken (14) 10:9,12 42:9 43:13 60:11 76:24 81:11 88:9 97:23 149:14 152:7 170:22 171:14 172:11

takes (2) 11:2 164:24 tale (3) 142:16 147:3

147:4

talk (2) 20:1,2 talked (1) 123:20 talking (18) 11:24

37:20 53:25 55:19 55:23 61:25 96:14 102:10 106:19,21 107:17 112:13 116:2 118:10,18,20 128:12 144:20

Tatiana (2) 150:20,23 team (2) 44:11 101:9 technical (2) 151:16

158:14 telephone (1) 151:15 telephoned (1) 28:4 tell (17) 1:20 6:6

61:13 89:5,16 93:14 95:2 102:2 103:20 115:10 116:10 118:25 119:3 137:7 148:20 149:18 169:4

telling (2) 47:9 169:21 temporarily (1) 8:4 temporary (1) 7:25 ten (3) 13:9 164:20

174:10 terminal (27) 55:13

102:24 103:13,17 110:23 116:16 117:9,21,25 129:2 140:3,17,19 141:15 141:24 142:3 148:3 148:13 156:5,8 159:21 162:9 164:9 165:13 167:20,23 168:2

Terminal’ (6) 144:23 146:13,25 151:13 152:1,15

terms (21) 8:2 9:24 17:7 20:1 26:6 35:3 53:22,25 54:3,22 54:25 57:7 71:21 71:23 74:10 86:4 87:2,3 153:18 157:11 171:13

terrible (5) 91:5 92:4 138:12 143:10 157:12

terribly (2) 25:8 120:18

terrified (1) 158:7 test (5) 158:13,16 164:13,18,24

testing (3) 74:20,23

164:21

text (12) 33:20,21 39:7 41:11 45:20 128:13 130:8 131:7 139:17 141:5 144:18 172:3

thank (21) 1:22,22 9:19 15:24 20:16 42:13 45:7 46:3 48:23 49:5 53:15 57:1 58:20 59:1 65:6 146:5 159:17 160:23 172:24 174:4,6

thanks (4) 13:13,14 14:1 51:14

theory (1) 3:6 thereof (1) 4:23 thereto (1) 153:23 thick (1) 140:5 thing (7) 62:1 85:16

123:19 125:1 148:11 173:10 174:11

things (24) 11:1 19:13 37:9 47:6,7 57:1 58:15 65:18 73:5 75:21 76:1,4 77:3 78:2 84:25 88:20 89:4 90:1 94:23 107:20 136:25 158:15 163:20 171:11

think (184) 3:4,17 5:20,24 9:2 10:2,14 10:25 11:9,19 14:11,13 21:9 28:22 29:24 32:4,8 32:18 33:1 35:2,7 35:23,24,25 36:3 37:1,3,13,23 38:23 40:2,22 42:23 49:11 53:18 54:12 55:17 56:19,20 57:22 58:6,8 62:11 62:18 63:20 64:21 65:16,22,24 66:3,5 66:18 67:8,8 68:19 69:9,11 70:14,15 71:1,2 72:5,10,12 72:24 73:12,14,19 74:17 75:3,9,10,20 76:1,9,15,19,21 77:25 83:13,18,22 86:12,23 87:6,15 87:16 89:10,13,24 90:4,6,24 91:3 92:19 94:11,22 95:4,5,7 96:25 98:10 99:16 100:15 102:4 106:8 107:3 107:5 112:8 116:2 118:2,14,22 119:20

120:14,24 121:2,4 121:6 122:5,12 126:8 129:24 132:15 133:10 137:17,25 138:7,11 138:14,16,23,24 139:2 143:8,12 144:8,15,17 145:25 147:15 148:14 150:10,15,16,18 152:7,8,19,23,23 152:25 153:3,3,9 154:22,25 157:12 157:14 158:8,12,16 158:20 159:1 161:4 161:20 162:12,18 163:13,18,21 164:6 165:10,11 166:5 167:25 168:9,13 169:6 172:1,5,18 172:25 174:12

thinking (6) 59:20 75:11 76:4,10 92:12 95:11

third (18) 2:13 5:11 6:2,9 7:17,22 8:12 9:9,12 11:22 14:12 37:7 42:21 44:8 46:9 134:12 161:22 161:23

third-party (1) 3:8 thoroughly (1) 67:8 thought (15) 8:6

11:25 12:3 50:10 73:13 76:3 86:24 89:3,18 95:11 124:18 136:13,14 145:6 163:14

thoughts (1) 137:18 thousands (1) 16:21 threat (1) 128:22 threatened (2) 50:24

52:20

threats (8) 49:23 50:2 50:6,10,25 51:9,18 135:3

three (19) 18:17 33:18 42:1,17 44:21 77:12,13,25 78:7,8,9,12,12 94:13,15 145:5 153:17 155:7 169:2

three-line (3) 167:4 167:12,15

three-page (1) 145:8 throw (1) 87:7 Thursday (2) 91:17,23 tidy (1) 73:5

time (140) 3:20 4:3,8 4:9,17 5:15,16 8:25 11:2 15:5,14 16:25 17:2,4,18 19:17 22:9,11,15 24:1 25:20 26:5,14 30:19 32:13 34:14 36:10 37:1,9,13 40:9 41:23 42:1,19 42:21 43:3 45:13 45:16 47:20 50:20 52:3,16 53:1 54:21 58:24 62:13 66:1 67:21 68:5 69:23 70:14 72:7,9,13 73:6,14 74:7 75:9 76:10 77:4 79:25 84:7,21 85:11 86:12 87:10 88:1 90:2,3 91:24 92:4,6 94:4,8 96:4 97:25

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

204

March 18, 2016 Day 29 — Redacted

98:11,22 100:3,7 101:23 102:1 104:3 105:18,21 108:8 109:22 110:4 112:14,19 113:4,7 113:11 114:9 115:15 117:18 119:12,18,19 120:2 123:10,12,13 124:1 124:21 125:4 127:1 127:4 131:8,15 133:2,22 136:10,13 136:14,16 140:19 140:25 141:3,7,16 141:19 142:2 144:8 148:2 149:17 150:2 152:23 153:12 156:3,16 157:6 160:7 164:18,18,19 172:2 173:9,13,25

times (7) 17:3 58:23 66:4 67:5 105:15 121:2 154:5

timetable (1) 88:17 timing (2) 123:7

125:25 tired (1) 173:24

title (2) 9:11 148:6 titled (4) 2:13 30:19

31:1 44:8

today (45) 1:15 13:21 15:17 41:25 51:15 58:18,24 72:20 73:6 77:24 78:5,8 84:11 85:4 86:15 87:16 93:22 95:20 95:24 97:24 98:2 98:16 101:21,22,25 102:21 118:2,25 124:22 131:9 133:10 135:25 136:8 137:4 142:12 142:19 143:6 149:19 156:11,18 157:25 164:19 172:19,22 173:1

told (15) 24:20 25:2 25:12 41:6 58:19 85:3,7 100:11 107:16 124:25 131:6 142:16 147:2 147:4 155:6

tomorrow (2) 87:22 173:10

top (15) 19:15 38:3 39:1,5,5 76:5 101:1 109:13 114:14 139:9 152:12 160:19,21 166:23 166:24

topics (1) 92:18 total (3) 17:17 18:8

140:10 totality (1) 60:23

totally (7) 26:9 68:17 130:8 163:1,9 166:9 169:20

touch (1) 20:3 toxic (1) 15:13 trace (1) 147:21 transaction (36) 6:14

7:1,24 11:5 13:14 14:2,9 50:14 100:22 111:6 115:14 130:9,10,14 130:21 137:10,15 141:8 144:11 147:12,14 148:4,6 148:16,21 151:14

151:17,18 155:12 155:13,20 156:17 161:1,19 170:7,8 transactions (16) 2:25

3:21,25 4:2 5:15,18 6:1 10:3 14:10 15:18 16:6,12,14 111:10 147:20 162:15

transcribers (2) 35:1 157:16

transcript (4) 44:1 90:11 92:20 172:19

transfer (3) 2:13 5:10 50:7

transferred (3) 7:23 9:9 11:21

transferring (2) 2:15 52:9

translated (2) 20:10 144:6

translation (3) 18:25 106:18 107:15 translators (2) 138:19

138:22 transmission (2)

151:17,19 transmitted (1) 152:6 travel (1) 170:19 treading (1) 21:6 treat (1) 171:23 treated (1) 126:13 trial (3) 73:20 91:21

170:20 triggered (2) 165:22

166:9 trip (1) 142:7

true (35) 20:6 21:16 23:2,2 29:12,13 31:22 32:2,20 37:4 37:6,10 45:8 48:18 51:17 82:22 84:16 100:24 108:18 113:1,3 119:9 130:22 131:23 132:1,13 133:3 135:4 136:17 137:11 142:18 153:16 155:13 168:4 171:18

trust (2) 23:14 111:10 trusted (1) 8:25 truth (3) 47:8,9

149:23 truthful (2) 28:10

169:17

try (17) 15:16 18:24 65:9 76:23 77:3 86:14 88:6 89:19 93:12 94:23 95:12 115:14 140:13 142:7 143:3 158:16 158:17

trying (19) 1:19,20 15:12 18:10 21:4 42:14,15 60:8,10 64:3 78:2 82:9 89:2 89:21 90:20 95:18 137:7 155:15 165:3

turn (3) 143:21 162:4 166:22

turned (1) 69:3 turning (1) 162:25 twice (1) 25:21

two (29) 11:1 22:7,20 22:22 35:7,9 38:3 41:25 44:4,5 47:9 47:13,19 89:3 93:20 94:12,24

107:22 121:6 127:13 133:13 142:6 146:18 156:21,22 166:23 166:24 167:3 169:3
type (1) 129:15

U

ultimately (3) 108:10 108:16 174:2
unable (1) 1:7 unclear (2) 1:8 84:25 understand (34) 1:18

5:12,13 16:22 17:25 29:18 30:16 30:25 31:25 32:24 33:21 42:15 55:2 60:11 64:21 67:2 68:1 74:25 79:8 81:25 84:21 111:9 130:2 139:25 140:11,14 141:17 148:10 154:16,19 155:25 157:23 159:22 166:7

understanding (8)

51:21 64:14 69:12 69:25 85:13,14 89:5 163:19

understandings (3)

79:11 86:1,1 understood (6) 7:7

33:1 69:22 73:7 75:8 141:13

undervalue (2) 113:2 135:12

unfortunate (1) 40:13 unfortunately (7) 5:13
89:7,7 119:18 129:21 130:1,4 unhappy (1) 109:18 unhelpful (1) 90:19

unlawful (1) 3:6 unlucky (1) 114:9 unnecessary (2)

138:18,25 unpredictable (1) 21:5 unprepared (1) 92:5 unreadable (1) 138:14 unreal (1) 51:12 unthinkable (1) 165:6 untrue (1) 115:22 unusual (11) 2:9 3:12

5:10 8:13,18 10:1,2 10:7,11 11:15 14:9

up-to-date (1) 67:6 uphold (5) 8:2,5 50:20

50:25 54:21 use (7) 14:12 18:6

42:9,10 61:18,18 115:14

usual (4) 14:12 23:8 24:4 92:22

usually (1) 30:11 utmost (1) 155:23

V

Valentina (1) 100:15 valid (1) 71:12 validity (2) 71:7 77:5 valuable (3) 9:5,16

50:7

valuation (2) 149:6,19 value (12) 9:16 12:2

12:16 119:11 128:19 146:15 149:9,12,15,17 161:10,10

valued (2) 51:14 161:5
valuer (1) 161:6 valuers (1) 149:9 variations (1) 71:12 various (11) 30:3

56:16 60:9 77:1 97:18 158:14 166:1 166:1 168:10 171:9 171:15

Vash (1) 6:18

Vasiliev (3) 144:16

151:21 152:2

VASILIEVITCH (2) 1:23

193:3

Vasily (2) 6:19,22

VD (3) 127:19 128:14 146:12

Vedomosti (2) 19:5,17 verbatim (3) 19:6,7,10 version (68) 5:14

15:25 28:16 35:23 38:2,5,7 39:2,4 40:22 44:14,16,19 53:17 55:22 63:15 63:17 66:2 67:12 68:15 72:24 73:3 83:24 85:17 104:6 114:5,6,13,14 120:13,15,17 121:11,11,13,14,18 121:24 122:12 123:1,2 127:10 129:5 133:12 134:11,13 135:6 138:12,17 139:4,17 143:9,10,16 144:24 144:25 145:13,16 145:19 150:15,18 152:9,13 157:12 159:12 160:4 163:9 165:6

versions (4) 28:23 119:23 150:17 165:8

versus (1) 46:17 vessels (1) 171:10 vested (1) 119:16 Viaton (3) 13:3,5,6 victim (1) 165:20 video (1) 94:19 videolink (8) 1:6 88:6

89:1,19 91:9 95:10 158:14 165:1

videolinking (2) 87:25 89:13

videolinks (2) 164:14 164:24

view (5) 21:7 48:6 88:17 95:18 110:18

Vinarsky (3) 140:1,8 141:6

virtually (3) 3:21

113:8 118:3 vis-a-vis (4) 6:23 8:6

50:25 171:4 vision (3) 140:5 163:14,19

visit (1) 52:6

Vladimirovna (2)

97:11 151:10

Vladislav (1) 26:11

Volodina (6) 57:14,18

57:20 58:15,17,19

Volodina’s (2) 58:4

85:4

VTB (6) 3:23,24 6:13 7:1,2,7

Vyborg (1) 103:3

W

wait (1) 174:9

want (37) 22:16 34:22 34:25 38:14 40:25 48:16 71:9,14 72:6 73:4,5 76:7,16,25 78:2 86:17,22 87:18 90:5,24 91:1 91:2,8,10 93:15,19 119:21 120:17 137:15 138:17,24 139:19,21 161:17 162:7 167:6 168:8

wanted (8) 18:21 19:12 61:4 90:2 93:20 101:16 113:5 137:9

wanting (1) 95:16 wants (3) 38:8 127:20

138:20 warn (1) 83:23

warned (3) 71:25 82:24 121:9 warrant (1) 170:15 wasn’t (22) 7:7 11:6 17:2 24:4 31:22

79:18 89:21 98:23 99:1 100:4 103:21 104:12 108:14,17 109:11 115:1 124:1 125:2 134:23 135:3 154:23,24

waste (5) 70:14 72:6,9 96:4 144:8

watching (1) 164:15 way (50) 1:8 7:24

10:12 16:17 29:2 51:9,13 52:21 61:22 65:9 67:17 69:12 71:15 81:19 86:3,10 88:20,22 90:19 93:7 95:13 99:13 104:16 106:25 109:17,18 110:20 111:9,12 112:3 116:15,17 129:8 133:7 134:25 136:14 144:18 147:17 149:20 150:11 153:11 155:18 162:13,16 163:14,19,20 168:14 172:9,20

we’ve (2) 77:24 87:25 weak (2) 101:4,12 week (7) 20:19 21:12

83:1 88:2,14 89:18 95:2

welcome (1) 138:21 went (3) 14:24 98:4

125:8 weren’t (2) 40:13

104:3

Western (24) 55:13 102:24 103:13 110:23 116:16 117:9,25 129:2 140:17,19 141:15 141:24 142:3 148:3 148:13 156:5,8 159:21 162:9 164:9 165:13 167:20,23 168:2

whatsoever (1)

111:11

willing (2) 109:23

119:19

winner (1) 114:22

wish (1) 174:9 wished (2) 52:13,23 withdrew (1) 174:7 witness (57) 32:13

33:15 35:17,21 36:1 37:15,18,21 38:15 39:23 43:5 46:20 47:13 48:21 53:4,5,10 57:21,25 58:2,4,8,13,17 69:15 71:16 73:16 74:2,9,20 76:16 86:15 87:21 88:12 89:17,17,20 90:14 92:16 94:24 95:13 120:24 122:7,9 124:19 125:17,20 126:3,6 138:19 139:21 158:2 159:2 159:12 165:9 171:16 174:7

witness’s (1) 142:9 witnesses (4) 88:4 89:21 92:3 163:1 wittingly (1) 142:24

woes (1) 101:3 wonder (12) 5:8 34:21

37:3 40:23 48:25 61:25 65:8 70:21 86:11 105:5 106:18 108:20

wondering (3) 63:5 89:24 160:9

word (8) 57:6 61:17 61:17,18 62:5 130:2 139:7 162:1

worded (1) 142:20 words (5) 127:15 139:6,9 143:23

151:1

work (10) 1:20 20:22 21:10 23:14 79:22 93:23 101:16 151:2 151:4,8

worked (10) 8:25 51:2 69:14 70:4,5 84:3 104:16 112:10 167:11 169:16

working (13) 1:21 20:3,17 21:25 22:14 23:17 45:1 46:8,10 47:25 69:14 90:12 104:12

world (1) 171:3 worry (2) 38:22 49:24 worth (3) 23:20 91:15

161:9 worthless (2) 149:5

161:8

wouldn’t (12) 17:11 34:22 39:12 40:13 62:7 74:8 99:8 103:21 104:15 108:9,15 157:8

write (3) 19:8 37:14 42:1

writes (1) 2:14 writing (4) 8:12 52:17

53:5 116:14 written (9) 8:18,21

9:5,6 19:9 52:22 99:3,8 115:17
wrong (5) 32:10 59:9 70:9 148:10 163:25

wrongful (1) 2:18 wrote (4) 30:1 52:18

115:2,12

X

Y

year (12) 20:20 23:22 24:24 36:16 51:25 52:11,13,24 56:23 80:16 96:21,22

years (4) 9:1 13:4 20:17 21:11

yesterday (6) 6:9 7:8 54:12 76:17 88:24 90:17

Z

Z (2) 116:25 117:1

Zapadny (6) 144:23 146:13,25 151:13 152:1,15

zoomed (2) 67:18 113:21

0

1

1 (10) 19:3 63:16 67:15 68:16,18 80:15 105:4 143:12 193:3,4

1.1 (2) 80:22,22 1.1.1 (4) 59:21 60:19

60:21,22 1.30 (4) 86:25 87:13

87:14 92:9 1.40 (6) 86:13 92:11

92:14,22,23 93:1 10 (4) 30:18 51:5

166:14 173:25

10-minute (3) 35:9 72:5 119:21

10,000 (1) 15:20

10.00 (1) 94:3

10.31 (1) 35:13

10.42 (1) 35:15

100 (3) 23:21 146:13 151:25

11 (5) 20:17 21:11 165:24 166:2,13

11.00 (1) 94:8 117(a) (1) 73:2

12 (5) 18:7,11,13 94:16 166:14

12,000 (2) 146:16 149:6

12.05 (1) 72:14

12.15 (1) 72:16

12.52 (1) 92:24

12.93 (1) 115:24

13 (2) 19:21 39:14

130 (2) 80:24 81:8

14.00 (1) 94:7

15 (1) 29:7

159 (1) 139:11

16 (2) 37:12 38:24

174 (2) 193:5,6

18 (1) 1:1 180(a) (1) 73:3

19 (2) 40:23 41:4

2

2 (6) 16:4 28:21 55:8 68:16,18 121:14
2.00 (1) 94:7

2.42 (1) 120:8

2.50 (2) 120:3,5

2.53 (1) 120:10

2.55 (2) 120:1,3

20 (6) 30:13 41:5 51:5

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

205
March 18, 2016 Day 29 — Redacted

81:5,18 82:7 200 (4) 17:20,20 18:6

23:22

2005 (1) 105:23

2006 (10) 21:23 23:1 23:6,8 24:6,13 25:12 27:16 105:23 151:4

2007 (3) 27:21,25 115:23

2008 (47) 3:20 14:23 17:4,12 21:24 23:8 23:13,22 24:6,9 25:1,5 30:21 31:6,9 33:6,9 51:25 66:15 67:6,11,22 68:7 72:23 73:2 78:22 80:17 81:5 82:13 83:3,7 98:9,19 99:1 117:2 119:7 123:9 127:16,18,24 128:14 143:24 144:1 151:11,23 155:15 160:22

2008/2009 (1) 40:17

2009 (51) 14:23 17:5 21:24 27:17 52:17 53:8,13 56:12 59:11,12,25 61:16 62:8,25 64:3,8,15 66:7,8,16 67:14 68:22 70:8,12 77:15 78:10,19,23 80:18,19,25 81:5,9 81:17,18,19 82:6,7 82:7,8 96:16,21 98:21,23 105:18 110:12,25 113:24 113:25 129:17 156:5

2011 (10) 36:2,6,11 36:16 39:6,9,17 40:3,5,16

2012 (13) 19:5,16,20 36:1,6,11,16,22,24 39:8,17 40:3,14

2013 (5) 28:17,23 29:7 30:13 32:17

2015 (1) 32:17

2016 (4) 1:1 19:19,21 192:11

21 (9) 30:17 41:13 57:22 81:5,17 82:7 85:7 86:2 192:11

22 (1) 44:10

24 (5) 44:15,18,20,21 62:17

25 (34) 38:4 43:2,12 44:3 46:15,17,19 46:21,24 47:6 49:7 55:2,25 56:2,16,19 56:20 57:2 62:5,20 68:7 69:9,18 72:23 73:9,14 78:22 79:19 81:24 98:3,9 117:15 123:9 154:9

25th (4) 43:6 73:17,22 75:4

26 (4) 19:16,20 38:3 96:16

27 (13) 46:2 59:23 60:4 66:8,16 67:11 67:14 68:22 77:17 77:24 78:10 113:24 113:25

27/28 (1) 77:21 27th (1) 77:15

28 (9) 2:13 62:25 63:19 65:15 66:15

77:17 80:19 81:24 82:8

28th (1) 77:15

29 (9) 3:4 36:1,2 39:6 39:8,9,14 56:13 66:15

3

3 (4) 19:19 40:3 67:16 139:9
3.2 (3) 66:13,18,24

3.8 (1) 63:17

30 (17) 3:5 20:19 21:12 51:5 55:3,4 56:4,6,13 57:23,24 60:3 67:10 73:2,13 73:25 75:2

31 (8) 10:5 55:5 60:4 80:17,25 81:9,19 82:6

35,000 (2) 20:9,13

4

4 (6) 18:13 23:20 28:17,23 80:15 81:4

4.17 (1) 159:7

4.26 (1) 159:9

4.30 (2) 158:17,22

4.40 (2) 157:21 164:16

4.6 (1) 68:9

46.2 (1) 35:24

46.3 (1) 122:13

48 (3) 37:2,8,25

5

5 (3) 28:21 64:3,15

5.00 (1) 172:25

5.26 (1) 192:9

50 (5) 35:8 115:25 122:25 125:21,22

56 (3) 51:14 140:2,10

6

6 (9) 17:16,20 18:1,2 18:6 36:16,24 37:12 67:17

64A (1) 29:9

67 (1) 72:20

7
7 (1) 44:20

8
8 (1) 45:5
80 (2) 12:16,22

9

9,900 (1) 146:22

9.00 (2) 94:15 95:18

9.15 (2) 1:2 192:10

9.30 (1) 95:18

99 (3) 146:21,25 152:16

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