Day 33

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

Day 33

April 5, 2016

Opus 2 International — Official Court Reporters

Phone: +44 (0)20 3008 5900

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

April 5, 2016 Day 33

1 Tuesday, 5 April 2016

2 (10.00 am)

3 (Proceedings delayed)

4 (10.05 am)

5 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Good morning.

6 MS KRISTINA BORISOVNA MIRONOVA (Continued)

7 Cross-examination by MR STROILOV (Continued)

8 (All questions and answers interpreted except where

9 otherwise indicated)

10 MR STROILOV: Good morning, Ms Mironova. I understand that

11 you worked for Investrbank from the end of November 2008

12 until some point in 2009; is that correct?

13 A. Yes. Almost correct. From the end of October 2008 to

14 the end of March 2009.

15 Q. And so it was some five months, wasn’t it? Within the

16 management of Investrbank, were you given any special

17 responsibility for relations with Oslo Marine Group?

18 A. Could you please be a bit more specific when you say

19 «responsibility» or anything tasked with — from the

20 management of OMG.

21 Q. What I mean is there must have been some allocation of

22 responsibilities between you and Mr Platonov and other

23 colleagues within Investrbank branch, wasn’t there?

24 A. Quite right. The distribution of responsibility was the

25 same as in any other branch of the Bank, and Mr Platonov

1 working on OMG case quite closely in that period. That

2 is what I mean; is that a correct understanding? That

3 you had to look at OMG with some attention in that

4 period of time.

5 A. Quite right, my Lord. I had to work with all the

6 clients which were borrowers of the branch of

7 Investrbank, and naturally, with the OMG group

8 borrowers, which was one of the main, large clients of

9 the affiliate office of Investrbank. I had to work

10 exclusively with the loan or credit issues of this

11 particular group of companies. It was not a special

12 distribution; it was the standard distribution of

13 responsibility between the director and its deputy on

14 credit or loan issues.

15 Q. I see. Then towards the end of March, the Bank’s head

16 office created something called Client Monitoring

17 Directorate; is that right?

18 A. If my memory serves me right, my Lord, at the start

19 of April 2009, a special subdivision in the head office

20 of the Bank was created to work with distressed debt of

21 the various clients of the Bank of St Petersburg.

22 Q. And you were appointed, I think, the director of that

23 directorate; is that a wrong name for your position?

24 You were put in charge of that new directorate, were you

25 not?

1

1 as the director was responsible for the whole business

2 of the branch, for the whole credit portfolio, for

3 attracting new clients, for working with the current

4 clients of the branch. I, being his deputy in credit

5 work, had to deal exclusively with the credit risks,

6 issuing loans for the new clients, and also working with

7 the current credit portfolio. And then scaling down

8 hierarchy-wise, Mrs Borisova was head of the credit desk

9 and she was in charge of her own functions, which were

10 slightly smaller in scope.

11 Q. What I mean is obviously the major clients — I imagine

12 they would be distributed, allocated, to specific

13 managers, so that there would be a particular manager at

14 Investrbank specifically responsible for relations with

15 OMG; does that make sense? Is that correct?

16 A. In the credit desk, in the credit department, there were

17 two lead specialist experts, Yashkina and Blinova, who

18 in fact between the two of them were dealing with the

19 whole credit portfolio of the OMG group. Between them

20 the tasks were distributed as per borrowers of

21 Oslo Marine Group. If I correctly understood your

22 question, that would be my answer, but they were purely

23 and exclusively dealing with the issues of loans, credit

24 issues.

25 Q. What I really mean is that you personally, you were

3

1 A. Absolutely correct. I was appointed the director of

2 the Directorate of Client Monitoring.

3 Q. And in that role — well, just to try and understand the

4 hierarchy, then one of the deputy chairs of the Bank,

5 namely Mrs Malysheva, was supervising the work of

6 that directorate, so you worked under the supervision of

7 Mrs Malysheva in Client Monitoring Directorate; is that

8 the correct understanding of the hierarchy?

9 A. No, my Lord. In 2009 I was reporting to the deputy

10 chair of the board by the name of Skatin.

11 Q. So at what point in time did Mrs Malysheva become

12 responsible for supervision of Client Monitoring

13 Directorate.

14 A. It’s hard for me to recall it now, but it might have

15 been somewhere in between 2010 and 2011, some time

16 during that period. Unfortunately I can’t recall

17 exactly at the moment.

18 Q. And so as the head of Client Monitoring Directorate,

19 I understand you continued to work rather closely on the

20 OMG debts; is that right?

21 A. My Lord, as the result of change in the management, my

22 duties did not undergo any changes in any way.

23 Q. Sorry, I am really going from subject to subject. I am

24 going back to the point in time when you were appointed

25 the head of Client Monitoring Directorate in the end

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

April 5, 2016 Day 33

1 of March 2009. So from that point on, you continued to

2 work on Oslo Marine Group indebtedness; is that the

3 correct understanding? Despite your being moved from

4 Investrbank to the head office, it still remained your

5 responsibility to deal with the problem debts of

6 Oslo Marine Group; is that correct?

7 A. Yes, my Lord. As part of the job, I had to continue

8 working with the debt of this particular group and also

9 with the other problem debtors of the Bank.

10 Q. And as I understand it, at that point in time

11 Oslo Marine Group was one of the largest, if not the

12 largest, problem borrower of the Bank; is that a correct

13 understanding?

14 A. It was one of the distressed, one of the large problem

15 debtors of the Bank.

16 Q. And the court has been told earlier by several of

17 the other witnesses for the Bank that there was also

18 some distribution of responsibility between deputy

19 chairmen of the management board in relation to

20 particular problem borrowers, so that OMG would be

21 allocated to Mrs Malysheva and somebody else would be

22 allocated to Mr Guz, and so on; is that consistent with

23 your understanding?

24 A. I do apologise, my Lord, I can’t answer this question

25 because I didn’t quite understand what it consisted of.

1 Q. Well, I think that’s — so, as far as you were

2 concerned, working in Client Monitoring Directorate, you

3 were not aware of Mrs Malysheva having any special

4 responsibility for Oslo Marine Group; is that your

5 evidence?

6 A. Quite right, your Honour. I confirm that I have never

7 heard that Mrs Malysheva was given any responsibility

8 for work with this particular borrower.

9 Q. So to your knowledge, which of the top managers of

10 the bank, of deputy chairmen, or whatever top managers

11 of the Bank, was in that period in 2009 responsible for

12 Oslo Marine Group relations?

13 A. Your Honour, unfortunately I don’t recall it. Probably

14 we can look in the documents disclosed by the Bank, but

15 I don’t have any recollection. I was reporting to

16 Mr Skatin and I was working with several problem

17 distressed borrowers of the Bank who at the time were in

18 the Bank.

19 Q. Just trying to understand, really, the system. Wasn’t

20 your responsibility as the head of Client Monitoring

21 Directorate to work, really, with all major problem

22 borrowers of the Bank? Wasn’t that your remit?

23 A. Your Honour, my remit, my duty was working with all the

24 distressed or problem borrowers of the Bank irrespective

25 of how large or small they were. At the time there were

5 7

1 Q. Well, the court has been told by Mr Guz and Mr Savelyev,

2 and I think a number of other witnesses, that at that

3 point in time, in early 2009, the Bank had quite

4 a number of problem borrowers; is that correct?

5 A. Your Honour, I don’t have recollection to that effect

6 that we had a number of problem borrowers. Yes, we did

7 have problem borrowers.

8 Q. And the court has been told earlier that those problem

9 borrowers would be that the management board would

10 allocate different problem borrowers to different deputy

11 chairmen of the board, so that Mrs Malysheva, for

12 instance, would be supervising all work in relation to

13 Oslo Marine Group, and some other deputy chairman would

14 be responsible for some other problem borrower; is that

15 consistent with your understanding?

16 A. Your Honour, I’m sorry, I would like to clarify. Deputy

17 chair of the board; do you mean deputy chair of

18 the board or deputy chair of the management board?

19 Q. Yes, you are quite right. I am talking about the

20 management board. Pravlenie, yes.

21 A. Your Honour, I do recall that several large clients of

22 the Bank which were not problem borrowers were

23 distributed between the various top managers of

24 the Bank of St Petersburg. I do not recall that

25 Oslo Marine Group were allocated to Mrs Malysheva.

1 not a lot of problem borrowers, an insignificant number

2 of problem borrowers in the Bank of St Petersburg, if we

3 were to talk about the period of April 2009.

4 Q. Are you sure that’s right? Obviously 2009 is the year

5 when the global crisis hit Russia hardest, and one would

6 expect that there were quite a few problem borrowers in

7 that period. Are you sure that your evidence on that

8 point is quite correct?

9 A. Your Honour, I am saying now exactly what corresponds to

10 my recollections. As we discussed it yesterday, the

11 world financial crisis or credit crunch reached Russia

12 at the end of 2008 and, as I was saying it yesterday,

13 the first companies who fell prey to the credit crunch

14 and who announced default were the companies who had

15 extreme burden of borrowing, who very often did not have

16 current profit or income to service the loans that they

17 obtained and who constantly needed additional financing

18 from commercial banks; and commercial banks, at the end

19 of 2008, indeed severely restricted issuing new credits.

20 Therefore, towards April of 2009, the

21 Bank of St Petersburg did not have a significant amount

22 of problem or distressed clients. Indeed, the

23 macroeconomics was growing worse during the course of

24 2009 and more problems arose towards the end of 2009,

25 probably towards the beginning of 2010. That is how my

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

April 5, 2016 Day 33

1 recollections stand at the moment.

2 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Why was the Client Monitoring

3 Directorate set up in April 2009? Why was it considered

4 necessary to introduce that into the structure whereas

5 previously it had not been?

6 A. Your Honour, I can only suppose because it was the

7 decision of the top management of the Bank, which I was

8 not privy to. But as far as I understood the words of

9 Mr Skatin, who invited me to assume this position, the

10 decision was taken to set up such a special division

11 expecting the worsening of the macroeconomics and the

12 appearance of a significant number of clients which will

13 have to be professionally dealt with by professionals,

14 and these professionals would not be dealing with

15 getting new, good clients to the Bank. Those

16 professionals would have to know only how to work with

17 enforcing things. So that is why the subdivision was

18 set up.

19 MR STROILOV: Let me clarify one more thing. I think, from

20 memory, but I think you had three deputies as the head

21 of Client Monitoring Directorate, there were three

22 deputies; is that right? Just understanding the

23 structure.

24 A. Your Honour, can we just clarify which period of time we

25 are talking about?

1 Monitoring Directorate?

2 A. The director of the Directorate of Client Monitoring was

3 Mrs Yashkina. She was appointed, my deputy.

4 Q. So to your knowledge Mr Kolpachkov remained the deputy

5 to Mrs Yashkina after you moved on; is that correct?

6 A. Yes, that is correct.

7 Q. And are you aware what has happened to him now? Does he

8 still work for the Bank?

9 A. No, your Honour. Currently he is not employed by the

10 Bank. He is not working in the Bank.

11 Q. So when did he leave the Bank?

12 A. Your Honour, unfortunately I can’t recall the date.

13 Q. Approximately?

14 A. I can only suppose it was either in 2014 or 2015. I do

15 apologise, my Lord, I don’t remember.

16 Q. Thank you.

17 Now was there, again, any allocation of problem

18 borrowers as between your deputies within the Client

19 Monitoring Directorate?

20 A. As such, when I started having a few deputies and it was

21 quite later — it was not even 2009 or 2010, it was

22 later — when I started having several deputies there

23 was the distribution of functional responsibilities but

24 there was never distribution of problem borrowers

25 between my deputies.

9

1 Q. If the answer is different, I would like

2 a clarification. What I was referring to was starting

3 from April 2009 and then until the position changed, if

4 it changed at any point.

5 A. From the period of my appointment to the position of the

6 director and until the change in my position, I had

7 various numbers of deputies from one to three.

8 Q. All right. Let me ask about some of them. Now, one of

9 your deputies was a gentleman called Evgeny Kolpachkov,

10 wasn’t he?

11 A. That is correct, yes.

12 Q. And so from your recollection, from what — in what

13 period of time was he your deputy? From when to when?

14 A. As I remember, he was invited to assume this position at

15 some point in 2009, I don’t recall a particular month,

16 and until the time whilst I continued to remain the

17 director of that directorate, he continued to serve as

18 my deputy.

19 Q. Now, since you mentioned it, incidentally, remind me, it

20 must be somewhere in the papers, when did you stop being

21 the head of the Client Monitoring Directorate? When did

22 you move on to a different position?

23 A. Your Honour, I was appointed deputy chair of the board

24 in the autumn of 2013.

25 Q. And so who was your successor as the head of Client

11

1 Q. And from what you explained to my Lord this morning, it

2 seems that since there were not that many problem

3 borrowers initially in 2009, and OMG was one of

4 the largest borrowers of the Bank, it seems that OMG

5 would have been pretty much the focus of the attention

6 of Client Monitoring Directorate in 2009; is that

7 a correct understanding?

8 A. At the very start of the existence of the Client

9 Monitoring Directorate, indeed, main attention was being

10 paid to the OMG group because it was a large, distressed

11 borrower of the Bank. Later on as time passed, the

12 number of smaller, less problematic borrowers increased,

13 and the attention of mine, and that of my colleagues,

14 was diverted to the larger number of borrowers.

15 Q. Now, I think I would expect that the main focus of your

16 work on OMG case, so to speak, in Client Monitoring

17 Directorate, was the realisation of pledges; would you

18 agree with that description?

19 A. Your Honour, are we talking about a specific period of

20 time, or my whole period of serving in the directorate?

21 Q. Well, if there was a difference between different

22 periods of time, please explain it. I was generally

23 referring, yes, to your career, so to speak, within —

24 your work within the Client Monitoring Directorate

25 throughout, from 2009 to …

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

April 5, 2016 Day 33

1 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: With reference to OMG?

2 MR STROILOV: Yes, with reference to OMG. I am grateful,

3 my Lord, yes.

4 A. My Lord, as I’ve already said, at the outset, when

5 I started working in this directorate, most of the time

6 was, indeed, devoted to Oslo Marine and developing our

7 relationship with them. I suppose that lasted

8 throughout 2009. Further on, a number of borrowers we

9 worked with in our directorate grew, so I can’t say that

10 Oslo Marine was my only and principal task in

11 the position that I held.

12 Q. I wonder if anything was lost in translation. Your work

13 in the Client Monitoring Directorate in relation to

14 Oslo Marine Group debts, did that work focus on

15 realisation of pledges? Would that be a correct

16 statement?

17 A. One of the types of work our directorate did, and what

18 I myself did with any distressed client, including OMG,

19 was to call in the pledges.

20 Q. So presumably you would have some reasonable knowledge

21 of the assets which were pledged by Oslo Marine Group,

22 say Western Terminal, Onega Terminal, you would be

23 familiar with these properties, wouldn’t you?

24 A. May I try to understand: What do you mean I was

25 familiar with these properties? In order for me to

1 loans, approximately RUB 300 million each, that’s

2 $10 million, secured by three container ships.

3 Further on, they made another loan application,

4 applying for a RUB 1 billion loan, that’s probably

5 something like $30 million at that time, and for this

6 large loan they proposed the Western Terminal as

7 a collateral to secure the loan. Property and assets of

8 Western Terminal, if I remember well, this loan was

9 issued in the spring of 2008. The decision was taken

10 and the loan agreement was signed, but clearly, to

11 recall the details, I would have to look at the

12 documents.

13 Q. What I am suggesting to you, and I expect you would know

14 that background, is that at that time, the valuation of

15 Western Terminal, on which you relied, was significantly

16 higher than the fourth Vyborg Shipping loan. The ratio

17 was — the loan was — the amount of the loan was some

18 37 or 38 per cent of the value of the pledge, that was

19 the Bank’s understanding at the time the loan was given;

20 is that right, to your knowledge?

21 A. My Lord, I beg your pardon, I didn’t quite understand

22 the question. Could I ask for the question to be

23 reformulated and cut slightly shorter so I could give

24 an exact answer, yes or no?

25 Q. What I am suggesting to you is at the time the loan was

13 15

1 answer this question properly, I would like to

2 understand what you mean by «familiar».

3 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: What did you know about them? What

4 was your appreciation of them?

5 A. Thank you.

6 I was familiar with their technical specifications

7 because I received this information even when I worked

8 in the branch of Investrbank, when I was familiarising

9 myself with the clients, among them with OMG.

10 So I was familiar with technical specifications and

11 features of these facilities.

12 MR STROILOV: Yes. So, again, I appreciate you were not

13 there in Investrbank when that happened, but presumably

14 you were aware of the fact that Western Terminal was

15 pledged to secure a loan to Vyborg Shipping, ad hoc.

16 The original plan was that the loans to Vyborg Shipping

17 would be secured by vessels, whereas then the company

18 ran into difficulties and in the middle of 2008 it

19 offered an alternative pledge, namely Western Terminal.

20 You were familiar with this history of the matter, were

21 you not?

22 A. My Lord, as I recall now, the situation developed as

23 follows: I studied it in autumn 2008 just as I came to

24 work in the branch and was getting to know the clients.

25 In the beginning, Vyborg Shipping Company obtained three

1 issued, both the Bank and OMG proceeded on the

2 assumption that the pledge was much more valuable than

3 the amount of the loan; that the pledge actually covered

4 almost three loans of this kind. Were you aware of that

5 peculiarity?

6 A. Unfortunately at that time the decision was taken to

7 grant the loan, and when it was decided what kind of

8 assets to accept as a pledge, I wasn’t working in

9 Investrbank, and therefore I am not capable of making

10 a judgment on the criteria on which this decision was

11 based.

12 Q. And there are, or there were, two berths at

13 Western Terminal; isn’t that correct? The berths known

14 respectively as SV-15 and SV-16; is that correct?

15 A. According to the documents, yes, two berths were listed.

16 I confirm this recollection.

17 Q. Have you ever been to Western Terminal?

18 A. Yes. I have visited it. In fact, I visited it

19 somewhere in the beginning of 2009.

20 Q. Are you suggesting that one of the two berths was

21 missing? Why do you say «according to the documents

22 there were two berths»? Why do you qualify this by

23 that?

24 A. No, no, I don’t. I don’t say that there was one berth

25 missing, not at all.

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

April 5, 2016 Day 33

1 Q. And so only one berth, SV-15, was pledged to the Bank,

2 whereas the other, SV-16, was unencumbered; is that

3 correct?

4 A. Yes, as far as I remember.

5 Q. And also I think there was some real estate, some

6 buildings and some railway tracks at Western Terminal,

7 which also were not formally pledged to the Bank along

8 with the land; is that right?

9 A. My Lord, in order to have absolute clarity, it would be

10 better if we looked at the collateral agreement so as

11 not to rely entirely on our memory. Or am I expected to

12 simply reply according to my memory of the documents?

13 Q. Not really. From your recollections of your work in

14 Investrbank and in the Client Monitoring Directorate, is

15 it the case that only some but not all of the real

16 estate of Western Terminal was pledged to the Bank?

17 Would you agree with that statement?

18 A. Yes, I agree with this statement.

19 Q. And if we could look at {D98/1256/1}, and then

20 {D98/1256/2} for the Russian version. So that seems to

21 be an e-mail from you, Ms Mironova, to Mr Skatin, copied

22 to Mr Belykh, 27 November 2008, where you describe

23 what — we will come to the attachment in a second where

24 there is the information on Western Terminal, but here

25 you explain what the Bank has as a pledge, and then

1 Mr Belykh.

2 Q. Well, not that it is significant, but just so that you

3 don’t proceed on the false premise. Oh yes, I think you

4 are right, it is mistranslated. In the Russian version

5 it is only addressed to Mr Belykh, and for some reason

6 the English translation indicates that it is addressed

7 to Mr Skatin and copied to Mr Belykh. So you are right,

8 Ms Mironova. I don’t know how this mistake could have

9 happened and how this line could have come out of

10 nowhere, not that I am offering any explanation of that.

11 Now, Ms Mironova, I think what I am interested in is

12 really the substance of what you are saying. Now, there

13 is in the end of this e-mail a reference — well, if you

14 could actually read the last line of this e-mail,

15 I think it is not quite accurately translated, so if you

16 could read the last line in Russian, the last line of

17 your substantive text.

18 A. «The splitting of land plots is underway and the Bank

19 had agreed to this work.»

20 Q. Thank you. Ms Mironova, do I understand correctly, and

21 is that consistent with your knowledge, that the

22 splitting refers to the cadastral registration of

23 the terminal as two or more land plots as opposed to one

24 plot; is that what is meant by «splitting» here, or it

25 is translated as «surveying», which is not correct.

17 19

1 there are some comments from you.

2 If we could scroll down to the attachment, that’s

3 at … well, if you could quickly look at pages 3 and 4

4 respectively {D98/1256/3}, {D98/1256/4} just so it is

5 clear what the attachments are. That’s not very easy to

6 see, but that seems to be a list of loans and securities

7 of Oslo Marine Group. If you could further scroll down

8 to pages {D98/1256/5} and {D98/1256/6} respectively,

9 that seems to be the cover letter from Lair valuation

10 company, giving a summary of their valuation of

11 Western Terminal real estate.

12 As you can see in the table at the bottom of

13 the page, there are quite a number of assets listed

14 there. Can you see that?

15 A. Yes, I can see it.

16 Q. And now if we could go back to pages {D98/1256/1}, and

17 {D98/1256/2} respectively, you seem to indicate to

18 Mr Skatin that what you actually have as the pledge is

19 the land plot and the berth SV-15, but a number of other

20 properties are de jure pledged to the Bank because they

21 are located on that land plot. Is that a correct

22 reading of your e-mail?

23 A. My Lord, I wanted to correct something. It was

24 translated to me that the letter was addressed to

25 Mr Skatin, but we can see that it was addressed to

1 A. I agree with the fact that the word «mezhevanie» in

2 Russian is a synonym of the word «razdelenie» in

3 Russian, both translated properly as «splitting»,

4 «dividing».

5 Q. Did you understand or did you mean when you wrote this

6 e-mail that what is happening is splitting for the

7 purposes of cadastral registration, or re-registration

8 of the land in the land cadastre in Russia?

9 A. Probably.

10 Q. And the reason was that originally at the time the

11 terminal was pledged, it was registered in the cadastre

12 as a single land plot; isn’t that so?

13 A. My Lord, it’s not clear to me, because we have just

14 looked at the letter from Lair Consulting that lists

15 a number of land plot in the territory of

16 Western Terminal.

17 Q. Yes, so if we —

18 A. I may be mistaken.

19 Q. So if we could scroll back to {D98/1256/5}, and

20 {D98/1256/6} so my Lord sees what we are talking about.

21 Yes, you are right in that sense.

22 So I think only one land plot was pledged to

23 the Bank, as you indicate in the e-mail, and that’s the

24 one with cadastral number ending 23, so the one which

25 you see as the third line from the bottom with the

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

April 5, 2016 Day 33

1 market value of something like RUB 2.7 billion.

2 Is what you meant in your e-mail talking about the

3 splitting of it — well, let me suggest to you what this

4 refers to, and then you can tell my Lord whether you

5 disagree. It was, at that time, the Bank and OMG

6 recognised that a pledge of this land plot was excessive

7 as security for a 1.2 billion loan. So it was intended

8 that having re-registered this land plot as several land

9 plots in the cadastre, some parts of it could then be

10 released from the mortgage so the Bank only had

11 an adequate pledge? Wasn’t that the intention at the

12 time?

13 A. My Lord, I knew nothing about this. Employees of

14 Investrbank did not impart this information to me.

15 Q. To your recollection, what was the purpose of that

16 splitting of land plots you refer to in this e-mail?

17 A. My Lord, I really do not know the answer to this

18 question. It was decided, or it had been decided before

19 I came to work in Investrbank. At the moment I simply

20 have no recollection on the subject. I’m sure if we

21 find appropriate documents we will establish the reason.

22 Q. And if we could, while we are looking at this table, was

23 it your understanding that some of the assets you see

24 here, such as berth SV-16M or railway tracks, they were

25 not pledged to the Bank, so there was this situation

1 procedure, normally there would be a pack of documents

2 which you present to the big credit committee to justify

3 your proposal; is that how it worked? There would be

4 a pack of documents which you distribute between members

5 prior to your presenting the proposal?

6 A. Yes, that’s correct.

7 Q. But unfortunately in relation to this decision and

8 a number of other decisions from that year, that pack of

9 documents was kept for a year, but then destroyed some

10 time in 2010; is that your understanding?

11 A. My Lord, I have absolutely no recollection on this

12 matter. I cannot say either yes or no.

13 Q. Right. So to an extent we will have to rely on your

14 recollections. I am just explaining that the documents,

15 some of the documents are not there. Do you recall that

16 proposal or that meeting of the big credit committee?

17 Do you recall what these minutes relate to?

18 A. My Lord, I have no recollection of this situation.

19 I saw the document when preparing to giving evidence in

20 this hearing, and I tried to remember as much as

21 I could, I tried to remember why it was done and in

22 relation to what. While preparing myself, I remembered

23 that by that time there was a threat from the Marine

24 Bank, which had given a loan to Western Terminal, and

25 which had already been — there was already a delay in

21 23

1 where not quite the entire terminal was pledged; most of

2 it was pledged, but not all of it. Do you recall the

3 situation being that?

4 A. Yes, I do.

5 Q. Thank you.

6 Now, can you please be shown {D134/2202.1/0.1} on

7 the English screen, and {D134/2202.1/1} on the other

8 screen will be the beginning of the Russian version.

9 Yes.

10 So as you can see that seems to be an extract of —

11 well, the minutes, partly redacted minutes of

12 the meeting of the large credit committee, or the big

13 credit committee, on 23 November 2009. If we could

14 scroll down one page on each screen, {D134/2202.1/0.3},

15 {D134/2202.1/3} you can see the decision providing the

16 Bank’s consent to Western Terminal LLC for a state

17 registration of a lease agreement. You can see the

18 text. It is a lease agreement with a company called

19 Gunard Enterprises Limited.

20 Now, I think there is a reference to you as the

21 presenter. So that means that, essentially, the big

22 credit committee considered your proposal; is that

23 correct?

24 A. Yes, this is exactly what it says here.

25 Q. And as I understand it again, or just to understand the

1 repayment.

2 So I remember discussing with Mr Skatin that our

3 bank had to ensure additional protection of our

4 collateral from possible claims of another bank, long

5 term leasing agreement is a reasonable, is a good

6 opportunity for additional — securing additionally,

7 burdening additionally a real estate facility, and now

8 I’m recalling that this was why the decision was taken.

9 However, I didn’t find any confirmation, any supporting

10 documents, while I was preparing, that this decision had

11 actually been implemented and that this agreement had

12 actually been signed and registered in the registration

13 chamber.

14 Q. Ms Mironova, I’m sorry, so do you recall this or not?

15 Because I think you started from saying no to my

16 question, and then you proceeded to give some

17 explanation. So do you recall this proposal being made;

18 yes or no?

19 A. My Lord, I meant that until I saw this document, I had

20 no recollection of the situation, but when I saw it,

21 I began to recall. This is what I meant.

22 Q. Right, and by that time in November 2009, obviously

23 Western Terminal LLC was under the control of Renord

24 Group, was it not?

25 A. My Lord, may I ask what does it mean it was controlled

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

April 5, 2016 Day 33

1 by Renord Group?

2 Q. I mean that the shares had been transferred to Renord

3 companies under the — or to a particular Renord

4 Company, in the case of Western Terminal, under the repo

5 arrangement, pursuant to the memorandum and the

6 agreement in the end of 2008. That’s what I mean.

7 A. Yes, indeed, my Lord. As far as I remember, this is

8 exactly what happened.

9 Q. And Gunard Enterprises Limited is also a Renord Group

10 entity, is it not?

11 A. Probably.

12 Q. So it was, essentially, an agreement between connected

13 parties acting on behalf of the Bank, isn’t that a fair

14 description of what is proposed in this document?

15 A. My Lord, I beg your pardon. I didn’t understand the

16 question.

17 Q. So do you accept that at that point in time,

18 Western Terminal LLC and Gunard Enterprises Limited are

19 two companies controlled by exactly the same people;

20 would you agree with that?

21 A. Most probably, yes. I simply don’t know who owned

22 Gunard Enterprises.

23 Q. Yes. Well take it from me, that’s one of the companies

24 in the Renord Group. And Renord Group was holding the

25 shares of Western Terminal on behalf of the Bank, was it

1 the lease. There you can see at 1.1.1, you see the land

2 plot which is pledged to the Bank, then in 1.1.5, you

3 see, it is called «terminal», but I think the more

4 correct translation is «berth», SV-15, which is pledged

5 to the Bank, but all other assets listed in clause 1.1

6 are not pledged to the Bank; does that sound right to

7 you?

8 A. Your Honour, as far as I see, point 1.1 lists the

9 majority of the property, probably all of the assets of

10 the Western Terminal, both pledged and non pledged. But

11 from memory, I am saying it from memory from what we saw

12 in the previous document.

13 Q. Yes. Now, if you look at clause 1.3, you can see that

14 the term of the lease is 49 years from the state

15 registration. Can you see that?

16 A. I see that paragraph 1.3 contains the term of 49 years

17 but, as I said several minutes ago, the state body did

18 not have this agreement registered. This agreement was

19 not registered in the state body.

20 Q. And then if you look at clause 2.1.1, the lessor, that

21 is Western Terminal, was to transfer the property into

22 Gunard’s possession no later than in three days from the

23 date of this agreement; can you see that?

24 A. Yes, I can see that.

25 Q. And if you look at the top right of this page, the date

25

1 not?

2 A. Yes, that’s so.

3 Q. And so what we have here, what is proposed here, is

4 an agreement between two companies, effectively acting

5 on behalf of the Bank.

6 A. Yes, my Lord. In essence, this is correct.

7 I understood a while ago the meaning of this deal. The

8 main purpose of the Bank was to protect the asset from

9 any claims from another creditor.

10 Q. Now, if you could now look at the draft, or the actual

11 lease agreement, it’s not entirely clear whether it is

12 an agreement or a draft of it, that will be at

13 {D128/2060/1} and the Russian version starts at

14 {D128/2060/4}.

15 Ms Mironova, do you recall that agreement? I will

16 take you through the relevant terms, don’t worry, just

17 look at it and tell my Lord whether you are familiar

18 with it, or are you looking at it for the first time?

19 A. Your Honour, unfortunately I don’t have any

20 recollections whatsoever about this particular

21 agreement.

22 Q. Right. Let me take you through the terms in case that

23 reminds you.

24 So as you can see in clause 1.1, there is a list of

25 assets which you have there which are the subject of

27

1 of the agreement is 20 August 2009, so that obviously

2 brings us to 23 August 2009 as the date when the

3 property had to be transferred to Gunard; isn’t that

4 correct? Does that sound right to you?

5 A. Yes, it looks like that.

6 Q. So one peculiarity is that the property is — prima

7 facie it looks like the property is being transferred to

8 Gunard on 23 August, but then the time starts running

9 only at the time of the state registration which, as you

10 have said, did not happen, to your knowledge.

11 A. I beg your pardon, my Lord. I didn’t understand the

12 question.

13 Q. The question is do you agree with what I say? Didn’t

14 you understand what I said, or didn’t you understand

15 what I am asking you?

16 A. I was following what we were reading in paragraph 2.1.1

17 and paragraph 1.3, and I agree with what was read out

18 loud.

19 Q. Right. Now, if we could scroll down one page on each

20 screen {D128/2060/2}, {D128/2060/5}, then in clause 3.1

21 you will see that the rent is set as $20,000 per month,

22 including VAT. Do you see that? Then in clause 3.3 you

23 can see that the rent is payable not later than the last

24 day of the term of the agreement. So that is in

25 49 years’ time after the state registration; is that the

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

April 5, 2016 Day 33

1 correct reading?

2 A. Yes. This is what’s written down here in the copy that

3 I have.

4 Q. And then if you would just briefly look at clause 5.2,

5 you can see there a provision for automatic renewal by

6 consent or by non-termination, or termination, and then

7 if you could just read clause 5.3 as well, there is

8 a provision for a premature termination.

9 A. I read it.

10 Q. Yes. So does this look like the same lease agreement

11 which you asked the big credit committee to approve?

12 A. Your Honour, I simply don’t remember which agreement

13 I asked to approve, therefore I can’t either confirm or

14 deny or answer in the affirmative or in the negative.

15 As I said several minutes ago, I don’t recall it, but

16 I do believe it was like that.

17 Q. Having now looked at this contract, does that in any way

18 refresh your recollections? Do you recall ever dealing

19 with a contract of this kind in the past?

20 A. Your Honour, I recalled the situation connected with the

21 Gunard and the reasons for the realisation, but the

22 details of the agreement, they don’t come from my

23 memory, no. I don’t remember it. If that is the

24 question.

25 Q. Now, do you agree that the terms of the contract we

1 of the pledge on the part of the Morskoy Bank as lengthy

2 as possible.

3 Q. Now, whose idea was it to put in place this kind of

4 agreement for the reasons which you have indicated, or

5 otherwise? Whose idea was it?

6 A. Unfortunately I won’t be able to answer this question

7 because I had negotiations only with Mr Skatin in this

8 respect.

9 Q. Let’s then focus on your talks with Mr Skatin. So if

10 you were discussing this with Mr Skatin, well who

11 suggested the lease of this kind: Mr Skatin or you, or

12 was that something you both had in mind by that time?

13 A. Your Honour, I don’t have any clear recollections about

14 this, therefore I can’t answer this question. The only

15 thing which I think is true that we have already

16 discussed it as a potential idea for defence. How the

17 process was going, I can’t answer you. I can suppose

18 that he had additional conversations or negotiations

19 with Mrs Malysheva in this respect. But this is,

20 unfortunately, all I can offer by way of my

21 recollections.

22 Q. Right. What makes you think that Mrs Malysheva was

23 involved?

24 A. I had recollections that Mr Skatin and Mrs Malysheva and

25 other members of the management of the Bank often

29 31

1 looked at are uncommercial? Do you accept that?

2 A. Yes, your Honour. I fully agree with it, and it was all

3 done exactly for the reasons that I’ve explained to you:

4 protection of assets from claims of the creditor of

5 Morskoy Bank.

6 Q. Well, are you sure of that? Are you sure that was the

7 reason?

8 A. That is what I recollect about that situation.

9 Q. Now, so it seems from your answers that whether it is

10 the same contract which you were proposing to BKK to

11 approve or not, the contract you were proposing also had

12 uncommercial terms; is that a fair understanding of what

13 you have said?

14 A. Yes, your Honour, that corresponds to my recollections,

15 for the reasons that we had to do the utmost to protect

16 the asset, and to make the asset commercially

17 uninteresting for the claims of another creditor.

18 Q. So the effect of that lease would be to reduce the value

19 of the assets of Western Terminal very dramatically,

20 because that’s a very significant encumbrance; would you

21 agree with that?

22 A. As I said before, your Honour, the main task was to

23 protect fully the assets and also the collateral, the

24 pledged and the non pledged assets to the Bank from the

25 claims of another creditor, and to make the enforcement

1 discussed the situation with the Oslo Marine Group at

2 their meetings.

3 Q. I don’t think that quite answers my question. What

4 makes you think that Mrs Malysheva was involved in

5 working out this proposal?

6 A. Your Honour, as I said, I think that using the term

7 «involved» as we do, all members of the board could have

8 been involved because this issue was discussed not once

9 by the members of the board. Not the lease agreement

10 per se, but the situation overall with

11 Oslo Marine Group, because the situation was new,

12 unusual to the Bank, and therefore, the members of

13 the board, as far as I recollect, dedicated quite a lot

14 of time to it.

15 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: I think the point of the question was

16 that your answer did not signify that you thought

17 discussions were with the board, but suggested that they

18 were in particular with Mrs Malysheva, and you were

19 being asked why you thought that; is that right?

20 MR STROILOV: That’s right, my Lord, yes.

21 A. What I meant, your Honour, is that with Malysheva, as

22 with a member of the board.

23 Q. Well, Ms Mironova, you are not telling the truth.

24 I think I should give you one last chance to explain to

25 my Lord, why did you single out Mrs Malysheva as someone

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

April 5, 2016 Day 33

1 you thought was involved in this decision?

2 A. Your Honour, I confirm once again the words that I have

3 pronounced: Mrs Malysheva was dealing with the Renord

4 Group of companies into which the repo deal — under the

5 repo deal the shares belonged. So it is likely that she

6 brought her information to the board and other members

7 brought their information to the board and they

8 discussed comprehensively all the issues, including of

9 Oslo Marine Group. But how exactly the discussions of

10 the board of the Bank were happening, it is not known to

11 me because I was not a member.

12 Q. Can you please be shown {D134/2202/1}, and on the other

13 screen {D134/2202/2}.

14 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Mr Stroilov, I notice that there is

15 something curious going on, I can’t quite read what it

16 is; are you concerned about it?

17 MR STROILOV: I am, and I hope someone will be looking at

18 it, but I would suggest we proceed and Mr Arkhangelsky

19 will hopefully catch up.

20 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: We continue anyway. I just wondered

21 if you were focused so much on the questions you hadn’t

22 noticed.

23 MR STROILOV: I am grateful, my Lord, and I hope it is being

24 sorted out, one way or another. I am grateful.

25 So, Ms Mironova, this seems to be a memo from

1 A. Yes, I’ve found it. I do apologise.

2 Q. Yes, and this memo, unless I have overlooked something,

3 it doesn’t seem to mention the fact that the lease

4 payment for the entire term of the lease would only be

5 due in 49 years’ time, does it?

6 A. No, you are right, I don’t see it.

7 Q. So someone who would have to understand the proposal

8 from looking at this note would have thought that what

9 is proposed is a normal lease on commercial terms,

10 wouldn’t that be the case?

11 A. It says here — these words are stated here, yes.

12 Q. I’m sorry, which words? What I am suggesting to you is

13 that anyone reading the note would have been led to

14 think that what is proposed is a lease on commercial

15 terms; do you agree with that?

16 A. In the informational memorandum, it says that the prices

17 are market median. That is what is stated here.

18 Q. And so presumably not all members of the big credit

19 committee were aware of your plan of what you called

20 protection of the asset? Isn’t that a fair inference?

21 A. No, it is not a fair inference, your Honour, because at

22 the meetings of the major credit committee I always, in

23 person and orally, told of the real reasons of any

24 requests submitted to the major credit committee.

25 Q. And do you recall doing so in this case?

33 35
1 several people from Investrbank to the members of 1 A. This particular case I don’t recall, but I always do it
2 the big credit committee concerning this proposal. You 2 in relation to every situation. And this document is,
3 can see — well, you can see the signatures, and one of 3 by the way, the opinion or the informational memorandum
4 them is yours. 4 for the members of the credit committee which we
5 Now, if you could just scan-read through it, and 5 considered lost several minutes ago.
6 then I will take you to the material bits. This note 6 Q. Now, and you can see the handwritten note at the bottom
7 doesn’t seem to explain what you have just told the 7 of the page, which indicates that there is a risk
8 court about the purpose of this proposal, and this is — 8 associated, as it is put, with reducing — how is it
9 and that the idea is to resist any enforcement by 9 put — reducing the auction sale price due to
10 Morskoy Bank and so on. It doesn’t explain all that, 10 the encumbrance in the form of long term lease. You can
11 does it? 11 see that? I think the court has been told by
12 A. Your Honour, can I just clarify what exactly the 12 Mrs Kosova, I think, that this note seems to be the one
13 question is in order to be able to answer correctly? 13 by Mrs Talmakayeva.
14 Q. If I now could ask you about some specific points here, 14 A. You know, it looks like it because a similar signature
15 I think in the last substantive paragraph you can see 15 in similar writing is against her surname.
16 that it states that the term of the lease would be 16 Q. Now, could we please now look at the transcript of
17 49 years, does it not? 17 {Day22/77:1}. And then, I think, {Day22/78:1} on the
18 A. Yes, I see that. 18 other screen, or below it. That is … yes. Now,
19 Q. Then if you look at the middle of the page, just after 19 Ms Mironova, this is an extract from the transcript of
20 the list of assets, you can see this short paragraph 20 cross-examination of Mr Sklyarevsky, and he was telling
21 saying the rent is US $20,000 a month, and that is 21 the court about the discussions he had with
22 described as market average, and then there are sources. 22 Mrs Malysheva at the time; do you follow? He was shown
23 A. Sorry, I do apologise. I didn’t find that particular 23 the lease agreement which you have just been shown, and
24 spot. 24 then I think I would like to read to you the — well,
25 Q. That’s after — pretty much in the middle of the text. 25 the rather substantial bit so that it is translated to
34 36
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

April 5, 2016 Day 33

1 you. I will start at line 6 on page 77, and obviously

2 because we don’t have the Russian text I will ask you to

3 listen carefully so that I don’t have to read it again.

4 So I am asking him:

5 «Question: Will you agree that the terms of that

6 contract are uncommercial?»

7 To which Mr Sklyarevsky responds at line 8:

8 «Answer: More so, more likely, but I wanted to

9 stress that the logic of Malysheva and the Bank

10 presupposed no conditions at all. For her, the

11 conditions for the lease were not important in

12 the contract. The main task of Malysheva, as I said

13 before, was the control. To her, it was important to

14 control this plot of land, and at the start of June, we

15 lost the first instance to Mr Arkhangelsky in the courts

16 in relation to the Julia Arkhangelskaya claim, and the

17 Bank was very sceptical about our chances of winning,

18 you see.

19 «At the same time, the main problem which existed

20 was that the Western Terminal was not the direct

21 borrower of the Bank; it was the pledger only, and the

22 position of Mrs Malysheva was that since the courts

23 would be lost and then Arkhangelsky will change the

24 directors, then the Bank must have additional instrument

25 or leverage in the form of the control over the land of

1 In my recollections, it was this third person, was

2 the Morskoy Bank. We can check when the overdue date

3 happened with the Morskoy Bank and Morskoy Bank started

4 acting aggressively to enforce the pledge. In

5 Sklyarevsky memory, because he talked to Malysheva about

6 other things, he thinks that Mrs Julia Arkhangelskaya

7 with her claim of 1 per cent of shares, and both he and

8 I said that that was protection of the land plot, as the

9 both pledged and non-pledged to the Bank, all the

10 entirety of the assets of the Western Terminal. Or

11 I probably misheard something.

12 Q. Now, I think the point I am making, and I wonder if you

13 agree with that, is that it’s not — or, at least,

14 according to Mr Sklyarevsky, that seems to be

15 a protection against a claim from Oslo Marine Group

16 itself rather than a third party. So what do you say to

17 that? Could that be another of the purposes of this

18 agreement, or the true purpose of that agreement, as

19 opposed to what you have said?

20 A. My Lord, I only described the recollection that I have

21 of that period of time. I have no grounds to argue or

22 contest the words of Mr Sklyarevsky, and I can quite

23 assume that this might have been a second reason for

24 this indeed rather non-commercial deal with these land

25 plots, because I’ve already told you about the first

37

1 the Western Terminal, because the Western Terminal was

2 not the borrower, and the bankruptcy of the shipping

3 company in which pledged the landlord was only started

4 this bankruptcy, and there was going to elapse a lot of

5 time between the bankruptcy of the company before claims

6 to the Western Terminal.

7 «Therefore, the lease agreement was discussed as

8 an additional — some form of an additional insurance

9 mechanism in case we were to lose in courts in

10 interest.»

11 So it seems that Mr Sklyarevsky’s understanding on

12 the basis of his discussions with Mrs Malysheva at the

13 time is different from yours, or from what you have told

14 the court, at any rate. Rather than a protection

15 against a possible claim from Morskoy Bank, it seems to

16 be intended as a protection against the ongoing claim by

17 Mrs Arkhangelskaya or an OMG company, there were quite

18 a number of different claims in Russian courts. Does

19 that sound right to you?

20 A. Your Honour, I didn’t quite understand what is the

21 discrepancy between my words and my recollections with

22 what Mr Sklyarevsky said, which were read out to me.

23 Both he and I are saying that it was necessary to

24 protect all the property, all the assets of

25 the Western Terminal from the claims of other persons.

39

1 reason.

2 Q. Now, could you now be shown the first witness statement

3 of Mrs Yatvetsky, or Ms Goncharuk, as she was then

4 known. That’s {B2/18/9}, the relevant bit I want is at

5 page 9, and starting at paragraph 45. So the Russian

6 version will be — let me try and find it. I think it

7 will be {B2/18/20}, but let’s try. I am looking at

8 paragraph 45.

9 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: I do apologise, I haven’t got that

10 witness statement yet in my bundle. I’ve obviously seen

11 it, but — I do apologise; do you have a copy?

12 MR STROILOV: I don’t have a hard copy, I am afraid.

13 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: No.

14 MR STROILOV: There will be one on your Lordship’s Magnum

15 system.

16 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: All right. I will check it out later.

17 MR LORD: I think we are trying to get one now, my Lord.

18 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: That’s very kind, thank you.

19 MR STROILOV: I am grateful.

20 So as you see in paragraph 45, that’s what —

21 Mrs Yatvetsky refers to, again to that lease agreement

22 {B2/18/21}. Then if we could scroll the English version

23 down one page, but not the Russian version {B2/18/10},

24 then you can see in paragraph 46, Ms Goncharuk or Mrs

25 Yatvetsky explains her understanding of the reason for

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

April 5, 2016 Day 33

1 that agreement, or her evidence, rather, in relation to

2 that.

3 So what she seems to suggest is that the intention

4 was for Gunard to sub-let the assets and derive income

5 from them; is that a fair reading?

6 A. Reading the text, yes.

7 Q. So is that consistent with your own recollections from

8 that period, that this may have been the purpose, or one

9 of the purposes.

10 A. Of course we discussed the possibility of these assets

11 being transferred to — being sub-leased, and if

12 I remember correctly, I looked at the long term leasing

13 agreement, it’s one of the clauses there, so I have no

14 reasons to doubt Mrs Yatvetsky’s evidence. The only

15 thing is that they are saying — that she is saying that

16 we shouldn’t be saying that Western Terminal and Gunard

17 earn money. It just says that they should be covering

18 their losses. That would give them the opportunity to

19 cover their losses.

20 Q. So you said you have discussed that at the time. Who

21 did you discuss that with?

22 A. I can’t tell you precisely. All I remember is that

23 I discussed everything with Mr Skatin, who was my line

24 manager.

25 Q. So from those discussions, from your recollection of

1 happy with that? Would that be consistent with what

2 Mr Skatin and his colleagues intended, according to your

3 recollections of your discussions at that time?

4 A. My Lord, it’s hard for me to speculate on hypothetical

5 situations that did not take place, and the agreement

6 with Gunard we are discussing is also hypothetical

7 because it had never been registered and, therefore, it

8 had never come into legal force. We are discussing

9 something which never actually happened in the end.

10 Q. Was Western Terminal, to your knowledge, was it

11 operating as a port terminal between 2009 and 2012?

12 A. I don’t know, my Lord.

13 Q. So for all you know, something along these lines may

14 have happened, isn’t that the case?

15 A. May I understand what you mean? I don’t understand the

16 question.

17 Q. What I mean is that to your knowledge it’s quite

18 possible that Renord Group, or a company controlled by

19 Renord Group, was actually operating Western Terminal as

20 a port business in the period of 2009 to 2012, and

21 deriving income from that. Do you have anything to say

22 to contradict this supposition?

23 A. My Lord, may I repeat the question the way I understand

24 it, so that I actually know whether I am answering the

25 right question? It’s being put to me whether

41 43

1 those discussions, let me just try to understand what

2 the plan was. So the effect of that lease agreement

3 would be said — it would be Gunard, a BVI company,

4 rather than Western Terminal LLC, who would receive the

5 actual lease payments from any genuine lease of

6 the assets. So was that the objective, really?

7 A. No, the objective was, as I’ve already mentioned, to

8 protect the entire set of assets of the Western Terminal

9 from any claims whatsoever. There was a secondary

10 reason, which Renord saw might have been covering

11 current losses through using Western Terminal.

12 Q. Right. Now, supposing, from your recollection of

13 the discussions you had at the time with Mr Skatin,

14 supposing if Renord would — if Gunard does actually

15 sub-let the assets to another company owned or

16 controlled by Renord, would the Bank be content with

17 that?

18 A. I’m sorry, I didn’t understand the question; could you

19 repeat it, please?

20 Q. For instance, again, as a hypothetical situation, there

21 is a company called Baltic Fuel Company, which is

22 involved in port business, and that’s controlled by

23 Renord. So supposing Gunard, as a next step, would

24 sub-let these assets to Baltic Fuel Company, pursuant to

25 the plan described by Ms Yatvetsky. Would the Bank be

1 Western Terminal was rented out by any of Renord

2 companies from 2009 and 2012; is that the question I’m

3 meant to be answering?

4 Q. I don’t think that was the question. What I am asking

5 you is that is it possible, according to your knowledge

6 and belief, that between 2009 and 2012, Renord or any of

7 the companies controlled by Renord, was running

8 Western Terminal as a business?

9 A. My Lord, I know nothing about it at all, so I can say

10 neither yes nor no.

11 Q. But if it was, would you consider that as improper in

12 any way on the part of Renord?

13 A. My Lord, in order to answer this question, I would need

14 to know and understand that this, indeed, happened

15 de facto, but I have no knowledge of that. As far as

16 I remember, we had no lease agreement concluded and

17 executed on Western Terminal. I found no document in

18 the Bank supporting the existence of any such leasing

19 agreement.

20 Q. Now, Ms Mironova, obviously it is a long period of time,

21 2009 to 2012 really. Renord was controlling

22 Western Terminal for a period of over three years. Now,

23 I put it to you that it is overwhelmingly likely that

24 Renord was actually — or any entity controlled by

25 Renord, was actually running Western Terminal as

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

April 5, 2016 Day 33

1 a working terminal, as a business; wouldn’t you agree 1 derived and it was used to pay the Morskoy Bank loan?
2 with that? 2 Do you think that may have actually happened?
3 A. My Lord, as far as I understand the situation, for any 3 A. My Lord, as far as I understood, we were discussing
4 Renord Company to operate this real estate in this way, 4 a hypothetical case, so my answer was a hypothetical
5 it would have had to have a leasing agreement between 5 answer to a hypothetical question put to me. Whether
6 the Western Terminal and another company. I have no 6 this really happened or not we have to look at
7 knowledge of any such leasing agreements ever taking 7 documents. Unfortunately I have no recollection about
8 place, ever existing. 8 the financial performance of Western Terminal at that
9 Q. I think from what you said earlier, you have no 9 time.
10 knowledge of that, but you are not in a position to deny 10 Q. The trouble is — okay, well if you don’t know, you
11 that; is that the correct understanding of your evidence 11 don’t know.
12 on that point? 12 Now, do you recall discussing — turning back to
13 A. I know nothing about it, and as I’ve already said, 13 the proposed lease to Gunard, or the actual lease to
14 I found no documents in the Bank supporting the 14 Gunard, there are different ways of interpreting the
15 existence of leasing agreements. 15 agreement, now turning back to this, do you recall
16 Q. So at any rate, if, and obviously I know you said you 16 discussing that proposal with anyone from Renord-Invest?
17 don’t know about that — now obviously if there was 17 A. I remember — I do not remember discussing this with
18 any — if Western Terminal in that period 2009 to 2012, 18 anybody from Renord-Invest.
19 if Western Terminal was run as a business in that period 19 Q. And can you please be shown {D134/2203/1}, and the
20 and any income was derived, then to your knowledge no 20 Russian version is {D134/2203/2}. So that seems to be
21 credit was given to reduce the size of OMG debts for the 21 your e-mail to Mrs Volodina on 24 November, so that’s
22 amount of that income; is that correct? 22 the next day after the big credit committee meeting,
23 A. The way I understood the question, I am being asked if 23 where you inform her that Renord-Invest has asked to
24 the terminal was being operated, shouldn’t the income 24 reduce the period of the lease from 49 to 30 years.
25 from this operation have been offset from the debt; did 25 So it seems that you did, you were the person at the
45 47

1 I understand it correctly?

2 Q. Quite, yes, Ms Mironova, yes.

3 A. As far as I know, if any production activity was taking

4 place in the Western Terminal, any income from this

5 activity should have accrued to the Western Terminal

6 itself. I knew nothing about any property being leased.

7 It is, therefore, necessary for us to look at the

8 financial results of Western Terminal to reply to this

9 question. Moreover, Western Terminal was only providing

10 the pledge for St Petersburg Bank, so St Petersburg Bank

11 could only claim the cost of asset if sold.

12 Western Terminal was not our borrower directly,

13 therefore any income accrued by the Western Terminal

14 could not have been directly offset from the debt. It

15 was never a guarantor or a borrower. Only in those two

16 cases Western Terminal could have used its income or

17 profit, should any have been earned, to pay our debts.

18 Nevertheless, it could have used its profit, had

19 such existed, I do not know the documents, I cannot

20 confirm or deny the existence of such profit, but it

21 could have used such profit to pay off the debt of

22 the Maritime Bank, because the Maritime Bank was

23 a direct creditor for the Western Terminal.

24 Q. I’m sorry, isn’t it possible that this actually

25 happened, what you have described: that income was

1 Bank talking to Renord-Invest about this; does that

2 really refresh your recollections?

3 A. My Lord, I saw this e-mail of mine when I was preparing

4 for this hearing, but as I said recently, I remember

5 nothing about discussing it with anybody or whether I’ve

6 discussed it with anybody. Nevertheless, I have no

7 reason to doubt what I said in this e-mail.

8 Q. Now, Ms Mironova, wouldn’t you be surprised by the fact

9 that, prima facie, by asking to reduce the lease from

10 49 years to 30 years, really Renord is throwing away

11 a right to — well, quite a considerable right, quite

12 a profitable arrangement, which was offered to them.

13 They were throwing away the right to make quite

14 substantial profits for some 19 years in due course.

15 So isn’t it surprising that they are asking, really,

16 to worsen the terms of the agreement for themselves?

17 Wouldn’t you be surprised by that?

18 A. No. This is not at all surprising for me because

19 I already explained the purpose of this agreement as

20 protection of the asset from third party claims, either

21 Maritime Bank or Mrs Arkhangelskaya. Given the fact

22 that the bank served no commercial purpose in this

23 agreement, I couldn’t assume that Gunard was counting on

24 deriving significant income from this agreement,

25 especially as in the end, none of it was actually

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

April 5, 2016 Day 33

1 implemented.

2 Q. Why do you say that? How do you know it was never

3 implemented? What makes you sure of that? I think you

4 said you don’t know.

5 A. No, not at all. I didn’t say that today, my Lord.

6 I said from the very beginning that this agreement had

7 never been registered in the registration chamber.

8 Preparing for this hearing, I have looked for it and

9 found it in our disclosure.

10 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: I must say, I have got a bit confused

11 about this. I think that there are three, or at least

12 three potential points you need to clarify: one, does

13 this witness know whether this was signed or executed;

14 two, does this witness know whether it was registered —

15 and I think her evidence has been plain and consistent

16 that she does not think it was; and the third, which has

17 become obfuscated, perhaps, is did Gunard, or anyone

18 nominated by Gunard, take possession of the property as

19 was envisaged by the agreement? Those are three

20 questions; perhaps we ought to clarify those.

21 MR STROILOV: Yes, Ms Mironova, you have heard my Lord’s

22 question. Should I ask them one by one, or will you

23 answer them one by one?

24 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Shall I assist? You have explained to

25 me that this agreement that we had a look at, rather

1 was automatically voided due to non-registration,

2 therefore, the property of Western Terminal never passed

3 onto Gunard under this agreement.

4 Further on, I said that it is unknown to me whether

5 any other company had leased Western Terminal’s

6 property. If any business activity took place there,

7 I am convinced that this was all reflected in the books

8 of Western Terminal itself.

9 My Lord, did I understand your questions correctly

10 and did I answer them satisfactorily?

11 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Well, I will tell you what’s on my

12 mind, which is, and this was a point made to you by

13 Mr Stroilov, in case you wish to add to your answer: the

14 agreement states that it is within three days of

15 the date of the agreement that possession is to be

16 taken. It doesn’t say anything about registration or

17 anything else. So it is three days from the date of

18 this agreement, which was 20 August; is that right,

19 Mr Stroilov? That’s an observation you made. I’m not

20 sure you asked a question about it.

21 MR STROILOV: Yes, quite, my Lord, and if the witness has

22 anything to offer by way of comment, that would be —

23 yes, I’m grateful.

24 A. Yes, indeed. I agree with what this particular clause

25 of the lease agreement says. I am not a lawyer. I am

49 51

1 uncommercial terms, was never registered, as is required

2 by, as I understand it, Russian law. Do you know

3 whether it was ever signed or executed as an agreement?

4 A. My Lord, I have no memory of any signing ceremony. I am

5 almost certain it was signed, because only with

6 signatures could it have been submitted to

7 the registration chamber.

8 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Yes, because the board meeting

9 authorised it to be sent to the registration office.

10 Right, so it’s likely that it was signed.

11 The third is, and to help you, I think, I will tell

12 you what my recollection of the evidence you just gave

13 me, which was you simply don’t know, did Gunard, or

14 anyone on Gunard’s behalf or direction, take possession

15 of the leased property, as was the entitlement and

16 requirement to do, within three days after its

17 signature?

18 A. My Lord, the agreement we have read does indeed say that

19 the property passes over in three days.

20 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Yes.

21 A. But given the fact that this lease agreement is a long

22 term agreement under Russian legislation, it is

23 considered entering into force only once it had been

24 registered at the registration chamber. Given the fact

25 that this registration never took place, this agreement

1 an economist by training. I can only repeat the words

2 of the lawyers that I have been working with very

3 closely for many years: federal legislation in

4 the Russian Federation prevails over any provisions of

5 any contract or agreement, pursuant to the federal law,

6 long term lease agreement is considered executed only

7 from the point of its state registration. Failing that,

8 the agreement is considered void, non-executed.

9 As this agreement has never been registered,

10 irrespective of Gunard taking possession of the property

11 in three days, following the acceptance transfer

12 agreement, as far as I understand, there would have been

13 a reversal of that through another document of transfer

14 acceptance due to non-registration, and therefore void

15 leasing agreement.

16 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Well, I take your point that you are

17 not really a lawyer, and I must assimilate your answers.

18 In England we have an expression that possession is

19 nine-tenths of the law, but that may not apply in

20 Russia, for all I know.

21 Yes. Would that be a time to break?

22 MR STROILOV: If I may continue for some 5 to 10 to 12

23 minutes. I’m very grateful, my Lord.

24 Now, could you please be shown the transcript of

25 Day 7 at page 72. Actually, I mean the very bottom of

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

April 5, 2016 Day 33

1 page 72 and then the top, starting at about line 20.

2 Then the top of page 73. Or we can have it on the other

3 screen, if that’s easier {Day7/72:1}, {Day7/73:1}.

4 Ms Mironova, this is the transcript of

5 the cross-examination of Mr Guz about this. Again, let

6 me read you the extract. Again, we are describing this

7 lease agreement, or proposed lease agreement. So what

8 I am asking him at line 23 of page 72:

9 «Question: Well, but wouldn’t you be concerned that

10 the value of the pledge encumbered by such an agreement

11 would be reduced dramatically?»

12 To which Mr Guz responds:

13 «Answer: It depends upon what it was done for.

14 There could be two reasons: one of them, if Gunard, for

15 example, was a potential buyer, this lease agreement

16 could be the part of the deal, but if you say that the

17 Gunard company was the company of the Renord Group, and

18 in this case I think it could be done only in order to

19 protect the asset, that’s what exactly the repo

20 transaction was done for: to protect the asset.»

21 That’s what I’m interested in. For completeness,

22 let me read further.

23 «Question: So that was for the further protection

24 of the pledge —»

25 «Answer: Yes.

1 explanation. More so, if I did hear the right

2 translation of what Mr Guz said, that Gunard could be

3 a hypothetical purchaser, buyer. I didn’t write

4 anything down, I was just hearing what was interpreted

5 to me.

6 Q. Yes, and, well, that’s what gives me the idea, really.

7 Couldn’t both purposes identified by Mr Guz be the case?

8 The purpose was both to protect the asset from any

9 claims and, really, to move it closer to the potential

10 buyer, to a Renord Company, Gunard, or — well,

11 obviously there is no difference in substance between

12 Gunard being a buyer or another company controlled by

13 Renord being the buyer. So couldn’t that be also —

14 this lease, couldn’t it be part of, really, the deal

15 with Renord as the intended buyer of the asset?

16 Couldn’t that be the explanation?

17 A. No, your Honour. This is absolutely not the

18 explanation, because in November 2009, we were thinking

19 just exclusively about the protection of the assets, and

20 how to make it one whole thing. Nobody thought at the

21 time about the realisation of the asset, and even less

22 so about the time when the BTK company will buy this

23 asset for themselves.

24 Q. Ms Mironova, well this proposed lease was a sham

25 transaction, was it not?

53 55

1 «Question: — from any possible action taken by OMG

2 or Mr Arkhangelsky in Russian courts; is that what you

3 are saying?

4 «Answer: By them or by other creditors, because

5 Bank of St Petersburg was not the only one creditor of

6 Mr Arkhangelsky.»

7 I trust this has been translated to you.

8 Ms Mironova, it seems that Mr Guz’s understanding

9 was that there could be, essentially, two reasons:

10 protection of the assets, which is essentially

11 consistent with what you have suggested and what

12 Mr Sklyarevsky has suggested, but also possibly part of

13 the deal with a potential buyer.

14 Now, if you could now go back to your e-mail at

15 {D134/2203/1}, and {D134/2203/2} on the other screen.

16 Now, what I am suggesting to you is that the explanation

17 why Renord might have thought it — might have been so

18 easy-going about reducing the term of the pledge to

19 30 years — I beg your pardon, the term of the lease to

20 30 years to their own detriment, was this: that

21 actually, by that time the intended buyer of the pledge

22 was a Renord Company, or a company controlled by Renord,

23 namely Baltic Fuel Company. Couldn’t that be the

24 explanation?

25 A. Your Honour, I do think that it can’t be the

1 A. Sorry, what do you mean when you say «sham»,

2 «fictitious» transaction?

3 Q. Well, what I mean is that the real essence of

4 the proposed transaction was quite different from what

5 it was presented as in the lease agreement.

6 A. Your Honour, several times I confirmed my words that

7 this lease agreement was concluded exclusively to

8 protect the asset, the whole asset of

9 the Western Terminal from the claims of third parties.

10 Q. There were, I think, as you have agreed, and as we have

11 seen in the evidence, there were several other purposes,

12 were there not? One of them was to protect the

13 Western Terminal assets from any potential claim by OMG,

14 or Mr or Mrs Arkhangelsky in Russian courts, wasn’t it?

15 A. Your Honour, I said from the claims of third parties,

16 meaning any claims from any third parties.

17 Q. And then one other purpose was to enable Renord to

18 derive income from those assets, was it not?

19 A. Well, since this lease agreement was not executed, not

20 concluded, then no income could have been derived, or

21 was derived, by Renord.

22 Q. And yet another purpose of that agreement was to create

23 an encumbrance which would reduce the market value of

24 the pledge quite dramatically, was it not?

25 A. Your Honour, to create an encumbrance, such

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

April 5, 2016 Day 33

1 an encumbrance in order to lengthen the procedure of

2 enforcing the pledge, and to make other creditors less

3 interested in this asset, without a doubt, it was

4 necessary to provide this agreement to protect.

5 Well, if this agreement was concluded and we came to

6 the realisation of the asset, then naturally for the

7 purposes to maximise the value and to pay the maximum

8 amount of the loan, this contract would have to be

9 cancelled. But now I am talking hypothetically now,

10 because this did not happen. The Bank has always been

11 interested in the maximum value from the realisation of

12 any asset of any distressed borrower, and this pertains

13 not only to the Oslo Marine Group.

14 The better — the bigger the realisation value of

15 the assets, more credits are paid off, therefore the

16 reserves which were formed especially for those

17 distressed assets will then become profits of the Bank.

18 All the employees of the Bank at any level, they receive

19 bonuses from profits, and equally, our wages are drawn

20 from the profits of the Bank.

21 Q. So, Ms Mironova, assuming — in the event this lease was

22 in force, and it was intended obviously to come into

23 force at the time, the effect of that would be that

24 no one, that at any public auction where the pledge

25 would have been realised, no one except Renord would

1 Ms Mironova, can you please be shown

2 {D122/1943.3/1}, and I think {D122/1943.3/0.1}. Now,

3 this seems to be the minute of the management board

4 meeting on 17 June 2009, doesn’t it?

5 A. Yes, I can see the document.

6 Q. Now, could we please scroll down one page on each screen

7 {D122/1943.3/0.2}, {D122/1943.3/3}, and perhaps one more

8 page and we will see what that concerns.

9 {D122/1943.3/0.3}, {D122/1943.3/5}. Right, so the

10 Russian version is split between two pages, well you are

11 looking at the paper version anyway.

12 We are going back in time. That is meeting of

13 17 June 2009, and as you can see, this seems to record

14 the decision of the management board, having heard

15 Mr Platonov at Investrbank, and the decision is to give

16 consent to Western Terminal LLC to transfer the

17 properties pledged to the Bank into the ownership of

18 Strategiya Korporativnykh Investitsiy I Finansov, also

19 known as SKIF LLC. That is Mr Sklyarevsky’s company,

20 the court was told.

21 Now, were you aware of any such decision at the

22 time, Ms Mironova? If we could scroll down on both

23 screens so that the continuation of this is seen.

24 {D122/1943.3/0.4}, {D122/1943.3/6}.

25 A. Your Honour, I did not have any recollections about this

57 59
1 ever bid; isn’t that one of the effects of such 1 decision. This document was seen by me in the process
2 an encumbrance? 2 of preparation for this hearing. I did not have any
3 A. Your Honour, as I said before, this contract, or lease 3 recollections of the document.
4 agreement, was concluded purely to protect the asset. 4 Q. And there you can see another — so as you can see, the
5 When the stage of this protection elapsed, should the 5 next point is on the same day, and obviously as part of
6 contract be concluded, then the next task for the new 6 the same concept, the management board agrees with
7 stage would be to maximise the price at which this 7 Mr Platonov to transfer the assets of
8 object would be sold, and we would have done everything 8 Scandinavia Insurance to a company called Naziya.
9 to maximise the value from the realisation. That is 9 That’s one of the Renord Companies acting, I think, as
10 what we did from the realisation of the asset. 10 one of the subsequent purchasers in this case, if I am
11 Q. It was your intention at that time to, so to speak, sell 11 not mistaken. It may be one of the original, it may be
12 the pledge to a Renord Company at gross undervalue, was 12 one of the subsequent, but one of the Renord companies;
13 it not? 13 can you see that?
14 A. That is not true, your Honour. 14 A. Yes, I see that.
15 Q. That was one of the steps pursuant to the Bank’s plan to 15 Q. And obviously you can see from the lists of assets that
16 defraud the Oslo Marine Group of this valuable asset, 16 that’s pretty much all the real estate pledged to
17 Western Terminal. 17 the Bank under the loans. It is being transferred to
18 A. That is not so, your Honour. 18 those two companies.
19 MR STROILOV: Thank you. My Lord, now I think it is time 19 A. I am not prepared to confirm this because it needs,
20 for a belated short break. 20 requires, checking against the list, because I can’t do
21 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: We will reconvene in 10 minutes. 21 it from memory.
22 (12.10 pm) 22 Q. Yes, the point I want to make to you, Ms Mironova, is
23 (A short break) 23 that — well, obviously, you being the head of Client
24 (12.25 pm) 24 Monitoring Directorate, well, you should have been aware
25 MR STROILOV: May it please your Lordship. 25 of a decision of such importance as transferring
58 60
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

April 5, 2016 Day 33

1 virtually — well, perhaps not quite all, because the

2 vessels are not there, but practically all pledges to

3 some different companies. Surely you would be aware of

4 that, wouldn’t you?

5 A. Your Honour, the thing is that at the time of the start

6 of 2009, and here we are talking about June of 2009, the

7 Directorate of Client Monitoring which I headed

8 consisted of me and me alone, and maybe one more

9 employee. So by that time it was not fully staffed.

10 As far as I remember now, by that time we did not

11 deal with the details of all the distressed borrowers

12 from the Bank. We did not assume the whole function as

13 it happened slightly later. That is probably why

14 I don’t have any recollections about these two

15 decisions, or resolutions that we are discussing now.

16 Q. Well, I think — again, I speak from memory, if the

17 transcript says something different, I will be

18 corrected — I think you told my Lord this morning that

19 at this initial period of Client Monitoring Directorate

20 operations, you were actually focusing on OMG, as that

21 was a very big problem borrower among rather few, didn’t

22 you say that?

23 A. Yes, indeed, my Lord, I said this, and I confirm it, but

24 in the morning we were discussing the entire 2009. We

25 did not focus on particular months, whereas now we are

1 the recovery of the relevant debt. If we could scroll

2 down one more page {D37/621/0.3}, {D37/621/3}. This is

3 a report of Vyborg Shipping. If you could just scroll

4 down a further page just so you recall what we are

5 talking about {D37/621/0.4}, {D37/621/4}. That’s the

6 end of the chronology.

7 I just want to understand how it works. My

8 understanding is that these reports would be prepared

9 approximately once a week; is that correct?

10 A. I can’t really say anything about this. I don’t

11 remember.

12 Q. So that every time one entry would be added to the end

13 of this chronology, and if nothing happened in the week,

14 you would just have an entry «no changes», and that’s

15 really the only difference between each particular

16 report and the next report, would normally be that one,

17 perhaps two entries sometimes, are added to the end of

18 the chronology, but otherwise they are identical; does

19 that sound right?

20 A. Yes, it does sound right.

21 Q. Now, as I understand, obviously as these reports were

22 prepared by Mrs Blinova and she gave evidence to

23 the court, I think what she explained in summary is that

24 starting from the moment the Client Monitoring

25 Directorate was — I am not sure that is correct, so let

61

1 talking about the very beginning, only the first two

2 months that my directorate actually was in existence.

3 Q. Now, looking at this document, and feel free to ask for

4 it to be scrolled up or down as you please, or if you

5 use the paper version… looking at this document, does

6 anything here suggest to you that it is inaccurate in

7 any way; that such a decision was not, in fact, taken?

8 A. My Lord, I have no grounds to doubt that this decision

9 had been taken, because I am looking at a decision

10 signed by all the members of the Bank’s management

11 board. Why would I doubt?

12 Q. Thank you. Now, could you now, please, be shown

13 {D37/621/0.1}, and then I think {D37/621/1} for the

14 Russian version.

15 Now, Ms Mironova, are you familiar with the

16 documents of this type, with this type of document, the

17 bad debt — report on working with problem debt? As

18 a form of document, are you familiar with that?

19 A. Well, I recall that such reports were prepared, if this

20 is what you are asking me.

21 Q. Quite, yes. If we could now scroll down one page on

22 each screen, and — yes. {D37/621/0.2}, {D37/621/2}.

23 So you can see starting at the bottom of the page the

24 section called «work done», and then there seems to be

25 a chronology of various steps taken in relation to

63

1 me reformulate it. Sorry.

2 Now, if we could now scroll up one page on both

3 screens, {D37/621/0.3}, {D37/621/3}, if you find the

4 entry of 17 June 2009, you will see — I think you have

5 found it — that is a reference to the management board

6 decision at which we have looked a moment ago,

7 the decision on the transfer of the pledged…

8 A. Yes, I can see that.

9 Q. So that obviously seems to be a reference to

10 the management board decision we have looked at. If we

11 scroll down, well, this, what we have here at the at the

12 top, it is quite a big part of the bundle, but what we

13 have here at the top is the fullest version of

14 the report and if, for instance, we scroll down to

15 the next report in this tab, if we could scroll down to

16 page {D37/621/0.7} on one screen, and {D37/621/7} on the

17 other. That’s the previous report. If we could scroll

18 down one more page, to {D37/621/8}, {D37/621/0.8}

19 respectively, so you can see this is the report clearly

20 ending, where the chronology ends on 25 September 2009,

21 so that seems to be the previous to the one we saw in

22 the beginning. If we now scroll up one page

23 {D37/621/0.7}, {D37/621/7}, again, we see the same entry

24 of 17 June.

25 So really the point I am making, that comparing

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

April 5, 2016 Day 33

1 these two versions of the report, everything Ms Blinova,

2 or whoever is working on that, did, was actually at one

3 entry in the end, but otherwise it is simply copy pasted

4 from the previous report; does that sound a right

5 description of what that would be?

6 A. I think that before Blinova technically wrote all this,

7 the bank branch did some kind of work over the week and

8 then at the end of the week she just technically wrote

9 it in, inserted it.

10 Q. Indeed, but what I am suggesting to you is that the last

11 entry in each case is new, but the historic entry in

12 the chronology, they are just replicated over and over

13 again from one report to another; isn’t that correct?

14 A. Well, it sounds right, judging by what we have seen in

15 these documents.

16 Q. And, of course, anyone who would be interested, who

17 would need to use these reports, any reader, would be

18 actually looking at the latest one, because that sets

19 out all the chronology rather than, well, you wouldn’t

20 be going through the whole set, the chronological set of

21 the reports, because they all replicate one another. So

22 you would actually be looking at the latest one; is that

23 fair?

24 A. I don’t know, my Lord. It depends on the user, on the

25 reader and on the purposes he or she is pursuing. It

1 I don’t need the markings there. If, perhaps, these

2 versions could be given to the witness. (Handed).

3 So these two files relate to what was — these are

4 two files, exact copies of what was provided to us as

5 part of disclosure in these proceedings; do you

6 understand? As you can see if you just skim through the

7 pages, just very briefly, you can see that this purports

8 to be a collection, a complete set of those reports,

9 a chronological set; do you see that, Ms Mironova?

10 A. Yes, I can see it.

11 Q. So what you see on the screen — no, you don’t see that

12 on the screen any more. If we could call back

13 {D37/621/0.7} and {D37/621/7}. What you see on the

14 screen is a copy of the reports we had in copies of loan

15 files, so they would be there among other documents.

16 Now and then there is one document, another decision of

17 minor credit committee, whatever, and amid that, we

18 would have these problem debt reports. That’s one part

19 of the disclosure.

20 On the other hand, we would have them here in files

21 F1 and F2 separately; do you follow, Ms Mironova? So do

22 you follow that?

23 A. I’m trying to.

24 Q. I think it’s important to understand. Just let me try

25 and explain again. We are given disclosure in these

65 67

1 depends on the individual. How would I know?

2 Q. I imagine, wouldn’t you be at least one of the people

3 who would be using these kind of reports in your work in

4 Client Monitoring Directorate?

5 A. As far as I remember, this report was indeed prepared

6 for the Client Monitoring Directorate, and the clients

7 we were asked to work with, together with other

8 branches, we asked from other branches some information

9 so that they would tell us what kind of measures they

10 have taken separately from the Client Monitoring

11 Directorate. In order to put all this information

12 together, this kind of form of report was invented.

13 I do not recall personally analysing this report.

14 I think at that time Mrs Yashkina was analysing these

15 reports, she joined the Directorate of Client Monitoring

16 team by that time.

17 Q. Now, if I may show you the copies of two of the files

18 which we received in these proceedings as part of the

19 disclosure process, as part of the Bank’s disclosure,

20 and your Lordship, I think, will have it somewhere

21 there. These are the claimant’s disclosure files, F1

22 and F2. I was trying to find out whether they were

23 still around, and I think one of them was.

24 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Yes, I have those.

25 MR STROILOV: And if these could be — I beg your pardon,

1 proceedings, and I think it is clear that you understand

2 the concept of disclosure, it’s clear from the earlier

3 parts of your cross-examination.

4 So what we get, we get a number of files which are

5 collectively called file A, and that relates — and that

6 is pretty much the copy of the Bank’s loan file in

7 relation to the first Vyborg loan; do you understand

8 that? Do you follow this fact?

9 Then we have file B, which is pretty much a copy of

10 the loan file for the second Vyborg loan; we have file C

11 for the third Vyborg loan; file D for the fourth Vyborg

12 loan. Now, in each of those files we have a variety of

13 documents, including, for example, what you see on the

14 screen, a collection of some of the problem debt

15 reports. What you see on the screen comes from file A,

16 for example; do you follow that, for this file?

17 A. Yes, I do.

18 Q. Yes. In addition to that, we also get what you have

19 been given, file F, which consists exclusively of some

20 170 problem debt reports. So essentially you have more

21 or less a full chronological set of these reports

22 scattered around different loan files, A, B, C and D.

23 On the other hand, you have the whole chronological set

24 of what purports to be the same reports in one file, all

25 put together chronologically. So you see that.

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

April 5, 2016 Day 33

1 A. Yes, I can see. I just didn’t understand the 1 Q. Everything else, everything you see around that entry,
2 chronology. It starts from the latest date and goes up. 2 is still there, it’s just that one line has disappeared;
3 Q. I think — are you talking about what you see on the 3 do you see that?
4 screen, or in the trial bundle? 4 A. Yes, I can see it.
5 A. No, I’m talking about what I see in the file, the paper 5 Q. Now, obviously we’ve got something like, I think, 100 of
6 file that you have given me, which I am looking at. 6 these reports duplicating something about — well,
7 I simply couldn’t understand where it starts and where 7 I think over 100 pairs of perfectly identical reports
8 it ends. If it is important for your next question, 8 like that, about 100 of them coming from the loan files
9 then I should understand the beginning and the end of 9 and then their purported duplicates in this, in file F;
10 it. 10 do you follow? Now, if you go, for instance, I don’t
11 Q. I don’t think — that’s right. If you have tab — there 11 know, to … if you go to tab 72, for example, still
12 are numbered tabs, aren’t there? Yes, I think you are 12 in …
13 right, it goes …yes, it seems to be… 13 So, again, you will see that this is still in
14 A. It’s just that I see later reports and I can’t seem to 14 relation to the same loan, the first Vyborg loan, and
15 see the first one. Again, only if it’s important for 15 you find that the chronology in that version ends on
16 your question. I haven’t been able to establish where 16 7 September 2009. Then if we try to find it on the
17 they start from. 17 screen, on what we have in the trial bundle. I think
18 Q. Yes. Let me proceed with the questions, and I hope we 18 it’s not operating perfectly. Hopefully I can …
19 all have the same kind of reports, and the same — and 19 sorry, it seems to be in some odd order.
20 then we will hopefully manage. 20 I’m sorry, my Lord, my system is going wrong.
21 Now, could you open in volume 1 of this paper 21 Somehow my internet connection has disappeared in
22 version, could you open tab 88, towards the end, and if 22 the middle of this.
23 you go to the last page of that tab — I think stay at 23 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Do you wish to —
24 the first page for the moment, and if we could scroll 24 MR STROILOV: No, I think it has just been restored, so
25 down both screens respectively to {D37/621/0.1}, 25 hopefully it will start working. I think if
69 71
1 {D37/621/1}. You can see that this purports to be the 1 your Lordship doesn’t mind, I would like to go for 15
2 problem debt reports in relation to the same loan, the 2 minutes longer to finish this line, and then we have
3 first Vyborg Shipping loan, the one whose number ends 3 a slightly late break. Is that all right with
4 1203. 4 your Lordship?
5 Then if we could go to the end of this tab in the 5 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Yes, I have a telephone call at
6 paper version, and go three pages down on each screen, 6 1.30 pm, so I do want at least five minutes before then,
7 {D37/621/0.4}, and {D37/621/4} respectively. 7 please, so I’m going to rather hold you to the 15
8 So you can see that the chronology in both cases — 8 minutes.
9 and I think surely it can’t be right — 0.4 on one 9 MR STROILOV: Yes, my Lord, quite. Absolutely. I’m
10 screen, page 4 on the other, please. So you can see 10 grateful. (Pause).
11 that in both versions, both on the screen and in 11 My Lord, perhaps — I think it’s better to have the
12 the paper version, you see the chronology ends on 12 break now and then I will find the references easier.
13 1 October 2009. 13 I am afraid it is …
14 So that should be the same report, or the report 14 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: All right. We will reconvene at
15 prepared on or shortly after 1 October 2009, isn’t that 15 2.00 pm. You know the rules.
16 right? 16 (1.00 pm)
17 A. Yes, I suppose so. 17 (The Luncheon Adjournment)
18 Q. And if you now turn back, go back one page everywhere, 18 (2.00 pm)
19 in the paper version and on both screens {D37/621/0.3}, 19 MR STROILOV: May it please your Lordship.
20 {D37/621/3}, you will see in the electronic version, so 20 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Yes.
21 in the loan files, you will obviously find the entry we 21 MR STROILOV: Now, could we please go back to the same tab
22 have been discussing, 17 June. Whereas if you look in 22 we were at, {D37/621/0.31}, and {D37/621/31} on the
23 the paper version, you will see that the entry is 23 other screen.
24 missing. 24 So, Ms Mironova, this is a copy of the report where
25 A. Yes, indeed, it’s not here. 25 the last entry, obviously, is 3 August 2009. Are you up
70 72
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

April 5, 2016 Day 33

1 to speed? 1 the SKIF one is not the only one; there are, actually,
2 A. No, sorry, I haven’t opened it yet. Yes, now I am on 2 two.
3 the same page. 3 Also, I think the one exception in file F, again,
4 Q. And then if you look at this file F which I handed to 4 I am just mentioning it for completeness, but one
5 you earlier and open tab 57. 5 exception which actually Mrs Blinova found when I asked
6 A. Yes, I’ve opened it. 6 her about this, is that if you look at tab 46, and the
7 Q. So you will see at the end of this tab, you will see 7 last page there, you will see that the SKIF entry has
8 that it is ending by the entry of the same date, 8 survived in that particular version.
9 3 August 2009. 9 Other than that, to my knowledge — if you like to
10 A. Yes. 10 play with this, you can open any report in file F at
11 Q. And if we scroll down on both screens — I beg your 11 random and the SKIF entry will not be there, and you can
12 pardon. Scroll up two pages on both screens, 12 open any report in file A, the one you see in the trial
13 {D37/621/0.29}, {D37/621/29}, and at the same time if 13 bundle, and any report in that tab in the trial bundle,
14 you look at the first page of tab 57, you will see that 14 and you will find the SKIF entry there.
15 this report relates to the same loan agreement. So, 15 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Who signs 46?
16 again, one would think there can only be one report 16 MR STROILOV: That’s Mr Platonov, the head of Investrbank
17 ending 3 August 2009 in relation to… 17 branch.
18 A. Yes, I can see that. 18 Now, may I show you, and I will have to read to you
19 Q. So obviously you can see that, once again, there are 19 quite a substantive bit from what Mrs Blinova said when
20 differences. If we scroll down one page on both 20 I asked her about this. If you could go to
21 screens, you can see that — I think if we scroll down 21 {Day4/127:1}. I wonder if we could have {Day4/127:1},
22 one more page on both screens, so you will see again 22 {Day4/128:1}, and {Day4/129:1}, if that could all be
23 that the entry of 17 June is there in this version, in 23 arranged, I think it is quite a substantial part of
24 file A version {D37/621/0.31}, {D37/621/31}, and if you 24 Mrs Blinova’s cross-examination, which I would like to
25 look at tab 57 in file F, you will see it is not there, 25 read to you.

73

1 even though again, entries which are around it are

2 identical.

3 Then you will also see that in the file A version,

4 it is signed by Mrs Borisova, whereas in the file F

5 version it is signed by Mr Platonov, even though in both

6 cases it was apparently prepared by Mrs Blinova as what

7 is called the responsible executor; you see that, don’t

8 you?

9 A. Yes, I can see it.

10 Q. Now, basically this discrepancy is replicated in dozens

11 of pairs of reports, if that makes sense. I think just

12 for completeness, I think I need to make it clear to you

13 that one more entry is missing in a similar way. I am

14 not suggesting — I am not inviting any inferences from

15 that, but just so that you know, if we scroll up both

16 screens one page {D37/621/0.30}, {D37/621/30}, you will

17 see there is an entry of 2 April 2009 at the very bottom

18 of the page you see on the screen, concerning the

19 creation of a working group, suggesting that — working

20 on acquiring ownership of the vessels pledged to

21 the Bank. Again, in file F, that entry seems to be

22 missing.

23 I am not inviting any particular inferences out of

24 that, but these are the two entries in relation to which

25 there is a discrepancy, so I think you need to know that

75

1 So starting at {Day4/127:15}, Mrs Blinova says this:

2 «Answer: I would like to clarify one more time the

3 system of preparing these reports, who did we prepare

4 them for. As far as I recall, as far as I recollect the

5 events of 2009, thereabouts the directorate for client

6 monitoring was formed and it was headed by Mrs Mironova,

7 and we were preparing these reports for them, as far as

8 I can recall.

9 «Accordingly, once a week, or once every day,

10 I would prepare the reports, I would sign them with my

11 manager, and I would send the reports to

12 the directorate. Obviously, over some period of time —

13 I do not recall when, exactly — some information might

14 have been received that an error has been made in these

15 reports, and by that point in time, each report was sent

16 on a weekly basis, they were saved up, accumulated,

17 there were already several reports. When the error has

18 been made, it looks like I have corrected the entry,

19 corrected the error, and re-signed these reports,

20 accordingly having sent them one more time to

21 the directorate for client monitoring, and it looks like

22 this is the way the doubling-up happens, and I came to

23 that thought because, indeed, I must have re-signed

24 them, and after September, this is why I asked the

25 question of Mr Stroilov about the date.

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

April 5, 2016 Day 33

1 «For example, the report dated by 3 July is signed

2 by Mrs Borisova in the first version where there is

3 an entry by 17 June, and with the reports, as we can see

4 in these folders — sorry, I already closed the

5 folder — dated the same date but without such entry for

6 17 June is already signed by Mr Platonov. If I recall

7 correctly, as I am saying now, around autumn 2009

8 Mrs Borisova left the Bank and, accordingly, I was not

9 able to re-sign the document with her, because she

10 wasn’t with the Bank anymore. The only person that

11 could have re-signed it was the branch director and,

12 accordingly, all these corrected reports were sent by us

13 in exactly the same way to the Client Monitoring

14 Directorate.

15 «I cannot explain it. I do not have information as

16 to why the additional reports were not destroyed, that

17 would have been logical if they contained an error, but

18 unfortunately I cannot comment or clarify the situation

19 anymore, apart from the fact, indeed, I might have

20 corrected them and my director’s signature has brought

21 me to this conclusion.»

22 Then I ask her further:

23 «Question: All right, so what you are saying,

24 Mrs Blinova, I’m just trying to understand, that at some

25 point towards the end of 2009, you were told that this

1 the client monitoring department so that they could

2 start working them.

3 «Question: The whole loan file would be passed to

4 Client Monitoring Directorate?

5 «Answer: Correct, exactly.

6 «Question: So that would happen at some point

7 in March/April — well, just after the so-called

8 default?

9 «Answer: No. Speaking from memory, and I refreshed

10 my memory by reading the various documents when I was

11 writing my witness statement, the directorate was set up

12 some time in April or May. However, the centralisation

13 does not take place before some time later on because we

14 were sitting on those files for a few months.

15 «I remember at the end of summer or in the early

16 autumn, the internal audit department ran a number of

17 checks on us and so we still had those files in the

18 branch. But as of the autumn, they started asking us to

19 send those documents onto them and that’s what we began

20 doing.

21 «Question: At some point you believe that a message

22 came back from the Client Monitoring Directorate saying:

23 you’ve made a mistake, you must correct that mistake in

24 these 170 documents and send them back to us?

25 «Answer: Well, if my memory serves me right, then

77 79

1 entry was inserted by mistake and asked to produce

2 another version without that entry, and provide it to

3 the Client Monitoring Directorate. Is that your

4 recollection?»

5 To which Mrs Blinova responds — and if we could

6 have also {Day4/130:1}, and {Day4/131:1} on the first

7 screen, I am sorry, I will keep reading. So

8 Mrs Blinova’s response was:

9 «Answer: Let me repeat myself, sir. Unfortunately

10 I do not have a clear recollection of that, but this may

11 well have been the case, is what I’m trying to say. If

12 changes were being made then I had to change all the

13 reports if someone had brought to my attention that

14 a mistake had been made, something had never actually

15 happened. So it would be wrong to, it would be

16 inappropriate to leave that intact in the previous

17 versions, so therefore I asked my boss to re-sign this

18 and then I sent this on to the monitoring directorate.

19 «Question: Right, so the reports would be sent to

20 Client Monitoring Directorate as they were produced,

21 initially?

22 «Answer: Well, they may have gone to

23 the directorate. Mind you, when a borrower became

24 a problem borrower, we had to centralise his file. The

25 file — a number of bundles like this had to go to

1 I believe that this was actually the case. We did not

2 cite any specific numbers, and I don’t think I would

3 have been able to adjust all those documents in one day.

4 But had this been brought to my attention, that I had

5 made a mistake, just to repeat myself once again,

6 I would have made those corrections in all those

7 documents across the board, and that was the appropriate

8 thing to do, rather than leave some incorrect reports in

9 place.»

10 Ms Mironova, I trust this has been translated to

11 you. So what Mrs Blinova seems to have sought at the

12 time was that the request to replace these dozens of

13 reports mentioning the decision to transfer the assets

14 to SKIF with a full chronological set of reports where

15 that entry was deleted, came from your department. Can

16 this be right?

17 A. Your Honour, I can’t either deny or affirm it.

18 I definitely did not issue such instructions, but by

19 that time I already had a few people working for me in

20 the Client Monitoring Directorate, so I simply don’t

21 remember.

22 Q. So who were these people? How many, and what are their

23 names?

24 A. Your Honour, I definitely recall that by that time,

25 which is by the autumn of 2009, Kolpachkov and Yashkina

78 80
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

April 5, 2016 Day 33

1 had already joined me and I do seem to think that

2 Mr Egorov was working with us as well, the rest I don’t

3 recall, and I don’t recall the sequence of how it was

4 happening.

5 Q. So to your knowledge it could have been any of the other

6 people working with you at Client Monitoring Directorate

7 who made that request to Investrbank.

8 A. My Lord, I can’t say anything about it. I can’t even

9 offer any suppositions.

10 Q. Is it possible that Mr Kolpachkov made that request?

11 A. I have to repeat myself: unfortunately I don’t know,

12 my Lord.

13 Q. Have you any reason to say that it was not

14 Mr Kolpachkov, or is it a complete — or you simply

15 can’t assist?

16 A. My Lord, I do beg your pardon. I don’t have any

17 recollections in this regard. I would have been very

18 happy to offer assistance to the court but I simply

19 don’t know and don’t recall the situation.

20 Q. Isn’t it the case, Ms Mironova, that actually the

21 decision to transfer the assets of Western Terminal to

22 SKIF was not implemented?

23 A. Your Honour, during the course of the preparation to

24 this hearing, I did have a look at the documents and

25 I saw that this decision to transfer the property to

1 either confirm or disagree with the words that were

2 translated to me.

3 Q. And the reason why the Bank actually abandoned this plan

4 was because it was such a crude and obvious raiding.

5 A. Your Honour, as I said prior to the break, unfortunately

6 I don’t know why — for what reasons the Bank took the

7 decision in June of 2009, and equally I don’t know why

8 this decision was not implemented or executed, therefore

9 I can’t comment in any way the previous statement.

10 Q. So the Bank then found other and more insidious ways to

11 achieve the same objective, namely to appropriate the

12 assets of the two companies, Western Terminal and

13 Scandinavia Insurance.

14 A. Your Honour, I don’t understand the essence of

15 the question, sorry.

16 Q. And really when this plan was changed to something more

17 sophisticated, rather than crude raiding, you at Client

18 Monitoring Directorate were careful to — you took steps

19 to have any trace of that original plan erased from the

20 documentation as far as possible. That’s what happened,

21 isn’t it?

22 A. Your Honour, I beg your pardon, again, I didn’t quite

23 understand the question, but do allow me to answer it as

24 I understood the question, and as I heard it.

25 During the whole course of work with the

81 83

1 SKIF was not implemented or realised. It is quite

2 possible that Mrs Blinova corrected all the reports we

3 are referring to now because the decision was not

4 implemented, not realised. Therefore it did not — so

5 it did not exist for the Bank, because it was not

6 implemented. The decision, it did not exist for the

7 Bank.

8 Q. So you see, let me make a comment about that decision

9 and the plan as it stood when the decision was taken,

10 and then you can agree or disagree with that.

11 The way it would be had the decision been

12 implemented is this: You get the shares under a repo

13 arrangement as additional security, then you have these

14 shares sold or transferred to other companies and you

15 have the management of the two companies replaced, and,

16 thirdly, all the assets of those two companies are,

17 again, transferred to some further connected companies.

18 So that would be the sequence and that’s a classic,

19 obvious, very crude scheme of a raiding takeover in

20 Russia, of raider-style.

21 A. Sorry, what is the question, please?

22 Q. Do you agree with that?

23 A. Your Honour, I really don’t know how in Russia or,

24 indeed, in any other country, raiding is taking place

25 because I never came across it. Therefore, I can’t

1 Oslo Marine Group, from the inception of the problems

2 with the paying of interest until the final realisation

3 of all the assets pledged to the Bank, the

4 Bank of St Petersburg acted as a reasonable issuer of

5 credits, as a reasonable lender, ready to support the

6 borrower when necessary, viewed and analysed, every

7 prospect of repaying of the debt, and when the

8 possibility was not found to repay that debt, the Bank

9 started to enforce the pledge through the court in

10 the enforced way, as we say it. When realising all the

11 assets, we acted reasonably, both as the creditor and

12 the pledgee, and we tried to maximise the value of every

13 asset in order to be able to repay the largest

14 proportion of the loan.

15 That is what the Bank and its employees were doing

16 for all these years. Again, I do apologise if I didn’t

17 answer the question correctly, but I did it the way

18 I understood the question.

19 Q. What I am putting to you, Ms Mironova, is that the only

20 reason why you would put Mrs Blinova and others at the

21 trouble of replacing over 100 virtually identical

22 documents, simply historic documents, was an attempt to

23 conceal the previous decision that was made, isn’t that

24 so?

25 A. That is not true, your Honour. I don’t understand what

82 84
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

April 5, 2016 Day 33

1 you are talking about. I said that I did not issue any

2 instructions, and the statement of Mrs Blinova, which

3 I heard through interpretation, it doesn’t say that

4 somebody forced her to get rid of a certain para. She

5 simply says that a mistake was referred to and the

6 decision to transfer the assets to SKIF was never, ever

7 implemented. Therefore it was not important for the

8 Bank whether it remained in the notes or not, because it

9 still existed as the decision, the resolution of

10 the board, and we disclosed it in good faith when

11 disclosing other things for the court, and I don’t quite

12 understand what was the Bank in breach of.

13 Q. Coincidentally, the minutes of the management board

14 decision, which I have taken you to earlier, were not

15 disclosed in these proceedings originally in 2013, and

16 they were only disclosed towards the end of last year,

17 pursuant to my Lord’s order for specific disclosure, and

18 that supports what I have said earlier about the Bank’s

19 efforts to conceal that decision, does it not?

20 A. Your Honour, on my behalf, I am stating that I did not

21 make any attempts to cover anything. I have been

22 working and acting as a good faith employee of the good

23 faith bank during the course of working with the problem

24 borrower, and also during the course of the hearings.

25 Q. And the reason you wanted to conceal that decision was

1 {D149/2487.1/1}, {D149/2487.1/4} on the other screen.

2 So that seems to be the beginning of a letter which

3 the Bank seems to have received from the court bailiffs

4 in 2011. Then if you read the first paragraph, that

5 essentially explains to you the background. It has to

6 be read carefully, but you will see what it is about.

7 (Pause).

8 A. I’ve read it.

9 Q. Yes, so what seems to have happened is that the — well,

10 obviously you know of a company called Sevzapalians,

11 don’t you?

12 A. Yes, I remember such a name.

13 Q. So Sevzapalians is a Renord Company which was acting as

14 the original purchaser, and I trust you are familiar

15 with this term, of Western Terminal shares, isn’t that

16 right?

17 A. Possibly.

18 Q. Well, it is, and Sevzapalians is one of the Renord

19 companies which was holding the shares on behalf of

20 the Bank, pursuant to the repo arrangement.

21 Now, then Sevzapalians, as we discussed a moment

22 ago, bought the creditor’s rights from Morskoy Bank, who

23 was a creditor of Western Terminal. Do you follow?

24 I am just explaining the sequence.

25 A. Yes, I follow. I follow.

85 87

1 because it showed the fraudulent intentions of the Bank

2 to raid the OMG assets, is it not?

3 A. That is absolutely untrue, your Honour.

4 Q. Now, Ms Mironova, are you — now, at some point in 2010,

5 Renord bought from Morskoy Bank the creditor’s rights

6 under the loan from Morskoy Bank to Western Terminal,

7 isn’t that correct?

8 A. Yes, this took place, as far as I remember.

9 Q. And then are you aware of the fact that then the Renord

10 Company, Sevzapalians, which was the original purchaser

11 of Western Terminal, on behalf of the Bank, it brought

12 a claim, an enforcement claim in Russian courts, against

13 its own subsidiary, Western Terminal, pursuant to this

14 Morskoy Bank loan assigned to Sevzapalians; do you

15 follow? Is that consistent with your recollections?

16 A. My Lord, I beg your pardon. I suppose the

17 interpretation is to blame, but I didn’t quite get the

18 question.

19 Q. Yes, but having got this assignment of Morskoy Bank’s

20 rights as the creditor under this loan, Renord company,

21 Sevzapalians, brought an enforcement claim in

22 the Russian courts against Western Terminal; do you

23 follow? Does that sound right to you?

24 A. I do not remember anything like that.

25 Q. Now, if you could perhaps have a look at

1 Q. And then Sevzapalians brings an enforcement claim in

2 Russian courts against Western Terminal LLC, it’s own

3 subsidiary, pursuant to that loan. Do you understand?

4 A. The question which was put to me, I don’t understand

5 what it means when it is being said «against its own

6 subsidiary». Who is whose subsidiary here?

7 Q. Sevzapalians is meant to be, I think, a 99 per cent

8 shareholder of Western Terminal under the repo

9 arrangement. That’s the position as of 2009, 2010 and

10 2012. What I mean is, and in this situation the parent

11 company, Sevzapalians, is bringing a claim in

12 the Russian courts against Western Terminal, a company

13 owned by itself. That’s what I mean by its subsidiary;

14 do you follow?

15 A. Thank you very much for the explanation. Now

16 I understand the context.

17 The document shown to me tells me that Sevzapalians

18 does not file any claims into the Russian court; it is

19 just — it’s already got a court decision and therefore

20 it is asking the bailiffs to requisition all the

21 property. This is the next stage of requisition. This

22 is the process which is undertaken by state authority,

23 of state bailiffs. This is what I read from here.

24 Q. Thank you. Incidentally, could you please read the

25 handwritten note which you see in the top left corner?

86 88
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

April 5, 2016 Day 33

1 Could you read it in Russian, because I can see it is

2 not translated. I think it is translated, yes, I’m

3 sorry. Do you recognise the handwriting?

4 A. No, to be honest I don’t recognise the writing, no.

5 I don’t know whose writing it is.

6 Q. Or the signature?

7 A. My Lord, unfortunately I don’t know all the Bank’s

8 employees’ signatures by heart. I simply don’t

9 recognise it.

10 Q. So as you can see really from the first page, so what is

11 happening is Sevzapalians is seeking to recover against

12 all the assets, or all the significant assets, of

13 Western Terminal, whether or not they are pledged to

14 the Bank, you can see berth SV-15 which is pledged to

15 the Bank, the land which is pledged to the Bank, berth

16 SV-16 which is not pledged to the Bank and then two

17 railway tracks which are not pledged to the Bank; can

18 you see that in this list?

19 A. Yes, of course I can see the list.

20 Q. And so by this letter, if we scroll down to the next

21 page just slowly, really, it mostly sets out the

22 provisions of the Russian law. Then if we could scroll

23 down one more page. {D149/2487.1/3}, {D149/2487.1/6}

24 you can see that in the end the bailiff is asking for

25 the Bank’s consent for carrying out a public auction as

1 whether you were working on this?

2 A. My Lord, I remember the Bank agreed to the sale of

3 Western Terminal, maintaining the pledge in favour of

4 the Bank.

5 Q. You actually recall working on this, or are you just

6 saying that you have seen documents about that? Were

7 you personally part of the decision?

8 A. Sir, my recollection does not consist of me remembering

9 that I specifically took part in taking this decision,

10 going somewhere, doing something. I don’t have such

11 recollections, but when I was preparing for this hearing

12 and when I was perusing all the documents in my files,

13 I came across a request to a credit committee, I came

14 across a signed agreement, so I then remembered that,

15 indeed, we concluded such a deal.

16 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: It was quite a big deal. It is quite

17 a big sale, isn’t it?

18 A. It was not a big or significant deal because the Bank’s

19 encumbrance or pledge didn’t go anyway. This was a sale

20 maintaining the encumbrance in favour of the Bank. If

21 you allow me, and if you would like me to, I think it

22 would be worth taking a step back and trying to

23 understand why Sevzapalians asked the bailiffs and asked

24 the Bank to do — to take these decisions, if the court

25 would like to know.

89

1 part of these enforcement proceedings by Sevzapalians

2 against Western Terminal.

3 A. Yes, I can see the end of this document.

4 Q. So were you in any way involved in considering this

5 issue?

6 A. Which issue in particular do you mean?

7 Q. The proposed consent being provided to Sevzapalians for

8 these proposed enforcement steps. The Bank was required

9 to give consent, so were you personally working on that?

10 A. My Lord, what I can see from this document, the bailiffs

11 are asking the Bank to agree to sell the property which

12 is pledged to the Bank. As far as I remember, and

13 I think I have seen certain documents in the case

14 dossier, the Bank did, indeed, agree to this procedure

15 because the Bank was not losing its right to the pledge,

16 and therefore it did not influence the Bank’s position

17 in any way.

18 Q. Thank you, Ms Mironova. Essentially, subject to

19 translation difficulties, my Lord can read the documents

20 himself. What I am asking you about is whether you have

21 any personal recollections of this issue arising and

22 being resolved, about the sale of these assets in favour

23 of, or pursuant to the claim by Sevzapalians, or taken

24 over by Sevzapalians in 2011. Do you recall considering

25 whether the Bank should give consent, not give consent,

91

1 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: It’s a matter for Mr Stroilov, but if

2 it is within your personal knowledge, you may very well

3 want to know that, Mr Stroilov; is that right?

4 MR STROILOV: Well, perhaps not. I think I will —

5 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: You want to leave it until later?

6 MR STROILOV: I will leave it to Mr Lord to elicit this.

7 MR LORD: Well, if it is an answer to your Lordship’s

8 question it might be the right time for the witness to

9 give your Lordship the answer.

10 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Well, I didn’t ask that question.

11 I asked whether it was a big transaction and the

12 witness’s answer was: it wasn’t really, because the Bank

13 maintained its pledge. I understand that. I don’t want

14 to take over the cross-examination, if you wish to

15 re-examine, if Mr Stroilov doesn’t want to ask that

16 question, I will think about it. I may ask it at the

17 end.

18 MR LORD: And I will think about it likewise, my Lord.

19 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Yes.

20 MR STROILOV: Yes, my Lord. Now, could we have a look at

21 {D150/2495.2/0.1} on one screen, and {D150/2495.2/1} on

22 the other, and then if we could … no, that doesn’t

23 seem … well, incidentally, this is actually good

24 enough. If we could have — just keep that document you

25 called by accident, the Russian version, and if we could

90 92
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

April 5, 2016 Day 33

1 perhaps call on the other screen {D150/2495.1/0.1}. So

2 that will be the …

3 So that seems to be the copy of the management board

4 decision to give consent to that realisation, to give

5 that consent to Sevzapalians, isn’t that right,

6 Ms Mironova?

7 A. Yes, I can see it.

8 Q. And you can see that Mr Kolpachkov was actually

9 presenting the proposal to the board; can you see that?

10 A. Yes, I can see that. So I think contrary to what you

11 indicated yesterday, Mr Kolpachkov was, in fact,

12 involved in OMG matters, was he not? Sir, it doesn’t in

13 any way contradict what I said yesterday. It says here

14 that Mr Kolpachkov presented the matter as acting

15 director. That means that at that point in time, on

16 that day, on 31 August, unfortunately I was on leave,

17 and at that very short time, Mr Kolpachkov acted in my

18 place. Right, and as you can see … fine, I think

19 I can leave it there. Then if we could look briefly at

20 {D154/2593/1}, and on the other screen {D154/2593/8}, so

21 this seems to be the protocol recording the results of

22 the purported public auction which took place

23 in December 2011 pursuant to Sevzapalians’ enforcement

24 claim; can you see that? You can see that the buyer is

25 Nefte-Oil Closed Joint-Stock Company; can you see that

1 RUB 161,497; do you think it is a fair market price?

2 A. My Lord, I do not — I think this is the fair market

3 price, given the fact that the asset was sold encumbered

4 to St Petersburg Bank. Any new owner would have had to

5 pay the Bank over $30 million.

6 Q. And I understand, Ms Mironova, that Nefte-Oil was

7 actually the only bidder at that auction, or at least

8 that it was the only bid made for the assets, isn’t that

9 right?

10 A. My Lord, unfortunately I cannot answer the question

11 because I simply don’t know.

12 Q. Ms Mironova, wouldn’t it be, the whole thing — I mean,

13 I take your point that it’s all pledged to the Bank and

14 the pledge is still there so you have nothing to worry

15 about, but since you are asked for consent and have to

16 make a decision, wouldn’t the Bank be concerned to see

17 that this is clearly a collusive deal, pursuant to

18 collusive court proceedings, and really something that

19 is in essence a sham transaction being presented as

20 a sale at a public auction? Wouldn’t the Bank ask more

21 questions as to why this was being done?

22 A. Sir, the Bank was fully cognisant of the actions and

23 consents it was giving. At that point in time we were

24 faced with the following situation: the entire property

25 was owned by Western Terminal. Some of the assets, one

93 95

1 identified in this preamble?

2 A. Yes, thank you, I can see that.

3 Q. And obviously Nefte-Oil is another Renord Company, is it

4 not?

5 A. Yes, as far as I know.

6 Q. So that’s another occasion where you have one Renord

7 Company bringing an enforcement claim, or pursuing

8 an enforcement claim against its own subsidiary, and

9 there being a purported public auction, where the assets

10 pursuant to that claim are sold to yet another Renord

11 Company. So that is something that may be called

12 keeping things in the family, is it not?

13 A. Sir, I’m reading this document. It’s called protocol

14 number 4. I can see that this is an implementation of

15 the Sevzapalians court order submitted to the bailiffs

16 in relation with which the Bank agreed for the sale of

17 its pledged property, maintaining the encumbrance. As

18 a result of this deal, the asset was bought by Nefte-Oil

19 company. As I’ve already said, in order to understand

20 the Bank’s logic in its entirety, it would have been

21 useful to make a step back, but the court ruled that

22 this is not appropriate at this point in time.

23 Q. Now, if we could scroll down one page {D154/2593/2},

24 {D154/2593/9} on each screen, you will see in clause 2.1

25 that the entire Western Terminal was sold for

1 of the berths, one of the land plots, was pledged to

2 the Bank. The rest of the property was unencumbered and

3 was under the threat of Maritime Bank’s court order

4 requisition. They already had the order from the court

5 to requisition the rest of the property.

6 So in 2008, when the repo deal was being set up, the

7 only purpose of that was to have an opportunity to

8 realise, to get the asset in its entirety, which is

9 obviously going to get the highest price when sold to

10 any final buyer, as opposed to two types of property

11 which were pledged to St Petersburg Bank, which were

12 right in the middle of this set of property called

13 Western Terminal.

14 Given the fact that this repo deal was being done

15 rather quickly in the last few days of the year before

16 new year’s festivities, so I remember that we were not

17 talking about 100 per cent shares of Western Terminal

18 but 99, because Mrs Arkhangelskaya was already on leave

19 and could not sign any documents.

20 Therefore, the fact that there was this 1 per cent

21 held by Mrs Arkhangelskaya for all these years did not

22 allow anyone to either sell or put together all the

23 assets in the Western Terminal, and to join together

24 pledged and unpledged assets.

25 Therefore, the Bank’s logic was as follows: first of

94 96
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

April 5, 2016 Day 33

1 all, the Bank wanted to have the opportunity to have the

2 asset in its entirety, and; secondly, the Bank wanted to

3 do away with Maritime Bank’s claim for, if I remember

4 correctly, RUB 50 million in total, that was their loan.

5 This is why these assets were sold to Nefte-Oil

6 through this court decision of Sevzapalians, and then

7 Nefte-Oil. So this way, this way, the assets were

8 joined, both pledged assets to St Petersburg Bank,

9 because the pledge didn’t go away anywhere, and the

10 other unencumbered assets. They were joined together

11 through this mechanism.

12 So thanks to all these steps, the Bank had

13 an opportunity to offer the market the set of assets

14 called Western Terminal in its entirety. This was the

15 economic logic of the Bank when the Bank was giving

16 consent to such decisions. There was no collusion.

17 There was no process of moving, transferring assets from

18 one pocket to another for concealing it. The only

19 purpose was to unify the assets to maximise their market

20 value.

21 I apologise for a lengthy reply.

22 MR STROILOV: No, thank you, I think it’s important for the

23 court to know your explanation.

24 Now, Ms Mironova, isn’t it the case that by that

25 time, Renord was already interested in having these

1 of the reasons why the Western Terminal appeared as

2 a suitable company for a repo deal to me, was that it

3 had considerable assets, and not all of them were

4 pledged to Bank of St Petersburg. As I said several

5 minutes ago, the greatest market value in selling the

6 site is available only to those who sell an asset in its

7 entirety, and not bit by bit, piecemeal. This was the

8 purpose and the objective which was one of the reasons

9 why the Western Terminal was considered as a repo deal

10 candidate.

11 Q. Could we please have a look at {D159/2682.2/0.1}, and

12 {D159/2682.2/1} of the same tab on the other screen.

13 Now, this seems to be the minutes of the big credit

14 committee in May 2012, and if we scroll down, I think

15 five pages on each screen {D159/2682.2/0.5},

16 {D159/2682.2/5}, you can see within half a year’s time,

17 approximately, after the sale, or the so-called sale we

18 have just discussed, you are — well, rather the

19 management board is asked to give consent to a further

20 sale of the same assets to another Renord Company,

21 that’s VECTOR Invest; is that an accurate description of

22 what happened?

23 A. Yes, my Lord, all is correct. With the preservation of

24 the encumbrance of the Bank. That’s what it says here.

25 That’s how the sale were to be implemented.

97 99

1 assets for its own purposes?

2 A. My Lord, I have no information of this nature. At that

3 time the Bank, represented by its top management, was

4 actively looking for buyers in the market, was

5 negotiating with a number of potential buyers, including

6 a number of state companies.

7 Q. And, Ms Mironova, in your disclosure there is not

8 a single document, internal or external to the Bank,

9 reflecting these alleged negotiations with potential

10 buyers; why is that?

11 A. Because these negotiations were held at the level of

12 Bank of St Petersburg top management, and they normally

13 don’t leave any traces in their loan portfolio that they

14 had a conversation, or a discussion with the

15 representatives of a state-owned company.

16 Q. You are making it up as we go along, aren’t you,

17 Ms Mironova?

18 A. My Lord, I am under oath and I am telling only the

19 truth.

20 Q. Ms Mironova, if you took control of the companies under

21 a repo arrangement, purportedly in order to help you to

22 enforce the pledges, then it is dishonest to steal

23 unpledged assets of these companies in this way, isn’t

24 it?

25 A. My Lord, as I said in my written witness statement, one

1 Q. And do you accept that VECTOR Invest is another Renord

2 Company?

3 A. Yes, as far as I recall, that is the case.

4 Q. So what Renord seems to be doing here is having sold the

5 assets to itself at a so-called public auction, as soon

6 as the transfer of the title is registered, the «buyer»,

7 quote unquote, is then seeking to transfer or sell the

8 assets to yet another Renord Company; isn’t that

9 an accurate view of what is being reflected here?

10 A. In fact, yes. With the preservation of the Bank’s

11 encumbrance, the assets transferred from one company to

12 another company.

13 Q. Thank you. Again, you can see that Mr Kolpachkov is

14 reporting to the board about that. So was he involved

15 in working on that issue at that time?

16 A. No, my Lord, he was not involved in working on this

17 issue: he was one of the members of the major credit

18 committee. Therefore, technically, it was suitable that

19 he, on the part of the credit monitoring directorate,

20 would report about this issue.

21 Q. But you were also working on this — well, when this

22 request in from Renord, you were personally working on

23 it as the head of Client Monitoring Directorate, were

24 you not?

25 A. Yes, your Honour, I do recall this transaction.

98 100
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

April 5, 2016 Day 33

1 Q. Now, I think, just to save time looking at the

2 documents, maybe you will agree — I beg your pardon,

3 no, that’s not right. I will find the document in

4 a minute.

5 Now, if we could please have a look at

6 {D160/2688.1/0.1}, and {D160/2688.1/1} on the other

7 screen. That seems to be the sale contract between

8 Nefte-Oil and VECTOR Invest; can you see that?

9 A. Yes, it looks like it.

10 Q. So that’s what the board had given its consent to in

11 the previous document. Now, so there are some curious

12 matters about it. Firstly, as you can see from

13 clause 1.1, this time what is being sold is only the

14 assets pledged to the Bank, whereas unpledged are either

15 retained by Nefte-Oil or transferred to some third or

16 fourth or fifth Renord Company. So you can see that

17 this sale only relates to the pledged assets; can you

18 see that?

19 A. Yes, I see that, my Lord.

20 Q. And so then if you scroll down one page,

21 {D160/2688.1/0.2}, {D160/2688.1/2} you will see that it

22 is being purportedly sold for RUB 2,300,000. That is,

23 again, as we have discussed previously, still subject to

24 the encumbrance, the pledge to the Bank, is it not?

25 A. Yes, quite right. The obligation to repay to the Bank

1 doesn’t matter because obviously this money, in both

2 cases, goes from Mr Smirnov’s right pocket to his left

3 pocket? So it can be anything; wouldn’t you agree with

4 that?

5 A. Your Honour, I don’t know anything about Mr Smirnov’s

6 pockets, but in essence, the actual realisation of

7 the property pledged to the Bank has not happened until

8 today. All the steps we are now looking at were the

9 preparation work, preparatory steps, what could be

10 offered to the open market, a clean, whole asset, and to

11 maximise its realisation value.

12 Q. So wasn’t — now, the purpose of this transaction —

13 I am talking about the sale from Nefte-Oil to

14 VECTOR Invest, was to protect the asset against any

15 possible challenge to the validity of the previous

16 auction sale to Nefte-Oil, was it not?

17 A. No, your Honour, as far as I remember, here there were

18 some business or taxation consideration on the part of

19 Nefte-Oil because it was a company with other major

20 large projects, and that was a request from Nefte-Oil to

21 that tune(?), I just can’t remember all the ins and

22 outs.

23 Q. So because this so-called public auction was quite

24 evidently a sham transaction, here, by this contract,

25 Renord is trying to create a company which can be

101 103

1 US $30 million.

2 Q. So do you think that RUB 2,300,000 was a fair market

3 price of these assets?

4 A. More likely considering that the Bank was still being

5 owed for those assets US $30 million.

6 Q. But just a few months before, the fair market price was

7 only, what, RUB 181,000, or something like that, was it

8 not? At the previous transaction we were looking at.

9 A. Your Honour, I have that contract opened at that page,

10 RUB 161,497.

11 Q. Indeed, thank you very much, Ms Mironova. The point

12 I am making is the fair market price seems to have

13 changed very rapidly between these two transactions

14 between three Renord companies.

15 A. Your Honour, I can’t offer any commentary on that. When

16 Nefte-Oil was buying it in its favour, then it was done

17 through the bailiff’s auction, and in this case, the

18 deal between VECTOR Invest and Nefte-Oil is an internal

19 deal without participation of any state bodies or

20 agencies at an agreed price. Having paid RUB 2,300,000,

21 VECTOR Invest obtained the property, according to which,

22 or under which, it had to pay a further US $30 million

23 to the Bank, because the rights now of the pledger were

24 given to VECTOR Invest.

25 Q. But Ms Mironova, wouldn’t you say that the figure

1 presented as a bona fide purchaser.

2 A. Your Honour, it does not correspond to the reality and

3 all the reasons of each action on the part of the Bank

4 were checked by me during, and addressed by me during

5 the course of my previous answers to the questions. If

6 need be, I can sum it up again.

7 MR STROILOV: Thank you. My Lord, I would submit this may

8 be a good time for a short break.

9 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: 10 minutes.

10 (3.12 pm)

11 (A short break)

12 (3.25 pm)

13 MR STROILOV: May it please your Lordship.

14 Just one second, my Lord. (Pause).

15 Ms Mironova, can you please be shown

16 {D160/2707.2/0.1}, and then {D160/2707.2/1} on the other

17 screen.

18 These seem to be the minutes of the management board

19 meeting on 15 August 2012. Once again, if we scroll

20 down I think to pages, {D160/2702.2/0.4} and

21 {D160/2702.2/4} respectively, that is the decision.

22 Once again the board heard your deputy, Mr Kolpachkov,

23 and as you can see, that refers to a proposed

24 settlement agreement between the Bank and VECTOR Invest

25 in relation to the pledged real estate which

102 104
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

April 5, 2016 Day 33

1 VECTOR Invest had just bought, as we have seen before

2 the break.

3 Do you recall that decision being made?

4 A. Yes, I recall it.

5 Q. So, once again, it looks like obviously from that minute

6 one would assume that Mr Kolpachkov was dealing with it,

7 but is it your evidence that, in fact, you were the one

8 who dealt with the matter in the Client Monitoring

9 Directorate and Mr Kolpachkov was just deputising, is

10 that what you said?

11 A. Yes, your Honour, exactly so.

12 Q. So as you can see, whereas — so it is proposed that the

13 pledge is going to be sold for 1.2 billion, let’s say,

14 just so we don’t deal with the kopecks. So that’s what

15 you believed to be the market price at the time, isn’t

16 it?

17 A. The thing is that it says here that to conclude

18 an amicable settlement with VECTOR Invest, according to

19 which VECTOR Invest is obligated to pay to the Bank

20 US $30 million, approximately, to the Bank to release

21 the property that it acquired from the encumbrance,

22 that’s quite right.

23 Q. So did you believe that figure to reflect the market

24 price of the pledge?

25 A. No, your Honour. The circumstances were unfolding in

1 settlement agreement we are talking about.

2 A. Yes, it looks like it.

3 Q. And as you can see from the reference in the top left

4 corner, and I think in the subheading after the words

5 «Settlement Agreement», there were actually judicial

6 proceedings on foot which were settled by this

7 agreement; is that right?

8 A. No, your Honour, the judicial procedures have been

9 completed by that date, because the Bank had a special

10 list with the set original prices for the realisation.

11 The court system of the Russian Federation obliges that

12 any amicable agreement or settlement agreement between

13 the Bank, the pledger and the borrower should be

14 approved in the court. Therefore, we had to send this

15 particular settlement agreement to the court to be

16 approved by the court.

17 Q. Just to be clear about it, there were enforcement

18 proceedings on foot prior to this agreement, isn’t that

19 right? These are the enforcement proceedings, as

20 I understand it, by the Bank against — well, for the

21 recovery of the pledge; is that correct? For the

22 realisation of the pledge.

23 A. Quite right, because the court procedure has been

24 finalised, we won, and we were awarded a list with the

25 set prices to realise the asset in favour of the Bank.

105 107

1 the following way. When the Bank of St Petersburg was

2 enforcing the pledge vis-a-vis the property of

3 the Western Terminal which was pledged to it, then in

4 the original mortgage agreement, or contract, it was

5 written that the original starting sale price at the

6 auction is set as 100 per cent of the pledged value of

7 the real estate, or immovable property. It looks like

8 the pledged value was 1 billion to 100 million. During

9 the process of the search of the purchasers or buyers

10 and negotiations with the potential prospective buyers,

11 the top management of the Bank realised, or discovered

12 that no potential prospective buyer expressed or showed

13 any potential interest at that value in relation to

14 the asset.

15 So, accordingly, for the Bank the main task, or the

16 main purpose of this amicable agreement with

17 VECTOR Invest was to establish a different sales or

18 realisation price at the auction, which will be held by

19 the court’s bailiffs and which would correspond to, at

20 the time, current market situation, which was the market

21 value of this immovable property or this asset. That

22 was the economic feasibility of this amicable agreement.

23 Q. Thank you. Could we now look at the actual contract,

24 which is at {D161/2708/0.1} on one screen, {D161/2708/1}

25 on the other screen. That seems to be the

1 Q. Right, and so then, after the assets came into the

2 possession of VECTOR Invest, obviously VECTOR Invest

3 becomes the judgment debtor, well, the respondent to

4 these enforcement proceedings; is that how it works,

5 just to be sure I understand correctly what happened?

6 A. Yes, your Honour, I already mentioned it prior to

7 the break, it became the pledger.

8 Q. And so by this settlement agreement, the Bank and

9 VECTOR, who are the parties to these enforcement

10 proceedings, they conclude, or purport to conclude, the

11 enforcement proceedings. So VECTOR is meant to pay the

12 agreed price and then the pledge disappears. The Bank

13 is no longer enforcing the pledge. Is that the correct

14 understanding of the meaning of this?

15 A. Absolutely correct.

16 Q. And it is envisaged — so as you can see, the date of

17 the agreement is 20 August 2012, isn’t it?

18 A. Yes, your Honour, that’s what it says there.

19 Q. And then if you scroll down one page, {D161/2708/0.2},

20 {D161/2708/2}, you will see in clauses 1 and 2 that by

21 the agreement, VECTOR is required to pay RUB 1.2 billion

22 by 28 August 2012, so effectively within one week, eight

23 days.

24 A. Yes.

25 Q. And in fact, VECTOR never paid it, did it?

106 108
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

April 5, 2016 Day 33

1 A. Yes, quite correct. 1 the value it could get from selling the assets. All our
2 Q. And the Bank then brought further court proceedings 2 actions, including this action, were performed to sell
3 against VECTOR Invest to enforce this 3 the asset at a maximum available market price as soon as
4 settlement agreement; is that the correct understanding 4 possible, given the purchaser’s sort of feeling and
5 of this sequence? 5 appetite in the market.
6 A. Yes, quite right. 6 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Yes, and you have explained that
7 Q. And that was your intention from the start, from the 7 clearly to me, but I think what is being put, although
8 moment you made this settlement agreement, you and 8 I will be corrected if I am wrong, is that what we see
9 VECTOR didn’t intend it to be implemented, did you? 9 appears to be adversarial and possibly third party
10 A. Your Honour, several minutes ago that’s what I said. 10 disputes being resolved, and at each stage there is then
11 That was what I said several minutes ago. 11 a break down.
12 Q. Quite. Well, I just wanted to be sure you correctly 12 I think what is being suggested is that that
13 understand, thank you. 13 appearance is a false appearance because the sequence
14 So essentially the Bank and VECTOR essentially 14 was pre-planned, and it was all a dance with the
15 manufactured bogus court proceedings, because in fact 15 objective you have described; is that right?
16 you were working together, but the matter was presented 16 MR STROILOV: Well, I don’t accept that was the objective,
17 to the world, so to speak, and to court as if you are 17 but otherwise.
18 adversaries in court fighting against each other; isn’t 18 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: No, but it’s what the witness says was
19 that a fair description of what you did? 19 the objective.
20 A. No, your Honour, that is not a fair description of our 20 MR STROILOV: Yes. Indeed, my Lord.
21 actions. The logic of the Bank, I’ve already explained 21 A. Yes, indeed I maintain that this was the objective.
22 that our main task was at the time to make the original 22 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Do you accept, I think it is being put
23 realisation price of the immovable property set by the 23 to you, that the appearance from the documents was false
24 court bailiffs at the open auction to the market value 24 because what the documents present as adversarial
25 of that particular subject, 1.2 billion did not 25 dispute was, in fact, a sequence of preordained steps in
109 111

1 correspond to the original, to the market value there.

2 The task, the reason behind this amicable agreement,

3 settlement agreement was set in paragraph 4 is to set

4 a new starting realisation sales price which would

5 correspond more to the market value at the time, to

6 which interested parties would respond to at the open

7 auction.

8 Q. Well, so you have manufactured certain proceedings,

9 an agreement and then a breach of that agreement, and

10 then proceedings for the breach. These were

11 manufactured in order to reduce, to get around the

12 provision in the previous judgment on the starting price

13 being 1.2 billion. Do I understand correctly what you

14 are saying?

15 A. No, not at all, this is not at all a reflection of

16 the truth. The Bank was acting honestly and openly, and

17 no decisions were manufactured.

18 Q. Well, I put it to you that, in fact, what you have just

19 described, this scheme with a settlement agreement

20 between connected parties, and then a breach of that

21 agreement, and proceedings brought for the enforcement

22 of this agreement, that was, in fact, dishonest, was it

23 not?

24 A. My Lord, the Bank acted properly and honestly, as

25 a pledge holder and creditor who was trying to maximise

1 order to achieve the objective you have described?

2 A. My Lord, theoretically VECTOR Invest could have found

3 a buyer over that week and it could have paid the Bank

4 1.2 billion could have obtained assets — unencumbered

5 assets. Miracles do happen.

6 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Well, Mr Stroilov, I think the point

7 I understood you to be putting has been put.

8 MR STROILOV: It has.

9 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: If you wish to add to it, by all

10 means…

11 MR STROILOV: It has been. I am grateful, my Lord.

12 Then Ms Mironova, as I understood it, pursuant to

13 this new claim by the Bank against VECTOR Invest on

14 29 September 2012, the assets, the pledged assets of

15 Western Terminal were actually sold at what was

16 presented as a public auction; is that correct?

17 A. A public auction was organised by a state entity, by

18 court bailiffs, and they were selling these immovable

19 assets.

20 Q. Now, the buyer of the assets was a company called Kontur

21 LLC, was it not? Is that correct?

22 A. Yes, as far as I remember.

23 Q. And the sale price was RUB 674.5 million; is that

24 correct?

25 A. Perhaps. I don’t remember this figure exactly to

110 112
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

April 5, 2016 Day 33

1 the last rouble. One must look at the documents.

2 Q. Perhaps we should. If we could look at {D161/2718/1},

3 then {D161/2718/3} on the other screen. Indeed, I was

4 wrong, I do apologise, the sale price is recorded as

5 RUB 675 million.

6 As you can see, this particular document only

7 mentions one bidder, that’s participant number 1, and

8 that is Kontur. Kontur is another company fully

9 controlled by Renord Group, or at least controlled by

10 Renord Group, is it not?

11 A. My Lord, I can see from this document only that it says

12 the winner is a participant named Kontur. Maybe

13 I haven’t read it extensively enough, but I haven’t seen

14 where it says this was the only bidder.

15 Q. We will come to that. At the moment I am asking you, to

16 your knowledge, Kontur is a company controlled by Renord

17 Group, is it not?

18 A. As far as I know, yes.

19 Q. Thank you. Now, as regards the number of bidders, may

20 I put this to you: this document, soon after it

21 happened, towards the — so in about a month, obviously

22 at that time, at the time the sale took place, these

23 proceedings in London were already ongoing. That was

24 towards the end of 2012, and we were all already here in

25 court. Do you follow that?

1 could go back for a minute to {D161/2718/1}, and

2 {D161/2718/3} respectively. What I would like to draw

3 your attention to is the second table on this page. The

4 fact that it does not just list the winner, or names the

5 winner. Actually this table purports to list bids, and

6 so whether or not there was only one bidder, it’s clear

7 from this document that there was only one bid from

8 Kontur, RUB 675 million, and that’s the price at which

9 it was sold. Do you agree with that?

10 A. My Lord, unfortunately I am not familiar with the rules

11 of drawing up such protocols by court bailiffs, which is

12 a state organisation, but if my memory is right, the law

13 of the sale says that there should be a minimum of two

14 bidders for an auction to be considered to have taken

15 place. I don’t know, perhaps the provision has been

16 revised or amended, because I know that the bailiffs

17 have to publish the information in the media everywhere,

18 and advertise the fact that the competition — that

19 an asset is put up for sale for a particular price; and

20 the same notice is — and I think exactly the same law

21 says that if there’s only one participant, then the

22 public auction is deemed invalid.

23 Q. Well, Ms Mironova, couldn’t it be the case that, in

24 fact, this law was breached and this public auction was

25 invalid? Couldn’t that be the case?

113 115

1 Now, so in October 2012, so about a month after this

2 alleged public sale, we were informed about that sale by

3 your side, by your lawyers, the Bank’s English lawyers,

4 and this document was disclosed to us; do you follow

5 this far?

6 Next, then there was another document, also provided

7 to us at that time. If we could go to {D161/2719/1},

8 and on the other screen if we could have {D161/2719/4}.

9 So that is a document called protocol number 3, and

10 essentially that’s just a sale contract, as I understand

11 is quite normal in Russian public. Sales — we have

12 seen one before. Again, that is simply a contract for

13 the sale of the property from VECTOR to Kontur. If we

14 could just very quickly scan through it and then if we

15 could scroll down both pages, unless anyone objects,

16 scroll down both screens. Then leave the Russian screen

17 as it is, if we could scroll down the English screen

18 a little further just so that my Lord has a feeling of

19 what it is like {D161/2719/3}, {D161/2719/5}. Again, it

20 doesn’t mention any second bidder; you see that, don’t

21 you?

22 A. I can see this document is a sales purchase agreement.

23 I don’t suppose it should have any mention of any other

24 participants.

25 Q. Yes. Now, I think I do apologise, it’s my fault. If we

1 A. My Lord, I know nothing about it. But court bailiffs

2 are public servants. I doubt very much that public

3 officials are capable of violating the law in this way,

4 and if it had taken place, any market participant could

5 have appealed against this auction and could have asked

6 for it to be voided.

7 Q. Now, Ms Mironova, you will have noticed, I have shown

8 you protocol number 2 and protocol number 3, which were

9 disclosed to us in October 2012. Surprisingly there was

10 no document called protocol number 1. Obviously we

11 wrote several times to your lawyers, to the Bank’s

12 English lawyers about this. If we could perhaps have

13 a look at {N22/53/2}. So this is — I am afraid it is

14 only in English, but I will translate to you the

15 material bit.

16 This is my letter to the Bank’s English lawyers, at

17 that time Baker & McKenzie, dated 14 October 2013, so

18 almost a year after that disclosure of protocols 2 and 3

19 was given.

20 If we could scroll down — so the purpose of that

21 letter was, essentially, generally speaking, to

22 criticise in general, not just on that point, but

23 generally to criticise on various points the disclosure

24 given by the Bank and Mr Savelyev in these proceedings,

25 if you follow that.

114 116
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

April 5, 2016 Day 33

1 Now, if you could scroll down to {N22/53/4} here,

2 you can see — I don’t think you can read it, but I will

3 read it to you. In section 7, which is entitled

4 «Auction sale of Western Terminal assets», I write this:

5 «It is the defendant’s case that the auction sale of

6 the assets of Western Terminal was carried out

7 fraudulently at a gross undervalue and/or by way of

8 fraudulent insider dealings, that the sale was unlawful,

9 there was only one registered bidder (Kontur), and that

10 Kontur is owned and/or controlled (through

11 Baltic Fuel Company and Renord-Invest) by close family

12 members of Irina Malysheva (Vice President of the Bank)

13 and by Mikhail Smirnov (said by your clients to be the

14 ultimate owner of ‘primary purchasers’ and ‘secondary

15 purchasers’ of the shareholding of Western Terminal and

16 Scan).

17 «Please disclose the following documentation.»

18 And then if we could scroll down one page.

19 THE INTERPRETER: I beg your pardon, the text disappeared

20 from the screen before the interpreter could

21 read-translate it for the witness. Could we go back.

22 I beg your pardon.

23 MR STROILOV: I am sorry, could the interpreter finish.

24 (Pause).

25 I think we can now scroll down one page {N22/53/5}.

1 «(a) the Bank has now located Protocol 1 and the

2 corresponding publication of information regarding the

3 auction sale. Copies of these are enclosed.»

4 Then in response to (b), in response to the request

5 for evidence that there was a second bidder, they say:

6 «Please see Protocol 1 to the auction sale.»

7 Now, Ms Mironova, there is something very suspicious

8 about this. Surely, had there been a genuine auction

9 with more than one bidder, you would have been in

10 a position — the Bank would have been in a position to

11 disclose the full set of protocols of that auction

12 sooner than in a year and two months after the auction.

13 Wouldn’t you agree with that?

14 A. My Lord, unfortunately I can’t offer any commentary on

15 the delay in the provision of the protocol on behalf of

16 our previous lawyers. Once again, I confirm that the

17 auction was held by the court bailiffs in accordance

18 with the law. Wide notification was carried out that

19 a property will be sold at the price of 600 million and

20 higher, and any prospective interested purchaser from

21 the Russian Federation, not only from St Petersburg, but

22 from Moscow, from other regions, could have registered

23 at the auction and bought it. Had such a prospective

24 second, third, fourth, tenth buyer appeared, they would

25 have registered at the auction having been interested in

117 119
1 If I may continue: 1 this particular asset, or immovable property.
2 «(a) Protocol 1 of the auction sale (only protocols 2 Q. It was your intention from the start to sell the assets
3 2 and 3 have been previously disclosed) and any other 3 to Renord, was it not? Already prior to the auction,
4 undisclosed documents relevant to the auction sale; 4 you already intended and you knew that a Renord entity
5 «(b) Any documentary evidence that Globus-Invest was 5 will be the buyer?
6 a bidder at the auction ([The Bank’s] reply document, 6 A. My Lord, it does not correspond to what happened in
7 para 9.7.3.» 7 the reality. As I said, the main task for the Bank was
8 So as you can see, a year on, we were still chasing 8 to sell the facility at the maximum market price in
9 for protocol number 1. I also put it to you that while 9 order to be able to repay the maximum amount of the
10 the assertion that there was a second bidder was at that 10 credit of the loan. St Petersburg Bank held
11 point pleaded, there had been no documentary evidence of 11 negotiations with a lot of prospective buyers,
12 that presented to us over that year from September 2012 12 including, for example, with the state company named
13 to October 2013. 13 North Shipbuilding Company, which is a neighbour of
14 Then if we could scroll down to page 11 of the same 14 the Western Terminal, and which company considered
15 tab {N22/53/11}, there you find the response from 15 having obtained money from the state, the possibility of
16 Baker & McKenzie to that letter that’s dated 16 constructing additional shipbuilding docks.
17 20 November 2013. I do apologise for putting so much 17 Unfortunately the state budget or the state did not
18 correspondence which is not available in Russian to you, 18 provide or issue additional financing to its own state
19 but hopefully you do follow. 19 company, therefore the negotiations about the sale to
20 If now we could scroll down to {N22/53/17}, you will 20 the state company or state-owned company were suspended,
21 see — the way it is arranged is that on the left half 21 were stopped. At least that is the negotiations which
22 of the page they put my — they just quote my request. 22 I knew about. They were held by the top management of
23 In the right half you can see the response 23 the Bank. It is quite likely, and probably, that other
24 Baker & McKenzie can give on behalf of the Bank. So it 24 negotiations took place, of which I know nothing.
25 is only now that the Bank says: 25 Therefore, the Bank took all possible steps and measures
118 120
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

April 5, 2016 Day 33

1 in order to advertise this facility as widely as

2 possible in the media.

3 If there was an opportunity to sell this facility at

4 the price of RUB 2 billion, RUB 3 billion, or

5 RUB 4 billion to somebody else, for example

6 $100 million, it would have been in the direct interest

7 of the Bank, because by doing so would have repaid all

8 the loans issued to the Vyborg Shipping Company. We

9 would have reformed the reserves and we would have

10 obtained $100 million of a profit for the Bank. That

11 would have been wonderful. If only we had such

12 a prospective buyer.

13 Q. Ms Mironova, really the purpose of all that arrangement

14 with the settlement with VECTOR Invest and then

15 an alleged — a purported breach of that settlement and

16 then enforcement proceedings, was precisely to arrange

17 for a sale from Renord to Renord at gross undervalue,

18 and which would take place ostensibly under the

19 direction of court bailiffs, so that you could say that:

20 the Bank has nothing to do with it, these are the court

21 bailiffs, they are above suspicion. Isn’t that really

22 the purpose of the arrangement?

23 A. My Lord, this does not correspond to the reality.

24 Q. The result of this, Baltic Fuel Company, which is

25 a Renord entity, now running Western Terminal and

1 yes, that’s quite right. They do show profits on their

2 balance. That’s quite right.

3 MR STROILOV: My Lord, I fear that if I continue longer,

4 I will go past 4.30 pm, which may be a good idea to be

5 on the safe side. I think I am doing all right, but

6 I don’t know if your Lordship would be prepared to sit

7 until 4.45/4.50 today, or we can start tomorrow.

8 I think I am doing all right, I’m fairly confident of

9 finishing tomorrow.

10 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: I have a meeting at 5.00 pm some way

11 away. I am not that keen to go on beyond 4.40 pm.

12 I will sit until 4.40 if that’s what you want, otherwise

13 we could start at 10.00 am tomorrow, I suppose, or

14 9.45 am tomorrow.

15 MR STROILOV: I wonder, well logically now would be a good

16 end of Day 2. On the other hand, I want to be sure that

17 obviously there is sufficient time for Mr Lord and for

18 your Lordship to ask your questions and then perhaps we

19 have some housekeeping points to discuss. So 9.45 am

20 tomorrow I think sounds like a good idea, and I’m fairly

21 confident of finishing by 3.00ish in the afternoon.

22 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Fairly confident?

23 MR STROILOV: Well, I mean I wouldn’t — obviously there are

24 unexpected turns and so on, but unless something quite

25 unexpected happens, I think I’m really fairly confident,

121 123

1 deriving profits, that is the result which the Bank and

2 you intended from the start, from day one, from the end

3 of 2008, is it not?

4 A. My Lord, it does not correspond to the reality.

5 Q. And the events which we have discussed yesterday and

6 today, and especially today, what they represent is

7 a fraudulent scheme by the Bank to take over that asset,

8 Western Terminal; isn’t that so?

9 A. My Lord, that is not corresponding to the reality. I’ve

10 explained all the reasons and the tasks of the Bank

11 which we pursued during the course of all those years.

12 Now the Western Terminal, which is being managed by the

13 Baltic Fuel Company, is a completely different facility.

14 As far as I know, a lot of monetary funds was invested

15 in it, and even using the facility now, is done in a

16 different way. If before it was a facility for timber,

17 now it’s the business of the bunkers which is the main

18 business of the Baltic Fuel Company. The nature of

19 the facility has changed. They are different

20 facilities, then and now.

21 Q. Is that a profitable business, yes or no?

22 A. Which business, my Lord, are you referring to?

23 Q. Baltic Fuel Company is a very profitable business, is it

24 not?

25 A. As far as I remember, from the accounting balance sheet,

1 yes.

2 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Is that your preference, then?

3 9.45 am?

4 MR STROILOV: I do think so, yes. Yes, my Lord, I think

5 9.45 am would be better. I just fear that if we have to

6 stop abruptly, that would be an illogical stop and

7 I would have to find a way to …

8 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Are you content with 9.45 am, Mr Lord?

9 MR LORD: Yes, my Lord, if that’s okay for your Lordship and

10 the court.

11 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Yes. We seem to be drifting away from

12 our target of 10.30 am.

13 MR LORD: It’s getting earlier.

14 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: By degrees. Right, 9.45 am it is,

15 then, and you very much hope, barring surprises, you

16 will be finished by 3.00 pm, is the note that I have

17 made.

18 MR STROILOV: Yes, my Lord. I do really think it will be.

19 Well, I said 3.00ish, but whether I mean …

20 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: It might be 3.05?

21 MR STROILOV: Yes.

22 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Right.

23 Ms Mironova, one more day. Please do not talk about

24 this case at all. An early start tomorrow, I am afraid,

25 9.45 am.

122 124
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

April 5, 2016 Day 33

1 (4.12 pm)

2 (The court adjourned until 9.45 am on

3 Wednesday, 6 April 2016)

4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

125
1 INDEX
2 PAGE
3 MS KRISTINA BORISOVNA MIRONOVA …………………..1 (Continued)

4 Cross-examination by MR STROILOV …………..1

(Continued)

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

126
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

127

April 5, 2016 Day 33

A

abandoned (1) 83:3 able (7) 31:6 34:13 69:16 77:9 80:3 84:13 120:9 abruptly (1) 124:6

absolute (1) 17:9 absolutely (6) 4:1

23:11 55:17 72:9 86:3 108:15

accept (6) 16:8 25:17 30:1 100:1 111:16 111:22

acceptance (2) 52:11 52:14

accident (1) 92:25 accounting (1) 122:25 accrued (2) 46:5,13 accumulated (1)

76:16 accurate (2) 99:21

100:9 accurately (1) 19:15 achieve (2) 83:11

112:1

acquired (1) 105:21 acquiring (1) 74:20 acted (4) 84:4,11

93:17 110:24 acting (8) 25:13 26:4

39:4 60:9 85:22 87:13 93:14 110:16

action (3) 54:1 104:3 111:2

actions (3) 95:22 109:21 111:2 actively (1) 98:4

activity (3) 46:3,5 51:6 actual (5) 26:10 42:5

47:13 103:6 106:23 ad (1) 14:15

add (2) 51:13 112:9 added (2) 63:12,17 addition (1) 68:18 additional (11) 8:17

24:3,6 31:18 37:24 38:8,8 77:16 82:13 120:16,18

additionally (2) 24:6,7 addressed (5) 18:24

18:25 19:5,6 104:4 adequate (1) 21:11 adjourned (1) 125:2

Adjournment (1)

72:17 adjust (1) 80:3

adversarial (2) 111:9 111:24

adversaries (1) 109:18 advertise (2) 115:18

121:1 affiliate (1) 3:9 affirm (1) 80:17

affirmative (1) 29:14 afraid (4) 40:12 72:13 116:13 124:24 afternoon (1) 123:21 agencies (1) 102:20 aggressively (1) 39:4

ago (9) 26:7 27:17 29:15 36:5 64:6 87:22 99:5 109:10 109:11

agree (23) 12:18 17:17,18 20:1 25:20 28:13,17 29:25 30:2,21 35:15 37:5 39:13

45:1 51:24 82:10 40:9,11 84:16 60:7,15 80:13 87:5 basis (2) 38:12 76:16 Borisova (4) 2:8 74:4
82:22 90:11,14 97:21 113:4 114:25 81:21 82:16 83:12 bad (1) 62:17 beg (12) 15:21 25:15 77:2,8
101:2 103:3 115:9 118:17 84:3,11 85:6 86:2 bailiff (1) 89:24 28:11 54:19 66:25 BORISOVNA (2) 1:6
119:13 apparently (1) 74:6 89:12,12 90:22 bailiff’s (1) 102:17 73:11 81:16 83:22 126:3
agreed (6) 19:19 appealed (1) 116:5 94:9 95:8,25 96:23 bailiffs (15) 87:3 86:16 101:2 117:19 borrower (15) 5:12
56:10 91:2 94:16 appearance (4) 9:12 96:24 97:5,7,8,10 88:20,23 90:10 117:22 6:14 7:8 12:11
102:20 108:12 111:13,13,23 97:13,17,19 98:1 91:23 94:15 106:19 began (2) 24:21 79:19 37:21 38:2 46:12
agreement (96) 15:10 appeared (2) 99:1 98:23 99:3,20 109:24 112:18 beginning (9) 8:25 46:15 57:12 61:21
17:10 22:17,18 119:24 100:5,8,11 101:14 115:11,16 116:1 14:25 16:19 22:8 78:23,24 84:6
24:5,11 25:6,12 appears (1) 111:9 101:17 102:3,5 119:17 121:19,21 49:6 62:1 64:22 85:24 107:13
26:4,11,12,15,21 appetite (1) 111:5 108:1 111:1 112:4 Baker (3) 116:17 69:9 87:2 borrowers (24) 2:20
27:18,18,23 28:1 application (1) 15:3 112:5,14,14,19,20 118:16,24 behalf (9) 25:13,25 3:6,8 5:20 6:4,6,7,9
28:24 29:10,12,22 apply (1) 52:19 117:4,6 120:2 balance (2) 122:25 26:5 50:14 85:20 6:10,22 7:17,22,24
31:4 32:9 36:23 applying (1) 15:4 assigned (1) 86:14 123:2 86:11 87:19 118:24 8:1,2,6 11:18,24
38:7 39:18,18 appointed (5) 3:22 assignment (1) 86:19 Baltic (8) 42:21,24 119:15 12:3,4,12,14 13:8
40:21 41:1,13 42:2 4:1,24 10:23 11:3 assimilate (1) 52:17 54:23 117:11 belated (1) 58:20 61:11
43:5 44:16,19 45:5 appointment (1) 10:5 assist (2) 49:24 81:15 121:24 122:13,18 belief (1) 44:6 borrowing (1) 8:15
47:15 48:16,19,23 appreciate (1) 14:12 assistance (1) 81:18 122:23 believe (4) 29:16 boss (1) 78:17
48:24 49:6,19,25 appreciation (1) 14:4 associated (1) 36:8 bank (187) 1:25 3:20 79:21 80:1 105:23 bottom (6) 18:12
50:3,18,21,22,25 appropriate (4) 21:21 assume (6) 9:9 10:14 3:21 4:4 5:9,12,15 believed (1) 105:15 20:25 36:6 52:25
51:3,14,15,18,25 80:7 83:11 94:22 39:23 48:23 61:12 5:17 6:3,22,24 7:10 belonged (1) 33:5 62:23 74:17
52:5,6,8,9,12,15 approve (3) 29:11,13 105:6 7:11,14,17,18,22 Belykh (4) 17:22 19:1 bought (5) 86:5 87:22
53:7,7,10,15 56:5,7 30:11 assuming (1) 57:21 7:24 8:2,21 9:7,15 19:5,7 94:18 105:1 119:23
56:19,22 57:4,5 approved (2) 107:14 assumption (1) 16:2 11:8,10,10,11 12:4 berth (7) 16:24 17:1 branch (11) 1:23,25
58:4 73:15 91:14 107:16 attachment (2) 17:23 12:11 16:1 17:1,7 18:19 21:24 27:4 2:2,4 3:6 14:8,24
104:24 106:4,16,22 approximately (5) 18:2 17:16,25 18:20 89:14,15 65:7 75:17 77:11
107:1,5,7,12,12,15 11:13 15:1 63:9 attachments (1) 18:5 19:18 20:23 21:5 berths (6) 16:12,13,15 79:18
107:18 108:8,17,21 99:17 105:20 attempt (1) 84:22 21:10,25 23:24 16:20,22 96:1 branches (2) 66:8,8
109:4,8 110:2,3,9,9 April (9) 1:1 3:19 8:3 attempts (1) 85:21 24:3,4 25:13,25 better (4) 17:10 57:14 breach (5) 85:12
110:19,21,22 8:20 9:3 10:3 74:17 attention (7) 3:3 12:5 26:5,8 27:2,5,6 72:11 124:5 110:9,10,20 121:15
114:22 79:12 125:3 12:9,13 78:13 80:4 30:5,24 31:1,25 beyond (1) 123:11 breached (1) 115:24
agreements (2) 45:7 argue (1) 39:21 115:3 32:12 33:10 34:10 bid (3) 58:1 95:8 break (11) 52:21
45:15 arising (1) 90:21 attracting (1) 2:3 37:9,17,21,24 115:7 58:20,23 72:3,12
agrees (1) 60:6 Arkhangelskaya (6) auction (35) 36:9 38:15 39:2,3,3,9 bidder (10) 95:7 113:7 83:5 104:8,11
alleged (3) 98:9 114:2 37:16 38:17 39:6 57:24 89:25 93:22 42:16,25 44:18 113:14 114:20 105:2 108:7 111:11
121:15 48:21 96:18,21 94:9 95:7,20 100:5 45:14 46:10,10,22 115:6 117:9 118:6 briefly (3) 29:4 67:7
allocate (1) 6:10 Arkhangelsky (6) 102:17 103:16,23 46:22 47:1 48:1,21 118:10 119:5,9 93:19
allocated (4) 2:12 33:18 37:15,23 106:6,18 109:24 48:22 54:5 57:10 bidders (2) 113:19 bringing (2) 88:11
5:21,22 6:25 54:2,6 56:14 110:7 112:16,17 57:17,18,20 59:17 115:14 94:7
allocation (2) 1:21 arose (1) 8:24 115:14,22,24 116:5 60:17 61:12 65:7 bids (1) 115:5 brings (2) 28:2 88:1
11:17 arrange (1) 121:16 117:4,5 118:2,4,6 74:21 77:8,10 82:5 big (15) 22:12,21 23:2 brought (9) 33:6,7
allow (3) 83:23 91:21 arranged (2) 75:23 119:3,6,8,11,12,17 82:7 83:3,6,10 84:3 23:16 29:11 34:2 77:20 78:13 80:4
96:22 118:21 119:23,25 120:3 84:4,8,15 85:8,12 35:18 47:22 61:21 86:11,21 109:2
alternative (1) 14:19 arrangement (8) 25:5 audit (1) 79:16 85:23 86:1,5,6,11 64:12 91:16,17,18 110:21
amended (1) 115:16 48:12 82:13 87:20 August (11) 28:1,2,8 86:14 87:3,20,22 92:11 99:13 BTK (1) 55:22
amicable (5) 105:18 88:9 98:21 121:13 51:18 72:25 73:9 89:14,15,15,16,17 bigger (1) 57:14 budget (1) 120:17
106:16,22 107:12 121:22 73:17 93:16 104:19 90:8,11,12,14,15 billion (12) 15:4 21:1 buildings (1) 17:6
110:2 asked (19) 29:11,13 108:17,22 90:25 91:2,4,20,24 21:7 105:13 106:8 bundle (6) 40:10
amid (1) 67:17 32:19 45:23 47:23 authorised (1) 50:9 92:12 94:16 95:4,5 108:21 109:25 64:12 69:4 71:17
amount (6) 8:21 51:20 66:7,8 75:5 authority (1) 88:22 95:13,16,20,22 110:13 112:4 121:4 75:13,13
15:17 16:3 45:22 75:20 76:24 78:1 automatic (1) 29:5 96:2,11 97:1,2,8,12 121:4,5 bundles (1) 78:25
57:8 120:9 78:17 91:23,23 automatically (1) 51:1 97:15,15 98:3,8,12 bit (8) 1:18 36:25 40:4 bunkers (1) 122:17
analysed (1) 84:6 92:11 95:15 99:19 autumn (6) 10:24 99:4,24 101:14,24 49:10 75:19 99:7,7 burden (1) 8:15
analysing (2) 66:13,14 116:5 14:23 77:7 79:16 101:25 102:4,23 116:15 burdening (1) 24:7
and/or (2) 117:7,10 asking (13) 28:15 37:4 79:18 80:25 103:7 104:3,24 bits (1) 34:6 business (13) 2:1
announced (1) 8:14 44:4 48:9,15 53:8 available (3) 99:6 105:19,20 106:1,11 BKK (1) 30:10 42:22 43:20 44:8
answer (34) 2:22 5:24 62:20 79:18 88:20 111:3 118:18 106:15 107:9,13,20 blame (1) 86:17 45:1,19 51:6
10:1 14:1 15:24 89:24 90:11,20 average (1) 34:22 107:25 108:8,12 Blinova (14) 2:17 103:18 122:17,18
21:17 29:14 31:6 113:15 awarded (1) 107:24 109:2,14,21 110:16 63:22 65:1,6 74:6 122:21,22,23
31:14,17 32:16 assertion (1) 118:10 aware (9) 7:3 11:7 110:24 112:3,13 75:5,19 76:1 77:24 buy (1) 55:22
34:13 37:8 44:13 asset (35) 26:8 30:16 14:14 16:4 35:19 116:24 117:12 78:5 80:11 82:2 buyer (17) 53:15
47:4,5 49:23 51:10 30:16 35:20 46:11 59:21 60:24 61:3 118:24,25 119:1,10 84:20 85:2 54:13,21 55:3,10
51:13 53:13,25 48:20 53:19,20 86:9 120:7,10,23,25 Blinova’s (2) 75:24 55:12,13,15 93:24
54:4 76:2 78:9,22 55:8,15,21,23 56:8 121:7,10,20 122:1 78:8 96:10 100:6 106:12
79:5,9,25 83:23 56:8 57:3,6,12 58:4 B 122:7,10 board (34) 4:10 5:19 112:3,20 119:24
84:17 92:7,9,12 58:10,16 84:13 b (4) 68:9,22 118:5 Bank’s (22) 3:15 15:19 6:9,11,17,18,18,20 120:5 121:12
95:10 94:18 95:3 96:8 22:16 58:15 62:10 10:23 32:7,9,13,17 buyers (6) 98:4,5,10
119:4
answering (2) 43:24 97:2 99:6 103:10 66:19 68:6 85:18 32:22 33:6,7,10 106:9,10 120:11
B2/18/10 (1) 40:23
44:3 103:14 106:14,21 86:19 89:7,25 50:8 59:3,14 60:6 buying (1) 102:16
B2/18/20 (1) 40:7
answers (5) 1:8 30:9 107:25 111:3 90:16 91:18 94:20 62:11 64:5,10 80:7 BVI (1) 42:3
B2/18/21 (1) 40:22
32:3 52:17 104:5 115:19 120:1 122:7 96:3,25 97:3 85:10,13 93:3,9
B2/18/9 (1) 40:4
anybody (3) 47:18 assets (74) 13:21 15:7 100:10 114:3 99:19 100:14 C
back (17) 4:24 18:16
48:5,6 16:8 18:13 21:23 116:11,16 118:6 101:10 104:18,22 C (2) 68:10,22
20:19 47:12,15
anymore (2) 77:10,19 26:25 27:5,9 30:4 bankruptcy (3) 38:2,4 bodies (1) 102:19
54:14 59:12 67:12 cadastral (3) 19:22
anyway (3) 33:20 30:19,23,24 34:20 38:5 body (2) 27:17,19
70:18,18 72:21 20:7,24
59:11 91:19 38:24 39:10 41:4 banks (2) 8:18,18 bogus (1) 109:15
79:22,24 91:22 cadastre (3) 20:8,11
apart (1) 77:19 41:10 42:6,8,15,24 barring (1) 124:15 bona (1) 104:1
94:21 115:1 117:21 21:9
apologise (11) 5:24 54:10 55:19 56:13 based (1) 16:11 bonuses (1) 57:19
background (2) 15:14 call (4) 13:19 67:12
11:15 34:23 35:1 56:18 57:15,17 basically (1) 74:10 books (1) 51:7

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

128

April 5, 2016 Day 33

72:5 93:1 90:23 93:24 94:7,8 companies (24) 3:11 120:14 109:12 110:13
called (19) 3:16 10:9 94:10 97:3 112:13 8:13,14 25:3,19,23 considering (3) 90:4 correspond (7) 104:2
22:18 27:3 35:19 claimant’s (1) 66:21 26:4 33:4 44:2,7 90:24 102:4 106:19 110:1,5
42:21 60:8 62:24 claims (15) 24:4 26:9 60:9,12,18 61:3 consist (1) 91:8 120:6 121:23 122:4
68:5 74:7 87:10 30:4,17,25 38:5,18 82:14,15,16,17 consisted (2) 5:25 correspondence (1)
92:25 94:11,13 38:25 42:9 48:20 83:12 87:19 98:6 61:8 118:18
96:12 97:14 112:20 55:9 56:9,15,16 98:20,23 102:14 consistent (8) 5:22 corresponding (2)
114:9 116:10 88:18 company (64) 14:17 6:15 19:21 41:7 119:2 122:9
cancelled (1) 57:9 clarification (1) 10:2 14:25 18:10 22:18 43:1 49:15 54:11 corresponds (2) 8:9
candidate (1) 99:10 clarify (8) 6:16 9:19,24 25:4 38:3,5,17 42:3 86:15 30:14
capable (2) 16:9 116:3 34:12 49:12,20 42:15,21,21,24 consists (1) 68:19 cost (1) 46:11
career (1) 12:23 76:2 77:18 43:18 45:4,6 51:5 constantly (1) 8:17 counting (1) 48:23
careful (1) 83:18 clarity (1) 17:9 53:17,17 54:22,22 constructing (1) country (1) 82:24
carefully (2) 37:3 87:6 classic (1) 82:18 54:23 55:10,12,22 120:16 course (11) 8:23
carried (2) 117:6 clause (11) 26:24 27:5 58:12 59:19 60:8 Consulting (1) 20:14 41:10 48:14 65:16
119:18 27:13,20 28:20,22 86:10,20 87:10,13 contained (1) 77:17 81:23 83:25 85:23
carrying (1) 89:25 29:4,7 51:24 94:24 88:11,12 93:25 container (1) 15:2 85:24 89:19 104:5
case (27) 3:1 12:16 101:13 94:3,7,11,19 98:15 contains (1) 27:16 122:11
17:15 25:4 26:22 clauses (2) 41:13 99:2,20 100:2,8,11 content (2) 42:16 court (42) 5:16 6:1,8
35:10,25 36:1 38:9 108:20 100:12 101:16 124:8 34:8 36:11,21
43:14 47:4 51:13 clean (1) 103:10 103:19,25 112:20 contest (1) 39:22 38:14 59:20 63:23
53:18 55:7 60:10 clear (10) 18:5 20:13 113:8,16 117:11 context (1) 88:16 81:18 84:9 85:11
65:11 78:11 80:1 26:11 31:13 68:1,2 120:12,13,14,19,20 continuation (1) 87:3 88:18,19
81:20 90:13 97:24 74:12 78:10 107:17 120:20 121:8,24 59:23 91:24 94:15,21
100:3 102:17 115:6 122:13,18,23 continue (5) 5:7 33:20 95:18 96:3,4 97:6
115:23,25 117:5 clearly (4) 15:10 64:19 comparing (1) 64:25 52:22 118:1 123:3 97:23 107:11,14,15
124:24 95:17 111:7 competition (1) continued (8) 1:6,7 107:16,23 109:2,15
cases (4) 46:16 70:8 client (42) 3:16 4:2,7 115:18 4:19 5:1 10:16,17 109:17,18,24
74:6 103:2 4:12,18,25 7:2,20 complete (2) 67:8 126:3,4 112:18 113:25
catch (1) 33:19 9:2,21 10:21,25 81:14 contract (18) 29:17,19 115:11 116:1
cent (6) 15:18 39:7 11:2,18 12:6,8,16 completed (1) 107:9 29:25 30:10,11 119:17 121:19,20
88:7 96:17,20 12:24 13:13,18 completely (1) 122:13 37:6,12 52:5 57:8 124:10 125:2
106:6 17:14 60:23 61:7 completeness (3) 58:3,6 101:7 102:9 court’s (1) 106:19
centralisation (1) 61:19 63:24 66:4,6 53:21 74:12 75:4 103:24 106:4,23 courts (10) 37:15,22
79:12 66:10,15 76:5,21 comprehensively (1) 114:10,12 38:9,18 54:2 56:14
centralise (1) 78:24 77:13 78:3,20 79:1 33:8 contradict (2) 43:22 86:12,22 88:2,12
ceremony (1) 50:4 79:4,22 80:20 81:6 conceal (3) 84:23 93:13 cover (3) 18:9 41:19
certain (4) 50:5 85:4 83:17 100:23 105:8 85:19,25 contrary (1) 93:10 85:21
90:13 110:8 clients (15) 2:3,4,6,11 concealing (1) 97:18 control (5) 24:23 covered (1) 16:3
chair (5) 4:10 6:17,17 3:6,8,21 6:21 8:22 concept (2) 60:6 68:2 37:13,14,25 98:20 covering (2) 41:17
6:18 10:23 9:12,15 14:9,24 concerned (4) 7:2 controlled (13) 24:25 42:10
chairman (1) 6:13 66:6 117:13 33:16 53:9 95:16 25:19 42:16,22 create (3) 56:22,25
chairmen (3) 5:19 close (1) 117:11 concerning (2) 34:2 43:18 44:7,24 103:25
6:11 7:10 closed (2) 77:4 93:25 74:18 54:22 55:12 113:9 created (2) 3:16,20
chairs (1) 4:4 closely (3) 3:1 4:19 concerns (1) 59:8 113:9,16 117:10 creation (1) 74:19
challenge (1) 103:15 52:3 conclude (3) 105:17 controlling (1) 44:21 credit (32) 2:2,4,5,7,8
chamber (4) 24:13 closer (1) 55:9 108:10,10 conversation (1) 2:16,16,19,23 3:10
49:7 50:7,24 cognisant (1) 95:22 concluded (7) 44:16 98:14 3:14 8:11,13 22:12
chance (1) 32:24 Coincidentally (1) 56:7,20 57:5 58:4,6 conversations (1) 22:13,22 23:2,16
chances (1) 37:17 85:13 91:15 31:18 29:11 34:2 35:18
change (4) 4:21 10:6 collateral (4) 15:7 conclusion (1) 77:21 convinced (1) 51:7 35:22,24 36:4
37:23 78:12 17:10 24:4 30:23 conditions (2) 37:10 copied (2) 17:21 19:7 45:21 47:22 67:17
changed (5) 10:3,4 colleagues (3) 1:23 37:11 copies (4) 66:17 67:4 91:13 99:13 100:17
83:16 102:13 12:13 43:2 confident (4) 123:8,21 67:14 119:3 100:19 120:10
122:19 collection (2) 67:8 123:22,25 copy (9) 29:2 40:11,12 creditor (10) 26:9
changes (3) 4:22 68:14 confirm (9) 7:6 16:16 65:3 67:14 68:6,9 30:4,17,25 46:23
63:14 78:12 collectively (1) 68:5 29:13 33:2 46:20 72:24 93:3 54:5 84:11 86:20
charge (2) 2:9 3:24 collusion (1) 97:16 60:19 61:23 83:1 corner (2) 88:25 107:4 87:23 110:25
chasing (1) 118:8 collusive (2) 95:17,18 119:16 correct (45) 1:12,13 creditor’s (2) 86:5
check (2) 39:2 40:16 come (6) 17:23 19:9 confirmation (1) 24:9 2:15 3:2 4:1,8 5:3,6 87:22
checked (1) 104:4 29:22 43:8 57:22 confirmed (1) 56:6 5:12 6:4 8:8 10:11 creditors (2) 54:4 57:2
checking (1) 60:20 113:15 confused (1) 49:10 11:5,6 12:7 13:15 credits (3) 8:19 57:15
checks (1) 79:17 comes (1) 68:15 connected (4) 25:12 16:13,14 17:3 84:5
chronological (5) coming (1) 71:8 29:20 82:17 110:20 18:21,23 19:25 crisis (2) 8:5,11
65:20 67:9 68:21 comment (4) 51:22 connection (1) 71:21 22:23 23:6 26:6 criteria (1) 16:10
68:23 80:14 77:18 82:8 83:9 consent (14) 22:16 27:4 28:4 29:1 criticise (2) 116:22,23
chronologically (1) commentary (2) 29:6 59:16 89:25 45:11,22 63:9,25 cross-examination (7)
68:25 102:15 119:14 90:7,9,25,25 93:4,5 65:13 79:5,23 86:7 1:7 36:20 53:5 68:3
chronology (11) 62:25 comments (1) 18:1 95:15 97:16 99:19 99:23 107:21 75:24 92:14 126:4
63:6,13,18 64:20 commercial (5) 8:18 101:10 108:13,15 109:1,4 crude (3) 82:19 83:4
65:12,19 69:2 70:8 8:18 35:9,14 48:22 consents (1) 95:23 112:16,21,24 83:17
70:12 71:15 commercially (1) consider (1) 44:11 corrected (7) 61:18 crunch (2) 8:11,13
circumstances (1) 30:16 considerable (2) 76:18,19 77:12,20 curious (2) 33:15
105:25 committee (16) 22:12 48:11 99:3 82:2 111:8 101:11
cite (1) 80:2 22:13,22 23:2,16 consideration (1) corrections (1) 80:6 current (5) 2:3,7 8:16
claim (19) 37:16 38:15 29:11 34:2 35:19 103:18 correctly (12) 2:21 42:11 106:20
38:16 39:7,15 35:22,24 36:4 considered (9) 9:3 19:20 34:13 41:12 Currently (1) 11:9
46:11 56:13 86:12 47:22 67:17 91:13 22:22 36:5 50:23 46:1 51:9 77:7 cut (1) 15:23
86:12,21 88:1,11 99:14 100:18 52:6,8 99:9 115:14 84:17 97:4 108:5

D

D (2) 68:11,22

D122/1943.3/0.1 (1)

59:2

D122/1943.3/0.2 (1)

59:7

D122/1943.3/0.3 (1)

59:9

D122/1943.3/0.4 (1)

59:24

D122/1943.3/1 (1)

59:2

D122/1943.3/3 (1)

59:7

D122/1943.3/5 (1)

59:9

D122/1943.3/6 (1)

59:24

D128/2060/1 (1)

26:13

D128/2060/2 (1)

28:20

D128/2060/4 (1)

26:14

D128/2060/5 (1)

28:20

D134/2202.1/0.1 (1)

22:6

D134/2202.1/0.3 (1)

22:14

D134/2202.1/1 (1)

22:7

D134/2202.1/3 (1)

22:15

D134/2202/1 (1)

33:12

D134/2202/2 (1)

33:13

D134/2203/1 (2)

47:19 54:15

D134/2203/2 (2)

47:20 54:15

D149/2487.1/1 (1)

87:1

D149/2487.1/3 (1)

89:23

D149/2487.1/4 (1)

87:1

D149/2487.1/6 (1)

89:23

D150/2495.1/0.1 (1)

93:1

D150/2495.2/0.1 (1)

92:21

D150/2495.2/1 (1)

92:21

D154/2593/1 (1)

93:20

D154/2593/2 (1)

94:23

D154/2593/8 (1)

93:20

D154/2593/9 (1)

94:24

D159/2682.2/0.1 (1)

99:11

D159/2682.2/0.5 (1)

99:15

D159/2682.2/1 (1)

99:12

D159/2682.2/5 (1)

99:16

D160/2688.1/0.1 (1)

101:6

D160/2688.1/0.2 (1)

101:21

D160/2688.1/1 (1)

101:6

D160/2688.1/2 (1)

101:21

D160/2702.2/0.4 (1)

104:20

D160/2702.2/4 (1)

104:21

D160/2707.2/0.1 (1)

104:16

D160/2707.2/1 (1)

104:16

D161/2708/0.1 (1)

106:24

D161/2708/0.2 (1)

108:19

D161/2708/1 (1)

106:24

D161/2708/2 (1)

108:20

D161/2718/1 (2)

113:2 115:1

D161/2718/3 (2)

113:3 115:2

D161/2719/1 (1)

114:7

D161/2719/3 (1)

114:19

D161/2719/4 (1)

114:8

D161/2719/5 (1)

114:19

D37/621/0.1 (2) 62:13 69:25

D37/621/0.2 (1) 62:22

D37/621/0.29 (1)

73:13

D37/621/0.3 (3) 63:2 64:3 70:19

D37/621/0.30 (1)

74:16

D37/621/0.31 (2)

72:22 73:24

D37/621/0.4 (2) 63:5 70:7

D37/621/0.7 (3) 64:16 64:23 67:13

D37/621/0.8 (1) 64:18 D37/621/1 (2) 62:13

70:1

D37/621/2 (1) 62:22 D37/621/29 (1) 73:13 D37/621/3 (3) 63:2

64:3 70:20

D37/621/30 (1) 74:16 D37/621/31 (2) 72:22

73:24

D37/621/4 (2) 63:5 70:7

D37/621/7 (3) 64:16 64:23 67:13

D37/621/8 (1) 64:18 D98/1256/1 (2) 17:19

18:16

D98/1256/2 (2) 17:20 18:17

D98/1256/3 (1) 18:4 D98/1256/4 (1) 18:4 D98/1256/5 (2) 18:8

20:19

D98/1256/6 (2) 18:8 20:20

dance (1) 111:14 date (13) 11:12 27:23

27:25 28:2 39:2 51:15,17 69:2 73:8 76:25 77:5 107:9 108:16

dated (4) 77:1,5 116:17 118:16

day (10) 28:24 47:22

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

129

April 5, 2016 Day 33

52:25 60:5 76:9 deputy (17) 2:4 3:13 116:23
80:3 93:16 122:2 4:4,9 5:18 6:10,13 discovered (1) 106:11
123:16 124:23 6:16,17,18 7:10 discrepancy (3) 38:21
Day22/77:1 (1) 36:17 10:13,18,23 11:3,4 74:10,25
Day22/78:1 (1) 36:17 104:22 discuss (2) 41:21
Day4/127:1 (2) 75:21 derive (2) 41:4 56:18 123:19
75:21 derived (4) 45:20 47:1 discussed (14) 8:10
Day4/127:15 (1) 76:1 56:20,21 31:16 32:1,8 33:8
Day4/128:1 (1) 75:22 deriving (3) 43:21 38:7 41:10,20,23
Day4/129:1 (1) 75:22 48:24 122:1 48:6 87:21 99:18
Day4/130:1 (1) 78:6 describe (1) 17:22 101:23 122:5
Day4/131:1 (1) 78:6 described (7) 34:22 discussing (12) 24:2
Day7/72:1 (1) 53:3 39:20 42:25 46:25 31:10 43:6,8 47:3
Day7/73:1 (1) 53:3 110:19 111:15 47:12,16,17 48:5
days (8) 27:22 50:16 112:1 61:15,24 70:22
50:19 51:14,17 describing (1) 53:6 discussion (1) 98:14
52:11 96:15 108:23 description (6) 12:18 discussions (8) 32:17
de (2) 18:20 44:15 25:14 65:5 99:21 33:9 36:21 38:12
deal (22) 2:5 5:5 26:7 109:19,20 41:25 42:1,13 43:3
33:4,5 39:24 53:16 desk (2) 2:8,16 dishonest (2) 98:22
54:13 55:14 61:11 Despite (1) 5:3 110:22
91:15,16,18 94:18 destroyed (2) 23:9 dispute (1) 111:25
95:17 96:6,14 99:2 77:16 disputes (1) 111:10
99:9 102:18,19 details (3) 15:11 distressed (10) 3:20
105:14 29:22 61:11 5:14 7:17,24 8:22
dealing (6) 2:18,23 detriment (1) 54:20 12:10 13:18 57:12
9:14 29:18 33:3 developed (1) 14:22 57:17 61:11
105:6 developing (1) 13:6 distribute (1) 23:4
dealings (1) 117:8 devoted (1) 13:6 distributed (3) 2:12
dealt (2) 9:13 105:8 difference (3) 12:21 2:20 6:23
debt (14) 3:20 5:8 55:11 63:15 distribution (6) 1:24
45:25 46:14,21 differences (1) 73:20 3:12,12 5:18 11:23
62:17,17 63:1 different (16) 6:10,10 11:24
67:18 68:14,20 10:1,22 12:21 diverted (1) 12:14
70:2 84:7,8 38:13,18 47:14 dividing (1) 20:4
debtor (1) 108:3 56:4 61:3,17 68:22 division (1) 9:10
debtors (2) 5:9,15 106:17 122:13,16 docks (1) 120:16
debts (5) 4:20 5:5 122:19 document (34) 23:19
13:14 45:21 46:17 difficulties (2) 14:18 24:19 25:14 27:12
December (1) 93:23 90:19 36:2 44:17 52:13
decided (3) 16:7 direct (3) 37:20 46:23 59:5 60:1,3 62:3,5
21:18,18 121:6 62:16,18 67:16
decision (46) 9:7,10 direction (2) 50:14 77:9 88:17 90:3,10
15:9 16:6,10 22:15 121:19 92:24 94:13 98:8
23:7 24:8,10 33:1 directly (2) 46:12,14 101:3,11 113:6,11
59:14,15,21 60:1 director (9) 2:1 3:13 113:20 114:4,6,9
60:25 62:7,8,9 64:6 3:22 4:1 10:6,17 114:22 115:7
64:7,10 67:16 11:2 77:11 93:15 116:10 118:6
80:13 81:21,25 director’s (1) 77:20 documentary (2)
82:3,6,8,9,11 83:7 directorate (54) 3:17 118:5,11
83:8 84:23 85:6,9 3:23,24 4:2,6,7,13 documentation (2)
85:14,19,25 88:19 4:18,25 7:2,21 9:3 83:20 117:17
91:7,9 93:4 95:16 9:21 10:17,21 11:1 documents (37) 7:14
97:6 104:21 105:3 11:2,19 12:6,9,17 15:12 16:15,21
decisions (5) 23:8 12:20,24 13:5,9,13 17:12 21:21 23:1,4
61:15 91:24 97:16 13:17 17:14 60:24 23:9,14,15 24:10
110:17 61:7,19 62:2 63:25 45:14 46:19 47:7
dedicated (1) 32:13 66:4,6,11,15 76:5 62:16 65:15 67:15
deemed (1) 115:22 76:12,21 77:14 68:13 79:10,19,24
default (2) 8:14 79:8 78:3,18,20,23 79:4 80:3,7 81:24 84:22
defence (1) 31:16 79:11,22 80:20 84:22 90:13,19
defendant’s (1) 117:5 81:6 83:18 100:19 91:6,12 96:19
definitely (2) 80:18,24 100:23 105:9 101:2 111:23,24
defraud (1) 58:16 directors (1) 37:24 113:1 118:4
degrees (1) 124:14 disagree (3) 21:5 doing (8) 35:25 79:20
delay (2) 23:25 82:10 83:1 84:15 91:10 100:4
119:15 disappeared (3) 71:2 121:7 123:5,8
delayed (1) 1:3 71:21 117:19 dossier (1) 90:14
deleted (1) 80:15 disappears (1) 108:12 doubling-up (1) 76:22
deny (4) 29:14 45:10 disclose (2) 117:17 doubt (6) 41:14 48:7
46:20 80:17 119:11 57:3 62:8,11 116:2
department (4) 2:16 disclosed (7) 7:14 dozens (2) 74:10
79:1,16 80:15 85:10,15,16 114:4 80:12
depends (3) 53:13 116:9 118:3 draft (2) 26:10,12
65:24 66:1 disclosing (1) 85:11 dramatically (3) 30:19
deputies (8) 9:20,22 disclosure (12) 49:9 53:11 56:24
10:7,9 11:18,20,22 66:19,19,21 67:5 draw (1) 115:2
11:25 67:19,25 68:2 drawing (1) 115:11
deputising (1) 105:9 85:17 98:7 116:18 drawn (1) 57:19

drifting (1) 124:11 due (5) 35:5 36:9
48:14 51:1 52:14 duplicates (1) 71:9 duplicating (1) 71:6 duties (1) 4:22 duty (1) 7:23

E

e-mail (12) 17:21 18:22 19:13,14 20:6,23 21:2,16 47:21 48:3,7 54:14

earlier (8) 5:16 6:8 45:9 68:2 73:5 85:14,18 124:13

early (3) 6:3 79:15 124:24

earn (1) 41:17 earned (1) 46:17 easier (2) 53:3 72:12 easy (1) 18:5 easy-going (1) 54:18 economic (2) 97:15

106:22 economist (1) 52:1 effect (4) 6:5 30:18

42:2 57:23

effectively (2) 26:4

108:22

effects (1) 58:1 efforts (1) 85:19 Egorov (1) 81:2 eight (1) 108:22 either (8) 11:14 23:12

29:13 48:20 80:17 83:1 96:22 101:14

elapse (1) 38:4 elapsed (1) 58:5 electronic (1) 70:20 elicit (1) 92:6 employed (1) 11:9 employee (2) 61:9

85:22 employees (3) 21:13

57:18 84:15 employees’ (1) 89:8 enable (1) 56:17 enclosed (1) 119:3 encumbered (2) 53:10

95:3 encumbrance (13)

30:20 36:10 56:23 56:25 57:1 58:2 91:19,20 94:17 99:24 100:11 101:24 105:21

ends (5) 64:20 69:8 70:3,12 71:15 enforce (4) 39:4 84:9

98:22 109:3 enforced (1) 84:10 enforcement (17)

30:25 34:9 86:12 86:21 88:1 90:1,8 93:23 94:7,8 107:17,19 108:4,9 108:11 110:21 121:16

enforcing (4) 9:17 57:2 106:2 108:13

England (1) 52:18

English (8) 19:6 22:7

40:22 114:3,17 116:12,14,16

ensure (1) 24:3 entering (1) 50:23 Enterprises (4) 22:19

25:9,18,22 entire (6) 22:1 35:4

42:8 61:24 94:25 95:24

entirely (2) 17:11 26:11

entirety (6) 39:10 94:20 96:8 97:2,14 99:7

entitled (1) 117:3 entitlement (1) 50:15 entity (5) 25:10 44:24

112:17 120:4 121:25

entries (3) 63:17 74:1 74:24

entry (25) 63:12,14 64:4,23 65:3,11,11 70:21,23 71:1 72:25 73:8,23 74:13,17,21 75:7 75:11,14 76:18 77:3,5 78:1,2 80:15

envisaged (2) 49:19 108:16

equally (2) 57:19 83:7 erased (1) 83:19 error (4) 76:14,17,19

77:17

especially (3) 48:25

57:16 122:6 essence (5) 26:6 56:3

83:14 95:19 103:6 essentially (11) 22:21

25:12 54:9,10 68:20 87:5 90:18 109:14,14 114:10 116:21

establish (3) 21:21 69:16 106:17 estate (8) 17:5,16

18:11 24:7 45:4 60:16 104:25 106:7

event (1) 57:21 events (2) 76:5 122:5 Evgeny (1) 10:9 evidence (14) 7:5 8:7

23:19 41:1,14 45:11 49:15 50:12 56:11 63:22 105:7 118:5,11 119:5

evidently (1) 103:24 exact (2) 15:24 67:4 exactly (15) 4:17 8:9

22:24 25:8,19 30:3 33:9 34:12 53:19 76:13 77:13 79:5 105:11 112:25 115:20

example (7) 53:15 68:13,16 71:11 77:1 120:12 121:5

exception (2) 75:3,5 excessive (1) 21:6 exclusively (6) 2:5,23 3:10 55:19 56:7

68:19 executed (6) 44:17

49:13 50:3 52:6 56:19 83:8

executor (1) 74:7 exist (2) 82:5,6 existed (3) 37:19 46:19 85:9 existence (5) 12:8

44:18 45:15 46:20 62:2

existing (1) 45:8 expect (3) 8:6 12:15

15:13 expected (1) 17:11 expecting (1) 9:11 experts (1) 2:17 explain (7) 12:22
17:25 32:24 34:7 34:10 67:25 77:15

explained (8) 12:1 30:3 48:19 49:24 63:23 109:21 111:6 122:10

explaining (2) 23:14 87:24

explains (2) 40:25 87:5

explanation (9) 19:10 24:17 54:16,24 55:1,16,18 88:15 97:23

expressed (1) 106:12 expression (1) 52:18 extensively (1) 113:13 extent (1) 23:13 external (1) 98:8 extract (3) 22:10

36:19 53:6 extreme (1) 8:15

F

F (8) 68:19 71:9 73:4 73:25 74:4,21 75:3 75:10

F1 (2) 66:21 67:21

F2 (2) 66:22 67:21 faced (1) 95:24 facie (2) 28:7 48:9 facilities (2) 14:11

122:20

facility (8) 24:7 120:8 121:1,3 122:13,15 122:16,19

fact (27) 2:18 14:14 16:18 20:1 35:3 48:8,21 50:21,24 62:7 68:8 77:19 86:9 93:11 95:3 96:14,20 100:10 105:7 108:25 109:15 110:18,22 111:25 115:4,18,24

facto (1) 44:15 Failing (1) 52:7

fair (13) 25:13 30:12 35:20,21 41:5 65:23 95:1,2 102:2 102:6,12 109:19,20

fairly (4) 123:8,20,22 123:25

faith (3) 85:10,22,23 false (3) 19:3 111:13

111:23

familiar (11) 13:23,25 14:2,6,10,20 26:17 62:15,18 87:14 115:10

familiarising (1) 14:8 family (2) 94:12

117:11

far (27) 7:1 9:8 17:4 25:7 27:8 32:13 44:15 45:3 46:3 47:3 52:12 61:10 66:5 76:4,4,7 83:20 86:8 90:12 94:5 100:3 103:17 112:22 113:18 114:5 122:14,25

fault (1) 114:25

favour (5) 90:22 91:3 91:20 102:16 107:25

fear (2) 123:3 124:5 feasibility (1) 106:22 features (1) 14:11 federal (2) 52:3,5 Federation (3) 52:4

107:11 119:21 feel (1) 62:3 feeling (2) 111:4

114:18 fell (1) 8:13

festivities (1) 96:16 fictitious (1) 56:2 fide (1) 104:1

fifth (1) 101:16 fighting (1) 109:18 figure (3) 102:25

105:23 112:25 file (26) 68:5,6,9,10

68:10,11,15,16,19 68:24 69:5,6 71:9 73:4,24,25 74:3,4 74:21 75:3,10,12 78:24,25 79:3 88:18

files (14) 66:17,21 67:3,4,15,20 68:4 68:12,22 70:21 71:8 79:14,17 91:12

final (2) 84:2 96:10 finalised (1) 107:24 financial (3) 8:11 46:8

47:8 financing (2) 8:17

120:18

Finansov (1) 59:18 find (14) 21:21 24:9 34:23 40:6 64:3

66:22 70:21 71:15 71:16 72:12 75:14 101:3 118:15 124:7

fine (1) 93:18

finish (2) 72:2 117:23 finished (1) 124:16 finishing (2) 123:9,21 first (17) 8:13 26:18

37:15 39:25 40:2 62:1 68:7 69:15,24 70:3 71:14 73:14 77:2 78:6 87:4 89:10 96:25

Firstly (1) 101:12 five (3) 1:15 72:6

99:15

focus (5) 12:5,15 13:14 31:9 61:25

focused (1) 33:21 focusing (1) 61:20 folder (1) 77:5 folders (1) 77:4 follow (16) 36:22

67:21,22 68:8,16 71:10 86:15,23 87:23,25,25 88:14 113:25 114:4 116:25 118:19

following (5) 28:16 52:11 95:24 106:1 117:17

follows (2) 14:23 96:25

foot (2) 107:6,18 force (4) 43:8 50:23

57:22,23 forced (1) 85:4

form (5) 36:10 37:25

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

130

April 5, 2016 Day 33

38:8 62:18 66:12 formally (1) 17:7 formed (2) 57:16 76:6 found (9) 35:1 44:17

45:14 49:9 64:5 75:5 83:10 84:8 112:2

fourth (4) 15:16 68:11 101:16 119:24

fraudulent (3) 86:1 117:8 122:7

fraudulently (1) 117:7 free (1) 62:3

Fuel (8) 42:21,24 54:23 117:11 121:24 122:13,18 122:23

full (3) 68:21 80:14 119:11

fullest (1) 64:13 fully (5) 30:2,23 61:9

95:22 113:8 function (1) 61:12 functional (1) 11:23 functions (1) 2:9 funds (1) 122:14 further (13) 13:8 15:3

18:7 51:4 53:22,23 63:4 77:22 82:17 99:19 102:22 109:2 114:18

G

general (1) 116:22 generally (3) 12:22
116:21,23 gentleman (1) 10:9 genuine (2) 42:5

119:8

getting (3) 9:15 14:24 124:13

give (13) 15:23 24:16 32:24 41:18 59:15 90:9,25,25 92:9 93:4,4 99:19 118:24

given (19) 1:16 7:7 15:19 23:24 45:21 48:21 50:21,24 67:2,25 68:19 69:6 95:3 96:14 101:10 102:24 111:4 116:19,24

gives (1) 55:6

giving (4) 18:10 23:19 95:23 97:15

global (1) 8:5

Globus-Invest (1)

118:5

go (20) 18:16 54:14 69:23 70:5,6,18 71:10,11 72:1,21 75:20 78:25 91:19 97:9 98:16 114:7 115:1 117:21 123:4 123:11

goes (3) 69:2,13 103:2 going (12) 4:23,24

31:17 33:15 38:4 59:12 65:20 71:20 72:7 91:10 96:9 105:13

Goncharuk (2) 40:3,24 good (12) 1:5,10 9:15 24:5 85:10,22,22 92:23 104:8 123:4

123:15,20 grant (1) 16:7

grateful (8) 13:2 33:23 33:24 40:19 51:23 52:23 72:10 112:11

greatest (1) 99:5 grew (1) 13:9

gross (3) 58:12 117:7 121:17

grounds (2) 39:21 62:8

group (37) 1:17 2:19 2:21 3:7,11 5:2,6,8 5:11 6:13,25 7:4,12 12:10 13:14,21 18:7 24:24 25:1,9 25:24,24 32:1,11 33:4,9 39:15 43:18 43:19 53:17 57:13 58:16 74:19 84:1 113:9,10,17

growing (1) 8:23 guarantor (1) 46:15 Gunard (26) 22:19

25:9,18,22 28:3,8 29:21 41:4,16 42:3 42:14,23 43:6 47:13,14 48:23 49:17,18 50:13 51:3 52:10 53:14 53:17 55:2,10,12

Gunard’s (2) 27:22

50:14

Guz (6) 5:22 6:1 53:5

53:12 55:2,7

Guz’s (1) 54:8

H

half (3) 99:16 118:21 118:23
hand (3) 67:20 68:23 123:16

handed (2) 67:2 73:4 handwriting (1) 89:3 handwritten (2) 36:6

88:25 happen (4) 28:10

57:10 79:6 112:5 happened (21) 11:7

14:13 19:9 25:8 39:3 43:9,14 44:14 46:25 47:2,6 61:13 63:13 78:15 83:20 87:9 99:22 103:7 108:5 113:21 120:6

happening (4) 20:6 33:10 81:4 89:11

happens (2) 76:22 123:25

happy (2) 43:1 81:18 hard (3) 4:14 40:12

43:4

hardest (1) 8:5

head (13) 2:8 3:15,19 4:18,25 5:4 7:20 9:20 10:21,25 60:23 75:16 100:23

headed (2) 61:7 76:6 hear (1) 55:1

heard (6) 7:7 49:21 59:14 83:24 85:3 104:22

hearing (7) 23:20 48:4 49:8 55:4 60:2 81:24 91:11

hearings (1) 85:24 heart (1) 89:8

held (7) 13:11 96:21 98:11 106:18 119:17 120:10,22

help (2) 50:11 98:21 hierarchy (2) 4:4,8 hierarchy-wise (1) 2:8 higher (2) 15:16

119:20 highest (1) 96:9

HILDYARD (43) 1:5 9:2 13:1 14:3 32:15 33:14,20 40:9,13 40:16,18 49:10,24 50:8,20 51:11 52:16 58:21 66:24 71:23 72:5,14,20 75:15 91:16 92:1,5 92:10,19 104:9 111:6,18,22 112:6 112:9 123:10,22 124:2,8,11,14,20 124:22

historic (2) 65:11 84:22

history (1) 14:20 hit (1) 8:5

hoc (1) 14:15 hold (1) 72:7 holder (1) 110:25 holding (2) 25:24

87:19 honest (1) 89:4

honestly (2) 110:16 110:24

Honour (60) 6:5,16,21 7:6,13,23 8:9 9:6 9:24 10:23 11:9,12 12:19 26:19 27:8 29:12,20 30:2,14 30:22 31:13 32:6 32:21 33:2 34:12 35:21 38:20 54:25 55:17 56:6,15,25 58:3,14,18 59:25 61:5 80:17,24 81:23 82:23 83:5 83:14,22 84:25 85:20 86:3 100:25 102:9,15 103:5,17 104:2 105:11,25 107:8 108:6,18 109:10,20

hope (4) 33:17,23 69:18 124:15 hopefully (5) 33:19 69:20 71:18,25

118:19 housekeeping (1)
123:19 hypothetical (7) 42:20

43:4,6 47:4,4,5 55:3

hypothetically (1)

57:9

I

idea (7) 31:3,5,16 34:9 55:6 123:4,20
identical (4) 63:18 71:7 74:2 84:21 identified (2) 55:7

94:1

illogical (1) 124:6 imagine (2) 2:11 66:2 immovable (5) 106:7

106:21 109:23 112:18 120:1

impart (1) 21:14 implementation (1)
94:14 implemented (12)

24:11 49:1,3 81:22 82:1,4,6,12 83:8 85:7 99:25 109:9

importance (1) 60:25 important (7) 37:11 37:13 67:24 69:8 69:15 85:7 97:22 improper (1) 44:11

inaccurate (1) 62:6 inappropriate (1)

78:16 inception (1) 84:1

incidentally (3) 10:19 88:24 92:23

including (7) 13:18 28:22 33:8 68:13 98:5 111:2 120:12

income (13) 8:16 41:4 43:21 45:20,22,24 46:4,13,16,25 48:24 56:18,20

incorrect (1) 80:8 increased (1) 12:12 indebtedness (1) 5:2 INDEX (1) 126:1 indicate (2) 18:17

20:23

indicated (3) 1:9 31:4 93:11

indicates (2) 19:6 36:7 individual (1) 66:1 inference (2) 35:20,21 inferences (2) 74:14

74:23 influence (1) 90:16 inform (1) 47:23

information (12) 14:7 17:24 21:14 33:6,7 66:8,11 76:13 77:15 98:2 115:17 119:2

informational (2)

35:16 36:3 informed (1) 114:2 initial (1) 61:19 initially (2) 12:3 78:21 ins (1) 103:21 inserted (2) 65:9 78:1 insider (1) 117:8 insidious (1) 83:10 insignificant (1) 8:1 instance (5) 6:12

37:15 42:20 64:14 71:10

instructions (2) 80:18 85:2

instrument (1) 37:24 insurance (3) 38:8

60:8 83:13 intact (1) 78:16 intend (1) 109:9 intended (8) 21:7

38:16 43:2 54:21 55:15 57:22 120:4 122:2

intention (5) 21:11 41:3 58:11 109:7 120:2

intentions (1) 86:1 interest (4) 38:10 84:2

106:13 121:6 interested (9) 19:11 53:21 57:3,11

65:16 97:25 110:6 119:20,25

internal (3) 79:16 98:8 102:18

internet (1) 71:21 interpretation (2)

85:3 86:17 interpreted (2) 1:8

55:4

interpreter (3) 117:19 117:20,23

interpreting (1) 47:14 introduce (1) 9:4 invalid (2) 115:22,25 invented (1) 66:12 Invest (18) 99:21

100:1 101:8 102:18 102:21,24 103:14 104:24 105:1,18,19 106:17 108:2,2 109:3 112:2,13 121:14

invested (1) 122:14 Investitsiy (1) 59:18 Investrbank (17) 1:11

1:16,23 2:14 3:7,9 5:4 14:8,13 16:9 17:14 21:14,19 34:1 59:15 75:16 81:7

invited (2) 9:9 10:14 inviting (2) 74:14,23 involved (10) 31:23

32:4,7,8 33:1 42:22 90:4 93:12 100:14 100:16

Irina (1) 117:12 irrespective (2) 7:24

52:10

issue (10) 32:8 80:18 85:1 90:5,6,21 100:15,17,20 120:18

issued (3) 15:9 16:1 121:8

issuer (1) 84:4 issues (5) 2:23,24

3:10,14 33:8 issuing (2) 2:6 8:19

J

job (1) 5:7 join (1) 96:23
joined (4) 66:15 81:1 97:8,10

Joint-Stock (1) 93:25 judging (1) 65:14 judgment (3) 16:10

108:3 110:12 judicial (2) 107:5,8

Julia (2) 37:16 39:6

July (1) 77:1

June (11) 37:14 59:4 59:13 61:6 64:4,24 70:22 73:23 77:3,6 83:7

jure (1) 18:20 JUSTICE (43) 1:5 9:2

13:1 14:3 32:15 33:14,20 40:9,13 40:16,18 49:10,24 50:8,20 51:11 52:16 58:21 66:24 71:23 72:5,14,20 75:15 91:16 92:1,5 92:10,19 104:9 111:6,18,22 112:6 112:9 123:10,22 124:2,8,11,14,20 124:22

justify (1) 23:2

K

keen (1) 123:11

keep (2) 78:7 92:24 keeping (1) 94:12 kept (1) 23:9

kind (11) 16:4,7 29:19 31:3,11 40:18 65:7 66:3,9,12 69:19

knew (4) 21:13 46:6 120:4,22

know (54) 9:16 14:3 14:24 15:13 19:8 21:17 25:21 36:14 43:12,13,24 44:9 44:14 45:13,16,17 46:3,19 47:10,11 49:2,4,13,14 50:2 50:13 52:20 65:24 66:1 71:11 72:15 74:15,25 81:11,19 82:23 83:6,7 87:10 89:5,7 91:25 92:3 94:5 95:11 97:23 103:5 113:18 115:15,16 116:1 120:24 122:14 123:6

knowledge (17) 7:9 11:4 13:20 15:20 19:21 28:10 43:10 43:17 44:5,15 45:7 45:10,20 75:9 81:5 92:2 113:16

known (4) 16:13 33:10 40:4 59:19

Kolpachkov (13) 10:9 11:4 80:25 81:10 81:14 93:8,11,14 93:17 100:13 104:22 105:6,9

Kontur (9) 112:20 113:8,8,12,16 114:13 115:8 117:9 117:10

kopecks (1) 105:14

Korporativnykh (1)

59:18

Kosova (1) 36:12

KRISTINA (2) 1:6 126:3

L

Lair (2) 18:9 20:14 land (21) 17:8 18:19 18:21 19:18,23 20:8,8,12,15,22 21:6,8,8,16 27:1

37:14,25 39:8,24 89:15 96:1

landlord (1) 38:3 large (8) 3:8 5:14 6:21

7:25 12:10 15:6 22:12 103:20

larger (1) 12:14 largest (4) 5:11,12

12:4 84:13 lasted (1) 13:7 late (1) 72:3 latest (3) 65:18,22

69:2

law (9) 50:2 52:5,19 89:22 115:12,20,24 116:3 119:18

lawyer (2) 51:25 52:17

lawyers (7) 52:2 114:3 114:3 116:11,12,16 119:16

lead (1) 2:17

lease (41) 22:17,18

26:11 27:1,14
29:10 30:18 31:11
32:9 34:16 35:3,4,9 35:14 36:10,23 37:11 38:7 40:21 42:2,5,5 44:16 47:13,13,24 48:9 50:21 51:25 52:6 53:7,7,15 54:19 55:14,24 56:5,7,19 57:21 58:3

leased (3) 46:6 50:15 51:5

leasing (7) 24:5 41:12 44:18 45:5,7,15 52:15

leave (10) 11:11 78:16 80:8 92:5,6 93:16 93:19 96:18 98:13 114:16

led (1) 35:13

left (5) 77:8 88:25 103:2 107:3 118:21

legal (1) 43:8 legislation (2) 50:22

52:3 lender (1) 84:5

lengthen (1) 57:1 lengthy (2) 31:1 97:21 lessor (1) 27:20

let’s (3) 31:9 40:7 105:13

letter (8) 18:9,24 20:14 87:2 89:20 116:16,21 118:16

level (2) 57:18 98:11 leverage (1) 37:25 likewise (1) 92:18 Limited (3) 22:19 25:9

25:18

line (12) 19:9,14,16 19:16 20:25 37:1,7 41:23 53:1,8 71:2 72:2

lines (1) 43:13

list (10) 18:6 26:24 34:20 60:20 89:18 89:19 107:10,24 115:4,5

listed (3) 16:15 18:13 27:5

listen (1) 37:3 lists (3) 20:14 27:8

60:15

little (1) 114:18

LLC (8) 22:16 24:23 25:18 42:4 59:16 59:19 88:2 112:21

loan (44) 3:10,14 14:15 15:3,4,6,7,8 15:10,16,17,17,19 15:25 16:3,7 21:7 23:24 47:1 57:8 67:14 68:6,7,10,10 68:11,12,22 70:2,3 70:21 71:8,14,14 73:15 79:3 84:14 86:6,14,20 88:3 97:4 98:13 120:10

loans (9) 2:6,23 8:16 14:16 15:1 16:4 18:6 60:17 121:8

located (2) 18:21 119:1

logic (5) 37:9 94:20 96:25 97:15 109:21

logical (1) 77:17 logically (1) 123:15 London (1) 113:23

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

131

April 5, 2016 Day 33

long (6) 24:4 36:10 main (12) 3:8 12:9,15 meaning (3) 26:7 86:4 90:18 93:6 94:3,18 95:6 97:5,7 83:4
41:12 44:20 50:21 26:8 30:22 37:12 56:16 108:14 95:6,12 97:24 98:7 101:8,15 102:16,18 obviously (31) 2:11
52:6 37:19 106:15,16 means (4) 22:21 88:5 98:17,20 102:11,25 103:13,16,19,20 8:4 24:22 28:1 37:1
longer (3) 72:2 108:13 109:22 120:7 93:15 112:10 104:15 112:12 negative (1) 29:14 40:10 44:20 45:16
123:3 122:17 meant (8) 19:24 21:2 115:23 116:7 119:7 negotiating (1) 98:5 45:17 55:11 57:22
look (32) 3:3 7:14 maintain (1) 111:21 24:19,21 32:21 121:13 124:23 negotiations (9) 31:7 60:5,15,23 63:21
15:11 17:19 18:3 maintained (1) 92:13 44:3 88:7 108:11 126:3 31:18 98:9,11 64:9 70:21 71:5
26:10,17 27:13,20 maintaining (3) 91:3 measures (2) 66:9 misheard (1) 39:11 106:10 120:11,19 72:25 73:19 76:12
27:25 29:4,10 91:20 94:17 120:25 missing (5) 16:21,25 120:21,24 87:10 94:3 96:9
34:19 36:16 46:7 major (6) 2:11 7:21 mechanism (2) 38:9 70:24 74:13,22 neighbour (1) 120:13 103:1 105:5 108:2
47:6 49:25 70:22 35:22,24 100:17 97:11 mistake (7) 19:8 78:1 neither (1) 44:10 113:21 116:10
73:4,14,25 75:6 103:19 media (2) 115:17 78:14 79:23,23 never (16) 7:6 11:24 123:17,23
81:24 86:25 92:20 majority (1) 27:9 121:2 80:5 85:5 43:7,8,9 46:15 49:2 occasion (1) 94:6
93:19 99:11 101:5 making (5) 16:9 39:12 median (1) 35:17 mistaken (2) 20:18 49:7 50:1,25 51:2 October (7) 1:13
106:23 113:1,2 64:25 98:16 102:12 meeting (8) 22:12 60:11 52:9 78:14 82:25 70:13,15 114:1
116:13 Malysheva (23) 4:5,7 23:16 47:22 50:8 mistranslated (1) 19:4 85:6 108:25 116:9,17 118:13
looked (8) 17:10 4:11 5:21 6:11,25 59:4,12 104:19 moment (9) 4:17 9:1 Nevertheless (2) odd (1) 71:19
20:14 29:17 30:1 7:3,7 31:19,22,24 123:10 21:19 63:24 64:6 46:18 48:6 offer (7) 31:20 51:22
41:12 49:8 64:6,10 32:4,18,21,25 33:3 meetings (2) 32:2 69:24 87:21 109:8 new (12) 2:3,6 3:24 81:9,18 97:13
looking (16) 21:22 36:22 37:9,12,22 35:22 113:15 8:19 9:15 32:11 102:15 119:14
26:18 33:17 35:8 38:12 39:5 117:12 member (2) 32:22 monetary (1) 122:14 58:6 65:11 95:4 offered (3) 14:19
40:7 59:11 62:3,5,9 manage (1) 69:20 33:11 money (3) 41:17 96:16 110:4 112:13 48:12 103:10
65:18,22 69:6 98:4 managed (1) 122:12 members (12) 23:4 103:1 120:15 nine-tenths (1) 52:19 offering (1) 19:10
101:1 102:8 103:8 management (24) 31:25 32:7,9,12 monitoring (43) 3:16 nominated (1) 49:18 office (5) 3:9,16,19
looks (9) 28:5,7 36:14 1:16,20 4:21 5:19 33:6 34:1 35:18 4:2,7,12,18,25 7:2 non (2) 27:10 30:24 5:4 50:9
76:18,21 101:9 6:9,18,20 9:7 31:25 36:4 62:10 100:17 7:20 9:2,21 10:21 non-commercial (1) officials (1) 116:3
105:5 106:7 107:2 59:3,14 60:6 62:10 117:12 11:1,2,19 12:6,9,16 39:24 offset (2) 45:25 46:14
Lord (101) 3:5,18 4:9 64:5,10 82:15 memo (2) 33:25 35:2 12:24 13:13 17:14 non-executed (1) 52:8 Oh (1) 19:3
4:21 5:7,24 11:15 85:13 93:3 98:3,12 memorandum (3) 60:24 61:7,19 non-pledged (1) 39:9 okay (2) 47:10 124:9
12:1 13:3,4 14:22 99:19 104:18 25:5 35:16 36:3 63:24 66:4,6,10,15 non-registration (2) OMG (25) 1:20 2:15
15:21 17:9 18:23 106:11 120:22 memory (15) 3:18 76:6,21 77:13 78:3 51:1 52:14 2:19 3:1,3,7 4:20
20:13,20 21:4,13 manager (3) 2:13 9:20 17:11,12 78:18,20 79:1,4,22 non-termination (1) 5:20 12:3,4,10,16
21:17 23:11,18 41:24 76:11 27:11,11 29:23 80:20 81:6 83:18 29:6 13:1,2,18 14:9 16:1
24:19,25 25:7,15 managers (4) 2:13 39:5 50:4 60:21 100:19,23 105:8 normal (2) 35:9 21:5 38:17 45:21
26:6,17 28:11 6:23 7:9,10 61:16 79:9,10,25 month (5) 10:15 114:11 54:1 56:13 61:20
32:20,25 33:23 manufactured (4) 115:12 28:21 34:21 113:21 normally (3) 23:1 86:2 93:12
39:20 40:17,17 109:15 110:8,11,17 mention (3) 35:3 114:1 63:16 98:12 once (12) 32:8 33:2
43:4,12,23 44:9,13 March (3) 1:14 3:15 114:20,23 months (6) 1:15 61:25 North (1) 120:13 50:23 63:9 73:19
45:3 47:3 48:3 49:5 5:1 mentioned (3) 10:19 62:2 79:14 102:6 note (7) 34:6 35:8,13 76:9,9 80:5 104:19
50:4,18 51:9,21 March/April (1) 79:7 42:7 108:6 119:12 36:6,12 88:25 104:22 105:5
52:23 58:19 61:18 Marine (22) 1:17 2:21 mentioning (2) 75:4 morning (5) 1:5,10 124:16 119:16
61:23 62:8 65:24 5:2,6,11 6:13,25 80:13 12:1 61:18,24 notes (1) 85:8 Onega (1) 13:22
71:20 72:9,11 81:8 7:4,12 13:6,10,14 mentions (1) 113:7 Morskoy (13) 30:5 notice (2) 33:14 ongoing (2) 38:16
81:12,16 86:16 13:21 18:7 23:23 message (1) 79:21 31:1 34:10 38:15 115:20 113:23
89:7 90:10,19 91:2 32:1,11 33:9 39:15 mezhevanie (1) 20:1 39:2,3,3 47:1 86:5 noticed (2) 33:22 open (8) 69:21,22
92:6,7,18,18,20 57:13 58:16 84:1 middle (5) 14:18 86:6,14,19 87:22 116:7 73:5 75:10,12
95:2,10 98:2,18,25 Maritime (5) 46:22,22 34:19,25 71:22 mortgage (2) 21:10 notification (1) 119:18 103:10 109:24
99:23 100:16 48:21 96:3 97:3 96:12 106:4 November (7) 1:11 110:6
101:19 104:7,14 market (25) 21:1 Mikhail (1) 117:13 Moscow (1) 119:22 17:22 22:13 24:22 opened (3) 73:2,6
110:24 111:20 34:22 35:17 56:23 million (16) 15:1,2,5 move (2) 10:22 55:9 47:21 55:18 118:17 102:9
112:2,11 113:11 95:1,2 97:13,19 95:5 97:4 102:1,5 moved (2) 5:3 11:5 number (28) 6:2,4,6 openly (1) 110:16
114:18 115:10 98:4 99:5 102:2,6 102:22 105:20 moving (1) 97:17 8:1 9:12 12:12,14 operate (1) 45:4
116:1 119:14 120:6 102:12 103:10 106:8 112:23 113:5 13:8 18:13,19 operated (1) 45:24
121:23 122:4,9,22 105:15,23 106:20 115:8 119:19 121:6 N 20:15,24 23:8 operating (3) 43:11,19
123:3,17 124:4,8,9 106:20 109:24 121:10 N22/53/11 (1) 118:15 38:18 68:4 70:3 71:18
124:9,13,18 110:1,5 111:3,5 mind (4) 31:12 51:12 78:25 79:16 94:14 operation (1) 45:25
N22/53/17 (1) 118:20
Lord’s (2) 49:21 85:17 116:4 120:8 72:1 78:23 98:5,6 113:7,19 operations (1) 61:20
N22/53/2 (1) 116:13
Lordship (10) 58:25 markings (1) 67:1 mine (2) 12:13 48:3 114:9 116:8,8,10 opinion (1) 36:3
N22/53/4 (1) 117:1
66:20 72:1,4,19 material (2) 34:6 minimum (1) 115:13 118:9 opportunity (6) 24:6
N22/53/5 (1) 117:25
92:9 104:13 123:6 116:15 minor (1) 67:17 numbered (1) 69:12 41:18 96:7 97:1,13
name (3) 3:23 4:10
123:18 124:9 matter (7) 14:20 minute (4) 59:3 101:4 numbers (2) 10:7 80:2 121:3
87:12
Lordship’s (2) 40:14 23:12 92:1 93:14 105:5 115:1 opposed (3) 19:23
named (2) 113:12
92:7 103:1 105:8 109:16 minutes (18) 22:11,11 O 39:19 96:10
120:12
lose (1) 38:9 matters (2) 93:12 23:17 27:17 29:15 orally (1) 35:23
names (2) 80:23 oath (1) 98:18
losing (1) 90:15 101:12 36:5 52:23 58:21 order (19) 13:25 17:9
115:4 obfuscated (1) 49:17
losses (3) 41:18,19 maximise (7) 57:7 72:2,6,8 85:13 99:5 34:13 44:13 53:18
naturally (2) 3:7 57:6 object (1) 58:8
42:11 58:7,9 84:12 97:19 99:13 104:9,18 57:1 66:11 71:19
nature (2) 98:2 objective (9) 42:6,7
lost (4) 13:12 36:5 103:11 110:25 109:10,11 84:13 85:17 94:15
122:18 83:11 99:8 111:15
37:15,23 maximum (5) 57:7,11 Miracles (1) 112:5 94:19 96:3,4 98:21
Naziya (1) 60:8 111:16,19,21 112:1
lot (5) 8:1 32:13 38:4 111:3 120:8,9 Mironova (49) 1:6,10 110:11 112:1 120:9
necessary (5) 9:4 objects (1) 114:15
120:11 122:14 McKenzie (3) 116:17 17:21 19:8,11,20 121:1
38:23 46:7 57:4 obligated (1) 105:19
loud (1) 28:18 118:16,24 24:14 26:15 32:23 organisation (1)
84:6 obligation (1) 101:25
Luncheon (1) 72:17 mean (22) 1:21 2:11 33:25 36:19 44:20 115:12
need (7) 44:13 49:12 obliges (1) 107:11
2:25 3:2 6:17 13:24 46:2 48:8 49:21 organised (1) 112:17
65:17 67:1 74:12 observation (1) 51:19
M 14:2 20:5 24:25 53:4 54:8 55:24 original (10) 14:16
74:25 104:6 obtained (6) 8:17
25:2,6 43:15,17 57:21 59:1,22 60:11 83:19 86:10
macroeconomics (2) needed (1) 8:17 14:25 102:21 112:4
52:25 56:1,3 88:10 60:22 62:15 67:9 87:14 106:4,5
8:23 9:11 needs (1) 60:19 120:15 121:10
88:13 90:6 95:12 67:21 72:24 76:6 107:10 109:22
Magnum (1) 40:14 Nefte-Oil (14) 93:25 obvious (2) 82:19
123:23 124:19 80:10 81:20 84:19 110:1

originally (2) 20:10 85:15
Oslo (21) 1:17 2:21 5:2,6,11 6:13,25 7:4,12 13:6,10,14 13:21 18:7 32:1,11 33:9 39:15 57:13 58:16 84:1

ostensibly (1) 121:18 ought (1) 49:20

outs (1) 103:22 outset (1) 13:4 overall (1) 32:10 overdue (1) 39:2 overlooked (1) 35:2 overwhelmingly (1)

44:23 owed (1) 102:5

owned (5) 25:21 42:15 88:13 95:25 117:10

owner (2) 95:4 117:14 ownership (2) 59:17

74:20

P

pack (3) 23:1,4,8 page (47) 18:13 22:14
27:25 28:19 34:19 36:7 37:1 40:5,23 52:25 53:1,2,8 59:6 59:8 62:21,23 63:2 63:4 64:2,16,18,22 69:23,24 70:10,18 73:3,14,20,22 74:16,18 75:7 89:10,21,23 94:23 101:20 102:9 108:19 115:3 117:18,25 118:14 118:22 126:2

pages (10) 18:3,8,16 59:10 67:7 70:6 73:12 99:15 104:20 114:15

paid (5) 12:10 57:15 102:20 108:25 112:3

pairs (2) 71:7 74:11 paper (8) 59:11 62:5 69:5,21 70:6,12,19

70:23 papers (1) 10:20

para (2) 85:4 118:7 paragraph (11) 27:16

28:16,17 34:15,20 40:5,8,20,24 87:4 110:3

pardon (12) 15:21 25:15 28:11 54:19 66:25 73:12 81:16 83:22 86:16 101:2 117:19,22

parent (1) 88:10 part (19) 5:7 31:1

44:12 53:16 54:12 55:14 60:5 64:12 66:18,19 67:5,18 75:23 90:1 91:7,9 100:19 103:18 104:3

participant (4) 113:7

113:12 115:21 116:4

participants (1)

114:24 participation (1)

102:19

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

132

April 5, 2016 Day 33

particular (22) 2:13 62:12 70:10 72:7 44:5 46:24 54:1 25:11,21 27:9 30:15,23 38:24
3:11 5:8,20 7:8 72:19,21 82:21 81:10 82:2 83:20 39:11 61:13 120:23 42:8 53:19,20 55:8
10:15 25:3 26:20 88:24 99:11 101:5 103:15 111:4 problem (31) 5:5,9,12 56:8,12 57:4 58:4
32:18 34:23 36:1 104:13,15 117:17 120:25 121:2 5:14,20 6:4,6,7,8 103:14
51:24 61:25 63:15 119:6 124:23 possibly (3) 54:12 6:10,14,22 7:16,21 protection (12) 24:3
74:23 75:8 90:6 pledge (36) 14:19 87:17 111:9 7:24 8:1,2,6,22 30:4 35:20 38:14
107:15 109:25 15:18 16:2,3,8 potential (11) 31:16 11:17,24 12:2 38:16 39:8,15
113:6 115:19 120:1 17:25 18:18 21:6 49:12 53:15 54:13 37:19 61:21 62:17 48:20 53:23 54:10
parties (7) 25:13 56:9 21:11 31:1 39:4 55:9 56:13 98:5,9 67:18 68:14,20 55:19 58:5
56:15,16 108:9 46:10 53:10,24 106:10,12,13 70:2 78:24 85:23 protocol (11) 93:21
110:6,20 54:18,21 56:24 practically (1) 61:2 problematic (1) 12:12 94:13 114:9 116:8
partly (1) 22:11 57:2,24 58:12 84:9 Pravlenie (1) 6:20 problems (2) 8:24 116:8,10 118:2,9
parts (2) 21:9 68:3 90:15 91:3,19 pre-planned (1) 84:1 119:1,6,15
party (3) 39:16 48:20 92:13 95:14 97:9 111:14 procedure (4) 23:1 protocols (4) 115:11
111:9 101:24 105:13,24 preamble (1) 94:1 57:1 90:14 107:23 116:18 118:2
passed (3) 12:11 51:2 106:2 107:21,22 precisely (2) 41:22 procedures (1) 107:8 119:11
79:3 108:12,13 110:25 121:16 proceed (3) 19:3 provide (3) 57:4 78:2
passes (1) 50:19 pledged (46) 13:21 preference (1) 124:2 33:18 69:18 120:18
pasted (1) 65:3 14:15 17:1,7,16 premature (1) 29:8 proceeded (2) 16:1 provided (3) 67:4 90:7
Pause (4) 72:10 87:7 18:20 20:11,22 premise (1) 19:3 24:16 114:6
104:14 117:24 21:25 22:1,2 27:2,4 preordained (1) proceedings (21) 1:3 providing (2) 22:15
pay (9) 46:17,21 47:1 27:6,10,10 30:24 111:25 66:18 67:5 68:1 46:9
57:7 95:5 102:22 30:24 38:3 39:9 preparation (3) 60:2 85:15 90:1 95:18 provision (5) 29:5,8
105:19 108:11,21 59:17 60:16 64:7 81:23 103:9 107:6,18,19 108:4 110:12 115:15
payable (1) 28:23 74:20 84:3 89:13 preparatory (1) 103:9 108:10,11 109:2,15 119:15
paying (1) 84:2 89:14,15,16,17 prepare (2) 76:3,10 110:8,10,21 113:23 provisions (2) 52:4
payment (1) 35:4 90:12 94:17 95:13 prepared (8) 60:19 116:24 121:16 89:22
payments (1) 42:5 96:1,11,24 97:8 62:19 63:8,22 66:5 process (6) 31:17 60:1 public (15) 57:24
peculiarity (2) 16:5 99:4 101:14,17 70:15 74:6 123:6 66:19 88:22 97:17 89:25 93:22 94:9
28:6 103:7 104:25 106:3 preparing (8) 23:19,22 106:9 95:20 100:5 103:23
people (6) 25:19 34:1 106:6,8 112:14 24:10 48:3 49:8 produce (1) 78:1 112:16,17 114:2,11
66:2 80:19,22 81:6 pledgee (1) 84:12 76:3,7 91:11 produced (1) 78:20 115:22,24 116:2,2
perfectly (2) 71:7,18 pledger (4) 37:21 present (2) 23:2 production (1) 46:3 publication (1) 119:2
performance (1) 47:8 102:23 107:13 111:24 professionally (1) publish (1) 115:17
performed (1) 111:2 108:7 presented (7) 56:5 9:13 purchase (1) 114:22
period (21) 3:1,4 4:16 pledges (5) 12:17 93:14 95:19 104:1 professionals (3) 9:13 purchaser (5) 55:3
7:11 8:3,7 9:24 13:15,19 61:2 109:16 112:16 9:14,16 86:10 87:14 104:1
10:5,13 12:19,20 98:22 118:12 profit (6) 8:16 46:17 119:20
39:21 41:8 43:20 plot (11) 18:19,21 presenter (1) 22:21 46:18,20,21 121:10 purchaser’s (1) 111:4
44:20,22 45:18,19 19:24 20:12,15,22 presenting (2) 23:5 profitable (3) 48:12 purchasers (2) 60:10
47:24 61:19 76:12 21:6,8 27:2 37:14 93:9 122:21,23 106:9
periods (1) 12:22 39:8 preservation (2) 99:23 profits (6) 48:14 57:17 purchasers’ (2) 117:14
person (4) 35:23 39:1 plots (6) 19:18,23 100:10 57:19,20 122:1 117:15
47:25 77:10 21:9,16 39:25 96:1 President (1) 117:12 123:1 purely (2) 2:22 58:4
personal (2) 90:21 pm (13) 58:22,24 72:6 presumably (3) 13:20 projects (1) 103:20 purport (1) 108:10
92:2 72:15,16,18 104:10 14:13 35:18 pronounced (1) 33:3 purported (4) 71:9
personally (5) 2:25 104:12 123:4,10,11 presupposed (1) properly (3) 14:1 20:3 93:22 94:9 121:15
66:13 90:9 91:7 124:16 125:1 37:10 110:24 purportedly (2) 98:21
100:22 pocket (3) 97:18 pretty (5) 12:5 34:25 properties (4) 13:23 101:22
persons (1) 38:25 103:2,3 60:16 68:6,9 13:25 18:20 59:17 purports (4) 67:7
pertains (1) 57:12 pockets (1) 103:6 prevails (1) 52:4 property (33) 15:7 68:24 70:1 115:5
perusing (1) 91:12 point (33) 1:12 4:11 previous (13) 27:12 27:9,21 28:3,6,7 purpose (18) 21:15
Petersburg (16) 3:21 4:24 5:1,10 6:3 8:8 64:17,21 65:4 38:24 46:6 49:18 26:8 34:8 39:18
6:24 8:2,21 46:10 10:4,15 25:17 27:8 78:16 83:9 84:23 50:15,19 51:2,6 41:8 48:19,22 55:8
46:10 54:5 84:4 32:15 39:12 45:12 101:11 102:8 52:10 81:25 88:21 56:17,22 96:7
95:4 96:11 97:8 51:12 52:7,16 60:5 103:15 104:5 90:11 94:17 95:24 97:19 99:8 103:12
98:12 99:4 106:1 60:22 64:25 76:15 110:12 119:16 96:2,5,10,12 106:16 116:20
119:21 120:10 77:25 79:6,21 86:4 previously (3) 9:5 102:21 103:7 121:13,22
piecemeal (1) 99:7 93:15 94:22 95:13 101:23 118:3 105:21 106:2,7,21 purposes (8) 20:7
place (17) 31:3 43:5 95:23 102:11 112:6 prey (1) 8:13 109:23 114:13 39:17 41:9 55:7
45:8 46:4 50:25 116:22 118:11 price (25) 36:9 58:7 119:19 120:1 56:11 57:7 65:25
51:6 79:13 80:9 points (4) 34:14 49:12 95:1,3 96:9 102:3,6 proportion (1) 84:14 98:1
82:24 86:8 93:18 116:23 123:19 102:12,20 105:15 proposal (11) 22:22 pursuant (13) 25:5
93:22 113:22 port (3) 42:22 43:11 105:24 106:5,18 23:3,5,16 24:17 42:24 52:5 58:15
115:15 116:4 43:20 108:12 109:23 32:5 34:2,8 35:7 85:17 86:13 87:20
120:24 121:18 portfolio (4) 2:2,7,19 110:4,12 111:3 47:16 93:9 88:3 90:23 93:23
plain (1) 49:15 98:13 112:23 113:4 115:8 proposed (13) 15:6 94:10 95:17 112:12
plan (9) 14:16 35:19 position (14) 3:23 9:9 115:19 119:19 25:14 26:3 35:9,14 pursued (1) 122:11
42:2,25 58:15 82:9 10:3,5,6,14,22 120:8 121:4 47:13 53:7 55:24 pursuing (2) 65:25
83:3,16,19 13:11 37:22 45:10 prices (3) 35:16 56:4 90:7,8 104:23 94:7
Platonov (7) 1:22,25 88:9 90:16 119:10 107:10,25 105:12 put (20) 3:24 31:3
59:15 60:7 74:5 119:10 prima (2) 28:6 48:9 proposing (2) 30:10 36:8,9 43:25 44:23
75:16 77:6 possession (7) 27:22 primary (1) 117:14 30:11 47:5 66:11 68:25
play (1) 75:10 49:18 50:14 51:15 principal (1) 13:10 prospect (1) 84:7 84:20 88:4 96:22
pleaded (1) 118:11 52:10,18 108:2 prior (5) 23:5 83:5 prospective (6) 110:18 111:7,22
please (26) 1:18 12:22 possibility (3) 41:10 107:18 108:6 120:3 106:10,12 119:20 112:7 113:20
22:6 33:12 36:16 84:8 120:15 privy (1) 9:8 119:23 120:11 115:19 118:9,22
42:19 47:19 52:24 possible (14) 24:4 probably (10) 7:13 121:12 putting (3) 84:19
58:25 59:1,6 62:4 31:2 38:15 43:18 8:25 15:4 20:9 protect (13) 26:8 112:7 118:17

Q

qualify (1) 16:22 question (52) 2:22
5:24 14:1 15:22,22 21:18 24:16 25:16 28:12,13 29:24 31:6,14 32:3,15 34:13 37:5 42:18 43:16,23,25 44:2,4 44:13 45:23 46:9 47:5 49:22 51:20 53:9,23 54:1 69:8 69:16 76:25 77:23 78:19 79:3,6,21 82:21 83:15,23,24 84:17,18 86:18 88:4 92:8,10,16 95:10

questions (8) 1:8 33:21 49:20 51:9 69:18 95:21 104:5 123:18

quickly (3) 18:3 96:15 114:14

quite (52) 1:24 3:1,5 5:25 6:3,19 7:6 8:6 8:8 11:21 15:21 18:13 19:15 22:1 32:3,13 33:15 38:17,20 39:22 43:17 46:2 48:11 48:11,13 51:21 56:4,24 61:1 62:21 64:12 72:9 75:19 75:23 82:1 83:22 85:11 86:17 91:16 91:16 101:25 103:23 105:22 107:23 109:1,6,12 114:11 120:23 123:1,2,24

quote (2) 100:7

118:22

R

raid (1) 86:2 raider-style (1) 82:20 raiding (4) 82:19,24

83:4,17

railway (3) 17:6 21:24 89:17

ran (2) 14:18 79:16 random (1) 75:11 rapidly (1) 102:13 rate (2) 38:14 45:16 ratio (1) 15:16 razdelenie (1) 20:2 re-examine (1) 92:15 re-registered (1) 21:8 re-registration (1)

20:7

re-sign (2) 77:9 78:17 re-signed (3) 76:19,23

77:11 reached (1) 8:11 read (24) 19:14,16

28:17 29:7,9 33:15 36:24 37:3 38:22 50:18 53:6,22 75:18,25 87:4,6,8 88:23,24 89:1 90:19 113:13 117:2 117:3

read-translate (1)

117:21

reader (2) 65:17,25 reading (9) 18:22

28:16 29:1 35:13

41:5,6 78:7 79:10 94:13

ready (1) 84:5 real (10) 17:5,15

18:11 24:7 35:23 45:4 56:3 60:16 104:25 106:7

realisation (18) 12:17 13:15 29:21 55:21 57:6,11,14 58:9,10 84:2 93:4 103:6,11 106:18 107:10,22 109:23 110:4

realise (2) 96:8 107:25 realised (4) 57:25

82:1,4 106:11 realising (1) 84:10 reality (5) 104:2 120:7

121:23 122:4,9 really (30) 2:25 4:23 7:19,21 17:13

19:12 21:17 42:6 44:21 47:6 48:2,10 48:15 52:17 55:6,9 55:14 63:10,15 64:25 82:23 83:16 89:10,21 92:12 95:18 121:13,21 123:25 124:18

reason (14) 19:5 20:10 21:21 30:7 39:23 40:1,25 42:10 48:7 81:13 83:3 84:20 85:25 110:2

reasonable (4) 13:20 24:5 84:4,5

reasonably (1) 84:11 reasons (13) 29:21

30:3,15 31:4 35:23 41:14 53:14 54:9 83:6 99:1,8 104:3 122:10

recall (39) 4:14,16 6:21,24 7:13 10:15 11:12 14:22 15:11 22:2 23:15,17 24:14,17,21 26:15 29:15,18 35:25 36:1 47:12,15 62:19 63:4 66:13 76:4,8,13 77:6 80:24 81:3,3,19 90:24 91:5 100:3 100:25 105:3,4

recalled (1) 29:20 recalling (1) 24:8 receive (2) 42:4 57:18 received (4) 14:7

66:18 76:14 87:3 recognise (3) 89:3,4,9 recognised (1) 21:6 recollect (3) 30:8

32:13 76:4 recollection (17) 6:5

7:15 10:12 16:16 21:15,20 23:11,18 24:20 39:20 41:25 42:12 47:7 50:12 78:4,10 91:8

recollections (22) 8:10 9:1 17:13 23:14 26:20 29:18 30:14 31:13,21,24 38:21 39:1 41:7 43:3 48:2 59:25 60:3 61:14 81:17 86:15 90:21 91:11

reconvene (2) 58:21

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

133

April 5, 2016 Day 33

72:14 90:12 91:2 96:16 requests (1) 35:24
record (1) 59:13 97:3 103:17,21 required (3) 50:1 90:8
recorded (1) 113:4 112:22,25 122:25 108:21
recording (1) 93:21 remembered (2) requirement (1) 50:16
recover (1) 89:11 23:22 91:14 requires (1) 60:20
recovery (2) 63:1 remembering (1) 91:8 requisition (4) 88:20
107:21 remind (1) 10:19 88:21 96:4,5
redacted (1) 22:11 reminds (1) 26:23 reserves (2) 57:16
reduce (6) 30:18 remit (2) 7:22,23 121:9
45:21 47:24 48:9 renewal (1) 29:5 resist (1) 34:9
56:23 110:11 Renord (61) 24:23 resolution (1) 85:9
reduced (1) 53:11 25:1,2,3,9,24,24 resolutions (1) 61:15
reducing (3) 36:8,9 33:3 42:10,14,16 resolved (2) 90:22
54:18 42:23 43:18,19 111:10
refer (1) 21:16 44:1,6,7,12,21,24 respect (2) 31:8,19
reference (7) 13:1,2 44:25 45:4 48:10 respectively (9) 16:14
19:13 22:20 64:5,9 53:17 54:17,22,22 18:4,8,17 64:19
107:3 55:10,13,15 56:17 69:25 70:7 104:21
references (1) 72:12 56:21 57:25 58:12 115:2
referred (1) 85:5 60:9,12 86:5,9,20 respond (1) 110:6
referring (4) 10:2 87:13,18 94:3,6,10 respondent (1) 108:3
12:23 82:3 122:22 97:25 99:20 100:1 responds (3) 37:7
refers (4) 19:22 21:4 100:4,8,22 101:16 53:12 78:5
40:21 104:23 102:14 103:25 response (5) 78:8
reflect (1) 105:23 113:9,10,16 120:3 118:15,23 119:4,4
reflected (2) 51:7 120:4 121:17,17,25 responsibilities (2)
100:9 Renord-Invest (5) 1:22 11:23
reflecting (1) 98:9 47:16,18,23 48:1 responsibility (9) 1:17
reflection (1) 110:15 117:11 1:19,24 3:13 5:5,18
reformed (1) 121:9 rent (3) 28:21,23 7:4,7,20
reformulate (1) 64:1 34:21 responsible (6) 2:1,14
reformulated (1) rented (1) 44:1 4:12 6:14 7:11 74:7
15:23 repaid (1) 121:7 rest (3) 81:2 96:2,5
refresh (2) 29:18 48:2 repay (4) 84:8,13 restored (1) 71:24
refreshed (1) 79:9 101:25 120:9 restricted (1) 8:19
regard (1) 81:17 repaying (1) 84:7 result (4) 4:21 94:18
regarding (1) 119:2 repayment (1) 24:1 121:24 122:1
regards (1) 113:19 repeat (6) 42:19 43:23 results (2) 46:8 93:21
regions (1) 119:22 52:1 78:9 80:5 retained (1) 101:15
registered (14) 20:11 81:11 reversal (1) 52:13
24:12 27:18,19 replace (1) 80:12 revised (1) 115:16
43:7 49:7,14 50:1 replaced (1) 82:15 rid (1) 85:4
50:24 52:9 100:6 replacing (1) 84:21 right (78) 1:24 3:5,17
117:9 119:22,25 replicate (1) 65:21 3:18 4:20 6:19 7:6
registration (14) replicated (2) 65:12 8:4 9:22 10:8 15:20
19:22 20:7 22:17 74:10 17:8 19:4,7 20:21
24:12 27:15 28:9 reply (4) 17:12 46:8 23:13 24:22 26:22
28:25 49:7 50:7,9 97:21 118:6 27:6,25 28:4,19
50:24,25 51:16 repo (12) 25:4 33:4,5 31:22 32:19,20
52:7 53:19 82:12 87:20 35:6 38:19 40:16
relate (2) 23:17 67:3 88:8 96:6,14 98:21 42:12 43:25 48:11
relates (3) 68:5 73:15 99:2,9 48:11,13 50:10
101:17 report (25) 62:17 63:3 51:18 55:1 59:9
relation (17) 5:19 6:12 63:16,16 64:14,15 63:19,20 65:4,14
13:13 23:7,22 36:2 64:17,19 65:1,4,13 69:11,13 70:9,16
37:16 41:1 62:25 66:5,12,13 70:14 72:3,14 77:23
68:7 70:2 71:14 70:14 72:24 73:15 78:19 79:25 80:16
73:17 74:24 94:16 73:16 75:10,12,13 86:23 87:16 90:15
104:25 106:13 76:15 77:1 100:20 92:3,8 93:5,18 95:9
relations (3) 1:17 2:14 reporting (3) 4:9 7:15 96:12 101:3,25
7:12 100:14 103:2 105:22 107:7
relationship (1) 13:7 reports (36) 62:19 107:19,23 108:1
release (1) 105:20 63:8,21 65:17,21 109:6 111:15
released (1) 21:10 66:3,15 67:8,14,18 115:12 118:23
relevant (4) 26:16 68:15,20,21,24 123:1,2,5,8 124:14
40:4 63:1 118:4 69:14,19 70:2 71:6 124:22
relied (1) 15:15 71:7 74:11 76:3,7 rights (4) 86:5,20
rely (2) 17:11 23:13 76:10,11,15,17,19 87:22 102:23
remain (1) 10:16 77:3,12,16 78:13 risk (1) 36:7
remained (3) 5:4 11:4 78:19 80:8,13,14 risks (1) 2:5
85:8 82:2 role (1) 4:3
remember (33) 10:14 represent (1) 122:6 rouble (1) 113:1
11:15 15:8 17:4 representatives (1) RUB (17) 15:1,4 21:1
23:20,21 24:2 25:7 98:15 95:1 97:4 101:22
29:12,23 41:12,22 represented (1) 98:3 102:2,7,10,20
44:16 47:17,17 request (8) 80:12 81:7 108:21 112:23
48:4 61:10 63:11 81:10 91:13 100:22 113:5 115:8 121:4
66:5 79:15 80:21 103:20 118:22 121:4,5
86:8,24 87:12 119:4 ruled (1) 94:21

rules (2) 72:15 115:10 run (1) 45:19 running (4) 28:8 44:7

44:25 121:25 Russia (6) 8:5,11 20:8

52:20 82:20,23

Russian (32) 17:20 19:4,16 20:2,3 22:8 26:13 37:2 38:18 40:5,23 47:20 50:2 50:22 52:4 54:2 56:14 59:10 62:14 86:12,22 88:2,12 88:18 89:1,22 92:25 107:11 114:11,16 118:18 119:21

S

safe (1) 123:5

sale (34) 36:9 90:22 91:2,17,19 94:16 95:20 99:17,17,20 99:25 101:7,17 103:13,16 106:5 112:23 113:4,22 114:2,2,10,13 115:13,19 117:4,5 117:8 118:2,4 119:3,6 120:19 121:17

sales (4) 106:17 110:4 114:11,22

satisfactorily (1) 51:10 save (1) 101:1

saved (1) 76:16 Savelyev (2) 6:1

116:24

saw (8) 23:19 24:19 24:20 27:11 42:10 48:3 64:21 81:25

saying (16) 8:9,12 19:12 24:15 27:11 34:21 38:23 41:15 41:15,16 54:3 77:7 77:23 79:22 91:6 110:14

says (18) 22:24 35:11 35:16 41:17 51:25 61:17 76:1 85:5 93:13 99:24 105:17 108:18 111:18 113:11,14 115:13 115:21 118:25

scaling (1) 2:7 scan (2) 114:14

117:16 scan-read (1) 34:5 Scandinavia (2) 60:8

83:13 scattered (1) 68:22 sceptical (1) 37:17 scheme (3) 82:19

110:19 122:7 scope (1) 2:10 screen (40) 22:7,8,14

28:20 33:13 36:18 53:3 54:15 59:6 62:22 64:16 67:11 67:12,14 68:14,15 69:4 70:6,10,11 71:17 72:23 74:18 78:7 87:1 92:21 93:1,20 94:24 99:12,15 101:7 104:17 106:24,25 113:3 114:8,16,17 117:20

screens (10) 59:23 selling (3) 99:5 111:1 signatures (3) 34:3
64:3 69:25 70:19 112:18 50:6 89:8
73:11,12,21,22 send (4) 76:11 79:19 signed (12) 15:10
74:16 114:16 79:24 107:14 24:12 49:13 50:3,5
scroll (39) 18:2,7 sense (3) 2:15 20:21 50:10 62:10 74:4,5
20:19 22:14 28:19 74:11 77:1,6 91:14
40:22 59:6,22 sent (6) 50:9 76:15,20 significant (7) 8:21
62:21 63:1,3 64:2 77:12 78:18,19 9:12 19:2 30:20
64:11,14,15,17,22 separately (2) 66:10 48:24 89:12 91:18
69:24 73:11,12,20 67:21 significantly (1) 15:15
73:21 74:15 89:20 September (5) 64:20 signify (1) 32:16
89:22 94:23 99:14 71:16 76:24 112:14 signing (1) 50:4
101:20 104:19 118:12 signs (1) 75:15
108:19 114:15,16 sequence (6) 81:3 similar (3) 36:14,15
114:17 116:20 82:18 87:24 109:5 74:13
117:1,18,25 118:14 111:13,25 simply (15) 17:12
118:20 servants (1) 116:2 21:19 25:21 29:12
scrolled (1) 62:4 serve (1) 10:17 50:13 65:3 69:7
se (1) 32:10 served (1) 48:22 80:20 81:14,18
search (1) 106:9 serves (2) 3:18 79:25 84:22 85:5 89:8
second (9) 17:23 service (1) 8:16 95:11 114:12
39:23 68:10 104:14 serving (1) 12:20 single (3) 20:12 32:25
114:20 115:3 set (23) 9:3,10,18 98:8
118:10 119:5,24 28:21 42:8 65:20 sir (5) 78:9 91:8 93:12
secondary (2) 42:9 65:20 67:8,9 68:21 94:13 95:22
117:14 68:23 79:11 80:14 sit (2) 123:6,12
secondly (1) 97:2 96:6,12 97:13 site (1) 99:6
section (2) 62:24 106:6 107:10,25 sitting (1) 79:14
117:3 109:23 110:3,3 situation (18) 14:22
secure (2) 14:15 15:7 119:11 21:25 22:3 23:18
secured (2) 14:17 sets (2) 65:18 89:21 24:20 29:20 30:8
15:2 settled (1) 107:6 32:1,10,11 36:2
securing (1) 24:6 settlement (13) 42:20 45:3 77:18
securities (1) 18:6 104:24 105:18 81:19 88:10 95:24
security (2) 21:7 107:1,5,12,15 106:20
82:13 108:8 109:4,8 situations (1) 43:5
see (136) 3:15 18:6,12 110:3,19 121:14,15 size (1) 45:21
18:14,15,25 20:25 severely (1) 8:19 Skatin (16) 4:10 7:16
21:23 22:10,15,17 Sevzapalians (20) 9:9 17:21 18:18,25
26:24 27:1,1,3,8,13 86:10,14,21 87:10 19:7 24:2 31:7,9,10
27:15,16,23,24 87:13,18,21 88:1,7 31:11,24 41:23
28:21,22,23 29:5 88:11,17 89:11 42:13 43:2
34:3,3,15,18,20 90:1,7,23,24 91:23 SKIF (9) 59:19 75:1,7
35:6 36:6,11 37:18 93:5 94:15 97:6 75:11,14 80:14
40:20,24 59:5,8,13 Sevzapalians’ (1) 81:22 82:1 85:6
60:4,4,13,14,15 93:23 skim (1) 67:6
62:23 64:4,8,19,23 sham (4) 55:24 56:1 Sklyarevsky (7) 36:20
67:6,7,9,10,11,11 95:19 103:24 37:7 38:22 39:5,14
67:13 68:13,15,25 shareholder (1) 88:8 39:22 54:12
69:1,3,5,14,15 70:1 shareholding (1) Sklyarevsky’s (2)
70:8,10,12,20,23 117:15 38:11 59:19
71:1,3,4,13 73:7,7 shares (9) 25:2,25 slightly (4) 2:10 15:23
73:14,18,19,21,22 33:5 39:7 82:12,14 61:13 72:3
73:25 74:3,7,9,17 87:15,19 96:17 slowly (1) 89:21
74:18 75:7,12 77:3 sheet (1) 122:25 small (1) 7:25
82:8 87:6 88:25 shipbuilding (2) smaller (2) 2:10 12:12
89:1,10,14,18,19 120:13,16 Smirnov (1) 117:13
89:24 90:3,10 93:7 shipping (8) 14:15,16 Smirnov’s (2) 103:2,5
93:8,9,10,18,24,24 14:25 15:16 38:2 so-called (4) 79:7
93:25 94:2,14,24 63:3 70:3 121:8 99:17 100:5 103:23
95:16 99:16 100:13 ships (1) 15:2 sold (15) 46:11 58:8
101:8,12,16,18,19 short (6) 34:20 58:20 82:14 94:10,25
101:21 104:23 58:23 93:17 104:8 95:3 96:9 97:5
105:12 107:3 104:11 100:4 101:13,22
108:16,20 111:8 shorter (1) 15:23 105:13 112:15
113:6,11 114:20,22 shortly (1) 70:15 115:9 119:19
117:2 118:8,21,23 show (3) 66:17 75:18 somebody (3) 5:21
119:6 123:1 85:4 121:5
seeking (2) 89:11 showed (2) 86:1 soon (3) 100:5 111:3
100:7 106:12 113:20
seen (10) 40:10 56:11 shown (12) 22:6 sooner (1) 119:12
59:23 60:1 65:14 33:12 36:22,23 sophisticated (1)
90:13 91:6 105:1 40:2 47:19 52:24 83:17
113:13 114:12 59:1 62:12 88:17 sorry (18) 4:23 6:16
sees (1) 20:20 104:15 116:7 24:14 34:23 35:12
sell (9) 58:11 90:11 side (2) 114:3 123:5 42:18 46:24 56:1
96:22 99:6 100:7 sign (2) 76:10 96:19 64:1 71:19,20 73:2
111:2 120:2,8 signature (4) 36:14 77:4 78:7 82:21
121:3 50:17 77:20 89:6 83:15 89:3 117:23

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

134

April 5, 2016 Day 33

sort (1) 111:4 sorted (1) 33:24 sought (1) 80:11 sound (7) 27:6 28:4

38:19 63:19,20 65:4 86:23

sounds (2) 65:14 123:20

sources (1) 34:22 speak (5) 12:16,23

58:11 61:16 109:17 speaking (2) 79:9

116:21

special (6) 1:16 3:11 3:19 7:3 9:10 107:9

specialist (1) 2:17 specific (6) 1:18 2:12

12:19 34:14 80:2 85:17

specifically (2) 2:14 91:9

specifications (2) 14:6 14:10

speculate (1) 43:4 speed (1) 73:1 split (1) 59:10 splitting (7) 19:18,22

19:24 20:3,6 21:3 21:16

spot (1) 34:24 spring (1) 15:9

St (16) 3:21 6:24 8:2 8:21 46:10,10 54:5 84:4 95:4 96:11 97:8 98:12 99:4 106:1 119:21 120:10

staffed (1) 61:9 stage (4) 58:5,7 88:21

111:10 stand (1) 9:1 standard (1) 3:12

start (14) 3:18 12:8 37:1,14 61:5 69:17 71:25 79:2 109:7 120:2 122:2 123:7 123:13 124:24

started (8) 11:20,22 13:5 24:15 38:3 39:3 79:18 84:9 starting (9) 10:2 40:5 53:1 62:23 63:24 76:1 106:5 110:4

110:12

starts (4) 26:13 28:8 69:2,7

state (19) 22:16 27:14 27:17,19 28:9,25 52:7 88:22,23 98:6 102:19 112:17 115:12 120:12,15 120:17,17,18,20

state-owned (2) 98:15

120:20

stated (2) 35:11,17 statement (9) 13:16 17:17,18 40:2,10

79:11 83:9 85:2 98:25

states (2) 34:16 51:14 stating (1) 85:20

stay (1) 69:23 steal (1) 98:22

step (3) 42:23 91:22 94:21

steps (9) 58:15 62:25 83:18 90:8 97:12 103:8,9 111:25 120:25

stood (1) 82:9

stop (3) 10:20 124:6,6 stopped (1) 120:21 Strategiya (1) 59:18 stress (1) 37:9 Stroilov (48) 1:7,10

9:19 13:2 14:12 32:20 33:14,17,23 40:12,14,19 49:21 51:13,19,21 52:22 58:19,25 66:25 71:24 72:9,19,21 75:16 76:25 92:1,3 92:4,6,15,20 97:22 104:7,13 111:16,20 112:6,8,11 117:23 123:3,15,23 124:4 124:18,21 126:4

structure (2) 9:4,23 studied (1) 14:23 sub-leased (1) 41:11 sub-let (3) 41:4 42:15

42:24 subdivision (2) 3:19

9:17

subheading (1) 107:4 subject (7) 4:23,23

21:20 26:25 90:18 101:23 109:25

submit (1) 104:7 submitted (3) 35:24

50:6 94:15 subsequent (2) 60:10

60:12 subsidiary (6) 86:13

88:3,6,6,13 94:8 substance (2) 19:12

55:11 substantial (3) 36:25

48:14 75:23 substantive (3) 19:17

34:15 75:19 successor (1) 10:25 sufficient (1) 123:17 suggest (4) 21:3 33:18

41:3 62:6 suggested (5) 31:11

32:17 54:11,12 111:12

suggesting (8) 15:13 15:25 16:20 35:12 54:16 65:10 74:14 74:19

suitable (2) 99:2 100:18

sum (1) 104:6 summary (2) 18:10

63:23 summer (1) 79:15 supervising (2) 4:5

6:12

supervision (2) 4:6,12 support (1) 84:5 supporting (3) 24:9

44:18 45:14 supports (1) 85:18 suppose (8) 9:6 11:14

13:7 31:17 70:17 86:16 114:23 123:13

supposing (3) 42:12 42:14,23

supposition (1) 43:22 suppositions (1) 81:9 sure (11) 8:4,7 21:20

30:6,6 49:3 51:20 63:25 108:5 109:12 123:16

surely (3) 61:3 70:9

119:8 surname (1) 36:15

surprised (2) 48:8,17 surprises (1) 124:15 surprising (2) 48:15

48:18

Surprisingly (1) 116:9 surveying (1) 19:25 survived (1) 75:8 suspended (1) 120:20 suspicion (1) 121:21 suspicious (1) 119:7

SV-15 (5) 16:14 17:1 18:19 27:4 89:14 SV-16 (3) 16:14 17:2

89:16

SV-16M (1) 21:24 synonym (1) 20:2 system (5) 7:19 40:15

71:20 76:3 107:11

T

tab (15) 64:15 69:11 69:22,23 70:5 71:11 72:21 73:5,7 73:14,25 75:6,13 99:12 118:15

table (4) 18:12 21:22 115:3,5

tabs (1) 69:12

take (14) 25:23 26:16 26:22 34:6 43:5 49:18 50:14 52:16 79:13 91:24 92:14 95:13 121:18 122:7

taken (15) 9:10 15:9 16:6 24:8 51:16 54:1 62:7,9,25 66:10 82:9 85:14 90:23 115:14 116:4

takeover (1) 82:19 talk (2) 8:3 124:23 talked (1) 39:5 talking (16) 6:19 9:25

12:19 20:20 21:2 48:1 57:9 61:6 62:1 63:5 69:3,5 85:1 96:17 103:13 107:1

talks (1) 31:9

Talmakayeva (1)

36:13

target (1) 124:12 task (8) 13:10 30:22

37:12 58:6 106:15 109:22 110:2 120:7

tasked (1) 1:19 tasks (2) 2:20 122:10 taxation (1) 103:18 team (1) 66:16 technical (2) 14:6,10 technically (3) 65:6,8

100:18 telephone (1) 72:5 tell (6) 21:4 26:17

41:22 50:11 51:11 66:9

telling (3) 32:23 36:20 98:18

tells (1) 88:17 tenth (1) 119:24 term (14) 24:5 27:14

27:16 28:24 32:6 34:16 35:4 36:10 41:12 50:22 52:6 54:18,19 87:15 terminal (96) 13:22,22 14:14,19 15:6,8,15 16:13,17 17:6,16

17:24 18:11 19:23 thinking (1) 55:18 52:11,13 59:16 114:10
20:11,16 22:1,16 thinks (1) 39:6 60:7 64:7 80:13 understanding (19)
23:24 24:23 25:4 third (13) 20:25 39:1 81:21,25 85:6 3:2 4:8 5:3,13,23
25:18,25 27:3,10 39:16 48:20 49:16 100:6,7 6:15 9:22 12:7
27:21 30:19 37:20 50:11 56:9,15,16 transferred (9) 25:2 15:19 21:23 23:10
38:1,1,6,25 39:10 68:11 101:15 111:9 28:3,7 41:11 60:17 30:12 38:11 40:25
41:16 42:4,8,11 119:24 82:14,17 100:11 45:11 54:8 63:8
43:10,11,19 44:1,8 thirdly (1) 82:16 101:15 108:14 109:4
44:17,22,25 45:1,6 thought (7) 32:16,19 transferring (2) 60:25 understood (9) 2:21
45:18,19,24 46:4,5 33:1 35:8 54:17 97:17 9:8 26:7 45:23 47:3
46:8,9,12,13,16,23 55:20 76:23 translate (1) 116:14 83:24 84:18 112:7
47:8 51:2,8 56:9,13 threat (2) 23:23 96:3 translated (10) 18:24 112:12
58:17 59:16 81:21 three (18) 9:20,21 19:15,25 20:3 undertaken (1) 88:22
83:12 86:6,11,13 10:7 14:25 15:2 36:25 54:7 80:10 undervalue (3) 58:12
86:22 87:15,23 16:4 27:22 44:22 83:2 89:2,2 117:7 121:17
88:2,8,12 89:13 49:11,12,19 50:16 translation (5) 13:12 underway (1) 19:18
90:2 91:3 94:25 50:19 51:14,17 19:6 27:4 55:2 undisclosed (1) 118:4
95:25 96:13,17,23 52:11 70:6 102:14 90:19 unencumbered (4)
97:14 99:1,9 106:3 throwing (2) 48:10,13 trial (4) 69:4 71:17 17:2 96:2 97:10
112:15 117:4,6,15 timber (1) 122:16 75:12,13 112:4
120:14 121:25 time (90) 3:4 4:11,15 tried (3) 23:20,21 unexpected (2)
122:8,12 4:24 5:10 6:3 7:17 84:12 123:24,25
Terminal’s (1) 51:5 7:25 9:24 10:13,16 trouble (2) 47:10 unfolding (1) 105:25
termination (2) 29:6,8 12:11,20,22 13:5 84:21 unfortunately (19)
terms (9) 26:16,22 15:5,14,19,25 16:6 true (4) 31:15 39:18 4:16 7:13 11:12
29:25 30:12 35:9 20:10 21:5,12 58:14 84:25 16:6 23:7 26:19
35:15 37:5 48:16 23:10,23 24:22 trust (3) 54:7 80:10 31:6,20 47:7 77:18
50:1 25:17 26:18 28:8,9 87:14 78:9 81:11 83:5
territory (1) 20:15 28:25 31:12 32:14 truth (3) 32:23 98:19 89:7 93:16 95:10
text (6) 19:17 22:18 35:5 36:22 37:19 110:16 115:10 119:14
34:25 37:2 41:6 38:5,13 39:21 try (7) 4:3 13:24 40:6 120:17
117:19 41:20 42:13 43:3 40:7 42:1 67:24 unify (1) 97:19
thank (18) 11:16 14:5 44:20 47:9 52:21 71:16 uninteresting (1)
19:20 22:5 40:18 54:21 55:21,22 trying (9) 7:19 40:17 30:17
58:19 62:12 88:15 57:23 58:11,19 66:22 67:23 77:24 unknown (1) 51:4
88:24 90:18 94:2 59:12,22 61:5,9,10 78:11 91:22 103:25 unlawful (1) 117:8
97:22 100:13 63:12 66:14,16 110:25 unpledged (3) 96:24
102:11 104:7 73:13 76:2,12,15 Tuesday (1) 1:1 98:23 101:14
106:23 109:13 76:20 79:12,13 tune (1) 103:21 unquote (1) 100:7
113:19 80:12,19,24 92:8 turn (1) 70:18 untrue (1) 86:3
thanks (1) 97:12 93:15,17 94:22 turning (2) 47:12,15 unusual (1) 32:12
theoretically (1) 112:2 95:23 97:25 98:3 turns (1) 123:24 use (2) 62:5 65:17
thereabouts (1) 76:5 99:16 100:15 101:1 two (33) 2:17,18 useful (1) 94:21
thing (8) 9:19 31:15 101:13 104:8 16:12,15,20,22 user (1) 65:24
41:15 55:20 61:5 105:15 106:20 19:23 25:19 26:4 utmost (1) 30:15
80:8 95:12 105:17 109:22 110:5 46:15 49:14 53:14
things (4) 9:17 39:6 113:22,22 114:7 54:9 59:10 60:18 V
85:11 94:12 116:17 123:17 61:14 62:1 63:17 validity (1) 103:15
think (107) 3:22 6:2 times (2) 56:6 116:11 65:1 66:17 67:3,4
valuable (2) 16:2
7:1 9:19,20 12:15 title (1) 100:6 73:12 74:24 75:2
58:16
17:5 19:3,11,15 today (5) 49:5 103:8 82:15,16 83:12
valuation (3) 15:14
20:22 22:20 24:15 122:6,6 123:7 89:16 96:10 102:13
18:9,10
27:3 31:15,22 32:3 told (11) 5:16 6:1,8 115:13 119:12
value (21) 15:18 21:1
32:4,6,15,24 34:15 34:7 35:23 36:11 type (2) 62:16,16
30:18 53:10 56:23
35:14 36:11,12,17 38:13 39:25 59:20 types (2) 13:17 96:10
57:7,11,14 58:9
36:24 39:12 40:6 61:18 77:25
84:12 97:20 99:5
40:17 44:4 45:9 tomorrow (6) 123:7,9 U
103:11 106:6,8,13
47:2 49:3,11,15,16 123:13,14,20 ultimate (1) 117:14
106:21 109:24
50:11 53:18 54:25 124:24
uncommercial (4) 110:1,5 111:1
56:10 58:19 59:2 top (15) 6:23 7:9,10
30:1,12 37:6 50:1 variety (1) 68:12
60:9 61:16,18 9:7 27:25 53:1,2
undergo (1) 4:22 various (6) 3:21 6:23
62:13 63:23 64:4 64:12,13 88:25
understand (56) 1:10 10:7 62:25 79:10
65:6 66:14,20,23 98:3,12 106:11
4:3,19 5:10,25 7:19 116:23
67:24 68:1 69:3,11 107:3 120:22
13:24 14:2 15:21 VAT (1) 28:22
69:12,23 70:9 71:5 total (1) 97:4
19:20 20:5 22:25 VECTOR (25) 99:21
71:7,17,24,25 trace (1) 83:19
22:25 25:15 28:11 100:1 101:8 102:18
72:11 73:16,21 traces (1) 98:13
28:14,14 35:7 102:21,24 103:14
74:11,12,25 75:3 tracks (3) 17:6 21:24
38:20 42:1,18 104:24 105:1,18,19
75:23 80:2 81:1 89:17
43:15,15,23 44:14 106:17 108:2,2,9
88:7 89:2 90:13 training (1) 52:1
45:3 46:1 50:2 51:9 108:11,21,25 109:3
91:21 92:4,16,18 transaction (10) 53:20
52:12 63:7,21 67:6 109:9,14 112:2,13
93:10,18 95:1,2 55:25 56:2,4 92:11
67:24 68:1,7 69:1,7 114:13 121:14
97:22 99:14 101:1 95:19 100:25 102:8
69:9 77:24 83:14 version (28) 17:20
102:2 104:20 107:4 103:12,24
83:23 84:25 85:12 19:4 22:8 26:13
111:7,12,22 112:6 transactions (1)
88:3,4,16 91:23 40:6,22,23 47:20
114:25 115:20 102:13
92:13 94:19 95:6 59:10,11 62:5,14
117:2,25 123:5,8 transcript (5) 36:16,19
107:20 108:5 64:13 69:22 70:6
123:20,25 124:4,4 52:24 53:4 61:17
109:13 110:13 70:12,19,20,23
124:18 transfer (12) 27:21

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

135
April 5, 2016 Day 33

71:15 73:23,24 74:3,5 75:8 77:2 78:2 92:25

versions (4) 65:1 67:2 70:11 78:17

vessels (3) 14:17 61:2 74:20

Vice (1) 117:12 view (1) 100:9 viewed (1) 84:6 violating (1) 116:3 virtually (2) 61:1

84:21 vis-a-vis (1) 106:2

visited (2) 16:18,18 void (2) 52:8,14 voided (2) 51:1 116:6 Volodina (1) 47:21 volume (1) 69:21 Vyborg (12) 14:15,16

14:25 15:16 63:3 68:7,10,11,11 70:3 71:14 121:8

W

wages (1) 57:19 want (10) 40:4 60:22
63:7 72:6 92:3,5,13 92:15 123:12,16

wanted (6) 18:23 37:8 85:25 97:1,2 109:12

wasn’t (11) 1:15,23 7:19,22 10:10 16:8 21:11 56:14 77:10 92:12 103:12

way (31) 4:22 29:17 31:20 33:24 36:3 43:23 44:12 45:4 45:23 51:22 62:7 74:13 76:22 77:13 82:11 83:9 84:10 84:17 90:4,17 93:13 97:7,7 98:23 106:1 116:3 117:7 118:21 122:16 123:10 124:7

ways (2) 47:14 83:10 we’ve (1) 71:5 Wednesday (1) 125:3 week (7) 63:9,13 65:7

65:8 76:9 108:22 112:3

weekly (1) 76:16 Western (89) 13:22

14:14,19 15:6,8,15 16:13,17 17:6,16 17:24 18:11 20:16 22:16 23:24 24:23 25:4,18,25 27:10 27:21 30:19 37:20 38:1,1,6,25 39:10 41:16 42:4,8,11 43:10,19 44:1,8,17 44:22,25 45:6,18 45:19 46:4,5,8,9,12 46:13,16,23 47:8 51:2,5,8 56:9,13 58:17 59:16 81:21 83:12 86:6,11,13 86:22 87:15,23 88:2,8,12 89:13 90:2 91:3 94:25 95:25 96:13,17,23 97:14 99:1,9 106:3 112:15 117:4,6,15 120:14 121:25 122:8,12

whatsoever (2) 26:20

42:9

whilst (1) 10:16 Wide (1) 119:18 widely (1) 121:1 winner (3) 113:12

115:4,5 winning (1) 37:17 wish (4) 51:13 71:23

92:14 112:9 witness (11) 40:2,10

49:13,14 51:21 67:2 79:11 92:8 98:25 111:18 117:21

witness’s (1) 92:12 witnesses (2) 5:17 6:2 won (1) 107:24 wonder (4) 13:12

39:12 75:21 123:15 wondered (1) 33:20 wonderful (1) 121:11 word (2) 20:1,2 words (10) 9:8 33:2

35:11,12 38:21 39:22 52:1 56:6 83:1 107:4

work (27) 2:5 3:5,9,20 4:5,19 5:2 6:12 7:8 7:21 9:16 11:8 12:16,24 13:12,14 13:17 14:24 17:13 19:19 21:19 62:24 65:7 66:3,7 83:25 103:9

worked (5) 1:11 4:6 13:9 14:7 23:3 working (32) 2:3,6 3:1

5:8 7:2,16,23 11:10 13:5 16:8 32:5 45:1 52:2 62:17 65:2 71:25 74:19,19 79:2 80:19 81:2,6 85:22,23 90:9 91:1 91:5 100:15,16,21 100:22 109:16

works (2) 63:7 108:4 world (2) 8:11 109:17 worry (2) 26:16 95:14 worse (1) 8:23 worsen (1) 48:16 worsening (1) 9:11 worth (1) 91:22 wouldn’t (16) 13:23

35:10 45:1 48:8,17 53:9 61:4 65:19 66:2 95:12,16,20 102:25 103:3 119:13 123:23

write (2) 55:3 117:4 writing (4) 36:15

79:11 89:4,5 written (3) 29:2 98:25

106:5

wrong (5) 3:23 71:20 78:15 111:8 113:4 wrote (4) 20:5 65:6,8

116:11

X

Y

Yashkina (5) 2:17 11:3

11:5 66:14 80:25

Yatvetsky (4) 40:3,21

40:25 42:25

Yatvetsky’s (1) 41:14 year (9) 8:4 23:8,9

85:16 96:15 116:18 118:8,12 119:12

year’s (2) 96:16 99:16 years (14) 27:14,16

34:17 44:22 47:24 48:10,10,14 52:3 54:19,20 84:16 96:21 122:11

years’ (2) 28:25 35:5 yesterday (5) 8:10,12 93:11,13 122:5

Z

0

0.4 (1) 70:9

1

1 (16) 15:4 39:7 69:21 70:13,15 96:20 106:8 108:20 113:7 116:10 118:2,9 119:1,6 126:3,4

1.0 (1) 72:16

1.1 (4) 26:24 27:5,8 101:13

1.1.1 (1) 27:1 1.1.5 (1) 27:2

1.2 (6) 21:7 105:13 108:21 109:25 110:13 112:4

1.3 (3) 27:13,16 28:17

1.30 (1) 72:6

10 (4) 15:2 52:22 58:21 104:9
10.0 (2) 1:2 123:13

10.5 (1) 1:4

10.30 (1) 124:12

100 (9) 71:5,7,8 84:21 96:17 106:6,8 121:6,10

11 (1) 118:14

12 (1) 52:22

12.10 (1) 58:22

12.25 (1) 58:24

1203 (1) 70:4

14 (1) 116:17

15 (3) 72:1,7 104:19

161,497 (2) 95:1 102:10
17 (8) 59:4,13 64:4,24 70:22 73:23 77:3,6
170 (2) 68:20 79:24

181,000 (1) 102:7

19 (1) 48:14

2

2 (7) 74:17 108:20 116:8,18 118:3 121:4 123:16

2,300,000 (3) 101:22

102:2,20

2.0 (2) 72:15,18

2.1 (1) 94:24

2.1.1 (2) 27:20 28:16

2.7 (1) 21:1

20 (5) 28:1 51:18 53:1 108:17 118:17

20,000 (2) 28:21 34:21

2008 (11) 1:11,13 8:12,19 14:18,23 15:9 17:22 25:6 96:6 122:3

2009 (52) 1:12,14 3:19 4:9 5:1 6:3 7:11 8:3,4,20,24,24

9:3 10:3,15 11:21 12:3,6,25 13:8 16:19 22:13 24:22 28:1,2 43:11,20 44:2,6,21 45:18 55:18 59:4,13 61:6 61:6,24 64:4,20 70:13,15 71:16 72:25 73:9,17 74:17 76:5 77:7,25 80:25 83:7 88:9

2010 (6) 4:15 8:25 11:21 23:10 86:4 88:9

2011 (4) 4:15 87:4 90:24 93:23

2012 (16) 43:11,20 44:2,6,21 45:18 88:10 99:14 104:19 108:17,22 112:14 113:24 114:1 116:9 118:12

2013 (5) 10:24 85:15 116:17 118:13,17

2014 (1) 11:14

2015 (1) 11:14

2016 (2) 1:1 125:3

23 (5) 20:24 22:13 28:2,8 53:8

24 (1) 47:21

25 (1) 64:20

27 (1) 17:22

28 (1) 108:22

29 (1) 112:14

3

3 (10) 18:3 72:25 73:9 73:17 77:1 114:9 116:8,18 118:3 121:4

3.0 (1) 124:16

3.00ish (2) 123:21 124:19
3.5 (1) 124:20

3.1 (1) 28:20

3.12 (1) 104:10

3.25 (1) 104:12

3.3 (1) 28:22

30 (10) 15:5 47:24 48:10 54:19,20 95:5 102:1,5,22 105:20

300 (1) 15:1

31 (1) 93:16

37 (1) 15:18

38 (1) 15:18

4

4 (5) 18:3 70:10 94:14 110:3 121:5
4.12 (1) 125:1

4.30 (1) 123:4

4.40 (2) 123:11,12

4.45/4.50 (1) 123:7

45 (3) 40:5,8,20

46 (3) 40:24 75:6,15

49 (7) 27:14,16 28:25 34:17 35:5 47:24 48:10

5

5 (2) 1:1 52:22

5.00 (1) 123:10

5.2 (1) 29:4

5.3 (1) 29:7

50 (1) 97:4

57 (3) 73:5,14,25

6

6 (2) 37:1 125:3

600 (1) 119:19

674.5 (1) 112:23

675 (2) 113:5 115:8

7

7 (3) 52:25 71:16 117:3
72 (4) 52:25 53:1,8 71:11

73 (1) 53:2

77 (1) 37:1

8

8 (1) 37:7

88 (1) 69:22

9

9 (1) 40:5

9.45 (8) 123:14,19 124:3,5,8,14,25 125:2

9.7.3 (1) 118:7

99 (2) 88:7 96:18

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