Day 34

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

Day 34

April 6, 2016

Opus 2 International — Official Court Reporters

Phone: +44 (0)20 3008 5900

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

April 6, 2016 Day 34

1 Wednesday, 6 April 2016 1 in March, April, May 2009, when you started the process
2 (9.45 am) 2 of recovery, did you believe there were any hidden
3 (Proceedings delayed) 3 assets of substance in the possession of Mr or
4 (9.50 am) 4 Mrs Arkhangelsky?
5 MR STROILOV: May it please your Lordship. 5 A. Yes, my Lord. I am going by my analysis of the loan
6 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Good morning. 6 agreements and the targeted use of the loan resources
7 MR LORD: Sorry, my Lord, I think there is a new interpreter 7 made available to Oslo Marine Group. For instance,
8 who needs to be sworn in. 8 Vyborg Group received a loan in the amount of $1 billion
9 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Oh, yes, I’m sorry, I was told. 9 against — RUB 1 billion against the pledge of the
10 MR LORD: If that wasn’t brought to your Lordship’s 10 terminal, against the pledge of three vessels. Not
11 attention, I apologise. 11 a single document was made available by that time to
12 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Yes, thank you very much. 12 the Bank to confirm that even one vessel had actually
13 MR SERGEI MIKHEYEV, Interpreter (Affirmed) 13 been acquired, even though when that loan application
14 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Thank you. 14 was being processed it had been stated that they were
15 MS KRISTINA BORISOVNA MIRONOVA (Continued) 15 going to be purchased.
16 Cross-examination by MR STROILOV (Continued) 16 But all the money received, drawn down, were
17 (All questions and answers interpreted except where 17 transferred and admitted to Land Breeze, the Cyprus
18 otherwise indicated) 18 company, and the money never made it back to Russia.
19 MR STROILOV: My Lord, I think you need to put the 19 Q. And are you saying that you discovered this at what
20 headphones on. 20 point in time approximately? Obviously you can’t give
21 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: You are quite right. Thank you. 21 us an exact date, but approximately when?
22 MR STROILOV: I am grateful, my Lord. 22 A. If you are referring to the loan and the fact that the
23 Good morning, Ms Mironova. May I ask you this: do 23 documents were never received by the Bank to confirm
24 I understand it correctly that your evidence is that 24 that the vessels had been acquired, I found that out
25 following what you call a default of OMG in March 2009, 25 from Mrs Blinova in the autumn of 2008. She was in
1 3

1 it was the Bank’s intention from that point in time to

2 recover the debts by realising the pledges; was that the

3 intention of the Bank?

4 A. Yes, my Lord.

5 Q. And, again, just to recap on what I think you said

6 yesterday, your evidence is that at all stages of this

7 process, your priority was to maximise the recovery?

8 A. Absolutely. I’m happy to confirm that.

9 Q. Now, may I ask you this: it has been alleged on behalf

10 of the Bank in these proceedings a number of times that

11 Mr Arkhangelsky — both Mr and Mrs Arkhangelsky — in

12 fact are not impecunious; they have very substantial

13 assets hidden somewhere, and could have really repaid

14 all the debts of the Bank any moment. Are you aware of

15 these allegations being made?

16 A. Yes, I’m aware of that.

17 Q. And I appreciate, obviously, should I say, enemies tend

18 to make all sorts of allegations against each other, but

19 being here today on oath, can you say that you sincerely

20 believe this to be true?

21 A. I do sincerely believe that this is true, and if this

22 can assist your Lordship, I’m happy to explain why.

23 Q. Well, I think this has been argued on behalf of the Bank

24 a number of times. What I am interested in is did you

25 believe in that back in 2009, let’s say

1 charge of monitoring this specific loan position.

2 Q. Now, perhaps I am formulating it poorly. Really my

3 question is at what point in time did you come to

4 believe that Mr and/or Mrs Arkhangelsky had substantial

5 hidden assets?

6 A. My Lord, I think I answered to that question by saying

7 that according to the information that I had received,

8 the money that had been drawn down and remitted to

9 Cyprus, and no assets had been purchased using that

10 money.

11 Q. So are you saying that, really, at the time the Bank

12 agreed to restructure the debts in December 2008, at

13 least your own view already was that, in fact,

14 Mr Arkhangelsky can repay the debts tomorrow, he has the

15 money hidden somewhere; is that what you are saying?

16 A. No, my Lord. I did not believe at that time that

17 Mr Arkhangelsky had hidden the money somewhere or

18 stashed the money away. I had received some information

19 from Mrs Blinova to the effect that we did not have any

20 document confirming the purchase of the vessels, and we

21 considered requesting orally and in writing the relevant

22 documents from the client, and we were sure that the

23 vessels were going and had to be purchased.

24 Q. Right. So at what point in time did you begin to

25 believe that Mr and/or Mrs Arkhangelsky had substantial

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

April 6, 2016 Day 34

1 assets hidden somewhere, substantial undisclosed assets?

2 A. My Lord, because RUB 1 billion had been transferred to

3 the accounts of the Cyprus company, this is over

4 $30 million, I assumed that the money was available to

5 Mr and Mrs Arkhangelsky.

6 Q. Ms Mironova, I’m not asking you why: I’m asking you

7 when. When did you make this conclusion in your mind,

8 approximately? About what time?

9 A. My Lord, I am not sure I can quote a specific date or

10 a month or a time period. I shared with your Lordship

11 my recollection of the reasoning and the information

12 that I was receiving at that time, and my thought

13 process at that time.

14 Q. Well, would it be, say, obviously you were working on

15 the recovery, and there should have been, and there was,

16 a certain strategy, was there not? So what I am — did

17 you say — is it right to assume that, let’s say, at

18 least since, let’s say, the middle of 2009, you already

19 proceeded on the assumption that there are some

20 substantial undisclosed assets which could be recovered

21 under personal guarantees?

22 A. My Lord, I am not sure I can answer that question with

23 precision. I simply do not remember when exactly that

24 happened. I remember that in the middle of 2009 we were

25 diligently working together with the Bank’s lawyers,

1 Scandinavia Insurance, it was done on the basis of

2 an out of court settlement agreement between the Bank

3 and Scandinavia Insurance; would you agree, is that

4 consistent with your recollection?

5 A. Yes, I would agree with that.

6 Q. And as you can see, the date is 22 July 2009. So at

7 that point in time, Scandinavia Insurance has already

8 been transferred under the control of Renord companies

9 acting on behalf of the Bank, isn’t that correct?

10 A. So far as I know, Scandinavia Insurance was part of

11 the repo transaction, so the answer is: yes, it was

12 under their control.

13 Q. So if you look at the second large paragraph on this

14 page, you will see that Scandinavia is already recorded

15 to be acting by its general director Vitaly Victorovich

16 Kuvshinov, and he was — Mr Kuvshinov was the new

17 director general appointed by Renord, wasn’t he?

18 A. I’m not sure I can answer that question, my Lord.

19 I simply do not know who Mr Kuvshinov is.

20 Q. What I am trying to establish is this agreement, it was

21 not really — well, it’s not going into legal precision.

22 That is an agreement you made not with Mr Arkhangelsky,

23 not with Oslo Marine Group: you made that agreement with

24 Renord.

25 A. So far as I can recall, if we were to carry out

5 7

1 trying to understand the various provisions of maritime

2 law, because the three vessels that had been pledged to

3 the Bank, they had been seized in Estonia, France and

4 England, in various different ports all over the world,

5 and so we needed to understand how we can file our

6 claims in our capacity as the pledgee to make sure that

7 the collateral was not disposed of without our consent,

8 and I do remember that that took place some time around

9 the summer of 2009.

10 Q. Thank you.

11 Now, may I ask you to look at {D126/2007/1}, and the

12 Russian version will be starting at {D126/2007/4}.

13 So, Ms Mironova, this seems to be the agreement on

14 out of court settlement of the Bank’s claim against

15 Scandinavia Insurance, isn’t it?

16 A. Yes, looks like this is the case.

17 Q. And do you recognise this agreement? Do you recall

18 being involved in preparation of that agreement, or in

19 implementation of that agreement? Do you recognise it?

20 A. My Lord, I was involved in the preparation of this

21 foreclosure procedure, but I have no recollection of

22 this specific document.

23 Q. Right, but that’s — I suppose you would agree that

24 this, I think, first, chronologically, the first stage

25 of realisation of assets, and these are assets of

1 an extra-judicial realisation, we first needed to agree

2 that that was possible with the pledger, according to

3 the contract, and so it was between the Bank and

4 Oslo Marine Group that the agreement had been reached

5 that this could be foreclosed ex-judicially.

6 Now, judging from the time frame here, it looks like

7 this document was executed when the company was already

8 controlled by Renord Group.

9 Q. And Renord Group was, of course, acting on behalf of

10 the Bank, was it not?

11 A. Upon consent of the Bank and upon agreement between them

12 and the Bank.

13 Q. Quite. Now, if we could scroll down one page to see

14 some of the terms, I just want to … {D126/2007/2},

15 {D126/2007/5}. At this page, if you look, there is

16 a paragraph in the kind of lower middle of the page

17 starting from the words «The pledgee’s claims». And in

18 the Russian version that starts from the words,

19 «(Russian words)». Can you see that? Can I ask you to

20 read that paragraph?

21 Just that paragraph. I am not interested in

22 anything else at the moment. (Pause).

23 A. I have read this paragraph.

24 Q. So the assets, according to this agreement, the assets

25 are to be sold by the organiser who would be acting on

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

April 6, 2016 Day 34

1 behalf of the Bank, or on its own behalf, but someone —

2 it is left to the Bank to find someone who would

3 organise the sale; do you understand what I am

4 suggesting?

5 I think I have formulated it poorly. Let me start

6 again. This agreement leaves it to the Bank’s

7 discretion to choose who is to organise the sale; isn’t

8 that right?

9 A. My Lord, I may be reading a different text, but from the

10 paragraph I am looking at, I do not see any provision to

11 the effect that it’s up to the Bank to choose the

12 auction organiser.

13 Q. Sorry, just to be sure we are talking about the same

14 thing, let me read you the paragraph I mean. I hope

15 then the interpreters will identify what it is.

16 The paragraph I am looking at is:

17 «The Pledgee’s claims shall be satisfied …»

18 No, sorry, it is my mistake. Yes. You are quite

19 right, I have confused things.

20 What I am looking at, actually I am confused in

21 the English version.

22 THE INTERPRETER: Mr Stroilov, this is the interpreter

23 speaking, could you kindly speak into the microphone, we

24 can hardly hear you, sir, thank you.

25 MR STROILOV: The paragraph I am looking at, and I do

1 of the auction, and enter a contract with … having

2 signed that contract, the Bank is free to go to anyone

3 who is prepared to organise an auction, make a contract

4 and go ahead with the sale, isn’t that a fair

5 interpretation?

6 A. My Lord, speaking from memory, Russian law provides that

7 if someone is to enter into this kind of contract with

8 respect to an extrajudicial foreclosure, I mean

9 a contract with the pledger, you first need to

10 have a provision in the original contract making that

11 possible, and then in the second iteration you need to

12 obtain consent from the pledgee with respect to that

13 auction to be held, and obviously the pledgee will only

14 signify his consent if he understands very well who the

15 organiser is going to be, ie the Bank, and the pledger

16 have to agree on that in the first place, and then the

17 initial price has to be agreed upon. That’s what the

18 statute book provides for in the Russian Federation.

19 So, in other words, a bank cannot just up and decide

20 that they will use their discretionary powers and make

21 that sale.

22 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: I think you were simply being asked

23 whether under the terms of this contract, the Bank had

24 the right to select the auctioneer for the purposes of

25 the sale, which had been provided for under the

9 11

1 apologise, my Lord, is this short paragraph which is the

2 fourth paragraph from the bottom, very short:

3 «If the Mortgaged Property is foreclosed

4 extrajudicially, it shall be sold in an open auction by

5 the organiser of the auction, which shall act to

6 the basis of a contract with the Pledgee on the

7 Pledgee’s or its own behalf.»

8 Have you found that, Ms Mironova?

9 A. Yes, and that was exactly the one that I had been

10 reading, sir.

11 Q. Yes, I am sorry, I gave you the right Russian paragraph

12 but not the right English paragraph.

13 Obviously the pledger is Scandinavia Insurance,

14 isn’t it?

15 A. Yes, obviously.

16 Q. And the pledgee is the Bank, is it not?

17 A. Yes.

18 Q. And so it is envisaged that the Bank, that’s to say

19 pledgee, would make a contract with someone who would be

20 acting as the organiser of the auction.

21 A. Yes, that’s what it says here. It says that the pledgee

22 shall enter into a contract with respect to holding

23 an open auction, yes.

24 Q. So the way this agreement is meant to work is that it is

25 for the Bank to choose who to appoint as the organiser

1 agreement, and you said that the clause didn’t deal with

2 that, but it may very well do. If you read it, it

3 plainly does.

4 MR STROILOV: I’m grateful, my Lord.

5 A. My Lord, this agreement, as far as I understand, is

6 a concluding stage when the pledger has already agreed

7 to the auction. This has to be done with the help of

8 a notary public, as far as I remember; that is to say we

9 have to additionally state that the pledger agrees to

10 an auction and, of course, he wants to know who is going

11 to hold the open auction, among other things.

12 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Well…

13 MR STROILOV: Yes, Ms Mironova, I don’t want to spend a lot

14 of time on it, it is not going to be sensationally

15 crucial; I just put it to you that this agreement, it

16 does not name the auctioneer. In this agreement, you

17 won’t find Russian Auction House as the auctioneer.

18 A. My Lord, I have not read the entire agreement, only the

19 paragraph I was pointed to, and specifically in this

20 paragraph there is no mention of the name of

21 an organiser.

22 Q. Quite, and according to your recollection, you don’t

23 recall Russian Auction House being specified in

24 the original settlement agreement, or do you recall

25 that?

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

April 6, 2016 Day 34

1 A. No, I do not recall, my Lord, the text of the agreement

2 on the pledge.

3 Q. Yes. And if we could now look at the very last line of

4 this page, and then tell me when you have read the last

5 line and I will cause it to be scrolled down.

6 A. The last line or the penultimate line?

7 Q. The very bottom line.

8 A. I have read it.

9 Q. Yes. Could we now scroll down both screens one page

10 {D126/2007/3}, {D126/2007/6}, and the top paragraph, the

11 continuation of that paragraph at the top on this page.

12 A. I have read it, yes.

13 Q. Then if you look at clause 2, near the middle of this

14 page, you can see that it is envisaged that the

15 valuation would be done by a company called

16 Alliance Otsenka; can you see that?

17 A. Yes, I do.

18 Q. And that, by contrast, the arrangements with the valuer,

19 the contract with the valuer, is left to the pledger;

20 that is effectively to Renord. Can you see that?

21 A. (Untranslated).

22 Q. I am hearing Russian.

23 So according to this agreement, it is the pledger

24 who will enter the contract with the valuation company

25 to determine the starting price?

1 companies. Among them, one company among them was Lair.

2 Q. And by contrast, Alliance Otsenka is a company which is

3 totally unknown in Russia generally, is it not?

4 A. I cannot comment this, my Lord.

5 Q. Now, to your recollection, isn’t it the case that the

6 valuations made by Alliance Otsenka pursuant to this

7 agreement, were much lower than the original valuations

8 by Lair? Is that a fair statement?

9 A. My Lord, I do not recall. I will have to refer to

10 the reports by Lair and Alliance Otsenka to make the

11 comparison.

12 Q. Now, at some point in 2009, the Bank entered

13 an agreement with a company called Russian Auction

14 House, to implement this settlement with Scandinavia,

15 isn’t that right?

16 A. Yes, that is correct.

17 Q. And so Russian Auction House was acting as the Bank’s

18 agent under an agency agreement. Well, obviously you

19 are not a lawyer, but I don’t know if you know that.

20 But wasn’t it?

21 A. My Lord, in answering this question I can only answer

22 that I don’t know whether it was an agent or no agent.

23 The Russian Auction House, as far as I recall, conducted

24 auctions with respect to this property. I hope

25 I provided an answer to the question I was asked.

13 15

1 A. Yes, this is what is stated here.

2 Q. And of course, at that time, the Bank had valuation

3 reports for all pledges made by the company called Lair,

4 didn’t it?

5 A. As far as I remember, we had reports from Lair on

6 valuations when we were accepting the pledge, but that

7 was in 2007, 2008; that is to say much earlier, when the

8 economy was on the rise, prior to the global financial

9 crisis that we have mentioned on a number of occasions,

10 and when it reached the Russian Federation and impacted

11 the Russian economy.

12 Q. Right, and would you agree that Lair, I know the Bank

13 has criticised Lair in these proceedings and elsewhere,

14 but generally speaking, would you agree that Lair is

15 a very well known and reputable Russian valuer?

16 A. My Lord, I’m not prepared to qualify a valuation company

17 using epithets or qualifiers.

18 Q. It is very well known, is it not?

19 A. My Lord, I can only say that this is a valuation company

20 that operates in the Russian Federation, and in

21 particular, in St Petersburg.

22 Q. And at that time it was accredited with the Bank to do

23 valuations of pledges?

24 A. If my memory doesn’t fail me, in 2007/2008, there were

25 about 20 companies accredited with the Bank, valuation

1 Q. Well, was it your understanding at the time that the

2 Russian Auction House is acting on behalf of the Bank in

3 carrying out this sale?

4 A. I am not prepared to provide any comment at this stage.

5 Q. Now, could we please look at {D132/2174/1}, and the

6 Russian version starts at {D132/2174/3}. So that looks

7 like one of the minutes, or protocols, of the sale which

8 was organised by Russian Auction House on

9 26 October 2009. Does that look right?

10 A. Probably, yes.

11 Q. So you can see that the commission in charge of

12 the auction, it includes some representatives of Russian

13 Auction House, and also a representative of

14 Bank of St Petersburg.

15 A. Where can I see this, please?

16 Q. It’s at the very top, once you see the auctioneer is

17 Russian Auction House, and then, «The commission

18 comprised» of «Chairman», Deputy chairman» and so on,

19 then at the bottom you see «V.N. Grosheva.

20 Representative of Bank of St Petersburg.»

21 A. Yes, I can see that.

22 Q. So the position is the commission includes

23 representatives of Russian Auction House,

24 representatives of the Bank, one representative of

25 the Bank, but not of Scan, let alone anyone from OMG or

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

April 6, 2016 Day 34

1 from Mr Arkhangelsky. Do you agree with that?

2 A. Judging by what is written in this document, I do.

3 Q. Yes, and your recollections of the actual events does

4 not contradict what I am suggesting to you, does it?

5 A. Perhaps you could reformulate your question to make it

6 more clear.

7 Q. You are not really, on the basis of your recollections,

8 you are not arguing against the assertion that the

9 auction, that the people in charge of the auction

10 include representatives of Russian Auction House,

11 include a representative from the Bank, but included no

12 representative of Scan, and no representatives of

13 Oslo Marine Group in any sense?

14 A. My Lord, the document states, and we just read, that the

15 commission comprises a number of different

16 representatives. Among the representatives, there is no

17 representative of the Oslo Marine Group. I completely

18 agree with that. This is what is stated here.

19 But what this commission is responsible for, I do

20 not know, and I cannot comment, therefore, a statement

21 that is just — I have been translated.

22 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: I think all that’s been asked of you

23 is you are not suggesting that there were other — that

24 so far as you know, there were any other representatives

25 than the representatives who are detailed in that

1 worked to implement it. With respect to this specific

2 contract with the Russian Auction House, I recall that

3 this was not my proposal. To my manager Mr Skatin, as

4 far as I recollect, it was an instruction for him to

5 conduct this work.

6 Q. So your evidence is, really, that Mr Skatin — that on

7 the Bank’s side, the person who was responsible for this

8 stage of realisation was Mr Skatin, and you wouldn’t

9 really know the rationale or thinking behind what

10 happened?

11 A. No, my Lord. I recall that Mr Skatin informed me about

12 this issue being discussed at the board of the Bank. If

13 this is appropriate, I can share my recollections as to

14 the reasons, as to the rationale.

15 Q. Let me ask you some questions on that and hopefully that

16 will elicit the most important points.

17 Now, I understand that the principal asset which was

18 sold at that auction is half of Onega Terminal,

19 approximately half of Onega Terminal owned by

20 Scandinavia Insurance at that time; is that correct?

21 A. At this point I cannot evaluate the share and confirm

22 that, but the fact that part of the Onega Terminal owned

23 by the insurance company, this is a true statement.

24 Q. And now you can see at the bottom of the page before you

25 that one of the bidders was a company called Kiperort,

17 19

1 document?

2 A. My Lord, I do not know this because I did not

3 participate in the auction. I did not attend, and

4 I just do not know.

5 MR STROILOV: Thank you, my Lord.

6 Let me then just establish what was your own

7 involvement in this auction? I thought — I may

8 have misunderstood your earlier answer, but I thought

9 that really you were pretty much involved on the Bank’s

10 side in this stage of realisation of assets through

11 Russian Auction House in the end of 2009, were you not?

12 A. Yes, my Lord. I was involved. As far as I remember, we

13 were preparing documentation to prepare a decision by

14 the credit committee or the managing committee of

15 the Bank to approve an out of court realisation. Then

16 we were also conducting some technical work to conclude

17 an agreement between the Bank and the Russian Auction

18 House.

19 This was my involvement, my work.

20 Q. So was it technical, because I would assume from the

21 evidence on the role of Client Monitoring Directorate

22 and yours, I rather tended to assume that your

23 responsibility was the strategy, really. Or was it just

24 technical work?

25 A. My Lord, at certain stages we worked on the strategy and

1 this table at the bottom of the page, you can see that,

2 can’t you?

3 A. I can see that, yes.

4 Q. And Kiperort is one of the companies in the Renord

5 Group, is it not?

6 A. Yes, as far as I can recall.

7 Q. And if we could scroll down one page on both screens now

8 {D132/2174/2}, {D132/2174/4} you can see that the second

9 participant was a company called Solo LLC, and Solo is,

10 or was at the time, another company in the Renord Group,

11 was it not?

12 A. Yes, as far as I know.

13 Q. And then you can see that the starting price was, for

14 this particular lot, RUB 31.3 million roughly.

15 Then Solo won the auction, and I think it appears,

16 if my maths is correct, that Solo bought the asset only

17 one step above the auction price. Can you see that?

18 A. Probably.

19 Q. Now, if we could — so if we could look again at this

20 table of participants, you can see that Solo is recorded

21 as being represented by someone called Mrs or

22 Ms Arinina, and then if we scroll up both pages

23 {D132/2174/1}, {D132/2174/3} you can see that the field

24 for the representative of Kiperort is left blank.

25 A. My Lord, I can see here that in the column we have the

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

April 6, 2016 Day 34

1 name of a person acting by proxy. I believe that Solo

2 had a representative by proxy, and the director general

3 himself was representing Kiperort, if we can judge based

4 on this document.

5 Q. And what is the source of your knowledge on that?

6 A. Because opposite Kiperort there is nothing written in

7 the column says the name of the person acting by proxy.

8 I am only analysing the document I am looking at.

9 Q. Right. Thank you. So the reason why two companies had

10 to participate in the auction was because that is

11 a requirement of Russian law for the auction to be

12 valid, isn’t that so?

13 A. Yes, probably.

14 Q. And the Bank was content with the fact that both bidders

15 were Renord companies? The Bank did not object to that,

16 did it?

17 A. Could you clarify the question, please? I didn’t

18 understand it.

19 Q. Well, the Bank did not in any way protest, object, raise

20 concerns in relation to the fact that both bidders at

21 the auction were controlled by the same people, by

22 Renord Group?

23 A. My Lord, at the time of the auction I was not even aware

24 who is going to participate, how many participants will

25 there be, and who controls them. Based on the document

1 substantively very similar to the previous one: again,

2 it is Russian Auction House, 26 October, the same

3 commission conducting the auction, also on the basis of

4 an agency agreement between Russian Auction House and

5 Bank of St Petersburg, and then the same participants of

6 the auction; can you see all that on this page?

7 A. Yes, I do.

8 Q. And if we could scroll down one page on each screen,

9 again you can see the starting price, the winner is

10 Solo, and Solo buys it one step above the starting price

11 {D132/2715/2}, {D132/2175/4}.

12 A. Yes, I can see 164 million.

13 Q. Yes. Then finally if we could go to {D132/2176/1}, and

14 {D132/2176/3} on the other screen. So that is one more

15 minute of the same kind. Again, it is substantively

16 quite similar: Russian Auction House, the same

17 commission, 26 October. The sale, by contrast, is of

18 a land plot in Sestroretsk, that’s another piece of real

19 estate owned by Scan. That’s land plot and a building

20 under construction in Sestroretsk; it has nothing to do

21 with Onega Terminal.

22 But otherwise it appears that the auction was very

23 similar. Again, the same participants, Kiperort. If

24 you scroll down one page on each screen, {D132/2176/2},

25 {D132/2176/4}, you can see that the other participant is

21 23

1 that we are looking at at the moment, at the next page

2 I can read that the winner of the auction was the

3 participant with the auction ticket number 4, which

4 would seem to indicate that there were at least four

5 participants declared for the auction otherwise why

6 would there be number 4 for the ticket of the winner?

7 Q. As you can see in the line just before the table, since

8 you have mentioned this, that says that two bidders were

9 admitted to the auction, so what that suggests to me is

10 that, indeed, you are right: there must have been two

11 other bidders who applied to participate, but for one

12 reason or another, for reasons we don’t know, Russian

13 Auction House only admitted these two bidders, Kiperort

14 and Solo. Isn’t that a fair reading?

15 A. Most likely yes, but as far as I understand, only the

16 bidders are allowed to participate who have provided the

17 right documents and also submitted a prepayment by

18 demonstrating their interest. This is the procedure at

19 any auction, and I don’t understand why this auction had

20 to follow a different procedure.

21 Q. Now, if you could just very briefly have a look at

22 {D132/2175/1}, and again {D132/2175/3} on the other

23 screen. That is a minute of the sale of another lot at

24 the same auction, through Russian Auction House.

25 Really, all I want to put to you is that it is

1 Solo. Again, you can see the starting price. The

2 winner is Solo, bought it at one step above the starting

3 price.

4 So it seems that even though there were three lots,

5 really all the auctions follow the same pattern; do you

6 agree with that?

7 A. I don’t quite understand the word «procedure», «scheme»

8 that was used, but I can confirm that they follow

9 a similar pattern.

10 Q. Yes. Now, I think you would agree that actually this

11 was, in a way, an interesting event, because that was

12 one of the first, or perhaps the first, sale of

13 a banking pledge by Russian Auction House. So that was,

14 in a way, kind of a historic event in Russian banking,

15 was it not?

16 A. You mean an out of court realisation, or the sales of

17 property mortgaged to the Bank in general?

18 Q. I think it is a Bank — any property mortgaged to

19 the Bank. I’m talking about Russian Auction House,

20 which is obviously a fairly well known auction house in

21 different ways, and it was its first experience of

22 selling a banking pledge. At least that’s what was

23 reported at the time in the Russian media; would you

24 agree with that?

25 A. My Lord, I can confirm that for Bank of St Petersburg,

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

April 6, 2016 Day 34

1 that was the first experience, but as far as the Russian

2 Auction House and Russia as a whole, I cannot provide

3 any comment.

4 Q. Right. So could we look at {D192/2921/0.01} on one

5 screen, and the Russian version will be at

6 {D192/2921/5}.

7 So this seems to be an article published at the time

8 in Kommersant, a reputable Russian business newspaper,

9 about this sale; can you see that?

10 A. I can see the article, except that I have not had

11 an opportunity to read this. Would you like me to read

12 it to myself?

13 Q. Well, if you could simply have a look to see that it is

14 about the auction we are discussing now. (Pause).

15 If we could now scroll down one page on the English

16 screen but not Russian {D192/2921/0.02}. The paragraph

17 I would like you to read is the top paragraph on the

18 English screen, and the bottom paragraph on the Russian

19 screen, the very bottom paragraph. When you reach the

20 end, tell me, and I will cause it to be scrolled down.

21 A. I have read it, thank you.

22 Q. Now, Ms Mironova, isn’t it the case that, in fact, the

23 Solo company which bought the assets, and which belongs

24 to Renord Group, is the same company as the one founded

25 by Mr Lokai, and which used to be a shareholder of

1 then one bidder is a company called Solo and another

2 bidder is a company called Kiperort. That is the

3 appearance. Whereas the reality is that the Bank is the

4 Bank, then Scan is controlled by Renord acting on behalf

5 of the Bank, Russian Auction House is acting as an agent

6 of the Bank, one of the bidders is part of the Renord

7 group which is at that time acting on behalf of

8 the Bank, and the other bidder is part of the Renord

9 Group which is at that time acting on behalf of

10 the Bank.

11 So behind all five parties, ostensibly independent,

12 you have the Bank. So would that be a fair description

13 of the situation?

14 A. My Lord, I’m not in a position to confirm this, I am

15 afraid. The auction was organised on the basis of

16 Russian statute. The assets to be auctioned off could

17 have been purchased by any bidder. We have seen that

18 four participants, four bidders, had been listed. Now,

19 saying that the Bank lurked behind all of those people

20 is a misconceived statement. There was an offer that

21 was made to the market at large. The Russian Auction

22 House, which gets paid a commission from the maximum

23 price is interested in maximising the price and

24 maximising the proceeds of the sale, obviously.

25 Now, based on what Kommersant appears to say —

25

1 the Bank; isn’t that so, to your knowledge?

2 A. My Lord, I really have no knowledge of this.

3 Q. Now, assuming that is the case, are you aware of any

4 reason why Bank of St Petersburg could falsely deny that

5 in response to a media enquiry?

6 A. I’m so sorry. Could you explain what you mean by that?

7 Q. Well, in fact, Ms Mironova, you can take it from me that

8 the Solo founded by Mr Lokai, and obviously connected

9 with the Bank, is the same Solo as the one which is part

10 of Renord Group and which bought the assets in

11 the public auction; that is so. So, having accepted

12 that, are you aware of any reason why the Bank would

13 deny that fact when asked a question by Kommersant

14 newspaper?

15 A. My Lord, I am afraid I really have no comment to offer.

16 I just do not know.

17 Q. Now, may I put it to you that the arrangements, the

18 whole auction had a certain peculiarity about it, and

19 let me — I will explain to you what I mean, and you can

20 agree or disagree. So, ostensibly it looks like, to

21 someone who is looking at it as a bystander, like

22 Kommersant newspaper, it looks like there are five

23 independent parties participating in the process. That

24 is the Bank is the pledgee, Scandinavia Insurance is the

25 pledger, Russian Auction House is the auctioneer, and

27

1 would it be possible, actually, to scroll up the English

2 text? I think it says here that one of the market

3 players believes that the market is more than

4 acceptable. The last paragraph of the English text, to

5 the extent that I can read English, reference is made to

6 a Mr Vladislav Lutskov. It says that the price is «more

7 than acceptable», Bank of St Petersburg managed to sell

8 its pledges at a maximum price. So basically what it

9 says here in this article is that everything was done in

10 an open manner and a market price had been offered.

11 Now, if that price had been offered by a company

12 that had been under Renord’s control, well, what can

13 I say? I do not think any negative inference should be

14 made here. The money that was realised by the Bank was

15 used by the Bank to repay Oslo Marine’s outstanding

16 receivables.

17 Q. And, Ms Mironova, isn’t it the case that the money you

18 recovered at this auction was actually much lower than

19 the debts secured by the pledges of this property?

20 A. Unfortunately that was the case, yes, my Lord. The

21 market price of the sale proved to be way below the

22 loans that had been made, much to the frustration and to

23 the disappointment of the Bank, who was the creditor.

24 Q. So at any point between the alleged default

25 in March 2009 and the purported auction in October 2009,

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

April 6, 2016 Day 34

1 are you aware of any attempts by the Bank or Renord to 1 A. This is also English.
2 sell these assets at the price at which they had been 2 Q. If you scroll down the page to page 2. This is better.
3 pledged? Say, at a higher price? Any attempt to market 3 If it could be zoomed in so you can — I think hopefully
4 them and obtain a higher value? 4 you can read that, Ms Mironova.
5 A. My Lord, obviously some steps were taken, including by 5 So this is a rather intriguing spreadsheet, which
6 the auctioneer, ie Russian Auction House. The 6 comes from the Bank’s disclosure as an Excel file. As
7 announcement was published over 30 days prior to 7 you can see it is something headed «Project
8 the auction. This is also a part of the statute book. 8 Scandinavia». It is indicated that it is acquired due
9 It is a legal requirement. The announcement was 9 by using loan money advanced to SKIF under a loan
10 announced in various media outlets, promotional 10 agreement, and then there are a number of loan
11 publications, in order to raise awareness of this sale. 11 agreements. Then I think there is a reference to Onega
12 The auctioneers’ and the Bank’s objectives was to 12 as well in the bottom box, so I think there is no doubt
13 maximise the proceeds, ie the price of the sale. As 13 that this obviously relates to Onega Terminal, and
14 I said, the auctioneer was interested in maximising its 14 Scandinavia is the …
15 share, its commission charge, and the Bank had a vested 15 A. I’m so sorry, where does it make reference to Onega?
16 interest in making sure that it could raise some money 16 Q. If you see this small table, or small box at the bottom.
17 to maximise recovery in order to repay the debts 17 A. Yes, thank you. I have found it. Yes.
18 outstanding. 18 Q. So that obviously suggests that SKIF was involved in
19 Q. No, really what I am asking is, before throwing away the 19 some business project using the Scan land at Onega
20 high valuation by Lair and going for an auction on the 20 Terminal, and that the Bank was financing that project;
21 basis of a low valuation by Alliance Otsenka, did the 21 would you agree that’s a fair inference?
22 Bank first take any steps to try and sell the assets at 22 A. My Lord, I really have not seen this spreadsheet ever
23 the prices suggested in Lair valuations? 23 before. It’s the first time I’m seeing it, therefore
24 A. My Lord, if any market player had been prepared to buy 24 I can neither confirm nor deny, or actually, I cannot
25 that property based on the Lair valuation, say 25 even provide any comment on this.
29 31

1 RUB 800 million, then obviously that person would have

2 made a bid at the auction, and would have purchased that

3 property at that price. Which suggests to me, sir, that

4 if there are no willing buyers, they just do not turn up

5 at the auction and they do not buy the stuff.

6 Q. Right. The funds for Solo to pay the auction price had

7 been provided by the Bank, were they not?

8 A. I know nothing about this, I am afraid.

9 Q. And would you expect to know this, if that was so?

10 A. Well, I suppose so, but I have no information available

11 to me to that effect.

12 Q. And curiously, Ms Mironova, the money was, in fact,

13 advanced by the Bank to SKIF, to Mr Sklyarevsky’s

14 company, and then for some way I don’t know, they were

15 used by Solo to buy the assets; do you know anything

16 about that?

17 A. No, my Lord. I know nothing about this.

18 Q. If we could, please, go to — I think it is an odd link

19 where we need to download a file at {D146/2437.2/1},

20 I think what we will have there is an Excel file which

21 we will need to download. Let me try and find the

22 Russian. (Pause).

23 Sorry, I need to find the Russian, only a moment.

24 (Pause). Well, I think the Russian version will be at

25 {D131/2132.1/2}. I am not terribly …

1 Q. Now, are you aware of something called

2 Antonenko Project? I think Mr Sklyarevsky said it was

3 one of SKIF’s projects for which the Bank advanced

4 a RUB 1.5 billion loan.

5 A. My apologies, when you say «then», when is that? Was

6 that in 2009?

7 Q. Yes, that’s right. When we discussed this spreadsheet

8 with Mr Sklyarevsky, we tried to identify the loan

9 agreement, and that turned out to be the loan agreement

10 for — from memory — I think approximately

11 RUB 1.5 billion, and that was lent to SKIF for the

12 so-called Antonenko Project. Do you know anything about

13 that loan?

14 A. My Lord, I know nothing about this loan. I was not

15 involved in issuing loans. I was only working with bad

16 debts, or distressed debts. I was not dealing with

17 either Renord Group or SKIF, therefore I am afraid

18 I cannot offer any comment on this.

19 Q. And looking at this table, I appreciate you say it is

20 the first time you see it, but looking at this table,

21 would you agree that obviously the amounts of money are

22 given in thousands of roubles rather than simply in

23 roubles, because if it was just in roubles, the sums

24 would be too small to bother for anyone to write it

25 down. So we are talking about thousands of roubles.

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

April 6, 2016 Day 34

1 For instance, the first line in the investment column

2 would relate to RUB 207 million, not to RUB 207,000;

3 would you agree with that?

4 A. I really wouldn’t know.

5 Q. Well, because it’s rather a suggestion that there would

6 be — I am looking at the column for February 2010.

7 Well, a suggestion that there could be an investment of

8 RUB 6.60, and that investment would deserve to be

9 mentioned in any document prepared by the Bank, that’s

10 rather ridiculous. That cannot be RUB 6.60.

11 A. My Lord, I really have no comment to offer. What I see

12 is 6.60. To me, it is RUB 6.60 whatever, it must be

13 kopecks. I am really not in a position to confirm that

14 this document comes from the Bank. It is really the

15 first time ever that I am seeing this document. I do

16 apologise, forgive me, but I am afraid I cannot offer

17 any comment.

18 Q. Now if you look at the top line of this, the one

19 for October 2009, there is a large figure for

20 investment, 207 million, or something, or thousand.

21 Now, the curious thing is that this figure matches to

22 a margin of RUB 10 if we accept it is in thousands of

23 roubles. That is exactly the price of the two

24 Onega Terminal lots put together at Russian Auction

25 House auction. This cannot be a coincidence, can it?

1 the Solo account in the Bank to Russian Auction House in

2 the Bank, and then the money goes back to the Bank’s

3 funds. All of that may have been done for, all in all,

4 one person sitting at their computer at the Bank within

5 the space of a couple of days, if not a couple of hours;

6 what do you say to that?

7 A. All I have to say is that I disagree with this

8 statement.

9 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: I was a bit confused what you were

10 asking there, Mr Stroilov. Are you putting to this

11 witness that there may have simply been circular

12 transactions in cash, or are you putting to the witness

13 that there was no auction event; or what are you

14 putting?

15 MR STROILOV: Well, I think what I am saying — well, all

16 I am putting is that the so-called auction was a sham

17 transaction with all the participants of the transaction

18 controlled by the Bank, and the money being controlled

19 by the Bank at every stage.

20 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Right. Well, my understanding, but

21 I would welcome your clarification of this, Ms Mironova,

22 is that you did not attend the auction and you can’t

23 really speak to the event of it, but you assume that

24 everything was regular. That’s as to the event.

25 As to the circularity of the money, the money going

33 35

1 A. Again, forgive me, I do not recall the price at which

2 the two lots were auctioned off.

3 Q. Now, what I am suggesting to you, Ms Mironova, is that

4 the so-called auction was not a proper auction: it was

5 a collusive, fraudulent deal to transfer the assets to

6 Renord, and that was a sale at a gross undervalue, was

7 it not?

8 A. My Lord, I strongly disagree with this and I have

9 already mentioned that this was an auction that was

10 conducted in the open and the auctioneer and the Bank,

11 who were the pledgee, had a vested interest in

12 maximising the proceeds of the sale because the Bank’s

13 bottom line is really dependant on maximising the

14 proceeds, rather than posting reserves and obviously,

15 the auctioneer is interested in maximising the price

16 because then the commission that they will charge will

17 be so much higher.

18 Q. Now, Ms Mironova, it is likely, actually, that rather

19 than there really being a public auction, in fact, it

20 all happened without the money ever leaving the Bank.

21 The Bank simply advanced the money to the SKIF account

22 in the Bank under the — purportedly under this company

23 loan, then under whatever pretext, the money were

24 advanced from the SKIF account in the Bank to the Solo

25 account in the Bank, then the money was advanced from

1 round within the Bank, I didn’t know whether you were

2 saying you just don’t know, or that you reject that

3 theory; which is it?

4 A. My Lord, this circular pattern is something that I do

5 deny. I deny this statement. Had this actually been

6 the case, I would have got some inkling of it. I would

7 have received some information, because it was —

8 I never found myself in a vacuum, as it were, while

9 working at the Bank.

10 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: But I thought you said you really had

11 not come across, heard of, were not able to assist me in

12 respect of the Antonenko Project at all, but you are

13 saying you can help me on that?

14 A. That is correct, my Lord. The question was asked

15 whether I know that a loan was made available with

16 regard to that project. My answer was no, I do not know

17 that.

18 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Are you telling me you would expect to

19 have known any circular transactions that occurred? Is

20 that what you are telling me?

21 A. I believe that it is very difficult to conceal that

22 information, to keep it under wraps. It would have

23 surfaced sooner or later, particularly because we were

24 watching, we were monitoring our clients, including the

25 clients who were transferring money in order to purchase

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

April 6, 2016 Day 34

1 real estate, or property.

2 MR STROILOV: Well, Ms Mironova, I agree with you to

3 the effect that you would have known about it, and I put

4 to you that you know more about that auction than you

5 are telling the court; what do you say to that?

6 A. My Lord, I am telling you about everything that I know

7 with respect to this auction.

8 MR STROILOV: Thank you. My Lord, I think it is a good

9 moment for a 10-minute break.

10 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: 10 minutes.

11 (11.13 am)

12 (A short break)

13 (11.26 am)

14 MR STROILOV: May it please your Lordship.

15 Now, Ms Mironova, isn’t it the case that while one

16 half, or slightly less than a half of Onega Terminal,

17 was owned by Scandinavia Insurance Company, and realised

18 in a way we have discussed before the short break, then

19 the other half of the same terminal was owned by

20 a company called LPK Scandinavia, isn’t that right?

21 A. I am not prepared whether a half. Another part of

22 the property was controlled by LPK Scandinavia, I agree

23 with that.

24 Q. And these different parts of the terminal were, I think,

25 all pledged to the Bank but by different companies and

1 should have been in a situation of that kind, again, the

2 Bank’s consent to a sale of this kind, along the same

3 lines as consents in relation to Western Terminal we saw

4 yesterday. The Bank had to give consent for this

5 auction to go ahead.

6 A. Yes, it had to, and most likely, this consent must have

7 been given.

8 Q. Well, it may be just my failure for the lack of time,

9 I haven’t seen in the Bank’s disclosure any record of

10 the management board or big credit committee considering

11 any request for a consent to this auction. So do you

12 think that is just a failure to disclose a document? It

13 must be there.

14 A. My Lord, I do not believe so, because the Bank

15 faithfully fulfilled its obligations on disclosure. As

16 far as this specific auction is concerned, we have to go

17 into the details whether there had to be a consent,

18 whether the Bank provided such a consent. I don’t have

19 such details at hand in my mind.

20 Q. Yes. I will be corrected if I overlooked anything, but

21 in any event, your recollection is that the Bank knew

22 about this and consented to this; is that your evidence?

23 A. I would like to say that I remember that the court

24 officials conducted an auction to sell a lot of —

25 a piece of land with a lien attached to it. This is

37 39

1 under different loans; is that a fair description of the

2 position?

3 A. Yes, as far as I can recall.

4 Q. And can we look at {N9/9/36}, and the Russian version is

5 at {D192/2920/12}. That seems to be an article from

6 a St Petersburg business newspaper, Delovoy Peterburg.

7 Now, as you can see I think it is headed «A plot of

8 34.5 hectares …was sold for 99 thousand roubles», and

9 I think you can see from the text that this is more

10 sensational, that sounds more sensational than it is.

11 That is a typo. We are talking about a plot of

12 3.4 hectares; can you see that?

13 A. Yes, I noticed that.

14 Q. And that relates to the part of Onega Terminal owned by

15 LPK Scandinavia as opposed to the insurance company?

16 A. Probably. I have to read the article to be able to make

17 a comment.

18 Q. Yes, perhaps, it is reasonably short. (Pause).

19 A. I have read the article.

20 Q. Do you know anything about the auction which is

21 discussed here?

22 A. Yes, I know that this is a plot of land that was sold

23 and it had a lien on it, encumbrance on it.

24 Q. Indeed. Incidentally, there is a curiosity, if I am

25 wrong about it I will be corrected, but I think there

1 something that I clearly recall.

2 Q. And you knew about that at the time, did you not?

3 A. Yes, I remember it from that time on.

4 Q. And did you consider RUB 99,000 to be a fair market

5 price?

6 A. Probably, given the fact that in order to free up this

7 land, and I just don’t remember whether 1 billion, but

8 probably 100,000, about US $33 million had to be taken

9 care of, and then this piece of land of 3 hectares would

10 be relieved from the lien attached by

11 Bank of St Petersburg.

12 Q. Right. Isn’t Mercury LLC, isn’t that a company at that

13 time owned — I think there is some difficulty. The

14 witness is indicating there is a difficulty with

15 translation.

16 THE INTERPRETER: Not any more. Please carry on, sir.

17 MR STROILOV: So wasn’t Mercury LLC at that time owned and

18 controlled by Mr Sklyarevsky, isn’t that the case?

19 A. Yes, as I saw from the documents, from 2011 I don’t have

20 such recollection, I just don’t recall.

21 Q. Mr Sklyarevsky has told the court that whereas —

22 I think the witness is indicating there is again

23 a difficulty in translation. Is it now fixed?

24 THE INTERPRETER: Please continue.

25 MR STROILOV: Yes. So Mr Sklyarevsky told the court that

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

April 6, 2016 Day 34

1 whereas he was the director general and the shareholder

2 of the company, in fact he was, in relation to this

3 transaction, he was acting pursuant to instructions from

4 Mr Smirnov. I don’t think you have anything to say to

5 contradict that, or if you want to, please do.

6 A. Your Honour, I can provide no comment in this regard.

7 Q. And I think, further, it is a fair summary — well, if

8 I am challenged to go to the actual evidence, I will do

9 so, but I think it is a fair summary to say that

10 Mr Sklyarevsky’s evidence was that, really, according to

11 his understanding, this transaction was part of

12 a teamwork between Mr Smirnov and Mrs Malysheva in

13 the interests of the Bank; do you think that’s possible?

14 A. I believe that that was one of the steps on the way

15 towards the realisation of an asset called Terminal

16 Onega. This is my recollection.

17 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Are you remembering what — is your

18 memory contemporaneous with all these events, or simply

19 something you have come across or been suggested later?

20 A. My Lord, I knew about this at that stage, at that time,

21 but I recalled about it subsequently when I started

22 studying the documents and getting ready for the

23 hearings.

24 MR STROILOV: But are you saying that — I want to clarify.

25 But now in the witness box under oath you are in

1 not know how this was transferred from one to the other.

2 I have no knowledge of this.

3 Q. And as you can see, what seems to be proposed in this

4 note is that now that the Mercury is — well, that the

5 loan, that the creditor’s rights of the Bank should be

6 assigned to Mercury so that the pledge could be

7 released, and the land is then owned by Mercury, not

8 subject to a pledge. Do you recall any such plan being

9 discussed at that time in the Bank?

10 A. Yes, I do recall such a discussion, because if one

11 person acts as a creditor, and a pledgee, then this

12 releases the lien. This is a provision in the Russian

13 law, and I remember this provision.

14 Q. So this plan, and I think then you can see in

15 the handwritten note at the bottom — do you recognise

16 the handwriting?

17 A. No, I do not.

18 Q. Cannot it be the handwriting of Mr Kolpachkov?

19 A. I do not know. No, it doesn’t look like it.

20 Q. What this seems to indicate to me, apart from the fact

21 that, firstly, obviously, it suggests that Mr Savelyev

22 disagreed with that plan, and then I think it is, the

23 way I interpret this note, is that someone, we don’t

24 know who, who would be reading this note, is invited to

25 telephone Mr Kalinin, the finance director of Renord,

41 43

1 a position to say that to the best of your recollection,

2 rather than from what you simply read in the files, your

3 personal recollection is that this auction was part of

4 a plan for realisation of Onega Terminal in

5 the interests of the Bank; is that your evidence?

6 A. My Lord, I recall the situation. I remember the

7 situation. I am not speaking based on the documents

8 that I studied, but the realisation of

9 the Onega Terminal, not in the interests of the Bank,

10 but to optimise maximum value of the sale, to pay off as

11 much debt as possible.

12 Q. Now, if we could now have a look at {D196/2936/0.1}, and

13 the Russian version is at {D196/2936/1}, the next page.

14 So this is an undated note coming from the Bank’s

15 disclosure, but I think if you scan-read through it, it

16 clearly belongs to the period after the sale of that

17 half of Onega Terminal to Mercury, and then after

18 a further sale of shareholding in Mercury LLC.

19 A. Frankly, I do not know, I cannot provide a comment.

20 Q. Now, I just wanted to ask you, I think the court has

21 been told by other witnesses that shortly after that

22 auction sale in 2011, the shareholding in Mercury was

23 actually transferred from Mr Sklyarevsky to Renord; is

24 that what may have happened, to your understanding?

25 A. I cannot, again, provide any comment, because I just do

1 and to introduce oneself as someone coming from

2 Mr Kolpachkov to discuss this further, presumably; is

3 that a fair reading of the handwritten note?

4 A. My Lord, unfortunately I cannot provide any

5 interpretation to this. I do not know what is written

6 here, except that I understand every word in particular,

7 but what it means put together, I do not know.

8 Q. Well, to me this suggests that at that time

9 Mr Kolpachkov was working together with Renord and in

10 particular with Mr Kalinin, to implement this plan, or

11 some similar plan, in relation to these assets; is that

12 possible, to your knowledge?

13 A. My Lord, Mr Kolpachkov was my deputy and he was acting

14 under my instructions. I may have issued some

15 instructions to him with respect to the realisation of

16 the asset, together with Mercury, but he never acted on

17 his own. It was not within his role to do that.

18 Q. Indeed. So is it possible that Mr Kolpachkov was

19 working together with Mr Kalinin on this plan under your

20 direction? Is that possible?

21 A. My Lord, I really have no comment to offer, and this is

22 not something within my knowledge.

23 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Are you telling me he did not — if

24 Mr Kolpachkov was doing this, it was not under your

25 direction?

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

April 6, 2016 Day 34

1 MR STROILOV: I am sorry, I have been hearing Russian so

2 I hope the witness was hearing —

3 THE INTERPRETER: My apologies, my apologies.

4 A. If Mr Kolpachkov was doing something to that effect, he

5 would have been acting under my instructions. What I am

6 saying is that I am not in a position to confirm that

7 Mr Kolpachkov was doing something about this, simply

8 because I have no recollection of that.

9 MR STROILOV: Thank you. When you say you have no

10 recollection, is that — really can it be just the

11 passage of time has clouded your memory, or do you deny

12 that?

13 A. My Lord, I have given the best answer I was in

14 a position to give. There’s really nothing I have to

15 add.

16 Q. In substance, is your answer: I don’t remember? Or is

17 your answer: no, this didn’t happen?

18 A. Well, can I just ask Mr Stroilov to reformulate once

19 again. What is it exactly that he says that I recall,

20 versus what is it exactly that he says that I say did

21 not take place, just for me to be beyond reasonable

22 doubt?

23 Q. That at some point in the first half of 2011

24 Mr Kolpachkov was working together with Mr Kalinin to

25 implement a plan for assignment of the Bank’s rights to

1 every rouble there, but just the approximate ratio of

2 the deal.

3 Now, if we could now have a look at

4 {D148/2466.3/0.1} on one screen, and {D148/2466.3/1} on

5 the other. These seem to be the minutes of

6 the management board meeting, and if we scroll down,

7 I think, to {D148/2466.3/4}, {D148/2466.3/0.4}. So as

8 you can see, you are recorded as reporting to

9 the management board on a proposal for this assignment

10 of creditors’ rights under those loans to Mercury LLC.

11 You can see that, can’t you?

12 A. Yes, I can see that.

13 Q. And as you can see, the figures here are considerably

14 lower than what we saw in the previous documents. So

15 really what was proposed there was to assign the loan

16 rights for something like 3 per cent of the amount of

17 the respective loans; can we see that?

18 A. I can see the figures. I simply cannot work out the

19 percentage points, but I can see the figures.

20 Q. Yes. We will come to the actual contracts and we will

21 have all the figures conveniently in one place.

22 Do you recall actually making this proposal to the

23 management board?

24 A. No, I do not recall introducing this matter to

25 the board, my Lord, but I do recall the gist and the

45 47

1 Mercury so as to release or extinguish the pledges under

2 the loans you see listed in this note, and then for the

3 asset to be sold further to company X. So could it be

4 that Mr Kolpachkov was working with Mr Kalinin under

5 your direction to implement such a plan?

6 A. My Lord, I would not rule that out because Mr Kolpachkov

7 was reporting to me and, theoretically speaking, I may

8 have assigned some technical work to him with respect to

9 a specific client. But sitting here today under oath,

10 I can neither deny nor confirm my having issued those

11 instructions to Mr Kolpachkov.

12 Q. Now, I think one point before we leave this document,

13 just something I would like to draw your attention to,

14 is that what seems to be proposed at that stage is that

15 the loans would be assigned respectively, the Onega loan

16 would be assigned with a discount — would be assigned

17 for approximately RUB 110 million, with a discount of

18 343 and something, so that makes the discount something

19 roughly — my maths is not good. I think the discount

20 is roughly in the region of 70 per cent, I think, or

21 something like that.

22 Then the same with Scandinavia, approximately the

23 same ratio, the same ratio discount, 70 or 80 per cent,

24 something like that. I just want you to pay attention

25 to these figures. I am not — nothing turns on, really,

1 objective before this transaction, yes.

2 Q. Right. Well, then let me show you the actual contracts,

3 and then hopefully you can shed some light on that. If

4 we could, please, go to {D149/2474/1}, and the Russian

5 version I think will start at {D149/2474/10}. So that

6 seems to be the actual contract for the assignment of

7 rights which you seem to have proposed to the management

8 board. If we could scroll down one page {D149/2474/2},

9 {D149/2474/11}. I think the points I would like to draw

10 your attention to, firstly, in clause 2.1 you will see

11 that unlike, for instance, your agreement with

12 VECTOR Invest on Western Terminal which we discussed

13 yesterday, here you would assign all rights under the

14 loan agreement. So the right to demand repayment from

15 the borrower or guarantors or realise the pledge. So

16 that’s in clause 2.1, you simply assign all your rights

17 to Mercury.

18 A. Yes.

19 Q. And then, so, as you can see, that relates to the debt

20 of approximately RUB 456 million, just under 456.

21 Now, if we scroll down one further page,

22 {D149/2474/3}, {D149/2474/12}, then you can see the

23 reference to the pledge at the top of the page, at the

24 end of 2.1. Then there is reference to two guarantee

25 agreements, and then you can see that in 2.3, that this

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

April 6, 2016 Day 34

1 is being sold to Mercury for just RUB 14.3 million.

2 A. Yes, I can see that.

3 Q. Right, well I don’t think there are any material terms

4 I would like to draw to your attention. If you feel

5 like having a look at any particular further clauses,

6 please do so, if that helps to refresh your

7 recollection, but that’s all I wanted to show you.

8 If we could now have a look at {D149/2475/1}, and

9 then the Russian version starts at {D149/2475/10},

10 again. That’s a very similar agreement of the same date

11 between the Bank and Mercury, relating to another loan.

12 Well, that relates to the LPK Scandinavia loan, I think.

13 If we could scroll down again just one page,

14 {D149/2475/2}, {D149/2475/11}. I think in clause 2.1,

15 again, what I would like to draw your attention to is

16 that we are talking about the loan of just under

17 RUB 409 million.

18 Then you can see, again, at the bottom of the page

19 in clause 2.2, that this refers to «all the existing

20 rights», and then if we scroll down one page, we can see

21 them listed {D149/2475/3}, {D149/2475/12} as the right

22 of the pledge, the rights of the pledgee, and then the

23 rights under the alleged surety agreements.

24 Then 2.3, you can see again that those rights are

25 sold for approximately RUB 12.7 million. Again, that is

1 the assets, if your Lordship would be happy for me to

2 assist you with that broader context, I am happy to

3 explain.

4 Q. I think we will — if I understand correctly what you

5 want to talk about, we will come to that in a minute.

6 If not, then perhaps Mr Lord will ask you about this

7 later.

8 Now, what I am suggesting to you is that if the Bank

9 really believed that Mr Arkhangelsky had substantial

10 assets stashed somewhere, it wouldn’t be just selling in

11 addition to these valuable pledges, it would be selling

12 the rights under the alleged guarantee contracts to some

13 other party as well so cheaply. Wouldn’t you agree with

14 that?

15 A. I would beg to differ and I would disagree with this

16 statement, because by that time the Bank had actionable

17 rights with respect to the guarantor, ie

18 Mr Arkhangelsky, in the amount of RUB 4 billion,

19 $100 million, and the bailiffs were already working on

20 the execution of this; in other words, all the claims

21 had been pulled together by the bailiffs, and speaking

22 from memory, I believe the total amount of claim was

23 about RUB 5 billion, ie about $150 million, and the

24 court bailiffs had also gleaned all the available

25 information with respect to the assets owned by

49

1 all I wanted to show you. If you want to scan further

2 and see if there are any clauses which may refresh your

3 recollections, feel free to do so.

4 Now, Ms Mironova, if the Bank was really trying to

5 maximise the recovery, it would have tried to recover

6 more than 3 per cent of the loan in this way; it would

7 have started from trying to recover a little more,

8 wouldn’t it?

9 A. My Lord, after the conclusion of the two contracts that

10 we’ve just looked at, the Bank forgave over

11 RUB 850 million worth of loans under the two contracts

12 with respect to Mr Arkhangelsky personally and with

13 respect to OMG. This is more than adequate. In other

14 words, they completely forgave all the outstanding loans

15 under the two loan agreements.

16 Q. So the purpose of this loan agreement was not to

17 maximise the recovery; it was to transfer the assets,

18 the pledged assets, to a company — presumably, to some

19 company which had been referred to in an earlier

20 document as company X, so to whatever company the Bank

21 had in mind as the appropriate transferee. Isn’t that

22 a fair interpretation of what happened?

23 A. My Lord, the Bank did not pursue that objective. We

24 need to be looking at the broader context. The whole

25 procedure of entering into the contracts and realising

51

1 Mr Arkhangelsky.

2 I believe that they found one flat in St Petersburg

3 that was available, out of all the assets, but the worth

4 of that was $300,000, but the amount outstanding was way

5 higher. So it was clear that even if we forgave

6 $30 million to Mr Arkhangelsky, we would still have

7 actionable rights for a total worth of over $100 million

8 vis-a-vis Mr Arkhangelsky, which were not repayable in

9 the Russian Federation because no assets were available

10 at all to that extent.

11 Q. Now, if we could have a look at {D146/2436.2/1}, and

12 then the Russian version starts at {D146/2436/4}, and

13 actually, if Ms Mironova could be given the paper

14 version, that would be helpful, because it is this kind

15 of horizontal thing which is not very convenient.

16 Now, so this seems to be a stage plan, I think just

17 to spare the trouble for the Magnum operator, this is

18 headed — well, what you see on the screen is headed

19 «Stage 1» in that stage plan. It is just beyond the

20 frame of the screen, but just believe me, there are the

21 words «Stage 1».

22 Here you can see that as stage 1, it is proposed

23 that a company called ROK Prichaly, or ROK N1 Prichaly,

24 is to be given a loan in Bank of St Petersburg, in

25 the amount of RUB 400 million, to buy the properties,

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

April 6, 2016 Day 34

1 the immovable properties from Solo LLC, and as you see

2 by the list, that relates to the part of Onega Terminal

3 previously owned by Scan, by now owned by Solo.

4 A. Yes, I can see that.

5 Q. Next, if we could scroll down one page on both

6 {D146/2436.2/2}, {D146/2436.2/5}, well, zoom it out

7 a little so that we can see the numbers. No, that’s

8 probably too small.

9 You can see there is a plan of — again, it says the

10 order of steps, and then you can see what steps are

11 proposed.

12 A. Yes, I can see that.

13 Q. And then if we could scroll down, so you have read this

14 list. If you could scroll down further, I think that is

15 stage 2, actually, at the bottom of the previous page,

16 there were the words «Stage 2», so that is stage 2 of

17 the stage plan.

18 So you can see that then — well, you can see what

19 is proposed there. That relates to the other half of

20 Onega Terminal, the one now owned by Mercury, previously

21 owned by LPK Scandinavia, and the suggestion is that

22 ROK Prichaly are to buy the shares of Mercury, and

23 Mercury now following the assignment of rights, Mercury

24 is the owner of these assets. In the table you can see

25 the amounts of loans and the recovery by the bank, the

1 I am happy to confirm that the objective was to release

2 the encumbrance in the interests of the Bank and to sell

3 it onto ROK Prichaly, because the client was interested

4 in buying not the plot of land just to pledge to

5 the Bank, but also the properties and the land that was

6 already owned by Solo.

7 Q. So, essentially, I mean, looking at this plan you see on

8 the screen, and feel free to ask to scroll up or down,

9 that is what has been implemented, is it not? That is

10 in fact what happened.

11 A. When you say «that», what do you mean?

12 Q. I mean the stage plan we have looked at a couple of

13 minutes ago. And that is a fairly accurate description

14 of what the Bank did in the actual event, isn’t it?

15 A. Well, I’m not in a position to offer any comment with

16 respect to the document which I have never seen before.

17 I have shared with you my recollection of the events in

18 which I was involved.

19 Q. Ms Mironova, isn’t it the case that the Bank’s objective

20 in dealing with these assets and these loans was not to

21 maximise the recovery? Rather, it was to appropriate

22 these valuable assets for the benefit of itself or the

23 parties connected to it, or whoever the Bank might

24 decide, but the focus was on appropriating the assets,

25 not on recovering the indebtedness; wouldn’t you agree

53 55

1 selling price of the assigned rights. The discount is

2 97 per cent.

3 A. I can see that.

4 Q. So that seems to be a plan whereby the entirety of

5 Onega Terminal previously held by different companies

6 and pledged under different loans, is to end up in

7 the hands of a company called ROK Prichaly. Do you

8 recall such a plan being under discussion at the time?

9 A. No. It’s the first time ever that I see this table, and

10 I do not recall discussing or drawing up this plan at

11 all. What I do recall, though, is that a buyer emerged

12 who said that they were interested in purchasing

13 Onega Terminal to the full extent, 100 per cent of

14 the terminal, including what Solo had owned and what was

15 held by another corporate entity, and which had been

16 pledged to the Bank.

17 Q. Right, and so I think as we discussed earlier, these

18 steps we’ve discussed earlier this morning, such as the

19 auction sale to Mercury for RUB 99,000, and

20 an assignment of rights. These were all steps towards

21 that plan to have it sold, or to have the entire

22 terminal unified and then eventually sold or transferred

23 to ROK N1 Prichaly; isn’t that a correct understanding

24 of what the Bank did?

25 A. Well, so far as the Mercury transaction is concerned,

1 to that?

2 A. No, I categorically disagree with this statement,

3 specifically since the asset was sold to a participant

4 in the market at the market price, and any appropriation

5 in the interests of the Bank, I just don’t understand

6 what could the meaning of this be.

7 Q. Now, Ms Mironova, I put it to you, we don’t — if, as

8 you say, it was sold to ROK Prichaly at the market

9 price, then we don’t know what the price was,

10 Mr Arkhangelsky, or OMG, were not given credit for that

11 recovery, and we were not given any disclosure about

12 that deal; what do you say to that?

13 A. Please let me clarify. Perhaps there was something in

14 the interpretation. What do you mean, Mr Arkhangelsky

15 did not receive any credits with reference to this

16 transaction?

17 Q. I mean that the indebtedness of Mr — or alleged

18 indebtedness of Mr Arkhangelsky or his companies was not

19 reduced to reflect whatever ROK Prichaly may have paid

20 the Bank. Credit was only given for the sums you

21 received for these parts of Onega Terminal, but not for

22 the actual deal.

23 A. But this is, my Lord, totally against what we just

24 discussed. One part of the Onega Terminal was sold with

25 the help of an auction by the Russian Auction House in

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

April 6, 2016 Day 34

1 2009 at the price I don’t recall at this point, about

2 RUB 300 million, if my memory doesn’t fail me, and the

3 money was handed over to pay off debt of the

4 Oslo Marine Group.

5 The second part of the Onega Terminal that was owned

6 by LPK Scandinavia was sold to Mercury as a result of

7 this transaction, and Mr Arkhangelsky and Oslo Marine

8 were forgiven the debt in the amount of about

9 850 million, about US $30 million worth of loans, so how

10 can one assert that the Oslo Marine Group did not get

11 any money, whereas at least US $40 million of debt was

12 paid off, was written off, whatever you call it, from

13 Mr Arkhangelsky, and from the balance of his company.

14 No demands were ever present in the calculations we

15 submitted to the English court as a justification for

16 Mr Arkhangelsky’s claim and the claim of his wife.

17 Q. The market value of Onega Terminal, taken as a whole, is

18 in the region of $200 million, is it not?

19 A. I am not aware of anything of this kind, my Lord.

20 Q. And ROK N1 Prichaly is a company which is connected to

21 the Bank, or to which the Bank, for one reason or

22 another, wanted to make a favour, and that’s why

23 Onega Terminal was given to it, isn’t it?

24 A. ROK Prichaly is a big group of companies that is in

25 the business of supplying fish into the Russian

1 encumbrances were relieved as a result of the fact that

2 the loans were paid off. That happened a couple of

3 years ago. I don’t remember at what time exactly.

4 Q. Now —

5 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Do you mind if I — I am not sure

6 I have understood this.

7 MR STROILOV: Of course, my Lord.

8 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: There was a loan, was there, by the

9 Bank to ROK Prichaly, secured, in effect, by the

10 Onega Terminal which ROK Prichaly was acquiring; is that

11 right?

12 A. Yes, my Lord. The loan was secured by part of

13 the Onega Terminal which — by the property that

14 previously was owned by the Solo company.

15 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Right. But at some time, you think

16 about two years ago, ROK Prichaly was able to, and did,

17 repay the Bank, and the pledge of the relevant part of

18 the Onega Terminal fell away; is that right?

19 A. Not quite so, my Lord. With respect to the loan granted

20 to ROK Prichaly, there was a time frame established for

21 a payoff activity. I don’t recall at this time whether

22 it was a monthly schedule or a quarterly schedule, but

23 ROK Prichaly was paying off debt over a number of years,

24 based on the proceeds of its main core operations. At

25 a certain point the debt was paid off completely.

57 59

1 Federation from abroad, processing it, and selling it.

2 This company is in no way related to the Bank, but it is

3 a long-standing partner of Bank of St Petersburg.

4 Bank of St Petersburg, if my recollection is correct,

5 was introduced to it by Ms Volodina. I recall that we

6 were in the office of Mr Skatin, we were discussing some

7 issues, and Ms Volodina visited him saying that she had

8 just met a client who was interested in expanding its

9 port operations. The company ROK Prichaly at the time

10 it became interested in the Onega Terminal already had

11 next to the Onega Terminal its own big plot of land with

12 a port wall, and that purchaser was interested in

13 expanding the plot of land that they already had in that

14 area, because they were expanding their business.

15 In point of fact, given the amount of the loans that

16 were paid off and forgiven to the Oslo Marine Group, the

17 property was assessed at US $40 million, which was

18 clearly not in accordance with its market value, because

19 the ROK Prichaly company paid for the entire property

20 a little over RUB 400 million, which is roughly

21 US $15 million.

22 So this is how the situation looked at the time.

23 Q. Is Onega Terminal pledged to the Bank now?

24 A. The loan that the ROK Prichaly took at

25 Bank of St Petersburg was paid off, and all the

1 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: I see. So it wasn’t a bullet

2 repayment; it was a staged repayment which had been

3 completed about, you think, two years ago?

4 A. Exactly, my Lord. The only thing is, I cannot tell you

5 exactly at what time the final payoff was made. When

6 I became deputy member of the management committee and

7 I was studying the credit portfolio, I didn’t see that

8 loan in the company’s loan portfolio.

9 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: I see. And that’s the basis on which

10 you think that by that time, at any rate, it had all

11 been repaid; is that right?

12 A. Exactly, my Lord.

13 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: I see. I am sorry, Mr Stroilov.

14 MR STROILOV: Yes, thank you, my Lord.

15 Now, can you please be shown {D192/2918.2T/123.1},

16 and on the other screen if we could have

17 {D192/2918.2T/124}. I hope it is not too small for you.

18 So this seems to be an extract from the Russian land

19 register, doesn’t it?

20 A. Is this a question to me? I’m sorry.

21 Q. Yes, it is. Do you agree that this is an extract from

22 the Russian land register?

23 A. It looks like it, yes.

24 Q. Yes, and if you look at it, you will see that it relates

25 to a plot of agricultural land at Seleznevskaya Volost

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

April 6, 2016 Day 34

1 in Vyborg area. If you look at line 1, you will see 1 A. Yes, I do, and I see the date.
2 that. 2 Q. I don’t think I have the document at hand, but I just —
3 Then in section 2, you can see the history of 3 I don’t think that’s disputed.
4 changes of its owners, and you will see a lady called 4 Now this plot of land is advertised on
5 Mrs Zarubina at 2.1, and then at 2.2, you can see that 5 Renord-Invest’s website for sale; do you follow? So
6 it was owned at one time by Zapadny, Western Terminal 6 what seems to have happened with this plot of land is
7 LLC, and if both pages could be scrolled down one page, 7 this —
8 you can see that Western Terminal acquired it 8 MR LORD: Sorry, my Lord, if Mr Stroilov wants the
9 in April 2008. 9 reference, I think it is {D173/2887/0.01}, I think it is
10 Pausing here, this plot of land was not actually 10 there.
11 pledged to the Bank, was it? 11 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: That’s the advertisement, is it?
12 A. No, it was not, as far as I recall. 12 MR LORD: I think that’s what he was asking for. I think he
13 Q. And actually it had nothing to do with the business of 13 was saying he didn’t have the document reference. If
14 Western Terminal, with the actual port business; it’s 14 that’s the one, I am supplying it. If not, I apologise.
15 just a plot of land which happened to be owned by 15 MR STROILOV: I am very grateful. So that’s
16 Western Terminal LLC; is that a correct understanding? 16 a translation of —
17 A. I don’t know. It says here a certain Ms Zarubina. 17 THE INTERPRETER: If you could speak into the microphone,
18 Q. Well, it appears from this entry that at some point Ms 18 sir.
19 or Mrs Zarubina sold or transferred that plot of land to 19 MR STROILOV: — I think page 1, hopefully, will be the
20 Western Terminal, and that is not something I am 20 Russian version, just guessing {D173/2887/1}. So this
21 concerned with. What I am concerned with is that the 21 is a printout from Renord website, which is advertising
22 position as of the second half of 2008 is — the plot of 22 this plot of land for sale. So what seems to have
23 land is owned by Western Terminal LLC, it is not pledged 23 happened, Ms Mironova, is this: the shares in
24 to the Bank or anyone else, and it has nothing to do 24 Western Terminal were transferred to Renord under the
25 with the terminal as such; it just happens to be owned 25 repo arrangement, pursuant to the agreement between the

61

1 by the company. You don’t argue with that, do you?

2 A. I can neither agree or disagree. I have no knowledge of

3 the substance of this matter.

4 Q. But surely you were, in the Client Monitoring

5 Directorate and before that at Investrbank, you were

6 looking at assets which were owned by Oslo Marine Group

7 companies at the time, were you not?

8 A. Yes, of course, I did the study. I had a schedule

9 listing all the assets, the schedule provided to me by

10 Oslo Marine. If I’m not mistaken, it was Mr Berezin,

11 the finance director.

12 Q. Well, indeed, so you knew about this plot of land,

13 didn’t you?

14 A. My Lord, I just don’t remember this plot of land.

15 I have no recollection of this plot of land.

16 Q. All right. Well, let me show you what I am actually

17 interested in. As you can see at some point in — I’m

18 not quite sure why it is arranged in this order, but it

19 appears that the land plot passed out of the ownership

20 of Western Terminal LLC on 29 November 2010, if you look

21 at the last line of 2.2. Then I am not quite sure how

22 this 2.3 Falcon comes into the picture, but at 2.4 you

23 can see that Mercury LLC acquired the property rights to

24 this plot of land on 29 November 2010. You can see

25 that, can’t you?

63

1 Bank and OMG. The purpose of that was meant to be to

2 assist in realisation of pledges, and then Renord simply

3 discovered an unpledged asset which came into its

4 control in this way, saw the opportunity, and grabbed

5 the asset for itself. Not to put too fine a point on

6 it, that’s a fact, Ms Mironova, isn’t it?

7 A. My Lord, this is not true. I don’t understand what

8 gives ground for such an interpretation.

9 Q. There is no legitimate reason for Renord to use its

10 control of Western Terminal in the period of time from

11 2009 to 2012 for this kind of — for transferring

12 an asset which has nothing to do with the Bank, for

13 transferring it to another company controlled by Renord,

14 then perhaps to someone else, and then selling it to its

15 customers. That cannot be honest, can it?

16 A. I don’t think I understand where the dishonesty lies.

17 If a company is trying to sell property assets in order

18 to generate monies to pay off debt to Oslo Marine Group,

19 where is the dishonesty of this action? I don’t think

20 I quite understand.

21 Q. So is it your evidence that is intended that after

22 Renord sells that plot of land, credit will be given to

23 reduce the indebtedness; is that your evidence?

24 A. Yes, of course, this is exactly what I said. This is

25 what happened with all the monies received by the Renord

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

April 6, 2016 Day 34

1 Group from the sale of any asset that belonged to 1 by — let me start again. What appears to have happened
2 the Oslo Marine Group, and mortgaged to 2 is — let me start again.
3 Bank of St Petersburg or not. 3 You are right to say that Scan was in bankruptcy by
4 Q. Well, to your knowledge, did Mercury LLC pay market 4 that stage. So obviously the majority creditor,
5 price of that land to Western Terminal LLC? 5 I think, or the biggest creditor, at least, of Scan, was
6 A. I have no knowledge in this regard. 6 Bank of St Petersburg, wasn’t it?
7 Q. Now, if we could quickly go back to {D192/2918.2T/47}, 7 A. Yes, that is true. In the bankruptcy proceedings,
8 and I apologise, my Lord, I don’t think there is 8 Bank of St Petersburg was the biggest creditor.
9 an English translation, so hopefully Ms Mironova 9 Q. And so as such, the Bank was entitled to a considerable
10 and I will, between ourselves, sort that out and all the 10 share of any sums realised in the process of bankruptcy,
11 material bits will be translated. 11 was it not?
12 So, Ms Mironova, this seems to be another entry on 12 A. Yes, that is true, and this is exactly what was
13 the Russian land register, and that relates to another 13 happening.
14 plot of agricultural land of 18.5000 square metres, and 14 Q. And, of course, the Bank was fully informed about any
15 that is near Tsvelodubovo village in the Vyborgskaya 15 realisation of the assets of the company in bankruptcy,
16 area of Leningrad region; do you see that? 16 was it not?
17 A. Yes, I do. 17 A. Yes, through a general meeting of the creditors.
18 Q. And if you scroll down one page, you can see that since 18 Q. And if this plot of land was realised as part of
19 15 February 2005 that plot of land was owned by 19 the bankruptcy, what would have happened is that the
20 Scandinavia Insurance. 20 Bank would have received its share of the proceeds,
21 A. I can see that, yes. 21 probably the majority of the proceeds, and should have
22 Q. And then there is a record at the end of 2.2 and at the 22 applied that to reduce the OMG debts, isn’t that right?
23 beginning of 2.3, of that plot of land being sold by 23 A. Yes, of course. Quite accurate.
24 Scandinavia Insurance to a company called Meridian LLC. 24 Q. But that has never happened, has it?
25 Can you see that? 25 A. I cannot provide any comment in this regard. I just
65 67

1 A. Yes.

2 Q. And then there is a reference to a sale contract dated

3 30 December 2009 for some reason. Meridian is a company

4 in the Renord Group, is it not?

5 A. I cannot comment this.

6 Q. And then it appears that for — if you look at the end

7 of 2.3 and the beginning of 2.4, it appears that on

8 23 July 2012, the land plot passed from the ownership of

9 Meridian LLC to the ownership of Mr Evgeny Kalinin

10 pursuant to a sale contract under some number 2-3U, for

11 whatever reason; so you see that?

12 A. Yes, I do.

13 Q. Obviously by the end of 2009, Scan Insurance was under

14 the control of Renord, wasn’t it?

15 A. No. Scan, unfortunately, was undergoing the bankruptcy

16 proceedings and at that time it was managed by

17 arbitration, by the arbitration manager.

18 Q. Right. To your knowledge, was this plot of land pledged

19 to the Bank?

20 A. I have no recollection in this regard.

21 Q. Well, it wasn’t, otherwise you would have known it. It

22 wasn’t pledged to the Bank.

23 A. Probably not. Otherwise I would have known about it.

24 Q. And so what appears to have happened is, once again,

25 that Renord, or a bankruptcy administrator appointed

1 have no recollection about this plot of land.

2 Q. So what has happened instead is that this plot of land

3 was simply transferred to a Renord entity, for all we

4 know, without full and proper consideration.

5 A. My Lord, but under the bankruptcy procedure, this action

6 is inadmissible. No asset can be transferred, nobody

7 knows where. Every asset is sold at an auction at

8 market prices agreed upon by the general creditors’

9 meeting, and that’s why I don’t quite understand what we

10 are talking about at this stage.

11 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Do you know whether there has been any

12 distribution in the liquidation of Scan?

13 A. Yes. Some minor bits and pieces were found by the

14 administrator, they were realised and the money received

15 some money because it was a creditor of the insurance

16 company. So all that went to pay off the OMG debts.

17 MR STROILOV: Well, I am not disputing that, but that

18 relates to other assets to the office at Pravdy Street,

19 notably, but not, to the best of our knowledge, no

20 credit was ever given for this plot of land to reduce

21 the indebtedness; what do you say to that?

22 A. My Lord, because Scandinavia Insurance was not only the

23 pledger, but also the guarantor virtually for all OMG’s

24 loans. The Bank in its capacity as creditor in

25 the liquidation proceedings laid a claim to at least

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

April 6, 2016 Day 34

1 a part of all the monies generated by asset

2 realisations, if any. That’s what the bankruptcy law

3 provides for.

4 Q. And then, of course, Mr Evgeny Kalinin is the financial

5 director of Renord, isn’t he?

6 A. Yes, I suppose so. I’m not sure, but what I can say is

7 that Evgeny Kalinin is a CFO of Renord. Now which

8 Evgeny Kalinin this document makes reference to is not

9 something that I have any knowledge of.

10 Q. I will be corrected if I am wrong, but from memory

11 I think this is another land plot now advertised by

12 Renord on its website.

13 MR LORD: It’s on the same page, and it may be worth turning

14 it up to get the sale price.

15 MR STROILOV: I am very grateful. Should we scroll down

16 then. Ah, it is on the same page, you can see the

17 Tsvelodubovo land plot just under the Seleznevo land.

18 You can see that, can’t you?

19 A. Yes, I can see that.

20 Q. So obviously that plot of land, again, in ways which we

21 do not know, because we didn’t have any disclosure, it

22 passed out of Scan’s ownership to the ownership of

23 Renord.

24 A. My Lord, the Bank and Renord, at the time when this

25 problem began with OMG, they had agreed that they were

1 has paid some money, the money was given credit — the

2 money was used to give credit, and once these assets are

3 sold off, that money will also be used to give credit to

4 reduce the debt.

5 There is one issue here, my Lord. Back in 2008

6 I was not sure I understood why Oslo Marine Group that

7 carried on port business, insurance business, timber

8 transhipment and so on and so forth, why on earth were

9 they buying agricultural lands? Agricultural land is

10 designed to grow crops, or for use as pastures. They

11 did not —

12 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: I mean, I don’t know, people buy land

13 because they believe it may accrue to their advantage.

14 Come back to that if you like, but I am just trying to

15 understand what you tell me about the way that any

16 proceeds of sale are to be accounted for, and I want you

17 to be sure about this, because it does seem odd, because

18 then Renord will presumably have paid X, so will be out

19 of pocket to the tune of X, but will then have to

20 account for the full value of what it achieves. So it

21 will, in effect, be subsidising the repayment of

22 the loan. It just seems so odd, but if that’s what you

23 tell me, that’s what you tell me. I just want to be

24 sure that that is what you tell me.

25 A. My Lord, so far as I know, that was the agreement that

69 71

1 going to sell off assets to achieve the maximum possible

2 market price, and all the proceeds from all the

3 realisation of all the assets would come to

4 St Petersburg to pay off OMG’s debts.

5 Now, if these are the three plots of land that

6 remained, and these are the ones that have been turned

7 up by Mr Stroilov, once they have been sold off at the

8 market price, whatever proceeds are generated will go

9 back to the Bank to repay OMG’s debts. Unfortunately we

10 also have a lot of outstanding debts. There is very

11 much to be repaid.

12 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Yes, I’m so sorry. I’m confused.

13 Scan is in liquidation, or whatever the Russian

14 equivalent of that process is. The assets are

15 apparently in the ownership of Renord. There must,

16 therefore, have been some transfer by Scan to Renord,

17 presumably for value, and that value will swell the

18 assets in the liquidation of Scan, and the Bank, who is

19 a major creditor, will share in those assets.

20 You are telling me that in addition to that, any

21 realisations achieved of those assets by Renord will

22 also be accounted for in favour of the Bank and then

23 reduced against the indebtedness of OMG; is that what

24 you are telling me?

25 A. Yes. What I wanted to say is that once Scan Insurance

1 had originally been achieved between the top managers of

2 the Bank and Renord.

3 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: And what’s the basis of that

4 understanding? Is there some record or is this simply

5 your memory of what had occurred?

6 A. I knew that from my superiors, first from Mr Skatin and

7 then from Mrs Malysheva when she became my superior.

8 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: All right. I am not sure I can take

9 it further.

10 MR STROILOV: Yes, my Lord, I am grateful.

11 Now, Ms Mironova, I think, really, having looked in

12 some details through various transactions in the course

13 of yesterday and today, isn’t it odd that not only

14 Renord was assisting the Bank in the process of

15 realisation, but virtually all assets, big or small,

16 ended up in the hands of Renord or other companies

17 connected with Renord and/or the Bank; isn’t that odd?

18 A. My Lord, it does not appear odd to me because all the

19 assets that had been realised or are going to be

20 realised are sold off on the open market in order to

21 achieve maximum recovery. Not all assets have been sold

22 off to related parties, as Mr Stroilov has just said.

23 All the money, the maximum of the money that they were

24 able to realise in order — are being used in order to

25 repay the debt outstanding, the debt owed by OMG.

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

April 6, 2016 Day 34

1 Q. Well, isn’t the truth, really, isn’t it that this

2 sequence of transactions signifies a fraudulent raid

3 against Oslo Marine Group, which was perpetrated jointly

4 by the Bank and Renord?

5 A. My Lord, I strongly take issue with this. I believe

6 that fraud was not committed by the Bank. The fraud is

7 to build a Ponzi scheme and then use credits to repay

8 your debts. That is, in my book, something that looks

9 more like a fraud.

10 MR STROILOV: Thank you. My Lord, this is a good moment for

11 a lunch adjournment. I think I am doing fine, really,

12 if we reconvene at 1.55, I am doing pretty much exactly

13 to my goal.

14 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: You are still on course for 3.00?

15 MR STROILOV: Yes, well, 3.00ish; I think we ended on 3.05

16 as being the —

17 MR LORD: It could be sooner.

18 MR STROILOV: It could be sooner, it could be 2.55, but

19 I think it is 3.00ish, still, my Lord.

20 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Okay. 1.55 then.

21 MR LORD: My Lord, could I just —

22 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: I’m so sorry.

23 MR LORD: Sorry, my Lord. Your Lordship probably has an

24 e-mail. I hope an e-mail was forwarded about a matter

25 that doesn’t need to trouble this witness, but it might

1 «Right, and as you can see … fine, I think I can

2 leave it there…»

3 It is only for clarity, and I dare say there are

4 other things which I haven’t spotted, I just happened to

5 spot that.

6 MR LORD: Thank you, my Lord, we will attend to it.

7 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Even if it takes you to five past, we

8 will say 2.00 pm.

9 (12.58 pm)

10 (The Luncheon Adjournment)

11 (2.00 pm)

12 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Yes, good afternoon.

13 MR STROILOV: May it please your Lordship.

14 Ms Mironova, may I re-ask you one of the questions

15 I asked before the break, because I am not quite sure

16 you understood it correctly. Is Onega Terminal now

17 pledged to the Bank under any loan agreement whatsoever?

18 A. No, it’s not pledged.

19 Q. And you are in a position to deny that categorically.

20 It’s not just that you don’t know that is not the case;

21 you are in a position to say that, aren’t you?

22 A. So far as I know, and I know the loan portfolio of

23 the Bank, the credit portfolio of the Bank at this point

24 in time does not include any pledge to that effect.

25 Q. Thank you. Now, may I ask you about this: in 2009

73 75

1 arise today in housekeeping.

2 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: I haven’t received a reply.

3 I received a copy of a letter from Dr Arkhangelsky which

4 I think was circulated to you. I haven’t had a response

5 from your instructing solicitors in respect of it.

6 MR LORD: No. We got an e-mail in similar but not identical

7 terms, I think shortly around the same time. I think

8 a minute either way.

9 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Okay.

10 MR LORD: It has some initial information and I just wanted

11 to furnish your Lordship with it for the purposes of

12 considering this.

13 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: All right. Can I just mention, whilst

14 we have a moment, and whilst it is easy for me to find

15 it, that in the transcript, and this may already have

16 been corrected, of yesterday’s proceedings, at page 93,

17 the sequence of questions and answers goes wrong.

18 I believe, and I will speak quickly, because then

19 someone can just have a look. I believe at line 10, it

20 was Mr Stroilov who was asking:

21 «So I think contrary to what you indicated

22 yesterday …»

23 And then the answer begins:

24 «Sir, it doesn’t in any way contradict …»

25 Then in line 18 I think there was a question:

1 I think the Bank made quite a large number of complaints

2 to the police against Mr Arkhangelsky or OMG companies,

3 isn’t that so?

4 A. Yes, the Bank did file a number of complaints because it

5 suspected instances of fraud committed by either

6 Mr Arkhangelsky personally, or by the top managers of

7 his companies while obtaining loans from BSP.

8 Q. If we could have a look just very briefly, I am not

9 suggesting we need to go through all of them, but if we

10 could quickly have a look at {D192/2091/1}, and I think

11 it is not a terribly good translation, I am afraid.

12 I am sorry, my Lord. Then the Russian version starts at

13 {D192/2091/4}.

14 That seems to be one of those complaints and, as you

15 can see, all I am really interested in is that in

16 the first paragraph — and I am afraid it is not quite

17 fully translated, but there is a reference — well, it

18 refers to the previous complaints to the police from

19 Bank of St Petersburg, and then there are numbers and

20 dates: one dated 14 May 2009; then another one on

21 6 August 2009; then one more on 20 May 2009. No, I beg

22 your pardon, it doesn’t relate to different complaints,

23 so I think there are just two: one on 14 May 2009 and

24 then another one on 20 May 2009, and then there are

25 responses in August and this is another complaint to

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

April 6, 2016 Day 34

1 follow up the previous two. Is that a correct

2 understanding of the position?

3 A. Well, the best I can do is read this document together

4 with you, sir.

5 Q. Yes. I don’t think it is necessary to read it through.

6 All I am suggesting is that this sounds right; that

7 there was quite a succession of complaints to the police

8 and at a rather rapid pace, so that one goes out on

9 14 May, and then another on 20 May and then as some

10 point following August, you make one more further to

11 the previous complaints; is that consistent with your

12 recollection? You were complaining to the police quite

13 actively in that period.

14 A. Yes. This is consistent with my recollections. We

15 conducted analysis and investigation with respect to

16 the distressed debts within the Bank. We identify

17 instances of what we thought was fraud, and based on

18 that we did file complaints with the law enforcers.

19 Therefore, there was a series of those documents

20 because it was a protracted process whereby we looked

21 into that and identify every new instances.

22 Q. And again, we may need to go into this in more detail if

23 there is any dispute about that. I think a number of

24 draft complaints which have been disclosed to us are,

25 according to metadata, associated with your computer.

1 you just set out the background about the Bank lending

2 to Oslo Marine and so on, and then you mention the

3 restructuring of the debts in December.

4 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: What’s the heading, just so I can …

5 MR STROILOV: The heading is — I think it can be translated

6 as «Statement», or «Application», I think.

7 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: If you read it out, and then they

8 can …

9 MR STROILOV: If Ms Mironova can read it out, yes.

10 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Could you read out the heading, just

11 so I know what the document is? In Russian.

12 A. It’s addressed to the deputy director of the Directorate

13 for Internal Affairs of the City of St Petersburg, to

14 the director of the main investigative department of

15 St Petersburg, Major General Romanov(?).

16 MR STROILOV: And then you see the heading of the document

17 in large letters in the centre, please.

18 A. It’s either an application or statement or a complaint.

19 It can be either.

20 Q. That’s a translation difficulty, my Lord.

21 Now, if you go to the second page. Again, I think

22 if you scan through this, the allegation that is being

23 made there, just in substance, is the allegation about

24 misuse of the Bank’s loan to purchase the apartment in

25 France. I don’t think we need to read it out because

77

1 So that suggests you were the one, you were the person

2 in the Bank who was really working on preparing all

3 these complaints to the police; is that the correct

4 understanding?

5 A. My Lord, what I do recall is that I drafted the economic

6 substance, the gist of the complaints. In other words,

7 I set out the instances of fraud identified by myself

8 and Ms Yashkina as we looked into the various

9 applications, but then I did not file the actual

10 complaints. This was not part of my responsibility.

11 This was handled by someone else.

12 Q. Yes. Well, with apologies, I would like to show you one

13 of the draft complaints, which is only available in

14 Russian, I am afraid, and that seems to be a printout of

15 a file from your computer. If this could be distributed

16 in the usual way, and then I will ask Ms Mironova to

17 read some of the passages. (Handed).

18 Ms Mironova, just looking at this quickly, this does

19 look like one of your drafts, doesn’t it, or do you need

20 to go…

21 A. My Lord, I do not recall this document. I would first

22 need to read it. From the looks of it, I do not think

23 I remember it.

24 Q. Let me take you through the material bits, and hopefully

25 that will remind you. On the first page, essentially,

79

1 the court is well familiar with the allegation; can you

2 see that?

3 A. Yes, I can see that.

4 Q. So following that, I mean, it’s slightly difficult

5 because obviously, as you can see, the text seems to

6 have been very heavily edited in Russian, a lot of

7 things are crossed out or inserted and so on, so it

8 seems to have been quite a substantial work carried out

9 on this document; do you agree with that?

10 A. Yes. There have been quite a few amendments here, I can

11 see those and I agree with that.

12 Q. Yes, if you could, please, read out — well, it’s

13 slightly difficult because obviously bits of it are

14 crossed out, but if you could read out the paragraph you

15 see in the middle, just the paragraph which starts just

16 after the upper hole punch. You can ignore the crossed

17 out bits, whatever is more convenient for you, or you

18 can read it in full, markings and things which are

19 crossed out, but if you could read it out aloud so that

20 it is translated for my Lord.

21 A. I’m so sorry, which paragraph are you referring to, sir?

22 Q. Yes, the paragraph just below the upper hole punch, so

23 starting from «(Russian words)» in the new version.

24 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: On page 2?

25 MR STROILOV: Yes, on page 2, I beg your pardon, my Lord.

78 80
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

April 6, 2016 Day 34

1 If you could please read it out.

2 A. Okay, let me start:

3 «As becomes clear from the arrangements for the

4 acquisition of properties in France, as have been set

5 out above, the monetary funds used for its purchase had

6 not been declared by Mr and Mrs Arkhangelsky in

7 the Russian Federation as income properly and officially

8 received and no individual income tax has been paid

9 thereon.»

10 Is that it?

11 MR STROILOV: Yes, but if you could read on, please. That’s

12 right, but if you could continue.

13 A. «Therefore, the practices of the above mentioned

14 individuals, as we believe, resulted in the shortfall of

15 tax payments to the coffers of the Russian Federation,

16 or the treasury of the Russian Federation, but they may

17 also be covered by the provisions of the federal law on

18 combating the legalisation of illegally received income,

19 including income from terrorist-financing operations and

20 criminal income.»

21 Q. Thank you. If you could then read the next paragraph,

22 if you could continue through the next paragraph.

23 A. «Furthermore, the Bank began to suspect that the

24 companies of Oslo Marine Group were involved in illegal

25 schemes to return the VAT tax and cashing financial

1 That is why we believe that the credit resources of

2 the Bank extended to LPK Scandinavia were subsequently

3 transferred to a third entity, with the purpose of

4 taking out the VAT or cashing these monies.»

5 Q. Thank you very much. Now, Ms Mironova, this suggests —

6 well, first of all let me ask you this: does this ring

7 any bells? Do you recall drafting this document or

8 editing this document, from what you have read?

9 A. I do not recall the document itself, but the

10 circumstances around this scheme I do recall, because we

11 were doing the investigation and we were establishing

12 the facts together with Ms Yashkina.

13 Q. Yes, and it appears that not only did you carry out any

14 investigation which might be necessary for the

15 protection of the Bank’s interests, you were also

16 volunteering to help the Russian tax authorities to

17 uncover any suspicious facts about OMG activities. Is

18 that a fair description?

19 A. My Lord, the law of the Russian Federation states that

20 if somebody becomes aware of taxation crimes, these

21 crimes have to be reported.

22 Q. Ms Mironova, it looks like, quite apart from — it’s not

23 just that you and Mrs Yashkina were investigating things

24 you were interested in for the Bank’s own reasons and

25 then come across some tax affairs, you seem to have

81 83

1 resources.»

2 Should I continue?

3 Q. Actually, it would be helpful if you read through to

4 the end of the page and the end of that paragraph over

5 the page, if you please could do me this favour.

6 A. «To confirm this, the following scheme has been

7 identified. On 25 June 2008, LPK Scandinavia, on the

8 basis of a loan from the Bank, made a payment to the

9 Isam Root(?) company at Svyaz-Bank in the amount of RUB

10 35 million. The purpose of payment is as follows:

11 payment for the materials under the contract [such and

12 such]. At the time of the payment the officials of

13 the Bank had no suspicions. However, subsequently we

14 found out that the Isam Root company was engaged in

15 trading in jewellery and semi precious stones, and that

16 is why the acquisition from a timber company Scandinavia

17 of souvenirs in the amount of RUB 35 million, and

18 presented as a regular payment of materials is

19 economically unsustainable and unviable.

20 «Based on the information, at present, the Isam Root

21 company and the affiliated juridical persons, Peer(?)

22 and Lozarit(?) are being investigated by the Ministry of

23 Internal Affairs to find out whether these souvenir

24 products were used as a source of taking out the Value

25 Added Tax from the budget of the Russian Federation.

1 carried out quite a considerable investigation in

2 relation to Mr Arkhangelsky’s compliance or otherwise

3 with taxation requirements. Would that be a fair

4 description of what you did?

5 A. No, my Lord. We conducted a very thorough investigation

6 of the turnover and the transfer of the resources within

7 Bank of St Petersburg among different companies in

8 the Oslo Marine Group by Mr Arkhangelsky and

9 Mrs Arkhangelskaya. That is why we were discovering the

10 cash flow, both loan resources and non-loan resources.

11 Since Mr Arkhangelsky and his spouse were the

12 guarantors, we had information from Mr Arkhangelsky with

13 respect to the level of his income. He provided these

14 documents to us and that is why it was fairly easy for

15 us to compare the incomes we were able to identify based

16 on the turnover at the Bank with the official statements

17 presented to the tax authorities.

18 So these documents were the ones that we compared,

19 working together with Ms Yashkina.

20 Q. And really the purpose of that work was specifically to

21 prepare complaints to the law enforcement bodies, was it

22 not?

23 A. No, my Lord. The main purpose of the work I just

24 described was to establish how the financial pyramid, as

25 we found out later, and at the beginning we just wanted

82 84
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

April 6, 2016 Day 34

1 to find out how different companies in

2 the Oslo Marine Group interacted among themselves.

3 Q. So you accept that in this period, let’s say in 2009,

4 well the Bank made — frankly, I haven’t been able to

5 count, but let’s say something in the region of a dozen

6 complaints against Mr Arkhangelsky, roughly. I’m not

7 suggesting that’s exactly the figure, but there would

8 have been about a dozen complaints to the police; would

9 that be a fair, rough estimate of the number of

10 complaints?

11 A. My Lord, I have no recollection of this figure

12 or number.

13 Q. How many would you say, roughly, how many complaints to

14 the police did you make against Mr and Mrs Arkhangelsky

15 in 2009? Roughly. I am not asking for an exact figure

16 and then say: well, you have said eight and in reality

17 it was nine, I’m not suggesting that, but roughly how

18 many?

19 A. My Lord, I did not submit any application myself, and

20 therefore I cannot say how many there were. Based on

21 the document we saw before, there were two, probably.

22 There was a reference to two documents that were issued.

23 Q. Now, Ms Mironova, presumably if the Bank was complaining

24 to the police really whenever it uncovered something

25 suspicious and really went down this route, this meant

1 have made and from the heavily edited version at which

2 we have looked, where you can see that you worked on

3 that quite carefully, it follows that whether or not it

4 was your duty, you, and perhaps your colleagues,

5 approached it quite enthusiastically; would that be

6 a fair thing to say?

7 A. My Lord, it is fairer to say that I love my work and

8 I approach any type of activity entrusted by the Bank

9 with enthusiasm, be it working with problem debt, as

10 back then, working with credit risks, something I’m

11 engaged with at present.

12 Q. And wasn’t your purpose in submitting these complaints,

13 what you were trying to achieve, really, was to get

14 Mr Arkhangelsky out of the way. You wanted him to be in

15 prison and just not interfering in what the Bank was

16 doing in relation to the loans and pledges at that time.

17 Is that a correct understanding?

18 A. This is not a correct and accurate presentation of

19 the situation. The Bank was performing its

20 responsibilities based on reports from the law

21 enforcement authorities with respect to illegal schemes.

22 Then it was the militia that had to find out whether

23 it was a substantive matter, whether it was a criminal

24 transaction, or not.

25 Q. Thank you. I am afraid one more, and I think that’s the

85 87

1 that by that point in time the Bank did not intend and

2 was not trying to reach any amicable settlement with

3 Mr Arkhangelsky in relation to any disputes; would that

4 be a fair inference?

5 A. My Lord, as far as I remember, at that time, no

6 constructive proposals came from Mr Arkhangelsky.

7 Furthermore, if my memory doesn’t fail me, it was either

8 in April or in May of 2009 Mr Arkhangelsky submitted

9 a claim against Mr Savelyev, in the sense that he made

10 some threatening, frightening moves against

11 Mr Arkhangelsky personally and against his spouse. That

12 is why the first submission to the Minister of

13 the Interior was presented by Mr Arkhangelsky himself.

14 Q. Right. And the purpose of all these complaints was not

15 in any way to protect the economic interests of

16 the Bank; would you agree with that?

17 A. In the course of addressing the issues of any problem

18 debt, any bank uses every possible avenue to ensure the

19 payment of the debt. Negotiations, court decisions, out

20 of court decisions, and we are also trying to identify

21 criminal activities of our borrowers and we have to

22 report this to the law enforcement authorities, this is

23 our obligation; this is not something we do out of our

24 own free will.

25 Q. Well, I would suggest from the number of complaints you

1 last one, one more document which, I am afraid, is

2 untranslated, and I will have to hand it up, but it is

3 not big. If that could be done, if the usher could

4 please help me. (Handed).

5 Again, incidentally, like before, the disclosure

6 reference number is at the bottom, just so that it could

7 be followed up. I do apologise for not obtaining the

8 translation.

9 Ms Mironova, this seems to be an e-mail exchange

10 between you and Mrs Volodina on 31 December 2008; is

11 that right?

12 A. Probably. Most likely.

13 Q. And so chronologically, as usual, these e-mail chains,

14 your message which comes first chronologically, that is

15 at the bottom of the page. Well, it was most of the

16 page, but the second message on the page comes first.

17 That seems to be an e-mail at 12.07 on

18 31 December 2008, from you to Mrs Volodina, copied to

19 someone called Liliana Tchinina(?), someone else at

20 Bank of St Petersburg. If you could please read out the

21 subject line and then the text of the message, I’m sorry

22 to exploit you like that, but the end is near.

23 A. «Good afternoon, Olga Dmitrievna. With a purpose of

24 reducing the amount of related borrowers with respect to

25 the Oslo Marine Group, we removed the cross-assurances

86 88
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

April 6, 2016 Day 34

1 of the Scandinavia Insurance Company for

2 LPK Scandinavia. At present we also have to remove the

3 surety LPK Scandinavia for Onega. Please coordinate

4 this change through a decision by BKK — BCC.»

5 Q. And then the response of Mrs Volodina comes at the same

6 day at 12.16.

7 A. The answer was:

8 «Has been agreed.»

9 Q. Yes, thank you. So what this suggests to me,

10 Ms Mironova, is obviously 31 December 2008 is a period

11 of quite frantic work of documenting the restructuring

12 of OMG debts. Isn’t that a fair description of

13 the background?

14 A. What was happening exactly on December 31, 2008, I do

15 not recall, with all due respect.

16 Q. I think you have given evidence earlier to the effect

17 that towards the end of December 2008, you and

18 Investrbank were very busy trying to put together all

19 paperwork to formalise the restructuring of OMG debts.

20 I think you have given rather detailed evidence about

21 that.

22 A. Yes, that is true, and I confirm that.

23 Q. And so most likely, this exchange of e-mails took place

24 in that context, in the context of that work. Wouldn’t

25 that be a correct supposition?

1 A. Yes, I have read it.

2 Q. Is Mrs Volodina’s evidence on this point consistent with

3 your recollection of the events?

4 A. Is this the evidence by Ms Volodina?

5 Q. Yes, it is, I’m sorry I didn’t make that clear.

6 A. No, I can provide no comment on this. This is her

7 statement. One thing I am sure of, this is not related

8 to the e-mail that I sent to her.

9 Q. I’m not suggesting it is, but what Mrs Volodina’s

10 evidence suggests to me is that as of December 2008,

11 some or all of the personal guarantees were missing, and

12 then the Bank required for them to be put in place;

13 isn’t that a fair reading of that evidence?

14 A. My Lord, I cannot tell how to interpret this evidence.

15 Mrs Volodina should be addressed about this. But as

16 of December 2008, all the loans with respect to which we

17 had sureties from Mr Arkhangelsky, they were issued as

18 at the time when the loans were extended, but certainly

19 not in December 2008. Furthermore, I remember that at

20 the meeting with Mr Savelyev in December 2008,

21 Mr Arkhangelsky already mentioned that as proof of the

22 fact that he will back his words and will pay capital —

23 principal and interest, he provided personal sureties.

24 Q. Ms Mironova, isn’t it the truth that it was only at that

25 point that you were told by your superiors that personal

89 91

1 A. I cannot confirm that, my Lord, because I would have to

2 take a look at the text of the document attached to this

3 letter, and take a look at the content of that document.

4 Q. What this exchange suggests to me really is simply this,

5 Ms Mironova — I’m not really proposing to go into a lot

6 of detail — that as part of the restructuring of

7 the loans you also had to decide quite quickly which

8 guarantees need to be there and which guarantees don’t

9 need to be there and to sort out the guarantee position,

10 taking a number of factors into account; would that be

11 a fair inference from that exchange?

12 A. No, my Lord. Of course, at this stage it is difficult

13 for me to make a 100 per cent affirmation, but I get the

14 impression that we were just engaged in technical work

15 to prevent establishing a link between different

16 borrowers in the Oslo Marine Group, as between different

17 divisions in the group and in the area of business

18 operations.

19 Q. Can we please look at {B1/5/13}, and the Russian version

20 will be at — well, should be in the region of 25. I am

21 interested in paragraph 63 of Mrs Volodina’s statement.

22 {B1/5/33}.

23 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Page 33.

24 MR STROILOV: Page 33, I am grateful, my Lord.

25 Can you please read paragraph 63, Ms Mironova.

1 guarantees must be in place, and then you have arranged

2 for them to be put in place and backdated, like a lot of

3 other documents?

4 A. This is absolutely out of line with what happened,

5 my Lord, and this is confirmed by the fact that every

6 loan agreement dating back to 2007 and 2008 at the very

7 beginning, personal guarantees by Mr Arkhangelsky were

8 clearly stated.

9 Q. And isn’t it the case that in that period, as part of

10 putting all the documents in place, you caused

11 Mr Arkhangelsky’s signatures on the alleged personal

12 guarantees to be forged?

13 A. My Lord, the Bank never engaged in any forgery of any

14 signature of Mr Arkhangelsky or any other gentleman.

15 This is as far as the charge of forgery of signature is

16 concerned. And as far as the substance of the matter,

17 I would like to ask for the question to be reformulated

18 so that I can understand it.

19 MR STROILOV: I think you have answered, Ms Mironova. Thank

20 you very much. If you stay there, my learned friend

21 Mr Lord may have some further questions.

22 MR LORD: Does your Lordship have questions for Ms Mironova?

23 I don’t have any re-examination.

24 Questions by MR JUSTICE HILDYARD

25 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Yes, I do, I am sorry, Ms Mironova.

90 92
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

April 6, 2016 Day 34

1 Just while we are on that page, I think I have got a

2 little confused as to your position with respect to

3 the personal guarantees. I think that the answer you

4 gave is at [draft] page 92, and I will read it for you.

5 The question asked was this:

6 «Question: … what Mrs Volodina’s evidence

7 suggests to me is that as of December 2008, some or all

8 of the personal guarantees were missed and then the Bank

9 required for them to be put in place; isn’t that a fair

10 reading of that evidence?»

11 You say:

12 «Answer: I cannot tell how to interpret this

13 evidence. Mrs Volodina should be addressed about this.»

14 Then what you can say on your own behalf, as

15 I understand it, is this:

16 «Answer: But as of December 2008, all the loans

17 with respect to which [and I assume it means relate to

18 Mr Arkhangelsky] they were issued as at the time when

19 the loans were extended, but certainly not

20 in December 2008. Furthermore, I remember that at the

21 meeting with Mr Savelyev in December 2008,

22 Mr Arkhangelsky already mentioned that as proof of

23 the fact that he will back his words and will pay

24 capital principal and interest he provided …

25 sureties.»

1 your evidence was that you had certainly had some

2 substantive input into their compilation which had been

3 done on your computers, with the amendments, et cetera;

4 do you recall?

5 A. Yes, my Lord.

6 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: And you were asked whether you had

7 been enthusiastic about that, and the essence of your

8 reply was that you love your work; do you recall that?

9 A. Yes, my Lord.

10 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: But given that these transactions were

11 in the past, did you ever ask either Dr Arkhangelsky or

12 his wife as to whether there might be some explanation

13 for any of this, such as to make it inappropriate to go

14 to the police?

15 A. No, my Lord. By the time we identified those instances,

16 and speaking from memory, I think it was in the summer

17 of 2009, Mr Arkhangelsky had already left the Russian

18 Federation.

19 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Would it not have been possible to

20 address some question to him in writing?

21 A. I had no contact with Mr Arkhangelsky, I am afraid.

22 I raised queries with other members of Investrbank at

23 that time with respect to those schemes that had been

24 identified, and I mean those people, those employees who

25 had been there at the time when those transactions had

93 95

1 Now, what I wish to clarify from that answer is

2 whether your position is that the personal guarantees

3 were acquired and given at the time that the loans were

4 extended, or whether they were given, according to your

5 evidence, at the times that the loans were made.

6 A. My Lord, when you were reading my evidence, I noticed

7 one misinterpretation, and perhaps this is what caused

8 a misunderstanding. What I meant was that

9 Mr Arkhangelsky provided a guarantee with respect to

10 each loan agreement at the time when a certain loan was

11 extended; that is to say either in 2007 or in 2008, at

12 specific months. But in December 2008, no new surety

13 agreement with Mr Arkhangelsky was signed.

14 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Do you mean by «extended», when the

15 Bank advanced the money, or made it available to

16 Dr Arkhangelsky and his companies? Is that what you

17 mean?

18 A. This is exactly what I mean, my Lord. Extended,

19 provided the money, and also signed the loan agreement.

20 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Yes. Just very quickly with respect

21 to the police complaints, and I am going to dot around

22 and it is my fault, and I hope it doesn’t confuse you,

23 and if you need me to explain the context you must say

24 so.

25 We had a look at those police complaints and I think

1 taken place, and none of them could provide any comment

2 or feedback.

3 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Did you know whether he had legal

4 advice or accountants or lawyers who might answer on his

5 behalf, or his wife’s?

6 A. Mr Arkhangelsky did have lawyers who were acting for

7 him, including one lawyer who attended a meeting,

8 I think, in April 2009, as set out in my witness

9 statement, he was there together with Mrs Krygina, but

10 he was not in a position or prepared to provide any

11 comment with respect to the movement of funds or the

12 various transactions involved.

13 The financial director of the group, Mr Berezin, was

14 available for contact at that time, but he did not

15 answer any questions to any of the — sorry, he did not

16 provide any answers to any of the questions that had

17 been raised, citing confidentiality and privilege.

18 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: So am I to take it that you did raise

19 questions, for example, with respect to the purchase of

20 the apartment in Nice with the lawyer and with

21 Mr Berezin, but both declined to answer; is that what

22 you are saying?

23 A. Now, with respect to the flat in Nice, I did not ask any

24 questions at all, my Lord, because the matter was that

25 the loan had been misused; in other words, the loan had

94 96
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

April 6, 2016 Day 34

1 been extended to the timber company to buy timber, and

2 instead of that, they made the money available for some

3 purchases to Mr Arkhangelsky. So it was misuse of

4 funds.

5 Over the phone I did ask questions of Mr Berezin

6 with respect to VAT refunds and the possible encashment

7 of funds. That I did.

8 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: And in Russia, take your example of

9 VAT, the ordinary place to complain would be the police,

10 would it, rather than any revenue authorities, any tax

11 authorities? I will explain the context. In this

12 country, the police would not regard this, in all

13 circumstances, as a criminal matter, and you would

14 probably go straight to HMRC, the Revenue & Customs.

15 You might, in certain circumstances, go to the police,

16 but you would certainly go to HMRC first. I just tell

17 you that, not because it applies in Russia, but so you

18 know where I am coming from.

19 A. I understand, my Lord, thank you very much.

20 In Russia you have to write a complaint, file

21 a complaint with the police, and there are different

22 departments or subdivisions which include economic

23 business crimes, tax crimes, criminal division, and

24 banking offences and so on and so forth. It is all

25 being dealt with by the police force.

1 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: But if you really thought that, how

2 could you contemplate extending the loans for the

3 further time? Surely the basis of trust would then have

4 gone?

5 A. My Lord, at that point in time I was not 100 per cent

6 certain that the ships had not been purchased. What

7 I’ve said is that at the end of 2008 when Mrs Blinova

8 told me about this, and in early 2009, the Bank did not

9 have any documents available to it to confirm that

10 Vyborg Shipping had purchased a further three vessels,

11 and so we kept sending requests for disclosure of

12 information, for documents to be disclosed to us from

13 OMG, to prove that they had not diverted those monies.

14 We were not at all sure at that time that the money had

15 been diverted to Cyprus and the money was just sitting

16 in Cyprus.

17 Now, the second reason I thought it was possible to

18 agree with the idea of extending the PetroLes loan was

19 that Oslo Marine Group was indeed one of the largest

20 borrowers for BSP, and at the level of our branch, we

21 were definitely not prepared to take the risk of denying

22 an extension and thereby calling a default.

23 But we thought it was a good idea to let the

24 headquarters know about our suspicions and to convey all

25 the negative information that we had at that time

97 99

1 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Thank you.

2 Can I just ask you some clarity with respect to your

3 witness statement in certain areas, please. Could you

4 go to {B1/4} and the particular paragraph that

5 I first want to ask you about is paragraph 108 which in

6 the English version is at {B1/4/23}, and in the Russian

7 version is at {B1/4/68}.

8 A. Yes, I have found it.

9 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Here you explain to me that in around,

10 I think it is, February or so of 2009, your preference

11 remained to support an extension of the loans if the

12 Bank was able to accept the risks, and you explain that

13 you had serious concerns. But even at that stage, you

14 hoped that things might improve, and there might be some

15 way of avoiding default and provision, et cetera, as you

16 very helpfully explained to me.

17 But you began to explain that, pursuant to

18 a conversation you had had, I can’t remember whether it

19 was with Ms Blinova or Ms Volodina, you were beginning

20 to form the impression that monies advanced by the Bank

21 to purchase vessels were in fact being, as it were,

22 diverted to Dr and Mrs Arkhangelsky, or some interests

23 of theirs, contrary to what the Bank had supposed was

24 the purpose of the loan; do you recall that?

25 A. I do, my Lord, I recall that.

1 available to us to the headquarters of the Bank.

2 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Yes, you explained that; that if

3 someone was going to cut off the lending, you wanted it

4 to be at a higher level.

5 In the same document, could we go to paragraph 130,

6 which in the English version is at {B1/4/26} and in

7 the Russian version {B1/4/73}.

8 A. I have found my clause 130, my Lord, thank you.

9 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Thank you so much. Yes. This is

10 where you explain that you decided you would obtain

11 valuations from ADK, and we dealt with this a little bit

12 earlier today, and I just wanted to clarify in my own

13 mind why you chose ADK, which was not, at that time, on

14 the Bank’s approved list, as I understand it.

15 A. My Lord, by that time the banks were under a legal

16 obligation to abolish any accredited valuer list because

17 that was contrary to the law on the freedom of

18 competition. Therefore, the Bank had to accept

19 a valuation opinion written by any valuer. We knew some

20 professional valuers who had worked with ADK. We were

21 aware of their track record, the quality of their

22 deliverables, so we asked them to carry out the

23 valuation, and at the same time as I also set out in my

24 WS, bank staff were also doing some valuation,

25 double-checking what Lair had written in their opinion.

98 100
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

April 6, 2016 Day 34

1 Therefore we were not going by just the opinion of 1 the freezing order from the BVI arrived, and other
2 ADK; we based our decisions on the views expressed by 2 witnesses had explained that that was a great surprise,
3 the working group that we had set up within the Bank. 3 and of course, quite a shock. Does anyone know what the
4 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Yes. I thought that was later. Maybe 4 date is?
5 I am wrong. I thought in your witness statement you 5 A. I think it was in November 2011, sir.
6 subsequently say that there was this working group which 6 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Yes. So one might expect that, given
7 decided as a matter of course, Lair, but it was all at 7 the shock and the personal implications and the action
8 the same time, was it? 8 taken to have it set aside in the BVI, that work would
9 A. Yes, my Lord, in 129 I am discussing the working group, 9 start in earnest from that very moment, but you think
10 and in 130 that’s — your Lordship has just mentioned, 10 you didn’t start until nearer Christmas, is that right,
11 I discuss ADK. So that was part of the same amount of 11 working on your witness statement?
12 work. 12 A. I started recollecting this and I had been instructed to
13 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Had you worked previously with ADK or 13 begin and try to recollect what had happened and try to
14 come across it in the context of your work in the credit 14 refresh my recollections immediately after we received
15 monitoring department? 15 the freezing order, that’s true.
16 A. So far as I can recall, by that time the Bank had 16 But in terms of physically writing and drafting my
17 already spent some time working together with ADK, and 17 WS, I think this is something that we started doing
18 the Bank did have other valuations with respect to other 18 immediately prior to Christmas, yes.
19 borrowers and other assets that had been compiled by 19 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Mr Savelyev made the same inaccurate
20 ADK. 20 statement, as you know. Did you have his statement in
21 Now, within our Client Monitoring Directorate, that 21 front of you when you made yours? Did you in any way
22 was the first ever instance that we worked with that 22 rely on what he said, or simply follow what he said?
23 valuer. 23 A. I had not read his witness statement, apart from the
24 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Thank you. 24 paragraph that Mr Stroilov has turned up in the course
25 In the same document, can I just ask you the context 25 of the cross-examination, but I had not seen his witness

101

1 of the factual inaccuracies in your BVI statement, and

2 I think you have explained that it was all at a holiday

3 time of year, your witness statement is made on

4 1 January, which is obviously in a holiday period, and

5 you have apologised for the inaccuracy. So I take that,

6 I have that clear in my mind.

7 I just want to ask you a little bit about the

8 logistics. You were in Italy at the time that you made

9 your statement; is that right?

10 A. My Lord, I explained in my WS that I had re-read and

11 signed my witness statement on 1 January while in Milan,

12 Italy.

13 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: And you signed the Russian version;

14 presumably something that was sent over to you, was it?

15 A. Yes, I signed the Russian version, I scanned it in

16 the hotel, and then I sent it back.

17 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: And you explain in your witness

18 statement that the then solicitors, Baker & McKenzie,

19 had been working on that with you, which is not unusual.

20 Over what course of time do you think you had been

21 working on that witness statement?

22 A. My Lord, I would say, intuitively, that it took us about

23 a week, maybe slightly longer than a week to actually

24 draft the witness statement.

25 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: I cannot remember when the shock of

103

1 statement in its entirety because I understand it was

2 also being drafted at the same time, actually, in

3 parallel to my WS being drafted.

4 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: So you just both made — as far as you

5 are concerned, the same inaccuracy emerged but without

6 reference one to the other; is that right? It just

7 happened to be the same inaccuracy?

8 A. I do not recall meeting with him or discussing this

9 matter. I may have mentioned this to the solicitors

10 while I was drafting my first version, but there was no

11 direct contact between myself and Mr Savelyev to that

12 effect.

13 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Yes. Thank you.

14 You explained during the course of yesterday, and we

15 kept coming back to it, to some extent, that the overall

16 objective of the various transactions which were

17 undertaken, including companies in the Renord Group,

18 was, if I can put it shortly, unify to maximise the

19 value, because if the properties were fractured in

20 ownership, you might get less for the individual bits

21 than you might get for the whole. I think that was the

22 gist of your evidence; is that reasonably fair?

23 A. Yes, my Lord.

24 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: And who conceived that idea or

25 strategy, do you know? Was it you, or who?

102 104
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

April 6, 2016 Day 34

1 A. Do you mean the idea to unify the assets, sir?

2 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Yes, to go through the various — and

3 there were quite a few transactions necessary, given,

4 for example, the division of Onega port. Who conceived

5 the idea? Do you recall?

6 A. I do recall that I discussed all those matters with

7 Mr Skatin, then on a number of occasions I recall

8 attending meetings, including Mrs Malysheva, where we

9 discussed the best way to make sure that we could

10 actually end up unifying that asset.

11 Or, if some problems or issues arose within Renord

12 Group, you may recall I referred to Nefte-Oil, it was

13 not allowed to own those assets then, those questions

14 came from Mrs Malysheva, and she said that: look, our

15 partners are asking us about this, and this is what we

16 need to do, this is the kind of transaction that we now

17 need to enter into, and we looked into this to make sure

18 it made sense for the Bank and it was actually viable

19 for the Bank.

20 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: So the idea emerged from discussions

21 involving you, Mr Skatin and Mrs Malysheva, is that what

22 you are telling me?

23 A. Are you referring to Nefte-Oil or something else?

24 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: No, unify to maximise. The overall

25 strategy.

1 A. My Lord, he was acting upon my instructions. Over the

2 past three days of cross-examination, I think we have

3 turned up three documents, two of which included the

4 report to the management board and both reports were

5 made in August, but in different years. Usually

6 in August I take at least one week on holiday, together

7 with my daughter, we usually go to the seaside, so I’m

8 usually absent.

9 Then one report made by Mr Kolpachkov was at the BKK

10 and I said that because he was there, anyway he was

11 attending the meeting anyway, it made sense for him to

12 become the rapporteur and introduce the matter for the

13 benefit of those in attendance.

14 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Yes. You certainly in the last week

15 of August appeared to be the presenter, but also on

16 15 August and 20 August, I think.

17 A. It just so happened.

18 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Yes.

19 I didn’t wish to take Mr Stroilov out of his

20 sequence, but I wanted to make sure that you had had

21 your chance, if you had wished to elaborate, to

22 a question which you wanted to address more fully with

23 respect to the request by Sevzapalians to the bailiff.

24 I can set this in context by taking you to page 91 of

25 yesterday’s transcript {Day33/91:16}. You may recall

105 107

1 A. No, my Lord, this idea that we needed to go through

2 a number of hoops to unify the assets was not something

3 that was created overnight. There were some trials

4 going on, then Mrs Arkhangelskaya was challenging the

5 Western Terminal transaction, so there was no way we

6 could even start thinking about unifying those assets

7 because we were not at all certain that that asset was

8 actually going to remain there, whether the repo

9 transaction was or was not going to be set aside.

10 I think it took between 2009 and 2011 for all that

11 to actually happen. Therefore, I would not be able to

12 tell your Lordship that this is something that happened

13 at one specific meeting. I do recall discussing those

14 matters at a series of different meetings. That is

15 true.

16 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Can I get clear in my mind a point of

17 detail about the role Mr Kolpachkov, your deputy. He,

18 on at least two occasions, I think three, presented

19 proposals to the main board, and on one occasion I think

20 you said you were on holiday at the time. The other

21 occasions, we can go through them if we need, you do not

22 appear, or you didn’t tell me you were on holiday: would

23 it be right for me to take it that whenever he did

24 present, he did on the basis of what you had told him to

25 say, or was he autonomous?

1 that I intervened, and I said, with respect to the sale

2 subject to the pledge of Western Terminal: That was

3 quite a big deal, wasn’t it? And you said not really —

4 the effect of what you said was: not really, because the

5 purchaser still had some $30 million, in effect, to pay

6 if it was to enjoy the benefit of that asset. You

7 explained that. In line 18 you say:

8 «Answer: It was not a big or significant deal

9 because the Bank’s encumbrance or pledge didn’t go

10 anyway. This was a sale maintaining the encumbrance in

11 favour of the Bank. If you allow me, and if you would

12 like me to, I think it would be worth taking a step back

13 and trying to understand why Sevzapalians asked the

14 bailiffs and asked the Bank to do — to take these

15 decisions, if the court would like to know.»

16 I said that I would defer to Mr Stroilov but I might

17 come back to it.

18 Now, in subsequent parts of your cross-examination,

19 you did, in effect, come back to it, but are there any

20 other matters which you feel you wish to add to that so

21 that I have a full understanding of the response you

22 wish to give?

23 A. You are referring to Sevzapalians, my Lord, is that

24 correct?

25 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Yes.

106 108
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

April 6, 2016 Day 34

1 A. You see, as we discussed, Sevzapalians had acquired

2 actionable right from Morskoy Bank vis-a-vis

3 Western Terminal, thereby removing the risk of a third

4 party enforcing the pledge and the assets of

5 Western Terminal. The main problem we had with respect

6 to Western Terminal was that the repo transaction back

7 in 2008 did not cover 100 per cent of the shares, but

8 just 99 per cent of their shares. Under our Companies

9 Act, any sale of assets by a company, requires the vote

10 by 100 per cent of the shareholders.

11 Mrs Arkhangelskaya obviously never signed any

12 minutes that might be made available to her with respect

13 to any disposition of the assets. Therefore our task

14 was to unify the pledged and unpledged assets of

15 Western Terminal with a view to being able to offer

16 a whole business as a going concern to a possible buyer.

17 That’s why we — Sevzapalians, used the writ of

18 execution, and the bailiffs used both the pledged and

19 the unpledged parts of it for the auction. Obviously

20 the pledged part was encumbered and the unpledged was

21 valued at its market value.

22 At the end of the day, the title passed to

23 Nefte-Oil, and under the sale contract it was then

24 possible to make it available to any willing buyers.

25 There was no way that could have been done by

1 she had a lawful right of veto, did she?

2 A. Veto or non-participation in the vote. Exactly.

3 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: So the various steps might not

4 unfairly be described — I would like your comment — as

5 an attempt to circumvent that right of veto?

6 A. Your Honour, could you please clarify your question?

7 I didn’t quite get it.

8 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Well, if under the Russian law

9 Mrs Arkhangelskaya could have stopped these sales

10 perfectly lawfully and perfectly effectively,

11 I appreciate the disadvantage from the Bank’s point of

12 view of that, but the steps it took might be described

13 as intended to circumvent a lawful right in those

14 circumstances. I wondered whether you might comment on

15 that.

16 A. My Lord, I can say that that was not some kind

17 of a circumvention to overcome the right to veto of

18 Mrs Arkhangelskaya, as you described it. If the Bank

19 did not take those steps, then in accordance with the

20 writ, the Maritime Bank would have used that right, and

21 it would have made the bailiffs to put all the assets

22 for sale, bypassing any opinions or decisions of

23 Mrs Arkhangelskaya and the 99 per cent stake that we

24 held under the Zapadny Terminal. This is what could

25 have happened.

109 111

1 Western Terminal because 1 per cent of the equity stake

2 was still being held by Mrs Arkhangelskaya.

3 Back in 2008 or 2009 no one wanted to bother her and

4 buy the 1 per cent out. In BSP no one thought that this

5 1 per cent was going to be a thorn in the side, and that

6 a few months after that OMG was going to default. And

7 that’s why in the course of the cross-examination

8 I always said that I strongly disagreed with any concept

9 of raider attacks or collusive action, because then all

10 the repo transactions would have been structured in

11 a totally different way so that BSP was not engaged in

12 so many trials, I mean if there had been any ulterior

13 motive, ie undertaking raider attacks, so that’s why

14 no one really bothered Mrs Arkhangelskaya around

15 Christmas, and she continued sitting on her 1 per cent

16 equity stake.

17 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: So under the Russian law, as you

18 perceived it, and I know you are not a lawyer, as you

19 explained to me, your perception of the Russian law is

20 that Mrs Arkhangelskaya in effect could have prevented

21 the sales by reference to her 1 per cent interest?

22 A. Yes. Under the Russian law, to sell property that is

23 over 5 per cent on the balance of a company, a decision

24 has to be taken by 100 per cent of the shareholders.

25 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: So under that law, the Russian law,

1 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Yes. I have got myself in a muddle as

2 to the basis on which you satisfied yourself as to

3 the companies which would be the subject of repo

4 transactions, because I think in your evidence in

5 the BVI — I may have got this wrong, but I think it is

6 {M1/12/8}. It may be a slightly different point, but

7 I just want to clarify my mind on it. The low transfer

8 value of the shares in Western Terminal and Scan of

9 RUB 9,900, and RUB 10,000 respectively, which you

10 address in paragraph 20, was because:

11 «…all of the assets of the two companies were so

12 heavily pledged to the Bank as security for the loans

13 that the Shares in the companies had little value in

14 themselves.»

15 But yesterday the reason, and my note, which may not

16 be accurate, because it may be by reference to an old

17 version of the transcript, the note I have is Day 33 at

18 page 99, what I thought you had told me was that is

19 because they did have some assets which made you select

20 those — yes. At the bottom of {Day33/98:25}, in answer

21 to a question from Mr Stroilov, which was:

22 «Question: Ms Mironova, if you took control of

23 the companies under a repo arrangement, purportedly in

24 order to help you to enforce the pledges, then it is

25 dishonest to steal unpledged assets of these companies

110 112
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

April 6, 2016 Day 34

1 in this way, isn’t it?»

2 You answer:

3 «Answer: My Lord, as I have said in my written

4 witness statement, one of the reasons why the

5 Western Terminal appeared as a suitable company for

6 a repo deal to me, was that it had considerable assets,

7 and not all of them were pledged to

8 Bank of St Petersburg.»

9 Now, on what basis did you select the company as

10 a suitable target of a repo: that it did or didn’t have

11 non-pledged assets?

12 A. My Lord, we used a number of approaches. First of all,

13 those companies should not have had loans taken out from

14 other banks. Secondly, they had to have pledges only at

15 Bank of St Petersburg. So these were the two main

16 criteria we selected Western Terminal and the insurance

17 company.

18 As far as other assets of the Western Terminal is

19 concerned, we looked at the valuation by Lair and as we

20 saw, a considerable amount was transferred in terms of

21 items owned by Western Terminal. The most valuable in

22 terms of their price was the piece of land and the berth

23 that was included, but it so happens that when you try

24 to sell an asset, any buyer is interested primarily in

25 terms of the items included, regardless of their price,

1 Bank of St Petersburg.»

2 That’s what you told me. So it had substantial

3 assets not pledged.

4 A. Considerable in terms of items, but not in terms of

5 their value. That is to say, there was, for instance,

6 a production building registered in the plot of land

7 that was pledged to Bank of St Petersburg. The building

8 itself was not part of the pledge agreement. As far as

9 the law on pledges is concerned, and this is part of my

10 e-mail, everything located on the piece of land pledged

11 to the Bank also automatically would be pledged to

12 the Bank.

13 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: But why does it help in terms of

14 the economic sense of a repo transaction that the

15 company whose shares are being made the subject of such

16 arrangements has a whole load of rather disparate but

17 not valuable assets which are not subject to the pledge.

18 I am not sort of following why that helps, why that

19 would be a recommendation.

20 A. It is taken into account because if a building is not

21 there physically but it exists on paper, for instance,

22 the previous owner can come to the owner of the piece of

23 land and through legal action, gain the right of transit

24 to a building that is not even there, or blackmail the

25 new owner to purchase that non-existent building that,

113

1 because even if some building was destroyed on a piece

2 of land but it is listed in the registration documents,

3 then with respect to such a building, one has to pay

4 taxes, or it has to be taken out from the state registry

5 through legal procedures; that is to say, this creates

6 additional projects and encumbrances for any new buyer.

7 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Yes, I understand that, but my

8 question, I suppose, could be split up into two. You

9 have answered the first bit, which is why you selected

10 Western Terminal, and I think you said that it was

11 a mixture of reasons, including the precondition that it

12 should only have borrowed from, so far as you were

13 aware, Bank of St Petersburg, but I think you have

14 confirmed that another of the reasons was that it had

15 some assets which were not the subject of pledges.

16 A. My Lord, I said that were pledged at

17 Bank of St Petersburg, because the insurance company and

18 Western Terminal had assets that were pledged at

19 Bank of St Petersburg.

20 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Yes, it did have that, and that

21 qualified it, but what you tell me at Day 33, page 99,

22 is:

23 «Why the Western Terminal appeared as a suitable

24 company for a repo deal to me, was that it had

25 considerable assets, and not all of them were pledged to

115

1 in fact, is only a piece of — a few words in

2 the registration chamber. We have a number of

3 precedents of this sort in the Russian Federation.

4 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: So the availability of non-pledged

5 assets might enable the company whose shares are the

6 subject of the repo to frustrate efforts to fully

7 enforce the security; is that right? Have I got it

8 right?

9 A. Not quite, my Lord. I already mentioned the next stage.

10 When the pledged property is sold to the end buyer, and

11 for instance, only a piece of land is sold.

12 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Yes.

13 A. And the building on that plot of land is not part of

14 the sales agreement. Consequently, the new owner can

15 get a claim from the previous owner to establish

16 servitude, for instance, with respect to having right of

17 access to the building, and then this plot of land would

18 not be fully worth what he paid for it. He would get

19 a plot of land with somebody else’s building on that

20 plot of land, and it is not important whether this

21 building actually exists, how valuable it is. This

22 creates legal and economic problems for the new owner

23 who, in the future, would purchase this plot of land.

24 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: So you want control via the repo if

25 the money is not repaid, to ensure that those

114 116
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

April 6, 2016 Day 34

1 disadvantages can be ironed out because you control the

2 company; is that right?

3 A. Exactly, my Lord.

4 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Okay.

5 A. If we had 100 per cent of shares under the repo

6 transaction, then we could offer to the end buyer the

7 entire property that is officially part of the pledge,

8 and also assumed property; that is to say the entire

9 industrial complex, without any holes in it.

10 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Thank you. So sorry. (Pause).

11 Mr Stroilov this morning asked you various questions

12 with respect to the extrajudicial foreclosure procedure

13 that we asked, and in particular, questioned you closely

14 on the issue as to whether the Bank was the person with

15 the discretion as to who to choose as the auction house

16 or auctioneer; do you recall that?

17 A. Yes, I do recall that discussion, my Lord.

18 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: And you felt unable, really, to give

19 a definitive answer, as I understand it, because you

20 were unsure whether the original pledge might have

21 specified the auctioneer; is that right?

22 A. No, I do not remember whether the original pledge

23 agreement had the name of the organiser of the auction.

24 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: But if the original pledge agreement

25 said nothing about that, you would accept, would you

1 Today the state has established a ban,

2 a prohibition, to change the purpose for which the land

3 is used; furthermore, if we are dealing with

4 an agricultural piece of land and it is not used for

5 that purpose, the owner has to pay a fine on an annual

6 basis for the use of land that it is intended for.

7 Unfortunately, agricultural manufacturers are few and

8 far between in Russia, and that is why such pieces of

9 land are hard to sell and they have little value, and

10 that was my reasoning when I said that the three plots

11 of land at the balance were advertised in the Renord

12 site, they are valued very little and there are no

13 buyers. Why? Because at present this is as if it were

14 a case without a handle: it is difficult and

15 uncomfortable to carry, and it is hard to drop.

16 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Thank you. I think my final question

17 is a bit of an unfair one, given that you are not

18 a lawyer, but you did give me some evidence about it.

19 You will recall that when we looked at the statements of

20 the auction processes, in each case, I think, three,

21 only two companies were bidders, and in the case of one

22 of them it showed who had attended under a power of

23 attorney, and in the case of the other one, I can’t

24 remember which it was, I think it was …

25 MR STROILOV: Should I find the document, my Lord?

117 119

1 not, that the discretion to choose the auctioneer was in

2 the Bank under the agreement that you were being

3 questioned about?

4 A. Yes, as we read it, it was a possibility for the Bank to

5 choose the auction site.

6 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Again so that you should not feel that

7 you were cut off from any answer that you felt would

8 assist me, you answered this morning, or you wanted to

9 make a point with respect to why it was that

10 agricultural land would have been wanted by any OMG

11 company. I can understand that agricultural land would

12 not necessarily be, as such, what it might be expected

13 to want to buy, but did you want to amplify that? Is it

14 an important point in your mind? I don’t want to cut

15 you off.

16 A. Yes, my Lord, thank you very much for this opportunity

17 you are providing me. The point I wanted to make was

18 that at present there is a situation in the Russian

19 Federation when the state is carefully monitoring the

20 plots of land that have agricultural value, whereas in

21 the past, in 2007/2008, it was fairly easy to acquire

22 a field, for instance, used to plant grain, or to

23 transform it into the land that would be used for

24 building housing units, to build, for instance, cottages

25 there and to sell houses in that village.

1 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Hold on.

2 MR STROILOV: It was Solo was represented by

3 a representative under the power of attorney, and

4 Kiperort.

5 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Kiperort, that’s right. Let’s have

6 a look at {D132/2174/1} just for the avoidance of all

7 doubt, which is one of the sales. Kiperort there’s no

8 last name of the representative, and if you go over the

9 page {D132/2174/2}, I think it is to Solo, which was the

10 usual winner, you see that Mr or Mrs Arinina is there.

11 I do not know anything about Russian corporate law, but

12 to set the scene, and explain my question, in England it

13 would be really very difficult, unless you had a power

14 of attorney, to represent a corporate entity. You would

15 have to have either a proxy or power of attorney.

16 In Russia, can you simply turn up and say: I am the

17 general director and I am attending at this auction, do

18 you know?

19 A. My Lord, I wasn’t present physically at any of

20 the auction myself, but the general director, as far as

21 I understand, can go to any state authority carrying

22 a piece of paper with it that he is the director, and

23 a passport to identify him, and any official would check

24 the charter of the juridical person with the passport

25 with the physical person.

118 120
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

April 6, 2016 Day 34

1 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: And if they coincided, he or she would

2 be able to speak on its behalf?

3 A. Yes, because he would then be the director general

4 appointed by the members of this company, the

5 participants in this company, and he has all the

6 responsibilities under the charter of the company.

7 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Yes.

8 Well, I am sorry to have asked so many questions at

9 the end. Do they give rise to any other questions,

10 Mr Stroilov?

11 MR STROILOV: Not from me, my Lord. I am grateful.

12 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: No.

13 MR LORD: My Lord, I just think I might — could we have

14 {D5/113/0.1} up, please. It may not be a question for

15 this witness, but it might arise out of your Lordship’s

16 last question to her. Does your Lordship see that it

17 sets out the procedure for participation?

18 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Yes, that’s a bit equivocal, I think.

19 MR LORD: I wasn’t sure that your Lordship should see it.

20 I am just conscious that we are on the topic. Your

21 Lordship might want to see the document.

22 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Yes, I am very grateful for that.

23 MR LORD: Your Lordship said to me a while back that this

24 sort of thing should be scooped up and I’m trying to do

25 that.

1 (3.41 pm)

2 (A short break)

3 (3.52 pm)

4 Housekeeping

5 MR STROILOV: My Lord, I think I should go first as it is

6 kind of my application. As you will have seen from the

7 correspondence, I think the most urgent housekeeping

8 matters is firstly we are seeking the court’s permission

9 for the counsel to be instructed to cross-examine

10 Mr Millard. Our reason is that valuation is perhaps the

11 only discrete point where it is possible to instruct

12 lawyers without instructing them on everything else,

13 something that can be really taken out from the

14 sequence, and that’s something Mr and Mrs Arkhangelsky

15 can afford, albeit it with some difficulty, but they can

16 afford this.

17 I am really very concerned that this is not

18 something — this cross-examination is not something

19 I can do adequately, and I am keen to lighten the burden

20 on myself, to be honest.

21 You will have seen that we request your Lordship’s

22 view on appropriateness of solicitors and counsel being

23 instructed on this narrow basis. I don’t know if there

24 is a lot of doubt on your Lordship’s mind on that.

25 I would submit that this is perfectly normal in abnormal

121 123
1 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Yes, and I’m very grateful to you. 1 circumstances, such as a massive trial of this kind
2 Thank you. I don’t think I shall ask any more questions 2 where one of the sides is acting as litigants in person.
3 myself, because I think this witness has done her best 3 I don’t know if your Lordship would be assisted by
4 as an economist, and perhaps as a lawyer may not be able 4 that. Again, perhaps your Lordship or somebody else can
5 to take it much further. No further questions? 5 find more precedent for that, but in the case of
6 MR LORD: No, my Lord, sorry, no. 6 Steel and Morris v UK, there are obviously — it is not
7 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Ms Mironova, that concludes your 7 a best example, because obviously that was a trial which
8 examination. It has been a long process, but I am 8 did not succeed in ensuring a fair trial, but still
9 grateful to you for your evidence. There we are. Thank 9 an unsuccessful attempt is something to take into
10 you. You are released. 10 account, and there are references to counsel being
11 (The witness withdrew) 11 instructed in that big trial between two litigants in
12 MR LORD: My Lord, would it be possible to have a break for 12 person and a massive corporation, McDonald’s heavily
13 the transcribers and we could maybe attend to 13 represented by lawyers. The court did give permission
14 the housekeeping matters. 14 for counsel to appear for specific cross-examinations
15 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: I’m so sorry, you are right. It has 15 and to be instructed for specific cross-examinations.
16 gone on. So a 10-minute break. What do we have next 16 If I could, I think I will find the reference there
17 today? We have some housekeeping matters, do we? 17 in a moment. I am sorry, my Lord, for being slow,
18 MR LORD: Yes, there was the e-mail last night which 18 I only just printed that out, but I do remember the
19 your Lordship indicated might need to be considered 19 references being there.
20 today. 20 I think starting at paragraph 64 at page 19, the
21 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Yes. 21 European Court sets out the background in terms of
22 MR LORD: And it probably overlaps with issues of 22 complexity of the proceedings.
23 timetabling, really, in case management, in terms of who 23 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Yes, I saw that. There was a sort of
24 is doing what in this case and when. 24 introduction in paragraph 51.
25 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Thank you. 25 MR STROILOV: Yes, my Lord. Yes, I think in paragraph 50
122 124
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

April 6, 2016 Day 34

1 there is a reference to lawyers assisting the applicants 1 So in that respect, I think, my Lord, we are in your
2 on and off, working pro bono on some discrete occasions, 2 hands. I think the options you have have been
3 on eight days in connection with five applications: 3 identified. You can issue summons. Obviously what we
4 «During the main trial, submissions were made by 4 would invite you to do is now, as before, to split off
5 lawyers on their behalf on only three occasions. It was 5 the issue of business valuations. Alternatively, simply
6 difficult for sympathetic lawyers to volunteer help 6 to direct that whereas reports will be relied on, there
7 because the case was too complicated for someone else 7 shall be no cross-examination of either expert.
8 just to dip into.» 8 I think the only material change which I need to
9 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Yes. 9 update your Lordship on is that contrary to what
10 MR STROILOV: So my Lord, that suggests in that litigation 10 I indicated before, to the effect that we would not be
11 where it was possible, the court would give permission 11 able to cross-examine Mr Popov at all unless Mr Steadman
12 for lawyers to be instructed on a limited basis where it 12 is available, I think now Ms Simonova very helpfully has
13 was possible to find a sufficiently discrete issue. 13 indicated that if we have to cross-examine Mr Popov, she
14 That is, I am afraid, the only — 14 would be able to help with that, so that’s very kind.
15 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: You say it is implicit in that? 15 So in the event your Lordship decides it is fair to
16 MR STROILOV: Indeed, yes, that is what I say. I am afraid 16 permit the cross-examination of Mr Popov, despite the
17 that’s the only — that’s not a perfect precedent, but 17 difficulties we have with Mr Steadman, we will do our
18 that’s the only one I have been able to find for 18 best. I would still submit that puts us at
19 a dilemma of this kind. 19 a significant disadvantage. Effectively we have one
20 So, my Lord, on that basis, I would invite 20 expert against two on their side, but in the event
21 your Lordship to give permission for cross-examination 21 your Lordship is against me on that, we will be able to
22 of Mr Millard to be carried out on that basis. 22 do our best with Mrs Simonova on that.
23 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: And that would be on Friday, as it is 23 If that is the decision, there may be some further
24 presently proposed? 24 issues on the timetable, because we would obviously then
25 MR STROILOV: No, my Lord, that would be next Tuesday. This 25 want Mr Popov to be scheduled for the time when
125 127
1 Friday is our expert, Ms Simonova. 1 Mrs Simonova is available, but I think it may be
2 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: I’m sorry, I got it muddled. 2 premature to make submissions on that.
3 MR STROILOV: And in the ideal world I would have preferred 3 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: With apologies, and recognition that
4 really Mr Milner to deal with that too, but for 4 I gobble these things up, can you give me a fresh copy
5 logistical reasons it is not possible, so what is 5 of the most recent revised trial timetable, please?
6 proposed is that I would call Ms Simonova and re-examine 6 MR STROILOV: I hope my learned friends can assist. I am
7 her if necessary, but then Mr Milner takes over for the 7 not sure I have one. I may have one on the computer,
8 cross-examination of Mr Millard. 8 but that’s not very helpful.
9 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: On the Tuesday? 9 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: That’s all right. I have one from
10 MR STROILOV: Yes, that’s right, my Lord. 10 23 March. When can Ms Simonova be available for
11 I think the second issue which probably calls for 11 cross-examination, if it takes place, of Mr Popov?
12 resolution today is you may have seen the letter from 12 MR STROILOV: Essentially, given the flexibility which we
13 Mr Steadman. 13 may have, I think the best option for us would be
14 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Yes. 14 towards the end of next week, moving Ms Yatvetsky
15 MR STROILOV: A new letter. Essentially we have brought to 15 a little further, although I think that’s not perfect in
16 his attention the transcript where your Lordship made 16 the sense of translators being unavailable, and then we
17 observations and invited submissions on the possibility 17 run the risk of there being a difficulty.
18 of the summons, and with this in mind he was asked to 18 But obviously she is here, she will be here for her
19 reconsider whether some acceptable price might be agreed 19 own cross-examination, for that of Mr Millard, and
20 for him to appear voluntarily. As you will have seen, 20 I understand that it is possible for her to stay
21 unfortunately his position is unchanged. I think there 21 a little longer.
22 has been an indication in oral discussions, not a very 22 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: We run out of translators on the 19th,
23 clear statement, but an indication that if summons are 23 as I recall.
24 issued, then Alvarez & Marsal may well seek to seek 24 MR STROILOV: Indeed, my Lord, but I think it has been
25 summons aside, but that was no more than an indication. 25 indicated that Mr Popov requires translations as well.
126 128
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

April 6, 2016 Day 34

1 With apologies, I think if your Lordship makes a ruling

2 that Mr Popov should be called, I would need to take

3 some further instructions on availability of

4 Mrs Simonova. I only had some very general indications

5 that she is ready to do it.

6 And of course, one possibility is for us is to

7 discuss matters with her, to prepare cross-examination

8 by the phone, or by e-mail, and then do it on our own.

9 Then if the cross-examination of Mr Popov is to take

10 place, then another thing, at least I would like to

11 consider, is whether, perhaps, that could also be —

12 well, the instructions of Mr Milner might be extended to

13 cover that as well. That’s, at least my personal

14 preference would be that, but then there are issues of

15 whether Mr Milner is prepared to do it, given the

16 shortage of time, and whether it is affordable for the

17 defendants.

18 So I am sorry to take it in this — well, not to

19 give you the complete range of options, but I would

20 welcome a ruling in principle on Mr Popov, and then

21 I would need to take additional instructions, I am

22 afraid.

23 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Yes.

24 MR STROILOV: So, my Lord, I think these are the most urgent

25 housekeeping issues from my point of view. Perhaps if

1 the trial in relation to representation and conduct and

2 so on, which would obviously include, amongst other

3 things, but most pressingly, timetabling.

4 So there would be those ways of approaching it,

5 really, so it takes it in stages as to the application

6 made in the e-mail, or presaged in the e-mail.

7 We are not entirely sure what is proposed; whether

8 it is proposed that Withers are going to come on the

9 record. I am having checked, but I don’t know the

10 answer, as to whether you can come onto the record for

11 a limited purpose. You can obviously come on for

12 a limited period of time and then you can apply to come

13 off the record, but I am just checking my Lord, whether

14 it is possible for a solicitor to come onto the record

15 with all that that implies, for just one discrete

16 purpose, and just to test that, let’s say that ancillary

17 matters arose in relation to that purpose. Let’s say

18 disclosure issues arose or something else arose on that

19 day or days or weeks, depending on how long this period

20 is envisaged, it’s unclear at the moment what the status

21 would be in terms of conducting the case over that time,

22 given that as things stand at the moment, I think

23 Mr Stroilov has been licensed to conduct the case and to

24 do the advocacy. So I am not sure that we know exactly

25 how this application is envisaged, because it does seem

129 131

1 my learned friend raises anything in addition to that,

2 I may say a few words in reply.

3 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Yes.

4 Yes, Mr Lord, what do you say about all this?

5 MR LORD: My Lord, just taking the first point first, the

6 question of the application for Mr Milner and Withers to

7 play a part in the case.

8 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Yes.

9 MR LORD: Obviously a party — solicitors can come and go on

10 to the record and they can instruct counsel, that is

11 obviously right.

12 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Yes.

13 MR LORD: Your Lordship is aware of the context for all

14 this, and in my submission, this e-mail last night

15 raises probably a number of points, but I could

16 identify, I think, four.

17 One is, obviously, the immediate application, and

18 I will come back to what that is, ie to have solicitors

19 on the record and a barrister cross-examine; secondly,

20 what that application may throw up in terms of

21 retrospective matters, which is probably more a matter

22 for submission, given that by definition those have

23 already come and gone; then thirdly and fourthly may

24 elide, really prospectively what does this application

25 portend, if anything, in terms of the remainder of

1 to us to be potentially problematic for a litigant to be

2 able, if you like, to select what aspects of litigation

3 or proceedings they are going to take part in in this

4 way.

5 I am not saying that that is what is happening, but

6 your Lordship can see that coming on the record for

7 a defined purpose may raise certain questions and,

8 really, as part of that, it would be — it may be

9 relevant for your Lordship to consider what is proposed

10 going forward. Is it proposed that letters would be

11 addressed to Withers? Is it proposed that they will

12 handle other bits of the case when they are on the

13 record? Is it proposed that they are going to come off,

14 they are going to apply to come off the record and then

15 go back on for another witness, for somebody else, for

16 cross-examination of another witness?

17 It is unclear to us what is really being proposed

18 here, because on the face of it a party can apply to

19 have solicitors on the record and counsel can be

20 instructed and that can happen. So it’s really to

21 establish what’s being proposed, because it seems to be

22 as much to limit what’s happening, or the scope of

23 what’s happening, as for it to happen in the first

24 place, as it were, and so we would respectfully suggest

25 that there needs to be a little bit of clarity as to

130 132
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

April 6, 2016 Day 34

1 what is actually being proposed, and it may be of more

2 concern the idea that a party can just come onto the

3 record very fleetingly for a particular purpose, and

4 then leave of their own selection, and then come back on

5 again, possibly, at a later date. That may raise its

6 own questions.

7 Really, those are more of a concern in the light of

8 what Mr Stroilov has just said about the

9 cross-examination, which appears as if the roles are

10 expanding a bit here, and that Mr Milner might be able

11 to do a bit more cross-examination. Again, it is not

12 quite clear how that is all going to fit together, and

13 who will be on the record and how that will all be sort

14 of plugged into things, and how that will fit that the

15 licence Mr Stroilov has been given to conduct the case

16 up to now.

17 We have a number of queries about that. Further

18 queries would be obviously when this was first decided.

19 It is plain from the e-mail that it can’t have been

20 decided in very short order. There must be a lead time

21 here of checking things out and getting instructions and

22 agreeing things in principle, and we infer that this

23 process may have taken some time.

24 I raise that for this reason: that we have all been

25 proceeding up until last night, quite late, 10.00, on

1 obviously, in principle, solicitors can come on the

2 record and they can instruct barristers, but it is not

3 so clear the court can say: well, actually, you can just

4 come on and go off. I am not saying whether that can or

5 cannot happen, but seems to be —

6 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Who is going to answer that question?

7 I don’t know what the answer is. Obviously in

8 the broadest terms there is something less satisfactory

9 than the optimum in solicitors and counsel helicoptering

10 in and shooting off and then helicoptering back,

11 obviously, but as we have frequently agreed, I think,

12 this is a very curious and exceptional case.

13 The question, I think, the way I would look at it,

14 is there any actual impediment to doing that and are

15 there practical consequences which would lead to

16 prejudice or unfairness.

17 I also have to ask, I think, whether there is any

18 limitation in terms of the regulations or anything else,

19 but to those three questions, I am afraid I am ignorant.

20 MR LORD: My Lord, really, as your Lordship can tell from my

21 submissions, I am not opposing the idea, I am not in any

22 way opposing the idea that Withers come on the record

23 and solicitors —

24 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: What does it mean and how much is it

25 for?

133

1 a basis, including timetabling, including when witnesses

2 will come and what down-time will be allowed, and so on.

3 It’s all been done on a basis that Mr Stroilov is going

4 to be doing all the cross-examination, and then having

5 put that timetable together and built in sort of spaces,

6 we are then told at 10.00 last night that actually there

7 are going to be barristers coming to play these sorts of

8 roles.

9 So there will be questions, there will be

10 submissions as to what has happened and the premises

11 that are applied historically, but we are where we are,

12 but we do suggest that this needs to be clarified, we

13 need to establish what’s going to happen, and the

14 defendants should really level with the court and

15 explain to the court what’s going to happen between now

16 and the end of this case, and who is going to perform

17 what roles, and we can check that the court is happy

18 with those roles and get them all set up, and we can set

19 a proper timetable, and the matter can be case managed

20 on that informed footing.

21 That really deals with the application and the

22 retrospective, really. The latter is probably for

23 submission purposes, but it may bear upon the way the

24 court approaches and probes this latest suggestion. It

25 deals with the actual application itself, because

135

1 MR LORD: Precisely, my Lord. I have not in the time —

2 I have set in train some attempt to research this. One

3 would expect that Mr Milner and Withers, that they will

4 have checked this out, and it may be, my Lord, that the

5 real problem or the issue would come in terms of trying

6 to leave the record, if you like, come off the record.

7 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: You can only do that with leave, but

8 I imagine I would have the powers that a master would

9 have to sanction them going off the record, I imagine.

10 MR LORD: My Lord, your Lordship will see that we got notice

11 of this last night at 10.00, and we are doing the best

12 we can, I don’t want to make a big deal of it. I don’t

13 want to slow things up. I want to get this trial

14 finished.

15 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: But is the punchline that we are

16 unable to deal with this now?

17 I had the firm impression, Mr Stroilov will correct

18 me, not for the first time, we are slightly living

19 hand-to-mouth here, and Mr Stroilov, in fairness to him,

20 did say that he felt great unease, to put it at its

21 lowest, in dealing with the experts — I think that was

22 on 23 March or so, he said that, and one can understand

23 that, but you are quite right, we need to know quite

24 whether it is permissible, which I should have thought

25 it was; how it should be controlled, which I think needs

134 136
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

April 6, 2016 Day 34

1 to be bottomed, and what it may presage in terms of

2 whether and how long they are going to stay on the

3 record, who is going to do the subsequent aspects of

4 the trial, including the written submissions, and what

5 the status of the protocol, lately signed by

6 Mr Stroilov, and the arrangements for notice, et cetera,

7 are. All those things, although tedious in some ways,

8 I think we need to know quite where we are.

9 MR LORD: My Lord, really it was those matters I wanted to

10 flag up so we didn’t tumble into —

11 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Yes, I am not taking it as

12 an objection to having counselled against you, Mr Lord,

13 I am taking it as a perfectly valid reminder to me that

14 one can’t do just whatever one likes; one must do it

15 properly.

16 MR LORD: Your Lordship puts it very nicely. I wouldn’t be

17 as impertinent as that but I don’t want to go along with

18 something and then have someone say, your Lordship or

19 someone else say: what was going on here? Did nobody

20 think of this rule? This can’t happen. You can’t come

21 on the record and off the record as you see fit, or if

22 you do do that, it has to be done in this way. I don’t

23 want us to sort of sleep-walk into that situation, and

24 I have not had time to bottom that out.

25 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: You would put it very much more

1 and what’s going to happen as a matter of fact and

2 practice.

3 But going forward, we would ask you to look at the

4 timetabling and to set the timetable on an informed

5 basis. Your Lordship knows the cost of the case, all

6 parties and your Lordship wish to bring this to as swift

7 a conclusion as is reasonably and fairly possible, and

8 this does seem to permit some efficiency. Your Lordship

9 will recollect that part of the reason for drawing out

10 the process was to let Mr Stroilov have enough time to

11 be able to prepare satisfactorily for the next phase of

12 cross-examination.

13 Now, if, in fact, that is going to be carried out by

14 counsel, then the timetable does need, and should be,

15 revisited, and we can do that today, to work out —

16 certainly potentially we can work that out today to see

17 how we might be able to get this matter finished.

18 My Lord, an important point is this: that we agreed

19 that the defendants would call Ms Simonova first, ahead

20 of Mr Millard, on the basis of trying to accommodate

21 things into a timetable reflecting Mr Stroilov’s

22 position, so that he had some time to recover to

23 cross-examine Mr Millard. That was the basis upon which

24 we agreed to it, to not call Mr Millard on Friday. He

25 was meant to come on Friday, he has had to interrupt his

137 139
1 properly, I’m sure, by saying you need to check the 1 holiday next week, and it would be my submission that he
2 jurisdiction, unlikely to be a problem, but any 2 should still come on Friday, as things now stand, that
3 discretion has to be exercised judicially and in 3 that was agreed on a particular basis, and the idea was,
4 accordance with any relevant rules, and we don’t know 4 we would both have a day —
5 what the relevant rules are. 5 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: We don’t want to throw all the cards
6 MR LORD: Exactly, my Lord. And that is the rules that we 6 up, do we — I mean, I don’t know what Mr Milner — what
7 can look at but this is a case now where there are some 7 the conditions or circumstances in which Mr Milner has
8 lawyers on the other side of the court now, so one would 8 agreed to do this, and you don’t, and I don’t know
9 expect and one can expect that some of this burden now 9 whether Mr Stroilov does, and he can tell me, but it may
10 goes back to the applicant, as it were. So that’s the 10 be that if we said to Mr Milner: you are on on Friday,
11 law side, the rules, but there’s also the facts. 11 that he would be in a great difficulty.
12 There’s also what’s actually going on here and you would 12 The trouble is with throwing everything up in
13 expect, my Lord, this to be explained, whether it is in 13 the air is that you then have no idea where the pieces
14 a letter from Withers, whether it is in a little witness 14 are going to land.
15 statement from Withers, it has to be that — you would 15 MR LORD: My Lord, I am not suggesting that at all, but we
16 expect they would explain to the court what they have in 16 are in a position now where we know — with respect —
17 mind, what they propose. There’s nothing unfair about 17 we know the pieces now, we seem to know the pieces. We
18 that. 18 now seem to know the position with Mr Steadman.
19 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: No, I will ask Mr Stroilov, and the 19 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: We don’t really. On Mr Steadman, as
20 power of the idea was probably sufficiently attractive, 20 it seems to me — I haven’t refreshed my research on
21 it may be that what shape would have to be given to it 21 this — but I would rather expect that if the defendants
22 may not have been bottomed. 22 wish me to issue any summons for Mr Steadman, knowing
23 MR LORD: Yes, and my Lord, in terms of the case — and 23 what I know, they should make an application to me.
24 their looking prospectively, that may be scooped by this 24 I mean, it is ultimately for the court to issue the
25 enquiry as to the rules, the discretions, the controls 25 summons, but I shouldn’t have thought that I can
138 140
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

April 6, 2016 Day 34

1 properly just go running round summoning whoever I want.

2 I would have thought I would have to do it on the

3 request — I wouldn’t have to, but it would be unusual

4 for me to intercede in the matter without a request.

5 MR LORD: My Lord, just picking that up. Do you have the

6 letter there, the letter that Mr Steadman wrote?

7 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: I knew you would ask me that and

8 I feel great embarrassment that I can’t find that

9 either. I am sure it is here, but I am not quite sure

10 where, I am very sorry.

11 MR LORD: The way it was left, my Lord, is we had

12 a protracted discussion about this issue of the business

13 experts before Easter, and Mr Stroilov, for at least the

14 second time, tried to get the splitting off done. We

15 had a long debate about whether that was viable and so

16 on, and it lasted probably several hours, and he now

17 appears to want to argue that for a third time. The way

18 it was left before Easter was as follows. Your Lordship

19 said to Mr Stroilov, that the witness summons procedure

20 was available — I am paraphrasing now — the witness

21 summons procedure was available as something of a — as

22 an incentive or an inducement, however one wanted to

23 characterise it, and that I think it was left that if

24 the defendants wanted to compel Mr Steadman to come,

25 they were going to take up the suggestion that this

1 the basis that — basically, that if the defendants were

2 not going to — simplifying it, if the defendants were

3 not going to pay the fees that this professional witness

4 asked for, with whatever negotiation or persuasion that

5 they deployed to get to that end point, then we

6 discussed, and your Lordship raised the prospect,

7 potentially, of a witness summons, and made it quite

8 clear that that would be for the defendants to have

9 issued, and that would, of course, then prompt

10 a response from the expert and there may or may not be

11 an attempt to set the summons aside.

12 Yes, page 103, line 21.

13 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Yes, it is 104, 1 to 4, really.

14 {Day31/104:1-4}.

15 MR LORD: That’s right. So I think we were expecting that

16 if, in fact — and your Lordship knows our position.

17 There is — and I am not going to re-argue it, because

18 we have made the submissions. In our submission, very

19 simply, there is enough money to pay for Mr Steadman.

20 Money has been found now for Withers and Mr Milner.

21 £10,000 has been offered to Mr Steadman, and it has

22 prompted the letter that we have seen and I was going to

23 take your Lordship to.

24 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Yes.

25 MR LORD: So our position is that none of this is really

141

1 might be a way of lubricating the position, they would

2 get on and issue the witness summons, and I think

3 your Lordship had in mind that last week — again, I am

4 going from memory, I think it was left, well, really,

5 once the court office was again open, we would get on

6 and we would — and that would happen.

7 In fact what’s happened, my Lord, is that we have

8 this —

9 MR STROILOV: I would suggest you don’t go from memory and

10 it’s better to look at the transcript, because —

11 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: I’m trying to remember when it was.

12 I think it was on the 23rd, Day 31. You are quite

13 right, we did go round and round on the problem.

14 MR LORD: I have Tuesday in my mind. I don’t know which

15 Tuesday it was, but I have it in mind.

16 We were in court on Wednesday and I think — Day 31.

17 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: It’s the 23rd. I think it was the

18 last day of term. I think it was the Wednesday.

19 MR LORD: Day 31, page 101 to 102. Yes, in particular line

20 18 on page 102 {Day31/102:18}. Your Lordship makes

21 observations at page 100 to 101.

22 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Yes.

23 MR LORD: I’m grateful for Mr Stroilov’s intervention, but

24 I think probably I was broadly right. That’s how it was

25 left, rightly or wrongly, that’s how we left things: on

143

1 necessary because there is the money available. So the

2 court shouldn’t be placed in any difficult position or

3 put under any sort of pressure about fairness of trial.

4 I have made those submissions. It is up to

5 the defendants whether they want to pay the money for

6 this expert or not.

7 Going to the second stage, if there really is

8 a finance issue, then the question of a witness summons

9 was raised. I am not saying whether that would or

10 wouldn’t be a proper thing to do, it’s not for me to

11 say, but it was raised by your Lordship and it was left

12 with Mr Stroilov in the way that we have just seen in

13 the transcript, and therefore the ball was in their

14 court.

15 The matter now is really quite simple. The question

16 is: are the defendants going to call Mr Steadman or not,

17 and if they are saying they can’t afford to, then they

18 have to explain why they haven’t issued the witness

19 summons. It’s now Wednesday. It’s two weeks after we

20 had this discussion, and our expert, Mr Popov, works

21 with Deloittes in Russia. Now, in fairness, he need to

22 be told when he is coming and what day. There really

23 isn’t any basis any more, in our submission, for the

24 court to be, if you like, worrying about this. It’s

25 certainly not for the court to be issuing the witness

142 144
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

April 6, 2016 Day 34

1 summons if it is of the court’s own motion; it must be

2 for the defendants.

3 So we do say that, really, the ordinary position

4 should apply, and what the defendants can’t do, my Lord,

5 putting it rather bluntly, is to engineer or to achieve,

6 or try to achieve, some sort of complaint about the

7 fairness, which we had again from Mr Stroilov in these

8 circumstances, because that would be a quite unwarranted

9 complaint about the process. We have spent an awful

10 long time now debating this issue and how it might be

11 resolved, and there is money that could be found for it

12 and there is another mechanism that could be deployed,

13 potentially.

14 In fairness, we really ought to wrap this up and we

15 should put a date in the diary for Mr Popov and we

16 should move on on the basis that the defendants are not

17 seeking to bring Mr Steadman to court. That would be on

18 the point of Mr Steadman and the reason that is relevant

19 is that raises Mr Popov, and we are now told that

20 actually he will be cross-examined, so he is required to

21 come, and that, I am afraid, does circle back to

22 the timetable, which I know your Lordship wants to deal

23 with. Do we have a…

24 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Is that the 23 March one?

25 MR LORD: What happened, my Lord —

1 MR LORD: And that raised the question of Mr Popov and the

2 Russian law experts, and it is still not clear who is

3 going to be doing that cross-examination. We were

4 trying very much, my Lord, to get that all finished that

5 week. We are conscious that your Lordship, I think has

6 a trial the next week, the 25th I think we were told on

7 the last occasion, so we were seeing if we could

8 complete the evidence on this timetable. Looking at it

9 now, the court should still, in my submission, be trying

10 to save time where we can. There is a question about

11 Ms Simonova and Mr Millard, and your Lordship may say it

12 is too late now, and that will be a matter for — well,

13 if you like, that has been set up on one basis, and the

14 basis has now been changed.

15 But, my Lord, there is a question, really, which is

16 time estimates, because we agreed to swap things round

17 on the basis that each valuer would be one day, and what

18 would not be fair is that I squeeze my cross-examination

19 in to one — it will be a long day with Ms Simonova,

20 I should tell your Lordship that, it will probably be

21 a 9.30 to 4.30 day, or 9.45 to 4.30 day, but I was going

22 to do that and I was going to pare it down in order to

23 fit into this timetable which I agreed two weeks ago on

24 a certain premise: that we had to get this finished and

25 I was going to cut my cloth accordingly.

145 147

1 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: I think I have that one, mine is all

2 full of scrawls and I got wrong who was coming.

3 (Handed).

4 Yes, that is the one I have.

5 MR LORD: I think, my Lord, this was a draft revision that

6 my solicitors have done but not circulated, trying to —

7 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: I see. So you have Ms Simonova on the

8 right date whereas I have Mr Millard on the 8th.

9 MR LORD: That’s exactly right, because Mr Millard was meant

10 to be coming on the 8th, but at the last timetabling

11 discussion we had, which was probably on the 23rd — so

12 Mr Millard was meant to be coming on Friday, but in

13 order to accommodate Mr Stroilov, we agreed that we

14 would switch the valuation experts around to give him

15 time to prepare so that Ms Simonova —

16 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Yes, and then he wanted Ms Yatvetsky,

17 or Goncharuk, on the Friday but not the Thursday,

18 I think.

19 MR LORD: Well, we wanted her to come on — Ms Goncharuk is

20 coming on the Thursday. That’s right, Mr Stroilov

21 wanted her on the Friday, but out of caution, and

22 because the translators aren’t around after the 19th —

23 your Lordship will recollect we had a debate where

24 I sought to hold the line in terms of using week 12.

25 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Yes.

1 What will not be acceptable or fair is having

2 switched the order of the expert valuers on a premise

3 that has turned out not to be right, then Mr Millard’s

4 cross-examination lasts longer than a day on the basis

5 that Mr Milner has as long as he needs to do that. We

6 are going to have to get a bit of equity back into this

7 case and to work out how long these slots are going to

8 be and there is a question still, on the Monday, we have

9 Mr Guriev and Mr Turetsky. I assume that

10 Professor Guriev is coming on the Monday.

11 MR STROILOV: Yes, I believe he is, yes. Well, so far as

12 I am aware, well that’s obviously — that was the

13 intention and we haven’t had any change to the position

14 since last time.

15 MR LORD: Well, my Lord, one might have expected there to be

16 a more direct line in to this witness to double-check.

17 Be that as it may, we do need to know now who is going

18 to be cross-examining the remaining witnesses: is

19 Mr Stroilov going to be cross-examining Mr Turetsky?

20 Who is going to be cross-examining Ms Yatvetsky and who

21 is going to be cross-examining Mr Popov and

22 Professor Maggs, because then we can decide, with the

23 greatest respect, we can then decide whether we have to

24 stand over any of this evidence for, if you like, the

25 recovery time of the McKenzie friend, whether we don’t

146 148
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

April 6, 2016 Day 34

1 need to do that — in fact, if anything, it is me who

2 needs recovery time, because I am doing most of this

3 cross-examination, and the other side, they are

4 splitting it between junior counsel and Mr Stroilov and

5 they are passing the baton, and the serious point,

6 really, is that we can get this timetable, we can pick

7 up some pace here and we can save some of the time that

8 has been lost through the pace that we have taken up to

9 Easter.

10 So, my Lord, it is as much a sort of plea to try and

11 get this fairly and efficiently wrapped up going forward

12 so we all know where we stand, your Lordship knows what

13 the timetable is and we can pencil in witnesses, and

14 since Mr Milner is now cross-examining, we can actually

15 reasonably, without any concern, start to confine

16 cross-examination to slots, and say: well, one day is

17 enough. You can have a long day if you need to, but one

18 day is enough for that cross-examination, as it were.

19 My Lord, those are my timetabling points, really, to

20 try and map this out. If Mr Stroilov is going to do

21 Ms Yatvetsky and Mr Milner is going to end up doing

22 Mr Millard, as it were, then Ms Yatvetsky could come on

23 the 13th. There is no reason why, for example, she

24 shouldn’t come on that date, so she will be finished by

25 the 15th, because obviously …

1 done it to my satisfaction. I doubt that I could

2 without assistance. That is at {Day31/99:1}.

3 So far as the examination of Mr Millard is

4 concerned, I need to hear from Mr Stroilov what the

5 practical parameters are. I have no idea whether, even

6 now, Mr Milner is burrowing away, or whether he is in

7 court somewhere. I don’t know what his situation is,

8 and we can’t, in any event, answer that until we have

9 a better grounding as to the relevant rules as to

10 whether the sort of darting in and out of the record is

11 permissible, and as to what its repercussions are.

12 I am taking it that Mr Guriev will be there on

13 Monday, and I had imagined that Mr Turetsky would be

14 cross-examined by Mr Stroilov; is that right?

15 MR STROILOV: Well, my Lord, I think I indicated just before

16 Easter that I am not sure, and I am afraid I am not sure

17 still. In a way, it depends on what your Lordship

18 decides. Well, my time will come for the reply. In

19 a way, it depends on what your Lordship decides in

20 relation to permission for legal representatives to come

21 on board.

22 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Well, have you done some research into

23 that? There is no implied criticism if you have not,

24 but I do not want to simply — I will start again.

25 Of course it will be nice to have Mr Milner here,

149 151

1 Or we could have Mr Popov. Mr Popov could come on

2 one of those days, but certainly on one of those days

3 before the 19th.

4 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: It’s probably because I am at the end

5 of the day, but I think that too many suggestions

6 destroys the validity of all of them.

7 MR LORD: No, my Lord, all I’m really saying is that we are

8 now on the 6th, Wednesday the 6th.

9 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Yes. Can I just say this: that I have

10 just been looking at the transcript for Day 31, and

11 I held over the question as to whether Ms Yatvetsky

12 should start on the 14th or the 15th. I think that the

13 presumption was that we would try and start on the 14th,

14 unless Mr Stroilov, for whatever reason, convinced me at

15 a later time that that was quite impossible.

16 MR LORD: That’s right, yes.

17 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: I think that is transcript

18 {Day31/98:1}, so that is the position in her regard.

19 So far as Mr Popov is concerned, I must fess up that

20 I have not completed, and I don’t think I could

21 realistically complete without further submission,

22 a determination, if an application is made, for whether

23 the expert evidence of business matters, that is to say

24 Mr Popov and Mr Steadman, should, in fairness, be

25 separated off. I said I would look at that. I have not

1 nice for you and assistance to me, because he will have,

2 no doubt, focused more exclusively on this aspect of

3 the matter and you have always made clear that you have

4 felt particularly anxious about cross-examining the

5 valuation experts. But I can’t, just because something

6 is nice does not mean that I can do it. I have to work

7 out the jurisdiction I have and the rules which I should

8 have in mind in allowing it. My previous position is to

9 permit, if I can, but subject to whatever rules there

10 may be.

11 MR STROILOV: Yes. My Lord, obviously it has been done in

12 McDonald’s v Steel. There is no known rule whereby it

13 cannot be done. I assume that since — well, I think

14 I am not giving away any big secret, and without waiving

15 privilege, obviously the request for your Lordship to

16 indicate your position on that, that is informed and

17 inspired by Withers, who are obviously concerned

18 precisely by what is proposed by Mr Lord: that they come

19 on the record for one day to enable Mr Milner to appear,

20 and then they are told: well, okay, now you are on, you

21 have duties from A to Z.

22 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: They are asking for my reassurance?

23 MR STROILOV: Indeed, my Lord.

24 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: But if they are asking for my

25 reassurance, they must tell me what I am doing.

150 152
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

April 6, 2016 Day 34

1 MR STROILOV: On the ordinary principles, there seems to be

2 absolutely no obstacle to us instructing Withers in

3 the morning and then serving a notice of acting in

4 person in the evening of the same day. On kind of

5 the basic parameters of how solicitors are being

6 instructed and come on the record and off the record,

7 there is nothing to prevent us doing that. Simply,

8 I think as a courtesy, really, well, since it is unusual

9 and this trial is unusual, well, we really want some

10 view from your Lordship as to whether you would be happy

11 with that and so that no one is proceeding on a false

12 premise of really there being solicitors on the record

13 in the proper sense. It is just that, well, I don’t

14 feel I am up to speed and I am able to do Mr Millard

15 adequately on that day.

16 So rather than go back to your Lordship and complain

17 that I am not able to do that and the court must do

18 something about it, well, we try to find some solution

19 which would be helpful.

20 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: And I am grateful for it, Mr Stroilov,

21 but I think it is a little demanding for Withers

22 understandably to want reassurance, but not to tell me

23 what I am reassuring them about. One isn’t — I mean,

24 I have no idea whether the SRA has rules on this, I have

25 no idea whether there are provisions in the rules as to

1 I do not even know what the relevant form exposes you to

2 when you go on the record. I just don’t know. I don’t

3 know whether you are able to say when you go on the

4 record that your responsibilities to the client and to

5 the court relate only to the particular venture with

6 which you have involved yourself. I don’t even know

7 what — I’m sorry about this, but I just do not know.

8 I do not know if it says, you know, when you take on all

9 the responsibilities expected of a solicitor, whether

10 you can say: except in this case when my

11 responsibilities will be limited to X.

12 I don’t know, and until I know, I don’t feel that it

13 would be appropriate to sort of get out some imagined

14 judicial wand and say: it’s all right. Do you see?

15 I just want to know what I am doing.

16 MR LORD: Sorry, my Lord, just on that point, there is no

17 reason why Withers couldn’t explain the position. There

18 should be no difficulty here. If they want a certain

19 role in the litigation, putting it more neutrally, going

20 forward, with counsel instructed in certain roles going

21 forward, then subject to privilege, those should be

22 explained. We are now talking about who is going to be

23 doing what for another fortnight or so of the trial.

24 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Well, I agree with both of you, if

25 I may say so. I think Mr Stroilov is right that

153 155
1 the basis on which intermediate liabilities or exposures 1 ultimately it is a matter for Withers to be satisfied
2 are attracted by coming onto the record. I plead 2 that they are not breaking any professional rule in
3 ignorance in this regard. I just do not know. I would 3 seeking what they seek, but it is a matter for Withers
4 expect to be instructed. 4 to explain to me with precision what it is that they do
5 Obviously there’s something niggling away at 5 seek, and the form in which they are seeking it. They
6 Withers. What is it? What is it that I should be 6 must state, I think, the basis on which they are coming
7 concerned about? I’m perfectly prepared to give 7 on the record, and the reasons why their limited
8 reassurance if I know what I am doing and that it is not 8 responsibilities — in time, at any rate — which they
9 in breach of any sort of rules that I should know about, 9 are assuming, are being undertaken.
10 or what. I take seriously their need for reassurance. 10 I have indicated, and I don’t understand this to be
11 MR STROILOV: Of course, my Lord. As I understand we are 11 opposed in substance, I have indicated that if I can do
12 not asking your Lordship, really, to advise us or 12 this, even though I dislike the notion and would not
13 Withers on their professional obligations. 13 wish to encourage it in other than the most exceptional
14 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: You are rather, aren’t you, because 14 cases, the sort of helicoptering that I have described,
15 they have a worry, and I don’t know what it is. 15 because that could be very open to serious abuse, if in
16 MR STROILOV: I think, really, what we are worried about on 16 a particular case it is warranted, and my predisposition
17 their behalf, and all I am saying is that this is 17 is that I would be predisposed to permit this in this
18 informed by our discussions with them, is that quite 18 case, well and good, but I must know what is happening.
19 apart from their professional duties, which is obviously 19 I am not even against saying that — unless someone
20 a matter for them, and them alone, whether your Lordship 20 advises me to the contrary — that I would take on the
21 would have any particular concerns about them really 21 powers of a master with respect to the release of the —
22 coming — being instructed for these very limited 22 whatever you say when someone comes off the record, even
23 purposes to enable Mr Milner to appear on one particular 23 though I know the application is, as it were, made at
24 day, and then — 24 the very same time that the application to come on the
25 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: The level of my ignorance is such that 25 record is made. I just want to know what the position
154 156
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

April 6, 2016 Day 34

1 is, and I want reassurance that Withers have not said:

2 we feel awkward about this, let’s get the judge to say

3 it’s all all right. I want to know that they have

4 bottomed it and they have considered their position,

5 that they have consulted their regulatory body, if that

6 is what they are concerned about, and that everything

7 has been properly thought out, because however laudable

8 the objective, and for the moment I accept it as

9 laudable, I can’t just do what I feel like doing from

10 time to time.

11 MR LORD: My Lord, can I just pick up on that? One could

12 test it this way. One could test it very simply with

13 Mr Stroilov’s coming on and off the record for a day for

14 a limited purpose, and I’m not saying whether this is or

15 isn’t permissible, I am just giving it as an example

16 against which one might have to test the proposition.

17 When solicitors and counsel are retained, they are

18 under certain professional obligations. Let’s take one

19 example: let’s say disclosure of documents, let’s just

20 say that, or having a basis for a line of questioning.

21 Let’s take the disclosure of documents. What happens

22 if, while a solicitor is on the record, they learn of

23 various disclosure problems? What then happens? What

24 do they do? Can they ignore their professional duties

25 to advise and so on because they have only come on the

1 this point, and then when that is going to be done,

2 given that, as always, time is of the essence in this

3 litigation, and Friday is bearing down on us rather

4 quickly.

5 So I’m not clear whether it is Mr Stroilov’s

6 position that whatever happens on that Withers and

7 Milner application he will be calling Ms Simonova, in

8 other words, how urgent, when this needs to be signed

9 off, whether it is tonight or tomorrow morning, or what

10 the urgency is to get this new regime in place, and it

11 does depend in part, probably, what’s going to happen

12 for the rest of the case, because we should now be

13 trying to plot what’s going to happen going forward,

14 including, potentially, Mr Popov.

15 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Mr Milner is envisaging

16 cross-examining Mr Millard on the 12th for one

17 potentially long day. No one has suggested to me that

18 more than one day is required.

19 MR LORD: Very well.

20 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: And I agree that, you know, if counsel

21 suddenly turn up and say one day is impossible, then

22 I would hear what they said, because that is my duty to

23 do, but Mr [Stroilov] so far has said he will do it

24 within the one long day and I am taking it, since no one

25 has suggested otherwise, that that will apply to

157 159

1 record for a particular purpose? I am not prejudging

2 that, I am just reserving my client’s position if

3 various obligations which are normally attached to this

4 arrangement are going to be disposed of. There is

5 an upside and a downside.

6 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: The point is well made, Mr Lord, and

7 I would like to know that too. My impression is that

8 Withers are here in order to enable counsel to be here

9 in order for him to do the cross-examination. That is

10 what — my impression is that really because, for

11 whatever reason, Mr Milner is not doing this by direct

12 access, that he needs some solicitor to stand in.

13 That’s my presumption.

14 MR STROILOV: Exactly, my Lord. I am sorry if I haven’t

15 made that clear enough.

16 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: I imagine that Withers don’t expect to

17 do anything except have their name associated with the

18 matter and possibly sent someone in order to notionally

19 be there, which under the new rules even that would not

20 be required.

21 MR STROILOV: Indeed, my Lord, that’s absolutely correct,

22 and I’m sorry if that wasn’t clear from the start.

23 MR LORD: My Lord, that leaves the question practically —

24 I can see your Lordship wants to find a solution here —

25 how we’re going to investigate and then adjudicate on

1 Mr Milner also.

2 MR STROILOV: We are proceeding on that assumption, so

3 obviously if Mr Milner tries to argue differently, he

4 will be told: well, we have always proceeded on

5 a different assumption.

6 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: And the long day in the case of

7 Mr Millard’s cross-examination will be Tuesday the 12th.

8 MR STROILOV: Yes, my Lord.

9 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: The long day in the case of

10 Ms Simonova will be Friday the 8th.

11 MR STROILOV: It will be, my Lord, and I think, just as

12 I have asked for clarification, in any event it will be

13 me calling Mrs Simonova simply because — for a number

14 of —

15 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Reasons.

16 MR STROILOV: — for a number of practical reasons Mr Milner

17 cannot do that, or rather we cannot ask Mr Milner to do

18 it.

19 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Yes, and with the reassurance that you

20 have tomorrow, because we have finished with

21 Ms Mironova, and it is not too much to ask because at

22 least the burden of Mr Millard has been wrested from

23 your shoulders, I think you must work with Withers to

24 send me some written explanation as to the precise

25 application to be made in terms of the basis on which

158 160
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

April 6, 2016 Day 34

1 they come on the record and any regulatory or court

2 rules which may assist me to reassure myself, and

3 therefore them, that this is an appropriate step.

4 MR STROILOV: We will endeavour —

5 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: I think that that must be done during

6 the course of tomorrow, because Friday is a long day, as

7 we’ve discussed, Monday will then bear down on us, and

8 we have to have made a decision appropriately by

9 Tuesday.

10 MR LORD: Yes. My Lord, I would be grateful not to take up

11 Friday, as things stand, with housekeeping. I would be

12 grateful for a clean start so I make sure I finish

13 before everyone has to go home in the afternoon. In

14 other words, tomorrow would be the defendants making

15 whatever submissions and applications they need to make.

16 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: I was trying to make it in writing in

17 order to save you all having to pitch up.

18 MR LORD: I’m very grateful, and it might be the way things

19 stand, the 11th, there would be some time on the

20 Monday — I am just thinking ahead — if normal service

21 is going to continue — well I used «normal» obviously

22 in a loose sense of the word, but your Lordship knows —

23 if the current service is going to continue until at

24 least Friday and the only sort of step change, if I can

25 put it that way, looks as if it is going to be coming

1 just sense that there will be mayhem.

2 MR LORD: We would respectfully endorse the need to get this

3 defined, but, really, practically what that entails,

4 since we are near the end of the trial, is really just

5 to say what — we can see on the timetable who is still

6 to come. Looking at the timetable we now have a handful

7 of witnesses and we have closing submissions, so there

8 should be nothing — I’m not trying to pry into

9 privileged matters, it is really just a question of who

10 is going to be finishing off this case from now on, as

11 it were, for the defendants?

12 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: I think implicit is Mr Stroilov.

13 MR STROILOV: I think I made it reasonably clear that what

14 is proposed is Mr Milner on one particular day,

15 otherwise no change.

16 MR LORD: Sorry, this afternoon Mr Stroilov submitted that

17 Ms Simonova was going to assist with the

18 cross-examination of Mr Popov and that Mr Milner —

19 unless I misheard, that Mr Milner might be able to help

20 with that.

21 MR STROILOV: I said that’s something we might want to

22 consider, but obviously as far as Mr Popov is concerned,

23 and I am rather concerned that it has been repeatedly

24 suggested that your Lordship has resolved this issue,

25 whereas you have not resolved it, really, well, there

161 163

1 next week, it may be possible that we could address this

2 on the Monday when there is more time —

3 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: If that is necessary, but the reason

4 I am prepared, if you are, to deal with it on paper,

5 unless I myself feel it has to be dealt with orally, is

6 at the moment I am regarding it as a matter which

7 requires definition, but which ought not to give rise to

8 difficulty in the end. It just has to be properly

9 defined.

10 MR STROILOV: Indeed, my Lord, and I am just wondering if,

11 perhaps, in a way I am regretting we have put this

12 request. I don’t think we are asking for anything more

13 than an indication of your Lordship’s —

14 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: You are right to put the request.

15 MR STROILOV: But we will formulate that in more detail.

16 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: It is obvious that if encouragement

17 were to be given to solicitors darting in and out of the

18 record, and accepting only temporary responsibilities or

19 limited and discrete adventures, and the court were to

20 say: that’s all right, don’t worry, I’ll discharge you

21 at the end of the day, mayhem could ensue, and I am very

22 anxious to ensure that whatever adjudication I make, it

23 is very much restricted to the particular application

24 and the particular circumstances. Otherwise, for all

25 sorts of reasons which I can’t presently foresee, I can

1 must be a decision in principle first as to what is to

2 be done in relation to business expert evidence.

3 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: I agree. Mr Popov, which I think

4 I described it, probably inelegantly, as cauterised, the

5 position in the previous case, and Mr Steadman, I am

6 beginning to be concerned. I have to, after you have

7 all had your say, having effectively all but completed

8 this evidence on the facts, because Ms Yatvetsky is on

9 an important, but nevertheless discernible area of

10 the case, whether fairness requires the issue of

11 business valuation, if I can put it that way, to be

12 hived off.

13 MR STROILOV: Exactly, my Lord. That’s really something

14 your Lordship needs to decide.

15 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: I know that Mr Lord very much objects

16 to that and if you are going to do it you are going to

17 have to explain exactly on the grounds on which you do

18 so.

19 MR LORD: My Lord, turning it around, it would be unfair —

20 effectively what Mr Stroilov is applying for is on the

21 basis of alleged impecuniosity, and Mr Steadman’s

22 position — I am putting it neutrally — on those

23 various bases, he is suggesting that this court should,

24 in effect, keep out this evidence from the trial because

25 it would be unfair to his clients. So it has two

162 164
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

April 6, 2016 Day 34

1 aspects, really. One is whether those grounds are made

2 out. Is it really unfair? Are the defendants really in

3 a position where it would be unfair for the court to

4 receive evidence of — the permission been given, is it

5 really right, those objections, that’s the third thing.

6 Even if it were right, there’s the next question of

7 fairness to the other party who does want to call that

8 evidence if that evidence, on a view, should be taken

9 into account as part of the current set of

10 adjudications, and your Lordship is absolutely right:

11 the matter is going to have to be decided. We would ask

12 for some guidance as to when we ought to be telling

13 Mr Popov.

14 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: That’s what I’m worried about.

15 MR LORD: It is Mr Popov’s diary really, my Lord. I don’t

16 want to then be told actually, he has to come from

17 Russia and he can’t come and then I will be in the dog

18 house.

19 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: I understand that. The thing is,

20 Mr Steadman’s letter to me, or to you, was basically

21 saying: I said it was 87,500 or thereabouts, discounted

22 by 12.5 per cent already. That was then. It may be

23 more by inclination now. I can’t do it for less. The

24 court could not rely on what I did do if I haven’t been

25 given a proper opportunity to look at all the evidence

1 MR STROILOV: To which it was the claimants’ proposal, on

2 which your Lordship proceeded at the time, that: well,

3 if necessary, that part of the trial can be split off.

4 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Well, I don’t think I said that.

5 I said that I would take carefully into account any

6 possibilities of improving the fairness or securing the

7 fairness of the trial by seeing whether any parts of it,

8 including Mr Popov and the business part, could be split

9 off. I don’t think I gave any indication except the

10 rather limp constant review.

11 MR STROILOV: Indeed, my Lord, but I think what, really,

12 I will be — I am speaking from memory and, again, now,

13 I should be corrected if that’s wrong, but I think there

14 was an indication from the claimants’ side that

15 splitting off that issue would be something they are

16 happy with, if other than that, really, a trial can take

17 place, that was something —

18 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: I don’t recall that.

19 MR STROILOV: I think there was this indication. Well,

20 maybe that’s —

21 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: If there was — I’m not saying

22 you —but I don’t recall it —

23 MR LORD: Sorry, my Lord, we have had this submission made

24 before. Your Lordship and I were debating what in

25 the extreme situation would happen and what might be the

165 167
1 that has been filed. I am busy in the slot. In other 1 various options. It is not to be characterised as my
2 words, the message was: what I’m asking is more than you 2 accepting on that occasion that this was something that
3 could pay; even if you could pay, I’m not available; 3 we were consenting to.
4 three, it is going to take me a long time. That was the 4 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Let me bring a halt to this. On the
5 message. That may be too curt and unfair, but that’s 5 question which I have cauterised as to whether the
6 broadly the message which emerged. 6 Popov/Steadman issues should be postponed and bundled up
7 Now, whether I split off is bound to be affected by 7 and done differently, I have not made a ruling, but
8 the balance of prejudice in doing so. The other side, 8 I would need proper explanation as to why that course is
9 Mr Stroilov, are very keen that I shouldn’t. You are 9 necessary and why the balance of prejudice is in favour
10 very keen that I should, but I am a little bit troubled 10 of it. Amongst the matters to be considered are the
11 that I am being asked to do it for an event which may 11 focus which has been placed on the availability of cash;
12 never be capable of taking place any more fairly than it 12 the attitude of Mr Steadman, which might be thought to
13 is now, because Mr Steadman is saying: I am afraid I’m 13 be: I’m not going to be available for a long, long time
14 going to charge you too much. 14 and it will be expensive; the possibility of the means
15 MR STROILOV: My Lord, if I may address you on that, really. 15 of bringing him to court, in accordance with
16 If we could take a step back and remember really how the 16 Mr Justice Neuberger’s case, and the events in
17 idea arose. Your Lordship will recall that the 17 particular with respect to Mr Bromley-Martin’s evidence
18 submission we made shortly before the trial is that due 18 as to the exact role that the business valuation is
19 to the inequality of arms, for a list of reasons, the 19 going to play in the trial. These are fairly complex
20 trial cannot be fair at all — 20 matters, but I don’t think that I could just guess what
21 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Yes. 21 the result would be. I would have to be guided by each
22 MR STROILOV: — and we proposed various … one of 22 of you.
23 the points identified was that we cannot afford to call 23 MR LORD: Your Lordship will also be aware that the case
24 Mr Steadman. 24 against the Bank of St Petersburg is that this was
25 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Yes. 25 a corporate raid to steal these two valuable companies,
166 168
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

April 6, 2016 Day 34

1 so the value of these companies, in my respectful 1 is advisable. As I say, at least you have the comfort
2 submission, is fairly and squarely in play on all we 2 that you will not have to be preparing for Mr Millard’s
3 have been doing for the last three months. Because if 3 cross-examination, assuming that we can get Mr Milner on
4 in fact these are not, for argument’s sake, these are 4 board.
5 not valuable companies, then that may affect questions 5 MR LORD: My Lord, and it would help, it would be fair, in
6 that don’t just go to quantification, don’t just go to 6 my submission, for the defendants to set out,
7 the business loss counter claim. I just give that one 7 effectively, their application, and we would then
8 example: Mr Popov has looked at the Scan accounts and 8 respond to it. We would look at it and we would set out
9 deals with the City Centre entries. I am not sure if 9 whatever were our objections to that course. So
10 that is all going to be accepted but there are matters 10 your Lordship would have, if you like, in writing the
11 which are germane to your Lordship’s determination of 11 competing arguments, and then a decision could be made.
12 what is in play on any view, and we will obviously set 12 One would hope that it would be a relatively — once the
13 out chapter and verse. 13 matter had been reduced into writing, that that would
14 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: I have an instinctive anxiety about 14 be —
15 splitting off matters, but that too would have to be 15 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: I think you both know what the
16 addressed. 16 parameters are, and I think sequential will just take
17 MR STROILOV: So, my Lord, are you suggesting it is 17 more time. I think you must both — we know where the
18 addressed now or another day? 18 areas are; they are logistical and they are legal,
19 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: I don’t think it would be fair on 19 semi-legal. They are logistical because you say you
20 either of you, because I think it is quite a difficult 20 cannot fruitfully examine Mr Popov without expert
21 point. 21 assistance in the form of Mr Steadman’s guidance. You
22 MR STROILOV: So, my Lord, should we really keep Monday in 22 need to say exactly when Mr Steadman would be available.
23 mind for that, I suppose, as we hope to have some 23 You need to confirm, and this would have to be
24 time … 24 explained, as to whether the basis on which you are
25 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Well, I thought Mr Guriev was slotted 25 going to get him to attend is, in effect, by coercion
169 171

1 in for Monday, and Mr Turetsky, and I thought his

2 availability was precarious.

3 MR STROILOV: Yes, but I think, my Lord, really on

4 estimates, and obviously estimates are estimates, but on

5 what we have agreed, obviously Mr Guriev will need to

6 leave at 11.30 am, and that’s the basis on which he is

7 there. I don’t think — if it is me, and I will do my

8 best to do it, that was one bit which I was thinking of

9 leaving to Mr Arkhangelsky, really, but probably

10 I won’t. I really hope that we will finish with both

11 experts by lunchtime or shortly after, and that leaves

12 much of the afternoon for whatever we have to decide,

13 because there probably won’t be a lot of time for

14 housekeeping later.

15 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: If you think that you, or whoever it

16 is, as between you and Dr Arkhangelsky, who I take to be

17 the two candidates for the moment, that you will finish

18 early on the 11th, Monday the 11th, and you wish us to

19 crystallise whether — your application as to whether

20 the business valuation case can and should be split off,

21 and it is your application, I think —

22 MR STROILOV: Indeed, my Lord, yes.

23 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: — you must, I think, add to your

24 homework for tomorrow an application to that effect, and

25 you will start having to work out the reasons why that

1 under the witness summons, or by paying him what he

2 wants, and when he would be available to discharge that

3 function.

4 You would also have to show that the matters can

5 sensibly be separated off. I suspect that that’s going

6 to be difficult, and if the true nature of your

7 application would be an adjournment of the whole trial.

8 That is as I see it at the moment. Those are issues

9 which are available for discussion from both of you, and

10 both of you need to state what your position is.

11 MR LORD: My Lord, just one final point. One of our points

12 is that Ms Simonova essentially performs a business

13 valuation. Obviously we will come to that on Friday.

14 I have told your Lordship that, and Mr Millard does the

15 land valuation as he was asked to do, but Ms Simonova,

16 we will be submitting, does a business valuation.

17 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Mm.

18 MR LORD: We will come to that on Friday. She has been

19 asked to look at Mr Popov’s first report. Your Lordship

20 saw the instructions that went to her, I think before we

21 broke, the instructions to her where she was asked to

22 look at Mr Popov’s report. So there will be another

23 fairness issue, which is if the defendants are calling

24 a witness who we would say effectively has straddled

25 both these fields of expertise, it would be very unfair

170 172
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

April 6, 2016 Day 34

1 to be keeping out my witness who deals with the business 1 I will remind myself of the real estate, if I can put it
2 valuation approach and such issues in there as may well 2 that way, expert report. Broadly speaking, the business
3 go to what Mrs Simonova has carried out, but that will 3 valuation is the — the business potential of
4 obviously — so Mr Stroilov is not taken by surprise so 4 the companies which you say were taken from you. The
5 that he knows that that will be a further — 5 land is the value of the land which was subject to
6 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: It won’t really be a split of quantum 6 the pledge and whether it was — whether it achieved
7 and liability, or anything like it. It would, in all 7 proper values. That is broadly, as I see it, the
8 practical purposes, really, be an adjournment of 8 division, but I will remind myself of what you say in
9 the trial. 9 the light of what you have said.
10 MR STROILOV: If I may reply to the point made by Mr Lord. 10 MR STROILOV: Yes, my Lord. Well, in any event, I think we
11 I quite strongly object to that. That’s not the case. 11 are clear. We shall have to make an assumption —
12 Really the instructions of Mrs Simonova were to value 12 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: I am afraid I must ask you both
13 the physical assets. 13 tomorrow, in your case, you won’t find a case, I’m
14 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: I think all Mr Lord is meaning, and we 14 grateful for the ECHR report, but not unsurprisingly it
15 mustn’t get into an argument, because it will be very 15 doesn’t really get down to the brass tacks of English
16 interesting to hear what she says and the answers to 16 procedure, and I think if Withers have some concerns
17 the questions that she is asked, but my impression may 17 they must identify them and they must state exactly what
18 be, wrongly, and I will re-read her report, is that she 18 their mandate is to be and their duties consequent upon
19 tends to value the land on the basis of its propensity 19 it and I hope I have made clear my sympathy in this
20 for profit, and that is one basis, whereas, for example, 20 particular case, but my anxiety to ensure that this is
21 other bases simply say what a land bank person would 21 not approved as a general way of carrying on, because
22 want. There are all sorts of ways of valuing. My 22 I think it will lead to a great disruption in
23 initial reaction was that it was the propensity value, 23 the courts.
24 profit propensity value of the land which she was taking 24 So far as the division, whether the Popov/Steadman
25 some account of. 25 evidence should be bundled off to a much later date,
173 175

1 MR STROILOV: My Lord, if I can reply very briefly to that

2 point as has been made against me. Well, the asset

3 valuers, the valuers of real estate, they have several

4 alternative methods to apply and one of them is called

5 «income method». That is used for real estate, which

6 can be used in business. That is the message with which

7 Mr Millard and Mrs Simonova will be very familiar.

8 There is nothing. If her application of that method is

9 to be criticised or her choice of that method is to be

10 criticised, the fair solution is for Mr Millard to do

11 that. That is his role.

12 So what the claimants are effectively asking to

13 have, they are asking to have two experts against one.

14 So Mr Popov is going to criticise her business model

15 which she is using to value the real estate, and then

16 Mr Millard is going to criticise her from a different

17 angle, but that’s what they want. It’s quite wrong to

18 say that she goes into an area where Mr Millard

19 cannot — really cannot usefully assist the claimants or

20 the court, and if she does, well that’s a reason,

21 really, to limit her evidence and not to admit that, if

22 your Lordship is persuaded of that, but it’s not fair to

23 have two on one.

24 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Partly because of the time, and partly

25 because I am concerned that my memory is very imperfect,

1 I would want to know what that date would be, and

2 I would want to know what exactly the reasons for doing

3 that are. My observations are that that wouldn’t really

4 be a quantum liability split. It would, in effect, be

5 an adjournment of the trial split, but I may be wrong in

6 that, in which case you can address that point.

7 Mr Lord has asked that they be sequential. I think

8 time does not really permit that and you must try and

9 get your written submissions to me — I will ask you

10 when you can, and if it is necessary to deal with that

11 also, we will have to find some slot.

12 MR STROILOV: Yes, my Lord.

13 Well, in terms of when it can be done, frankly, if

14 I am to call Mrs Simonova, and I feel I am needed here

15 for that day, or rather someone has to be here on our

16 side, that’s important, well, then I would suggest —

17 obviously your Lordship needs time to read them,

18 otherwise it is a bit of a waste of time. I would

19 suggest — I don’t know how far you are prepared to work

20 during the weekend, but I would suggest Saturday evening

21 for submissions and then —

22 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Let’s get this absolutely straight.

23 You are not making any application for either Mr Millard

24 or Ms Simonova’s examination to be postponed.

25 MR STROILOV: No.

174 176
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

April 6, 2016 Day 34

1 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: They are going ahead. That’s not part 1 MR LORD: Yes.
2 of your application. 2 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Right.
3 MR STROILOV: Of course not. 3 MR LORD: Is your Lordship ruling that Ms Yatvetsky, she is
4 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: The only issue in that regard is 4 coming on Thursday now? She is coming on the 14th?
5 whether Mr Milner with Withers can be admitted to 5 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: There is no reason is there,
6 the process. That must be dealt with during the course 6 Mr Stroilov, that you can advance to put her back to
7 of tomorrow and really, I think, the first round of that 7 the 15th? Because really the only reason you advanced
8 must be a matter for you and, to the extent necessary, 8 previously was that you would have the stress of
9 for Withers. You must, I think, get that to me during 9 Mr Millard and you wanted two days. Well, as Mr Millard
10 the course of tomorrow. If the claimants have any 10 is provisionally to be taken off your shoulders, unless
11 observations in that regard then I will ask them when 11 we couldn’t do it for whatever reason, against my
12 they can do it but if it is necessary to deal with it 12 predisposition, we ought to be able to get cracking with
13 over the weekend, then, in the circumstances I shall 13 Ms Yatvetsky on the 14th and 15th.
14 have to deal with it over the weekend, and if I am still 14 MR STROILOV: I agree. If it works with Mr Milner and
15 unclear we shall have to pinch some of Monday afternoon 15 Mr Millard, yes, absolutely.
16 on your assurance that Mr Turetsky will be done and 16 MR LORD: That just leaves Mr Popov, my Lord, whether we
17 dusted early in the day. 17 keep him provisionally coming on the 19th, the last day
18 That’s one aspect, the other more complex aspect, 18 of the interpreters, if your Lordship is minded to rule
19 which I think is quite difficult, is the dispute which 19 on Monday on this point, I suppose we should leave him
20 is to be crystallised between you as to whether the 20 in for the 19th.
21 Popov/Steadman evidence should not form part of this 21 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Whether I will be able to rule I don’t
22 part of the trial, but to be deferred over to a date 22 know, I may have to have oral submissions on the Monday.
23 unknown, and in that context I have explained where 23 but I will do my very best.
24 I think the fault lines lie. I don’t think that is 24 MR LORD: Yes, I didn’t mean to rush the matter, I meant
25 a matter which can probably be dealt with by the 25 with a view to having Mr Popov coming on the current
177 179

1 weekend, but I will listen to what you say. What is the

2 answer in that regard? When can you do that?

3 MR STROILOV: Well, my Lord, I don’t think this — I am

4 anxious that we can’t really keep postponing it, because

5 I agree with Mr Lord, the timetable must be decided and

6 Mr Popov —

7 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Right, when can you do it?

8 MR STROILOV: Obviously I think your Lordship has indicated

9 that if I do it by Saturday you don’t expect it to be

10 quite satisfactory.

11 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: I just didn’t want to put undue

12 pressure on you.

13 MR STROILOV: Indeed, my Lord, I am grateful. Obviously

14 your Lordship needs — I don’t think we will have time

15 to address you with oral submissions on that other than

16 Monday, so I think really the only thing we can do is if

17 your Lordship is prepared to read this rather than

18 something more interesting on Sunday, then I would

19 suggest Sunday morning for both sides to make written

20 submissions on that, is —

21 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: What do you feel about that, Mr Lord?

22 MR LORD: Well, that’s all right.

23 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Okay, during the course of Sunday, and

24 if, within reason, you have to comment on the others,

25 they must be completed by Sunday evening.

1 table, I suppose.

2 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: The current status is that Mr Popov

3 and Mr Steadman, albeit absent, are part of this part of

4 the proceedings. That’s the status quo.

5 MR LORD: That was the only point I wanted — I will be

6 asked afterwards what’s the message, should Mr Popov—

7 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Well, I am afraid, with apologies to

8 him, at the moment it would be prejudging the

9 application to say other than I expect Mr Popov on the

10 19th.

11 MR LORD: My Lord, I’m sorry, and I see the time, just in

12 terms of — I will be asked about the timetabling going

13 forward. In terms of the Russian law experts.

14 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Yes.

15 MR LORD: Is that something that we will be able to

16 address — well, it may depend upon who is going to be

17 cross-examining them, I suppose, but I wasn’t sure

18 whether, if whether in fact they are going to be stood

19 over or whether part of the —

20 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: I haven’t heard any application to

21 that effect, but maybe I have just not been listening.

22 MR STROILOV: I think we did make submissions on that just

23 before Easter when we had the housekeeping session. We

24 are in difficulty if it is still on the same week, on

25 the 21st and 22nd, firstly because, as our luck would

178 180
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

April 6, 2016 Day 34

1 have it, Dr Gladyshev is quite busy working to a certain

2 deadline on exactly the 22nd on another case, so he says

3 it is doable if it is important for the court, but

4 difficult for him, and the assistance he can give me in

5 preparing for cross-examination of Professor Maggs would

6 be limited.

7 Then, of course, from my point of view, Russian law

8 is another, really quite new area, where I have to start

9 and finish. So I would request having, really, well,

10 a few days at least to prepare with Dr Gladyshev after

11 the 22nd.

12 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Does Mr Gladyshev need a translator?

13 MR STROILOV: No. He is fluent in English.

14 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Mr Lord, when does your other trial

15 begin? 23 May.

16 MR LORD: May, yes.

17 MR STROILOV: I think it was indicated, I may be wrong, but

18 I think Mr Lord has indicated last time that it is

19 Mr Birt who will be cross-examining.

20 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: You are quite right, I am sorry, you

21 are quite right. I am so sorry, Mr Birt.

22 MR LORD: My Lord, page 100 of Day 31, your Lordship

23 considered the question of the experts, and at line 19

24 {Day31/100:19}, you say this:

25 «That too I will cauterise [that’s the Russian law],

1 to do it, but the points which I think have arisen are

2 whether there is any Russian law requirement for spousal

3 consent, and if not obtained, what the consequences in

4 terms of the validity of the personal guarantee are, and

5 a question arose today as regards the authority of

6 a director/manager to appear for a company. Those were

7 two matters which have arisen over the course. There

8 may be others.

9 MR BIRT: I think a number of the factual witnesses have

10 given their view on what the legal position might or

11 might not have been. From our point of view to date we

12 have been proceeding on the basis that the Russian law

13 will deal with the issues of Russian law raised on the

14 pleadings, so to take your Lordship’s example of

15 the spousal consents, I think different witnesses have

16 given different answers, but Mr Lord outlined the

17 position on the Russian law as far as we know it at some

18 point in Paris, but we have been proceeding on the basis

19 that that’s not part of the issues for the Russian

20 lawyers because it is not a pleaded issue, my Lord.

21 There is no issue. There is no defence under the

22 guarantees that you need a spousal consent, but if

23 that’s going to be introduced, then —

24 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: That’s a fair —

25 MR BIRT: — we will have to formalise, my Lord and the

181 183

1 and I would like Mr Stroilov to inquire of Mr Gladyshev

2 whether he could assist in the meantime over this

3 vacation in order to get up that cross-examination

4 together.»

5 Anyway, that is where it had been left.

6 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Your submission is those matters

7 should come on some time in May, that’s what you are

8 saying?

9 MR STROILOV: Yes, that’s what I would be asking for, since

10 really this can be sensibly separated.

11 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: It’s not suggested that we need more

12 than one day each, do we?

13 MR STROILOV: No, I don’t think so. I haven’t looked into

14 it in much detail, but on the basis of what I do know on

15 Russian law evidence, I would say one day each.

16 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: I mean, they haven’t covered it, but

17 one or two issues of Russian law have in fact emerged

18 during the proceedings.

19 MR STROILOV: Indeed, my Lord, and I think I would ask

20 provisionally, and from the top of my head, but

21 listening to some of the factual evidence, I think

22 perhaps some examination in-chief should be allowed to

23 clear this point.

24 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Well, you must identify and agree what

25 it should be and I will rule whether you are permitted

1 experts will have to — in other words I’m taking a long

2 way round of saying I don’t think it is something one

3 can slip in informally by way of examination-in-chief.

4 If it is going to be a substantive defence not

5 heretofore pleaded it would have to all be (inaudible)

6 and the experts to address it in a sensible way, leave

7 having being given.

8 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: I am sure you are right, Mr Birt, and

9 the points are well made. As far as I can see there are

10 sort of three levels of it: the first is it is to be

11 part of the defendants’ case that even if the personal

12 guarantees were given they are not enforceable because

13 of the lack of spousal consent, then that factor and the

14 lack of the spousal consent would have to be pleaded.

15 That’s one point.

16 The second point is that on that point, unless

17 Russian evidence is adduced, I think I would have to

18 assume Russian law to be the same as English law, in

19 which case it may be that the personal guarantee would

20 not be valid. It would be a case of looking at the

21 Lloyds Bank cases and all those which will be more

22 familiar to you than to me.

23 MR BIRT: If the point had been taken, my Lord, we would

24 have to look at whether (Overspeaking) Russian law.

25 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: The third level is if you want Russian

182 184
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

April 6, 2016 Day 34

1 law to apply, either of you, you would have to get leave

2 to expand the expert evidence from the present

3 definition of its scope.

4 MR BIRT: My Lord, yes, I was simply standing up to say we

5 are proceeding on the basis that the issues are what the

6 issues are. They are the ones that have been addressed.

7 But obviously, I suppose either if my Lord feels it

8 would be useful to have the Russian lawyers’ input on

9 particular points that can be sought, and I can see that

10 sometimes one wants to assess what the factual witnesses

11 say against that background, that’s not necessarily

12 using Russian law to decide issues in the case, but to

13 put the evidence in context, that could be done on

14 a slightly different basis.

15 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: That’s helpful.

16 MR BIRT: But, again, I would suggest that should be done on

17 at least a written basis, particularly if we are being

18 confined to one day each. My own view on the time

19 estimate is that at the moment it is a long day. The

20 trouble is with the Russian lawyers’ evidence,

21 particularly, and without criticism of them,

22 Dr Gladyshev exhibits an awful lot of cases and

23 sometimes one is going to have to take him through quite

24 a lot of these cases, it is just a laborious process,

25 my Lord. My hope at the moment is a lengthy day, but

1 and another matter on the Thursday, so I am, as it were,

2 glued up, I am afraid, on the footing that the trial

3 would end on the 22nd.

4 MR BIRT: My Lord, yes. I mean, stealing slightly Mr Lord’s

5 thunder, in a sense, it is simply to do with planning

6 and timetabling, I suppose, for, certainly from our

7 point of view, Professor Maggs, and knowing that the

8 sooner we grasp the timetabling nettle the better, I am

9 not suggesting we need to do that at whatever time we

10 have got to today —

11 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: I know Professor Maggs is a busy man.

12 MR BIRT: But sooner rather than later. At the moment

13 Professor Maggs is holding the date we have him there

14 for.

15 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: If you wish to add to your salvos any

16 concerns on that then I shall read them, but I won’t

17 require them for the minute, but I do stress to you,

18 Mr Stroilov, that if it is to be part of your

19 substantive defence in the alternative to your main

20 claim that the personal guarantees were simply never

21 signed by Dr Arkhangelsky, if you are to have

22 an alternative case that even if they were, they are not

23 capable of enforcement under Russian law for want of

24 a spousal consent, then that must be pleaded.

25 MR STROILOV: Yes, my Lord.

185 187

1 I will fill that in if I become more pessimistic,

2 my Lord, but certainly having oral evidence in-chief

3 would make it more tricky to get it all done sensibly,

4 my Lord.

5 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: That’s very fair, Mr Birt. I have to

6 say, my past experience of foreign law experts where the

7 law is very different, or could be, than English law, ie

8 not like New York law, as it were, where there are a lot

9 of similarities, is that it often takes longer because

10 the experts have to be cautious to ensure that the

11 judge, amongst others, is not proceeding on a false

12 assumption given his education as an English lawyer.

13 MR BIRT: My Lord, yes, and we all in our profession think

14 we are good at reading cases and grasping them straight

15 away and sometimes it works and sometimes —

16 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: And sometimes it doesn’t, yes.

17 MR BIRT: — it needs a bit more context, my Lord. I just

18 wanted to tell my Lord where I was on time estimate,

19 which is optimistically a lengthy day, but we will just

20 revisit that as we go.

21 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: If any part of the Russian evidence or

22 the whole of it has to be deferred, it would have to be

23 deferred until May because I have promised the powers

24 that be that this court on the 25th, and I, in fact have

25 three days in a Lehman’s matter for those days anyway

1 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: And if you are relying on the Russian

2 law for that purpose, you must seek leave to extend the

3 scope of the Russian evidence to cover that, and if you

4 are not going to do that, you must tell — you must make

5 clear that, in order that the other side can determine

6 properly whether they need to adduce evidence on that,

7 or whether the English law, which would then be treated

8 as being the same as Russian law, is sufficient.

9 MR STROILOV: I’m grateful, my Lord.

10 Then I do invite your Lordship to rule on Russian

11 law experts, on the timetabling of Russian law experts

12 and I would invite this to be the first available dates

13 in May, really, simply because —

14 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Add that to your salvo and tell me

15 also, please — I think Mr Birt has been extremely fair.

16 He says — I summarise what I take him to say, which is

17 it would be a jolly long day. He hopes he could do it,

18 but he cannot at present be absolutely certain. He will

19 keep me updated.

20 MR STROILOV: Really I would rather assume that it is going

21 to be at best symmetrical then. My one day was

22 a guesstimate, so I think then it is safe, really, to

23 reserve three days for the two experts.

24 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: It may be the safest, but I would

25 prefer, subject to the Steadman/Popov issue I would

186 188
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

April 6, 2016 Day 34

1 prefer to have got this done.

2 Of course, I don’t mean this horribly, but it is

3 easy for you to say three days because that pushes it

4 off because we haven’t got three days, so I just want to

5 know what the realistic assessment of how long it would

6 take is.

7 MR STROILOV: Obviously my guesstimate is one day.

8 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Yes, well that’s fair too.

9 MR STROILOV: I would invite your Lordship really to rule

10 whether it has to be on the 21st or the 22nd, which

11 creates difficulties for us.

12 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: What are you giving me by the end of

13 tomorrow? Anything? You are going to give the whys and

14 wherefores of the short appearance?

15 MR LORD: Yes, I think the defence are going to file any

16 application or clarification letter or definitional

17 letter. I think if we have any observations we will try

18 and get them to your Lordship as quickly as we can this

19 week, if we can do that, and we will hopefully know

20 quite quickly if there is a problem. We will obviously

21 let your Lordship know in writing if there is and your

22 Lordship can either rule this week or stand the matter

23 over until Monday where we can debate it on Monday.

24 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: That’s very helpful, and over the

25 weekend you will give me the blast on Popov/Steadman.

189

1 MR LORD: That will come over the weekend, I think is the

2 plan.

3 My Lord, could your Lordship sit at 9.30 am on

4 Friday. I do apologise profusely for that, but I do

5 want to make sure that I do get everything I have to put

6 to Ms Simonova.

7 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Does that cause you any problems?

8 MR STROILOV: I don’t think it causes me — well, it causes

9 a difficulty, but I can manage. I don’t know if it is

10 doable for Mrs Simonova, I assume it is, but I would

11 reserve the right to write back with apologies later

12 tonight if for some reason she tells me she can’t do

13 that.

14 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: You must tell me by 10.00 tomorrow if

15 this is impossible and the reasons why, otherwise I will

16 sit at 9.30 am on Friday.

17 MR LORD: Thank you, my Lord, I do apologise.

18 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Very good. Thank you.

19 (5.32 pm)

20 (The court adjourned until 9.30 am on Friday, 8 April 2016)

21

22

23

24

25

1 INDEX
2 PAGE
3 MR SERGEI MIKHEYEV, Interpreter …………………. 1
4 (Affirmed)…………………..
MS KRISTINA BORISOVNA MIRONOVA 1
5 (Continued)…………..
Cross-examination by MR STROILOV 1
6 (Continued)………….
Questions by MR JUSTICE HILDYARD 92
7 Housekeeping …………………………………123

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

191

190
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

192

April 6, 2016 Day 34

A

able (26) 36:11 38:16 59:16 72:24 84:15 85:4 98:12 106:11 109:15 121:2 122:4 125:18 127:11,14 127:21 132:2 133:10 139:11,17 153:14,17 155:3 163:19 179:12,21 180:15

abnormal (1) 123:25 abolish (1) 100:16 abroad (1) 58:1 absent (2) 107:8

180:3 absolutely (8) 2:8

92:4 153:2 158:21 165:10 176:22 179:15 188:18

abuse (1) 156:15 accept (6) 33:22 85:3

98:12 100:18 117:25 157:8 acceptable (4) 28:4,7 126:19 148:1

accepted (2) 26:11

169:10

accepting (3) 14:6 162:18 168:2 access (2) 116:17

158:12

accommodate (2)

139:20 146:13 account (11) 34:21,24 34:25 35:1 71:20

90:10 115:20 124:10 165:9 167:5 173:25

accountants (1) 96:4 accounted (2) 70:22

71:16

accounts (2) 5:3 169:8 accredited (3) 14:22

14:25 100:16 accrue (1) 71:13 accurate (4) 55:13

67:23 87:18 112:16 achieve (5) 70:1 72:21

87:13 145:5,6 achieved (3) 70:21 72:1 175:6 achieves (1) 71:20 acquire (1) 118:21 acquired (7) 3:13,24 31:8 61:8 62:23

94:3 109:1 acquiring (1) 59:10 acquisition (2) 81:4

82:16

act (2) 10:5 109:9 acted (1) 44:16 acting (20) 7:9,15 8:9

8:25 10:20 15:17 16:2 21:1,7 27:4,5 27:7,9 41:3 44:13 45:5 96:6 107:1 124:2 153:3

action (5) 64:19 68:5 103:7 110:9 115:23

actionable (3) 51:16 52:7 109:2

actively (1) 77:13 activities (2) 83:17

86:21

activity (2) 59:21 87:8 acts (1) 43:11

actual (11) 17:3 41:8

47:20 48:2,6 55:14 afternoon (6) 75:12 82:9,17 88:24 applied (3) 22:11 arranged (2) 62:18 158:17
56:22 61:14 78:9 88:23 161:13 101:11 113:20 67:22 134:11 92:1 assume (10) 5:17
134:25 135:14 163:16 170:12 amounts (2) 32:21 applies (1) 97:17 arrangement (3) 18:20,22 35:23
add (5) 45:15 108:20 177:15 53:25 apply (7) 131:12 63:25 112:23 158:4 93:17 148:9 152:13
170:23 187:15 agency (2) 15:18 23:4 amplify (1) 118:13 132:14,18 145:4 arrangements (5) 184:18 188:20
188:14 agent (4) 15:18,22,22 analysing (1) 21:8 159:25 174:4 185:1 13:18 26:17 81:3 190:10
Added (1) 82:25 27:5 analysis (2) 3:5 77:15 applying (1) 164:20 115:16 137:6 assumed (2) 5:4 117:8
addition (3) 51:11 ago (5) 55:13 59:3,16 ancillary (1) 131:16 appoint (1) 10:25 arrived (1) 103:1 assuming (3) 26:3
70:20 130:1 60:3 147:23 and/or (3) 4:4,25 appointed (3) 7:17 article (6) 25:7,10 156:9 171:3
additional (2) 114:6 agree (32) 6:23 7:3,5 72:17 66:25 121:4 28:9 38:5,16,19 assumption (5) 5:19
129:21 8:1 11:16 14:12,14 angle (1) 174:17 appreciate (3) 2:17 aside (4) 103:8 106:9 160:2,5 175:11
additionally (1) 12:9 17:1,18 24:6,10,24 announced (1) 29:10 32:19 111:11 126:25 143:11 186:12
address (9) 95:20 26:20 31:21 32:21 announcement (2) approach (2) 87:8 asked (25) 11:22 assurance (1) 177:16
107:22 112:10 33:3 37:2,22 51:13 29:7,9 173:2 15:25 17:22 26:13 attached (4) 39:25
162:1 166:15 176:6 55:25 60:21 62:2 annual (1) 119:5 approached (1) 87:5 36:14 75:15 93:5 40:10 90:2 158:3
178:15 180:16 80:9,11 86:16 answer (30) 5:22 7:11 approaches (2) 95:6 100:22 108:13 attacks (2) 110:9,13
184:6 99:18 155:24 7:18 15:21,25 18:8 113:12 134:24 108:14 117:11,13 attempt (5) 29:3
addressed (7) 79:12 159:20 164:3 178:5 36:16 45:13,16,17 approaching (1) 131:4 121:8 126:18 143:4 111:5 124:9 136:2
91:15 93:13 132:11 179:14 182:24 74:23 89:7 93:3,12 appropriate (5) 19:13 160:12 166:11 143:11
169:16,18 185:6 agreed (16) 4:12 93:16 94:1 96:4,15 50:21 55:21 155:13 172:15,19,21 attempts (1) 29:1
addressing (1) 86:17 11:17 12:6 68:8 96:21 108:8 112:20 161:3 173:17 176:7 180:6 attend (5) 18:3 35:22
adduce (1) 188:6 69:25 89:8 126:19 113:2,3 117:19 appropriately (1) 180:12 75:6 122:13 171:25
adduced (1) 184:17 135:11 139:18,24 118:7 131:10 135:6 161:8 asking (16) 5:6,6 attendance (1) 107:13
adequate (1) 50:13 140:3,8 146:13 135:7 151:8 178:2 appropriateness (1) 29:19 35:10 63:12 attended (2) 96:7
adequately (2) 123:19 147:16,23 170:5 answered (4) 4:6 123:22 74:20 85:15 105:15 119:22
153:15 agreeing (1) 133:22 92:19 114:9 118:8 appropriating (1) 152:22,24 154:12 attending (3) 105:8
adjourned (1) 190:20 agreement (45) 6:13 answering (1) 15:21 55:24 162:12 166:2 107:11 120:17
adjournment (5) 6:17,18,19 7:2,20 answers (5) 1:17 appropriation (1) 56:4 174:12,13 182:9 attention (7) 1:11
73:11 75:10 172:7 7:22,23 8:4,11,24 74:17 96:16 173:16 approve (1) 18:15 aspect (3) 152:2 46:13,24 48:10
173:8 176:5 9:6 10:24 12:1,5,15 183:16 approved (2) 100:14 177:18,18 49:4,15 126:16
adjudicate (1) 158:25 12:16,18,24 13:1 Antonenko (3) 32:2 175:21 aspects (3) 132:2 attitude (1) 168:12
adjudication (1) 13:23 15:7,13,18 32:12 36:12 approximate (1) 47:1 137:3 165:1 attorney (4) 119:23
162:22 18:17 23:4 31:10 anxiety (2) 169:14 approximately (9) assert (1) 57:10 120:3,14,15
adjudications (1) 32:9,9 48:11,14 175:20 3:20,21 5:8 19:19 assertion (1) 17:8 attracted (1) 154:2
165:10 49:10 50:16 63:25 anxious (3) 152:4 32:10 46:17,22 assess (1) 185:10 attractive (1) 138:20
ADK (8) 100:11,13,20 71:25 75:17 92:6 162:22 178:4 48:20 49:25 assessed (1) 58:17 auction (101) 9:12
101:2,11,13,17,20 94:10,13,19 115:8 anyway (5) 107:10,11 April (6) 1:1 3:1 61:9 assessment (1) 189:5 10:4,5,20,23 11:1,3
administrator (2) 116:14 117:23,24 108:10 182:5 86:8 96:8 190:20 asset (18) 19:17 20:16 11:13 12:7,10,11
66:25 68:14 118:2 186:25 arbitration (2) 66:17 41:15 44:16 46:3 12:17,23 15:13,17
admit (1) 174:21 agreements (5) 3:6 apart (4) 43:20 83:22 66:17 56:3 64:3,5,12 65:1 15:23 16:2,8,12,13
admitted (4) 3:17 31:11 48:25 49:23 103:23 154:19 area (7) 58:14 61:1 68:6,7 69:1 105:10 16:17,23 17:9,9,10
22:9,13 177:5 50:15 apartment (2) 79:24 65:16 90:17 164:9 106:7 108:6 113:24 18:3,7,11,17 19:2
advance (1) 179:6 agrees (1) 12:9 96:20 174:18 181:8 174:2 19:18 20:15,17
advanced (9) 30:13 agricultural (9) 60:25 apologies (8) 32:5 areas (2) 98:3 171:18 assets (69) 2:13 3:3 21:10,11,21,23
31:9 32:3 34:21,24 65:14 71:9,9 45:3,3 78:12 128:3 argue (3) 62:1 141:17 4:5,9 5:1,1,20 6:25 22:2,3,5,9,13,19,19
34:25 94:15 98:20 118:10,11,20 119:4 129:1 180:7 190:11 160:3 6:25 8:24,24 18:10 22:24,24 23:2,3,4,6
179:7 119:7 apologise (8) 1:11 argued (1) 2:23 25:23 26:10 27:16 23:16,22 24:13,19
advantage (1) 71:13 Ah (1) 69:16 10:1 33:16 63:14 arguing (1) 17:8 29:2,22 30:15 34:5 24:20 25:2,14
adventures (1) 162:19 ahead (5) 11:4 39:5 65:8 88:7 190:4,17 argument (1) 173:15 44:11 50:17,18 26:11,18,25 27:5
advertised (3) 63:4 139:19 161:20 apologised (1) 102:5 argument’s (1) 169:4 51:1,10,25 52:3,9 27:15,21 28:18,25
69:11 119:11 177:1 apparently (1) 70:15 arguments (1) 171:11 53:24 55:20,22,24 29:6,8,20 30:2,5,6
advertisement (1) air (1) 140:13 appear (7) 72:18 Arinina (2) 20:22 62:6,9 64:17 67:15 33:24,25 34:4,4,9
63:11 albeit (2) 123:15 106:22 124:14 120:10 68:18 70:1,3,14,18 34:19 35:1,13,16
advertising (1) 63:21 180:3 126:20 152:19 arisen (2) 183:1,7 70:19,21 71:2 35:22 37:4,7 38:20
advice (1) 96:4 allegation (3) 79:22 154:23 183:6 Arkhangelskaya (9) 72:15,19,21 101:19 39:5,11,16,24 42:3
advisable (1) 171:1 79:23 80:1 appearance (2) 27:3 84:9 106:4 109:11 105:1,13 106:2,6 42:22 54:19 56:25
advise (2) 154:12 allegations (2) 2:15,18 189:14 110:2,14,20 111:9 109:4,9,13,14 56:25 68:7 109:19
157:25 alleged (7) 2:9 28:24 appeared (3) 107:15 111:18,23 111:21 112:11,19 117:15,23 118:5
advises (1) 156:20 49:23 51:12 56:17 113:5 114:23 Arkhangelsky (55) 112:25 113:6,11,18 119:20 120:17,20
advocacy (1) 131:24 92:11 164:21 appears (12) 20:15 2:11,11 3:4 4:4,14 114:15,18,25 115:3 auctioned (2) 27:16
affairs (3) 79:13 82:23 Alliance (5) 13:16 23:22 27:25 61:18 4:17,25 5:5 7:22 115:17 116:5 34:2
83:25 15:2,6,10 29:21 62:19 66:6,7,24 17:1 50:12 51:9,18 173:13 auctioneer (12) 11:24
affect (1) 169:5 allow (1) 108:11 67:1 83:13 133:9 52:1,6,8 56:10,14 assign (3) 47:15 48:13 12:16,17 16:16
affiliated (1) 82:21 allowed (4) 22:16 141:17 56:18 57:7,13 74:3 48:16 26:25 29:6,14
affirmation (1) 90:13 105:13 134:2 applicant (1) 138:10 76:2,6 81:6 84:8,11 assigned (6) 43:6 46:8 34:10,15 117:16,21
Affirmed (2) 1:13 182:22 applicants (1) 125:1 84:12 85:6,14 86:3 46:15,16,16 54:1 118:1
191:3 allowing (1) 152:8 application (31) 3:13 86:6,8,11,13 87:14 assignment (5) 45:25 auctioneers’ (1) 29:12
afford (4) 123:15,16 aloud (1) 80:19 79:6,18 85:19 91:17,21 92:7,14 47:9 48:6 53:23 auctions (2) 15:24
144:17 166:23 alternative (3) 174:4 123:6 130:6,17,20 93:18,22 94:9,13 54:20 24:5
affordable (1) 129:16 187:19,22 130:24 131:5,25 94:16 95:11,17,21 assist (10) 2:22 36:11 August (8) 76:21,25
afraid (21) 26:15 Alternatively (1) 134:21,25 140:23 96:6 97:3 98:22 51:2 64:2 118:8 77:10 107:5,6,15
27:15 30:8 32:17 127:5 150:22 156:23,24 123:14 170:9,16 128:6 161:2 163:17 107:16,16
33:16 76:11,16 Alvarez (1) 126:24 159:7 160:25 187:21 174:19 182:2 authorities (6) 83:16
78:14 87:25 88:1 amendments (2) 162:23 170:19,21 Arkhangelsky’s (3) assistance (4) 151:2 84:17 86:22 87:21
95:21 125:14,16 80:10 95:3 170:24 171:7 172:7 57:16 84:2 92:11 152:1 171:21 181:4 97:10,11
129:22 135:19 amicable (1) 86:2 174:8 176:23 177:2 arms (1) 166:19 assisted (1) 124:3 authority (2) 120:21
145:21 151:16 amount (13) 3:8 180:9,20 189:16 arose (6) 105:11 assisting (2) 72:14 183:5
166:13 175:12 47:16 51:18,22 applications (3) 78:9 131:17,18,18 125:1 automatically (1)
180:7 187:2 52:4,25 57:8 58:15 125:3 161:15 166:17 183:5 associated (2) 77:25 115:11

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

193

April 6, 2016 Day 34

autonomous (1)

106:25 autumn (1) 3:25

availability (4) 116:4 129:3 168:11 170:2

available (28) 3:7,11 5:4 30:10 36:15 51:24 52:3,9 78:13 94:15 96:14 97:2 99:9 100:1 109:12 109:24 127:12 128:1,10 141:20,21 144:1 166:3 168:13 171:22 172:2,9 188:12

avenue (1) 86:18 avoidance (1) 120:6 avoiding (1) 98:15 aware (14) 2:14,16

21:23 26:3,12 29:1 32:1 57:19 83:20 100:21 114:13 130:13 148:12 168:23

awareness (1) 29:11 awful (2) 145:9

185:22 awkward (1) 157:2

B

B1/4 (1) 98:4 B1/4/23 (1) 98:6 B1/4/26 (1) 100:6 B1/4/68 (1) 98:7 B1/4/73 (1) 100:7 B1/5/13 (1) 90:19 B1/5/33 (1) 90:22 back (30) 2:25 3:18

35:2 65:7 70:9 71:5 71:14 87:10 91:22 92:6 93:23 102:16 104:15 108:12,17 108:19 109:6 110:3 121:23 130:18 132:15 133:4 135:10 138:10 145:21 148:6 153:16 166:16 179:6 190:11

backdated (1) 92:2 background (4) 79:1 89:13 124:21

185:11 bad (1) 32:15

bailiff (1) 107:23 bailiffs (6) 51:19,21,24

108:14 109:18 111:21

Baker (1) 102:18 balance (5) 57:13 110:23 119:11

166:8 168:9 ball (1) 144:13 ban (1) 119:1

bank (205) 2:3,10,14 2:23 3:12,23 4:11 6:3 7:2,9 8:3,10,11 8:12 9:1,2,11 10:16 10:18,25 11:2,15 11:19,23 14:2,12 14:22,25 15:12 16:2,14,20,24,25 17:11 18:15,17 19:12 21:14,15,19 23:5 24:17,18,19 24:25 26:1,4,9,12 26:24 27:3,4,5,6,8 27:10,12,19 28:7

28:14,15,23 29:1 173:19,20 182:14 Blinova (4) 3:25 4:19
29:15,22 30:7,13 183:12,18 185:5,14 98:19 99:7
31:20 32:3 33:9,14 185:17 bluntly (1) 145:5
34:10,20,21,22,24 baton (1) 149:5 board (11) 19:12
34:25 35:1,2,4,18 BCC (1) 89:4 39:10 47:6,9,23,25
35:19 36:1,9 37:25 bear (2) 134:23 161:7 48:8 106:19 107:4
39:4,14,18,21 bearing (1) 159:3 151:21 171:4
40:11 41:13 42:5,9 beg (3) 51:15 76:21 bodies (1) 84:21
43:5,9 49:11 50:4 80:25 body (1) 157:5
50:10,20,23 51:8 began (3) 69:25 81:23 bono (1) 125:2
51:16 52:24 53:25 98:17 book (3) 11:18 29:8
54:16,24 55:2,5,14 beginning (6) 65:23 73:8
55:23 56:5,20 66:7 84:25 92:7 BORISOVNA (2) 1:15
57:21,21 58:2,3,4 98:19 164:6 191:4
58:23,25 59:9,17 begins (1) 74:23 borrowed (1) 114:12
61:11,24 64:1,12 behalf (16) 2:9,23 7:9 borrower (1) 48:15
65:3 66:19,22 67:6 8:9 9:1,1 10:7 16:2 borrowers (5) 86:21
67:8,9,14,20 68:24 27:4,7,9 93:14 96:5 88:24 90:16 99:20
69:24 70:9,18,22 121:2 125:5 154:17 101:19
72:2,14,17 73:4,6 believe (21) 2:20,21 bother (2) 32:24
75:17,23,23 76:1,4 2:25 3:2 4:4,16,25 110:3
76:19 77:16 78:2 21:1 36:21 39:14 bothered (1) 110:14
79:1 81:23 82:8,13 41:14 51:22 52:2 bottom (17) 10:2 13:7
83:2 84:7,16 85:4 52:20 71:13 73:5 16:19 19:24 20:1
85:23 86:1,16,18 74:18,19 81:14 25:18,19 31:12,16
87:8,15,19 88:20 83:1 148:11 34:13 43:15 49:18
91:12 92:13 93:8 believed (1) 51:9 53:15 88:6,15
94:15 98:12,20,23 believes (1) 28:3 112:20 137:24
99:8 100:1,18,24 bells (1) 83:7 bottomed (3) 137:1
101:3,16,18 105:18 belonged (1) 65:1 138:22 157:4
105:19 108:11,14 belongs (2) 25:23 bought (4) 20:16 24:2
109:2 111:18,20 42:16 25:23 26:10
112:12 113:8,15 benefit (3) 55:22 bound (1) 166:7
114:13,17,19 115:1 107:13 108:6 box (3) 31:12,16
115:7,11,12 117:14 Berezin (4) 62:10 41:25
118:2,4 168:24 96:13,21 97:5 branch (1) 99:20
173:21 184:21 berth (1) 113:22 brass (1) 175:15
Bank’s (22) 2:1 5:25 best (14) 42:1 45:13 breach (1) 154:9
6:14 9:6 15:17 18:9 68:19 77:3 105:9 break (7) 37:9,12,18
19:7 29:12 31:6 122:3 124:7 127:18 75:15 122:12,16
34:12 35:2 39:2,9 127:22 128:13 123:2
42:14 45:25 55:19 136:11 170:8 breaking (1) 156:2
79:24 83:15,24 179:23 188:21 Breeze (1) 3:17
100:14 108:9 better (4) 31:2 142:10 briefly (3) 22:21 76:8
111:11 151:9 187:8 174:1
banking (4) 24:13,14 beyond (2) 45:21 bring (3) 139:6 145:17
24:22 97:24 52:19 168:4
bankruptcy (9) 66:15 bid (1) 30:2 bringing (1) 168:15
66:25 67:3,7,10,15 bidder (4) 27:1,2,8,17 broader (2) 50:24
67:19 68:5 69:2 bidders (10) 19:25 51:2
banks (2) 100:15 21:14,20 22:8,11 broadest (1) 135:8
113:14 22:13,16 27:6,18 broadly (4) 142:24
barrister (1) 130:19 119:21 166:6 175:2,7
barristers (2) 134:7 big (10) 39:10 57:24 broke (1) 172:21
135:2 58:11 72:15 88:3 Bromley-Martin’s (1)
based (12) 21:3,25 108:3,8 124:11 168:17
27:25 29:25 42:7 136:12 152:14 brought (2) 1:10
59:24 77:17 82:20 biggest (2) 67:5,8 126:15
84:15 85:20 87:20 billion (8) 3:8,9 5:2 BSP (4) 76:7 99:20
101:2 32:4,11 40:7 51:18 110:4,11
bases (2) 164:23 51:23 budget (1) 82:25
173:21 Birt (14) 181:19,21 build (2) 73:7 118:24
basic (1) 153:5 183:9,25 184:8,23 building (13) 23:19
basically (3) 28:8 185:4,16 186:5,13 114:1,3 115:6,7,20
143:1 165:20 186:17 187:4,12 115:24,25 116:13
basis (46) 7:1 10:6 188:15 116:17,19,21
17:7 23:3 27:15 bit (14) 35:9 100:11 118:24
29:21 60:9 72:3 102:7 114:9 119:17 built (1) 134:5
82:8 99:3 106:24 121:18 132:25 bullet (1) 60:1
112:2 113:9 119:6 133:10,11 148:6 bundled (2) 168:6
123:23 125:12,20 166:10 170:8 175:25
125:22 134:1,3 176:18 186:17 burden (3) 123:19
139:5,20,23 140:3 bits (7) 65:11 68:13 138:9 160:22
143:1 144:23 78:24 80:13,17 burrowing (1) 151:6
145:16 147:13,14 104:20 132:12 business (28) 25:8
147:17 148:4 154:1 BKK (2) 89:4 107:9 31:19 38:6 57:25
156:6 157:20 blackmail (1) 115:24 58:14 61:13,14
160:25 164:21 blank (1) 20:24 71:7,7 90:17 97:23
170:6 171:24 blast (1) 189:25 109:16 127:5

141:12 150:23 164:2,11 167:8 168:18 169:7 170:20 172:12,16 173:1 174:6,14 175:2,3
busy (4) 89:18 166:1 181:1 187:11

buy (9) 29:24 30:5,15 52:25 53:22 71:12 97:1 110:4 118:13

buyer (6) 54:11 109:16 113:24 114:6 116:10 117:6

buyers (3) 30:4 109:24 119:13

buying (2) 55:4 71:9 buys (1) 23:10

BVI (4) 102:1 103:1,8 112:5

bypassing (1) 111:22 bystander (1) 26:21

C

calculations (1) 57:14 call (9) 1:25 57:12
126:6 139:19,24 144:16 165:7 166:23 176:14

called (18) 13:15 14:3 15:13 19:25 20:9 20:21 27:1,2 32:1 37:20 41:15 52:23 54:7 61:4 65:24 88:19 129:2 174:4

calling (4) 99:22 159:7 160:13 172:23

calls (1) 126:11 candidates (1) 170:17 capable (2) 166:12

187:23

capacity (2) 6:6 68:24 capital (2) 91:22 93:24 cards (1) 140:5

care (1) 40:9 carefully (3) 87:3

118:19 167:5 carried (6) 71:7 80:8

84:1 125:22 139:13 173:3

carry (5) 7:25 40:16 83:13 100:22 119:15

carrying (3) 16:3 120:21 175:21

case (55) 6:16 15:5 25:22 26:3 28:17 28:20 36:6 37:15 40:18 55:19 75:20 92:9 119:14,20,21 119:23 122:23,24 124:5 125:7 130:7 131:21,23 132:12 133:15 134:16,19 135:12 138:7,23 139:5 148:7 155:10 156:16,18 159:12 160:6,9 163:10 164:5,10 168:16,23 170:20 173:11 175:13,13,20 176:6 181:2 184:11,19,20 185:12 187:22

cases (5) 156:14 184:21 185:22,24 186:14

cash (3) 35:12 84:10 168:11

cashing (2) 81:25 83:4 categorically (2) 56:2
75:19

cause (3) 13:5 25:20 190:7

caused (2) 92:10 94:7 causes (2) 190:8,8 cauterise (1) 181:25 cauterised (2) 164:4

168:5

caution (1) 146:21 cautious (1) 186:10 cent (21) 46:20,23

47:16 50:6 54:2,13 90:13 99:5 109:7,8 109:10 110:1,4,5 110:15,21,23,24 111:23 117:5 165:22

centre (2) 79:17 169:9 certain (17) 5:16

18:25 26:18 59:25 61:17 94:10 97:15 98:3 99:6 106:7 132:7 147:24 155:18,20 157:18 181:1 188:18

certainly (10) 91:18 93:19 95:1 97:16 107:14 139:16 144:25 150:2 186:2 187:6

cetera (3) 95:3 98:15 137:6

CFO (1) 69:7 chains (1) 88:13

chairman (2) 16:18,18 challenged (1) 41:8 challenging (1) 106:4 chamber (1) 116:2 chance (1) 107:21 change (6) 89:4 119:2

127:8 148:13 161:24 163:15 changed (1) 147:14

changes (1) 61:4 chapter (1) 169:13 characterise (1)

141:23 characterised (1)
168:1

charge (7) 4:1 16:11 17:9 29:15 34:16 92:15 166:14

charter (2) 120:24 121:6

cheaply (1) 51:13 check (3) 120:23 134:17 138:1 checked (2) 131:9

136:4

checking (2) 131:13 133:21

choice (1) 174:9 choose (6) 9:7,11

10:25 117:15 118:1 118:5

chose (1) 100:13 Christmas (3) 103:10

103:18 110:15

chronologically (3)

6:24 88:13,14 circle (1) 145:21 circular (3) 35:11 36:4

36:19 circularity (1) 35:25 circulated (2) 74:4

146:6

circumstances (9)

83:10 97:13,15 111:14 124:1 140:7 145:8 162:24 177:13

circumvent (2) 111:5

111:13

circumvention (1)

111:17 citing (1) 96:17

City (2) 79:13 169:9 claim (9) 6:14 51:22 57:16,16 68:25

86:9 116:15 169:7 187:20

claimants (3) 174:12 174:19 177:10 claimants’ (2) 167:1

167:14

claims (4) 6:6 8:17 9:17 51:20

clarification (3) 35:21 160:12 189:16

clarified (1) 134:12 clarify (7) 21:17 41:24

56:13 94:1 100:12 111:6 112:7

clarity (3) 75:3 98:2 132:25

clause (7) 12:1 13:13 48:10,16 49:14,19 100:8

clauses (2) 49:5 50:2 clean (1) 161:12 clear (20) 17:6 52:5

81:3 91:5 102:6 106:16 126:23 133:12 135:3 143:8 147:2 152:3 158:15 158:22 159:5 163:13 175:11,19 182:23 188:5

clearly (4) 40:1 42:16 58:18 92:8

client (8) 4:22 18:21 46:9 55:3 58:8 62:4 101:21 155:4

client’s (1) 158:2 clients (3) 36:24,25

164:25 closely (1) 117:13 closing (1) 163:7 cloth (1) 147:25 clouded (1) 45:11

coercion (1) 171:25 coffers (1) 81:15 coincided (1) 121:1 coincidence (1) 33:25 collateral (1) 6:7 colleagues (1) 87:4 collusive (2) 34:5

110:9

column (4) 20:25 21:7 33:1,6

combating (1) 81:18 come (53) 4:3 36:11 41:19 47:20 51:5 70:3 71:14 83:25 101:14 108:17,19

115:22 130:9,18,23 131:8,10,11,12,14 132:13,14 133:2,4 134:2 135:1,4,22 136:5,6 137:20 139:25 140:2 141:24 145:21 146:19 149:22,24 150:1 151:18,20 152:18 153:6 156:24 157:25

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

194
April 6, 2016 Day 34

161:1 163:6 165:16 complaints (23) 76:1 187:24 conversation (1) 116:22 189:11 D126/2007/5 (1) 8:15 D192/2918.2T/47 (1)

165:17 172:13,18 76:4,14,18,22 77:7 consented (1) 39:22 98:18 credit (14) 18:14 D126/2007/6 (1) 65:7
182:7 190:1 77:11,18,24 78:3,6 consenting (1) 168:3 convey (1) 99:24 39:10 56:10,20 13:10 D192/2920/12 (1)
comes (7) 31:6 33:14 78:10,13 84:21 consents (2) 39:3 convinced (1) 150:14 60:7 64:22 68:20 D131/2132.1/2 (1) 38:5
62:22 88:14,16 85:6,8,10,13 86:14 183:15 coordinate (1) 89:3 71:1,2,3 75:23 83:1 30:25 D192/2921/0.01 (1)
89:5 156:22 86:25 87:12 94:21 consequences (2) copied (1) 88:18 87:10 101:14 D132/2174/1 (3) 16:5 25:4
comfort (1) 171:1 94:25 135:15 183:3 copy (2) 74:3 128:4 creditor (8) 28:23 20:23 120:6 D192/2921/0.02 (1)
coming (21) 42:14 complete (3) 129:19 consequent (1) core (1) 59:24 43:11 67:4,5,8 D132/2174/2 (2) 20:8 25:16
44:1 97:18 104:15 147:8 150:21 175:18 corporate (4) 54:15 68:15,24 70:19 120:9 D192/2921/5 (1) 25:6
132:6 134:7 144:22 completed (4) 60:3 Consequently (1) 120:11,14 168:25 creditor’s (1) 43:5 D132/2174/3 (2) 16:6 D196/2936/0.1 (1)
146:2,10,12,20 150:20 164:7 116:14 corporation (1) creditors (1) 67:17 20:23 42:12
148:10 154:2,22 178:25 consider (4) 40:4 124:12 creditors’ (2) 47:10 D132/2174/4 (1) 20:8 D196/2936/1 (1)
156:6 157:13 completely (3) 17:17 129:11 132:9 correct (16) 7:9 15:16 68:8 D132/2175/1 (1) 42:13
161:25 179:4,4,17 50:14 59:25 163:22 19:20 20:16 36:14 credits (2) 56:15 73:7 22:22 D5/113/0.1 (1) 121:14
179:25 complex (3) 117:9 considerable (6) 67:9 54:23 58:4 61:16 crimes (4) 83:20,21 D132/2175/3 (1) dare (1) 75:3
comment (23) 15:4 168:19 177:18 84:1 113:6,20 77:1 78:3 87:17,18 97:23,23 22:22 darting (2) 151:10
16:4 17:20 25:3 complexity (1) 124:22 114:25 115:4 89:25 108:24 criminal (5) 81:20 D132/2175/4 (1) 162:17
26:15 31:25 32:18 compliance (1) 84:2 considerably (1) 47:13 136:17 158:21 86:21 87:23 97:13 23:11 date (15) 3:21 5:9 7:6
33:11,17 38:17 complicated (1) 125:7 consideration (1) 68:4 corrected (5) 38:25 97:23 D132/2176/1 (1) 49:10 63:1 103:4
41:6 42:19,25 comprised (1) 16:18 considered (5) 4:21 39:20 69:10 74:16 crisis (1) 14:9 23:13 133:5 145:15 146:8
44:21 55:15 66:5 comprises (1) 17:15 122:19 157:4 167:13 criteria (1) 113:16 D132/2176/2 (1) 149:24 175:25
67:25 91:6 96:1,11 computer (4) 35:4 168:10 181:23 correctly (3) 1:24 51:4 criticise (2) 174:14,16 23:24 176:1 177:22
111:4,14 178:24 77:25 78:15 128:7 considering (2) 39:10 75:16 criticised (3) 14:13 D132/2176/3 (1) 183:11 187:13
commission (10) computers (1) 95:3 74:12 correspondence (1) 174:9,10 23:14 dated (2) 66:2 76:20
16:11,17,22 17:15 conceal (1) 36:21 consistent (4) 7:4 123:7 criticism (2) 151:23 D132/2176/4 (1) dates (2) 76:20
17:19 23:3,17 conceived (2) 104:24 77:11,14 91:2 cost (1) 139:5 185:21 23:25 188:12
27:22 29:15 34:16 105:4 constant (1) 167:10 cottages (1) 118:24 crops (1) 71:10 D132/2715/2 (1) dating (1) 92:6
committed (2) 73:6 concept (1) 110:8 construction (1) 23:20 counsel (13) 123:9,22 cross-assurances (1) 23:11 daughter (1) 107:7
76:5 concern (4) 109:16 constructive (1) 86:6 124:10,14 130:10 88:25 D146/2436.2/1 (1) day (49) 89:6 109:22
committee (4) 18:14 133:2,7 149:15 consulted (1) 157:5 132:19 135:9 cross-examination (… 52:11 112:17 114:21
18:14 39:10 60:6 concerned (18) 39:16 contact (3) 95:21 139:14 149:4 1:16 103:25 107:2 D146/2436.2/2 (1) 131:19 140:4
companies (31) 7:8 54:25 61:21,21 96:14 104:11 155:20 157:17 108:18 110:7 53:6 142:12,16,18,19
14:25 15:1 20:4 92:16 104:5 113:19 contemplate (1) 99:2 158:8 159:20 123:18 125:21 D146/2436.2/5 (1) 144:22 147:17,19
21:9,15 37:25 54:5 115:9 123:17 contemporaneous (1) counselled (1) 137:12 126:8 127:7,16 53:6 147:21,21 148:4
56:18 57:24 62:7 150:19 151:4 41:18 count (1) 85:5 128:11,19 129:7,9 D146/2436/4 (1) 149:16,17,18 150:5
72:16 76:2,7 81:24 152:17 154:7 157:6 content (2) 21:14 90:3 counter (1) 169:7 132:16 133:9,11 52:12 150:10 152:19
84:7 85:1 94:16 163:22,23 164:6 context (13) 50:24 country (1) 97:12 134:4 139:12 147:3 D146/2437.2/1 (1) 153:4,15 154:24
104:17 109:8 112:3 174:25 51:2 89:24,24 couple (4) 35:5,5 147:18 148:4 149:3 30:19 157:13 159:17,18
112:11,13,23,25 concerns (5) 21:20 94:23 97:11 101:14 55:12 59:2 149:16,18 158:9 D148/2466.3/0.1 (1) 159:21,24 160:6,9
113:13 119:21 98:13 154:21 101:25 107:24 course (33) 8:9 12:10 160:7 163:18 171:3 47:4 161:6 162:21
168:25 169:1,5 175:16 187:16 130:13 177:23 14:2 59:7 62:8 181:5 182:3 191:5 D148/2466.3/0.4 (1) 163:14 169:18
175:4 conclude (1) 18:16 185:13 186:17 64:24 67:14,23 cross-examinations … 47:7 176:15 177:17
company (68) 3:18 concludes (1) 122:7 continuation (1) 69:4 72:12 73:14 124:14,15 D148/2466.3/1 (1) 179:17 181:22
5:3 8:7 13:15,24 concluding (1) 12:6 13:11 86:17 90:12 101:7 cross-examine (5) 47:4 182:12,15 185:18
14:3,16,19 15:1,2 conclusion (3) 5:7 continue (6) 40:24 102:20 103:3,24 123:9 127:11,13 D148/2466.3/4 (1) 185:19,25 186:19
15:13 19:23,25 50:9 139:7 81:12,22 82:2 104:14 110:7 129:6 130:19 139:23 47:7 188:17,21 189:7
20:9,10 25:23,24 conditions (1) 140:7 161:21,23 143:9 151:25 cross-examined (2) D149/2474/1 (1) 48:4 Day31/100:19 (1)
27:1,2 28:11 30:14 conduct (4) 19:5 continued (5) 1:15,16 154:11 161:6 168:8 145:20 151:14 D149/2474/10 (1) 181:24
34:22 37:17,20 131:1,23 133:15 110:15 191:4,5 171:9 177:3,6,10 cross-examining (9) 48:5 Day31/102:18 (1)
38:15 40:12 41:2 conducted (5) 15:23 contract (19) 8:3 10:6 178:23 181:7 183:7 148:18,19,20,21 D149/2474/11 (1) 142:20
46:3 50:18,19,20 34:10 39:24 77:15 10:19,22 11:1,2,3,7 189:2 149:14 152:4 48:9 Day31/104:1-4 (1)
50:20 52:23 54:7 84:5 11:9,10,23 13:19 court (47) 6:14 7:2 159:16 180:17 D149/2474/12 (1) 143:14
57:13,20 58:2,9,19 conducting (3) 18:16 13:24 19:2 48:6 18:15 24:16 37:5 181:19 48:22 Day31/98:1 (1)
59:14 62:1 64:13 23:3 131:21 66:2,10 82:11 39:23 40:21,25 crossed (4) 80:7,14,16 D149/2474/2 (1) 48:8 150:18
64:17 65:24 66:3 confidentiality (1) 109:23 42:20 51:24 57:15 80:19 D149/2474/3 (1) Day31/99:1 (1) 151:2
67:15 68:16 82:9 96:17 contracts (6) 47:20 80:1 86:19,20 crucial (1) 12:15 48:22 Day33/91:16 (1)
82:14,16,21 89:1 confine (1) 149:15 48:2 50:9,11,25 108:15 124:13,21 crystallise (1) 170:19 D149/2475/1 (1) 49:8 107:25
97:1 109:9 110:23 confined (1) 185:18 51:12 125:11 134:14,15 crystallised (1) 177:20 D149/2475/10 (1) Day33/98:25 (1)
113:5,9,17 114:17 confirm (17) 2:8 3:12 contradict (3) 17:4 134:17,24 135:3 curiosity (1) 38:24 49:9 112:20
114:24 115:15 3:23 19:21 24:8,25 41:5 74:24 138:8,16 140:24 curious (2) 33:21 D149/2475/11 (1) days (14) 29:7 35:5
116:5 117:2 118:11 27:14 31:24 33:13 contrary (5) 74:21 142:5,16 144:2,14 135:12 49:14 107:2 125:3 131:19
121:4,5,6 183:6 45:6 46:10 55:1 98:23 100:17 127:9 144:24,25 145:17 curiously (1) 30:12 D149/2475/12 (1) 150:2,2 179:9
company’s (1) 60:8 82:6 89:22 90:1 156:20 147:9 151:7 153:17 current (4) 161:23 49:21 181:10 186:25,25
compare (1) 84:15 99:9 171:23 contrast (3) 13:18 155:5 161:1 162:19 165:9 179:25 180:2 D149/2475/2 (1) 188:23 189:3,4
compared (1) 84:18 confirmed (2) 92:5 15:2 23:17 164:23 165:3,24 curt (1) 166:5 49:14 deadline (1) 181:2
comparison (1) 15:11 114:14 control (9) 7:8,12 168:15 174:20 customers (1) 64:15 D149/2475/3 (1) deal (18) 12:1 34:5
compel (1) 141:24 confirming (1) 4:20 28:12 64:4,10 181:3 186:24 Customs (1) 97:14 49:21 47:2 56:12,22
competing (1) 171:11 confuse (1) 94:22 66:14 112:22 190:20 cut (4) 100:3 118:7,14 D173/2887/0.01 (1) 108:3,8 113:6
competition (1) confused (5) 9:19,20 116:24 117:1 court’s (2) 123:8 147:25 63:9 114:24 126:4
100:18 35:9 70:12 93:2 controlled (9) 8:8 145:1 Cyprus (5) 3:17 4:9 D173/2887/1 (1) 136:12,16 145:22
compilation (1) 95:2 connected (4) 26:8 21:21 27:4 35:18 courtesy (1) 153:8 5:3 99:15,16 63:20 162:4 176:10
compiled (1) 101:19 55:23 57:20 72:17 35:18 37:22 40:18 courts (1) 175:23 D192/2091/1 (1) 177:12,14 183:13
complain (2) 97:9 connection (1) 125:3 64:13 136:25 cover (3) 109:7 D 76:10 dealing (4) 32:16
153:16 conscious (2) 121:20 controls (2) 21:25 129:13 188:3 D126/2007/1 (1) 6:11 D192/2091/4 (1) 55:20 119:3 136:21
complaining (2) 77:12 147:5 138:25 covered (2) 81:17 76:13 deals (4) 134:21,25
D126/2007/2 (1) 8:14
85:23 consent (15) 6:7 8:11 convenient (2) 52:15 182:16 D192/2918.2T/123…. 169:9 173:1
D126/2007/3 (1)
complaint (6) 76:25 11:12,14 39:2,4,6 80:17 cracking (1) 179:12 60:15 dealt (5) 97:25 100:11
13:10
79:18 97:20,21 39:11,17,18 183:3 conveniently (1) created (1) 106:3 D192/2918.2T/124 (1) 162:5 177:6,25
D126/2007/4 (1) 6:12
145:6,9 183:22 184:13,14 47:21 creates (3) 114:5 60:17 debate (3) 141:15

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

195
April 6, 2016 Day 34

146:23 189:23 depend (2) 159:11 117:1 39:12 46:12 50:20 early (3) 99:8 170:18 engaged (5) 82:14 events (5) 17:3 41:18

debating (2) 145:10 180:16 disagree (6) 26:20 55:16 63:2,13 69:8 177:17 87:11 90:14 92:13 55:17 91:3 168:16
167:24 dependant (1) 34:13 34:8 35:7 51:15 77:3 78:21 79:11 earnest (1) 103:9 110:11 eventually (1) 54:22
debt (14) 42:11 48:19 depending (1) 131:19 56:2 62:2 79:16 80:9 83:7,8,9 earth (1) 71:8 engineer (1) 145:5 Evgeny (4) 66:9 69:4,7
57:3,8,11 59:23,25 depends (2) 151:17 disagreed (2) 43:22 85:21 88:1 90:2,3 Easter (5) 141:13,18 England (2) 6:4 69:8
64:18 71:4 72:25 151:19 110:8 100:5 101:25 149:9 151:16 120:12 evidence (51) 1:24 2:6
72:25 86:18,19 deployed (2) 143:5 disappointment (1) 119:25 121:21 180:23 English (18) 9:21 18:21 19:6 39:22
87:9 145:12 28:23 documentation (1) easy (4) 74:14 84:14 10:12 25:15,18 41:8,10 42:5 64:21
debts (18) 2:2,14 4:12 deputy (5) 16:18 discernible (1) 164:9 18:13 118:21 189:3 28:1,4,5 31:1 57:15 64:23 89:16,20
4:14 28:19 29:17 44:13 60:6 79:12 discharge (2) 162:20 documenting (1) ECHR (1) 175:14 65:9 98:6 100:6 91:2,4,10,13,14
32:16,16 67:22 106:17 172:2 89:11 economic (5) 78:5 175:15 181:13 93:6,10,13 94:5,6
68:16 70:4,9,10 described (6) 84:24 disclose (1) 39:12 documents (19) 3:23 86:15 97:22 115:14 184:18 186:7,12 95:1 104:22 112:4
73:8 77:16 79:3 111:4,12,18 156:14 disclosed (2) 77:24 4:22 22:17 40:19 116:22 188:7 119:18 122:9 147:8
89:12,19 164:4 99:12 41:22 42:7 47:14 economically (1) enjoy (1) 108:6 148:24 150:23
December (17) 4:12 description (6) 27:12 disclosure (12) 31:6 77:19 84:14,18 82:19 enquiry (2) 26:5 164:2,8,24 165:4,8
66:3 79:3 88:10,18 38:1 55:13 83:18 39:9,15 42:15 85:22 92:3,10 99:9 economist (1) 122:4 138:25 165:8,25 168:17
89:10,14,17 91:10 84:4 89:12 56:11 69:21 88:5 99:12 107:3 114:2 economy (2) 14:8,11 ensue (1) 162:21 174:21 175:25
91:16,19,20 93:7 deserve (1) 33:8 99:11 131:18 157:19,21 edited (2) 80:6 87:1 ensure (5) 86:18 177:21 182:15,21
93:16,20,21 94:12 designed (1) 71:10 157:19,21,23 dog (1) 165:17 editing (1) 83:8 116:25 162:22 184:17 185:2,13,20
decide (8) 11:19 despite (1) 127:16 discount (6) 46:16,17 doing (26) 44:24 45:4 education (1) 186:12 175:20 186:10 186:2,21 188:3,6
55:24 90:7 148:22 destroyed (1) 114:1 46:18,19,23 54:1 45:7 73:11,12 effect (20) 4:19 9:11 ensuring (1) 124:8 ex-judicially (1) 8:5
148:23 164:14 destroys (1) 150:6 discounted (1) 165:21 83:11 87:16 100:24 30:11 37:3 45:4 entails (1) 163:3 exact (3) 3:21 85:15
170:12 185:12 detail (5) 77:22 90:6 discovered (2) 3:19 103:17 122:24 59:9 71:21 75:24 enter (5) 10:22 11:1,7 168:18
decided (6) 100:10 106:17 162:15 64:3 134:4 135:14 89:16 104:12 108:4 13:24 105:17 exactly (27) 5:23 10:9
101:7 133:18,20 182:14 discovering (1) 84:9 136:11 147:3 149:2 108:5,19 110:20 entered (1) 15:12 33:23 45:19,20
165:11 178:5 detailed (2) 17:25 discrete (5) 123:11 149:21 152:25 127:10 164:24 entering (1) 50:25 59:3 60:4,5,12
decides (3) 127:15 89:20 125:2,13 131:15 153:7 154:8 155:15 170:24 171:25 enthusiasm (1) 87:9 64:24 67:12 73:12
151:18,19 details (3) 39:17,19 162:19 155:23 157:9 176:4 180:21 enthusiastic (1) 95:7 85:7 89:14 94:18
decision (7) 18:13 72:12 discretion (4) 9:7 158:11 166:8 169:3 effectively (8) 13:20 enthusiastically (1) 111:2 117:3 131:24
89:4 110:23 127:23 determination (2) 117:15 118:1 138:3 176:2 111:10 127:19 87:5 138:6 146:9 158:14
161:8 164:1 171:11 150:22 169:11 discretionary (1) dot (1) 94:21 164:7,20 171:7 entire (5) 12:18 54:21 164:13,17 171:22
decisions (5) 86:19,20 determine (2) 13:25 11:20 double-check (1) 172:24 174:12 58:19 117:7,8 175:17 176:2 181:2
101:2 108:15 188:5 discretions (1) 138:25 148:16 efficiency (1) 139:8 entirely (1) 131:7 examination (4) 122:8
111:22 diary (2) 145:15 discuss (3) 44:2 double-checking (1) efficiently (1) 149:11 entirety (2) 54:4 151:3 176:24
declared (2) 22:5 81:6 165:15 101:11 129:7 100:25 efforts (1) 116:6 104:1 182:22
declined (1) 96:21 differ (1) 51:15 discussed (14) 19:12 doubt (6) 31:12 45:22 eight (2) 85:16 125:3 entitled (1) 67:9 examination-in-chie…
default (5) 1:25 28:24 different (26) 6:4 9:9 32:7 37:18 38:21 120:7 123:24 151:1 either (16) 32:17 74:8 entity (4) 54:15 68:3 184:3
98:15 99:22 110:6 17:15 22:20 24:21 43:9 48:12 54:17 152:2 76:5 79:18,19 86:7 83:3 120:14 examine (1) 171:20
defence (4) 183:21 37:24,25 38:1 54:5 54:18 56:24 105:6 down-time (1) 134:2 94:11 95:11 120:15 entries (1) 169:9 example (10) 96:19
184:4 187:19 54:6 76:22 84:7 105:9 109:1 143:6 download (2) 30:19 127:7 141:9 169:20 entrusted (1) 87:8 97:8 105:4 124:7
189:15 85:1 90:15,16 161:7 30:21 176:23 185:1,7 entry (2) 61:18 65:12 149:23 157:15,19
defendants (18) 97:21 106:14 107:5 discussing (6) 25:14 downside (1) 158:5 189:22 envisaged (4) 10:18 169:8 173:20
129:17 134:14 110:11 112:6 160:5 54:10 58:6 101:9 dozen (2) 85:5,8 elaborate (1) 107:21 13:14 131:20,25 183:14
139:19 140:21 174:16 183:15,16 104:8 106:13 Dr (9) 74:3 94:16 elicit (1) 19:16 envisaging (1) 159:15 Excel (2) 30:20 31:6
141:24 143:1,2,8 185:14 186:7 discussion (7) 43:10 95:11 98:22 170:16 elide (1) 130:24 epithets (1) 14:17 exceptional (2)
144:5,16 145:2,4 differently (2) 160:3 54:8 117:17 141:12 181:1,10 185:22 else’s (1) 116:19 equity (3) 110:1,16 135:12 156:13
145:16 161:14 168:7 144:20 146:11 187:21 embarrassment (1) 148:6 exchange (4) 88:9
163:11 165:2 171:6 difficult (12) 36:21 172:9 draft (5) 77:24 78:13 141:8 equivalent (1) 70:14 89:23 90:4,11
172:23 80:4,13 90:12 discussions (3) 105:20 93:4 102:24 146:5 emerged (5) 54:11 equivocal (1) 121:18 exclusively (1) 152:2
defendants’ (1) 119:14 120:13 126:22 154:18 drafted (3) 78:5 104:2 104:5 105:20 166:6 essence (2) 95:7 executed (1) 8:7
184:11 125:6 144:2 169:20 dishonest (1) 112:25 104:3 182:17 159:2 execution (2) 51:20
defer (1) 108:16 172:6 177:19 181:4 dishonesty (2) 64:16 drafting (3) 83:7 employees (1) 95:24 essentially (5) 55:7 109:18
deferred (3) 177:22 difficulties (2) 127:17 64:19 103:16 104:10 enable (4) 116:5 78:25 126:15 exercised (1) 138:3
186:22,23 189:11 dislike (1) 156:12 drafts (1) 78:19 152:19 154:23 128:12 172:12 exhibits (1) 185:22
defined (3) 132:7 difficulty (11) 40:13 disparate (1) 115:16 draw (4) 46:13 48:9 158:8 establish (6) 7:20 18:6 existing (1) 49:19
162:9 163:3 40:14,23 79:20 disposed (2) 6:7 158:4 49:4,15 encashment (1) 97:6 84:24 116:15 exists (2) 115:21
definitely (1) 99:21 123:15 128:17 disposition (1) 109:13 drawing (2) 54:10 encourage (1) 156:13 132:21 134:13 116:21
definition (3) 130:22 140:11 155:18 dispute (2) 77:23 139:9 encouragement (1) established (2) 59:20 expand (1) 185:2
162:7 185:3 162:8 180:24 190:9 177:19 drawn (2) 3:16 4:8 162:16 119:1 expanding (4) 58:8,13
definitional (1) 189:16 dilemma (1) 125:19 disputed (1) 63:3 drop (1) 119:15 encumbered (1) establishing (2) 83:11 58:14 133:10
definitive (1) 117:19 diligently (1) 5:25 disputes (1) 86:3 due (3) 31:8 89:15 109:20 90:15 expect (13) 30:9
delayed (1) 1:3 dip (1) 125:8 disputing (1) 68:17 166:18 encumbrance (4) estate (6) 23:19 37:1 36:18 103:6 136:3
deliverables (1) direct (4) 104:11 disruption (1) 175:22 dusted (1) 177:17 38:23 55:2 108:9 174:3,5,15 175:1 138:9,9,13,16
100:22 127:6 148:16 distressed (2) 32:16 duties (4) 152:21 108:10 estimate (3) 85:9 140:21 154:4
Deloittes (1) 144:21 158:11 77:16 154:19 157:24 encumbrances (2) 185:19 186:18 158:16 178:9 180:9
Delovoy (1) 38:6 direction (3) 44:20,25 distributed (1) 78:15 175:18 59:1 114:6 estimates (4) 147:16 expected (3) 118:12
demand (1) 48:14 46:5 distribution (1) 68:12 duty (2) 87:4 159:22 endeavour (1) 161:4 170:4,4,4 148:15 155:9
demanding (1) 153:21 director (14) 7:15,17 diverted (3) 98:22 ended (2) 72:16 73:15 Estonia (1) 6:3 expecting (1) 143:15
demands (1) 57:14 21:2 41:1 43:25 99:13,15 E endorse (1) 163:2 et (3) 95:3 98:15 expensive (1) 168:14
demonstrating (1) 62:11 69:5 79:12 division (4) 97:23 e-mail (14) 73:24,24 enemies (1) 2:17 137:6 experience (3) 24:21
22:18 79:14 96:13 120:17 105:4 175:8,24 enforce (2) 112:24 European (1) 124:21 25:1 186:6
74:6 88:9,13,17
deny (8) 26:4,13 120:20,22 121:3 divisions (1) 90:17 116:7 evaluate (1) 19:21 expert (12) 126:1
91:8 115:10 122:18
31:24 36:5,5 45:11 director/manager (1) Dmitrievna (1) 88:23 enforceable (1) evening (3) 153:4 127:7,20 143:10
129:8 130:14 131:6
46:10 75:19 183:6 doable (2) 181:3 184:12 176:20 178:25 144:6,20 148:2
131:6 133:19
denying (1) 99:21 Directorate (4) 18:21 190:10 enforcement (4) event (13) 24:11,14 150:23 164:2
e-mails (1) 89:23
department (2) 79:14 62:5 79:12 101:21 document (36) 3:11 84:21 86:22 87:21 35:13,23,24 39:21 171:20 175:2 185:2
earlier (7) 14:7 18:8
101:15 disadvantage (2) 4:20 6:22 8:7 17:2 187:23 55:14 127:15,20 expertise (1) 172:25
50:19 54:17,18
departments (1) 111:11 127:19 17:14 18:1 21:4,8 enforcers (1) 77:18 151:8 160:12 experts (16) 136:21
89:16 100:12
97:22 disadvantages (1) 21:25 33:9,14,15 enforcing (1) 109:4 166:11 175:10 141:13 146:14

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

196

April 6, 2016 Day 34

147:2 152:5 170:11 174:13 180:13 181:23 184:1,6 186:6,10 188:11,11 188:23
explain (18) 2:22 26:6 26:19 51:3 94:23 97:11 98:9,12,17 100:10 102:17 120:12 134:15 138:16 144:18 155:17 156:4 164:17

explained (12) 98:16 100:2 102:2,10 103:2 104:14 108:7 110:19 138:13 155:22 171:24 177:23

explanation (3) 95:12 160:24 168:8

exploit (1) 88:22 exposes (1) 155:1 exposures (1) 154:1 expressed (1) 101:2 extend (1) 188:2 extended (9) 83:2

91:18 93:19 94:4 94:11,14,18 97:1 129:12

extending (2) 99:2,18 extension (2) 98:11

99:22

extent (5) 28:5 52:10 54:13 104:15 177:8

extinguish (1) 46:1 extra-judicial (1) 8:1 extract (2) 60:18,21 extrajudicial (2) 11:8

117:12 extrajudicially (1) 10:4 extreme (1) 167:25 extremely (1) 188:15

F

face (1) 132:18 fact (32) 2:12 3:22
4:13 19:22 21:14 21:20 25:22 26:7 26:13 30:12 34:19 40:6 41:2 43:20 55:10 58:15 59:1 64:6 91:22 92:5 93:23 98:21 116:1 139:1,13 142:7 143:16 149:1 169:4 180:18 182:17 186:24

factor (1) 184:13 factors (1) 90:10 facts (4) 83:12,17 138:11 164:8 factual (4) 102:1 182:21 183:9

185:10

fail (3) 14:24 57:2 86:7

failure (2) 39:8,12 fair (34) 11:4 15:8

22:14 27:12 31:21 38:1 40:4 41:7,9 44:3 50:22 83:18 84:3 85:9 86:4 87:6 89:12 90:11 91:13 93:9 104:22 124:8 127:15 147:18 148:1 166:20 169:19 171:5

174:10,22 183:24 30:21,23 74:14 forth (2) 71:8 97:24 21:2 24:17 41:1 143:3,17,22 144:7
186:5 188:15 189:8 82:23 85:1 87:22 fortnight (1) 155:23 67:17 68:8 79:15 144:16 147:3,21,22
fairer (1) 87:7 119:25 124:5,16 forward (7) 132:10 120:17,20 121:3 147:25 148:6,7,17
fairly (9) 24:20 55:13 125:13,18 141:8 139:3 149:11 129:4 175:21 148:19,20,21
84:14 118:21 139:7 153:18 158:24 155:20,21 159:13 generally (2) 14:14 149:11,20,21
149:11 166:12 175:13 176:11 180:13 15:3 155:19,20,22 158:4
168:19 169:2 fine (4) 64:5 73:11 forwarded (1) 73:24 generate (1) 64:18 158:25 159:1,11,13
fairness (11) 136:19 75:1 119:5 found (12) 3:24 10:8 generated (2) 69:1 159:13 161:21,23
144:3,21 145:7,14 finish (4) 161:12 31:17 36:8 52:2 70:8 161:25 163:10,17
150:24 164:10 170:10,17 181:9 68:13 82:14 84:25 gentleman (1) 92:14 164:16,16 165:11
165:7 167:6,7 finished (6) 136:14 98:8 100:8 143:20 germane (1) 169:11 166:4,14 168:13,19
172:23 139:17 147:4,24 145:11 getting (2) 41:22 169:10 171:25
faithfully (1) 39:15 149:24 160:20 founded (2) 25:24 133:21 172:5 174:14,16
Falcon (1) 62:22 finishing (1) 163:10 26:8 gist (3) 47:25 78:6 177:1 180:12,16,18
false (2) 153:11 firm (1) 136:17 four (4) 22:4 27:18,18 104:22 183:23 184:4
186:11 first (42) 6:24,24 8:1 130:16 give (21) 3:20 39:4 185:23 188:4,20
falsely (1) 26:4 11:9,16 24:12,12 fourth (1) 10:2 45:14 71:2,3 189:13,15
familiar (3) 80:1 174:7 24:21 25:1 29:22 fourthly (1) 130:23 108:22 117:18 Goncharuk (2) 146:17
184:22 31:23 32:20 33:1 fractured (1) 104:19 119:18 121:9 146:19
far (38) 7:10,25 12:5,8 33:15 45:23 54:9 frame (3) 8:6 52:20 124:13 125:11,21 good (12) 1:6,23 37:8
14:5 15:23 17:24 72:6 76:16 78:21 59:20 128:4 129:19 46:19 73:10 75:12
18:12 19:4 20:6,12 78:25 83:6 86:12 France (3) 6:3 79:25 146:14 154:7 162:7 76:11 88:23 99:23
22:15 25:1 38:3 88:14,16 97:16 81:4 169:7 181:4 189:13 156:18 186:14
39:16 54:25 61:12 98:5 101:22 104:10 frankly (3) 42:19 85:4 189:25 190:18
71:25 75:22 86:5 113:12 114:9 123:5 176:13 given (37) 32:22 39:7 grabbed (1) 64:4
92:15,16 101:16 130:5,5 132:23 frantic (1) 89:11 40:6 45:13 52:13 grain (1) 118:22
104:4 113:18 133:18 136:18 fraud (6) 73:6,6,9 76:5 52:24 56:10,11,20 granted (1) 59:19
114:12 115:8 119:8 139:19 164:1 77:17 78:7 57:23 58:15 64:22 grasp (1) 187:8
120:20 148:11 172:19 177:7 fraudulent (2) 34:5 68:20 71:1 89:16 grasping (1) 186:14
150:19 151:3 184:10 188:12 73:2 89:20 94:3,4 95:10 grateful (18) 1:22 12:4
159:23 163:22 firstly (4) 43:21 48:10 free (5) 11:2 40:6 50:3 103:6 105:3 119:17 63:15 69:15 72:10
175:24 176:19 123:8 180:25 55:8 86:24 128:12 129:15 90:24 121:11,22
183:17 184:9 fish (1) 57:25 freedom (1) 100:17 130:22 131:22 122:1,9 142:23
fault (2) 94:22 177:24 fit (4) 133:12,14 freezing (2) 103:1,15 133:15 138:21 153:20 161:10,12
favour (5) 57:22 70:22 137:21 147:23 frequently (1) 135:11 159:2 162:17 165:4 161:18 175:14
82:5 108:11 168:9 five (4) 26:22 27:11 fresh (1) 128:4 165:25 183:10,16 178:13 188:9
February (3) 33:6 75:7 125:3 Friday (19) 125:23 184:7,12 186:12 great (5) 103:2 136:20
65:19 98:10 fixed (1) 40:23 126:1 139:24,25 gives (1) 64:8 140:11 141:8
federal (1) 81:17 flag (1) 137:10 140:2,10 146:12,17 giving (3) 152:14 175:22
Federation (13) 11:18 flat (2) 52:2 96:23 146:21 159:3 157:15 189:12 greatest (1) 148:23
14:10,20 52:9 58:1 fleetingly (1) 133:3 160:10 161:6,11,24 Gladyshev (5) 181:1 Grosheva (1) 16:19
81:7,15,16 82:25 flexibility (1) 128:12 172:13,18 190:4,16 181:10,12 182:1 gross (1) 34:6
83:19 95:18 116:3 flow (1) 84:10 190:20 185:22 ground (1) 64:8
118:19 fluent (1) 181:13 friend (3) 92:20 130:1 gleaned (1) 51:24 grounding (1) 151:9
feedback (1) 96:2 focus (2) 55:24 168:11 148:25 global (1) 14:8 grounds (2) 164:17
feel (13) 49:4 50:3 focused (1) 152:2 friends (1) 128:6 glued (1) 187:2 165:1
55:8 108:20 118:6 follow (6) 22:20 24:5 frightening (1) 86:10 go (44) 11:2,4 23:13 group (40) 3:7,8 7:23
141:8 153:14 24:8 63:5 77:1 front (1) 103:21 30:18 39:5,16 41:8 8:4,8,9 17:13,17
155:12 157:2,9 103:22 fruitfully (1) 171:20 48:4 65:7 70:8 76:9 20:5,10 21:22
162:5 176:14 followed (1) 88:7 frustrate (1) 116:6 77:22 78:20 79:21 25:24 26:10 27:7,9
178:21 following (6) 1:25 frustration (1) 28:22 90:5 95:13 97:14 32:17 57:4,10,24
feels (1) 185:7 53:23 77:10 80:4 fulfilled (1) 39:15 97:15,16 98:4 58:16 62:6 64:18
fees (1) 143:3 82:6 115:18 full (6) 54:13 68:4 100:5 105:2 106:1 65:1,2 66:4 71:6
fell (1) 59:18 follows (3) 82:10 87:3 71:20 80:18 108:21 106:21 107:7 108:9 73:3 81:24 84:8
felt (4) 117:18 118:7 141:18 146:2 120:8,21 123:5 85:2 88:25 90:16
136:20 152:4 footing (2) 134:20 fully (5) 67:14 76:17 130:9 132:15 135:4 90:17 96:13 99:19
fess (1) 150:19 187:2 107:22 116:6,18 137:17 141:1 142:9 101:3,6,9 104:17
field (2) 20:23 118:22 force (1) 97:25 function (1) 172:3 142:13 153:16 105:12
fields (1) 172:25 foreclosed (2) 8:5 funds (6) 30:6 35:3 155:2,3 161:13 grow (1) 71:10
figure (5) 33:19,21 10:3 81:5 96:11 97:4,7 169:6,6 173:3 guarantee (6) 48:24
85:7,11,15 foreclosure (3) 6:21 furnish (1) 74:11 186:20 51:12 90:9 94:9
figures (5) 46:25 11:8 117:12 further (21) 41:7 goal (1) 73:13 183:4 184:19
47:13,18,19,21 foreign (1) 186:6 42:18 44:2 46:3 gobble (1) 128:4 guarantees (13) 5:21
file (10) 6:5 30:19,20 foresee (1) 162:25 48:21 49:5 50:1 goes (5) 35:2 74:17 90:8,8 91:11 92:1,7
31:6 76:4 77:18 forgave (3) 50:10,14 53:14 72:9 77:10 77:8 138:10 174:18 92:12 93:3,8 94:2
78:9,15 97:20 52:5 92:21 99:3,10 going (100) 3:5,15 183:22 184:12
189:15 forged (1) 92:12 122:5,5 127:23 4:23 7:21 11:15 187:20
filed (1) 166:1 forgery (2) 92:13,15 128:15 129:3 12:10,14 21:24 guarantor (2) 51:17
files (1) 42:2 forgive (2) 33:16 34:1 133:17 150:21 29:20 35:25 70:1 68:23
fill (1) 186:1 forgiven (2) 57:8 173:5 72:19 94:21 100:3 guarantors (2) 48:15
final (3) 60:5 119:16 58:16 furthermore (5) 81:23 101:1 106:4,8,9 84:12
172:11 form (5) 98:20 155:1 86:7 91:19 93:20 109:16 110:5,6 guess (1) 168:20
finally (1) 23:13 156:5 171:21 119:3 131:8 132:3,10,13 guessing (1) 63:20
finance (3) 43:25 177:21 future (1) 116:23 132:14 133:12 guesstimate (2)
62:11 144:8 formalise (2) 89:19 134:3,7,13,15,16 188:22 189:7
financial (5) 14:8 69:4 183:25 G 135:6 136:9 137:2 guidance (2) 165:12
81:25 84:24 96:13 formulate (1) 162:15 gain (1) 115:23 137:3,19 138:12 171:21
financing (1) 31:20 formulated (1) 9:5 139:1,3,13 140:14 guided (1) 168:21
general (13) 7:15,17
find (18) 9:2 12:17 formulating (1) 4:2 141:25 142:4 143:2 Guriev (5) 148:9,10

151:12 169:25 170:5

H

half (10) 19:18,19 37:16,16,19,21 42:17 45:23 53:19 61:22

halt (1) 168:4 hand (3) 39:19 63:2

88:2

hand-to-mouth (1)

136:19

handed (4) 57:3 78:17

88:4 146:3 handful (1) 163:6 handle (2) 119:14

132:12

handled (1) 78:11 hands (3) 54:7 72:16

127:2 handwriting (2) 43:16

43:18 handwritten (2) 43:15

44:3

happen (13) 45:17 106:11 132:20,23 134:13,15 135:5 137:20 139:1 142:6 159:11,13 167:25

happened (26) 5:24 19:10 34:20 42:24 50:22 55:10 59:2 61:15 63:6,23 64:25 66:24 67:1 67:19,24 68:2 75:4 92:4 103:13 104:7 106:12 107:17 111:25 134:10 142:7 145:25

happening (6) 67:13 89:14 132:5,22,23 156:18

happens (5) 61:25 113:23 157:21,23 159:6

happy (8) 2:8,22 51:1 51:2 55:1 134:17 153:10 167:16

hard (2) 119:9,15 head (1) 182:20 headed (4) 31:7 38:7

52:18,18

heading (4) 79:4,5,10 79:16

headphones (1) 1:20 headquarters (2)

99:24 100:1 hear (4) 9:24 151:4

159:22 173:16 heard (2) 36:11

180:20

hearing (3) 13:22 45:1 45:2

hearings (1) 41:23 heavily (4) 80:6 87:1 112:12 124:12 hectares (3) 38:8,12

40:9

held (6) 11:13 54:5,15 110:2 111:24 150:11

helicoptering (3)

135:9,10 156:14 help (11) 12:7 36:13 56:25 83:16 88:4

112:24 115:13 125:6 127:14

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

197

April 6, 2016 Day 34

163:19 171:5 helpful (6) 52:14 82:3

128:8 153:19 185:15 189:24 helpfully (2) 98:16

127:12

helps (2) 49:6 115:18 heretofore (1) 184:5 hidden (6) 2:13 3:2 4:5,15,17 5:1

high (1) 29:20 higher (5) 29:3,4

34:17 52:5 100:4

HILDYARD (221) 1:6,9 1:12,14,21 11:22 12:12 17:22 35:9 35:20 36:10,18 37:10 41:17 44:23 59:5,8,15 60:1,9,13 63:11 68:11 70:12 71:12 72:3,8 73:14 73:20,22 74:2,9,13 75:7,12 79:4,7,10 80:24 90:23 92:24 92:25 94:14,20 95:6,10,19 96:3,18 97:8 98:1,9 99:1 100:2,9 101:4,13 101:24 102:13,17 102:25 103:6,19 104:4,13,24 105:2 105:20,24 106:16 107:14,18 108:25 110:17,25 111:3,8 112:1 114:7,20 115:13 116:4,12,24 117:4,10,18,24 118:6 119:16 120:1 120:5 121:1,7,12 121:18,22 122:1,7 122:15,21,25 124:23 125:9,15,23 126:2,9,14 128:3,9 128:22 129:23 130:3,8,12 135:6 135:24 136:7,15 137:11,25 138:19 140:5,19 141:7 142:11,17,22 143:13,24 145:24 146:1,7,16,25 150:4,9,17 151:22 152:22,24 153:20 154:14,25 155:24 158:6,16 159:15,20 160:6,9,15,19 161:5,16 162:3,14 162:16 163:12 164:3,15 165:14,19 166:21,25 167:4,18 167:21 168:4 169:14,19,25 170:15,23 171:15 172:17 173:6,14 174:24 175:12 176:22 177:1,4 178:7,11,21,23 179:2,5,21 180:2,7 180:14,20 181:12 181:14,20 182:6,11 182:16,24 183:24 184:8,25 185:15 186:5,16,21 187:11 187:15 188:1,14,24 189:8,12,24 190:7 190:14,18 191:6

historic (1) 24:14 historically (1) 134:11 history (1) 61:3

hived (1) 164:12

HMRC (2) 97:14,16 hold (3) 12:11 120:1

146:24 holding (2) 10:22

187:13

hole (2) 80:16,22 holes (1) 117:9 holiday (6) 102:2,4

106:20,22 107:6 140:1

home (1) 161:13 homework (1) 170:24 honest (2) 64:15

123:20

Honour (2) 41:6 111:6 hoops (1) 106:2 hope (12) 9:14 15:24

45:2 60:17 73:24 94:22 128:6 169:23 170:10 171:12 175:19 185:25

hoped (1) 98:14 hopefully (7) 19:15

31:3 48:3 63:19 65:9 78:24 189:19

hopes (1) 188:17 horizontal (1) 52:15 horribly (1) 189:2 hotel (1) 102:16 hours (2) 35:5 141:16 house (32) 12:17,23

15:14,17,23 16:2,8 16:13,17,23 17:10 18:11,18 19:2 22:13,24 23:2,4,16 24:13,19,20 25:2 26:25 27:5,22 29:6 33:25 35:1 56:25 117:15 165:18

housekeeping (10)

74:1 122:14,17 123:4,7 129:25 161:11 170:14 180:23 191:7

houses (1) 118:25 housing (1) 118:24

I

idea (17) 99:18,23 104:24 105:1,5,20 106:1 133:2 135:21 135:22 138:20 140:3,13 151:5 153:24,25 166:17

ideal (1) 126:3 identical (1) 74:6 identified (6) 78:7

82:7 95:15,24 127:3 166:23

identify (10) 9:15 32:8 77:16,21 84:15 86:20 120:23 130:16 175:17 182:24

ignorance (2) 154:3 154:25

ignorant (1) 135:19 ignore (2) 80:16

157:24

illegal (2) 81:24 87:21 illegally (1) 81:18 imagine (3) 136:8,9

158:16 imagined (2) 151:13

155:13 immediate (1) 130:17 immediately (2)

103:14,18 indications (1) 129:4 interfering (1) 87:15
immovable (1) 53:1 individual (2) 81:8 Interior (1) 86:13
impacted (1) 14:10 104:20 intermediate (1)
impecuniosity (1) individuals (1) 81:14 154:1
164:21 inducement (1) Internal (2) 79:13
impecunious (1) 2:12 141:22 82:23
impediment (1) industrial (1) 117:9 interpret (3) 43:23
135:14 inelegantly (1) 164:4 91:14 93:12
imperfect (1) 174:25 inequality (1) 166:19 interpretation (5)
impertinent (1) infer (1) 133:22 11:5 44:5 50:22
137:17 inference (4) 28:13 56:14 64:8
implement (5) 15:14 31:21 86:4 90:11 interpreted (1) 1:17
19:1 44:10 45:25 informally (1) 184:3 interpreter (9) 1:7,13
46:5 information (12) 4:7 9:22,22 40:16,24
implementation (1) 4:18 5:11 30:10 45:3 63:17 191:3
6:19 36:7,22 51:25 interpreters (2) 9:15
implemented (1) 55:9 74:10 82:20 84:12 179:18
implications (1) 103:7 99:12,25 interrupt (1) 139:25
implicit (2) 125:15 informed (6) 19:11 intervened (1) 108:1
163:12 67:14 134:20 139:4 intervention (1)
implied (1) 151:23 152:16 154:18 142:23
implies (1) 131:15 initial (3) 11:17 74:10 intriguing (1) 31:5
important (7) 19:16 173:23 introduce (2) 44:1
116:20 118:14 inkling (1) 36:6 107:12
139:18 164:9 input (2) 95:2 185:8 introduced (2) 58:5
176:16 181:3 inquire (1) 182:1 183:23
impossible (3) 150:15 inserted (1) 80:7 introducing (1) 47:24
159:21 190:15 inspired (1) 152:17 introduction (1)
impression (6) 90:14 instance (10) 3:7 33:1 124:24
98:20 136:17 158:7 48:11 101:22 115:5 intuitively (1) 102:22
158:10 173:17 115:21 116:11,16 Invest (1) 48:12
improve (1) 98:14 118:22,24 investigate (1) 158:25
improving (1) 167:6 instances (5) 76:5 investigated (1) 82:22
in-chief (2) 182:22 77:17,21 78:7 investigating (1)
186:2 95:15 83:23
inaccuracies (1) 102:1 instinctive (1) 169:14 investigation (5)
inaccuracy (3) 102:5 instruct (3) 123:11 77:15 83:11,14
104:5,7 130:10 135:2 84:1,5
inaccurate (1) 103:19 instructed (11) 103:12 investigative (1) 79:14
inadmissible (1) 68:6 123:9,23 124:11,15 investment (4) 33:1,7
inappropriate (1) 125:12 132:20 33:8,20
95:13 153:6 154:4,22 Investrbank (3) 62:5
inaudible (1) 184:5 155:20 89:18 95:22
incentive (1) 141:22 instructing (3) 74:5 invite (5) 125:20
incidentally (2) 38:24 123:12 153:2 127:4 188:10,12
88:5 instruction (1) 19:4 189:9
inclination (1) 165:23 instructions (13) 41:3 invited (2) 43:24
include (5) 17:10,11 44:14,15 45:5 126:17
75:24 97:22 131:2 46:11 107:1 129:3 involved (10) 6:18,20
included (4) 17:11 129:12,21 133:21 18:9,12 31:18
107:3 113:23,25 172:20,21 173:12 32:15 55:18 81:24
includes (2) 16:12,22 insurance (21) 6:15 96:12 155:6
including (13) 29:5 7:1,3,7,10 10:13 involvement (2) 18:7
36:24 54:14 81:19 19:20,23 26:24 18:19
96:7 104:17 105:8 37:17 38:15 65:20 involving (1) 105:21
114:11 134:1,1 65:24 66:13 68:15 ironed (1) 117:1
137:4 159:14 167:8 68:22 70:25 71:7 Isam (3) 82:9,14,20
income (7) 81:7,8,18 89:1 113:16 114:17 issue (23) 19:12 71:5
81:19,20 84:13 intend (1) 86:1 73:5 117:14 125:13
174:5 intended (3) 64:21 126:11 127:3,5
incomes (1) 84:15 111:13 119:6 136:5 140:22,24
indebtedness (6) intention (3) 2:1,3 141:12 142:2 144:8
55:25 56:17,18 148:13 145:10 163:24
64:23 68:21 70:23 interacted (1) 85:2 164:10 167:15
independent (2) intercede (1) 141:4 172:23 177:4
26:23 27:11 interest (6) 22:18 183:20,21 188:25
INDEX (1) 191:1 29:16 34:11 91:23 issued (8) 44:14 46:10
indicate (3) 22:4 93:24 110:21 85:22 91:17 93:18
43:20 152:16 interested (15) 2:24 126:24 143:9
indicated (13) 1:18 8:21 27:23 29:14 144:18
31:8 74:21 122:19 34:15 54:12 55:3 issues (17) 58:7 86:17
127:10,13 128:25 58:8,10,12 62:17 105:11 122:22
151:15 156:10,11 76:15 83:24 90:21 127:24 129:14,25
178:8 181:17,18 113:24 131:18 168:6 172:8
indicating (2) 40:14 interesting (3) 24:11 173:2 182:17
40:22 173:16 178:18 183:13,19 185:5,6
indication (7) 126:22 interests (8) 41:13 185:12
126:23,25 162:13 42:5,9 55:2 56:5 issuing (2) 32:15
167:9,14,19 83:15 86:15 98:22 144:25

Italy (2) 102:8,12 items (3) 113:21,25
115:4 iteration (1) 11:11

J

January (2) 102:4,11 jewellery (1) 82:15 jointly (1) 73:3

jolly (1) 188:17 judge (3) 21:3 157:2

186:11

judging (2) 8:6 17:2 judicial (1) 155:14 judicially (1) 138:3 July (2) 7:6 66:8 June (1) 82:7 junior (1) 149:4 juridical (2) 82:21

120:24

jurisdiction (2) 138:2

152:7

Justice (222) 1:6,9,12 1:14,21 11:22 12:12 17:22 35:9 35:20 36:10,18 37:10 41:17 44:23 59:5,8,15 60:1,9,13 63:11 68:11 70:12 71:12 72:3,8 73:14 73:20,22 74:2,9,13 75:7,12 79:4,7,10 80:24 90:23 92:24 92:25 94:14,20 95:6,10,19 96:3,18 97:8 98:1,9 99:1 100:2,9 101:4,13 101:24 102:13,17 102:25 103:6,19 104:4,13,24 105:2 105:20,24 106:16 107:14,18 108:25 110:17,25 111:3,8 112:1 114:7,20 115:13 116:4,12,24 117:4,10,18,24 118:6 119:16 120:1 120:5 121:1,7,12 121:18,22 122:1,7 122:15,21,25 124:23 125:9,15,23 126:2,9,14 128:3,9 128:22 129:23 130:3,8,12 135:6 135:24 136:7,15 137:11,25 138:19 140:5,19 141:7 142:11,17,22 143:13,24 145:24 146:1,7,16,25 150:4,9,17 151:22 152:22,24 153:20 154:14,25 155:24 158:6,16 159:15,20 160:6,9,15,19 161:5,16 162:3,14 162:16 163:12 164:3,15 165:14,19 166:21,25 167:4,18 167:21 168:4,16 169:14,19,25 170:15,23 171:15 172:17 173:6,14 174:24 175:12 176:22 177:1,4 178:7,11,21,23 179:2,5,21 180:2,7 180:14,20 181:12

181:14,20 182:6,11 182:16,24 183:24 184:8,25 185:15 186:5,16,21 187:11 187:15 188:1,14,24 189:8,12,24 190:7 190:14,18 191:6

justification (1) 57:15

K

Kalinin (9) 43:25 44:10,19 45:24 46:4 66:9 69:4,7,8

keen (3) 123:19 166:9 166:10

keep (6) 36:22 164:24 169:22 178:4 179:17 188:19

keeping (1) 173:1 kept (2) 99:11 104:15 kind (16) 8:16 11:7

23:15 24:14 39:1,2 52:14 57:19 64:11 105:16 111:16 123:6 124:1 125:19 127:14 153:4

kindly (1) 9:23 Kiperort (11) 19:25

20:4,24 21:3,6 22:13 23:23 27:2 120:4,5,7

knew (7) 39:21 40:2 41:20 62:12 72:6 100:19 141:7

know (112) 7:10,19 12:10 14:12 15:19 15:19,22 17:20,24 18:2,4 19:9 20:12 22:12 26:16 30:8,9 30:14,15,17 32:12 32:14 33:4 36:1,2 36:15,16 37:4,6 38:20,22 42:19 43:1,19,24 44:5,7 56:9 61:17 68:4,11 69:21 71:12,25 75:20,22,22 79:11 96:3 97:18 99:24 103:3,20 104:25 108:15 110:18 120:11,18 123:23 124:3 131:9,24 135:7 136:23 137:8 138:4 140:6,8,16 140:17,17,18,23 142:14 145:22 148:17 149:12 151:7 154:3,8,9,15 155:1,2,3,6,7,8,8 155:12,12,15 156:18,23,25 157:3 158:7 159:20 164:15 171:15,17 176:1,2,19 179:22 182:14 183:17 187:11 189:5,19,21 190:9

knowing (2) 140:22 187:7

knowledge (12) 21:5 26:1,2 43:2 44:12 44:22 62:2 65:4,6 66:18 68:19 69:9 known (8) 14:15,18 24:20 36:19 37:3

66:21,23 152:12 knows (6) 68:7 139:5 143:16 149:12

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

198

April 6, 2016 Day 34

161:22 173:5

Kolpachkov (14)

43:18 44:2,9,13,18 44:24 45:4,7,24 46:4,6,11 106:17 107:9

Kommersant (4) 25:8 26:13,22 27:25

kopecks (1) 33:13 KRISTINA (2) 1:15

191:4

Krygina (1) 96:9

Kuvshinov (3) 7:16,16

7:19

L

laborious (1) 185:24 lack (3) 39:8 184:13
184:14 lady (1) 61:4 laid (1) 68:25

Lair (14) 14:3,5,12,13 14:14 15:1,8,10 29:20,23,25 100:25 101:7 113:19

land (74) 3:17 23:18 23:19 31:19 38:22 39:25 40:7,9 43:7 55:4,5 58:11,13 60:18,22,25 61:10 61:15,19,23 62:12 62:14,15,19,24 63:4,6,22 64:22 65:5,13,14,19,23 66:8,18 67:18 68:1 68:2,20 69:11,17 69:17,20 70:5 71:9 71:12 113:22 114:2 115:6,10,23 116:11 116:13,17,19,20,23 118:10,11,20,23 119:2,4,6,9,11 140:14 172:15 173:19,21,24 175:5 175:5

lands (1) 71:9 large (5) 7:13 27:21

33:19 76:1 79:17 largest (1) 99:19 lasted (1) 141:16 lasts (1) 148:4

late (2) 133:25 147:12 lately (1) 137:5

latest (1) 134:24 laudable (2) 157:7,9 law (46) 6:2 11:6

21:11 43:13 69:2 77:18 81:17 83:19 84:21 86:22 87:20 100:17 110:17,19 110:22,25,25 111:8 115:9 120:11 138:11 147:2 180:13 181:7,25 182:15,17 183:2,12 183:13,17 184:18 184:18,24 185:1,12 186:6,7,7,8 187:23 188:2,7,8,11,11

lawful (2) 111:1,13 lawfully (1) 111:10 lawyer (7) 15:19 96:7

96:20 110:18 119:18 122:4 186:12

lawyers (11) 5:25 96:4 96:6 123:12 124:13 125:1,5,6,12 138:8

183:20 lines (2) 39:3 177:24 94:25 105:14 120:6 145:25 146:5,5,9
lawyers’ (2) 185:8,20 link (2) 30:18 90:15 135:13 138:7 139:3 146:19 147:1,4,15
lead (3) 133:20 liquidation (4) 68:12 142:10 150:25 148:15,15 149:10
135:15 175:22 68:25 70:13,18 165:25 171:8 149:19 150:7,7,16
learn (1) 157:22 list (5) 53:2,14 100:14 172:19,22 184:24 151:15 152:11,18
learned (3) 92:20 100:16 166:19 looked (12) 50:10 152:23 154:11
128:6 130:1 listed (4) 27:18 46:2 55:12 58:22 72:11 155:16,16 157:11
leave (10) 46:12 75:2 49:21 114:2 77:20 78:8 87:2 157:11 158:6,14,21
133:4 136:6,7 listen (1) 178:1 105:17 113:19 158:23,23 159:19
170:6 179:19 184:6 listening (2) 180:21 119:19 169:8 160:8,11 161:10,10
185:1 188:2 182:21 182:13 161:18 162:10
leaves (4) 9:6 158:23 listing (1) 62:9 looking (19) 9:10,16 163:2,16 164:13,15
170:11 179:16 litigant (1) 132:1 9:20,25 21:8 22:1 164:19,19 165:15
leaving (2) 34:20 litigants (2) 124:2,11 26:21 32:19,20 165:15 166:15
170:9 litigation (4) 125:10 33:6 50:24 55:7 167:11,23,23
left (12) 9:2 13:19 132:2 155:19 159:3 62:6 78:18 138:24 168:23 169:17,22
20:24 95:17 141:11 little (15) 50:7 53:7 147:8 150:10 163:6 170:3,22 171:5,5
141:18,23 142:4,25 58:20 93:2 100:11 184:20 172:11,11,18
142:25 144:11 102:7 112:13 119:9 looks (10) 6:16 8:6 173:10,14 174:1
182:5 119:12 128:15,21 16:6 26:20,22 175:10 176:7,12
legal (10) 7:21 29:9 132:25 138:14 60:23 73:8 78:22 178:3,5,13,21,22
96:3 100:15 114:5 153:21 166:10 83:22 161:25 179:1,3,16,16,24
115:23 116:22 living (1) 136:18 loose (1) 161:22 180:5,11,11,15
151:20 171:18 LLC (15) 20:9 40:12,17 Lord (307) 1:7,7,10,19 181:14,16,18,22,22
183:10 42:18 47:10 53:1 1:22 2:4 3:5 4:6,16 182:19 183:16,20
legalisation (1) 81:18 61:7,16,23 62:20 5:2,9,22 6:20 7:18 183:25 184:23
legitimate (1) 64:9 62:23 65:4,5,24 9:9 10:1 11:6 12:4 185:4,7,25 186:2,4
Lehman’s (1) 186:25 66:9 12:5,18 13:1 14:16 186:13,17,18 187:4
lending (2) 79:1 100:3 Lloyds (1) 184:21 14:19 15:4,9,21 187:25 188:9
lengthy (2) 185:25 load (1) 115:16 17:14 18:2,5,12,25 189:15 190:1,3,17
186:19 loan (47) 3:5,6,8,13 19:11 20:25 21:23 190:17
Leningrad (1) 65:16 3:22 4:1 31:9,9,10 24:25 26:2,15 Lord’s (1) 187:4
lent (1) 32:11 32:4,8,9,13,14 27:14 28:20 29:5 Lordship (80) 1:5 2:22
let’s (14) 2:25 5:17,18 34:23 36:15 43:5 29:24 30:17 31:22 5:10 37:14 51:1
85:3,5 120:5 46:15 47:15 48:14 32:14 33:11 34:8 73:23 74:11 75:13
131:16,17 157:2,18 49:11,12,16 50:6 36:4,14 37:6,8 92:22 101:10
157:19,19,21 50:15,16 52:24 39:14 41:20 42:6 106:12 121:16,19
176:22 58:24 59:8,12,19 44:4,13,21 45:13 121:21,23 122:19
letter (11) 74:3 90:3 60:8,8 71:22 75:17 46:6 47:25 50:9,23 124:3,4 125:21
126:12,15 138:14 75:22 79:24 82:8 51:6 56:23 57:19 126:16 127:9,15,21
141:6,6 143:22 84:10 92:6 94:10 59:7,12,19 60:4,12 129:1 130:13 132:6
165:20 189:16,17 94:10,19 96:25,25 60:14 62:14 63:8,8 132:9 135:20
letters (2) 79:17 98:24 99:18 63:12 64:7 65:8 136:10 137:16,18
132:10 loans (29) 28:22 32:15 68:5,22 69:13,24 139:5,6,8 141:18
level (6) 84:13 99:20 38:1 46:2,15 47:10 71:5,25 72:10,18 142:3,20 143:6,16
100:4 134:14 47:17 50:11,14 73:5,10,17,19,21 143:23 144:11
154:25 184:25 53:25 54:6 55:20 73:21,23,23 74:6 145:22 146:23
levels (1) 184:10 57:9 58:15 59:2 74:10 75:6,6 76:12 147:5,11,20 149:12
liabilities (1) 154:1 68:24 76:7 87:16 78:5,21 79:20 151:17,19 152:15
liability (2) 173:7 90:7 91:16,18 80:20,25 83:19 153:10,16 154:12
176:4 93:16,19 94:3,5 84:5,23 85:11,19 154:20 158:24
licence (1) 133:15 98:11 99:2 112:12 86:5 87:7 90:1,12 161:22 163:24
licensed (1) 131:23 113:13 90:24 91:14 92:5 164:14 165:10
lie (1) 177:24 located (1) 115:10 92:13,21,22 94:6 166:17 167:2,24
lien (4) 38:23 39:25 logistical (3) 126:5 94:18 95:5,9,15 168:23 171:10
40:10 43:12 171:18,19 96:24 97:19 98:25 172:14,19 174:22
lies (1) 64:16 logistics (1) 102:8 99:5 100:8,15 176:17 178:8,14,17
light (3) 48:3 133:7 Lokai (2) 25:25 26:8 101:9 102:10,22 179:3,18 181:22
175:9 long (21) 122:8 104:23 106:1 107:1 188:10 189:9,18,21
lighten (1) 123:19 131:19 137:2 108:23 111:16 189:22 190:3
likes (1) 137:14 141:15 145:10 113:3,12 114:16 Lordship’s (7) 1:10
Liliana (1) 88:19 147:19 148:5,7 116:9 117:3,17 121:15 123:21,24
limit (2) 132:22 149:17 159:17,24 118:16 119:25 162:13 169:11
174:21 160:6,9 161:6 120:19 121:11,13 183:14
limitation (1) 135:18 166:4 168:13,13 121:13,19,23 122:6 loss (1) 169:7
limited (9) 125:12 184:1 185:19 122:6,12,12,18,22 lost (1) 149:8
131:11,12 154:22 188:17 189:5 123:5 124:17,25 lot (13) 12:13 20:14
155:11 156:7 long-standing (1) 58:3 125:10,20,25 22:23 39:24 70:10
157:14 162:19 longer (4) 102:23 126:10 127:1 80:6 90:5 92:2
181:6 128:21 148:4 186:9 128:24 129:24 123:24 170:13
limp (1) 167:10 look (43) 6:11 7:13 130:4,5,5,9,13 185:22,24 186:8
line (22) 13:3,5,6,6,7 8:15 13:3,13 16:5,9 131:13 135:20,20 lots (3) 24:4 33:24
22:7 33:1,18 34:13 20:19 22:21 25:4 136:1,1,4,10,10 34:2
61:1 62:21 74:19 25:13 33:18 38:4 137:9,9,12,16 love (2) 87:7 95:8
74:25 88:21 92:4 42:12 43:19 47:3 138:6,6,13,23,23 low (2) 29:21 112:7
108:7 142:19 49:5,8 52:11 60:24 139:18 140:15,15 lower (4) 8:16 15:7
143:12 146:24 61:1 62:20 66:6 141:5,5,11,11 28:18 47:14
148:16 157:20 74:19 76:8,10 142:7,14,19,23 lowest (1) 136:21
181:23 78:19 90:2,3,19 143:15,25 145:4,25 Lozarit (1) 82:22

LPK (10) 37:20,22 38:15 49:12 53:21 57:6 82:7 83:2 89:2 89:3

lubricating (1) 142:1 luck (1) 180:25 lunch (1) 73:11 Luncheon (1) 75:10 lunchtime (1) 170:11 lurked (1) 27:19 Lutskov (1) 28:6

M

M1/12/8 (1) 112:6

Maggs (5) 148:22

181:5 187:7,11,13

Magnum (1) 52:17 main (8) 59:24 79:14

84:23 106:19 109:5 113:15 125:4 187:19

maintaining (1)

108:10

major (2) 70:19 79:15 majority (2) 67:4,21 making (5) 11:10

29:16 47:22 161:14 176:23

Malysheva (5) 41:12 72:7 105:8,14,21

man (1) 187:11 manage (1) 190:9 managed (3) 28:7 66:16 134:19

management (8)

39:10 47:6,9,23 48:7 60:6 107:4 122:23

manager (2) 19:3 66:17

managers (2) 72:1 76:6

managing (1) 18:14 mandate (1) 175:18 manner (1) 28:10 manufacturers (1)

119:7

map (1) 149:20 March (6) 1:25 3:1

28:25 128:10 136:22 145:24

margin (1) 33:22 Marine (22) 3:7 7:23

8:4 17:13,17 57:4,7 57:10 58:16 62:6 62:10 64:18 65:2 71:6 73:3 79:2 81:24 84:8 85:2 88:25 90:16 99:19

Marine’s (1) 28:15 maritime (2) 6:1

111:20 market (19) 27:21

28:2,3,10,21 29:3 29:24 40:4 56:4,4,8 57:17 58:18 65:4 68:8 70:2,8 72:20 109:21

markings (1) 80:18 Marsal (1) 126:24 massive (2) 124:1,12 master (2) 136:8

156:21

matches (1) 33:21 material (4) 49:3

65:11 78:24 127:8 materials (2) 82:11,18 maths (2) 20:16 46:19

matter (31) 47:24 62:3 73:24 87:23 92:16 96:24 97:13 101:7 104:9 107:12 130:21 134:19 139:1,17 141:4 144:15 147:12 152:3 154:20 156:1 156:3 158:18 162:6 165:11 171:13 177:8,25 179:24 186:25 187:1 189:22

matters (19) 105:6 106:14 108:20 122:14,17 123:8 129:7 130:21 131:17 137:9 150:23 163:9 168:10,20 169:10 169:15 172:4 182:6 183:7

maximise (8) 2:7 29:13,17 50:5,17 55:21 104:18 105:24

maximising (6) 27:23 27:24 29:14 34:12 34:13,15

maximum (6) 27:22 28:8 42:10 70:1 72:21,23

mayhem (2) 162:21 163:1

McDonald’s (2)

124:12 152:12

McKenzie (2) 102:18 148:25

mean (27) 9:14 11:8 24:16 26:6,19 55:7 55:11,12 56:14,17 71:12 80:4 94:14 94:17,18 95:24 105:1 110:12 135:24 140:6,24 152:6 153:23 179:24 182:16 187:4 189:2

meaning (2) 56:6 173:14

means (3) 44:7 93:17 168:14

meant (8) 10:24 64:1 85:25 94:8 139:25 146:9,12 179:24

mechanism (1) 145:12 media (3) 24:23 26:5

29:10 meeting (9) 47:6

67:17 68:9 91:20 93:21 96:7 104:8 106:13 107:11

meetings (2) 105:8 106:14

member (1) 60:6 members (2) 95:22

121:4 memory (15) 11:6

14:24 32:10 41:18 45:11 51:22 57:2 69:10 72:5 86:7 95:16 142:4,9 167:12 174:25

mention (3) 12:20

74:13 79:2 mentioned (10) 14:9

22:8 33:9 34:9 81:13 91:21 93:22 101:10 104:9 116:9

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

199

April 6, 2016 Day 34

Mercury (23) 40:12,17 42:17,18,22 43:4,6 43:7 44:16 46:1 47:10 48:17 49:1 49:11 53:20,22,23 53:23 54:19,25 57:6 62:23 65:4

Meridian (3) 65:24

66:3,9

message (8) 88:14,16 88:21 166:2,5,6 174:6 180:6

met (1) 58:8 metadata (1) 77:25 method (3) 174:5,8,9 methods (1) 174:4 metres (1) 65:14 microphone (2) 9:23

63:17

middle (5) 5:18,24 8:16 13:13 80:15

MIKHEYEV (2) 1:13 191:3

Milan (1) 102:11 militia (1) 87:22 Millard (25) 123:10

125:22 126:8 128:19 139:20,23 139:24 146:8,9,12 147:11 149:22 151:3 153:14 159:16 160:22 172:14 174:7,10,16 174:18 176:23 179:9,9,15

Millard’s (3) 148:3

160:7 171:2 million (29) 5:4 20:14

23:12 30:1 33:2,20 40:8 46:17 48:20 49:1,17,25 50:11 51:19,23 52:6,7,25 57:2,9,9,11,18 58:17,20,21 82:10 82:17 108:5

Milner (31) 126:4,7 129:12,15 130:6 133:10 136:3 140:6 140:7,10 143:20 148:5 149:14,21 151:6,25 152:19 154:23 158:11 159:7,15 160:1,3 160:16,17 163:14 163:18,19 171:3 177:5 179:14

mind (17) 5:7 39:19 50:21 59:5 100:13 102:6 106:16 112:7 118:14 123:24 126:18 138:17 142:3,14,15 152:8 169:23

minded (1) 179:18 mine (1) 146:1 Minister (1) 86:12 Ministry (1) 82:22 minor (1) 68:13 minute (5) 22:23

23:15 51:5 74:8 187:17

minutes (5) 16:7 37:10 47:5 55:13 109:12

Mironova (44) 1:15,23 5:6 6:13 10:8 12:13 25:22 26:7 28:17 30:12 31:4 34:3,18 35:21 37:2,15 50:4

52:13 55:19 56:7 63:23 64:6 65:9,12 72:11 75:14 78:16 78:18 79:9 83:5,22 85:23 88:9 89:10 90:5,25 91:24 92:19,22,25 112:22 122:7 160:21 191:4

misconceived (1)

27:20

misheard (1) 163:19 misinterpretation (1)

94:7 missed (1) 93:8

missing (1) 91:11 mistake (1) 9:18 mistaken (1) 62:10 misunderstanding (1)

94:8

misunderstood (1)

18:8

misuse (2) 79:24 97:3 misused (1) 96:25 mixture (1) 114:11

Mm (1) 172:17 model (1) 174:14 moment (19) 2:14

8:22 22:1 30:23 37:9 73:10 74:14 103:9 124:17 131:20,22 157:8 162:6 170:17 172:8 180:8 185:19,25 187:12

Monday (15) 148:8,10 151:13 161:7,20 162:2 169:22 170:1 170:18 177:15 178:16 179:19,22 189:23,23

monetary (1) 81:5 money (44) 3:16,18

4:8,10,15,17,18 5:4 28:14,17 29:16 30:12 31:9 32:21 34:20,21,23,25 35:2,18,25,25 36:25 57:3,11 68:14,15 71:1,1,2,3 72:23,23 94:15,19 97:2 99:14,15 116:25 143:19,20 144:1,5 145:11

monies (6) 64:18,25 69:1 83:4 98:20 99:13

monitoring (7) 4:1 18:21 36:24 62:4 101:15,21 118:19

month (1) 5:10 monthly (1) 59:22 months (3) 94:12

110:6 169:3 morning (8) 1:6,23

54:18 117:11 118:8 153:3 159:9 178:19

Morris (1) 124:6

Morskoy (1) 109:2 mortgaged (4) 10:3 24:17,18 65:2

motion (1) 145:1 motive (1) 110:13 move (1) 145:16 movement (1) 96:11 moves (1) 86:10 moving (1) 128:14 muddle (1) 112:1 muddled (1) 126:2 mustn’t (1) 173:15

N

N1 (3) 52:23 54:23 57:20
N9/9/36 (1) 38:4 name (7) 12:16,20 21:1,7 117:23 120:8 158:17 narrow (1) 123:23 nature (1) 172:6

near (4) 13:13 65:15 88:22 163:4

nearer (1) 103:10 necessarily (2) 118:12

185:11 necessary (11) 77:5

83:14 105:3 126:7 144:1 162:3 167:3 168:9 176:10 177:8 177:12

need (46) 1:19 11:9 11:11 30:19,21,23 50:24 73:25 76:9 77:22 78:19,22 79:25 90:8,9 94:23 105:16,17 106:21 122:19 127:8 129:2 129:21 134:13 136:23 137:8 138:1 139:14 144:21 148:17 149:1,17 151:4 154:10 161:15 163:2 168:8 170:5 171:22,23 172:10 181:12 182:11 183:22 187:9 188:6

needed (4) 6:5 8:1

106:1 176:14 needs (12) 1:8 132:25

134:12 136:25 148:5 149:2 158:12 159:8 164:14 176:17 178:14 186:17

Nefte-Oil (3) 105:12 105:23 109:23

negative (2) 28:13 99:25

negotiation (1) 143:4

Negotiations (1)

86:19

neither (3) 31:24

46:10 62:2 nettle (1) 187:8

Neuberger’s (1)

168:16 neutrally (2) 155:19

164:22

never (10) 3:18,23 36:8 44:16 55:16 67:24 92:13 109:11 166:12 187:20

nevertheless (1)

164:9

new (14) 1:7 7:16 77:21 80:23 94:12 114:6 115:25 116:14,22 126:15 158:19 159:10 181:8 186:8

newspaper (4) 25:8 26:14,22 38:6

nice (5) 96:20,23 151:25 152:1,6 nicely (1) 137:16 niggling (1) 154:5

night (5) 122:18 130:14 133:25

134:6 136:11 nine (1) 85:17 non-existent (1)

115:25 non-loan (1) 84:10 non-participation (1)

111:2

non-pledged (2)

113:11 116:4 normal (3) 123:25 161:20,21 normally (1) 158:3 notably (1) 68:19

notary (1) 12:8

note (9) 42:14 43:4,15 43:23,24 44:3 46:2 112:15,17

notice (3) 136:10 137:6 153:3

noticed (2) 38:13 94:6 notion (1) 156:12 notionally (1) 158:18 November (3) 62:20

62:24 103:5 number (26) 2:10,24

14:9 17:15 22:3,6 31:10 59:23 66:10 76:1,4 77:23 85:9 85:12 86:25 88:6 90:10 105:7 106:2 113:12 116:2 130:15 133:17 160:13,16 183:9

numbers (2) 53:7 76:19

O

oath (3) 2:19 41:25 46:9
object (3) 21:15,19 173:11

objection (1) 137:12 objections (2) 165:5

171:9 objective (6) 48:1

50:23 55:1,19 104:16 157:8 objectives (1) 29:12 objects (1) 164:15 obligation (2) 86:23

100:16 obligations (4) 39:15

154:13 157:18 158:3

observations (5)

126:17 142:21 176:3 177:11 189:17

obstacle (1) 153:2 obtain (3) 11:12 29:4

100:10 obtained (1) 183:3 obtaining (2) 76:7

88:7

obvious (1) 162:16 obviously (61) 2:17

3:20 5:14 10:13,15 11:13 15:18 24:20 26:8 27:24 29:5 30:1 31:13,18 32:21 34:14 43:21 66:13 67:4 69:20 80:5,13 89:10 102:4 109:11,19 124:6,7 127:3,24 128:18 130:9,11,17 131:2,11 133:18 135:1,7,11 148:12

149:25 152:11,15 135:22 pace (3) 77:8 149:7,8
152:17 154:5,19 opposite (1) 21:6 page (57) 7:14 8:13
160:3 161:21 optimise (1) 42:10 8:15,16 13:4,9,11
163:22 169:12 optimistically (1) 13:14 19:24 20:1,7
170:4,5 172:13 186:19 22:1 23:6,8,24
173:4 176:17 178:8 optimum (1) 135:9 25:15 31:2,2 42:13
178:13 185:7 189:7 option (1) 128:13 48:8,21,23 49:13
189:20 options (3) 127:2 49:18,20 53:5,15
occasion (3) 106:19 129:19 168:1 61:7 63:19 65:18
147:7 168:2 oral (4) 126:22 178:15 69:13,16 74:16
occasions (6) 14:9 179:22 186:2 78:25 79:21 80:24
105:7 106:18,21 orally (2) 4:21 162:5 80:25 82:4,5 88:15
125:2,5 order (23) 29:11,17 88:16,16 90:23,24
occurred (2) 36:19 36:25 40:6 53:10 93:1,4 107:24
72:5 62:18 64:17 72:20 112:18 114:21
October (5) 16:9 23:2 72:24,24 103:1,15 120:9 124:20
23:17 28:25 33:19 112:24 133:20 142:19,20,21
odd (6) 30:18 71:17 146:13 147:22 143:12 181:22
71:22 72:13,17,18 148:2 158:8,9,18 191:2
offences (1) 97:24 161:17 182:3 188:5 pages (2) 20:22 61:7
offer (9) 26:15 27:20 ordinary (3) 97:9 paid (12) 27:22 56:19
32:18 33:11,16 145:3 153:1 57:12 58:16,19,25
44:21 55:15 109:15 organise (3) 9:3,7 59:2,25 71:1,18
117:6 11:3 81:8 116:18
offered (3) 28:10,11 organised (2) 16:8 paper (4) 52:13
143:21 27:15 115:21 120:22
office (3) 58:6 68:18 organiser (8) 8:25 162:4
142:5 9:12 10:5,20,25 paperwork (1) 89:19
official (2) 84:16 11:15 12:21 117:23 paragraph (40) 7:13
120:23 original (6) 11:10 8:16,20,21,23 9:10
officially (2) 81:7 12:24 15:7 117:20 9:14,16,25 10:1,2
117:7 117:22,24 10:11,12 12:19,20
officials (2) 39:24 originally (1) 72:1 13:10,11 25:16,17
82:12 Oslo (23) 3:7 7:23 8:4 25:18,19 28:4
Oh (1) 1:9 17:13,17 28:15 76:16 80:14,15,21
okay (6) 73:20 74:9 57:4,7,10 58:16 80:22 81:21,22
81:2 117:4 152:20 62:6,10 64:18 65:2 82:4 90:21,25 98:4
178:23 71:6 73:3 79:2 98:5 100:5 103:24
old (1) 112:16 81:24 84:8 85:2 112:10 124:20,24
Olga (1) 88:23 88:25 90:16 99:19 124:25
OMG (17) 1:25 16:25 ostensibly (2) 26:20 parallel (1) 104:3
50:13 56:10 64:1 27:11 parameters (3) 151:5
67:22 68:16 69:25 Otsenka (5) 13:16 153:5 171:16
70:23 72:25 76:2 15:2,6,10 29:21 paraphrasing (1)
83:17 89:12,19 ought (4) 145:14 141:20
99:13 110:6 118:10 162:7 165:12 pardon (2) 76:22
OMG’s (3) 68:23 70:4 179:12 80:25
70:9 outlets (1) 29:10 pare (1) 147:22
once (8) 16:16 45:18 outlined (1) 183:16 Paris (1) 183:18
66:24 70:7,25 71:2 outstanding (6) 28:15 part (44) 7:10 19:22
142:5 171:12 29:18 50:14 52:4 26:9 27:6,8 29:8
Onega (34) 19:18,19 70:10 72:25 37:21 38:14 41:11
19:22 23:21 31:11 overall (2) 104:15 42:3 53:2 56:24
31:13,15,19 33:24 105:24 57:5 59:12,17
37:16 38:14 41:16 overcome (1) 111:17 67:18 69:1 78:10
42:4,9,17 46:15 overlaps (1) 122:22 90:6 92:9 101:11
53:2,20 54:5,13 overlooked (1) 39:20 109:20 115:8,9
56:21,24 57:5,17 overnight (1) 106:3 116:13 117:7 130:7
57:23 58:10,11,23 Overspeaking (1) 132:3,8 139:9
59:10,13,18 75:16 184:24 159:11 165:9 167:3
89:3 105:4 owed (1) 72:25 167:8 177:1,21,22
ones (3) 70:6 84:18 owned (25) 19:19,22 180:3,3,19 183:19
185:6 23:19 37:17,19 184:11 186:21
oneself (1) 44:1 38:14 40:13,17 187:18
open (8) 10:4,23 43:7 51:25 53:3,3 participant (4) 20:9
12:11 28:10 34:10 53:20,21 54:14 22:3 23:25 56:3
72:20 142:5 156:15 55:6 57:5 59:14 participants (8) 20:20
operates (1) 14:20 61:6,15,23,25 62:6 21:24 22:5 23:5,23
operations (4) 58:9 65:19 113:21 27:18 35:17 121:5
59:24 81:19 90:18 owner (8) 53:24 participate (5) 18:3
operator (1) 52:17 115:22,22,25 21:10,24 22:11,16
opinion (3) 100:19,25 116:14,15,22 119:5 participating (1) 26:23
101:1 owners (1) 61:4 participation (1)
opinions (1) 111:22 ownership (7) 62:19 121:17
opportunity (4) 25:11 66:8,9 69:22,22 particular (21) 14:21
64:4 118:16 165:25 70:15 104:20 20:14 44:6,10 49:5
opposed (2) 38:15 98:4 117:13 133:3
156:11 P 140:3 142:19
opposing (2) 135:21 154:21,23 155:5

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

200
April 6, 2016 Day 34

156:16 158:1 43:11 78:1 117:14 111:6 121:14 128:5 95:14 97:9,12,15 precedent (2) 124:5 28:6,8,10,11,21 production (1) 115:6

162:23,24 163:14 120:24,25 124:2,12 188:15 97:21,25 125:17 29:2,3,13 30:3,6 products (1) 82:24
168:17 175:20 153:4 173:21 pledge (24) 3:9,10 Ponzi (1) 73:7 precedents (1) 116:3 33:23 34:1,15 40:5 profession (1) 186:13
185:9 personal (16) 5:21 13:2 14:6 24:13,22 poorly (2) 4:2 9:5 precious (1) 82:15 54:1 56:4,9,9 57:1 professional (7)
particularly (4) 36:23 42:3 91:11,23,25 43:6,8 48:15,23 Popov (32) 127:11,13 precise (1) 160:24 65:5 69:14 70:2,8 100:20 143:3
152:4 185:17,21 92:7,11 93:3,8 94:2 49:22 55:4 59:17 127:16,25 128:11 precisely (2) 136:1 113:22,25 126:19 154:13,19 156:2
parties (5) 26:23 103:7 129:13 183:4 75:24 108:2,9 128:25 129:2,9,20 152:18 prices (2) 29:23 68:8 157:18,24
27:11 55:23 72:22 184:11,19 187:20 109:4 115:8,17 144:20 145:15,19 precision (3) 5:23 Prichaly (18) 52:23,23 Professor (6) 148:10
139:6 personally (3) 50:12 117:7,20,22,24 147:1 148:21 150:1 7:21 156:4 53:22 54:7,23 55:3 148:22 181:5 187:7
partly (2) 174:24,24 76:6 86:11 175:6 150:1,19,24 159:14 precondition (1) 56:8,19 57:20,24 187:11,13
partner (1) 58:3 persons (1) 82:21 pledged (26) 6:2 29:3 163:18,22 164:3 114:11 58:9,19,24 59:9,10 profit (2) 173:20,24
partners (1) 105:15 persuaded (1) 174:22 37:25 50:18 54:6 165:13 167:8 169:8 predisposed (1) 59:16,20,23 profusely (1) 190:4
parts (5) 37:24 56:21 persuasion (1) 143:4 54:16 58:23 61:11 171:20 174:14 156:17 primarily (1) 113:24 prohibition (1) 119:2
108:18 109:19 pessimistic (1) 186:1 61:23 66:18,22 178:6 179:16,25 predisposition (2) principal (3) 19:17 project (7) 31:7,19,20
167:7 Peterburg (1) 38:6 75:17,18 109:14,18 180:2,9 156:16 179:12 91:23 93:24 32:2,12 36:12,16
party (6) 51:13 109:4 Petersburg (31) 14:21 109:20 112:12 Popov’s (3) 165:15 prefer (2) 188:25 principle (4) 129:20 projects (2) 32:3
130:9 132:18 133:2 16:14,20 23:5 113:7 114:16,18,25 172:19,22 189:1 133:22 135:1 164:1 114:6
165:7 24:25 26:4 28:7 115:3,7,10,11 Popov— (1) 180:6 preference (2) 98:10 principles (1) 153:1 promised (1) 186:23
passage (1) 45:11 38:6 40:11 52:2,24 116:10 Popov/Steadman (4) 129:14 printed (1) 124:18 promotional (1) 29:10
passages (1) 78:17 58:3,4,25 65:3 67:6 pledgee (11) 6:6 10:6 168:6 175:24 preferred (1) 126:3 printout (2) 63:21 prompt (1) 143:9
passed (4) 62:19 66:8 67:8 70:4 76:19 10:16,19,21 11:12 177:21 189:25 prejudging (2) 158:1 78:14 prompted (1) 143:22
69:22 109:22 79:13,15 84:7 11:13 26:24 34:11 port (5) 58:9,12 61:14 180:8 prior (3) 14:8 29:7 proof (2) 91:21 93:22
passing (1) 149:5 88:20 113:8,15 43:11 49:22 71:7 105:4 prejudice (3) 135:16 103:18 propensity (3) 173:19
passport (2) 120:23 114:13,17,19 115:1 pledgee’s (3) 8:17 portend (1) 130:25 166:8 168:9 priority (1) 2:7 173:23,24
120:24 115:7 168:24 9:17 10:7 portfolio (4) 60:7,8 premature (1) 128:2 prison (1) 87:15 proper (8) 34:4 68:4
pastures (1) 71:10 PetroLes (1) 99:18 pledger (10) 8:2 10:13 75:22,23 premise (3) 147:24 privilege (3) 96:17 134:19 144:10
pattern (3) 24:5,9 phase (1) 139:11 11:9,15 12:6,9 ports (1) 6:4 148:2 153:12 152:15 155:21 153:13 165:25
36:4 phone (2) 97:5 129:8 13:19,23 26:25 position (41) 4:1 premises (1) 134:10 privileged (1) 163:9 168:8 175:7
Pause (6) 8:22 25:14 physical (2) 120:25 68:23 16:22 27:14 33:13 preparation (2) 6:18 pro (1) 125:2 properly (7) 81:7
30:22,24 38:18 173:13 pledges (13) 2:2 14:3 38:2 42:1 45:6,14 6:20 probably (29) 16:10 137:15 138:1 141:1
117:10 physically (3) 103:16 14:23 28:8,19 46:1 55:15 61:22 75:19 prepare (6) 18:13 20:18 21:13 38:16 157:7 162:8 188:6
Pausing (1) 61:10 115:21 120:19 51:11 64:2 87:16 75:21 77:2 90:9 84:21 129:7 139:11 40:6,8 53:8 66:23 properties (5) 52:25
pay (18) 30:6 42:10 pick (2) 149:6 157:11 112:24 113:14 93:2 94:2 96:10 146:15 181:10 67:21 73:23 85:21 53:1 55:5 81:4
46:24 57:3 64:18 picking (1) 141:5 114:15 115:9 126:21 139:22 prepared (13) 11:3 88:12 97:14 122:22 104:19
65:4 68:16 70:4 picture (1) 62:22 plot (41) 23:18,19 140:16,18 142:1 14:16 16:4 29:24 126:11 130:15,21 property (18) 10:3
91:22 93:23 108:5 piece (11) 23:18 39:25 38:7,11,22 55:4 143:16,25 144:2 33:9 37:21 96:10 134:22 138:20 15:24 24:17,18
114:3 119:5 143:3 40:9 113:22 114:1 58:11,13 60:25 145:3 148:13 99:21 129:15 154:7 141:16 142:24 28:19 29:25 30:3
143:19 144:5 166:3 115:10,22 116:1,11 61:10,15,19,22 150:18 152:8,16 162:4 176:19 146:11 147:20 37:1,22 58:17,19
166:3 119:4 120:22 62:12,14,15,19,24 155:17 156:25 178:17 150:4 159:11 164:4 59:13 62:23 64:17
paying (2) 59:23 pieces (5) 68:13 119:8 63:4,6,22 64:22 157:4 158:2 159:6 preparing (4) 18:13 170:9,13 177:25 110:22 116:10
172:1 140:13,17,17 65:14,19,23 66:8 164:5,22 165:3 78:2 171:2 181:5 probes (1) 134:24 117:7,8
payment (6) 82:8,10 pinch (1) 177:15 66:18 67:18 68:1,2 172:10 183:10,17 prepayment (1) 22:17 problem (8) 69:25 proposal (4) 19:3 47:9
82:11,12,18 86:19 pitch (1) 161:17 68:20 69:11,17,20 possession (1) 3:3 presage (1) 137:1 86:17 87:9 109:5 47:22 167:1
payments (1) 81:15 place (18) 6:8 11:16 115:6 116:13,17,19 possibilities (1) 167:6 presaged (1) 131:6 136:5 138:2 142:13 proposals (2) 86:6
payoff (2) 59:21 60:5 45:21 47:21 89:23 116:20,23 159:13 possibility (4) 118:4 present (10) 57:14 189:20 106:19
peculiarity (1) 26:18 91:12 92:1,2,10 plots (3) 70:5 118:20 126:17 129:6 82:20 87:11 89:2 problematic (1) 132:1 propose (1) 138:17
Peer (1) 82:21 93:9 96:1 97:9 119:10 168:14 106:24 118:18 problems (4) 105:11 proposed (21) 43:3
pencil (1) 149:13 128:11 129:10 plugged (1) 133:14 possible (24) 8:2 119:13 120:19 116:22 157:23 46:14 47:15 48:7
penultimate (1) 13:6 132:24 159:10 pm (6) 75:8,9,11 11:11 28:1 41:13 185:2 188:18 190:7 52:22 53:11,19
people (5) 17:9 21:21 166:12 167:17 123:1,3 190:19 42:11 44:12,18,20 presentation (1) procedure (11) 6:21 125:24 126:6 131:7
27:19 71:12 95:24 placed (2) 144:2 pocket (1) 71:19 70:1 86:18 95:19 87:18 22:18,20 24:7 131:8 132:9,10,11
perceived (1) 110:18 168:11 point (54) 2:1 3:20 4:3 97:6 99:17 109:16 presented (4) 82:18 50:25 68:5 117:12 132:13,17,21 133:1
percentage (1) 47:19 plain (1) 133:19 4:24 7:7 15:12 109:24 122:12 84:17 86:13 106:18 121:17 141:19,21 152:18 163:14
perception (1) 110:19 plainly (1) 12:3 19:21 28:24 45:23 123:11 125:11,13 presenter (1) 107:15 175:16 166:22
perfect (2) 125:17 plan (20) 42:4 43:8,14 46:12 57:1 58:15 126:5 128:20 presently (2) 125:24 procedures (1) 114:5 proposing (1) 90:5
128:15 43:22 44:10,11,19 59:25 61:18 62:17 131:14 139:7 162:1 162:25 proceeded (3) 5:19 proposition (1)
perfectly (5) 111:10 45:25 46:5 52:16 64:5 75:23 77:10 possibly (2) 133:5 pressingly (1) 131:3 160:4 167:2 157:16
111:10 123:25 52:19 53:9,17 54:4 86:1 91:2,25 99:5 158:18 pressure (2) 144:3 proceeding (7) 133:25 prospect (1) 143:6
137:13 154:7 54:8,10,21 55:7,12 106:16 111:11 posting (1) 34:14 178:12 153:11 160:2 prospectively (2)
perform (1) 134:16 190:2 112:6 118:9,14,17 postponed (2) 168:6 presumably (6) 44:2 183:12,18 185:5 130:24 138:24
performing (1) 87:19 planning (1) 187:5 123:11 129:25 176:24 50:18 70:17 71:18 186:11 protect (1) 86:15
performs (1) 172:12 plant (1) 118:22 130:5 139:18 143:5 postponing (1) 178:4 85:23 102:14 proceedings (11) 1:3 protection (1) 83:15
period (10) 5:10 42:16 play (5) 130:7 134:7 145:18 149:5 potential (1) 175:3 presumption (2) 2:10 14:13 66:16 protest (1) 21:19
64:10 77:13 85:3 168:19 169:2,12 155:16 158:6 159:1 potentially (6) 132:1 150:13 158:13 67:7 68:25 74:16 protocol (1) 137:5
89:10 92:9 102:4 player (1) 29:24 169:21 172:11 139:16 143:7 pretext (1) 34:23 124:22 132:3 180:4 protocols (1) 16:7
131:12,19 players (1) 28:3 173:10 174:2 176:6 145:13 159:14,17 pretty (2) 18:9 73:12 182:18 protracted (2) 77:20
permissible (3) plea (1) 149:10 179:19 180:5 181:7 power (5) 119:22 prevent (2) 90:15 proceeds (10) 27:24 141:12
136:24 151:11 plead (1) 154:2 182:23 183:11,18 120:3,13,15 138:20 153:7 29:13 34:12,14 prove (1) 99:13
157:15 pleaded (4) 183:20 184:15,16,16,23 powers (4) 11:20 prevented (1) 110:20 59:24 67:20,21 proved (1) 28:21
permission (6) 123:8 184:5,14 187:24 187:7 136:8 156:21 previous (10) 23:1 70:2,8 71:16 provide (12) 16:4 25:2
124:13 125:11,21 pleadings (1) 183:14 pointed (1) 12:19 186:23 47:14 53:15 76:18 process (14) 2:7 3:1 31:25 41:6 42:19
151:20 165:4 please (29) 1:5 16:5 points (10) 19:16 practical (4) 135:15 77:1,11 115:22 5:13 26:23 67:10 42:25 44:4 67:25
permit (5) 127:16 16:15 21:17 30:18 47:19 48:9 130:15 151:5 160:16 173:8 116:15 152:8 164:5 70:14 72:14 77:20 91:6 96:1,10,16
139:8 152:9 156:17 37:14 40:16,24 149:19 166:23 practically (2) 158:23 previously (6) 53:3,20 122:8 133:23 provided (11) 11:25
176:8 41:5 48:4 49:6 172:11 183:1 184:9 163:3 54:5 59:14 101:13 139:10 145:9 177:6 15:25 22:16 30:7
permitted (1) 182:25 56:13 60:15 75:13 185:9 practice (1) 139:2 179:8 185:24 39:18 62:9 84:13
perpetrated (1) 73:3 79:17 80:12 81:1 police (16) 76:2,18 practices (1) 81:13 price (36) 11:17 13:25 processed (1) 3:14 91:23 93:24 94:9
person (14) 19:7 21:1 81:11 82:5 88:4,20 77:7,12 78:3 85:8 Pravdy (1) 68:18 20:13,17 23:9,10 processes (1) 119:20 94:19
21:7 30:1 35:4 89:3 90:19,25 98:3 85:14,24 94:21,25 precarious (1) 170:2 24:1,3 27:23,23 processing (1) 58:1 provides (3) 11:6,18

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

201
April 6, 2016 Day 34

69:3 133:17,18 reach (2) 25:19 86:2 57:21 64:9 66:3,11 130:19 131:9,10,13 relates (9) 31:13 repo (14) 7:11 63:25

providing (1) 118:17 question (41) 4:3,6 reached (2) 8:4 14:10 99:17 112:15 131:14 132:6,13,14 38:14 48:19 49:12 106:8 109:6 110:10
provision (5) 9:10 5:22 7:18 15:21,25 reaction (1) 173:23 123:10 133:24 132:19 133:3,13 53:2,19 60:24 112:3,23 113:6,10
11:10 43:12,13 17:5 21:17 26:13 read (46) 8:20,23 9:14 139:9 145:18 135:2,22 136:6,6,9 65:13 68:18 114:24 115:14
98:15 36:14 60:20 74:25 12:2,18 13:4,8,12 149:23 150:14 137:3,21,21 151:10 relating (1) 49:11 116:6,24 117:5
provisionally (3) 92:17 93:5,6 95:20 17:14 22:2 25:11 155:17 158:11 152:19 153:6,6,12 relation (11) 21:20 report (8) 86:22 107:4
179:10,17 182:20 107:22 111:6 25:11,17,21 28:5 162:3 174:20 154:2 155:2,4 39:3 41:2 44:11 107:9 172:19,22
provisions (3) 6:1 112:21,22 114:8 31:4 38:16,19 42:2 178:24 179:5,7,11 156:7,22,25 157:13 84:2 86:3 87:16 173:18 175:2,14
81:17 153:25 119:16 120:12 53:13 77:3,5 78:17 190:12 157:22 158:1 161:1 131:1,17 151:20 reported (2) 24:23
proxy (4) 21:1,2,7 121:14,16 130:6 78:22 79:7,9,10,25 reasonable (1) 45:21 162:18 164:2 83:21
120:15 135:6,13 144:8,15 80:12,14,18,19 reasonably (5) 38:18 recorded (3) 7:14 relatively (1) 171:12 reporting (2) 46:7
pry (1) 163:8 147:1,10,15 148:8 81:1,11,21 82:3 104:22 139:7 20:20 47:8 release (3) 46:1 55:1 47:8
public (3) 12:8 26:11 150:11 158:23 83:8 88:20 90:25 149:15 163:13 recover (4) 2:2 50:5,7 156:21 reports (6) 14:3,5
34:19 163:9 165:6 168:5 91:1 93:4 103:23 reasoning (2) 5:11 139:22 released (2) 43:7 15:10 87:20 107:4
publications (1) 29:11 181:23 183:5 118:4 176:17 119:10 recovered (2) 5:20 122:10 127:6
published (2) 25:7 questioned (2) 117:13 178:17 187:16 reasons (15) 19:14 28:18 releases (1) 43:12 represent (1) 120:14
29:7 118:3 reading (9) 9:9 10:10 22:12 83:24 113:4 recovering (1) 55:25 relevant (8) 4:21 representation (1)
pulled (1) 51:21 questioning (1) 22:14 43:24 44:3 114:11,14 126:5 recovery (12) 2:7 3:2 59:17 132:9 138:4 131:1
punch (2) 80:16,22 157:20 91:13 93:10 94:6 156:7 160:15,16 5:15 29:17 50:5,17 138:5 145:18 151:9 representative (10)
punchline (1) 136:15 questions (25) 1:17 186:14 162:25 166:19 53:25 55:21 56:11 155:1 16:13,20,24 17:11
purchase (8) 4:20 19:15 74:17 75:14 ready (2) 41:22 129:5 170:25 176:2 72:21 148:25 149:2 relied (1) 127:6 17:12,17 20:24
36:25 79:24 81:5 92:21,22,24 96:15 real (7) 23:18 37:1 190:15 reduce (4) 64:23 relieved (2) 40:10 21:2 120:3,8
96:19 98:21 115:25 96:16,19,24 97:5 136:5 174:3,5,15 reassurance (7) 67:22 68:20 71:4 59:1 representatives (10)
116:23 105:13 117:11 175:1 152:22,25 153:22 reduced (3) 56:19 rely (2) 103:22 165:24 16:12,23,24 17:10
purchased (7) 3:15 121:8,9 122:2,5 realisation (14) 6:25 154:8,10 157:1 70:23 171:13 relying (1) 188:1 17:12,16,16,24,25
4:9,23 27:17 30:2 132:7 133:6 134:9 8:1 18:10,15 19:8 160:19 reducing (1) 88:24 remain (1) 106:8 151:20
99:6,10 135:19 169:5 24:16 41:15 42:4,8 reassure (1) 161:2 refer (1) 15:9 remainder (1) 130:25 represented (3) 20:21
purchaser (2) 58:12 173:17 191:6 44:15 64:2 67:15 reassuring (1) 153:23 reference (18) 28:5 remained (2) 70:6 120:2 124:13
108:5 quickly (9) 65:7 74:18 70:3 72:15 recall (53) 6:17 7:25 31:11,15 48:23,24 98:11 representing (1) 21:3
purchases (1) 97:3 76:10 78:18 90:7 realisations (2) 69:2 12:23,24 13:1 15:9 56:15 63:9,13 66:2 remaining (1) 148:18 reputable (2) 14:15
purchasing (1) 54:12 94:20 159:4 189:18 70:21 15:23 19:2,11 20:6 69:8 76:17 85:22 remember (25) 5:23 25:8
purported (1) 28:25 189:20 realise (2) 48:15 72:24 34:1 38:3 40:1,20 88:6 104:6 110:21 5:24 6:8 12:8 14:5 request (9) 39:11
purportedly (2) 34:22 quite (53) 1:21 8:13 realised (7) 28:14 42:6 43:8,10 45:19 112:16 124:16 18:12 39:23 40:3,7 107:23 123:21
112:23 9:18 12:22 23:16 37:17 67:10,18 47:22,24,25 54:8 125:1 42:6 43:13 45:16 141:3,4 152:15
purpose (20) 50:16 24:7 59:19 62:18 68:14 72:19,20 54:10,11 57:1 58:5 references (2) 124:10 59:3 62:14 78:23 162:12,14 181:9
64:1 82:10 83:3 62:21 64:20 67:23 realising (2) 2:2 50:25 59:21 61:12 78:5 124:19 86:5 91:19 93:20 requesting (1) 4:21
84:20,23 86:14 68:9 75:15 76:1,16 realistic (1) 189:5 78:21 83:7,9,10 referred (2) 50:19 98:18 102:25 requests (1) 99:11
87:12 88:23 98:24 77:7,12 80:8,10 realistically (1) 150:21 89:15 95:4,8 98:24 105:12 117:22 119:24 require (1) 187:17
119:2,5 131:11,16 83:22 84:1 87:3,5 reality (2) 27:3 85:16 98:25 101:16 104:8 referring (4) 3:22 124:18 142:11 required (5) 91:12
131:17 132:7 133:3 89:11 90:7 103:3 really (120) 2:13 4:2 105:5,6,7,12 80:21 105:23 166:16 93:9 145:20 158:20
157:14 158:1 188:2 105:3 108:3 111:7 4:11 7:21 17:7 18:9 106:13 107:25 108:23 remembering (1) 159:18
purposes (5) 11:24 116:9 133:12,25 18:23 19:6,9 22:25 117:16,17 119:19 refers (2) 49:19 76:18 41:17 requirement (3) 21:11
74:11 134:23 136:23,23 137:8 24:5 26:2,15 29:19 128:23 166:17 reflect (1) 56:19 remind (3) 78:25 29:9 183:2
154:23 173:8 141:9 142:12 143:7 31:22 33:4,11,13 167:18,22 reflecting (1) 139:21 175:1,8 requirements (1) 84:3
pursuant (5) 15:6 41:3 144:15 145:8 33:14 34:13,19 recalled (1) 41:21 reformulate (2) 17:5 reminder (1) 137:13 requires (4) 109:9
63:25 66:10 98:17 150:15 154:18 35:23 36:10 41:10 recap (1) 2:5 45:18 remitted (1) 4:8 128:25 162:7
pursue (1) 50:23 169:20 173:11 44:21 45:10,14 receivables (1) 28:16 reformulated (1) remove (1) 89:2 164:10
pushes (1) 189:3 174:17 177:19 46:25 47:15 50:4 receive (2) 56:15 92:17 removed (1) 88:25 research (3) 136:2
put (29) 1:19 12:15 178:10 181:1,8,20 51:9 72:11 73:1,11 165:4 refresh (3) 49:6 50:2 removing (1) 109:3 140:20 151:22
22:25 26:17 33:24 181:21 185:23 76:15 78:2 84:20 received (15) 3:8,16 103:14 Renord (49) 7:8,17,24 reserve (2) 188:23
37:3 44:7 56:7 64:5 189:20 85:24,25 87:13 3:23 4:7,18 36:7 refreshed (1) 140:20 8:8,9 13:20 20:4,10 190:11
89:18 91:12 92:2 quo (1) 180:4 90:4,5 99:1 108:3,4 56:21 64:25 67:20 refunds (1) 97:6 21:15,22 25:24 reserves (1) 34:14
93:9 104:18 111:21 quote (1) 5:9 110:14 117:18 68:14 74:2,3 81:8 regard (11) 36:16 41:6 26:10 27:4,6,8 29:1 reserving (1) 158:2
134:5 136:20 120:13 122:23 81:18 103:14 65:6 66:20 67:25 32:17 34:6 42:23 resolution (1) 126:12
137:25 144:3 R 123:13,17 126:4 receiving (1) 5:12 97:12 150:18 154:3 43:25 44:9 63:21 resolved (3) 145:11
145:15 161:25 raid (2) 73:2 168:25 130:24 131:5 132:8 recognise (3) 6:17,19 177:4,11 178:2 63:24 64:2,9,13,22 163:24,25
162:11,14 164:11 132:17,20 133:7 43:15 regarding (1) 162:6 64:25 66:4,14,25 resources (6) 3:6 82:1
raider (2) 110:9,13
175:1 178:11 179:6 134:14,21,22 recognition (1) 128:3 regardless (1) 113:25 68:3 69:5,7,12,23 83:1 84:6,10,10
raise (7) 21:19 29:11
185:13 190:5 135:20 137:9 recollect (4) 19:4 regards (1) 183:5 69:24 70:15,16,21 respect (46) 10:22
29:16 96:18 132:7
puts (2) 127:18 140:19 142:4 103:13 139:9 regime (1) 159:10 71:18 72:2,14,16 11:8,12 15:24 19:1
133:5,24
137:16 143:13,25 144:7,15 146:23 region (5) 46:20 57:18 72:17 73:4 104:17 36:12 37:7 44:15
raised (7) 95:22 96:17
putting (8) 35:10,12 144:22 145:3,14 recollecting (1) 65:16 85:5 90:20 105:11 119:11 46:8 50:12,13
143:6 144:9,11
35:14,16 92:10 147:15 149:6,19 103:12 register (3) 60:19,22 Renord’s (1) 28:12 51:17,25 55:16
147:1 183:13
145:5 155:19 150:7 153:8,9,12 recollection (21) 5:11 65:13 Renord-Invest’s (1) 59:19 74:5 77:15
raises (3) 130:1,15
164:22 154:12,16,21 6:21 7:4 12:22 15:5 registered (1) 115:6 63:5 84:13 87:21 88:24
145:19
pyramid (1) 84:24 158:10 163:3,4,9 39:21 40:20 41:16 registration (2) 114:2 repaid (4) 2:13 60:11 89:15 91:16 93:2
range (1) 129:19
163:25 164:13 42:1,3 45:8,10 49:7 116:2 70:11 116:25 93:17 94:9,20
rapid (1) 77:8
Q 165:1,2,2,5,15 55:17 58:4 62:15 registry (1) 114:4 repay (7) 4:14 28:15 95:23 96:11,19,23
rapporteur (1) 107:12
166:15,16 167:11 66:20 68:1 77:12 regretting (1) 162:11 29:17 59:17 70:9 97:6 98:2 101:18
qualified (1) 114:21 rate (2) 60:10 156:8
167:16 169:22 85:11 91:3 regular (2) 35:24 72:25 73:7 107:23 108:1 109:5
qualifiers (1) 14:17 ratio (3) 46:23,23 47:1
170:3,9,10 173:6,8 recollections (6) 17:3 82:18 repayable (1) 52:8 109:12 114:3
qualify (1) 14:16 rationale (2) 19:9,14
173:12 174:19,21 17:7 19:13 50:3 regulations (1) 135:18 repayment (4) 48:14 116:16 117:12
quality (1) 100:21 re-argue (1) 143:17
175:15 176:3,8 77:14 103:14 regulatory (2) 157:5 60:2,2 71:21 118:9 127:1 140:16
quantification (1) re-ask (1) 75:14
177:7 178:4,16 recommendation (1) 161:1 repeatedly (1) 163:23 148:23 156:21
169:6 re-examination (1)
179:7 181:8,9 115:19 reject (1) 36:2 repercussions (1) 168:17
quantum (2) 173:6 92:23
182:10 188:13,20 reconsider (1) 126:19 relate (4) 33:2 76:22 151:11 respectful (1) 169:1
176:4 re-examine (1) 126:6
188:22 189:9 reconvene (1) 73:12 93:17 155:5 reply (6) 74:2 95:8 respectfully (2)
quarterly (1) 59:22 re-read (2) 102:10
reason (25) 21:9 record (40) 39:9 65:22 related (4) 58:2 72:22 130:2 151:18 132:24 163:2
queries (3) 95:22 173:18
22:12 26:4,12 72:4 100:21 130:10 88:24 91:7 173:10 174:1 respective (1) 47:17

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

202

April 6, 2016 Day 34

respectively (2) 46:15 112:9
respond (1) 171:8 response (5) 26:5

74:4 89:5 108:21 143:10

responses (1) 76:25 responsibilities (7)

87:20 121:6 155:4 155:9,11 156:8 162:18

responsibility (2)

18:23 78:10

responsible (2) 17:19

19:7

rest (1) 159:12 restricted (1) 162:23 restructure (1) 4:12 restructuring (4) 79:3

89:11,19 90:6 result (3) 57:6 59:1

168:21 resulted (1) 81:14 retained (1) 157:17 retrospective (2)

130:21 134:22 return (1) 81:25 revenue (2) 97:10,14 review (1) 167:10 revised (1) 128:5 revision (1) 146:5 revisit (1) 186:20 revisited (1) 139:15 ridiculous (1) 33:10 right (87) 1:21 4:24

5:17 6:23 9:8,19 10:11,12 11:24 14:12 15:15 16:9 21:9 22:10,17 25:4 30:6 32:7 35:20 37:20 40:12 48:2 48:14 49:3,21 54:17 59:11,15,18 60:11 62:16 66:18 67:3,22 72:8 74:13 75:1 77:6 81:12 86:14 88:11 102:9 103:10 104:6 106:23 109:2 111:1 111:5,13,17,20 115:23 116:7,8,16 117:2,21 120:5 122:15 126:10 128:9 130:11 136:23 142:13,24 143:15 146:8,9,20 148:3 150:16 151:14 155:14,25 157:3 162:14,20 165:5,6,10 178:7 178:22 179:2 181:20,21 184:8 190:11

rightly (1) 142:25 rights (18) 43:5 45:25

47:10,16 48:7,13 48:16 49:20,22,23 49:24 51:12,17 52:7 53:23 54:1,20 62:23

ring (1) 83:6

rise (3) 14:8 121:9 162:7

risk (3) 99:21 109:3 128:17

risks (2) 87:10 98:12 ROK (18) 52:23,23

53:22 54:7,23 55:3 56:8,19 57:20,24

58:9,19,24 59:9,10 59:16,20,23

role (6) 18:21 44:17 106:17 155:19 168:18 174:11 roles (5) 133:9 134:8

134:17,18 155:20

Romanov (1) 79:15

Root (3) 82:9,14,20 rouble (1) 47:1 roubles (6) 32:22,23

32:23,25 33:23 38:8

rough (1) 85:9 roughly (8) 20:14

46:19,20 58:20 85:6,13,15,17 round (7) 36:1 141:1

142:13,13 147:16 177:7 184:2

route (1) 85:25 RUB (29) 3:9 5:2

20:14 30:1 32:4,11 33:2,2,8,10,12,22 40:4 46:17 48:20 49:1,17,25 50:11 51:18,23 52:25 54:19 57:2 58:20 82:9,17 112:9,9

rule (10) 46:6 137:20 152:12 156:2 179:18,21 182:25 188:10 189:9,22

rules (13) 138:4,5,6 138:11,25 151:9 152:7,9 153:24,25 154:9 158:19 161:2

ruling (4) 129:1,20 168:7 179:3

run (2) 128:17,22 running (1) 141:1 rush (1) 179:24 Russia (10) 3:18 15:3

25:2 97:8,17,20 119:8 120:16 144:21 165:17

Russian (116) 6:12 8:18,19 10:11 11:6 11:18 12:17,23 13:22 14:10,11,15 14:20 15:13,17,23 16:2,6,8,12,17,23 17:10 18:11,17 19:2 21:11 22:12 22:24 23:2,4,16 24:13,14,19,23 25:1,5,8,16,18 26:25 27:5,16,21 29:6 30:22,23,24 33:24 35:1 38:4 42:13 43:12 45:1 48:4 49:9 52:9,12 56:25 57:25 60:18 60:22 63:20 65:13 70:13 76:12 78:14 79:11 80:6,23 81:7 81:15,16 82:25 83:16,19 90:19 95:17 98:6 100:7 102:13,15 110:17 110:19,22,25 111:8 116:3 118:18 120:11 147:2 180:13 181:7,25 182:15,17 183:2,12 183:13,17,19 184:17,18,24,25 185:8,12,20 186:21 187:23 188:1,3,8

188:10,11

S

safe (1) 188:22 safest (1) 188:24 sake (1) 169:4

sale (35) 9:3,7 11:4,21 11:25 16:3,7 22:23 23:17 24:12 25:9 27:24 28:21 29:11 29:13 34:6,12 39:2 42:10,16,18,22 54:19 63:5,22 65:1 66:2,10 69:14 71:16 108:1,10 109:9,23 111:22

sales (5) 24:16 110:21 111:9 116:14 120:7

salvo (1) 188:14 salvos (1) 187:15 sanction (1) 136:9 satisfaction (1) 151:1 satisfactorily (1)

139:11 satisfactory (2) 135:8

178:10

satisfied (3) 9:17

112:2 156:1

Saturday (2) 176:20

178:9

save (3) 147:10 149:7 161:17

Savelyev (6) 43:21 86:9 91:20 93:21 103:19 104:11

saw (8) 39:3 40:19 47:14 64:4 85:21 113:20 124:23 172:20

saying (27) 3:19 4:6 4:11,15 27:19 35:15 36:2,13 41:24 45:6 58:7 63:13 96:22 132:5 135:4 138:1 144:9 144:17 150:7 154:17 156:19 157:14 165:21 166:13 167:21 182:8 184:2

says (15) 10:21,21 21:7 22:8 28:2,6,9 45:19,20 53:9 61:17 155:8 173:16 181:2 188:16

scan (19) 16:25 17:12 23:19 27:4 31:19 50:1 53:3 66:13,15 67:3,5 68:12 70:13 70:16,18,25 79:22 112:8 169:8

Scan’s (1) 69:22 scan-read (1) 42:15 Scandinavia (29) 6:15

7:1,3,7,10,14 10:13 15:14 19:20 26:24 31:8,14 37:17,20 37:22 38:15 46:22 49:12 53:21 57:6 65:20,24 68:22 82:7,16 83:2 89:1,2 89:3

scanned (1) 102:15 scene (1) 120:12 schedule (4) 59:22,22

62:8,9

scheduled (1) 127:25 scheme (4) 24:7 73:7

82:6 83:10 seized (1) 6:3 shareholding (2) 99:15 110:15
schemes (3) 81:25 select (4) 11:24 42:18,22 situation (10) 27:13
87:21 95:23 112:19 113:9 132:2 shares (9) 53:22 63:23 39:1 42:6,7 58:22
scooped (2) 121:24 selected (2) 113:16 109:7,8 112:8,13 87:19 118:18
138:24 114:9 115:15 116:5 117:5 137:23 151:7
scope (3) 132:22 selection (1) 133:4 shed (1) 48:3 167:25
185:3 188:3 Seleznevo (1) 69:17 Shipping (1) 99:10 Skatin (8) 19:3,6,8,11
scrawls (1) 146:2 Seleznevskaya (1) ships (1) 99:6 58:6 72:6 105:7,21
screen (13) 22:23 23:8 60:25 shock (3) 102:25 SKIF (7) 30:13 31:9,18
23:14,24 25:5,16 sell (11) 28:7 29:2,22 103:3,7 32:11,17 34:21,24
25:18,19 47:4 39:24 55:2 64:17 shooting (1) 135:10 SKIF’s (1) 32:3
52:18,20 55:8 70:1 110:22 113:24 short (8) 10:1,2 37:12 Sklyarevsky (6) 32:2,8
60:16 118:25 119:9 37:18 38:18 123:2 40:18,21,25 42:23
screens (2) 13:9 20:7 selling (6) 24:22 51:10 133:20 189:14 Sklyarevsky’s (2)
scroll (20) 8:13 13:9 51:11 54:1 58:1 shortage (1) 129:16 30:13 41:10
20:7,22 23:8,24 64:14 shortfall (1) 81:14 sleep-walk (1) 137:23
25:15 28:1 31:2 sells (1) 64:22 shortly (5) 42:21 74:7 slightly (8) 37:16 80:4
47:6 48:8,21 49:13 semi (1) 82:15 104:18 166:18 80:13 102:23 112:6
49:20 53:5,13,14 semi-legal (1) 171:19 170:11 136:18 185:14
55:8 65:18 69:15 send (1) 160:24 shoulders (2) 160:23 187:4
scrolled (3) 13:5 25:20 sending (1) 99:11 179:10 slip (1) 184:3
61:7 sensational (2) 38:10 show (6) 48:2 49:7 slot (2) 166:1 176:11
seaside (1) 107:7 38:10 50:1 62:16 78:12 slots (2) 148:7 149:16
second (12) 7:13 sensationally (1) 172:4 slotted (1) 169:25
11:11 20:8 57:5 12:14 showed (1) 119:22 slow (2) 124:17
61:22 79:21 88:16 sense (10) 17:13 86:9 shown (1) 60:15 136:13
99:17 126:11 105:18 107:11 side (11) 18:10 19:7 small (6) 31:16,16
141:14 144:7 115:14 128:16 110:5 127:20 138:8 32:24 53:8 60:17
184:16 153:13 161:22 138:11 149:3 166:8 72:15
secondly (2) 113:14 163:1 187:5 167:14 176:16 Smirnov (2) 41:4,12
130:19 sensible (1) 184:6 188:5 so-called (3) 32:12
secret (1) 152:14 sensibly (3) 172:5 sides (2) 124:2 178:19 34:4 35:16
section (1) 61:3 182:10 186:3 signature (2) 92:14,15 sold (23) 8:25 10:4
secured (3) 28:19 sent (4) 91:8 102:14 signatures (1) 92:11 19:18 38:8,22 46:3
59:9,12 102:16 158:18 signed (10) 11:2 94:13 49:1,25 54:21,22
securing (1) 167:6 separated (3) 150:25 94:19 102:11,13,15 56:3,8,24 57:6
security (2) 112:12 172:5 182:10 109:11 137:5 159:8 61:19 65:23 68:7
116:7 sequence (4) 73:2 187:21 70:7 71:3 72:20,21
see (120) 7:6,14 8:13 74:17 107:20 significant (2) 108:8 116:10,11
8:19 9:10 13:14,16 123:14 127:19 solicitor (4) 131:14
13:20 16:11,15,16 sequential (2) 171:16 signifies (1) 73:2 155:9 157:22
16:19,21 19:24 176:7 signify (1) 11:14 158:12
20:1,3,8,13,17,20 SERGEI (2) 1:13 191:3 similar (7) 23:1,16,23 solicitors (15) 74:5
20:23,25 22:7 23:6 series (2) 77:19 24:9 44:11 49:10 102:18 104:9
23:9,12,25 24:1 106:14 74:6 123:22 130:9,18
25:9,10,13 31:7,16 serious (3) 98:13 similarities (1) 186:9 132:19 135:1,9,23
32:20 33:11 38:7,9 149:5 156:15 Simonova (24) 126:1 146:6 153:5,12
38:12 43:3,14 46:2 seriously (1) 154:10 126:6 127:12,22 157:17 162:17
47:8,11,12,13,17 service (2) 161:20,23 128:1,10 129:4 Solo (26) 20:9,9,15,16
47:18,19 48:10,19 serving (1) 153:3 139:19 146:7,15 20:20 21:1 22:14
48:22,25 49:2,18 servitude (1) 116:16 147:11,19 159:7 23:10,10 24:1,2
49:20,24 50:2 session (1) 180:23 160:10,13 163:17 25:23 26:8,9 27:1
52:18,22 53:1,4,7,9 Sestroretsk (2) 23:18 172:12,15 173:3,12 30:6,15 34:24 35:1
53:10,12,18,18,24 23:20 174:7 176:14 190:6 53:1,3 54:14 55:6
54:3,9 55:7 60:1,7 set (20) 78:7 79:1 190:10 59:14 120:2,9
60:9,13,24 61:1,3,4 81:4 96:8 100:23 Simonova’s (1) 176:24 solution (3) 153:18
61:5,8 62:17,23,24 101:3 103:8 106:9 simple (1) 144:15 158:24 174:10
63:1 65:16,18,21 107:24 120:12 simplifying (1) 143:2 somebody (4) 83:20
65:25 66:11 69:16 134:18,18 136:2 simply (29) 5:23 7:19 116:19 124:4
69:18,19 75:1 139:4 143:11 11:22 25:13 32:22 132:15
76:15 79:16 80:2,3 147:13 165:9 34:21 35:11 41:18 sooner (5) 36:23
80:5,11,15 87:2 169:12 171:6,8 42:2 45:7 47:18 73:17,18 187:8,12
109:1 120:10 sets (2) 121:17 124:21 48:16 64:2 68:3 sorry (38) 1:7,9 9:13
121:16,19,21 132:6 settlement (5) 6:14 72:4 90:4 103:22 9:18 10:11 26:6
136:10 137:21 7:2 12:24 15:14 120:16 127:5 30:23 31:15 45:1
139:16 146:7 86:2 143:19 151:24 60:13,20 63:8
155:14 158:24 Sevzapalians (5) 153:7 157:12 70:12 73:22,23
163:5 172:8 175:7 107:23 108:13,23 160:13 173:21 76:12 80:21 88:21
180:11 184:9 185:9 109:1,17 185:4 187:5,20 91:5 92:25 96:15
seeing (4) 31:23 33:15 sham (1) 35:16 188:13 117:10 121:8 122:6
147:7 167:7 shape (1) 138:21 sincerely (2) 2:19,21 122:15 124:17
seek (5) 126:24,24 share (6) 19:13,21 single (1) 3:11 126:2 129:18
156:3,5 188:2 29:15 67:10,20 sir (10) 9:24 10:10 141:10 155:7,16
seeking (4) 123:8 70:19 30:3 40:16 63:18 158:14,22 163:16
145:17 156:3,5 shared (2) 5:10 55:17 74:24 77:4 80:21 167:23 180:11
seen (11) 27:17 31:22 shareholder (2) 25:25 103:5 105:1 181:20,21
39:9 55:16 103:25 41:1 sit (2) 190:3,16 sort (18) 65:10 90:9
123:6,21 126:12,20 shareholders (2) site (2) 118:5 119:12 115:18 116:3
143:22 144:12 109:10 110:24 sitting (4) 35:4 46:9 121:24 124:23

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

203

April 6, 2016 Day 34

133:13 134:5 stand (8) 131:22 105:25 161:15 163:7 176:9
137:23 144:3 145:6 140:2 148:24 Street (1) 68:18 176:21 178:15,20
149:10 151:10 149:12 158:12 stress (2) 179:8 179:22 180:22
154:9 155:13 161:11,19 189:22 187:17 submit (3) 85:19
156:14 161:24 standing (1) 185:4 Stroilov (149) 1:5,16 123:25 127:18
184:10 start (16) 9:5 48:5 1:19,22 9:22,25 submitted (4) 22:17
sorts (4) 2:18 134:7 67:1,2 81:2 103:9 12:4,13 18:5 35:10 57:15 86:8 163:16
162:25 173:22 103:10 106:6 35:15 37:2,8,14 submitting (2) 87:12
sought (2) 146:24 149:15 150:12,13 40:17,25 41:24 172:16
185:9 151:24 158:22 45:1,9,18 59:7 subsequent (2)
sounds (2) 38:10 77:6 161:12 170:25 60:13,14 63:8,15 108:18 137:3
source (2) 21:5 82:24 181:8 63:19 68:17 69:15 subsequently (4)
souvenir (1) 82:23 started (5) 3:1 41:21 70:7 72:10,22 41:21 82:13 83:2
souvenirs (1) 82:17 50:7 103:12,17 73:10,15,18 74:20 101:6
space (1) 35:5 starting (10) 6:12 8:17 75:13 79:5,9,16 subsidising (1) 71:21
spaces (1) 134:5 13:25 20:13 23:9 80:25 81:11 90:24 substance (7) 3:3
spare (1) 52:17 23:10 24:1,2 80:23 92:19 103:24 45:16 62:3 78:6
speak (5) 9:23 35:23 124:20 107:19 108:16 79:23 92:16 156:11
63:17 74:18 121:2 starts (6) 8:18 16:6 112:21 117:11 substantial (8) 2:12
speaking (9) 9:23 11:6 49:9 52:12 76:12 119:25 120:2 4:4,25 5:1,20 51:9
14:14 42:7 46:7 80:15 121:10,11 123:5 80:8 115:2
51:21 95:16 167:12 stashed (2) 4:18 51:10 124:25 125:10,16 substantive (4) 87:23
175:2 state (8) 12:9 114:4 125:25 126:3,10,15 95:2 184:4 187:19
specific (10) 4:1 5:9 118:19 119:1 128:6,12,24 129:24 substantively (2) 23:1
6:22 19:1 39:16 120:21 156:6 131:23 133:8,15 23:15
46:9 94:12 106:13 172:10 175:17 134:3 136:17,19 succeed (1) 124:8
124:14,15 stated (4) 3:14 14:1 137:6 138:19 succession (1) 77:7
specifically (3) 12:19 17:18 92:8 139:10 140:9 suddenly (1) 159:21
56:3 84:20 statement (30) 15:8 141:13,19 142:9 sufficient (1) 188:8
specified (2) 12:23 17:20 19:23 27:20 144:12 145:7 sufficiently (2) 125:13
117:21 35:8 36:5 51:16 146:13,20 148:11 138:20
speed (1) 153:14 56:2 79:6,18 90:21 148:19 149:4,20 suggest (9) 86:25
spend (1) 12:13 91:7 96:9 98:3 150:14 151:4,14,15 132:24 134:12
spent (2) 101:17 101:5 102:1,3,9,11 152:11,23 153:1,20 142:9 176:16,19,20
145:9 102:18,21,24 154:11,16 155:25 178:19 185:16
split (9) 114:8 127:4 103:11,20,20,23 158:14,21 159:23 suggested (6) 29:23
166:7 167:3,8 104:1 113:4 126:23 160:2,8,11,16 41:19 159:17,25
170:20 173:6 176:4 138:15 161:4 162:10,15 163:24 182:11
176:5 statements (2) 84:16 163:12,13,16,21 suggesting (14) 9:4
splitting (4) 141:14 119:19 164:13,20 166:9,15 17:4,23 34:3 51:8
149:4 167:15 states (2) 17:14 83:19 166:22 167:1,11,19 76:9 77:6 85:7,17
169:15 status (4) 131:20 169:17,22 170:3,22 91:9 140:15 164:23
spot (1) 75:5 137:5 180:2,4 173:4,10 174:1 169:17 187:9
spotted (1) 75:4 statute (3) 11:18 175:10 176:12,25 suggestion (5) 33:5,7
spousal (6) 183:2,15 27:16 29:8 177:3 178:3,8,13 53:21 134:24
183:22 184:13,14 stay (3) 92:20 128:20 179:6,14 180:22 141:25
187:24 137:2 181:13,17 182:1,9 suggestions (1) 150:5
spouse (2) 84:11 Steadman (20) 126:13 182:13,19 187:18 suggests (12) 22:9
86:11 127:11,17 140:18 187:25 188:9,20 30:3 31:18 43:21
spreadsheet (3) 31:5 140:19,22 141:6,24 189:7,9 190:8 44:8 78:1 83:5 89:9
31:22 32:7 143:19,21 144:16 191:5 90:4 91:10 93:7
square (1) 65:14 145:17,18 150:24 Stroilov’s (4) 139:21 125:10
squarely (1) 169:2 164:5 166:13,24 142:23 157:13 suitable (3) 113:5,10
squeeze (1) 147:18 168:12 171:22 159:5 114:23
SRA (1) 153:24 180:3 strongly (4) 34:8 73:5 summarise (1) 188:16
St (31) 14:21 16:14,20 Steadman’s (3) 110:8 173:11 summary (2) 41:7,9
23:5 24:25 26:4 164:21 165:20 structured (1) 110:10 summer (2) 6:9 95:16
28:7 38:6 40:11 171:21 studied (1) 42:8 summoning (1) 141:1
52:2,24 58:3,4,25 Steadman/Popov (1) study (1) 62:8 summons (15) 126:18
65:3 67:6,8 70:4 188:25 studying (2) 41:22 126:23,25 127:3
76:19 79:13,15 steal (2) 112:25 60:7 140:22,25 141:19
84:7 88:20 113:8 168:25 stuff (1) 30:5 141:21 142:2 143:7
113:15 114:13,17 stealing (1) 187:4 subdivisions (1) 97:22 143:11 144:8,19
114:19 115:1,7 Steel (2) 124:6 152:12 subject (12) 43:8 145:1 172:1
168:24 step (7) 20:17 23:10 88:21 108:2 112:3 sums (3) 32:23 56:20
staff (1) 100:24 24:2 108:12 161:3 114:15 115:15,17 67:10
stage (24) 6:24 12:6 161:24 166:16 116:6 152:9 155:21 Sunday (4) 178:18,19
16:4 18:10 19:8 steps (10) 29:5,22 175:5 188:25 178:23,25
35:19 41:20 46:14 41:14 53:10,10 submission (14) 86:12 superior (1) 72:7
52:16,19,19,21,22 54:18,20 111:3,12 130:14,22 134:23 superiors (2) 72:6
53:15,16,16,17 111:19 140:1 143:18 91:25
55:12 67:4 68:10 stones (1) 82:15 144:23 147:9 supplying (2) 57:25
90:12 98:13 116:9 stood (1) 180:18 150:21 166:18 63:14
144:7 stopped (1) 111:9 167:23 169:2 171:6 support (1) 98:11
staged (1) 60:2 straddled (1) 172:24 182:6 suppose (10) 6:23
stages (3) 2:6 18:25 straight (3) 97:14 submissions (16) 30:10 69:6 114:8
131:5 176:22 186:14 125:4 126:17 128:2 169:23 179:19
stake (3) 110:1,16 strategy (5) 5:16 134:10 135:21 180:1,17 185:7
111:23 18:23,25 104:25 137:4 143:18 144:4 187:6

supposed (1) 98:23 supposition (1) 89:25 sure (35) 4:22 5:9,22

6:6 7:18 9:13 29:16 59:5 62:18,21 69:6 71:6,17,24 72:8 75:15 91:7 99:14 105:9,17 107:20 121:19 128:7 131:7 131:24 138:1 141:9 141:9 151:16,16 161:12 169:9 180:17 184:8 190:5

surely (2) 62:4 99:3 sureties (3) 91:17,23

93:25

surety (3) 49:23 89:3 94:12

surfaced (1) 36:23 surprise (2) 103:2

173:4 suspect (2) 81:23

172:5 suspected (1) 76:5 suspicions (2) 82:13

99:24 suspicious (2) 83:17

85:25

Svyaz-Bank (1) 82:9 swap (1) 147:16 swell (1) 70:17 swift (1) 139:6 switch (1) 146:14 switched (1) 148:2 sworn (1) 1:8 symmetrical (1)

188:21 sympathetic (1) 125:6 sympathy (1) 175:19

T

table (9) 20:1,20 22:7 31:16 32:19,20 53:24 54:9 180:1

tacks (1) 175:15 take (42) 26:7 29:22

45:21 72:8 73:5 78:24 90:2,3 96:18 97:8 99:21 102:5 106:23 107:6,19 108:14 111:19 122:5 124:9 129:2 129:9,18,21 132:3 141:25 143:23 154:10 155:8 156:20 157:18,21 161:10 166:4,16 167:5,16 170:16 171:16 183:14 185:23 188:16 189:6

taken (17) 29:5 40:8 57:17 96:1 103:8 110:24 113:13 114:4 115:20 123:13 133:23 149:8 165:8 173:4 175:4 179:10 184:23

takes (5) 75:7 126:7 128:11 131:5 186:9

talk (1) 51:5

talking (7) 9:13 24:19 32:25 38:11 49:16 68:10 155:22

target (1) 113:10 targeted (1) 3:6 task (1) 109:13

tax (9) 81:8,15,25 theirs (1) 98:23
82:25 83:16,25 theoretically (1) 46:7
84:17 97:10,23 theory (1) 36:3
taxation (2) 83:20 thereabouts (1)
84:3 165:21
taxes (1) 114:4 thereon (1) 81:9
Tchinina (1) 88:19 thing (12) 9:14 33:21
teamwork (1) 41:12 52:15 60:4 87:6
technical (5) 18:16,20 91:7 121:24 129:10
18:24 46:8 90:14 144:10 165:5,19
tedious (1) 137:7 178:16
telephone (1) 43:25 things (21) 9:19 12:11
tell (22) 13:4 25:20 75:4 80:7,18 83:23
60:4 71:15,23,23 98:14 128:4 131:3
71:24 91:14 93:12 131:22 133:14,21
97:16 106:12,22 133:22 136:13
114:21 135:20 137:7 139:21 140:2
140:9 147:20 142:25 147:16
152:25 153:22 161:11,18
186:18 188:4,14 think (228) 1:7,19 2:5
190:14 2:23 4:6 6:24 9:5
telling (9) 36:18,20 11:22 17:22 20:15
37:5,6 44:23 70:20 24:10,18 28:2,13
70:24 105:22 30:18,20,24 31:3
165:12 31:11,12 32:2,10
tells (1) 190:12 35:15 37:8,24 38:7
temporary (1) 162:18 38:9,25 39:12
tend (1) 2:17 40:13,22 41:4,7,9
tended (1) 18:22 41:13 42:15,20
tends (1) 173:19 43:14,22 46:12,19
term (1) 142:18 46:20 47:7 48:5,9
terminal (63) 3:10 49:3,12,14 51:4
19:18,19,22 23:21 52:16 53:14 54:17
31:13,20 33:24 59:15 60:3,10 63:2
37:16,19,24 38:14 63:3,9,9,12,12,19
39:3 41:15 42:4,9 64:16,19 65:8 67:5
42:17 48:12 53:2 69:11 72:11 73:11
53:20 54:5,13,14 73:15,19 74:4,7,7
54:22 56:21,24 74:21,25 75:1 76:1
57:5,17,23 58:10 76:10,23 77:5,23
58:11,23 59:10,13 78:22 79:5,6,21,25
59:18 61:6,8,14,16 87:25 89:16,20
61:20,23,25 62:20 92:19 93:1,3 94:25
63:24 64:10 65:5 95:16 96:8 98:10
75:16 106:5 108:2 102:2,20 103:5,9
109:3,5,6,15 110:1 103:17 104:21
111:24 112:8 113:5 106:10,18,19 107:2
113:16,18,21 107:16 108:12
114:10,18,23 112:4,5 114:10,13
terms (27) 8:14 11:23 119:16,20,24 120:9
49:3 74:7 103:16 121:13,18 122:2,3
113:20,22,25 115:4 123:5,7 124:16,20
115:4,13 122:23 124:25 126:11,21
124:21 130:20,25 127:1,2,8,12 128:1
131:21 135:8,18 128:13,15,24 129:1
136:5 137:1 138:23 129:24 130:16
146:24 160:25 131:22 135:11,13
176:13 180:12,13 135:17 136:21,25
183:4 137:8,20 141:23
terribly (2) 30:25 142:2,4,12,16,17
76:11 142:18,24 143:15
terrorist-financing (1) 146:1,5,18 147:5,6
81:19 150:5,12,17,20
test (4) 131:16 157:12 151:15 152:13
157:12,16 153:8,21 154:16
text (8) 9:9 13:1 28:2 155:25 156:6
28:4 38:9 80:5 160:11,23 161:5
88:21 90:2 162:12 163:12,13
thank (34) 1:12,14,21 164:3 167:4,9,11
6:10 9:24 18:5 21:9 167:13,19 168:20
25:21 31:17 37:8 169:19,20 170:3,7
45:9 60:14 73:10 170:15,21,23
75:6,25 81:21 83:5 171:15,16,17
87:25 89:9 92:19 172:20 173:14
97:19 98:1 100:8,9 175:10,16,22 176:7
101:24 104:13 177:7,9,19,24,24
117:10 118:16 178:3,8,14,16
119:16 122:2,9,25 180:22 181:17,18
190:17,18 182:13,19,21 183:1

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

204

April 6, 2016 Day 34

183:9,15 184:2,17 timetable (15) 127:24 translators (3) 128:16
186:13 188:15,22 128:5 134:5,19 128:22 146:22
189:15,17 190:1,8 139:4,14,21 145:22 treasury (1) 81:16
thinking (4) 19:9 147:8,23 149:6,13 treated (1) 188:7
106:6 161:20 170:8 163:5,6 178:5 trial (27) 124:1,7,8,11
third (5) 83:3 109:3 timetabling (10) 125:4 128:5 131:1
141:17 165:5 122:23 131:3 134:1 136:13 137:4 144:3
184:25 139:4 146:10 147:6 153:9 155:23
thirdly (1) 130:23 149:19 180:12 163:4 164:24
thorn (1) 110:5 187:6,8 188:11 166:18,20 167:3,7
thorough (1) 84:5 title (1) 109:22 167:16 168:19
thought (19) 5:12 today (13) 2:19 46:9 172:7 173:9 176:5
18:7,8 36:10 77:17 72:13 74:1 100:12 177:22 181:14
99:1,17,23 101:4,5 119:1 122:17,20 187:2
110:4 112:18 126:12 139:15,16 trials (2) 106:3 110:12
136:24 140:25 183:5 187:10 tricky (1) 186:3
141:2 157:7 168:12 told (17) 1:9 40:21,25 tried (3) 32:8 50:5
169:25 170:1 42:21 91:25 99:8 141:14
thousand (2) 33:20 106:24 112:18 tries (1) 160:3
38:8 115:2 134:6 144:22 trouble (4) 52:17
thousands (3) 32:22 145:19 147:6 73:25 140:12
32:25 33:22 152:20 160:4 185:20
threatening (1) 86:10 165:16 172:14 troubled (1) 166:10
three (19) 3:10 6:2 tomorrow (11) 4:14 true (10) 2:20,21
24:4 70:5 99:10 159:9 160:20 161:6 19:23 64:7 67:7,12
106:18 107:2,3 161:14 170:24 89:22 103:15
119:10,20 125:5 175:13 177:7,10 106:15 172:6
135:19 166:4 169:3 189:13 190:14 trust (1) 99:3
184:10 186:25 tonight (2) 159:9 truth (2) 73:1 91:24
188:23 189:3,4 190:12 try (12) 29:22 30:21
throw (2) 130:20 top (9) 13:10,11 16:16 103:13,13 113:23
140:5 25:17 33:18 48:23 145:6 149:10,20
throwing (2) 29:19 72:1 76:6 182:20 150:13 153:18
140:12 topic (1) 121:20 176:8 189:17
thunder (1) 187:5 total (2) 51:22 52:7 trying (21) 6:1 7:20
Thursday (4) 146:17 totally (3) 15:3 56:23 50:4,7 64:17 71:14
146:20 179:4 187:1 110:11 86:2,20 87:13
ticket (2) 22:3,6 track (1) 100:21 89:18 108:13
timber (4) 71:7 82:16 trading (1) 82:15 121:24 136:5
97:1,1 train (1) 136:2 139:20 142:11
time (129) 2:1 3:11,20 transaction (16) 7:11 146:6 147:4,9
4:3,11,16,24 5:8,10 35:17,17 41:3,11 159:13 161:16
5:12,13 6:8 7:7 8:6 48:1 54:25 56:16 163:8
12:14 14:2,22 16:1 57:7 87:24 105:16 Tsvelodubovo (2)
19:20 20:10 21:23 106:5,9 109:6 65:15 69:17
24:23 25:7 27:7,9 115:14 117:6 Tuesday (6) 125:25
31:23 32:20 33:15 transactions (11) 126:9 142:14,15
39:8 40:2,3,13,17 35:12 36:19 72:12 160:7 161:9
41:20 43:9 44:8 73:2 95:10,25 tumble (1) 137:10
45:11 51:16 54:8,9 96:12 104:16 105:3 tune (1) 71:19
58:9,22 59:3,15,20 110:10 112:4 Turetsky (5) 148:9,19
59:21 60:5,10 61:6 transcribers (1) 151:13 170:1
62:7 64:10 66:16 122:13 177:16
69:24 74:7 75:24 transcript (8) 74:15 turn (3) 30:4 120:16
82:12 86:1,5 87:16 107:25 112:17 159:21
91:18 93:18 94:3 126:16 142:10 turned (5) 32:9 70:6
94:10 95:15,23,25 144:13 150:10,17 103:24 107:3 148:3
96:14 99:3,5,14,25 transfer (5) 34:5 turning (2) 69:13
100:13,15,23 101:8 50:17 70:16 84:6 164:19
101:16,17 102:3,8 112:7 turnover (2) 84:6,16
102:20 104:2 transferee (1) 50:21 turns (1) 46:25
106:20 127:25 transferred (12) 3:17 two (35) 21:9 22:8,10
129:16 131:12,21 5:2 7:8 42:23 43:1 22:13 33:23 34:2
133:20,23 136:1,18 54:22 61:19 63:24 48:24 50:9,11,15
137:24 139:10,22 68:3,6 83:3 113:20 59:16 60:3 76:23
141:14,17 145:10 transferring (3) 36:25 77:1 85:21,22
146:15 147:10,16 64:11,13 106:18 107:3
148:14,25 149:2,7 transform (1) 118:23 112:11 113:15
150:15 151:18 transhipment (1) 71:8 114:8 119:21
156:8,24 157:10,10 transit (1) 115:23 124:11 127:20
159:2 161:19 162:2 translated (5) 17:21 144:19 147:23
166:4 167:2 168:13 65:11 76:17 79:5 164:25 168:25
169:24 170:13 80:20 170:17 174:13,23
171:17 174:24 translation (7) 40:15 179:9 182:17 183:7
176:8,17,18 178:14 40:23 63:16 65:9 188:23
180:11 181:18 76:11 79:20 88:8 type (1) 87:8
182:7 185:18 translations (1) typo (1) 38:11
186:18 187:9 128:25
times (3) 2:10,24 94:5 translator (1) 181:12

U

UK (1) 124:6 ulterior (1) 110:12 ultimately (2) 140:24

156:1

unable (2) 117:18 136:16

unavailable (1) 128:16 unchanged (1) 126:21 unclear (3) 131:20

132:17 177:15

uncomfortable (1)

119:15 uncover (1) 83:17 uncovered (1) 85:24 undated (1) 42:14 undergoing (1) 66:15 understand (33) 1:24

6:1,5 9:3 12:5 19:17 21:18 22:15 22:19 24:7 44:6 51:4 56:5 64:7,16 64:20 68:9 71:15 92:18 93:15 97:19 100:14 104:1 108:13 114:7 117:19 118:11 120:21 128:20 136:22 154:11 156:10 165:19

understandably (1)

153:22 understanding (11)

16:1 35:20 41:11 42:24 54:23 61:16 72:4 77:2 78:4 87:17 108:21

understands (1) 11:14 understood (3) 59:6

71:6 75:16

undertaken (2)

104:17 156:9 undertaking (1)

110:13 undervalue (1) 34:6 undisclosed (2) 5:1,20 undue (1) 178:11 unease (1) 136:20 unfair (8) 119:17

138:17 164:19,25 165:2,3 166:5 172:25

unfairly (1) 111:4 unfairness (1) 135:16 unfortunately (6)

28:20 44:4 66:15 70:9 119:7 126:21

unified (1) 54:22 unify (5) 104:18 105:1

105:24 106:2 109:14

unifying (2) 105:10 106:6

units (1) 118:24 unknown (2) 15:3

177:23 unpledged (5) 64:3

109:14,19,20

112:25 unsuccessful (1) 124:9 unsure (1) 117:20 unsurprisingly (1)

175:14 unsustainable (1)

82:19 untranslated (2)

13:21 88:2

unusual (4) 102:19

141:3 153:8,9 unviable (1) 82:19 unwarranted (1)

145:8 update (1) 127:9

updated (1) 188:19 upper (2) 80:16,22 upside (1) 158:5 urgency (1) 159:10 urgent (3) 123:7

129:24 159:8

use (6) 3:6 11:20 64:9 71:10 73:7 119:6

useful (1) 185:8 usefully (1) 174:19 uses (1) 86:18 usher (1) 88:3

usual (3) 78:16 88:13 120:10

usually (3) 107:5,7,8

V

v (2) 124:6 152:12

V.N (1) 16:19 vacation (1) 182:3 vacuum (1) 36:8 valid (3) 21:12 137:13

184:20

validity (2) 150:6 183:4

valuable (7) 51:11 55:22 113:21 115:17 116:21 168:25 169:5 valuation (24) 13:15

13:24 14:2,16,19 14:25 29:20,21,25 100:19,23,24 113:19 123:10 146:14 152:5 164:11 168:18 170:20 172:13,15 172:16 173:2 175:3

valuations (8) 14:6,23 15:6,7 29:23 100:11 101:18 127:5

value (22) 29:4 42:10 57:17 58:18 70:17 70:17 71:20 82:24 104:19 109:21 112:8,13 115:5 118:20 119:9 169:1 173:12,19,23,24 174:15 175:5

valued (2) 109:21 119:12

valuer (7) 13:18,19 14:15 100:16,19 101:23 147:17

valuers (4) 100:20 148:2 174:3,3 values (1) 175:7 valuing (1) 173:22 various (15) 6:1,4

29:10 72:12 78:8 96:12 104:16 105:2 111:3 117:11 157:23 158:3 164:23 166:22 168:1

VAT (4) 81:25 83:4 97:6,9

VECTOR (1) 48:12 venture (1) 155:5 verse (1) 169:13 version (25) 6:12 8:18

9:21 16:6 25:5

30:24 38:4 42:13 48:5 49:9 52:12,14 63:20 76:12 80:23 87:1 90:19 98:6,7 100:6,7 102:13,15 104:10 112:17
versus (1) 45:20 vessel (1) 3:12 vessels (7) 3:10,24

4:20,23 6:2 98:21 99:10

vested (2) 29:15 34:11

veto (4) 111:1,2,5,17 viable (2) 105:18

141:15

Victorovich (1) 7:15 view (14) 4:13 109:15 111:12 123:22 129:25 153:10

165:8 169:12 179:25 181:7 183:10,11 185:18 187:7

views (1) 101:2 village (2) 65:15

118:25 virtually (2) 68:23
72:15 vis-a-vis (2) 52:8

109:2 visited (1) 58:7 Vitaly (1) 7:15 Vladislav (1) 28:6

Volodina (9) 58:5,7 88:10,18 89:5 91:4 91:15 93:13 98:19

Volodina’s (4) 90:21 91:2,9 93:6

Volost (1) 60:25 voluntarily (1) 126:20 volunteer (1) 125:6 volunteering (1)

83:16

vote (2) 109:9 111:2

Vyborg (3) 3:8 61:1 99:10

Vyborgskaya (1) 65:15

W

waiving (1) 152:14 wall (1) 58:12 wand (1) 155:14 want (48) 8:14 12:13

22:25 41:5,24 46:24 50:1 51:5 71:16,23 98:5 102:7 112:7 116:24 118:13,13,14 121:21 127:25 136:12,13,13 137:17,23 140:5 141:1,17 144:5 151:24 153:9,22 155:15,18 156:25 157:1,3 163:21 165:7,16 173:22 174:17 176:1,2 178:11 184:25 187:23 189:4 190:5

wanted (25) 42:20 49:7 50:1 57:22 70:25 74:10 84:25 87:14 100:3,12 107:20,22 110:3 118:8,10,17 137:9 141:22,24 146:16 146:19,21 179:9

180:5 186:18 wants (6) 12:10 63:8

145:22 158:24 172:2 185:10 warranted (1) 156:16 wasn’t (15) 1:10 7:17 15:20 40:17 60:1 66:14,21,22 67:6

87:12 108:3 120:19 121:19 158:22 180:17

waste (1) 176:18 watching (1) 36:24 way (47) 10:24 21:19

24:11,14 28:21 30:14 37:18 41:14 43:23 50:6 52:4 58:2 64:4 71:15 74:8,24 78:16 86:15 87:14 98:15 103:21 105:9 106:5 109:25 110:11 113:1 132:4 134:23 135:13,22 137:22 141:11,17 142:1 144:12 151:17,19 157:12 161:18,25 162:11 164:11 175:2,21 184:2,3,6

ways (5) 24:21 69:20 131:4 137:7 173:22

we’re (1) 158:25 we’ve (3) 50:10 54:18

161:7

website (3) 63:5,21 69:12

Wednesday (5) 1:1 142:16,18 144:19 150:8

week (14) 102:23,23 107:6,14 128:14 140:1 142:3 146:24 147:5,6 162:1 180:24 189:19,22

weekend (6) 176:20 177:13,14 178:1 189:25 190:1

weeks (3) 131:19 144:19 147:23

welcome (2) 35:21 129:20

went (3) 68:16 85:25 172:20

Western (27) 39:3 48:12 61:6,8,14,16 61:20,23 62:20 63:24 64:10 65:5 106:5 108:2 109:3 109:5,6,15 110:1 112:8 113:5,16,18 113:21 114:10,18 114:23

whatsoever (1) 75:17 wherefores (1) 189:14 whilst (2) 74:13,14 whys (1) 189:13

wife (2) 57:16 95:12 wife’s (1) 96:5

willing (2) 30:4 109:24 winner (5) 22:2,6 23:9

24:2 120:10 wish (9) 94:1 107:19

108:20,22 139:6 140:22 156:13 170:18 187:15

wished (1) 107:21 withdrew (1) 122:11 Withers (24) 130:6

131:8 132:11

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

205
April 6, 2016 Day 34

135:22 136:3 138:14,15 143:20 152:17 153:2,21 154:6,13 155:17 156:1,3 157:1 158:8,16 159:6 160:23 175:16 177:5,9

witness (37) 35:11,12 40:14,22 41:25 45:2 73:25 96:8 98:3 101:5 102:3 102:11,17,21,24 103:11,23,25 113:4 121:15 122:3,11 132:15,16 138:14 141:19,20 142:2 143:3,7 144:8,18 144:25 148:16 172:1,24 173:1

witnesses (9) 42:21 103:2 134:1 148:18 149:13 163:7 183:9 183:15 185:10

won (1) 20:15 wondered (1) 111:14 wondering (1) 162:10 word (3) 24:7 44:6

161:22

words (19) 8:17,18,19 11:19 50:14 51:20 52:21 53:16 78:6 80:23 91:22 93:23 96:25 116:1 130:2 159:8 161:14 166:2 184:1

work (25) 10:24 18:16 18:19,24 19:5 46:8 47:18 80:8 84:20 84:23 87:7 89:11 89:24 90:14 95:8 101:12,14 103:8 139:15,16 148:7 152:6 160:23 170:25 176:19

worked (6) 18:25 19:1 87:2 100:20 101:13 101:22

working (22) 5:14,25 32:15 36:9 44:9,19 45:24 46:4 51:19 78:2 84:19 87:9,10 101:3,6,9,17 102:19,21 103:11 125:2 181:1

works (3) 144:20 179:14 186:15

world (2) 6:4 126:3 worried (2) 154:16

165:14 worry (2) 154:15

162:20 worrying (1) 144:24 worth (7) 50:11 52:3

52:7 57:9 69:13 108:12 116:18

wouldn’t (11) 19:8 33:4 50:8 51:10,13 55:25 89:24 137:16 141:3 144:10 176:3

wrap (1) 145:14 wrapped (1) 149:11 wraps (1) 36:22 wrested (1) 160:22 writ (2) 109:17 111:20 write (3) 32:24 97:20

190:11

writing (7) 4:21 95:20 103:16 161:16

171:10,13 189:21 written (12) 17:2 21:6 44:5 57:12 100:19

100:25 113:3 137:4 160:24 176:9 178:19 185:17

wrong (10) 38:25 69:10 74:17 101:5 112:5 146:2 167:13 174:17 176:5 181:17

wrongly (2) 142:25 173:18

wrote (1) 141:6

WS (4) 100:24 102:10 103:17 104:3

X

X (5) 46:3 50:20 71:18 71:19 155:11

Y

Yashkina (4) 78:8 83:12,23 84:19
Yatvetsky (9) 128:14 146:16 148:20 149:21,22 150:11 164:8 179:3,13

year (1) 102:3 years (5) 59:3,16,23

60:3 107:5 yesterday (7) 2:6 39:4

48:13 72:13 74:22 104:14 112:15

yesterday’s (2) 74:16

107:25

York (1) 186:8

Z

Z (1) 152:21

Zapadny (2) 61:6

111:24

Zarubina (3) 61:5,17

61:19 zoom (1) 53:6

zoomed (1) 31:3

0

1

1 (20) 3:8,9 5:2 40:7 52:19,21,22 61:1 63:19 102:4,11 110:1,4,5,15,21 143:13 191:3,4,5

1.5 (2) 32:4,11

1.55 (2) 73:12,20

10 (3) 33:22 37:10 74:19

10-minute (2) 37:9 122:16

10,000 (2) 112:9

143:21

10.00 (4) 133:25 134:6 136:11 190:14

100 (11) 51:19 52:7 54:13 90:13 99:5 109:7,10 110:24 117:5 142:21 181:22

100,000 (1) 40:8

101 (2) 142:19,21

102 (2) 142:19,20

103 (1) 143:12

104 (1) 143:13

108 (1) 98:5

11.13 (1) 37:11

11.26 (1) 37:13

11.30 (1) 170:6

110 (1) 46:17 11th (3) 161:19 170:18,18

12 (1) 146:24

12.07 (1) 88:17

12.16 (1) 89:6

12.5 (1) 165:22

12.58 (1) 75:9

12.7 (1) 49:25

123 (1) 191:7

129 (1) 101:9

12th (2) 159:16 160:7 130 (3) 100:5,8

101:10

13th (1) 149:23

14 (3) 76:20,23 77:9

14.3 (1) 49:1

14th (4) 150:12,13 179:4,13

15 (3) 58:21 65:19 107:16

150 (1) 51:23 15th (4) 149:25

150:12 179:7,13

164 (1) 23:12

18 (3) 74:25 108:7 142:20

18.5000 (1) 65:14

19 (2) 124:20 181:23

19th (6) 128:22 146:22 150:3 179:17,20 180:10

2

2 (8) 13:13 31:2 53:15 53:16,16 61:3 80:24,25

2-3U (1) 66:10

2.0 (2) 75:8,11

2.1 (5) 48:10,16,24 49:14 61:5
2.2 (4) 49:19 61:5 62:21 65:22
2.3 (5) 48:25 49:24 62:22 65:23 66:7
2.4 (2) 62:22 66:7

2.55 (1) 73:18

20 (6) 14:25 76:21,24 77:9 107:16 112:10
200 (1) 57:18

2005 (1) 65:19

2007 (3) 14:7 92:6 94:11
2007/2008 (2) 14:24 118:21
2008 (26) 3:25 4:12 14:7 61:9,22 71:5 82:7 88:10,18 89:10,14,17 91:10 91:16,19,20 92:6 93:7,16,20,21 94:11,12 99:7 109:7 110:3

2009 (33) 1:25 2:25 3:1 5:18,24 6:9 7:6 15:12 16:9 18:11 28:25,25 32:6 33:19 57:1 64:11 66:3,13 75:25 76:20,21,21,23,24 85:3,15 86:8 95:17 96:8 98:10 99:8 106:10 110:3

2010 (3) 33:6 62:20 62:24

2011 (5) 40:19 42:22 45:23 103:5 106:10
2012 (2) 64:11 66:8

2016 (2) 1:1 190:20

207 (2) 33:2,20

207,000 (1) 33:2

21 (1) 143:12

21st (2) 180:25 189:10

22 (1) 7:6

22nd (5) 180:25 181:2 181:11 187:3 189:10

23 (5) 66:8 128:10 136:22 145:24 181:15

23rd (3) 142:12,17 146:11

25 (2) 82:7 90:20 25th (2) 147:6 186:24
26 (3) 16:9 23:2,17
29 (2) 62:20,24

3
3 (3) 40:9 47:16 50:6
3.00 (1) 73:14
3.00ish (2) 73:15,19
3.05 (1) 73:15
3.4 (1) 38:12
3.41 (1) 123:1
3.52 (1) 123:3
30 (6) 5:4 29:7 52:6
57:9 66:3 108:5
300 (1) 57:2

300,000 (1) 52:4

31 (9) 88:10,18 89:10
89:14 142:12,16,19
150:10 181:22
31.3 (1) 20:14
33 (5) 40:8 90:23,24
112:17 114:21
34.5 (1) 38:8
343 (1) 46:18
35 (2) 82:10,17

4

4 (4) 22:3,6 51:18 143:13
4.30 (2) 147:21,21

40 (2) 57:11 58:17

400 (2) 52:25 58:20

409 (1) 49:17

456 (2) 48:20,20

5

5 (2) 51:23 110:23

5.32 (1) 190:19

50 (1) 124:25

51 (1) 124:24

6

6 (2) 1:1 76:21

6.60 (4) 33:8,10,12,12
63 (2) 90:21,25
64 (1) 124:20
6th (2) 150:8,8

7

70 (2) 46:20,23

8

8 (1) 190:20

80 (1) 46:23

800 (1) 30:1

850 (2) 50:11 57:9

87,500 (1) 165:21

8th (3) 146:8,10

160:10

9
9,900 (1) 112:9
9.30 (4) 147:21 190:3
190:16,20
9.45 (2) 1:2 147:21
9.50 (1) 1:4
91 (1) 107:24
92 (2) 93:4 191:6
93 (1) 74:16
97 (1) 54:2
99 (5) 38:8 109:8
111:23 112:18 114:21

99,000 (2) 40:4 54:19

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