Day 39

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

Day 39

April 15, 2016

Opus 2 International — Official Court Reporters

Phone: +44 (0)20 3008 5900

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

April 15, 2016 Day 39

1 Friday, 15 April 2016

2 (10.30 am)

3 (Proceedings delayed)

4 (10.40 am)

5 MS ELENA YATVETSKY (continued)

6 (Evidence via interpreter)

7 Cross-examination by MR STROILOV (continued)

8 MR STROILOV: May it please your Lordship.

9 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Good morning.

10 MR STROILOV: Morning, Ms Yatvetsky.

11 Razvitie Sainkt Peterburga, otherwise known as

12 St Petersburg Development, is a Renord company, is it

13 not?

14 A. Yes, Razvitie Sainkt Peterburga is a Renord company.

15 Q. And it has been a Renord company at all relevant times,

16 say, from 2008 until now? It has always been a Renord

17 company, is that correct?

18 A. I think so, yes, starting in 2008, yes.

19 Q. Thank you. Now can we go back to where we stopped

20 yesterday? Hopefully it will now work. If you could

21 please be shown {D160/2688.1/0.1} on one screen, and the

22 Russian version will be playing on each one.

23 (Pause)

24 Great. That was the document where I got stuck

25 yesterday, so hopefully it is now working. So this

1 things based on the price that had been determined in

2 the course of the auction and it took into account the

3 encumbrance that existed at that time, because the

4 assets were still being pledged to BSP.

5 Q. Right, but you are saying that 2.3 million was a fair

6 market price, are you?

7 A. It was a very fair market price considering the

8 encumbrance.

9 Q. Previously, when those assets and a couple more were

10 sold for 161,000 roubles, was that also a fair market

11 price?

12 A. Yes, it was the price that was on a valuation and the

13 price was set by the court bailiffs.

14 Q. This contract which you see on the screen, that leaves

15 some of the assets, unencumbered, are left in the

16 possession of Nefte-Oil; isn’t that correct?

17 I am talking about Birse SV16 and some of the

18 railway tracks, including the one which was worth some

19 6 million roubles, according to your evidence yesterday.

20 A. Yes, at some point in time, they were still being owned

21 by Nefte-Oil, they remained in their ownership.

22 Q. And subsequently those assets were transferred to Baltic

23 Fuel Company, were they not?

24 A. Yes. Some of the assets were directly transferred by

25 VECTOR Invest to Kontur LLC.

1

1 seems to be the sale contract between Nefte-Oil and

2 VECTOR for the sale of some of the Western Terminal

3 assets.

4 If you look at clause 1.1 and then two subclauses,

5 you will see that following the auction sale to

6 Nefte-Oil, now Nefte-Oil is only selling to VECTOR

7 Invest two assets pledged to the Bank, rather than all

8 the Western Terminal assets. Can you see that?

9 A. Yes, I can see that.

10 Q. If we scroll down one page on each screen, you can see

11 in clause 2.1 that — on both screens, please — the

12 sale of the assets was for 2.3 million roubles.

13 {D160/2688.1/0.2}

14 Now, as we discussed yesterday, half a year before

15 this contract the assets were sold in a somewhat

16 different way, that is to say there was one lot which

17 included all those assets, and that was sold for 161,000

18 roubles, and then you have given evidence that there was

19 a separate lot that was a railway track, sold for

20 approximately 6 million roubles.

21 So was — at this occasion, was the sale from

22 Nefte-Oil to VECTOR Invest, was it intended to be a sale

23 on commercial terms?

24 A. No, in essence it was a transfer between two Renord

25 companies. In essence, this contract was amongst other

3

1 Q. I am talking about the unencumbered assets, the railway

2 track and Birse SV16, which remained in the possession

3 of Nefte-Oil. Do those assets subsequently transferred

4 to Baltic Fuel Company? That’s my question.

5 A. Yes, they were subsequently transferred to the Baltic

6 Fuel Company.

7 Q. And at what time did that happen?

8 A. It happened some time around the summer of 2012, I would

9 say.

10 Q. Was there any consideration paid for that transfer?

11 A. Yes, as per the terms and conditions of the contract,

12 funds were paid to Nefte-Oil.

13 Q. How much?

14 A. Sitting here today, I don’t recall exactly, but I think

15 it was in the same ballpark, the figure was around the

16 ballpark figure set by the bailiffs.

17 Q. So in the region of 160,000 roubles, or are you —

18 sorry, I beg your pardon. It is more complex than you

19 indicated, because I think you said that one of the

20 railway tracks was sold by the bailiffs for 6 million,

21 and then the rest of the assets were sold for 160,000.

22 So which was it, was it in the region of 6 million, or

23 was it in the region of 160,000 roubles?

24 A. The railway track was transferred by Nefte-Oil to

25 Kontur, I believe for about 6 million roubles, if I am

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

April 15, 2016 Day 39

1 not mistaken. 1 exist in Russia called Vector, and I do not see anything
2 Q. Now, I believe you will agree that at the time the 2 untoward or bizarre in this at all.
3 contract you see on the screen was made, it was already 3 Q. Idiomatically, VECTOR LLC is a one day dummy company,
4 envisaged that the Bank would bring enforcement 4 purchased by someone for some dubious purpose; that is
5 proceedings to enforce the pledge; do you agree with 5 the meaning of the idiom VECTOR LLC, is it not?
6 that? 6 A. I would not agree with this statement, I would not say
7 A. Yes, correct. 7 that VECTOR could in any way cast aspersions on the name
8 Q. I think if we look at the witness statement of 8 of the company.
9 Mr Smirnov at {B2/12/11}, paragraph 60. If it could be 9 Q. Well, if you Google it in Russian, you will find a lot
10 found in the Russian version, that would be most 10 of quite amusing jokes about that. But the point is,
11 helpful. 11 I think, that what you explain is quite consistent with
12 So you can see that what, in paragraph 60, 12 that, it was a special purpose vehicle purchased
13 Mr Smirnov explains that really the purpose effectively, 13 specifically for a brief series of transactions. If you
14 the purpose of transferring the assets from Nefte-Oil to 14 look at your paragraph 28, you say that VECTOR Invest
15 VECTOR Invest was to ensure that this VECTOR Invest 15 was a company purchased by Renord-Invest in April 2012
16 rather than Nefte-Oil, that becomes a party to the 16 for this purpose, a company with heavy losses on its
17 enforcement proceedings; is that fair to say? 17 balance sheet.
18 A. Mr Smirnov says that VECTOR Invest was supposed to 18 So VECTOR is not a genuine business, that’s the
19 become party to the enforcement proceedings, yes. 19 point I’m making; it was just purchased for a one-off
20 Q. I think you explain the position slightly differently in 20 operation. Isn’t that fair?
21 your paragraph 28, if we now go to {B2/18/6}. I’m 21 A. No. This is not the case. The financial condition of
22 afraid it’s at the very bottom of the page. Then, 22 VECTOR Invest at that point in time was negative
23 again, in the Russian version, paragraph 28 could be 23 precisely because of the business that it had previously
24 found. I think you have it, Ms Yatvetsky. 24 been carrying on. Speaking from memory, they were
25 So you explain that by tax considerations. So isn’t 25 carrying out some construction or building business. It
5 7

1 there an inconsistency? I think Mr Smirnov’s

2 explanation is that he didn’t want Nefte-Oil to be

3 a party to enforcement proceedings, whereas you say they

4 were tax considerations; so which is correct?

5 A. Both are actually true. Mr Smirnov, when referring to

6 the fact that Nefte-Oil did not want to be party to

7 enforcement proceedings, what he meant was the tax

8 burden, the tax liability that they would have incurred

9 had Nefte-Oil sold the assets. Now, considering

10 Nefte-Oil’s investment projects, that would have wreaked

11 havoc with their financial statements, and this was not

12 something that they could afford.

13 So I think I am just going into greater detail here,

14 when setting out the rationale behind this decision.

15 Q. I see. I think I will be slightly cryptic to most of

16 the people here, but I think you will know: VECTOR is

17 a slightly amusing name for a Russian company, is it

18 not?

19 A. No, I would not.

20 Q. Well, VECTOR —

21 A. I could not put it that way.

22 Q. Well, VECTOR LLC is something that has become an idiom

23 in Russian language, in Russian business jargon, because

24 there are thousands of them; isn’t that so?

25 A. I have never double checked the number of companies that

1 was not a fly-by-night company.

2 Q. Well, the reason why VECTOR — why the name VECTOR is so

3 popular is precisely because a company called VECTOR can

4 be used for anything whatsoever, the name doesn’t link

5 with any particular business at all?

6 A. This name, or nor name for that matter has anything to

7 do with the actual business carried on by the company.

8 Q. Now can we please look at {D161/2708/0.1}, and then just

9 page 1 on the other screen? Is there any difficulty

10 with the Russian version? (Pause). I don’t know if

11 Ms Yatvetsky has it on paper?

12 THE INTERPRETER: I am so sorry, Mr Stroilov, the

13 interpreters do not.

14 MR STROILOV: I see, then we had better wait.

15 (Pause)

16 I also have a difficulty, so it may be something

17 general with the system, it doesn’t open very well on my

18 own computer.

19 (Pause)

20 Well, it’s not ideal. The second screen, is it not

21 going to work at all?

22 EPE OPERATOR: It’s being fixed at the moment.

23 MR STROILOV: Right. Well, that’s going to be difficult,

24 I fear. Let’s do our best.

25 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: I see, we have a split screen now,

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

April 15, 2016 Day 39

1 have we? 1 proceedings against VECTOR Invest as the pledgor; is
2 MR STROILOV: Yes, I think the second screen for some reason 2 that correct? And that is that enforcement case.
3 is not working, and I think I also have a difficulty 3 A. Well, I can’t confirm the case number, but if I remember
4 opening it on my computer. Actually what I wanted was 4 correctly on 1 August, the Bank did indeed go to court
5 the very top of the page. Is it envisaged that it will 5 and as a result this settlement agreement was signed.
6 take long to fix this? It will be very inconvenient. 6 Q. So the sequence was this: just correct me if I’m wrong,
7 EPE OPERATOR: It shouldn’t be more than five minutes. 7 in June, I think, was it July even, on 6 June you have
8 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: About five minutes, did you say? 8 this contract whereby the pledge is sold or transferred
9 EPE OPERATOR: Yes, my Lord, about five minutes. 9 from Nefte-Oil to VECTOR Invest, and then once that is
10 MR STROILOV: I wonder if it may be quicker, my Lord, simply 10 registered, next the Bank brings enforcement proceedings
11 to wait. 11 very quickly, and then again within a few weeks you have
12 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Yes, all right. I will rise for five 12 this settlement agreement; is that a fair summary?
13 minutes anyway. 13 A. Yes, yes, it’s a fair summary.
14 MR STROILOV: I do apologise, my Lord. 14 Q. Now, as you can see, this settlement agreement is
15 (11.00 am) 15 intended to resolve the enforcement proceedings. If you
16 (A short break) 16 look at the explanation at the bottom of the page, or
17 (11.15 am) 17 the three paragraphs at the bottom of the page, it says:
18 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Is it all fixed? 18 «For the purpose of resolving the dispute that has
19 MR STROILOV: I think more or less. I believe the 19 arisen in connection with recovery of the property
20 problem — the underlying problem is with the internet 20 of … VECTOR Invest … pledged under mortgage
21 in the building, but I think the Magnum operator has 21 agreement [such and such] …»
22 found a way. I think an additional problem which has 22 And then the pledge is identified.
23 transpired is that if Mr Arkhangelsky says something we 23 Now, perhaps you — pausing here just to avoid any
24 don’t hear him, and as you see the picture is — 24 misunderstanding, in fact there was no misunderstanding
25 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: It’s a bit wavey, isn’t it, behind? 25 between Bank and Renord at that stage, was there?
9 11

1 MR STROILOV: He will check whether there is something on

2 his end, maybe the microphone is muted or something.

3 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: He can hear us, he can hear what is

4 going on?

5 MR STROILOV: I believe he can. The problem is if we ask

6 him, we don’t hear the answer.

7 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: He will have to communicate in signs.

8 MR STROILOV: Yes, my Lord.

9 MR LORD: Yes, carefully though! We were wondering what

10 sort of signs, my Lord, we should be very careful when

11 we use signs —

12 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Appropriate signs.

13 MR LORD: I think it goes without saying, yes.

14 MR STROILOV: I think we need to just try and carry on and

15 do our best.

16 Now, Ms Yatvetsky, apologies for this difficulty.

17 So as you can see this seems to be the settlement

18 agreement between the Bank of St Petersburg and VECTOR

19 Invest.

20 In the top left corner you can see the name, the

21 case number and the name of the judge. Can you see

22 that?

23 A. Yes, I can see that.

24 Q. I think you explained in your evidence that shortly

25 before in 2012, the Bank actually brought enforcement

1 A. No, no, no, this is wrong.

2 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: What is wrong? There was a dispute or

3 there wasn’t a dispute?

4 A. Bank filed a claim in court to realise its pledge, so

5 there was a dispute. The pledge was realised through

6 the courts.

7 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Was there disagreement between the

8 Bank and VECTOR as to whether VECTOR should account for

9 the pledged property?

10 A. Well, as the property was pledged to the Bank, at the

11 moment the deal was concluded, Nefte-Oil and VECTOR

12 Invest, the Bank agreed to that because the property had

13 been pledged to the Bank. This dispute was in fact

14 regarding the price, because naturally the Bank wanted

15 to realise the maximum value out of its pledge, but the

16 amount of debt was much greater than the value of the

17 property. VECTOR Invest, the pledgor, was only liable

18 to the creditor, to the cost or to the value of the

19 property. So the only dispute with the Bank was with

20 regard to the cost, or the value.

21 MR STROILOV: Thank you, my Lord.

22 Now, what I mean, I’m just wondering if there was

23 a misunderstanding; I understand that there was

24 procedurally a dispute, but in reality the Bank and

25 Renord were still working together, were they not?

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

April 15, 2016 Day 39

1 A. Well, depending on what you mean by working together

2 still. In this particular case, the Bank was a creditor

3 whereas VECTOR Invest was a pledgor, and naturally the

4 Bank wanted to get as much as possible from its pledge,

5 but I repeat that the pledgor is liable only to the tune

6 of the value of the pledged property.

7 Q. Well, can we scroll down one page on each screen?

8 {D161/2708/0.2}. Just to go quickly through the terms

9 of the agreement, in clause 1 you see that VECTOR should

10 pay some 1.2 billion roubles; in clause 2 you see that

11 the sum must be paid before 28 August 2012, so that

12 gives VECTOR eight dates, and as a result of that, as

13 you can see in clause 3, the pledge would be released.

14 You can see all that.

15 Then in clause 4, this envisaged that if the

16 obligation to pay is not fulfilled, then there shall be

17 a public sale with the initial selling price being

18 considerably lower, 670 million roubles.

19 Now, Ms Yatvetsky, eight days is a rather limited

20 time to market and sell an asset like Western Terminal

21 to a third party, is it not?

22 A. Well, I think that is enough time for VECTOR Invest to

23 understand whether it will pay up the amount of the debt

24 or not.

25 Q. Now, obviously if there was really, at the time this

1 such, rather than compliance with the terms of this

2 contract? Do you agree with that?

3 A. Well, to some extent, I suppose, yes, because VECTOR

4 Invest understood the real value of these assets. Why

5 would it have had to pay more?

6 Q. So the real purpose of this agreement was simply to

7 reduce the starting price at the auction, was it not?

8 A. No, that is not correct. The true purpose was to

9 judicially establish by the courts the market value of

10 these assets.

11 Q. So what you mean is that, rather than simply agreeing

12 the terms, Renord and the Bank wanted the sale to take

13 place at a public auction so that it would be more

14 difficult to challenge it for any third party; is that

15 a fair summary of what you meant to do?

16 A. Well, public auction definitely eliminate all types of

17 risks for the purchaser.

18 Q. Yes, and that was really, again, as you said yesterday,

19 in the ways of previous public auction, where it was

20 sold to Nefte-Oil, I think the term you used was

21 cleansing the assets, creating a company which could

22 then claim to be a bona fide purchaser; and the purpose

23 of this settlement and this auction was the same, was it

24 not?

25 A. The purpose of this settlement was to establish the

13

1 agreement was made, an intention to try and find a third

2 party buyer for the assets, I suggest to you that it

3 would have been that this contract would have given

4 VECTOR at least nine days, just to maximise the chances;

5 don’t you agree?

6 A. No, I can see no difference between eight days or nine

7 days. Parties are free to conclude any settlement

8 agreement on any terms and it’s confirmed by the court,

9 as long as they don’t violate rights of third parties

10 they are free to conclude whatever they wish.

11 Q. What I am putting to you is that at the time this

12 agreement was concluded, there was no intention to

13 implement it in reality; that wasn’t the purpose of the

14 agreement, for it to be implemented. Do you accept

15 that?

16 A. Why? As a result of this VECTOR Invest did not pay up

17 the debt and the pledged property was sold off in public

18 auctions, just as it says here, as it’s provided for in

19 here.

20 Q. Indeed, what I mean is that at the very time you created

21 this settlement agreement, the intention was not to

22 comply with clause 1 and clause 2 and clause 3, but you

23 meant, it was clearly understood between the Bank and

24 Renord, that you would follow the procedure in clause 4,

25 that is to say the auction, rather than settlement as

15

1 market value for the assets, which was indeed

2 established by the court.

3 Q. So let’s just try and understand. Well, obviously all

4 this — not obviously. Let me ask you this: obviously

5 all these events, say the sale to VECTOR, and then the

6 enforcement proceedings brought by the Bank, then the

7 settlement agreement, and then the auction sale, these

8 four events are part of a single plan that was meant to

9 happen like that from the beginning. Do you accept

10 that?

11 A. No, I don’t agree with that. If the parties had a joint

12 plan, it wouldn’t have taken, I suppose, so many steps

13 to achieve a joint purpose. Back in 2011 we would have

14 enforced the pledge. If we assume that the parties had

15 had a plan, the parties would have sold the property,

16 the assets, back in 2011 then.

17 Q. And it was envisaged at least at this stage that the

18 assets would be bought by Baltic Fuel Company entity,

19 wasn’t it?

20 A. No, that is not so. It was not envisaged, because the

21 auction was public, it was an open auction, and as far

22 as I remember it was an internet auction and it was

23 simply supposed that Kontur would participate in this

24 auction.

25 Q. So at least do you accept that it was, at the time this

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

April 15, 2016 Day 39

1 agreement was made and perhaps previously, already

2 intended that Kontur would bid? Do you accept that at

3 least?

4 A. Yes, I think by that time Mr Smirnov understanding that

5 the Bank was going to enforce the pledge, he together

6 with his partners decided to take part in this auction.

7 Q. And Kontur was the only bidder at that auction, was it

8 not?

9 A. No, speaking from memory, there were other bidders as

10 well. If my memory serves me right, the price went up.

11 I think at the end of the day it was sold for

12 675 million, if I’m not mistaken. Here it says 670.

13 Q. Right. That was, I think, one step above the starting

14 price, that’s what it was sold. I may be mistaken, but

15 I think it was one step.

16 A. I’m not sure I recall what this step or the increment

17 was at the auction.

18 Q. So do you accept that by that time, at least,

19 Mr Smirnov was interested in that asset, in Western

20 Terminal, for his own projects by the time Kontur became

21 the bidder at the auction? Do you accept that?

22 A. Well, considering the fact that Kontur was one of the

23 bidders, then the answer is yes.

24 Q. Right. Since this settlement agreement is clearly

25 a preparatory step for that auction it follows, does it

1 Q. Now can we briefly go back to Gunard lease. There is

2 the usual internet problems (Pause). I’m sorry,

3 my Lord. Yes, {D128/2060/1}. Now, the Russian version

4 is at page 4.

5 Obviously you have drafted it, so no need to take

6 you through all the terms, you will remember it. The

7 term I would like you to look at in particular is 2.1.1.

8 That contract envisages that the assets shall be passed

9 from Western Terminal LLC to Gunard three days after the

10 contract is signed. So you don’t need state

11 registration. That has to happen on 23 August 2009,

12 according to this contract. Is that correct?

13 A. No. Before a transfer can become valid, the lease had

14 to be registered by government agencies. And without

15 such registration de facto the contract did not enter

16 into force, it did not deploy full force and effect, nor

17 did the transfer and acceptance certificate become

18 valid. You cannot transfer assets without a valid

19 contract.

20 Q. Right, but there was a transfer and acceptance

21 certificate, was there not?

22 A. Just as the contract, yes.

23 Q. When you say that it is not valid until it is

24 registered, what you mean is it cannot be enforced in

25 Russian courts; is that what you mean?

17

1 not, at the time that this agreement was made Mr Smirnov

2 or Renord were already interested in the assets for your

3 own projects; is that right?

4 A. Well, I can only speculate that that might have been the

5 case.

6 Q. You see, there has been, obviously yesterday and today,

7 you have considered quite a long chain of transactions

8 with these assets. Let me list them briefly. There was

9 a proposed Gunard lease, then there was the auction sale

10 to Nefte-Oil — sorry, let me start again.

11 There was the proposed Gunard lease, then there was

12 the transfer of shareholding to Altriwa Limited. Then

13 there was the auction sale to Nefte-Oil. Then fourthly

14 there was the sale from Nefte-Oil to VECTOR, and then

15 there was this settlement agreement between VECTOR and

16 the Bank, and then there was an auction sale to Kontur.

17 Assuming that Renord was interested in this asset from

18 the start, this long chain of transactions makes perfect

19 sense as a plan to acquire those assets. Wouldn’t you

20 agree with that?

21 A. No, I would disagree with this.

22 Q. So according to your knowledge, at what point in time

23 did Renord become interested in Western Terminal for its

24 own purposes?

25 A. I’m not sure I can answer that question with certainty.

19

1 A. Definitely, unless the contract is registered duly and

2 properly by state bodies, no transfer has taken place.

3 Without state registration, the contract is not valid.

4 Q. Right. I suppose the transfer and acceptance do not

5 mean much in practice because of Gunard and Western

6 Terminal LLC are the same people?

7 A. I’m not sure I understood your question, sir.

8 Q. I think there is this contract and you have referred to

9 transfer and acceptance certificate, but the transfer of

10 assets is a bit of a virtual reality, simply because you

11 transfer it from Renord to Renord; in practice it’s the

12 same people who transfer them, the assets, to

13 themselves. Do you understand?

14 A. No transfer can take place without legal grounds, and

15 the legal grounds should be in the form of a contract.

16 Q. So are you saying that not only this contract would be

17 unenforceable in Russian courts until it was registered,

18 but you are saying that it would be impossible actually

19 to transfer the actual control of assets from Western

20 Terminal to Gunard until the contract was registered?

21 Is that what you are saying?

22 A. You cannot transfer assets without a contract. The

23 contract isn’t valid until it has been transferred —

24 I am sorry, until it has been registered, and no court

25 will rule that the contract is valid until and unless it

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

April 15, 2016 Day 39

1 has been registered, and it will not enforce it.

2 Q. Just to be sure I understand you correctly, if you look

3 at clause 1.3, you can see that the term of the lease is

4 calculated from the date of state registration. That’s

5 one date to which this agreement refers.

6 Then in 2.1.1, you can see that the assets are to be

7 transferred within three days after the date of

8 signature of the contract. So clearly on the face of

9 the contract what is intended is that assets would be

10 transferred before registration; registration is not

11 required actually to transfer the assets?

12 A. 2.1.1 simply sets out the procedure pursuant to which

13 the transfer and acceptance certificate is executed by

14 the parties. That’s all it does. If the contract had

15 been registered, then the rent would have become

16 payable, due and payable, starting from that particular

17 date.

18 Q. Now, if we could now please look at — I am afraid it is

19 going to be an English SPARK profile again, which I will

20 have to translate — {D176-D191/2918.1T/1821}.

21 So that is the SPARK profile for Kontur LLC, the

22 company which bought the Western Terminal assets in the

23 auction at the end of 2012.

24 I think you have confirmed yesterday that Kontur is

25 a Baltic Fuel Company entity, I think today too. If we

1 because any decision to replace directors is made by

2 Korneev and Smirnov together. Renord played no role in

3 this, nor did I.

4 Q. Right. Obviously it appears, then, that

5 Mr Chernobrovkin was around the same time he was put

6 into these two positions, Director General of Kontur and

7 Director General Or Deputy Director General, there were

8 some different scenarios played there of Western

9 Terminal.

10 Doesn’t that indicate, Ms Yatvetsky, that at that

11 early stage, Mr Smirnov already envisaged that there may

12 be some connection between Western Terminal and Baltic

13 Fuel Company? He had some kind of connection between

14 these two entities in his mind?

15 A. I cannot opine on this, I just do not know.

16 Q. Isn’t it the case that, as early as March 2009,

17 Mr Smirnov was already interested in using Western

18 Terminal assets for his own projects? I put it to you

19 that this is the case. If you have any reason to

20 contradict that, do so now.

21 A. I have no comment to offer with respect to what went

22 through Mr Smirnov’s mind or what steps he was taking.

23 Q. Then ever since then, starting from the — well, you

24 don’t know about it, but what all the transactions that

25 happened with Western Terminal assets afterwards were

21 23
1 scroll down one page {D176-D191/2918.1T/1822}, there is 1 designed to ensure that those assets end up in the hands
2 a list of historic directors, historic change of 2 of Baltic Fuel Company, and that is the true explanation
3 managers, change history, history of managers changes, 3 of the sequence of the transactions which we have
4 if your English allows you to identify it. That’s 4 considered yesterday and today? (Pause). Isn’t that
5 pretty much near the top. 5 right?
6 So you can see Mr Stanislav Korneev, whose position 6 A. I’ve already mentioned that there was no purported plan,
7 is described as Director General of Baltic Fuel Company 7 there was a sequence of events over a certain period of
8 here, and the relevant date is 30 June 2009. 8 time. Now, what decisions Mr Smirnov was making and
9 Then in the next line you can see 9 what was going through his mind, I do not know. I know
10 Borisovich Chernobrovkin and his position is described 10 that he did a lot to try and find third party buyers and
11 as Director General of Kontur and the relevant date is 11 sell the stuff to them, and I understand that at the end
12 31 March 2009. 12 of the day Mr Korneev and himself decided for themselves
13 To your knowledge, is that correct that at some 13 that they were going to become bidders because they were
14 point in 2009 Mr Chernobrovkin was appointed the 14 not able at the end of the day to identify any willing
15 Director General of Kontur? 15 buyers.
16 A. I’m not aware of that, but I would not rule that out, 16 Q. Now, Ms Yatvetsky, there is absolutely no documentary
17 might well be the case. 17 evidence of these alleged efforts to find a third party
18 Q. Obviously I appreciate in fairness the dates in SPARK 18 buyer, is there?
19 may be slightly delayed because someone may be appointed 19 A. On a number of occasions I drafted confidentiality
20 on one day and then the records are updated some time 20 agreements for Mr Smirnov because he was conducting some
21 later. But it is obviously the end of March 2009, it’s 21 negotiations, and with respect to Western Terminal
22 precisely the time when Renord was taking steps to 22 I know that he was negotiating Severnaya Verf Northern
23 appoint Mr Chernobrovkin as one of the two new top 23 Shipyards, it’s a state owned company, and Western
24 managers of Western Terminal; isn’t that right? 24 Terminal used to be located on their territory, and
25 A. I wouldn’t say that Renord was taking those steps, 25 I think they were thinking about building a dry dock
22 24
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

April 15, 2016 Day 39

1 there, but at the end of the day they abandoned that

2 idea. He was also negotiating with Modul LLC which

3 owned some of the assets in the Port of St Petersburg.

4 They carried on the business of container shipments and

5 logistics, and I think they were also thinking about

6 buying Western Terminal. I know that Mr Smirnov was

7 also engaging other companies in his negotiating effort.

8 Q. Now, this is not mentioned in his witness statement, is

9 it?

10 A. Maybe he is simply not going into all those details. He

11 did mention that he kept on trying, but at the end of

12 the day the negotiations, or rather the confidentiality

13 agreements, the NDAs that I had drafted for him, he

14 never returned them to me, so I thought that the whole

15 thing just stopped at the very initial stage, and the

16 parties never went beyond the very initial stage and

17 never moved on to actually execute any transaction.

18 Q. And indeed there were no negotiations with third parties

19 at all? That —

20 A. This is not true. Negotiations did take place.

21 Q. I put it to you that this is a lie which you guys have

22 invented very recently in a desperate attempt to wriggle

23 out of the evidence of your fraud?

24 A. I can only reiterate that negotiations were being

25 conducted.

1 Q. But do you know that it has been alleged otherwise by

2 Mr and Mrs Arkhangelsky and OMG Ports?

3 A. I’m not aware of their case or their position or their

4 arguments in the course of this trial.

5 Q. Now, are you aware that in October last year my Lord

6 made an order for the Bank to write to Renord and to

7 Mr Smirnov with a request for various documents? Do you

8 know what I’m talking about?

9 MR BIRT: My Lord, I don’t think that’s quite right, I don’t

10 think the request had to be made to Renord. Is that

11 right?

12 MR STROILOV: Yes, I’m grateful to my learned friend. So

13 let me say it again.

14 My Lord made an order for the Bank to send letters

15 to Mr Smirnov and a number of Renord companies

16 requesting various, with a request for documents for the

17 purposes of these proceedings. Are you aware of what

18 I’m talking about?

19 A. Yes, so far as I know, Renord and Mr Smirnov did receive

20 those letters and we did disclose some documents,

21 including the sale contract with respect to shares in WT

22 in Scandinavia and we provided the supporting documents.

23 Q. Yes. So I just don’t need to spend time reminding you

24 about the order and the letters, we all know what we are

25 talking about, just so that I can get straight to the

25 27

1 Q. The market value of Western Terminal assets is in the

2 region of $140 million, is it not?

3 A. Could you repeat that?

4 Q. The market value of this Western Terminal is in the

5 region of $140 million, is it not?

6 A. I’m not a valuer, I do not have a clue.

7 Q. So Renord has simply appropriated that asset by

8 fraudulent means without paying anything like the proper

9 price for it; isn’t that so?

10 A. Kontur LLC purchased Western Terminal assets in the

11 course of a public sale. The price was determined based

12 on a judicial decision, on a court judgment.

13 Q. Now, at present the Director General of Western Terminal

14 LLC is a Mr Chernyshev, isn’t that right?

15 A. I’m not aware of this.

16 Q. Do you know Renord employee by his name Mr Chernyshev?

17 A. Renord has never employed anyone with that name.

18 Q. Right. Are you aware that it has been alleged in these

19 proceedings that even prior to the sale to Kontur, the

20 substantial income was derived from the operations of

21 Western Terminal between 2009 and 2012? Are you aware

22 of that?

23 A. No. So far as I know, no activity was actually taking

24 place at the terminal, but this is according to the

25 information that I have available to me.

1 point, is it so? Would you like to look at the letter

2 which you received?

3 A. Why don’t we turn it up?

4 Q. I may have a difficulty trying to find the Russian

5 version. I have the English here. I may be able to

6 find it. I think the English version will be at

7 {J1/20/15}. I will try to find the Russian, I think

8 I have an idea where it might be. It may be that I will

9 eventually have to read it out in English so that it’s

10 translated.

11 (Pause)

12 Yes, I think it must be … if we could go to

13 {N26/69/15}. I think the only difference is that what

14 you have on the Russian screen is the letter

15 specifically to Mr Smirnov, and obviously it’s dated and

16 numbered and so on. But I think the English have got

17 this archetypal letter to be sent to every company.

18 MR BIRT: My Lord, if it helps, the English version of that

19 particular Russian one is at {N26/69/13}.

20 MR STROILOV: Yes, well, if that’s practicable to my Lord.

21 I don’t place any particular weight on anything there.

22 I’m grateful to my learned friend.

23 So just refresh your recollection. I understand you

24 were dealing with this request within Renord. I gather

25 from your earlier answer that you were the one who dealt

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

April 15, 2016 Day 39

1 with this within Renord, were you not?

2 A. Yes, I was drafting this document for Mr Smirnov.

3 Q. Drafting which document?

4 A. The share sale contract, in response to this particular

5 request.

6 Q. One other document which was —

7 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: I’m sorry, I am a little bit confused,

8 I think. You have explained that Mr Smirnov and Renord

9 received this letter. Were you the person who

10 Mr Smirnov and Renord asked to assist as to the proper

11 response to that letter, including finding documents

12 referred to in that letter?

13 A. Yes, Mr Smirnov asked me to make a selection of the

14 documents, make them available.

15 MR STROILOV: Now, have you sufficiently refreshed your

16 recollection? I am not relying on anything particular

17 in this letter, I just wanted to be sure we are talking

18 about the same process. So can I use the screen to show

19 you which document I meant or are you still looking at

20 it?

21 A. No, I’m not reading it any more.

22 Q. Okay, can we then now look at {D174/2907.1/1} on one

23 screen, and page {D174/2907.1/2} on the other? Now,

24 it’s a slightly — it’s not a very good translation, I’m

25 afraid. So that is one of the documents provided in

1 Q. Right, it may be so, or it may be dates actually —

2 someone got a rather difficult handwriting, you are

3 right, Ms Yatvetsky.

4 Now may I ask you to read it out, actually, in

5 Russian? Because I think the English translation is

6 rather unsatisfactory. If you can do that, please.

7 A. «Note dated 02/11/2015. Hereby the limited liability

8 company Western Terminal, hereinafter ‘the company’

9 notifies that for the period from January 2009 pursuant

10 to Article 28 of Federal Law dated 08/02/98 number 14-FZ

11 on limited liability companies, has not taken any

12 decisions to distribute pure profit [net profit, I beg

13 your pardon] between the participants of the company,

14 and profit has not been distributed.»

15 Q. Right, and then you can see the seal of Western Terminal

16 and the signature of the Director General. So it

17 appears that the purpose of that document, as far as

18 Mr Smirnov was concerned, was to answer the allegation

19 that substantial profit was derived from Western

20 Terminal assets in that period of time; would you agree?

21 A. I cannot comment.

22 Q. In reality, obviously, what matters in these proceedings

23 and what has been alleged is that income was derived

24 from the assets of Western Terminal, from

25 Western Terminal in geographical sense rather than the

29 31

1 response to that request, is it not?

2 A. I cannot confirm, it’s quite possible that it was, but

3 I wasn’t the one drafting or preparing this document.

4 Q. Was there anyone else who might have? Because

5 I understood your earlier answer as indicating that

6 Mr Smirnov simply asked you to deal with this request.

7 So do you think he could separately ask Mr Chernyshev or

8 anyone else to prepare some further documents?

9 A. Mr Smirnov asked me to prepare original documents on

10 share transfer or sale and purchase agreements, and

11 payment support documents. I think that he received

12 this document from Mr Chernyshev.

13 Q. Right, so this document, obviously there is a poor

14 translation, so I will have to ask you: so it is dated,

15 I think, 28 November 2015, so it was actually a document

16 prepared after receiving that letter from the Bank;

17 isn’t that right?

18 A. I don’t know. I am looking — are we looking at this

19 note? Are you talking about this note that’s on the

20 screen?

21 Q. Yes, that’s right, yes. I think it is dated, it’s

22 slightly faint, but I think you can see that it is dated

23 28 November 2015.

24 A. I don’t know. I am looking at the figure, and I read it

25 as 02/11/2015, 2 November.

1 company called Western Terminal. So this document is

2 quite a clumsy attempt to deceive, is it not?

3 A. No, that is not true. This document is witness to the

4 fact, and as I’ve already said, and as far as I know,

5 that from 2009 and referring to the Western Terminal, no

6 activity was taking place. Once Kontur acquired Western

7 Terminal assets, multiple investments have been

8 undertaken, and in fact these assets do not exist any

9 more, the assets there now are totally different.

10 Q. Now, isn’t it the case that at some point in 2013

11 a gentleman called Vladislav Piotrovsky was appointed

12 the economic security adviser to the Director General of

13 Baltic Fuel Company? Can you confirm that?

14 A. I have no knowledge of that.

15 Q. And Mr Piotrovsky had formerly been the head of

16 St Petersburg police, was he not?

17 A. Yes, as far as I remember, he was.

18 Q. He was personally responsible for a number of criminal

19 cases started against Mr Arkhangelsky in 2009, was he

20 not?

21 A. I don’t know what you mean by the words «was personally

22 responsible». I have no knowledge of any involvement of

23 Mr Piotrovsky in these criminal proceedings.

24 Q. And his appointment to Baltic Fuel Company was reported

25 offered to him for his help in facilitating this

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

April 15, 2016 Day 39

1 takeover of Western Terminal by Baltic Fuel Company;

2 isn’t that so?

3 A. Once again, I can say that I have no knowledge of

4 Mr Piotrovsky having this position or ever having had

5 this position, but I think what you are saying now is

6 complete fiction.

7 Q. Thank you. I don’t know if the internet may actually

8 now be working. I am still doing it in a difficult way.

9 Can we please look at {D132/2174/1}, and the Russian

10 version will be at page {D132/2174/3}. Now, this seemed

11 to be one of the minutes or protocols of the Russian

12 Auction House sale on which you give some evidence.

13 Now, on reflection, actually could we please go

14 rather first to {D132/2175/1}, so it’s next up? Pages 1

15 and {D132/2175/3} respectively. I think it’s just

16 arranged in a slightly more convenient way so that we

17 don’t have to jump.

18 Now, I think I would like to — so that auction, as

19 you can see, took place on 26 October 2009, and you

20 obviously give evidence about it, don’t you?

21 A. Yes, I remember that this auction took place in

22 October 2009.

23 Q. That was on the basis of a settlement agreement between

24 the Bank on one side and then Scan by now controlled by

25 Renord on the other side; isn’t that right?

1 and that’s a Renord company, is it not?

2 A. Yes, Kiperort is a Renord company, indeed.

3 Q. Another one is Solo, which is also a Renord company, is

4 it not?

5 A. At that time, if I remember correctly, it belonged to

6 Mr Zelyenov. We told him that participation in the

7 auction was being planned, and we assumed that most

8 likely nobody would come to this auction, we needed

9 a second participant, we told him that an auction was

10 being held and we asked him to participate with this

11 company. Further on, we acquired this company from

12 Mr Zelyenov.

13 Q. And the reason why you had to have two companies was

14 simply to ensure validity of the auction; isn’t that so?

15 A. Well, if only one participant had registered, this

16 auction would not have taken place, and another auction

17 would have had to be called and the Bank wanted to

18 achieve the greatest value for the asset, and further

19 auction, the second auction would have led to a decrease

20 in value. So we wanted this auction to take place in

21 any case.

22 Q. Now, was the Bank aware that the two bidders had in fact

23 been doing this by agreement, that effectively only

24 Renord was bidding? Was the Bank aware of that?

25 A. I have no knowledge of that, and cannot answer that

33 35

1 A. Yes indeed, it was based on a notary certified agreement

2 on the sale of this property between Scandinavia

3 Insurance company and the Bank.

4 Q. It was actually the Bank who chose Russian Auction House

5 as the auctioneer; isn’t that so?

6 A. As far as I know, this agreement, agency agreement, was

7 signed between the Bank and Russian Auction House.

8 Q. Yes, so as you can see there is a list of people who

9 were on the commission conducting the auction, and

10 obviously you can see there there are three people from

11 Russian Auction House, and then a lady called Ms or

12 Mrs Grosheva, who is a representative of Bank of St

13 Petersburg, but no representative from Scandinavia

14 Insurance, is there?

15 A. The commission consists of only representatives of

16 Russian Auction House and Bank of St Petersburg, you are

17 right.

18 Q. Then as you can see the assets here, there have been

19 several lots, but just the minutes are pretty much

20 identical, and obviously the assets you have there,

21 I think we are all agreed, this is a part of

22 Onega Terminal formerly owned by Scan?

23 A. Yes, this is right.

24 Q. Then you can see two bidders identified in the table at

25 the bottom of the page. Now, one of them is Kiperort,

1 question.

2 Q. So to your knowledge, the Bank may have been under the

3 impression that there were genuinely two independent

4 bidders, that’s to say Solo was, according to your

5 evidence, Mr Zelyenov’s company, and then Kiperort was

6 a Renord company, and they were genuinely competing

7 against each other; is that what you are saying?

8 A. If the auction was held at the market value, what would

9 the Bank who was participating in the auction — if the

10 Bank received the cash from the sale of these assets

11 which covered the debts of Mr Arkhangelsky, what did it

12 matter to the Bank who the participants were?

13 Q. That wasn’t the question, Ms Yatvetsky. I am asking

14 you: was the Bank informed of the fact that the bidders

15 were connected to each other and doing it by agreement

16 between themselves?

17 A. I cannot answer this question because I have no

18 knowledge of this.

19 Q. Obviously from the fact that at least one or possibly

20 two Renord companies decided to bid at the auction,

21 I infer that by that time at least Renord was interested

22 in Onega Terminal for its own projects; isn’t that fair?

23 A. Quite possibly, I cannot comment on whatever decisions

24 Mr Smirnov was taking at that time.

25 Q. Then as you can see in that table, there is a name for

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

April 15, 2016 Day 39

1 the representative of Solo, and that’s Ms or

2 Mrs Arinina. Then the field for the representative of

3 Kiperort is left blank, is it not?

4 A. Yes, indeed, it’s not filled in.

5 Q. So it appears that whereas Kiperort was a registered

6 bidder, in fact it did not — no representative of

7 Kiperort attended the auction; isn’t that correct?

8 A. This is not so, but if we look at the table, then we see

9 it says «Surname of a representative under a power of

10 attorney», whereas to the left you see the «Full name of

11 auction participants». Director General Lykova is

12 acting as a Director General without any powers of

13 attorney. She is acting on the basis of limited

14 companies’ law in the Russian Federation, that’s why

15 there is no entry in the cell which says «Surname of

16 representatives under power of attorney». This means

17 that Mrs Lykova must have attended personally as

18 a Director General.

19 Q. I think Ms Mironova has helpfully noticed when I showed

20 her this that the numbers in the right column are 3 and

21 4, so that suggests that there were two other bidders,

22 but for reasons we don’t know they were not admitted by

23 the Russian Auction House. Is that correct?

24 A. The number of auction ticket 3 and 4 I cannot comment

25 because I do not understand the auctioning procedures,

1 did indeed bid or not.

2 Q. But it would be strange if it did, obviously, if both

3 companies are controlled by Renord why would Renord try

4 to increase the auction price for itself; wouldn’t you

5 agree that it wouldn’t be a very commercially sensible

6 thing to do?

7 A. Well, I suppose so.

8 Q. Now, the position in all material respects, we can go

9 through the protocols, but I suppose you want — it’s

10 unnecessary. The position in relation to two other

11 lots, that’s another part of Onega Terminal again owned

12 by Scan and the land in Sestroretsk was exactly the

13 same, you have the same commission, the auction on

14 26 October, two participants, that’s Kiperort and Solo,

15 and each of those assets was bought by Solo one step

16 above the starting price. You are not arguing with

17 that?

18 A. From what I can see in these documents, no, I don’t

19 argue with that.

20 Q. I was rather hoping to avoid the need to take you

21 through all of them, but perhaps I have to. Just very

22 quickly, if we could go to the previous tab, so

23 {D132/2174/1} and {D132/2174/3} on the other screen. So

24 that’s, as you can see, another lot from that auction,

25 which is also part of the Onega Terminal. You can see

37 39

1 but it’s logical to assume that there might have been

2 other applicants. If the auction commission did not

3 admit them to the auction, they probably did not satisfy

4 the requirements, did not comply. But only if these

5 numbers were issued starting from 1 and going on in the

6 sequence.

7 Q. Could we now please scroll down on both screens?

8 {D132/2175/2} and {D132/2175/4}. Here you can see that,

9 if you could just scan through the figures, you can see

10 what the starting price was, you can see what the

11 auction increment was, and then you can see what was the

12 sale price. So it appears that Solo actually bought the

13 asset one step above the starting price. Isn’t that

14 right?

15 A. Yes, this is correct, from this document, it follows

16 that one step above, yes.

17 Q. So this suggests that even the Kiperort may have

18 attended by Director General. In fact, it didn’t bid,

19 did it?

20 A. I cannot infer this from this document, that they didn’t

21 bid. It says that the auction step or increment —

22 well, I am not very good at mental maths, but we are

23 looking at the final figure, a billion or whatever,

24 I can’t tell you from the figure straightaway whether

25 there was another auction increment and whether Kiperort

1 it’s again 26 October. The same commission conducting

2 the auction. Then there is a list of assets. Once

3 again you can see that two bidders were admitted. The

4 first was Kiperort, with the name of representative on

5 the power of attorney is left blank, and the auction

6 ticket is 3.

7 If we could scroll down one page, {D132/2174/2}

8 {D132/2174/4}, you can see that the other bidder was

9 Solo, represented under the power of attorney by the

10 same representative, Arinina, auction ticket number 4,

11 so the starting price was 31.28 million roubles, the

12 auction step was 313,000 approximately, and the asset

13 was bought by Solo LLC one step above the starting

14 price.

15 (Pause)

16 Have you familiarised yourself with this? So you

17 don’t have anything to say —

18 A. Yes, yes, I have familiarised myself.

19 Q. So you are not contradicting what we see in this

20 document, are you?

21 A. No, I’m not contradicting what we see in the document.

22 Q. The position in relation to Sestroretsk land sale was

23 the same, was it not? (Pause). Yes?

24 A. Well, let’s look at the protocol, and then I’ll be able

25 to confirm yes or no.

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

April 15, 2016 Day 39

1 Q. All right, {D132/2176/1}, and {D132/2176/3} on the other

2 screen, please.

3 That was part of the same auction, one more lot was

4 rent at Sestroretsk. You can see it’s set out. And

5 then again it’s the same auction, same participants, one

6 is Kiperort, no name of the representative, auction

7 ticket number 3.

8 Then if we scroll down one page {D132/2176/2}, and

9 see that the other participant is Solo LLC represented

10 by Ms Arinina, auction ticket number 4, so the starting

11 price is 105.6 million roubles, the auction increment is

12 1,056,000, the assets were bought by Solo one step above

13 the starting price. Is that all correct?

14 A. Yes, it is.

15 Q. Now, would you say, so are you saying that the assets we

16 have just gone through were sold at this auction for

17 their fair market price?

18 A. Absolutely, it was a fair market price, particularly

19 considering that, speaking from memory, a valuation was

20 conducted prior to the auction, and if you look at the

21 Onega assets, the ones we are looking at now, the total

22 price, I think, was 207 million roubles, and shortly

23 before that, one year, maybe two years prior to that,

24 Mr Arkhangelsky purchased those assets for 105 million

25 roubles.

1 is the creditor and had a defaulting borrower, they

2 entered into an extrajudicial enforcement agreement, the

3 Bank used the services of an independent auctioneer,

4 Russian Auction House, the auction was conducted,

5 Mr Smirnov decided to bid, and in the course of a public

6 sale he purchased these properties for a fair market

7 price, there is nothing odd about it at all.

8 Q. But isn’t this a sham transaction? That is to say, in

9 effect you simply transferred the assets from one

10 company to another as part of your own arrangements, but

11 it was presented to the world as a public sale?

12 A. A transaction can be described as bogus or a sham if

13 they, no one is going to perform under the contract.

14 Here we had the auction, the auction did take place, the

15 contract was signed, money changed hands. There is

16 nothing sham or bogus about it. All the intentions of

17 the parties were actually performed.

18 Q. Now, isn’t it the case that the real market value of the

19 assets is many times higher than the price paid at this

20 auction?

21 A. The real price of the assets was determined on the basis

22 of the valuation that had been conducted, and that was

23 the foundation, the basis for determining the price of

24 the assets.

25 Q. That valuation, I understand it was done by a company

41 43

1 Q. Now, wasn’t there a lot of investment between those

2 dates after Mr Arkhangelsky purchased? Wasn’t there

3 a lot of improvement to Onega made?

4 A. Yes. So far as I know, some investment was made and had

5 something to do with improving and upgrading the lot of

6 land, reinforcing the land, I think, tarmac or asphalt

7 was laid down or something like that.

8 Q. Now, isn’t there something — there was a peculiarity of

9 this auction, and let me try to explain to you what

10 I mean, and you can agree or disagree. Now, to anyone

11 who would be looking at it from the outside, it would

12 look as if the process involves at least five

13 independent parties, wouldn’t it? The Bank is the

14 pledgee, then Scan is the pledgor, and then Russian

15 Auction House is the auctioneer, and then there are two

16 different companies who are bidders, Kiperort and Solo;

17 isn’t that right? Whereas in reality, you have the Bank

18 Renord team behind each of these participants. So you

19 have — the Bank is the Bank, Scan is a company held and

20 managed by Renord on behalf of the Bank, and then

21 Russian Auction House is an agent of the Bank under the

22 agency agreement, and then both bidders are controlled

23 by Renord. Don’t you consider that rather odd, as

24 a situation?

25 A. No, I don’t think it’s odd in any way, because the Bank

1 called Alliance Otsenka, was it not?

2 A. I’m not sure, sitting here today, I am not sure who the

3 valuer was.

4 Q. It was a valuation obtained by Renord, was it not,

5 rather than the Bank? It was Renord who commissioned

6 the valuation of the parties in that connection?

7 A. I’m not sure, I do not recall who commissioned the

8 valuation report.

9 Q. So were you personally involved in any way in obtaining

10 this valuation?

11 A. I was not.

12 Q. Can we please go to {D146/2437.2/1}, and if you could

13 open the Excel table here. I just wonder where the

14 Russian version is.

15 (Pause)

16 So that is the table. I am trying to find the

17 Russian version. I’m sorry about the delay.

18 (Pause)

19 That seems to be — I am sorry, I can’t find the

20 Russian version at all. Sorry about that, my Lord.

21 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: That’s all right.

22 MR STROILOV: I will try to find it as quickly as possible.

23 MR BIRT: It’s on the screen. {D131/2132.1/2}

24 MR STROILOV: I’m very grateful.

25 This seems to be the spreadsheet which you give some

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

April 15, 2016 Day 39

1 evidence about, Ms Yatvetsky, is it not?

2 A. Yes.

3 Q. Perhaps if we could — I think you say in your witness

4 statement that it was prepared by Renord-Invest; this

5 document was prepared by Renord-Invest, was it not?

6 A. Yes, judging from the substance of the document, it

7 looks like it was prepared by Renord.

8 Q. Is that something you just figured out from looking at

9 this document, or do you know it was prepared by Renord?

10 A. Within the framework of my preparation for this trial,

11 I came to the conclusion that most likely this

12 spreadsheet had been generated by Renord.

13 Q. Right. Now if we could now have a look in a little more

14 detail at this table, just to try to understand what is

15 what.

16 I think if you look at the money columns, such as

17 «Income», «Investment» and «Total», I think you will

18 agree that the money accounted here in thousands of

19 roubles, not just in roubles. So for instance, at the

20 top line, «Investment», will be 207 million, not 207,000

21 roubles. Do you agree with that?

22 A. Well, in the «Investment» column it’s most likely in

23 thousands, yes.

24 Q. Because obviously that figure, as I think you have noted

25 when you linked it with acquisition, that figure matches

1 Q. Yes. Then the final, the two columns on the right,

2 there you obviously can see the interest rate which is

3 going down over the — you can see as you go down the

4 table, the interest rate seems to be going down in the

5 period from the end of 2009 to the beginning of 2011.

6 Do you see that?

7 A. Yes, I do.

8 Q. Then in the final right column, you can see that the

9 interest is calculated; that’s right, isn’t it?

10 A. Yes, correct.

11 Q. So obviously that means that these monies which was

12 invested here, they were provided under a loan, were

13 they not?

14 A. You mean the money paid — sorry, which funds are you

15 referring to, sir?

16 Q. Well, the —

17 A. Bit more specific?

18 Q. The money you can see in the «Investment» column, these

19 are the monies advanced under some loan on which then

20 the interest accrues, in accordance with what you see in

21 the last two columns; isn’t that so?

22 A. Most likely so, yes, because of Renord’s internal

23 cashflows there maybe some debt that had been raised by

24 one company from another company, and obviously some

25 interest accrued.

45 47

1 exactly the margin of 10 roubles, the selling price at

2 the auction at which we have just looked, where the

3 selling price of the two Onega assets sold at that

4 action, so that’s unlikely to be a coincidence; do you

5 agree?

6 A. Most likely it’s the expense incurred in connection with

7 the purchase of the assets at the auction, yes.

8 Q. Yes. Of course if you look at the two columns to the

9 right «Beginning of Period» and «End of Period», and

10 then look at the extreme left column, again you will

11 agree that the figures you see in the left column refer

12 to the months rather than a particular date; so that is

13 to say the first line is not 1 October 2009, it’s

14 October 2009 in general. Do you agree with that?

15 A. No, I suspect that it might mean actually

16 1 October 2009.

17 Q. If you go three columns to the right, you can see that

18 this line covers the period which begins on

19 2 October 2009 and ends on 1 November, and then you have

20 this 1 October date in the left column. So this rather

21 suggests that it is an Excel oddity, and what is meant,

22 what this column is meant to indicate is the months as

23 opposed to a particular date. Do you agree?

24 A. I do not know what they meant. All I can see is

25 01/10/09, that’s all I see.

1 Q. So is it your evidence that you think this refers to

2 a loan from one Renord company to another Renord

3 company? Is that your evidence on oath?

4 A. Well, if a company lends money to another company, it

5 cannot do it gratuitously, obviously some interest is

6 always charged.

7 Q. But obviously that’s not what this table says. The

8 table says that the monies were provided to SKIF LLC

9 under the loan agreement with the number ending 89 and

10 dated 25 September?

11 A. I understand what you are referring to. When I was

12 preparing this document, I realised that this reference

13 was a technical mistake, and it had not, nothing to do

14 with this. SKIF was raising money for another project,

15 it was Antonenko project, it had something to do with

16 building a huge hotel, and the money was used for

17 Antonenko project, so most likely I suspect that when

18 that file was being done, it was being made on the basis

19 of an older file and this is just a legacy reference

20 here. I know that Solo did not raise any debt to enable

21 it to make the purchase.

22 Q. Could you explain a little more how you think a mistake

23 of this kind could have occurred? If what you are

24 saying is true, this table sets out the sums spent by

25 Renord on the development — on the purchase and

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

April 15, 2016 Day 39

1 development of Onega Terminal, and the monies were

2 advanced under some loan from one Renord company to

3 another, and the purpose of this table is to set out how

4 much Renord has spent. Can you explain how could anyone

5 make the mistake of calling it money, it was borrowed

6 funds obtained by SKIF LLC under loan agreement number

7 such and such, and the number is correct and the date is

8 correct?

9 A. Very simple. Anyone can make technical mistakes.

10 A typo. It was obviously a working file, and a mistake

11 was made. Anyone can make a mistake. The SKIF loan

12 agreement has absolutely nothing to do with the

13 Scandinavia project.

14 Q. Well, isn’t it the case that what in fact happened is

15 that the money for the project Scandinavia, including

16 the purchase, was in fact provided by the Bank, but it

17 was provided in this sophisticated way, through SKIF,

18 and then ostensibly — under a loan which ostensibly has

19 nothing to do with it, in order to conceal the Bank’s

20 own interest in that project? Isn’t that the truth,

21 Ms Yatvetsky?

22 A. No, this is a misconceived statement. The only interest

23 the Bank had was to recover money from the sale of the

24 assets. SKIF was getting a loan with respect to

25 a totally different project. Solo was purchasing assets

1 was it acting in its own interest or in the Bank’s

2 interest?

3 A. It was definitely acting in its own interest. The only

4 interest that the Bank had was to sell the asset.

5 Q. So it is fair to say that by that period in time, that

6 is to say October 2009, Renord was already interested in

7 those assets for itself?

8 A. I do not know what was going through Mr Smirnov’s mind.

9 I can only assume that he realised that he had found

10 himself in a difficult situation, so he tried to get at

11 least some benefit from this, so he decided to become

12 a bidder, take part in the auction on the understanding

13 that if he made an investment he might be able to use

14 those assets going forward for his own benefit, for his

15 own projects, or maybe sell it on at least to make some

16 money. So that I think was the driving force behind the

17 decision that he had made.

18 Q. Can you now please be shown {D174/2907/1}?

19 {D174/2907/2} on the other screen. Perhaps it could be

20 zoomed in so that Ms Yatvetsky can see it more clearly.

21 I’m afraid it’s not …

22 As you can see, this seems to be a fairly recent

23 publication, 2015 publication from the newspaper called

24 Delovoy Petersburg, which is a major business newspaper

25 in St Peter.

49 51

1 in the course of the auction for money, for funds

2 provided by Renord.

3 Q. Isn’t what we see in this table and the evidence you

4 have given simply an attempt to disguise the fact that

5 it was not a genuine arm’s-length transaction between

6 different parties, it was part of a scheme to transfer

7 assets between connected parties?

8 A. My apologies, it was a very long question. Could you

9 split it up so that I could assist the court and answer

10 your question?

11 Q. I am just offering you an alternative explanation,

12 rather than suggesting that this could be called a SKIF

13 loan agreement with that number by someone’s

14 typographical mistake, I am suggesting to you that in

15 fact there was a complex scheme whereby monies were

16 advanced, and you are now attempting to conceal that

17 scheme?

18 A. I’m not trying to conceal anything. Once again, SKIF

19 was raising money for a project that had absolutely

20 nothing to do with this, and this is a fact, it’s a fact

21 of life.

22 Q. And the whole auction which took place at Russian

23 Auction House was a fraud, was it not?

24 A. No.

25 Q. So when Renord decided to participate in that auction,

1 That describes the bankruptcy proceedings apparently

2 brought by Bank of St Petersburg against both Solo and

3 Kiperort. Can you see that?

4 A. Yes, I can see that.

5 Q. Are you aware of those bankruptcy proceedings?

6 A. I’m not aware of the proceedings themselves, I simply

7 know what happened to Kiperort and to Solo. But I did

8 not part in the proceedings themselves.

9 Q. If you look at the third paragraph from the top, you can

10 see that they are — that the explanation is that really

11 essentially the Bank is simply cleaning up its balance

12 sheet following the involvement of those companies in

13 various problem borrowers cases.

14 (Pause)

15 Now, if you could now skip to, I think, the last

16 paragraph in this article — well, the previous one

17 explains the background on Renord-Invest, and then it —

18 the last paragraph mentions a number of the Bank’s

19 problem borrowers with whom — where Renord assisted the

20 Bank with managing distressed assets of those borrowers.

21 So it is correct, is it not, that Renord assisted

22 the Bank in managing the assets of Stroymontazh company?

23 Isn’t that right?

24 A. Kiperort, amongst other things, played a role of

25 an agent, a collection agent based on a contract

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

April 15, 2016 Day 39

1 executed with the Bank, it purchased distressed assets

2 and it worked for money, it was — it got a fee for

3 this. It purchased bad debts and sold them on.

4 Q. That was Renord’s involvement in Stroymontazh case, was

5 it not?

6 A. Could you clarify, please?

7 Q. Do you mean to say that — are you saying that Kiperort

8 was buying Stroymontazh assets as part of its business

9 as collection agency working for the Bank? Is that what

10 you are saying?

11 A. Correct. If my memory serves me right, Kiperort

12 purchased the loan, it was assigned a loan by the Bank,

13 and then they agreed between themselves and the borrower

14 that some of the assets were going to be transferred to

15 them as a price for the termination of the contract.

16 Q. Right. What was Renord’s involvement in Sevkabel case?

17 A. I simply do not know, so I cannot offer any comment,

18 sorry.

19 Q. What this article suggests is right, the reason the Bank

20 initiated the bankruptcies of Solo and Kiperort was to

21 clean up its own balance sheet after all those

22 problematic borrowers’ stories after the crisis; isn’t

23 that correct?

24 A. So far as I understand this, the situation is slightly

25 different. Kiperort was carrying on the business of

1 Q. Well, that may be so, I’m just trying to — what I’m

2 trying to establish is that this is part of the same

3 group owned by the same person or people; and you can

4 confirm that, can’t you?

5 A. I can only assume that the fishing port belongs to ROK

6 N1 Prichaly, that the fishing port belongs to ROK N1

7 Prichaly, at least this is what I knew.

8 Q. And both companies are owned by a business partner of

9 Mr Smirnov; isn’t that right?

10 A. Yes. As far as I know, this is right.

11 Q. Now, obviously it took some time to put all the

12 arrangements in place to ensure that all parts of

13 Onega Terminal can be sold to ROK Prichaly; is that

14 correct?

15 A. It took some time to find a buyer, and thereafter ROK N1

16 Prichaly company said that it was willing to acquire

17 Onega 1 and 2 Terminals on condition that it would

18 acquire at the same time also assets called Onega 3 and

19 Onega 4.

20 Q. Yes, and about what time did that happen?

21 A. As far as I know, ROK N1 Prichaly became interested in

22 this acquisition in early 2011, I think.

23 Q. Right. If we could now please open {N9/9/36}, and on

24 the Russian screen if you could please open

25 {D192/2920/12}. If it could be zoomed in so that

53 55

1 a collector agent, and it so happened that the financial

2 condition of Kiperort at some point in time became quite

3 difficult, it became distressed. But I don’t believe

4 that this has anything to do with cleansing the balance

5 sheet of the Bank. Kiperort was just carrying on its

6 business, its business was that of a collectors agent

7 and it lost money, it was in the negative, it was in the

8 red.

9 MR STROILOV: Thank you.

10 My Lord, I think this is a good moment.

11 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Right. We will reconvene at

12 2 o’clock.

13 (1.00 pm)

14 (The short adjournment)

15 (2.00 pm)

16 MR STROILOV: May it please your Lordship. Now,

17 Ms Yatvetsky, I think you have given some evidence about

18 Onega Terminal being eventually sold to a company called

19 ROK N1 Prichaly; is that so?

20 A. Yes, that is true.

21 Q. Is that one of the companies controlled by the fishing

22 port in St Petersburg, is it not?

23 A. As far as I know, I may be mistaken, but I think it is

24 ROK N1 Prichaly that controls the fishing port, so it’s

25 vice versa.

1 Ms Yatvetsky could see it, I am very grateful.

2 Now, this seems to be an article published in

3 Delovoy Petersburg, so that’s again the same business

4 newspaper from St Petersburg, in March 2011, concerning

5 an auction sale which took place shortly before.

6 Now, I think first of all we need to correct

7 an error, because that, the heading here says that:

8 «A land plot of 34.5 hectares … was sold for

9 99,000 roubles.»

10 In fact, you can see what it relates to is the part

11 of Onega Terminal owned by LPK Scandinavia and it is in

12 fact just 3.4 hectares, so there has been a considerable

13 inaccuracy in the heading. But generally speaking, you

14 can see that this relates to the sale of LPK land at

15 Onega Terminal, doesn’t it?

16 A. Yes, on the whole it talks about the sale. The only

17 thing is that there is another error here. It says that

18 the site was pledged on a loan to Western Terminal,

19 which is wrong.

20 Q. I just — yes. I think it is. Essentially it’s

21 enforcement proceedings, correct me if that’s not your

22 understanding; my understanding is that the enforcement

23 proceedings here were the proceedings brought by Western

24 Terminal against LPK Scandinavia pursuant to a loan

25 related to Morskoy Bank?

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

April 15, 2016 Day 39

1 A. No. In fact it happened slightly differently because

2 the claim was filed by Sevzapalians. Sevzapalians, as

3 a participant in the Western Terminal, was contesting

4 a deal which gave grounds to the fact that their money

5 unlawfully obtained from their Morskoy Bank was then

6 transferred to LPK Scandinavia.

7 Q. Because that was a loan from Western Terminal to LPK

8 Scandinavia, Sevzapalians brought these proceedings

9 against LPK Scandinavia under that loan agreement; is

10 that correct?

11 A. Yes, indeed, you are right.

12 Q. So what happened was the monies were taken out by

13 Western Terminal from Morskoy Bank and leant on to

14 LPK Scandinavia, that’s what originally happened in

15 2009; is that correct?

16 A. As far as I remember, there were some other cash

17 movements, but as a result and finally Western Terminal

18 transferred this money to LPK Scandanavia without the

19 consent of Sevzapalians.

20 Q. Then subsequently, once you have established control, so

21 in parallel pursuant to what is essentially the same

22 loan, you — on one hand, you sued LPK Scandanavia, and

23 on the other you pursued, you bought Morskoy Bank rights

24 and pursued enforcement proceedings against Western

25 Terminal, so these two processes took place in parallel;

1 was it not?

2 A. Yes, Mr Sklyarevsky at that moment of that auction

3 taking place was basically Director General or CEO and

4 shareholder.

5 Q. I think Mr Sklyarevsky has told my Lord some time ago

6 that whereas he was the shareholder and director, in

7 fact he was acting pursuant to instructions of

8 Mr Smirnov at that time. Is that consistent with your

9 understanding?

10 A. I don’t know on what — the nature of agreements between

11 Skyarevsky and Smirnov with regard to Mercury Limited,

12 but I can assume that, yes, this might be true.

13 Q. So by the time Mercury bought this part of

14 Onega Terminal, from memory I think it was

15 Mr Sklyarevsky’s understanding, but in any event it’s my

16 understanding that the agreement with ROK Prichaly to

17 ensure that all the parts of the terminal end up in

18 their hands, was already in place; is that correct?

19 A. As far as I know, ROK Prichaly expressed its interest in

20 acquiring these assets after the auction, but I may not

21 be aware of the true circumstances, I admit that. What

22 I know is that ROK Prichaly expressed its interest in

23 early 2011.

24 Q. So around the same time. Now, assuming that what

25 Mr Sklyarevsky said is correct and Mercury was

57 59

1 is that right?

2 A. We pursued property of Western Terminal under

3 Morskoy Bank loan, there was then an assignment

4 agreement and Sevzapalians paid the money under the

5 terminal. Naturally Western Terminal didn’t return

6 anything, as we know the assets were sold at auction,

7 and the greatest cash received was 6 million roubles.

8 Therefore Western Terminal’s losses weren’t fully

9 extinguished and Western Terminal then sued

10 LPK Scandanavia.

11 Q. Right. So pursuant to these proceedings, as we can see

12 in these articles, sale took place and that was the sale

13 of the remaining part of Onega Terminal, Onega Terminal

14 assets 3 and 4, I think?

15 A. Yes. In this case, the bailiffs sold LPK Scandanavia

16 property which was at the same time pledged to Bank of

17 St Petersburg, and the debt against it was pledged, it

18 was much greater, several times greater than the value

19 of the assets.

20 Q. Then the buyer at that auction was a company called

21 Mercury LLC, was it not?

22 A. As far as I remember, the auction was won by a company

23 called Mercury Limited.

24 Q. Yes, and that is a company who — at that point in time

25 its sole shareholder and director was Mr Sklyarevsky,

1 effectively acting on behalf of Renord here, do you see

2 the peculiarity of the situation where it is Renord

3 pursuing the claim under the loan agreement, and then it

4 is a company acting on behalf of Renord who buys the

5 asset? Do you see the peculiarity of this auction?

6 A. No, I don’t see any peculiarity. As far as

7 I understood, at some point in time Mr Smirnov

8 understood that Onega 1 and 2 cannot be sold without the

9 other asset, without Onega 3 and 4, that it’s simply

10 impossible to sell them separately, and he did

11 everything possible to consolidate these assets, to

12 invest certain amounts to improve it and then to sell it

13 off. It would only interest anyone at all only when

14 Terminals Onega 1 and 2 were offered together with

15 Terminals 3 and 4, only then would it be possibly

16 attractive for some buyer.

17 Q. That consolidation of Onega Terminal was the real

18 purpose of the enforcement proceedings brought against

19 LPK Scandanavia in the first place; isn’t that right?

20 A. When initially the claim was filed, this was 2009, there

21 was no plan with regard to LPK Scandanavia assets. When

22 we came across the situation that LPK Scandanavia

23 received money unlawfully from the Western Terminal,

24 that is when we went to — the claim to court was filed.

25 Q. Now, that sale was effectively a collusive deal between

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

April 15, 2016 Day 39

1 closely connected parties, was it not? That is to say

2 Mercury is acting on behalf of Renord and Sevzapalians

3 is obviously acting on behalf of Renord, and then

4 LPK Scandanavia is obviously not your company, but it is

5 a claim brought against that company by yourselves.

6 That was a collusive arrangement, was it not?

7 A. There was no collusion.

8 Q. Are you saying that 99,000 roubles was a fair market

9 price for that property?

10 A. The court bailiffs organised auction implied

11 a valuation, valuation was made by the bailiffs, taking

12 into account the encumbrances on these assets, and the

13 cost of the encumbrances, if I remember correctly, was

14 over a billion roubles.

15 Q. So are you saying that was a fair market price?

16 A. Yes.

17 Q. Apart from that auction, are you aware of any efforts to

18 market that asset and perhaps obtain a higher price?

19 A. I know that Mr Smirnov is a well known businessman in

20 St Petersburg, and I am convinced that he had

21 discussions and negotiations with many people, there was

22 no need in marketing as such or advertising, apart from

23 the fact that port facilities, they are never sold

24 through marketing, they are mainly sold to a narrow,

25 closed circle of people who are participants of this

1 A. To be honest, I don’t remember Mr Kalinin’s phone number

2 by heart.

3 Q. Well, but you will know by, I think, the first figures,

4 you can figure out whether it is one of the Renord

5 numbers?

6 A. I think this is probably a mobile.

7 Q. Right. Then there is finally a note suggesting, reading

8 from Kolpachkov. So what this seems to mean is that

9 someone, whoever this note is to, is invited to

10 telephone Mr Kalinin, introduce themselves as coming

11 from Mr Kolpachkov and discuss this matter further.

12 Does that sound right?

13 A. I’m unable to comment, I say once again.

14 Q. Well, are you aware of Mr Kalinin working on these

15 matters on behalf of Renord at that time?

16 A. I think that in his position of financial director he

17 must have been dealing with this question, yes.

18 Q. Does the name Kolpachkov tell you anything?

19 A. If my memory doesn’t fail me, I think I heard this

20 surname. It might have been a Bank employee, but I’m

21 not quite sure by now.

22 Q. Right. Well, I think as we know, in the event, a plan

23 along these lines was finally implemented; isn’t that

24 correct?

25 A. Basically the sequence of events listed here, yes, the

61 63

1 very narrow port business. Advertising and marketing is

2 not the right way of selling off these assets and it’s

3 never used.

4 Q. Right. Can you now please be shown {D196/2936/0.1}, and

5 page 1 on the other screen? {D/196/2936/1}.

6 Now, this is a note coming from the Bank’s

7 disclosure, and it’s not very clear from whom to whom.

8 But as you can see, it sets out the plan which is

9 essentially what you have just described, the plan of

10 consolidation of Onega Terminal to be sold to a company

11 X. Can you see that?

12 A. Yes, I can read what is written in this note. This is

13 the first time I have sight of this note. I don’t know

14 anything about its provenance. So I’m afraid I won’t be

15 able to comment.

16 Q. But presumably you were party to discussions over that

17 plan in 2011, were you not?

18 A. There was no plan as such, and I didn’t take part in any

19 discussions.

20 Q. Yes, and then as you can see at the bottom, there is

21 a handwritten note, and firstly it’s indicated that

22 Mr Savelyev disagreed with the plan. Then there is the

23 name of Mr Evgeny Kalinin, and indications that he is

24 the financial director of Renord. There is then a phone

25 number. Does it look like Mr Kalinin’s phone number?

1 assets were sold and yes, indeed, it had to be

2 unencumbered. But this was not a plan, it was just

3 a sequence of actions.

4 Q. Now if we could perhaps have a look at {D149/2474/1},

5 and the Russian version begins at {D149/2474/10}. So

6 that is the agreement on the assignment of rights to

7 Mercury. I think you exhibit it to your witness

8 statement, don’t you?

9 A. Yes, indeed. Once I drew up this agreement and I agreed

10 it with the Bank, this is one of the agreements on the

11 rights assignment to a claim, yes.

12 Q. Yes, and there is another one which is very similar

13 relating to, I think, Onega Terminal asset. Well, there

14 are two agreements and Onega Terminal asset is as

15 Onega Terminal asset 4. They are pretty similar, aren’t

16 they?

17 So if we could scroll down one page on each screen

18 {D149/2474/2} {D148/2474/11}. As you can see, the loan

19 is recorded as being something like 456 million roubles,

20 and it is being assigned for 14.3 million roubles. So

21 the discount is something like 97%, and I think that’s

22 given in some other documents. Is that correct?

23 A. Yes, yes, these rights of claim were acquired, all

24 I remember is that there were two agreements, one was

25 for the debt of Onega, the other one was for

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

April 15, 2016 Day 39

1 LPK Scandanavia, and I remember the figures linked with

2 these agreements and both debts were about 900 million

3 roubles roughly, and payment on both of these amounted

4 to something like 27/28 million roubles.

5 Q. Right. So that was not a commercial deal, was it?

6 A. This was a commercial deal because the debt, in the part

7 which was over the value of the asset pledged for that

8 debt, was impossible to enforce. So if the Bank would

9 get more, it would be unlawful enrichment in favour of

10 the Bank, so now the legal practice is that the debt can

11 be sold only for the amount it is secured for. But 800

12 minus 27 million was not secured by anything else, and

13 it was totally impossible to claim it back.

14 Q. Are you suggesting that this figure, 28 million roubles,

15 or thereabouts, that was the market value of LPK land at

16 Onega Terminal? Is that what you are suggesting?

17 A. Yes, this is what I am saying, 27 million roubles was

18 the value of the — the cost of the transfer agreement

19 was established on the basis of the market value for

20 LPK Scandanavia property, the land plot, and if

21 I remember a workshop building, and I think the price

22 was totally market based, especially taking into account

23 that literally two years prior to the auction

24 Mr Arkhangelsky had acquired this building, this

25 workshop building for 2 million roubles. The value also

1 Isn’t that correct?

2 A. After 2009, when the Bank understood full well how much

3 had been pledged to it under the loan agreements, I’m

4 sure the Bank made a lot of efforts to try and realise

5 and sell those assets. However, the analysis of the

6 market conditions was that selling Onega 3 and 4 without

7 Onega 1 and 2 was an exercise in futility, it was not

8 possible to do that, it was an empty plot of land,

9 speaking from memory, it was far from the sea — well,

10 maybe not very far, but at least it did not have direct

11 access to the sea. So there would be no willing buyers

12 for that.

13 Q. Are you aware of any attempts to put it on the market?

14 A. So far as I know, yes. I cannot give you chapter and

15 verse, but I know that discussions were held on

16 an ongoing basis with respect to trying to do that.

17 Q. I think you said earlier, when I asked you the same

18 question earlier, you indicated you are sure, and that

19 sounded as if it was your conjecture on the basis of

20 what you believe the Bank should have done; is that

21 incorrect? Are you saying that you actually know this

22 as a matter of fact, that there were efforts to market

23 this pledge?

24 A. There is no way I could have said that — with respect

25 to the Bank, there is no way I could have said that

65

1 included leasing rights for the land plot. Over a year

2 he privatised the land plot on which the workshop

3 building was standing. Given the prices for

4 privatisation at that point in time, I think his

5 expenditure was no more than a million roubles.

6 Therefore, the purchase price for Mr Arkhangelsky was

7 3 million roubles altogether. He acquired this for the

8 books of his — for the balance of his company called

9 SKIF. Later when he privatised the land plot, he sold

10 these very same assets to another one of his companies

11 for 43 million roubles. At the same time there had been

12 no capital investment according to the technical

13 specifications for the building. It was built in 1977

14 and it remained a building built in 1977 with no

15 investment, it was artificially increased costs, so the

16 price realised finally was totally based on the market

17 value of the asset.

18 Q. Was that based on any valuation report, to your

19 knowledge, this 28 million figure?

20 A. Yes, yes, it was based on a valuation report prepared by

21 a valuer.

22 Q. Obviously this being a pledge to the Bank, it could have

23 been realised in the normal way on the market; however,

24 there has been no attempt to realise the pledge in the

25 conventional way, by putting the pledge on the market.

67

1 I know this for a fact. I know that Renord did try to

2 sell it. Now, with respect to the Bank, I can only

3 speculate, or I can assume that they tried to do that.

4 Q. These alleged marketing efforts, they took place,

5 according to your evidence, before this assignment of

6 pledges, so prior to — what is the day there? —

7 June 2011; is that right?

8 A. All I know is that there was an ongoing discussion with

9 respect to that, so I do not know exactly what you mean

10 when you say «attempts to sell it». I did not refer to

11 any specific attempts. I was saying that there were

12 many attempts, many steps were being taken to do that,

13 but I cannot give you chapter and verse because I was

14 not privy to the discussions, I did not take part in

15 this, so far as I know, Mr Smirnov was doing this.

16 Q. Isn’t it the case that at least from the moment that

17 Mercury became the holder of these assets, it was

18 intended that the entire Onega Terminal would end up in

19 the hands of ROK Prichaly? Isn’t that the truth?

20 A. So far as I can recall, ROK Prichaly developed

21 an interest in this after the auction.

22 Q. Now, overall I think you have given evidence that Renord

23 made some profit out of its dealing with Onega Terminal

24 assets and eventual sale to ROK Prichaly; isn’t that

25 correct?

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

April 15, 2016 Day 39

1 A. Well, if you look at Terminal Onega 1, 2, 3 and 4 then

2 yes, it would be true that Renord, I think, made about

3 55 million roubles, at the end of the day, that was the

4 bottom line. But we also have to remember the cost

5 incurred with respect to Morskoy Bank with that

6 assignment contract. But if you look at the project

7 overall, on the whole I think Renord only made between 5

8 and 10 million.

9 Q. So pretty close to zero, is it not, compared to the

10 various assets?

11 A. Yes, you can put it that way.

12 Q. Why is it that Mr Smirnov does not mention the fact that

13 Renord made a profit?

14 A. I’m not the right person to ask. Maybe he did not

15 believe that it was necessary to mention that. Also

16 logically, after the asset had been purchased by

17 Mr Smirnov, he invested some money, he spent time and

18 effort working on this asset. Obviously it stands to

19 reason that he generated at least some profit on this.

20 Q. We have seen no documentary evidence as to at what price

21 Renord sold Onega Terminal to ROK Prichaly, none have

22 been disclosed. Has there been any?

23 A. Yes, there was a contract with ROK Prichaly, there were

24 two contracts for the sale of this immovable property,

25 and that included Onega 1 and Onega 2, and then there

1 acquired an actionable right under the assignment

2 contract, I mean the 800 million roubles, I can speak

3 for Renord, I do not know how much the Bank wrote off,

4 but Renord did not raise any claims vis-a-vis

5 Mr Arkhangelsky at all going forward. So to that extent

6 I think it actually did work to Mr Arkhangelsky’s

7 benefit.

8 Q. Right, so simply because you didn’t pursue this, well,

9 after the assignment of creditors’ rights to Mercury,

10 then Mercury didn’t make any claim, and effectively that

11 debt was forgiven and that’s the benefit to

12 Mr Arkhangelsky; is that what you are saying?

13 A. Correct.

14 Q. Did Renord believe that actually there were some assets

15 against which these rights could be enforced?

16 A. Let me reiterate: under this assignment contract, Renord

17 received actionable rights with respect to the

18 properties that it had purchased at the auction, and

19 never ever raised any complaints or claims. I’m not

20 saying that Renord was looking into the existence or

21 otherwise of any assets there.

22 Q. I think you have given some evidence about the land plot

23 at Seleznovskaya; isn’t that right?

24 A. Yes.

25 Q. If we could have a look at the Land Registry entry, if

69 71

1 was a sale contract to sell the shares to Mercury.

2 Q. Now, I think some of the witnesses previously suggested

3 that the Bank would apply the entire sum received by

4 Renord for Onega Terminal to reduce the indebtedness of

5 Oslo Marine Group, and that is obviously incorrect; you

6 didn’t — in other words, the Bank didn’t give credit

7 for this half a billion for which you say the assets

8 were sold to ROK Prichaly, it only reduced the

9 indebtedness for the amount paid by Solo at the Russian

10 Auction House sale. Is that right?

11 A. I cannot speak for the Bank, I do not know how much

12 credit the Bank gave to Mr Arkhangelsky.

13 Q. Because I think, again if I am challenged I will find

14 the exact quotation, I think Mr Sklyarevsky said

15 something to the effect that Mr Smirnov had made a big

16 favour to Mr Arkhangelsky by selling this Onega Terminal

17 for half a billion roubles at a depressed market. That

18 was a point made by Mr Sklyarevsky. Whereas in fact

19 Mr Smirnov did a favour to himself by selling it.

20 Mr Arkhangelsky did not benefit from the fact that it

21 was sold for half a billion, as you say, or for possibly

22 a higher price. It doesn’t matter; it did not — as far

23 as you are concerned, it was a matter between Renord and

24 ROK Prichaly; is that your understanding?

25 A. Hang on there. Now, if you are saying that Renord

1 we could please go to {D192/2918.2T/123.1}, and on the

2 other screen just — sorry, I think I am confused

3 myself — yes, just {D192/2918.2T/124} on the other

4 screen. It’s not ideal, because it’s horizontal, but

5 hopefully it is readable.

6 So that seems to be the Land Registry entry for that

7 land plot, as you can see from the address. At the very

8 bottom of this page, you will see that formerly at 2.2,

9 you will see that the former owner of that land plot was

10 Western Terminal LLC; isn’t that right?

11 A. Yes, that plot of land used to be owned by Western

12 Terminal.

13 Q. If we could scroll down one page {D192/2918.2T/123.2}

14 and {D192/2918.2T/125}, thank you very much. As you can

15 see, further on on the next page, but still under 2.2,

16 you can see that the Western Terminal title was

17 registered in April 2008, and the plot was continued to

18 be within the property of Western Terminal until

19 November 2010.

20 A. Yes, I should think so, yes, until November.

21 Q. Yes. I don’t quite understand how Falcon company comes

22 into this. At any rate, in 2.4 you can see that

23 Mercury, that in November 2010 the land plot passed into

24 the property of Mercury LLC. Can you see that?

25 A. Yes, it was a contract between Western Terminal and

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

April 15, 2016 Day 39

1 Mercury at the end of 2010.

2 Q. At that time, Mercury was still controlled by

3 Mr Sklyarevsky, was it not?

4 A. He was the COO and a member in that limited liability

5 company, yes.

6 Q. So in entering in this transaction, was he acting on

7 behalf of Renord or was he acting on his own behalf?

8 A. I cannot opine on this, I do not know what arrangements

9 existed between Smirnov and Skylarevsky in this

10 particular instance.

11 Q. Now, was that transfer from Western Terminal to Mercury

12 carried out as a result of any commercial deal, or was

13 it just a transfer? In other words, was there any

14 consideration for that?

15 A. I’m not sure I can answer that question, I just do not

16 know.

17 Q. Are you saying that you were not personally involved in

18 that?

19 A. I was not involved in this transaction, no. I can only

20 state the fact, the fact was that at some point in time

21 a curate became owner, it acquired title to that land.

22 Q. Now, to your knowledge — well, obviously you were

23 dealing with Western Terminal LLC as such after

24 Sevzapalians established control; isn’t that correct?

25 THE INTERPRETER: I am so sorry, Mr Stroilov, after who

1 Morskoy Bank loan being enforced against that plot of

2 land; do you agree with that?

3 A. This plot of land had nothing to do with Morskoy Bank.

4 Q. So what seems to have happened is that Renord simply

5 took advantage of the fact that it exercised control

6 over Western Terminal LLC, and quite simply stole a plot

7 of land with no justification for that?

8 A. No, this is not true. This is not what happened. If

9 you would like me to start from the very beginning, the

10 repo transaction and Mr Arkhangelsky’s breach of the

11 repo transaction, what we have on our hands is just the

12 share sale contract. Therefore, I believe that

13 Renord-Invest had full title to all the remaining

14 properties, and at this point in time, so far as I know,

15 this plot of land is owned by an individual, a natural

16 person who holds that land in interests of Renord. This

17 was done in order to reduce tax exposure and liability,

18 and in case this land is then sold onwards, it will be

19 a transaction between an individual and someone else and

20 the individual will not be liable to tax. And if that

21 does happen, the money will go back to the Bank in order

22 to reduce Mr Arkhangelsky’s outstanding debt. I am

23 saying all this in response to your question with

24 respect to that particular plot of land.

25 Q. On what basis will the money go to the Bank to reduce

73 75

1 established control?

2 MR STROILOV: Sevzapalians, after Sevzapalians established

3 control over Western Terminal, that was you,

4 Ms Yatvetsky, who actually worked on this matter on

5 behalf of Renord, was it not?

6 A. I’m not sure I understood your question. When you say

7 «involved in this», could you define «this»?

8 Q. Involved in managing Western Terminal and deciding what

9 to do with Western Terminal LLC.

10 A. No. Decisions were made by Mr Smirnov based on all the

11 surrounding circumstances. I was only in charge of the

12 various trials and pieces of litigation that were going

13 on with respect to Western Terminal, including so far as

14 Mr Arkhangelsky’s outstanding debts were concerned.

15 Q. Were you aware at the time that there was a plot of land

16 in Seleznevskaya owned by Western Terminal?

17 A. Possibly. I may have known that, because I was dealing

18 with the various assets, I was looking into the assets

19 that Western Terminal owned, we were asking Rosreestr,

20 the Russian registry, to provide that information to us.

21 Q. That plot of land, to your knowledge, was not pledged to

22 the Bank or to anyone else; isn’t that right?

23 A. That plot of land was not pledged, so far as I know.

24 Q. I think we looked earlier at some documents related to

25 Morskoy Bank loan, and we have seen no trace of

1 the outstanding debt, as you say? On what basis would

2 that happen?

3 A. I cannot tell you exactly, sitting here today. This is

4 something that will be decided upon between the Bank and

5 Mr Smirnov.

6 Q. I cannot quite understand your answer. I think you have

7 said two things. First you said Renord was entitled to

8 that property, it had legal and beneficial right to deal

9 with it as it pleased; that’s one point you made.

10 Secondly you said: but after it is sold, money will be

11 applied to reduce his indebtedness to the Bank.

12 So which is it? Do you see any contradiction here?

13 A. No, there is no contradiction, there is no disconnect.

14 Now, you are saying that Mr Smirnov stole the land.

15 I say in response to that that Mr Smirnov had the right

16 to dispose of that land. So far as the money is

17 concerned, I mean the money for that land, if the land

18 is sold then the money will go back to the Bank.

19 Q. Isn’t it the case that Renord only held these shares on

20 behalf of the Bank?

21 A. Right at the very beginning, if you are looking at the

22 very start of this arrangement, Renord was a guarantor

23 for the Bank, as it were, it was holding those shares,

24 and it was a sort of security to make sure that the

25 assets owned by those companies will not be lost,

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

April 15, 2016 Day 39

1 nothing will happen to the assets. On the other hand

2 you can also say that they were holding those shares

3 also on behalf or in the interests of Oslo Marine Ports

4 until such time as the Morskoy Bank story began.

5 After it began, what happened was that

6 Mr Arkhangelsky was in breach of the terms and

7 conditions of the memorandum. Had that not happened,

8 had all the liabilities been extinguished, the shares

9 would have been transferred to Mr Arkhangelsky.

10 Q. Right. So you say that — let me show you, I think

11 something very similar has happened to a land plot owned

12 by Scan Insurance in Tsvelodubovo; isn’t that right? If

13 you could perhaps look again at the Land Register, it

14 is, I think, the same tab and page 46.1 for the English

15 version, {D192/2918.2T/46.1} and {D192/2918.2T/47} for

16 the Russian version.

17 So that, as you can see, near the bottom of

18 section 1, that relates to the land plot in

19 Tsvelodubovo.

20 If we could scroll down each page on each screen,

21 {D192/2918.2T/46.2} {D192/2918.2T/48} you will see that

22 it had been owned by Scan Insurance. In 2.2 you see

23 that it had been owned by Scan Insurance from 2005 until

24 the end of 2009.

25 Then in 2.3 you can see that it was passed to

1 A. As far as I remember, yes, there was some kind of offset

2 for this land plot.

3 Q. It is now on sale by Renord, is it not? Renord is now

4 trying to sell this land plot?

5 A. Yes, this land plot and previous land plot Renord has

6 for some time without any success been trying to sell.

7 Q. Is it intended, once it is sold, to apply the proceeds

8 to reduce the indebtedness of Mr Arkhangelsky to the

9 Bank?

10 A. I don’t know how it’s going to be done. I know

11 Mr Smirnov’s policy, and his intention that if these

12 land plots are finally sold, his intention is to give

13 this money to the Bank.

14 Q. Right. I think when I … (Pause). Isn’t it again the

15 case that Renord simply abused its position as the

16 nominal holder of Scan shares, quite simply to steal

17 this land plot?

18 A. No, you are wrong.

19 Q. Now, isn’t it the case that from a very early stage,

20 possibly from the very point when the repo agreement was

21 entered into, it was intended that all assets of Scan

22 and Western Terminal would end up in the hands of Renord

23 or its partners or connected parties?

24 A. No. This is a false statement, in my view it is totally

25 illogical. Had parties harboured such intentions,

77

1 a company called Meridian. Meridian is one of the

2 Renord companies, is it not?

3 A. Yes. It is a Renord company. I mean, it used to be

4 until a certain point in time in the past, speaking from

5 memory.

6 Q. Right. You can see that then it passed into the — in

7 2.4 you see that it passed into the ownership of

8 Mr Kalinin. I suggest to you that it is reasonable to

9 assume that Mr Kalinin also held this land plot on

10 behalf of Renord. Is that right?

11 A. Yes, and he is still holding this land on behalf of

12 Renord as an individual in order to minimise the tax

13 liability.

14 Q. Now, on what basis did that land plot pass from Scan to

15 Meridian?

16 A. It was based on a sale contract.

17 Q. Was that sale contract on commercial terms?

18 A. The sale price was about half a million roubles, or

19 thereabouts, and Mr Arkhangelsky bought that land for

20 700 million or maybe 900 million roubles, again speaking

21 from memory.

22 Q. Are you saying that was a fair market price?

23 A. For that point in time, yes, it was.

24 Q. Was any credit given for that sale as part of Scan’s

25 bankruptcy process?

79

1 I think it would be more — it would be logical to think

2 that had the parties harboured such intentions, the

3 shares for Western Terminal Scandinavian control would

4 have been established back in January and neither Bank

5 nor Renord would have allowed the situation with

6 Maritime Bank to ever arise.

7 Q. It was also the Bank’s and Renord’s intention to ensure

8 that the entire Onega Terminal ends up in the hands of

9 a connected party?

10 A. No. There was no such intention. At the point of repo

11 deal execution, nobody thought about some kind of

12 assets. No.

13 Q. The market value of Onega Terminal is in the region of

14 $200 million, is it not?

15 A. What kind of Onega Terminal are you talking about? Are

16 you talking about Onega 1, 2, 3, 4?

17 Q. The entirety of Onega Terminal assets as a port terminal

18 is worth $200 million?

19 A. No, this is wrong.

20 Q. The purpose of that rather complex series of

21 transactions with Onega Terminal assets was to ensure

22 that it ends up in the hands of a connected party

23 without any need to pay proper consideration, without

24 paying the proper market price for that asset to OMG,

25 its legitimate owner, was it not?

78 80
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

April 15, 2016 Day 39

1 A. No, it was not. 1 «Scheme 4», and once you have reached the bottom of the
2 Q. All your actions, meaning Renord involvement in OMG 2 page, perhaps if you could shout, and I can cause the
3 assets, were implementation of a fraudulent plan to 3 scroll down.
4 appropriate various OMG assets, great or small; isn’t 4 (Pause)
5 that right? 5 A. You can scroll, right. {D153/2566/41}
6 A. No, this is not right. There was no plan, let alone 6 Q. Thank you very much.
7 a fraudulent plan. 7 (Pause)
8 MR STROILOV: Thank you. 8 My Lord, is it okay to scroll down for the English
9 My Lord, I think it’s a good moment for a smoking 9 version? {AA2/8/83}
10 break. 10 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Yes, I am reading it in your appendix,
11 (3.07 pm) 11 so everything is fine by me.
12 (A short break) 12 MR STROILOV: Yes, then Ms Yatvetsky will say when she has
13 (3.22 pm) 13 reached the bottom.
14 MR STROILOV: May it please your Lordship. 14 (Pause)
15 Now, can you please be shown {D153/2566/1} and on 15 A. Finished reading.
16 the other screen {D153/2566/31}, please? As you can 16 Q. So that looks familiar, does it not, Ms Yatvetsky?
17 see, Ms Yatvetsky, this seems to be a report published 17 (Pause). That is exactly the scheme which we have been
18 by an organisation called National Anti-Corruption 18 discussing for most of yesterday and today, is it not?
19 Committee, and you can see the title, that’s published 19 A. Well, taking into account that this is some opus
20 in December 2011. If you scroll down one page 20 prepared by some people and their opinion on the
21 {D153/2566/2}, you can see the list of editors. 21 subject, all I can do, just like they do, is express my
22 Actually I think if we could substitute on the English 22 own opinion on this matter. From what I can see here,
23 screen, I think there is a better translation, if we go 23 this scheme 4 in particular, I don’t think that it can
24 to {AA2/8/74}. 24 be considered as a way for raiding assets. First of
25 So, Ms Yatvetsky, let me explain the context. So 25 all, it establishes that there was a debt, that a loan
81 83

1 this is, as you can see, a report prepared by this

2 non-governmental organisation about the participation of

3 banks in corporate raiding in Russia in the period 2009

4 to 2011, roughly. Can you see that?

5 A. Yes, I can see the document.

6 Q. What they did, they have considered some, a few dozens

7 of cases of people writing to them, telling their

8 stories, and tried to identify the most widespread

9 trends or the most widespread forms of raiding involving

10 banks in Russia. Does that make sense to you?

11 A. I understand that this is some kind of opus prepared by

12 an NGO, as you said. This is an opinion of some

13 academics.

14 Q. Are you familiar with this report?

15 A. No, I am not familiar with it, this is my first sight of

16 it.

17 Q. Yes. If you could scroll down on the English screen to

18 page 82 {AA2/8/82} and on the Russian screen I think to

19 {D153/2566/40}.

20 So on the basis of their research, National

21 Anti-Corruption Committee identify what they call scheme

22 4, so there are obviously other schemes, as one of the

23 schemes of raiding a valuable business involving the

24 Bank.

25 If you could read what they say under the heading

1 was given and somebody has taken out a loan and

2 therefore was in debt. And then this is a sequence of

3 actions, in my view they are totally lawful actions by

4 the creditor in order to enforce the pledge. Yes, at

5 some point in time the banks realised that they had to

6 use repo deals, and this was caused by the fact that

7 borrowers, pledgors, they started to act unlawfully to

8 unlawfully encumber the assets they have pledged to the

9 banks in order to prevent their creditors to enforce the

10 pledged assets later. In fact, the assets that they

11 pledge to guarantee their own loans.

12 So I do not believe that this really qualifies as

13 a raider attack arrangement or scheme.

14 Q. So —

15 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: The sequence of steps described is all

16 perfectly lawful?

17 A. In this particular case, yes, my Lord.

18 MR STROILOV: So to sum up —

19 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: In the particular case described in

20 this appendix, in this sort of exemplar described in the

21 appendix, you think that’s all lawful?

22 A. Right, if we look at the first bullet point, you issue

23 a loan, then the person takes out the loan, then

24 a security is offered by way of guarantee (inaudible)

25 from the securities market, because often pledgors try

82 84
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

April 15, 2016 Day 39

1 to dissipate the assets, so this was a way of countering

2 that (inaudible) activity. Then it says here that there

3 is a default on the part of the borrower, so this is

4 a default which does happen from time to time, obviously

5 then the creditor wants to enforce the debt, it requires

6 that it be repaid, the default is recorded in some

7 tangible form. The COO is changed, is replaced, and

8 again the reason behind this is that the creditor is

9 concerned that the pledge will simply be lost, and the

10 security will disappear, and the money will never be

11 repaid, the debt will never be returned:

12 Therefore, if you need to look at this in detail,

13 I would not really describe this as a raider scheme,

14 quote unquote.

15 Q. So to sum up, I think your position is you accept that

16 you have raided OMG but you don’t accept that this was

17 unlawful; is that a fair summary?

18 A. No, not at all. There was no raider attack against OMG.

19 There was an instance of Mr Arkhangelsky taking out

20 a loan. There was another instance whereby he provided

21 a pledge by way of security for that loan, then his

22 financial condition worsened, this was also a fact of

23 life. As a result of that, Mr Arkhangelsky volunteered

24 to keep the pledges under the repo transaction, and he

25 volunteered to offer Western Terminal and Scandinavia

1 down to page 105, {AA2/8/105} and then I think there is

2 a Russian transcript. This is an interview given by

3 Mrs Malysheva to a journalist at the end of 2011. The

4 Russian version will be at {D142/2385.2/20}.

5 So Mrs Malysheva was interviewed by a journalist

6 about the Bank’s dispute with Mr Arkhangelsky.

7 Now, the particular passage I would like to draw

8 your attention to is at paragraph 69, it’s marked 69 in

9 the English transcript, and in the Russian transcript

10 that will be the third passage under the 0:10, under the

11 ten minute mark, so starting from «No, there are

12 absolutely official procedures», and so on. If you

13 could just read that passage.

14 (Pause)

15 Don’t bother to read the whole interview, it’s

16 a long interview, I just want to ask you about

17 a particular point. I think what Mrs Malysheva seems to

18 be suggesting in this passage is that if Mr Arkhangelsky

19 turns around and pays 4 million roubles to the Bank, the

20 Bank then is in a position to return all the pledged

21 assets to him, and that suggests that even at that

22 stage, the end of 2011, Renord is still holding whatever

23 assets it is holding on behalf of the Bank and to the

24 Bank’s instructions. Is that consistent with your

25 understanding of the situation?

85 87

1 shares. There is the instance of Mr Arkhangelsky’s

2 defaulting on his loan obligations and liabilities, and

3 so the repo transaction came to an end.

4 Q. Is it the case that (inaudible) that process

5 Renord-Invest was acting on behalf of the Bank?

6 A. Renord-Invest was acting on behalf of the Bank at the

7 time when the Bank asked it to play the role of

8 a guarantor by holding the shares. Next what happened

9 was that Renord-Invest found itself in a situation, and

10 it was a fait accompli, whereby it de facto owned some

11 assets, those assets had to be sold off, realised or

12 something had to be done about those assets, and under

13 the circumstances Renord, both in the first instance and

14 now, Renord was trying to take care of its own

15 interests, protect its own position, because the Bank

16 obviously wanted to enforce the assets. But at that

17 point in time, the assets were de facto owned by

18 Renord-Invest, so Renord had to satisfy the Bank’s

19 requirements in terms of maximising recovery, and in

20 terms of enforcing the asset and also to try and avoid

21 any losses for itself. Therefore the position in which

22 Renord found itself is something that would really —

23 that I would describe as that of a hostage, it was

24 a hostage.

25 Q. Now, may I, if we could, on the English screen, scroll

1 A. I have no comment to offer with respect to

2 Mrs Malysheva’s interview, and no comment with respect

3 to the assets being returned.

4 Q. What I suggest, suppose in a hypothetical situation,

5 towards the end of 2011, suddenly Mrs Malysheva tells to

6 Renord, «You know what, the situation has changed, we

7 have reached a settlement with Mr Arkhangelsky, he needs

8 his terminals back»; would you be in a position to give

9 Western Terminal back to Mr Arkhangelsky if the Bank

10 told you so?

11 A. It will be very hard for me to decide for Mr Smirnov.

12 I can only assume, and this is my personal view only,

13 today Western Terminal for all practical purposes is no

14 longer what it used to be. A lot of money has gone into

15 upgrading that terminal, and it is part of the fuel

16 company, the Baltic Fuel Company, it’s being used by the

17 fuel company. Now, had Mr Arkhangelsky repaid the

18 expenses that had been incurred by way of investment,

19 then perhaps yes. But again, I would be hard put to

20 offer any comment, I’m just sharing my personal view.

21 Renord incurred certain expenses, it purchased those

22 assets using its own money, now the fuel company has

23 invested a lot of money into upgrading, developing,

24 growing the asset. The asset is no longer what it used

25 to be, for all practical purposes. Again, very hard for

86 88
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

April 15, 2016 Day 39

1 me to offer any comment. I am speaking for myself,

2 personally. And of course there is a huge difference

3 between the year 2011 and the year 2016.

4 Q. I wasn’t trying to negotiate something for today, I was

5 really asking you about the position in 2011. So at

6 that time was it Renord’s position that whatever assets

7 were still under its control were held on behalf of the

8 Bank?

9 A. Again, I cannot speak for Mr Smirnov. I’m not sure

10 whether he thought that at that time he was holding the

11 assets for the Bank or maybe part of the assets were now

12 being held by himself and his own interest. Mind you,

13 he had paid arm’s-length real market value for some of

14 those assets in the course of the auctions, so I am not

15 sure I can speak for Mr Smirnov.

16 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Can I just ask, you are a lawyer: who

17 under Russian law do you think owned those assets at

18 that time, and subject to what, if any, obligation?

19 Presumably you had to work this out for the purposes of,

20 amongst other things, doing a proper account, insurance,

21 all sorts of things. Who in law owned those assets at

22 that time?

23 A. It was owned by Renord.

24 MR STROILOV: Thank you, my Lord.

25 Can you now please be shown {D142/2391/1}, and the

1 order to be able to make the payment. Looking forward.

2 Thanks very much in advance.»

3 Q. Thank you, if we could now scroll up the Russian screen,

4 {D142/2391/5} I think you can see that it is your

5 message of 29 December 2010. Then on the same day,

6 Ms Blinova indicates that she — well, perhaps if you

7 don’t mind, just for the accuracy of the translation,

8 would you mind reading Ms Blinova’s message of

9 29 December at 3.20 pm? If you could please just read

10 this pretty much one-line message.

11 A. I’m sorry, I’m lost. Which is the one you are referring

12 to, sir?

13 Q. Ms Blinova’s message. It’s the one in the middle,

14 29 December at 3.20 pm. [Russian read] and so on?

15 A. «Hello Elena, I have forwarded your request to Natalia,

16 our chief accountant.»

17 Q. Then at the top you can see your own message to

18 Ms Blinova, it’s some time later, when we get there you

19 will see it’s 12 January 2011. Will you please read

20 your message from the top of this page, again read it

21 out in Russian?

22 A. «Hi Elena, we really do need those details today. Could

23 you please remind Natalia about those details? Looking

24 forward to the receipt of those. Thank you very much.»

25 Q. Yes. As you can see it’s pretty much an energetic

89 91

1 Russian version, page 4. {D142/2391/4} That,

2 Ms Yatvetsky, seems to be an email chain of emails

3 between you and Ms Blinova in January 2011.

4 Obviously as usual with these email chains it’s

5 better to look from the bottom to the top. So if we

6 could now scroll down two pages on each screen

7 {D142/2391/3} {D142/2391/6}.

8 It starts, and it’s obviously not quite the

9 beginning of the conversation, with Ms Blinova

10 identifying to you two of the personal bank accounts of

11 Mr Arkhangelsky in the Bank.

12 I think the English translation is fairly terrible.

13 If you could have page 2 on the English screen,

14 {D142/2391/2} I think that’s fine, but I will ask

15 Ms Yatvetsky to read out the material bits.

16 So if you could, what you see at the top of this

17 page, Ms Yatvetsky, is your message to Ms Blinova. We

18 will look at the dates, but could you, before we go up,

19 would you mind reading it out in Russian, what you see

20 at the top of this page, just so that the interpreters

21 could interpret it for the transcript?

22 A. It is my letter to Ms Blinova:

23 «I have a request for you. We need full bank

24 details with respect to Mr Arkhangelsky’s accounts.

25 I mean all the accounts that one would normally have in

1 chaser with lots of exclamation marks; isn’t that right?

2 A. Well, it’s my third email, so, well, you would expect me

3 to be energetic, wouldn’t you?

4 Q. Yes. If you could please, for completeness, scroll up

5 both screens {D142/2391/1} {D142/2391/4} so that one can

6 see that this is the message of 12 January 2011.

7 Now, I am not particularly concerned with the

8 following messages, they are technical, really. My

9 question to you is: why did you need Mr Arkhangelsky’s

10 bank details urgently on 12 January 2011?

11 A. I needed those because at that time we found some

12 promissory notes in the books of Western Terminal. The

13 notes had been issued by Western Terminal and made

14 payable to one of the companies within Oslo Marine Group

15 Ports.

16 The maturity had already occurred, so they were

17 overdue, but the risk was that Mr Arkhangelsky, because

18 this was an unsecured note, he would try to judicially

19 enforce those promissory notes, so we realised that this

20 was not something that we were really looking forward

21 to, and so one way to stop any possible litigation was

22 to have those notes actually paid, to make a payment

23 under the notes.

24 Q. So are you suggesting that the Bank will have a record

25 of certain payments from Renord to Mr Arkhangelsky’s

90 92
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

April 15, 2016 Day 39

1 personal bank accounts in January 2011?

2 A. Well, if I understand correctly, Mr Smirnov made

3 a decision at that time that, should the matter arise,

4 then the issuer, the Western Terminal, will simply pay

5 Mr Arkhangelsky under those notes in order to avoid any

6 further litigation or trials.

7 Q. Did Mr Arkhangelsky at that time bring any claim under

8 those promissory notes? Or did he demand any payment?

9 A. No, he did not make any claims or raise any grievances,

10 we just found in the books of Western Terminal that

11 those promissory notes existed, and we had to have

12 a roadmap explaining to us what would happen and what we

13 would do in case someone demanded payment under the

14 notes.

15 Q. Is it that easy to get a client’s personal account

16 details from a Russian bank? Is it generally normal,

17 you just write to the bank and say «I want the bank

18 account details of such and such», and they say «Well,

19 of course, we will get it from the chief accountant»?

20 Is that how it normally works in Russia?

21 A. Well, I cannot speak for Russia in general. This was

22 the only instance where I was asking questions with

23 respect to the bank details of an individual, of

24 a natural person.

25 Q. Well, Ms Yatvetsky, just think carefully about this, is

1 particular project, but I think it was sold together

2 with its business maybe two years ago, I would say.

3 Q. Now, if we could … so what is its business?

4 A. Fisheries, they also owned some land not far from

5 various bodies of water, and making fish products,

6 manufacturing fish products.

7 Q. Right. Well, if we could perhaps have a look at the

8 SPARK profile at {D176-D191/2918.1T/764}, and I’m afraid

9 it will be again SPARK profile in English. I’m sorry

10 about that. If we could have a look at the list of

11 shareholders, I think two pages down

12 {D176-D191/2918.1T/766}. I think rightly or wrongly

13 they don’t seem to have changed in the SPARK profile

14 list. You can see two companies holding equal shares.

15 One is called Ladozhski Rybak, which would be translated

16 as «Ladoga fisherman», and then a company called

17 Torgovy Dom Partner, so trading house partners.

18 Does that sound like right shareholders?

19 A. I don’t think so, actually. Those shareholders listed

20 here I think were shareholders before Renord acquired

21 Naziya.

22 Q. So that’s out of date, is it?

23 A. Right. It may be right, it may be correct, but

24 reference is made to the years 2002, 2004. I do not see

25 what happens on the subsequent pages, on the next page.

93 95

1 this explanation which you have just given true?

2 A. It is absolutely true.

3 Q. You remember that well, do you?

4 A. I do. That was the only instance I was asking a bank to

5 let me have the bank details of an individual.

6 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Wouldn’t that be quite unusual, to get

7 somebody else’s bank details? I mean, are there no

8 confidentiality rules or anything else? I don’t know,

9 I am ignorant of the Russian banking process.

10 A. Unfortunately I have never been a banking lawyer. There

11 must be some rules and regulations to that effect. But

12 in this particular instance, I believe that everyone was

13 aware of the situation surrounding Oslo Marine Group

14 Ports, and I believe that that was the reason that that

15 information was actually made available.

16 Q. Isn’t the much likelier explanation, Ms Yatvetsky, that

17 you were backdating some documents from the time

18 Mr Arkhangelsky was still active in Russia and in

19 Russian business?

20 A. No. This could have never taken place.

21 Q. May I ask you about the company called Naziya. I think

22 it is agreed that this is a Renord company, is it not?

23 A. This company used to be owned by Renord Group.

24 Q. Until what time was it owned by Renord?

25 A. I may be wrong, I was simply not overseeing this

1 Q. Yes, I think if we could scroll down, that’s

2 participation and share capital, so that’s companies

3 where Naziya holds shares. {D176-D191/2918.1T/767}

4 Obviously you can see Scandinavia Insurance there.

5 Then, yes, you can see ownership hierarchy as well.

6 In case it can help you, let me say that the way it’s

7 structured is that it indicates indirect owners, and so

8 that suggests that Torgovy Dom Partner is owned by

9 Partner LLC, and then — or rather 53% of Torgovy Dom

10 Partner is owned by Partner LLC. That is, which is in

11 turn owned 50/50 by a gentleman called Oleg Yurevich

12 Kuzhlev and a gentleman called Pavel Anatolevich

13 Rozbitshi, and I think that’s where it ends, so it’s

14 a rather incomplete picture.

15 Does that look like old shareholders, pre-Renord

16 shareholders?

17 A. I’m not familiar with Trading House Partner, nor am

18 I familiar with Partner, nor with these two individuals.

19 Q. What I am rather interested in is if you could scroll up

20 to {D176-D191/2918.1T/765}. You can see the list of

21 historic directors of the company, and in particular at

22 the top of the page you can see that dated

23 7 October 2010 the record was updated to show that the

24 Director General of Naziya is Mr Andrei Sergeevich

25 Maslennikov. So at that time Naziya is owned by Renord,

94 96
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

April 15, 2016 Day 39

1 is it not?

2 A. Yes, indeed.

3 Q. Mr Maslennikov was around the same time, slightly

4 earlier, in 2009, he was appointed by Renord to be the

5 Director General of Western Terminal, was he not?

6 A. Yes, he was Director General of the Western Terminal.

7 Q. I think you said yesterday that to your knowledge he was

8 not a Renord employee. Could you be mistaken about

9 that?

10 A. No, I can’t be mistaken. Mr Maslennikov has never been

11 employed by Renord.

12 Q. Do you know anything about the company called Linair?

13 A. Company called Linair?

14 Q. Sorry, yes.

15 A. If I remember correctly, this company was one of the

16 participants of OOO or Nevskaya Management Company

17 Limited.

18 Q. That is a company jointly owned by Mr Smirnov,

19 Mrs Malysheva and Mrs Ivannikova, another deputy chair

20 of the Bank; isn’t that right?

21 A. Yes, as far as I remember, they hold them as private

22 individuals. It’s the kind of independent business, but

23 unfortunately at present it’s not operating.

24 Q. Was that company doing any business other than holding

25 shares in Nevskaya Management Company?

1 A. I mean Nevskaya Management Company.

2 Q. I see, and so obviously this was, Linair was a company

3 set up by three top managers of the Bank. Now, to your

4 knowledge, can it be the case that these three

5 individuals actually held their shares in Linair on

6 behalf of the Bank rather than in their own personal

7 roles?

8 A. No. I know for sure that they held these shares

9 personally in their own interest as individuals, this

10 was their own separate business, which had nothing to do

11 with the Bank.

12 Q. How do you know that? Where from?

13 A. I was working in Nevskaya Management Company and I know

14 how Mr Lestovkin created this business, it was his

15 personal business.

16 Q. What was your role in Nevskaya Management Company?

17 A. I was a lawyer.

18 Q. So you had a good knowledge of the ownership of Nevskaya

19 Management Company, so you would know who the

20 shareholders are and who the beneficial owners are; you

21 would know these kinds of things?

22 A. Well, at that time I approximately remember who owned

23 Nevskaya Management Company.

24 Q. Yes, we will come to that in due course. Now, I think

25 prior to that, if I may, if we could go to

97

1 A. This company, what do you mean by this company, Linair?

2 Q. Linair, yes.

3 A. I don’t know, most likely no, it didn’t. I think it was

4 simply a participant of Nevskaya Management Company.

5 Q. Could we perhaps quickly look at the SPARK profile,

6 which is the same tab, page 2181

7 {D176-D191/2918.1T/2181}. So that’s from the Linair

8 profile on SPARK. You can see in the list of

9 shareholders, you can see, well, as you have confirmed

10 to my Lord, Ivannikoba, Malysheva and Mr Smirnov.

11 What I would like to draw attention to is the date.

12 So in the right column you can see the input date is

13 March 2007. So at that time Mr Smirnov is still one of

14 the managers of Bank of St Petersburg, is he not?

15 A. Mr Smirnov, at that time, as far as I remember, was

16 director of corporate finance director at — in the

17 Bank. So yes, indeed, and some individuals, they set up

18 a private business and they were engaged in creating

19 these investment funds. At that time this was a very

20 successful business, and this constituted private

21 investment of individuals, it did not require huge

22 expenditure, but whilst the market was working it gave

23 substantial profits.

24 Q. When you say it was a successful business, do you mean

25 Linair?

99

1 page {D176-D191/2918.1T/3493} to look at the profile of

2 Khortitsa, which obviously used to be your company.

3 Just a moment. Once it’s sorted on my computer,

4 I will draw your attention to the bits I’m interested

5 in.

6 Yes, if we could now scroll down one page

7 {D176-D191/2918.1T/3494}, there is a history of manager

8 changes, and the way it is indicated is that

9 Mr Skylarevsky was the Director General of Khortitsa

10 from February 2007 to June 2008. Then from June 2008 he

11 was replaced by Mr Lestovkin, whom you have mentioned

12 a moment ago, and then from March 2009

13 Mr Pavel Gavrilov, from June 2009 you.

14 Now, is that correct, to your knowledge? Is that

15 a correct summary of the history of manager changes of

16 Khortitsa?

17 A. Of course I don’t remember it in that great detail, and

18 unfortunately I don’t have statutory documents at hand,

19 which is the only evidence I could trust. But it seems

20 to me that this reflects the truth. The only thing is

21 that I couldn’t confirm the dates.

22 Q. Yes, and then if we could scroll down, I think, to

23 {D176-D191/2918.1T/3496} you can see here there is

24 a history of shareholders’ changes, and I think you can

25 see that early on the company was owned by

98 100
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

April 15, 2016 Day 39

1 Mr Skylarevsky and Mr Ved, and that’s in 2007.

2 Obviously it is indicated here that their share was

3 actually quite minimal, but that’s apparently a mistake,

4 and I think Mr Skylarevsky confirms that that was

5 a mistake, that used to be a company jointly owned by

6 Mr Skylarevsky and Mr Ved. So is that correct, to your

7 knowledge?

8 A. Yes, as far as I remember, Khortitsa was acquired by

9 Renord in 2007 or so, I think.

10 Q. And that was from Mr Skylarevsky and Mr Ved; is that

11 your evidence?

12 A. Yes, it was acquired from Mr Skylarevsky.

13 Q. Did that company have any substantial business at the

14 time?

15 A. I don’t remember for sure now, but it seems to me that

16 there was supposed to have been some business in that

17 company, but at the time when we were acquiring the

18 company, I do not think that it had any business linked

19 with it.

20 Q. So was it simply a shell company which Linair bought

21 from Mr Skylarevsky and Mr Ved?

22 A. I don’t know what you mean by shell company, we simply

23 bought a company with no assets attached to it, and we

24 acquired it for our own operational activity.

25 Q. So then you can see that as of 2009, for a brief period,

1 a Renord company?

2 A. It ceased being a Renord company, it ceased to belong to

3 Renord. I will try and tell you more precisely. Yes,

4 in 2013 it was sold.

5 Q. Now, so it seems, going back to page

6 {D176-D191/2918.1T/3494}, it seems that in the period

7 after Renord acquired that company, you appointed

8 Mr Lestovkin as its Director General; does that sound

9 right to you?

10 A. Yes, at some point in time Mr Lestovkin was indeed

11 Director General of that company.

12 Q. So in that role at least Mr Lestovkin was employed by

13 Renord, was he not?

14 A. No, he was not an employee of Renord. I suppose there

15 might have been some joint business planned between

16 Mr Lestovkin and Renord in light of Nevskaya Management

17 Company in that period of time because one of the

18 projects, as far as I remember, of Nevskaya Management

19 Company was a closed investment fund for real estate,

20 and it’s quite possible that they had some kind of

21 plans.

22 Yes, at some point Khortitsa sold a land plot that

23 belonged to Taroukha(?) to Nevskaya Management Company,

24 and the received shares in this investment fund, it was

25 a small land plot.

101 103
1 apparently the holder of 10,000 shares, which is here 1 Q. Now if we could go to page {D176-D191/2918.1T/2194} to
2 indicated to be 0 and 15% but is probably as of then 2 have a look at the entry for Nevskaya Management
3 100%, is recorded to be a company called 3 Company.
4 Global Konsalting. So is that a Renord entity? 4 Firstly, I will just draw your attention to material
5 A. Global Konsalting, I don’t remember for sure by now 5 bits, I apologise for not having a Russian version.
6 I can’t be 100% sure, but I think it is a Renord 6 It seems to be that Nevskaya company shares the
7 company, yes. 7 address with Renord, isn’t it? Ispolkomskaya 15A is
8 Q. Then starting in May 2009 you are recorded as the holder 8 given as the address of Nevskaya Management Company, and
9 of 96% shares, and then starting in August 2010 Mr Donov 9 that also seems to be the address of Renord-Invest or
10 is recorded to be a 4% shareholder. I’m not quite sure 10 one of the addresses at least. So is that right, that
11 why it developed in this way; I’m just telling you for 11 Nevskaya company and Renord share an office?
12 completeness, I just don’t want to take any advantage of 12 A. Yes, indeed, indeed, they shared, it’s a big business
13 your not quite understanding the English page. Then 13 centre, a large business centre in this address. First
14 starting from 2011 you are 100% shareholder. But then 14 Nevskaya Management Company moved there when it had been
15 starting in April 2011, that shareholding was apparently 15 built, and as far as I understand when Mr Smirnov was
16 transferred to a offshore company Krevelson Finance 16 looking for premises for his company, Mr Lestovkin
17 Limited in British Virgin Islands. Does that sound 17 suggested that business centre, and then Renord moved
18 correct? 18 in.
19 A. Yes, this is correct. 19 Q. Right. Then I suppose if we scroll down one page
20 Q. And that remains, throughout that period, at least after 20 {D176-D191/2918.1T/2195} we can see the section called
21 it was acquired from Mr Skylarevsky and Mr Ved, that 21 «history of legal address changes», and in the first
22 company has been and still is a Renord company; is that 22 line, 24 — apparently an entry of a change dated
23 right? 23 24 October 2006. You can see that the address of
24 A. Until 2013 this company belonged to Renord. 24 Nevskaya Management Company is given as Nevskaya
25 Q. Do you mean that in 2013 it ceased, it stopped being 25 prospekt 174. Isn’t that also the address of the Bank?
102 104
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

April 15, 2016 Day 39

1 A. Bank was in the front part of this building, and at the

2 back there was a business centre and some companies were

3 housed there, and also Nevskaya Management Company had

4 a small office there when it was first created.

5 Q. Right, and at the time you worked for Nevskaya company,

6 was it at Nevski 174 or was it already at Tallinn

7 office?

8 A. No, when the business was just being set up and

9 I joined, it was in Nevskaya 174, but not on the

10 Nevskaya facade part of the building, but at the back

11 there was an entrance to a small business centre and

12 this is where I came to work.

13 Q. Yes. Actually I just realised that there is a similar

14 Russian entry for Nevskaya company. It’s not from

15 SPARK, it’s from a different database, but similar

16 database called Kurteker(?). I suppose I had better

17 find it, and that may help you.

18 (Pause)

19 Sorry, my Lord, it will take half a minute more,

20 I think.

21 (Pause)

22 If we could, please, on the other screen call

23 {D199/2993/1}, just so that — well, hopefully you can

24 see some bits, it’s roughly similar to SPARK, and I just

25 wanted to be — to ensure that you can see it as well.

1 So, Ms Yatvetsky, I think that is the shareholding

2 for 2006, is it not?

3 Now, can you explain which of these companies are

4 Renord?

5 A. I don’t remember about Komavtotrans, most likely it did

6 not belong to Renord. SKIF is (inaudible) is Renord

7 company, Kiperort is a Renord company, Intermit and

8 Khortitsa in 2006, however, well, these companies were

9 bought — well, Khortitsa was acquired by Renord in

10 2007, but it must mean that Renord bought Intermit in

11 also 2007.

12 Q. Yes.

13 A. I am beginning to recall, and I think that these

14 companies might have belonged to Mr Sklyarevsky, because

15 (inaudible) being set up by Mr Sklyarevsky, Mr Smirnov,

16 other individuals you mentioned, and it was being set up

17 as a private company planning to earn money in the

18 financial services market, and then as far as I remember

19 in 2007 Spetsteplostroi for sure became a Renord

20 company. Kiperort, Intermit and (inaudible) I can’t

21 remember but I assume we bought them from

22 Mr Skylarevsky.

23 Q. Right. So originally it was, that company was a joint

24 venture between Mr Smirnov and Mr Skylarevsky; isn’t

25 that right?

105

1 Now, if we scroll down one page in the Russian, on

2 the Russian screen {D199/2993/2}, and on the English

3 screen if we could scroll also one page down,

4 {D176-D191/2918.1T/2196}, you can see the list of

5 present participants of Nevskaya Management Company.

6 Well, perhaps it’s better, I suppose, to start with

7 historic participants, just so that we see how this

8 develops. So if you could scroll down again one page on

9 each screen, {D176-D191/2918.1T/2197} English,

10 {D199/2993/3} Russian.

11 Now, it seems that there have been quite a number of

12 participants in different periods of time, but it

13 appears — if we could go, the Kurteker thing is easier

14 in the sense that it sets them chronologically, and then

15 we could, I suppose, find the — whereas SPARK sets them

16 alphabetically, so I suppose we could find the

17 corresponding entries if need be in the SPARK one.

18 So as you can see, the shareholders originally —

19 well, yes, I think if we — if you could scroll one

20 further page in the Russian version {D199/2993/4}, you

21 can see that the original shareholders were Khortitsa,

22 just over 15%, then a company called Intermit, just over

23 15%, then Kiperort, just over 15%, a company called

24 Spetsteplostroi just over 15%, something like 8.5% for

25 SKIF, and 15.2% for a company called Firma Komavtotrans.

107

1 A. Smirnov, Skylarevsky and there was a manager,

2 Mr Lestovkin, he was the manager, he was planning to

3 operate this particular business.

4 Q. I think Mr Skylarevsky has, when he was giving evidence

5 to this court, named Nevskaya Management Company as one

6 of the companies whose intended business was actually to

7 service the Bank’s clients; is that correct to your

8 understanding?

9 A. No, no. I think you either misunderstood Mr Skylarevsky

10 or he misspoke. Initially Nevskaya Management Company

11 was being set up as an alternative, as a competitor to

12 all kinds of banks, any banks. It was presumed that it

13 would issue equity shares, and these equity shares as

14 financial instruments could well be viewed as

15 alternative to saving accounts, deposit accounts that

16 banks offered their clients.

17 There was a project whereby those shares could be

18 used as securities, pledge for security or loans and so

19 on and so forth, then I think they ran into some legal

20 difficulties because it was not consistent with the laws

21 in effect at that time.

22 MR STROILOV: Thank you very much.

23 My Lord, I see the time. I think I am doing all

24 right, and it will be over within, say, by 3.30 on

25 Monday or thereabouts. Yes.

106 108
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

April 15, 2016 Day 39

1 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Right. Well, we must have you back on 1 INDEX
2 Monday. It’s very important that you don’t discuss the 2 PAGE
3 case at all over the weekend with anybody. Enjoy 3 MS ELENA YATVETSKY (continued) …………………..1
4 yourself better than that. Thank you. 4 Cross-examination by MR STROILOV …………..1
5 What time should we suggest for Monday? Is it 3.30 5 (continued)
6 upon the footing that we start at 10.30? 6
7 MR STROILOV: Well, my Lord, if all goes well, yes. On the 7
8 other hand, I’m just wondering if being on the safe side 8
9 and starting at about 10 might be a precaution which 9
10 won’t cause anyone a lot of trouble. I am in your 10
11 hands. I would still, if we start at 10.30, aim to 11
12 finish by 3.30 but sometimes it’s better to have 12
13 some … 13
14 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Any comments, Mr Lord or Mr Birt? 14
15 MR BIRT: We are in your Lordship’s hands. It obviously 15
16 seems right that we finish this witness on Monday, but 16
17 we are in your Lordship’s hands as to when we start. 17
18 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: I think for safety’s sake, and despite 18
19 the disappointment in going backwards after a 10.30 19
20 start today, I think it would be better to be safe than 20
21 sorry in order to ensure that we do conclude at the end 21
22 of Monday at the latest, and we then end for the week; 22
23 is that right? 23
24 MR BIRT: My Lord, yes. 24
25 MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Good. Well, have a good weekend, all, 25
109 111
1 and see you at 10 on Monday.
2 (4.35 pm)
3 (The court adjourned until 10.00 am
4 on Monday, 18 April 2016)
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
110
Opus 2 International transcripts@opus2.com
Official Court Reporters +44 (0)20 3008 5900

112

April 15, 2016 Day 39

A

AA2/8/105 (1) 87:1 AA2/8/74 (1) 81:24 AA2/8/82 (1) 82:18 AA2/8/83 (1) 83:9 abandoned (1) 25:1 able (6) 24:14 28:5

40:24 51:13 62:15 91:1

absolutely (6) 24:16 41:18 49:12 50:19 87:12 94:2

abused (1) 79:15 academics (1) 82:13 accept (8) 14:14 16:9

16:25 17:2,18,21 85:15,16

acceptance (5) 19:17 19:20 20:4,9 21:13

access (1) 67:11 accompli (1) 86:10 account (8) 3:2 12:8

61:12 65:22 83:19 89:20 93:15,18

accountant (2) 91:16 93:19

accounted (1) 45:18 accounts (6) 90:10,24

90:25 93:1 108:15 108:15

accrued (1) 47:25 accrues (1) 47:20 accuracy (1) 91:7 achieve (2) 16:13

35:18 acquire (3) 18:19

55:16,18 acquired (14) 32:6

35:11 64:23 65:24 66:7 71:1 73:21 95:20 101:8,12,24 102:21 103:7 107:9

acquiring (2) 59:20 101:17

acquisition (2) 45:25 55:22

act (1) 84:7

acting (13) 37:12,13 51:1,3 59:7 60:1,4 61:2,3 73:6,7 86:5 86:6

action (1) 46:4 actionable (2) 71:1,17 actions (4) 64:3 81:2

84:3,3 active (1) 94:18

activity (4) 26:23 32:6 85:2 101:24

actual (2) 8:7 20:19 additional (1) 9:22 address (8) 72:7 104:7

104:8,9,13,21,23

104:25 addresses (1) 104:10 adjourned (1) 110:3 adjournment (1)

54:14

admit (2) 38:3 59:21 admitted (2) 37:22

40:3

advance (1) 91:2 advanced (3) 47:19

49:2 50:16 advantage (2) 75:5

102:12 advertising (2) 61:22

62:1

adviser (1) 32:12

afford (1) 6:12 appendix (3) 83:10 43:19,21,24 46:3,7
afraid (6) 5:22 21:18 84:20,21 49:24,25 50:7 51:7
29:25 51:21 62:14 applicants (1) 38:2 51:14 52:20,22
95:8 applied (1) 76:11 53:1,8,14 55:18
agencies (1) 19:14 apply (2) 70:3 79:7 58:6,14,19 59:20
agency (3) 34:6 42:22 appoint (1) 22:23 60:11,21 61:12
53:9 appointed (5) 22:14 62:2 64:1 66:10
agent (5) 42:21 52:25 22:19 32:11 97:4 67:5 68:17,24
52:25 54:1,6 103:7 69:10 70:7 71:14
ago (3) 59:5 95:2 appointment (1) 71:21 74:18,18
100:12 32:24 76:25 77:1 79:21
agree (17) 5:2,5 7:6 appreciate (1) 22:18 80:12,17,21 81:3,4
14:5 15:2 16:11 appropriate (2) 10:12 83:24 84:8,10,10
18:20 31:20 39:5 81:4 85:1 86:11,11,12
42:10 45:18,21 appropriated (1) 26:7 86:16,17 87:21,23
46:5,11,14,23 75:2 approximately (3) 88:3,22 89:6,11,11
agreed (5) 12:12 2:20 40:12 99:22 89:14,17,21 101:23
34:21 53:13 64:9 April (5) 1:1 7:15 assigned (2) 53:12
94:22 72:17 102:15 110:4 64:20
agreeing (1) 15:11 archetypal (1) 28:17 assignment (8) 58:3
agreement (38) 10:18 argue (1) 39:19 64:6,11 68:5 69:6
11:5,12,14,21 13:9 arguing (1) 39:16 71:1,9,16
14:1,8,12,14,21 arguments (1) 27:4 assist (2) 29:10 50:9
15:6 16:7 17:1,24 Arinina (3) 37:2 40:10 assisted (2) 52:19,21
18:1,15 21:5 33:23 41:10 assume (9) 16:14 38:1
34:1,6,6 35:23 arisen (1) 11:19 51:9 55:5 59:12
36:15 42:22 43:2 Arkhangelsky (29) 68:3 78:9 88:12
48:9 49:6,12 50:13 9:23 27:2 32:19 107:21
57:9 58:4 59:16 36:11 41:24 42:2 assumed (1) 35:7
60:3 64:6,9 65:18 65:24 66:6 70:12 assuming (2) 18:17
79:20 70:16,20 71:5,12 59:24
agreements (9) 24:20 77:6,9 78:19 79:8 attached (1) 101:23
25:13 30:10 59:10 85:19,23 87:6,18 attack (2) 84:13 85:18
64:10,14,24 65:2 88:7,9,17 90:11 attempt (4) 25:22
67:3 92:17 93:5,7 94:18 32:2 50:4 66:24
aim (1) 109:11 Arkhangelsky’s (8) attempting (1) 50:16
allegation (1) 31:18 71:6 74:14 75:10 attempts (4) 67:13
alleged (5) 24:17 75:22 86:1 90:24 68:10,11,12
26:18 27:1 31:23 92:9,25 attended (3) 37:7,17
68:4 arm’s-length (2) 50:5 38:18
Alliance (1) 44:1 89:13 attention (4) 87:8
allowed (1) 80:5 arranged (1) 33:16 98:11 100:4 104:4
allows (1) 22:4 arrangement (3) 61:6 attorney (5) 37:10,13
alphabetically (1) 76:22 84:13 37:16 40:5,9
106:16 arrangements (3) attractive (1) 60:16
alternative (3) 50:11 43:10 55:12 73:8 auction (93) 2:5 3:2
108:11,15 article (4) 31:10 52:16 14:25 15:7,13,16
altogether (1) 66:7 53:19 56:2 15:19,23 16:7,21
Altriwa (1) 18:12 articles (1) 58:12 16:21,22,24 17:6,7
amount (4) 12:16 artificially (1) 66:15 17:17,21,25 18:9
13:23 65:11 70:9 asked (7) 29:10,13 18:13,16 21:23
amounted (1) 65:3 30:6,9 35:10 67:17 33:12,18,21 34:4,7
amounts (1) 60:12 86:7 34:9,11,16 35:7,8,9
amusing (2) 6:17 7:10 asking (5) 36:13 74:19 35:14,16,16,19,19
analysis (1) 67:5 89:5 93:22 94:4 35:20 36:8,9,20
Anatolevich (1) 96:12 aspersions (1) 7:7 37:7,11,23,24 38:2
Andrei (1) 96:24 asphalt (1) 42:6 38:3,11,21,25 39:4
answer (11) 10:6 asset (22) 13:20 17:19 39:13,24 40:2,5,10
17:23 18:25 28:25 18:17 26:7 35:18 40:12 41:3,5,6,10
30:5 31:18 35:25 38:13 40:12 51:4 41:11,16,20 42:9
36:17 50:9 73:15 60:5,9 61:18 64:13 42:15,21 43:4,4,14
76:6 64:14,15 65:7 43:14,20 46:2,7
Anti-Corruption (2) 66:17 69:16,18 50:1,22,23,25
81:18 82:21 80:24 86:20 88:24 51:12 56:5 58:6,20
Antonenko (2) 48:15 88:24 58:22 59:2,20 60:5
48:17 assets (121) 2:3,7,8 61:10,17 65:23
anybody (1) 109:3 2:12,15,17 3:4,9,15 68:21 70:10 71:18
anyway (1) 9:13 3:22,24 4:1,3,21 auctioneer (3) 34:5
apart (2) 61:17,22 5:14 6:9 14:2 15:4 42:15 43:3
apologies (2) 10:16 15:10,21 16:1,16 auctioning (1) 37:25
50:8 16:18 18:2,8,19 auctions (2) 14:18
apologise (2) 9:14 19:8,18 20:10,12 89:14
104:5 20:19,22 21:6,9,11 August (4) 11:4 13:11
apparently (5) 52:1 21:22 23:18,25 19:11 102:9
101:3 102:1,15 24:1 25:3 26:1,10 available (3) 26:25
104:22 31:20,24 32:7,8,9 29:14 94:15
appears (5) 23:4 34:18,20 36:10 avoid (4) 11:23 39:20
31:17 37:5 38:12 39:15 40:2 41:12 86:20 93:5
106:13 41:15,21,24 43:9 aware (17) 22:16

26:15,18,21 27:3,5 27:17 35:22,24 52:5,6 59:21 61:17 63:14 67:13 74:15 94:13

B

B2/12/11 (1) 5:9

B2/18/6 (1) 5:21 back (14) 1:19 16:13

16:16 19:1 65:13 75:21 76:18 80:4 88:8,9 103:5 105:2 105:10 109:1

backdating (1) 94:17 background (1) 52:17 backwards (1) 109:19 bad (1) 53:3

bailiffs (6) 3:13 4:16 4:20 58:15 61:10 61:11

balance (5) 7:17 52:11 53:21 54:4 66:8

ballpark (2) 4:15,16 Baltic (12) 3:22 4:4,5 16:18 21:25 22:7 23:12 24:2 32:13 32:24 33:1 88:16 bank (130) 2:7 5:4 10:18,25 11:4,10

11:25 12:4,8,10,12 12:13,14,19,24 13:2,4 14:23 15:12 16:6 17:5 18:16 27:6,14 30:16 33:24 34:3,4,7,12 34:16 35:17,22,24 36:2,9,10,12,14 42:13,17,19,19,20 42:21,25 43:3 44:5 49:16,23 51:4 52:2 52:11,20,22 53:1,9 53:12,19 54:5 56:25 57:5,13,23 58:3,16 63:20 64:10 65:8,10 66:22 67:2,4,20,25 68:2 69:5 70:3,6,11 70:12 71:3 74:22 74:25 75:1,3,21,25 76:4,11,18,20,23 77:4 79:9,13 80:4,6 82:24 86:5,6,7,15 87:19,20,23 88:9 89:8,11 90:10,11 90:23 92:10,24 93:1,16,17,17,23 94:4,5,7 97:20 98:14,17 99:3,6,11 104:25 105:1

Bank’s (9) 49:19 51:1 52:18 62:6 80:7 86:18 87:6,24 108:7

banking (2) 94:9,10 bankruptcies (1)

53:20

bankruptcy (3) 52:1,5 78:25

banks (7) 82:3,10 84:5 84:9 108:12,12,16 based (10) 3:1 26:11 34:1 52:25 65:22 66:16,18,20 74:10

78:16 basically (2) 59:3

63:25

basis (12) 33:23 37:13

43:21,23 48:18 65:19 67:16,19 75:25 76:1 78:14 82:20

beg (2) 4:18 31:12 began (2) 77:4,5 beginning (7) 16:9 46:9 47:5 75:9

76:21 90:9 107:13 begins (2) 46:18 64:5 behalf (18) 42:20 60:1

60:4 61:2,3 63:15 73:7,7 74:5 76:20 77:3 78:10,11 86:5 86:6 87:23 89:7 99:6

believe (12) 4:25 5:2 9:19 10:5 54:3 67:20 69:15 71:14 75:12 84:12 94:12 94:14

belong (2) 103:2 107:6

belonged (4) 35:5 102:24 103:23 107:14

belongs (2) 55:5,6 beneficial (2) 76:8

99:20

benefit (5) 51:11,14 70:20 71:7,11 best (2) 8:24 10:15 better (8) 8:14 81:23

90:5 105:16 106:6 109:4,12,20

beyond (1) 25:16 bid (6) 17:2 36:20

38:18,21 39:1 43:5 bidder (5) 17:7,21

37:6 40:8 51:12 bidders (11) 17:9,23

24:13 34:24 35:22 36:4,14 37:21 40:3 42:16,22

bidding (1) 35:24 big (2) 70:15 104:12 billion (6) 13:10 38:23

61:14 70:7,17,21

Birse (2) 3:17 4:2

Birt (6) 27:9 28:18 44:23 109:14,15,24

bit (4) 9:25 20:10 29:7 47:17

bits (4) 90:15 100:4 104:5 105:24

bizarre (1) 7:2 blank (2) 37:3 40:5 Blinova (6) 90:3,9,17

90:22 91:6,18

Blinova’s (2) 91:8,13 bodies (2) 20:2 95:5 bogus (2) 43:12,16 bona (1) 15:22 books (3) 66:8 92:12

93:10

Borisovich (1) 22:10 borrowed (1) 49:5 borrower (3) 43:1

53:13 85:3

borrowers (4) 52:13 52:19,20 84:7 borrowers’ (1) 53:22

bother (1) 87:15 bottom (11) 5:22

11:16,17 34:25 62:20 69:4 72:8 77:17 83:1,13 90:5

bought (14) 16:18 21:22 38:12 39:15

40:13 41:12 57:23 59:13 78:19 101:20 101:23 107:9,10,21

breach (2) 75:10 77:6 break (3) 9:16 81:10

81:12

brief (2) 7:13 101:25 briefly (2) 18:8 19:1 bring (2) 5:4 93:7 brings (1) 11:10 British (1) 102:17 brought (7) 10:25

16:6 52:2 56:23 57:8 60:18 61:5

BSP (1) 3:4 building (12) 7:25

9:21 24:25 48:16 65:21,24,25 66:3 66:13,14 105:1,10

built (3) 66:13,14 104:15

bullet (1) 84:22 burden (1) 6:8 business (39) 6:23

7:18,23,25 8:5,7 25:4 51:24 53:8,25 54:6,6 55:8 56:3 62:1 82:23 94:19 95:2,3 97:22,24 98:18,20,24 99:10 99:14,15 101:13,16 101:18 103:15 104:12,13,17 105:2 105:8,11 108:3,6

businessman (1)

61:19

buyer (5) 14:2 24:18 55:15 58:20 60:16

buyers (3) 24:10,15 67:11

buying (2) 25:6 53:8 buys (1) 60:4

C

calculated (2) 21:4 47:9
call (2) 82:21 105:22 called (29) 7:1 8:3

32:1,11 34:11 35:17 44:1 50:12 51:23 54:18 55:18 58:20,23 66:8 78:1 81:18 94:21 95:15 95:16 96:11,12 97:12,13 102:3 104:20 105:16 106:22,23,25

calling (1) 49:5 capital (2) 66:12 96:2 care (1) 86:14 careful (1) 10:10 carefully (2) 10:9

93:25

carried (3) 8:7 25:4 73:12

carry (1) 10:14 carrying (4) 7:24,25

53:25 54:5

case (29) 7:21 10:21 11:2,3 13:2 18:5 22:17 23:16,19 27:3 32:10 35:21 43:18 49:14 53:4 53:16 58:15 68:16 75:18 76:19 79:15 79:19 84:17,19 86:4 93:13 96:6 99:4 109:3

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

113
April 15, 2016 Day 39

cases (3) 32:19 52:13 collector (1) 54:1 complex (3) 4:18 contradict (1) 23:20 D131/2132.1/2 (1) 100:7 103:6 24:12 36:20 43:5

82:7 collectors (1) 54:6 50:15 80:20 contradicting (2) 44:23 D176-D191/2918.1T… 50:25 51:11 76:4
cash (3) 36:10 57:16 collusion (1) 61:7 compliance (1) 15:1 40:19,21 D132/2174/1 (2) 33:9 100:23 deciding (1) 74:8
58:7 collusive (2) 60:25 comply (2) 14:22 38:4 contradiction (2) 39:23 D176-D191/2918.1T… decision (5) 6:14 23:1
cashflows (1) 47:23 61:6 computer (3) 8:18 9:4 76:12,13 D132/2174/2 (1) 40:7 95:8 26:12 51:17 93:3
cast (1) 7:7 column (9) 37:20 100:3 control (8) 20:19 D132/2174/3 (2) D176-D191/2918.1T… decisions (4) 24:8
cause (2) 83:2 109:10 45:22 46:10,11,20 conceal (3) 49:19 57:20 73:24 74:1,3 33:10 39:23 96:20 31:12 36:23 74:10
caused (1) 84:6 46:22 47:8,18 50:16,18 75:5 80:3 89:7 D132/2174/4 (1) 40:8 D176-D191/2918.1T… decrease (1) 35:19
ceased (3) 102:25 98:12 concerned (6) 31:18 controlled (5) 33:24 D132/2175/1 (1) 95:12 default (3) 85:3,4,6
103:2,2 columns (5) 45:16 70:23 74:14 76:17 39:3 42:22 54:21 33:14 D176-D191/2918.1T… defaulting (2) 43:1
cell (1) 37:15 46:8,17 47:1,21 85:9 92:7 73:2 D132/2175/2 (1) 38:8 96:3 86:2
centre (5) 104:13,13 come (2) 35:8 99:24 concerning (1) 56:4 controls (1) 54:24 D132/2175/3 (1) D192/2918.2T/123…. define (1) 74:7
104:17 105:2,11 comes (1) 72:21 conclude (3) 14:7,10 convenient (1) 33:16 33:15 72:1 definitely (3) 15:16
CEO (1) 59:3 coming (2) 62:6 63:10 109:21 conventional (1) D132/2175/4 (1) 38:8 D192/2918.2T/123…. 20:1 51:3
certain (5) 24:7 60:12 comment (11) 23:21 concluded (2) 12:11 66:25 D132/2176/1 (1) 41:1 72:13 delay (1) 44:17
78:4 88:21 92:25 31:21 36:23 37:24 14:12 conversation (1) 90:9 D132/2176/2 (1) 41:8 D192/2918.2T/124 (1) delayed (2) 1:3 22:19
certainty (1) 18:25 53:17 62:15 63:13 conclusion (1) 45:11 convinced (1) 61:20 D132/2176/3 (1) 41:1 72:3 Delovoy (2) 51:24
certificate (4) 19:17 88:1,2,20 89:1 condition (4) 7:21 COO (2) 73:4 85:7 D142/2385.2/20 (1) D192/2918.2T/125 (1) 56:3
19:21 20:9 21:13 comments (1) 109:14 54:2 55:17 85:22 corner (1) 10:20 87:4 72:14 demand (1) 93:8
certified (1) 34:1 commercial (5) 2:23 conditions (3) 4:11 corporate (2) 82:3 D142/2391/1 (2) D192/2918.2T/46.1 … demanded (1) 93:13
chain (3) 18:7,18 90:2 65:5,6 73:12 78:17 67:6 77:7 98:16 89:25 92:5 77:15 depending (1) 13:1
chains (1) 90:4 commercially (1) 39:5 conducted (4) 25:25 correct (39) 1:17 3:16 D142/2391/2 (1) D192/2918.2T/46.2 … deploy (1) 19:16
chair (1) 97:19 commission (5) 34:9 41:20 43:4,22 5:7 6:4 11:2,6 15:8 90:14 77:21 deposit (1) 108:15
challenge (1) 15:14 34:15 38:2 39:13 conducting (3) 24:20 19:12 22:13 37:7 D142/2391/3 (1) 90:7 D192/2918.2T/47 (1) depressed (1) 70:17
challenged (1) 70:13 40:1 34:9 40:1 37:23 38:15 41:13 D142/2391/4 (2) 90:1 77:15 deputy (2) 23:7 97:19
chances (1) 14:4 commissioned (2) confidentiality (3) 47:10 49:7,8 52:21 92:5 D192/2918.2T/48 (1) derived (3) 26:20
change (3) 22:2,3 44:5,7 24:19 25:12 94:8 53:11,23 55:14 D142/2391/5 (1) 91:4 77:21 31:19,23
104:22 Committee (2) 81:19 confirm (6) 11:3 30:2 56:6,21 57:10,15 D142/2391/6 (1) 90:7 D192/2920/12 (1) describe (2) 85:13
changed (4) 43:15 82:21 32:13 40:25 55:4 59:18,25 63:24 D146/2437.2/1 (1) 55:25 86:23
85:7 88:6 95:13 communicate (1) 10:7 100:21 64:22 67:1 68:25 44:12 D196/2936/0.1 (1) described (7) 22:7,10
changes (5) 22:3 companies (23) 2:25 confirmed (3) 14:8 71:13 73:24 95:23 D148/2474/11 (1) 62:4 43:12 62:9 84:15
100:8,15,24 104:21 6:25 25:7 27:15 21:24 98:9 100:14,15 101:6 64:18 D199/2993/1 (1) 84:19,20
chapter (2) 67:14 31:11 35:13 36:20 confirms (1) 101:4 102:18,19 108:7 D149/2474/1 (1) 64:4 105:23 describes (1) 52:1
68:13 39:3 42:16 52:12 confused (2) 29:7 correctly (6) 11:4 21:2 D149/2474/10 (1) D199/2993/2 (1) designed (1) 24:1
charge (1) 74:11 54:21 55:8 66:10 72:2 35:5 61:13 93:2 64:5 106:2 desperate (1) 25:22
charged (1) 48:6 76:25 78:2 92:14 conjecture (1) 67:19 97:15 D149/2474/2 (1) D199/2993/3 (1) despite (1) 109:18
chaser (1) 92:1 95:14 96:2 105:2 connected (6) 36:15 corresponding (1) 64:18 106:10 detail (4) 6:13 45:14
check (1) 10:1 107:3,8,14 108:6 50:7 61:1 79:23 106:17 D153/2566/1 (1) D199/2993/4 (1) 85:12 100:17
checked (1) 6:25 companies’ (1) 37:14 80:9,22 cost (5) 12:18,20 81:15 106:20 details (10) 25:10
Chernobrovkin (4) company (131) 1:12 connection (5) 11:19 61:13 65:18 69:4 D153/2566/2 (1) database (2) 105:15 90:24 91:22,23
22:10,14,23 23:5 1:14,15,17 3:23 4:4 23:12,13 44:6 46:6 costs (1) 66:15 81:21 105:16 92:10 93:16,18,23
Chernyshev (4) 26:14 4:6 6:17 7:3,8,15 consent (1) 57:19 countering (1) 85:1 D153/2566/31 (1) date (13) 21:4,5,7,17 94:5,7
26:16 30:7,12 7:16 8:1,3,7 15:21 consider (1) 42:23 couple (1) 3:9 81:16 22:8,11 46:12,20 determined (3) 3:1
chief (2) 91:16 93:19 16:18 21:22,25 considerable (1) course (11) 3:2 26:11 D153/2566/40 (1) 46:23 49:7 95:22 26:11 43:21
chose (1) 34:4 22:7 23:13 24:2,23 56:12 27:4 43:5 46:8 50:1 82:19 98:11,12 determining (1) 43:23
chronologically (1) 28:17 31:8,13 32:1 considerably (1) 13:18 89:2,14 93:19 D153/2566/41 (1) dated (9) 28:15 30:14 developed (2) 68:20
106:14 32:13,24 33:1 34:3 consideration (3) 4:10 99:24 100:17 83:5 30:21,22 31:7,10 102:11
circle (1) 61:25 35:1,2,3,11,11 36:5 73:14 80:23 court (12) 3:13 11:4 D160/2688.1/0.1 (1) 48:10 96:22 104:22 developing (1) 88:23
circumstances (3) 36:6 42:19 43:10 considerations (2) 12:4 14:8 16:2 1:21 dates (6) 13:12 22:18 development (3) 1:12
59:21 74:11 86:13 43:25 47:24,24 5:25 6:4 20:24 26:12 50:9 D160/2688.1/0.2 (1) 31:1 42:2 90:18 48:25 49:1
claim (12) 12:4 15:22 48:2,3,4,4 49:2 considered (4) 18:7 60:24 61:10 108:5 2:13 100:21 develops (1) 106:8
57:2 60:3,20,24 52:22 54:18 55:16 24:4 82:6 83:24 110:3 D161/2708/0.1 (1) 8:8 day (10) 7:3 17:11 difference (3) 14:6
61:5 64:11,23 58:20,22,24 60:4 considering (4) 3:7 courts (4) 12:6 15:9 D161/2708/0.2 (1) 22:20 24:12,14 28:13 89:2
65:13 71:10 93:7 61:4,5 62:10 66:8 6:9 17:22 41:19 19:25 20:17 13:8 25:1,12 68:6 69:3 different (9) 2:16 23:8
claims (3) 71:4,19 72:21 73:5 78:1,3 consistent (4) 7:11 covered (1) 36:11 D174/2907.1/1 (1) 91:5 32:9 42:16 49:25
93:9 88:16,16,17,22 59:8 87:24 108:20 covers (1) 46:18 29:22 days (6) 13:19 14:4,6 50:6 53:25 105:15
clarify (1) 53:6 94:21,22,23 95:16 consists (1) 34:15 created (3) 14:20 D174/2907.1/2 (1) 14:7 19:9 21:7 106:12
clause (11) 2:4,11 96:21 97:12,13,15 consolidate (1) 60:11 99:14 105:4 29:23 de (3) 19:15 86:10,17 differently (2) 5:20
13:9,10,13,15 97:16,18,24,25 consolidation (2) creating (2) 15:21 D174/2907/1 (1) deal (9) 12:11 30:6 57:1
14:22,22,22,24 98:1,1,4 99:1,2,13 60:17 62:10 98:18 51:18 57:4 60:25 65:5,6 difficult (6) 8:23 15:14
21:3 99:16,19,23 100:2 constituted (1) 98:20 credit (3) 70:6,12 D174/2907/2 (1) 73:12 76:8 80:11 31:2 33:8 51:10
clean (1) 53:21 100:25 101:5,13,17 construction (1) 7:25 78:24 51:19 dealing (5) 28:24 54:3
cleaning (1) 52:11 101:18,20,22,23 container (1) 25:4 creditor (6) 12:18 D176-D191/2918.1T… 63:17 68:23 73:23 difficulties (1) 108:20
cleansing (2) 15:21 102:3,7,16,22,22 contesting (1) 57:3 13:2 43:1 84:4 85:5 21:20 74:17 difficulty (5) 8:9,16
54:4 102:24 103:1,2,7 context (1) 81:25 85:8 D176-D191/2918.1T… deals (1) 84:6 9:3 10:16 28:4
clear (1) 62:7 103:11,17,19,23 continued (5) 1:5,7 creditors (1) 84:9 22:1 dealt (1) 28:25 direct (1) 67:10
clearly (4) 14:23 17:24 104:3,6,8,11,14,16 72:17 111:3,5 creditors’ (1) 71:9 D176-D191/2918.1T… debt (17) 12:16 13:23 directly (1) 3:24
21:8 51:20 104:24 105:3,5,14 contract (42) 2:1,15 criminal (2) 32:18,23 98:7 14:17 47:23 48:20 director (26) 22:7,11
client’s (1) 93:15 106:5,22,23,25 2:25 3:14 4:11 5:3 crisis (1) 53:22 D176-D191/2918.1T… 58:17 64:25 65:6,8 22:15 23:6,7,7
clients (2) 108:7,16 107:7,7,17,20,23 11:8 14:3 15:2 19:8 Cross-examination (2) 104:1 65:10 71:11 75:22 26:13 31:16 32:12
close (1) 69:9 108:5,10 19:10,12,15,19,22 1:7 111:4 D176-D191/2918.1T… 76:1 83:25 84:2 37:11,12,18 38:18
closed (2) 61:25 company’ (1) 31:8 20:1,3,8,15,16,20 cryptic (1) 6:15 104:20 85:5,11 58:25 59:3,6 62:24
103:19 compared (1) 69:9 20:22,23,25 21:8,9 curate (1) 73:21 D176-D191/2918.1T… debts (4) 36:11 53:3 63:16 96:24 97:5,6
closely (1) 61:1 competing (1) 36:6 21:14 27:21 29:4 106:4 65:2 74:14 98:16,16 100:9
clue (1) 26:6 competitor (1) 108:11 43:13,15 52:25 D D176-D191/2918.1T… deceive (1) 32:2 103:8,11
clumsy (1) 32:2 complaints (1) 71:19 53:15 69:6,23 70:1 D/196/2936/1 (1) 106:9 December (4) 81:20 directors (3) 22:2 23:1
coincidence (1) 46:4 complete (1) 33:6 71:2,16 72:25 D176-D191/2918.1T… 91:5,9,14 96:21
62:5
collection (2) 52:25 completeness (2) 92:4 75:12 78:16,17 100:1 decide (1) 88:11 disagree (2) 18:21
D128/2060/1 (1) 19:3
53:9 102:12 contracts (1) 69:24 D176-D191/2918.1T… decided (7) 17:6 42:10

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

114
April 15, 2016 Day 39

disagreed (1) 62:22 35:23 60:1,25 essence (2) 2:24,25 50:20 56:10,12 82:15 83:24 84:22 96:11,12 54:1 57:1,12,14

disagreement (1) 12:7 71:10 essentially (4) 52:11 57:1,4 59:7 61:23 86:13 104:13,21 genuine (2) 7:18 50:5 75:4,8 77:5,7,11
disappear (1) 85:10 effort (2) 25:7 69:18 56:20 57:21 62:9 67:22 68:1 69:12 105:4 genuinely (2) 36:3,6 86:8
disappointment (1) efforts (5) 24:17 establish (3) 15:9,25 70:18,20 73:20,20 firstly (2) 62:21 104:4 geographical (1) 31:25 happens (1) 95:25
109:19 61:17 67:4,22 68:4 55:2 75:5 84:6,10 85:22 fish (2) 95:5,6 getting (1) 49:24 harboured (2) 79:25
disclose (1) 27:20 eight (3) 13:12,19 established (7) 16:2 facto (3) 19:15 86:10 Fisheries (1) 95:4 give (8) 33:12,20 80:2
disclosed (1) 69:22 14:6 57:20 65:19 73:24 86:17 fisherman (1) 95:16 44:25 67:14 68:13 hard (3) 88:11,19,25
disclosure (1) 62:7 either (1) 108:9 74:1,2 80:4 fail (1) 63:19 fishing (4) 54:21,24 70:6 79:12 88:8 havoc (1) 6:11
disconnect (1) 76:13 Elena (4) 1:5 91:15,22 establishes (1) 83:25 faint (1) 30:22 55:5,6 given (14) 2:18 14:3 head (1) 32:15
discount (1) 64:21 111:3 estate (1) 103:19 fair (17) 3:5,7,10 5:17 five (5) 9:7,8,9,12 50:4 54:17 64:22 heading (3) 56:7,13
discuss (2) 63:11 eliminate (1) 15:16 event (2) 59:15 63:22 7:20 11:12,13 42:12 66:3 68:22 71:22 82:25
109:2 else’s (1) 94:7 events (4) 16:5,8 24:7 15:15 36:22 41:17 fix (1) 9:6 78:24 84:1 87:2 hear (4) 9:24 10:3,3,6
discussed (1) 2:14 email (3) 90:2,4 92:2 63:25 41:18 43:6 51:5 fixed (2) 8:22 9:18 94:1 104:8,24 heard (1) 63:19
discussing (1) 83:18 emails (1) 90:2 eventual (1) 68:24 61:8,15 78:22 fly-by-night (1) 8:1 gives (1) 13:12 heart (1) 63:2
discussion (1) 68:8 employed (3) 26:17 eventually (2) 28:9 85:17 follow (1) 14:24 giving (1) 108:4 heavy (1) 7:16
discussions (5) 61:21 97:11 103:12 54:18 fairly (2) 51:22 90:12 following (3) 2:5 Global (2) 102:4,5 hectares (2) 56:8,12
62:16,19 67:15 employee (4) 26:16 Evgeny (1) 62:23 fairness (1) 22:18 52:12 92:8 go (21) 1:19 5:21 11:4 held (10) 35:10 36:8
68:14 63:20 97:8 103:14 evidence (21) 1:6 2:18 fait (1) 86:10 follows (2) 17:25 13:8 19:1 28:12 42:19 67:15 76:19
disguise (1) 50:4 empty (1) 67:8 3:19 10:24 24:17 Falcon (1) 72:21 38:15 33:13 39:8,22 78:9 89:7,12 99:5,8
dispose (1) 76:16 enable (1) 48:20 25:23 33:12,20 false (1) 79:24 footing (1) 109:6 44:12 46:17 47:3 Hello (1) 91:15
dispute (8) 11:18 12:2 encumber (1) 84:8 36:5 45:1 48:1,3 familiar (5) 82:14,15 force (3) 19:16,16 72:1 75:21,25 help (3) 32:25 96:6
12:3,5,13,19,24 encumbrance (2) 3:3 50:3 54:17 68:5,22 83:16 96:17,18 51:16 76:18 81:23 90:18 105:17
87:6 3:8 69:20 71:22 100:19 familiarised (2) 40:16 forgiven (1) 71:11 99:25 104:1 106:13 helpful (1) 5:11
dissipate (1) 85:1 encumbrances (2) 101:11 108:4 40:18 form (2) 20:15 85:7 goes (2) 10:13 109:7 helpfully (1) 37:19
distressed (3) 52:20 61:12,13 exact (1) 70:14 far (34) 16:21 26:23 former (1) 72:9 going (21) 6:13 8:21 helps (1) 28:18
53:1 54:3 ends (4) 46:19 80:8 exactly (6) 4:14 39:12 27:19 31:17 32:4 formerly (3) 32:15 8:23 10:4 17:5 hereinafter (1) 31:8
distribute (1) 31:12 80:22 96:13 46:1 68:9 76:3 32:17 34:6 42:4 34:22 72:8 21:19 24:9,13 Hi (1) 91:22
distributed (1) 31:14 energetic (2) 91:25 83:17 53:24 54:23 55:10 forms (1) 82:9 25:10 38:5 43:13 hierarchy (1) 96:5
dock (1) 24:25 92:3 Excel (2) 44:13 46:21 55:21 57:16 58:22 forth (1) 108:19 47:3,4 51:8,14 higher (3) 43:19 61:18
document (21) 1:24 enforce (9) 5:5 17:5 exclamation (1) 92:1 59:19 60:6 67:9,10 forward (5) 51:14 53:14 71:5 74:12 70:22
29:2,3,6,19 30:3,12 21:1 65:8 84:4,9 execute (1) 25:17 67:14 68:15,20 71:5 91:1,24 92:20 79:10 103:5 109:19 HILDYARD (23) 1:9
30:13,15 31:17 85:5 86:16 92:19 executed (2) 21:13 70:22 74:13,23 forwarded (1) 91:15 good (8) 1:9 29:24 8:25 9:8,12,18,25
32:1,3 38:15,20 enforced (4) 16:14 53:1 75:14 76:16 79:1 found (8) 5:10,24 9:22 38:22 54:10 81:9 10:3,7,12 12:2,7
40:20,21 45:5,6,9 19:24 71:15 75:1 execution (1) 80:11 95:4 97:21 98:15 51:9 86:9,22 92:11 99:18 109:25,25 29:7 44:21 54:11
48:12 82:5 enforcement (15) 5:4 exemplar (1) 84:20 101:8 103:18 93:10 Google (1) 7:9 83:10 84:15,19
documentary (2) 5:17,19 6:3,7 10:25 exercise (1) 67:7 104:15 107:18 foundation (1) 43:23 government (1) 19:14 89:16 94:6 109:1
24:16 69:20 11:2,10,15 16:6 exercised (1) 75:5 favour (3) 65:9 70:16 four (1) 16:8 grateful (4) 27:12 109:14,18,25
documents (15) 27:7 43:2 56:21,22 exhibit (1) 64:7 70:19 fourthly (1) 18:13 28:22 44:24 56:1 historic (4) 22:2,2
27:16,20,22 29:11 57:24 60:18 exist (2) 7:1 32:8 fear (1) 8:24 framework (1) 45:10 gratuitously (1) 48:5 96:21 106:7
29:14,25 30:8,9,11 enforcing (1) 86:20 existed (3) 3:3 73:9 February (1) 100:10 fraud (2) 25:23 50:23 great (3) 1:24 81:4 history (6) 22:3,3
39:18 64:22 74:24 engaged (1) 98:18 93:11 Federal (1) 31:10 fraudulent (3) 26:8 100:17 100:7,15,24 104:21
94:17 100:18 engaging (1) 25:7 existence (1) 71:20 Federation (1) 37:14 81:3,7 greater (4) 6:13 12:16 hold (1) 97:21
doing (7) 33:8 35:23 English (20) 21:19 expect (1) 92:2 fee (1) 53:2 free (2) 14:7,10 58:18,18 holder (4) 68:17 79:16
36:15 68:15 89:20 22:4 28:5,6,9,16,18 expenditure (2) 66:5 fiction (1) 33:6 Friday (1) 1:1 greatest (2) 35:18 102:1,8
97:24 108:23 31:5 77:14 81:22 98:22 fide (1) 15:22 friend (2) 27:12 28:22 58:7 holding (9) 76:23 77:2
Dom (3) 95:17 96:8,9 82:17 83:8 86:25 expense (1) 46:6 field (1) 37:2 front (1) 105:1 grievances (1) 93:9 78:11 86:8 87:22
Donov (1) 102:9 87:9 90:12,13 95:9 expenses (2) 88:18,21 figure (10) 4:15,16 fuel (15) 3:23 4:4,6 Grosheva (1) 34:12 87:23 89:10 95:14
double (1) 6:25 102:13 106:2,9 explain (8) 5:20,25 30:24 38:23,24 16:18 21:25 22:7 grounds (3) 20:14,15 97:24
dozens (1) 82:6 Enjoy (1) 109:3 7:11 42:9 48:22 45:24,25 63:4 23:13 24:2 32:13 57:4 holds (2) 75:16 96:3
drafted (3) 19:5 24:19 enrichment (1) 65:9 49:4 81:25 107:3 65:14 66:19 32:24 33:1 88:15 group (5) 55:3 70:5 honest (1) 63:1
25:13 ensure (9) 5:15 24:1 explained (2) 10:24 figured (1) 45:8 88:16,17,22 92:14 94:13,23 hopefully (4) 1:20,25
drafting (3) 29:2,3 35:14 55:12 59:17 29:8 figures (4) 38:9 46:11 fulfilled (1) 13:16 growing (1) 88:24 72:5 105:23
30:3 80:7,21 105:25 explaining (1) 93:12 63:3 65:1 full (5) 19:16 37:10 guarantee (2) 84:11 hoping (1) 39:20
draw (4) 87:7 98:11 109:21 explains (2) 5:13 file (3) 48:18,19 49:10 67:2 75:13 90:23 84:24 horizontal (1) 72:4
100:4 104:4 enter (1) 19:15 52:17 filed (4) 12:4 57:2 fully (1) 58:8 guarantor (2) 76:22 hostage (2) 86:23,24
drew (1) 64:9 entered (2) 43:2 explanation (7) 6:2 60:20,24 fund (2) 103:19,24 86:8 hotel (1) 48:16
driving (1) 51:16 79:21 11:16 24:2 50:11 filled (1) 37:4 funds (5) 4:12 47:14 Gunard (6) 18:9,11 house (13) 33:12 34:4
dry (1) 24:25 entering (1) 73:6 52:10 94:1,16 final (3) 38:23 47:1,8 49:6 50:1 98:19 19:1,9 20:5,20 34:7,11,16 37:23
dubious (1) 7:4 entire (3) 68:18 70:3 exposure (1) 75:17 finally (5) 57:17 63:7 further (7) 30:8 35:11 guys (1) 25:21 42:15,21 43:4
due (2) 21:16 99:24 80:8 express (1) 83:21 63:23 66:16 79:12 35:18 63:11 72:15 50:23 70:10 95:17
duly (1) 20:1 entirety (1) 80:17 expressed (2) 59:19 finance (2) 98:16 93:6 106:20 H 96:17
dummy (1) 7:3 entities (1) 23:14 59:22 102:16 futility (1) 67:7 half (6) 2:14 70:7,17 housed (1) 105:3
entitled (1) 76:7 extent (2) 15:3 71:5 financial (8) 6:11 7:21 huge (3) 48:16 89:2
70:21 78:18 105:19
E entity (3) 16:18 21:25 extinguished (2) 58:9 54:1 62:24 63:16 G 98:21
hand (4) 57:22 77:1
earlier (6) 28:25 30:5 102:4 77:8 85:22 107:18 gather (1) 28:24 hypothetical (1) 88:4
100:18 109:8
entrance (1) 105:11 extrajudicial (1) 43:2 108:14
67:17,18 74:24 Gavrilov (1) 100:13 hands (11) 24:1 43:15
entries (1) 106:17 extreme (1) 46:10 find (15) 7:9 14:1 I
97:4 general (23) 8:17 22:7 59:18 68:19 75:11
entry (6) 37:15 71:25 24:10,17 28:4,6,7
early (6) 23:11,16 22:11,15 23:6,7,7 79:22 80:8,22 idea (2) 25:2 28:8
72:6 104:2,22 F 44:16,19,22 55:15
55:22 59:23 79:19 26:13 31:16 32:12 109:11,15,17 ideal (2) 8:20 72:4
105:14 70:13 105:17
100:25 facade (1) 105:10 37:11,12,18 38:18 handwriting (1) 31:2 identical (1) 34:20
envisaged (6) 5:4 9:5 106:15,16
earn (1) 107:17 face (1) 21:8 46:14 59:3 93:21 handwritten (1) 62:21 identified (2) 11:22
13:15 16:17,20 finding (1) 29:11
easier (1) 106:13 facilitating (1) 32:25 96:24 97:5,6 100:9 Hang (1) 70:25 34:24
23:11 fine (2) 83:11 90:14
easy (1) 93:15 facilities (1) 61:23 103:8,11 happen (9) 4:7 16:9 identify (4) 22:4 24:14
envisages (1) 19:8 finish (2) 109:12,16
economic (1) 32:12 fact (34) 6:6 11:24 generally (2) 56:13 19:11 55:20 75:21 82:8,21
EPE (3) 8:22 9:7,9 Finished (1) 83:15
editors (1) 81:21 12:13 17:22 32:4,8 93:16 76:2 77:1 85:4 identifying (1) 90:10
equal (1) 95:14 Firma (1) 106:25
effect (5) 19:16 43:9 35:22 36:14,19 generated (2) 45:12 93:12 idiom (2) 6:22 7:5
equity (2) 108:13,13 first (15) 33:14 40:4
70:15 94:11 108:21 37:6 38:18 49:14 69:19 happened (14) 4:8 Idiomatically (1) 7:3
error (2) 56:7,17 46:13 56:6 60:19
effectively (5) 5:13 49:16 50:4,15,20 gentleman (3) 32:11 23:25 49:14 52:7 ignorant (1) 94:9
especially (1) 65:22 62:13 63:3 76:7

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

115

April 15, 2016 Day 39

illogical (1) 79:25 immovable (1) 69:24 implement (1) 14:13 implementation (1)

81:3 implemented (2)

14:14 63:23 implied (1) 61:10 important (1) 109:2 impossible (4) 20:18

60:10 65:8,13 impression (1) 36:3 improve (1) 60:12 improvement (1) 42:3 improving (1) 42:5 inaccuracy (1) 56:13 inaudible (6) 84:24

85:2 86:4 107:6,15 107:20

included (3) 2:17 66:1 69:25

including (5) 3:18 27:21 29:11 49:15 74:13

income (3) 26:20 31:23 45:17

incomplete (1) 96:14 inconsistency (1) 6:1 inconvenient (1) 9:6 incorrect (2) 67:21

70:5 increase (1) 39:4

increased (1) 66:15 increment (5) 17:16 38:11,21,25 41:11 incurred (5) 6:8 46:6

69:5 88:18,21

indebtedness (4) 70:4

70:9 76:11 79:8 independent (4) 36:3 42:13 43:3 97:22

INDEX (1) 111:1 indicate (2) 23:10

46:22 indicated (6) 4:19

62:21 67:18 100:8 101:2 102:2

indicates (2) 91:6 96:7 indicating (1) 30:5 indications (1) 62:23 indirect (1) 96:7 individual (6) 75:15

75:19,20 78:12 93:23 94:5

individuals (7) 96:18 97:22 98:17,21 99:5,9 107:16

infer (2) 36:21 38:20 information (3) 26:25

74:20 94:15 informed (1) 36:14 initial (3) 13:17 25:15

25:16 initially (2) 60:20

108:10 initiated (1) 53:20 input (1) 98:12 instance (9) 45:19

73:10 85:19,20 86:1,13 93:22 94:4 94:12

instructions (2) 59:7 87:24

instruments (1)

108:14

insurance (7) 34:3,14 77:12,22,23 89:20 96:4

intended (8) 2:22

11:15 17:2 21:9 68:18 79:7,21 108:6

intention (7) 14:1,12 14:21 79:11,12 80:7,10

intentions (3) 43:16

79:25 80:2 interest (18) 47:2,4,9

47:20,25 48:5 49:20,22 51:1,2,3,4 59:19,22 60:13 68:21 89:12 99:9

interested (10) 17:19 18:2,17,23 23:17 36:21 51:6 55:21 96:19 100:4

interests (3) 75:16

77:3 86:15

Intermit (4) 106:22 107:7,10,20 internal (1) 47:22

internet (4) 9:20 16:22 19:2 33:7

interpret (1) 90:21 interpreter (3) 1:6 8:12 73:25 interpreters (2) 8:13

90:20

interview (4) 87:2,15 87:16 88:2

interviewed (1) 87:5 introduce (1) 63:10 invented (1) 25:22 invest (19) 2:7,22

3:25 5:15,15,18 7:14,22 10:19 11:1 11:9,20 12:12,17 13:3,22 14:16 15:4 60:12

invested (3) 47:12 69:17 88:23

investment (15) 6:10 42:1,4 45:17,20,22 47:18 51:13 66:12 66:15 88:18 98:19 98:21 103:19,24

investments (1) 32:7 invited (1) 63:9 involved (5) 44:9

73:17,19 74:7,8 involvement (5) 32:22 52:12 53:4,16 81:2

involves (1) 42:12 involving (2) 82:9,23 Islands (1) 102:17

Ispolkomskaya (1)

104:7

issue (2) 84:22 108:13 issued (2) 38:5 92:13 issuer (1) 93:4 Ivannikoba (1) 98:10 Ivannikova (1) 97:19

J

J1/20/15 (1) 28:7

January (7) 31:9 80:4

90:3 91:19 92:6,10 93:1

jargon (1) 6:23 joined (1) 105:9 joint (4) 16:11,13

103:15 107:23 jointly (2) 97:18 101:5 jokes (1) 7:10 journalist (2) 87:3,5 judge (1) 10:21 judging (1) 45:6

judgment (1) 26:12 judicial (1) 26:12 judicially (2) 15:9

92:18

July (1) 11:7 jump (1) 33:17

June (7) 11:7,7 22:8 68:7 100:10,10,13

JUSTICE (23) 1:9 8:25 9:8,12,18,25 10:3,7 10:12 12:2,7 29:7 44:21 54:11 83:10 84:15,19 89:16 94:6 109:1,14,18 109:25

justification (1) 75:7

K

Kalinin (5) 62:23

63:10,14 78:8,9

Kalinin’s (2) 62:25 63:1

keep (1) 85:24 kept (1) 25:11 Khortitsa (8) 100:2,9

100:16 101:8 103:22 106:21 107:8,9

kind (8) 23:13 48:23 79:1 80:11,15 82:11 97:22 103:20

kinds (2) 99:21 108:12

Kiperort (24) 34:25 35:2 36:5 37:3,5,7 38:17,25 39:14 40:4 41:6 42:16 52:3,7,24 53:7,11 53:20,25 54:2,5 106:23 107:7,20

knew (1) 55:7 know (65) 6:16 8:10

23:15,24 24:9,9,22 25:6 26:16,23 27:1 27:8,19,24 30:18 30:24 32:4,21 33:7 34:6 37:22 42:4 45:9 46:24 48:20 51:8 52:7 53:17 54:23 55:10,21 58:6 59:10,19,22 61:19 62:13 63:3 63:22 67:14,15,21 68:1,1,8,9,15 70:11 71:3 73:8,16 74:23 75:14 79:10,10 88:6 94:8 97:12 98:3 99:8,12,13,19 99:21 101:22

knowledge (16) 18:22 22:13 32:14,22 33:3 35:25 36:2,18 66:19 73:22 74:21 97:7 99:4,18 100:14 101:7

known (3) 1:11 61:19 74:17

Kolpachkov (3) 63:8

63:11,18

Komavtotrans (2)

106:25 107:5

Konsalting (2) 102:4,5 Kontur (16) 3:25 4:25 16:23 17:2,7,20,22

18:16 21:21,24 22:11,15 23:6 26:10,19 32:6

Korneev (3) 22:6 23:2 24:12

Krevelson (1) 102:16

Kurteker (2) 105:16

106:13

Kuzhlev (1) 96:12

L

Ladoga (1) 95:16 Ladozhski (1) 95:15 lady (1) 34:11

laid (1) 42:7

land (50) 39:12 40:22 42:6,6 56:8,14 65:15,20 66:1,2,9 67:8 71:22,25 72:6 72:7,9,11,23 73:21 74:15,21,23 75:2,3 75:7,15,16,18,24 76:14,16,17,17 77:11,13,18 78:9 78:11,14,19 79:2,4 79:5,5,12,17 95:4 103:22,25

language (1) 6:23 large (1) 104:13 latest (1) 109:22 law (4) 31:10 37:14

89:17,21

lawful (3) 84:3,16,21 laws (1) 108:20 lawyer (3) 89:16

94:10 99:17 leant (1) 57:13 learned (2) 27:12

28:22

lease (5) 18:9,11 19:1 19:13 21:3

leasing (1) 66:1 leaves (1) 3:14 led (1) 35:19

left (8) 3:15 10:20 37:3,10 40:5 46:10 46:11,20

legacy (1) 48:19 legal (6) 20:14,15

65:10 76:8 104:21 108:19

legitimate (1) 80:25 lends (1) 48:4 Lestovkin (8) 99:14

100:11 103:8,10,12 103:16 104:16 108:2

let’s (3) 8:24 16:3 40:24

letter (9) 28:1,14,17 29:9,11,12,17 30:16 90:22

letters (3) 27:14,20,24 liabilities (2) 77:8 86:2 liability (6) 6:8 31:7

31:11 73:4 75:17 78:13

liable (3) 12:17 13:5 75:20

lie (1) 25:21

life (2) 50:21 85:23 light (1) 103:16 likelier (1) 94:16 limited (10) 13:19

18:12 31:7,11 37:13 58:23 59:11 73:4 97:17 102:17

Linair (9) 97:12,13 98:1,2,7,25 99:2,5 101:20

line (6) 22:9 45:20 46:13,18 69:4 104:22

lines (1) 63:23 link (1) 8:4
linked (3) 45:25 65:1 101:18

list (10) 18:8 22:2 34:8 40:2 81:21 95:10,14 96:20 98:8 106:4

listed (2) 63:25 95:19 literally (1) 65:23 litigation (3) 74:12

92:21 93:6 little (3) 29:7 45:13

48:22

LLC (22) 3:25 6:22 7:3 7:5 19:9 20:6 21:21 25:2 26:10,14 40:13 41:9 48:8 49:6 58:21 72:10 72:24 73:23 74:9 75:6 96:9,10

loan (30) 47:12,19 48:2,9 49:2,6,11,18 49:24 50:13 53:12 53:12 56:18,24 57:7,9,22 58:3 60:3 64:18 67:3 74:25 75:1 83:25 84:1,23 84:23 85:20,21 86:2

loans (2) 84:11 108:18 located (1) 24:24 logical (2) 38:1 80:1 logically (1) 69:16 logistics (1) 25:5

long (6) 9:6 14:9 18:7 18:18 50:8 87:16 longer (2) 88:14,24 look (36) 2:4 5:8 7:14

8:8 11:16 19:7 21:2 21:18 28:1 29:22 33:9 37:8 40:24 41:20 42:12 45:13 45:16 46:8,10 52:9 62:25 64:4 69:1,6 71:25 77:13 84:22 85:12 90:5,18 95:7 95:10 96:15 98:5 100:1 104:2

looked (2) 46:2 74:24 looking (15) 29:19

30:18,18,24 38:23 41:21 42:11 45:8 71:20 74:18 76:21 91:1,23 92:20 104:16

looks (2) 45:7 83:16 Lord (27) 9:9,10,14

10:8,9,10,13 12:21 19:3 27:5,9,14 28:18,20 44:20 54:10 59:5 81:9 83:8 84:17 89:24 98:10 105:19 108:23 109:7,14,24

Lordship (3) 1:8 54:16

81:14

Lordship’s (2) 109:15

109:17

losses (3) 7:16 58:8 86:21

lost (4) 54:7 76:25 85:9 91:11

lot (13) 2:16,19 7:9 24:10 39:24 41:3 42:1,3,5 67:4 88:14 88:23 109:10

lots (3) 34:19 39:11 92:1

lower (1) 13:18

LPK (18) 56:11,14,24 57:6,7,9,14,18,22 58:10,15 60:19,21 60:22 61:4 65:1,15 65:20

Lykova (2) 37:11,17

M

Magnum (1) 9:21 major (1) 51:24 making (3) 7:19 24:8

95:5

Malysheva (6) 87:3,5 87:17 88:5 97:19 98:10

Malysheva’s (1) 88:2 managed (1) 42:20

Management (19)

97:16,25 98:4 99:1 99:13,16,19,23 103:16,18,23 104:2 104:8,14,24 105:3 106:5 108:5,10

manager (4) 100:7,15 108:1,2

managers (5) 22:3,3 22:24 98:14 99:3 managing (3) 52:20

52:22 74:8

manufacturing (1)

95:6

March (6) 22:12,21 23:16 56:4 98:13 100:12

margin (1) 46:1 Marine (4) 70:5 77:3

92:14 94:13

Maritime (1) 80:6 mark (1) 87:11 marked (1) 87:8 market (33) 3:6,7,10

13:20 15:9 16:1 26:1,4 36:8 41:17 41:18 43:6,18 61:8 61:15,18 65:15,19 65:22 66:16,23,25 67:6,13,22 70:17 78:22 80:13,24 84:25 89:13 98:22 107:18

marketing (4) 61:22 61:24 62:1 68:4
marks (1) 92:1

Maslennikov (3)

96:25 97:3,10 matches (1) 45:25 material (3) 39:8 90:15 104:4 maths (1) 38:22 matter (9) 8:6 36:12

63:11 67:22 70:22 70:23 74:4 83:22 93:3

matters (2) 31:22 63:15

maturity (1) 92:16 maximise (1) 14:4 maximising (1) 86:19 maximum (1) 12:15 mean (25) 12:22 13:1

14:20 15:11 19:24 19:25 20:5 32:21 42:10 46:15 47:14 53:7 63:8 68:9 71:2 76:17 78:3 90:25 94:7 98:1,24 99:1 101:22 102:25

107:10

meaning (2) 7:5 81:2 means (3) 26:8 37:16

47:11

meant (8) 6:7 14:23 15:15 16:8 29:19 46:21,22,24

member (1) 73:4 memorandum (1)

77:7

memory (10) 7:24 17:9,10 41:19 53:11 59:14 63:19 67:9 78:5,21

mental (1) 38:22 mention (3) 25:11

69:12,15 mentioned (4) 24:6

25:8 100:11 107:16 mentions (1) 52:18 Mercury (16) 58:21,23

59:11,13,25 61:2 64:7 68:17 70:1 71:9,10 72:23,24 73:1,2,11

Meridian (3) 78:1,1,15 message (8) 90:17

91:5,8,10,13,17,20

92:6 messages (1) 92:8

microphone (1) 10:2 middle (1) 91:13 million (38) 2:12,20

3:5,19 4:20,22,25 13:18 17:12 26:2,5 40:11 41:11,22,24 45:20 58:7 64:19 64:20 65:2,4,12,14 65:17,25 66:5,7,11 66:19 69:3,8 71:2 78:18,20,20 80:14 80:18 87:19

mind (8) 23:14,22 24:9 51:8 89:12 90:19 91:7,8

minimal (1) 101:3 minimise (1) 78:12 minus (1) 65:12 minute (2) 87:11

105:19

minutes (6) 9:7,8,9,13 33:11 34:19

Mironova (1) 37:19 misconceived (1)

49:22

misspoke (1) 108:10 mistake (8) 48:13,22 49:5,10,11 50:14

101:3,5 mistaken (6) 5:1

17:12,14 54:23 97:8,10

mistakes (1) 49:9 misunderstanding (3)

11:24,24 12:23

misunderstood (1)

108:9 mobile (1) 63:6 Modul (1) 25:2 moment (8) 8:22

12:11 54:10 59:2 68:16 81:9 100:3 100:12

Monday (7) 108:25 109:2,5,16,22 110:1,4

money (33) 43:15 45:16,18 47:14,18 48:4,14,16 49:5,15

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

116

April 15, 2016 Day 39

49:23 50:1,19 51:16 53:2 54:7 57:4,18 58:4 60:23 69:17 75:21,25 76:10,16,17,18 79:13 85:10 88:14 88:22,23 107:17

monies (6) 47:11,19 48:8 49:1 50:15 57:12

months (2) 46:12,22 morning (2) 1:9,10 Morskoy (10) 56:25 57:5,13,23 58:3

69:5 74:25 75:1,3 77:4

mortgage (1) 11:20 moved (3) 25:17

104:14,17 movements (1) 57:17 multiple (1) 32:7 muted (1) 10:2

N

N1 (6) 54:19,24 55:6,6 55:15,21
N26/69/13 (1) 28:19 N26/69/15 (1) 28:13 N9/9/36 (1) 55:23 name (16) 6:17 7:7

8:2,4,6,6 10:20,21 26:16,17 36:25 37:10 40:4 41:6 62:23 63:18

named (1) 108:5 narrow (2) 61:24 62:1 Natalia (2) 91:15,23 National (2) 81:18

82:20

natural (2) 75:15

93:24

naturally (3) 12:14

13:3 58:5

nature (1) 59:10

Naziya (5) 94:21 95:21

96:3,24,25

NDAs (1) 25:13 near (2) 22:5 77:17 necessary (1) 69:15 need (13) 10:14 19:5

19:10 27:23 39:20 56:6 61:22 80:23 85:12 90:23 91:22 92:9 106:17

needed (2) 35:8 92:11 needs (1) 88:7 Nefte-Oil (20) 2:1,6,6

2:22 3:16,21 4:3,12 4:24 5:14,16 6:2,6 6:9 11:9 12:11 15:20 18:10,13,14

Nefte-Oil’s (1) 6:10 negative (2) 7:22 54:7 negotiate (1) 89:4 negotiating (3) 24:22

25:2,7 negotiations (6) 24:21

25:12,18,20,24

61:21 neither (1) 80:4 net (1) 31:12

never (13) 6:25 25:14 25:16,17 26:17 61:23 62:3 71:19 85:10,11 94:10,20 97:10

Nevskaya (26) 97:16 97:25 98:4 99:1,13

99:16,18,23 103:16 103:18,23 104:2,6 104:8,11,14,24,24 105:3,5,9,10,14 106:5 108:5,10
Nevski (1) 105:6 new (1) 22:23 newspaper (3) 51:23

51:24 56:4

NGO (1) 82:12 nine (2) 14:4,6 nominal (1) 79:16

non-governmental (1)

82:2

normal (2) 66:23 93:16

normally (2) 90:25

93:20

Northern (1) 24:22 notary (1) 34:1 note (10) 30:19,19

31:7 62:6,12,13,21 63:7,9 92:18

noted (1) 45:24 notes (9) 92:12,13,19

92:22,23 93:5,8,11 93:14

noticed (1) 37:19 notifies (1) 31:9 November (7) 30:15

30:23,25 46:19 72:19,20,23

number (20) 6:25 10:21 11:3 24:19 27:15 31:10 32:18 37:24 40:10 41:7 41:10 48:9 49:6,7 50:13 52:18 62:25 62:25 63:1 106:11

numbered (1) 28:16 numbers (3) 37:20

38:5 63:5

O

o’clock (1) 54:12 oath (1) 48:3 obligation (2) 13:16

89:18 obligations (1) 86:2 obtain (1) 61:18

obtained (3) 44:4 49:6 57:5

obtaining (1) 44:9 obviously (41) 13:25

16:3,4,4 18:6 19:5 22:18,21 23:4 28:15 30:13 31:22 33:20 34:10,20 36:19 39:2 45:24 47:2,11,24 48:5,7 49:10 55:11 61:3,4 66:22 69:18 70:5 73:22 82:22 85:4 86:16 90:4,8 96:4 99:2 100:2 101:2 109:15

occasion (1) 2:21 occasions (1) 24:19 occurred (2) 48:23

92:16

October (13) 27:5 33:19,22 39:14 40:1 46:13,14,16 46:19,20 51:6 96:23 104:23

odd (3) 42:23,25 43:7 oddity (1) 46:21 offer (6) 23:21 53:17

85:25 88:1,20 89:1 offered (4) 32:25

60:14 84:24 108:16 offering (1) 50:11 office (3) 104:11

105:4,7 official (1) 87:12 offset (1) 79:1 offshore (1) 102:16 okay (2) 29:22 83:8 old (1) 96:15

older (1) 48:19 Oleg (1) 96:11

OMG (6) 27:2 80:24 81:2,4 85:16,18 once (11) 11:9 32:6 33:3 40:2 50:18

57:20 63:13 64:9 79:7 83:1 100:3

one-line (1) 91:10 one-off (1) 7:19 Onega (44) 34:22

36:22 39:11,25 41:21 42:3 46:3 49:1 54:18 55:13 55:17,18,19 56:11 56:15 58:13,13 59:14 60:8,9,14,17 62:10 64:13,14,15 64:25 65:16 67:6,7 68:18,23 69:1,21 69:25,25 70:4,16 80:8,13,15,16,17 80:21

ones (1) 41:21 ongoing (2) 67:16

68:8

onwards (1) 75:18 OOO (1) 97:16 open (5) 8:17 16:21

44:13 55:23,24 opening (1) 9:4 operate (1) 108:3 operating (1) 97:23 operation (1) 7:20 operational (1)

101:24 operations (1) 26:20 operator (4) 8:22 9:7

9:9,21

opine (2) 23:15 73:8 opinion (3) 82:12

83:20,22 opposed (1) 46:23 opus (2) 82:11 83:19 order (12) 27:6,14,24

49:19 75:17,21 78:12 84:4,9 91:1 93:5 109:21

organisation (2) 81:18 82:2

organised (1) 61:10 original (2) 30:9

106:21 originally (3) 57:14
106:18 107:23 Oslo (4) 70:5 77:3

92:14 94:13 ostensibly (2) 49:18

49:18

Otsenka (1) 44:1 outside (1) 42:11 outstanding (3) 74:14

75:22 76:1 overall (2) 68:22 69:7 overdue (1) 92:17 overseeing (1) 94:25 owned (32) 3:20

24:23 25:3 34:22

39:11 55:3,8 56:11 72:11 74:16,19 75:15 76:25 77:11 77:22,23 86:10,17 89:17,21,23 94:23 94:24 95:4 96:8,10 96:11,25 97:18 99:22 100:25 101:5

owner (3) 72:9 73:21 80:25

owners (2) 96:7 99:20 ownership (4) 3:21

78:7 96:5 99:18

P

page (44) 2:10 5:22 8:9 9:5 11:16,17 13:7 19:4 22:1 29:23 33:10 34:25 40:7 41:8 62:5 64:17 72:8,13,15 77:14,20 81:20 82:18 83:2 87:1 90:1,13,17,20 91:20 95:25 96:22 98:6 100:1,6 102:13 103:5 104:1 104:19 106:1,3,8 106:20 111:2
pages (4) 33:14 90:6 95:11,25

paid (9) 4:10,12 13:11 43:19 47:14 58:4 70:9 89:13 92:22

paper (1) 8:11 paragraph (9) 5:9,12

5:21,23 7:14 52:9 52:16,18 87:8

paragraphs (1) 11:17 parallel (2) 57:21,25 pardon (2) 4:18 31:13 part (24) 16:8 17:6

34:21 39:11,25 41:3 43:10 50:6 51:12 52:8 53:8 55:2 56:10 58:13 59:13 62:18 65:6 68:14 78:24 85:3 88:15 89:11 105:1 105:10

participant (5) 35:9,15 41:9 57:3 98:4

participants (11)

31:13 36:12 37:11 39:14 41:5 42:18 61:25 97:16 106:5 106:7,12

participate (3) 16:23 35:10 50:25

participating (1) 36:9 participation (3) 35:6

82:2 96:2 particular (21) 8:5

13:2 19:7 21:16 28:19,21 29:4,16 46:12,23 73:10 75:24 83:23 84:17 84:19 87:7,17 94:12 95:1 96:21 108:3

particularly (2) 41:18 92:7

parties (17) 14:7,9 16:11,14,15 21:14 25:16,18 42:13 43:17 44:6 50:6,7 61:1 79:23,25 80:2

partner (8) 55:8 95:17

96:8,9,10,10,17,18 plan (16) 16:8,12,15 possible (7) 13:4 30:2
partners (3) 17:6 18:19 24:6 60:21 44:22 60:11 67:8
79:23 95:17 62:8,9,17,18,22 92:21 103:20
parts (2) 55:12 59:17 63:22 64:2 81:3,6,7 possibly (6) 36:19,23
party (12) 5:16,19 6:3 planned (2) 35:7 60:15 70:21 74:17
6:6 13:21 14:2 103:15 79:20
15:14 24:10,17 planning (2) 107:17 power (4) 37:9,16
62:16 80:9,22 108:2 40:5,9
pass (1) 78:14 plans (1) 103:21 powers (1) 37:12
passage (4) 87:7,10 play (1) 86:7 practicable (1) 28:20
87:13,18 played (3) 23:2,8 practical (2) 88:13,25
passed (5) 19:8 72:23 52:24 practice (3) 20:5,11
77:25 78:6,7 playing (1) 1:22 65:10
Pause (20) 1:23 8:10 please (27) 1:8,21 pre-Renord (1) 96:15
8:15,19 19:2 24:4 2:11 8:8 21:18 31:6 precaution (1) 109:9
28:11 40:15,23 33:9,13 38:7 41:2 precisely (4) 7:23 8:3
44:15,18 52:14 44:12 51:18 53:6 22:22 103:3
79:14 83:4,7,14,17 54:16 55:23,24 premises (1) 104:16
87:14 105:18,21 62:4 72:1 81:14,15 preparation (1) 45:10
pausing (1) 11:23 81:16 89:25 91:9 preparatory (1) 17:25
Pavel (2) 96:12 100:13 91:19,23 92:4 prepare (2) 30:8,9
pay (7) 13:10,16,23 105:22 prepared (9) 30:16
14:16 15:5 80:23 pleased (1) 76:9 45:4,5,7,9 66:20
93:4 pledge (19) 5:5 11:8 82:1,11 83:20
payable (3) 21:16,16 11:22 12:4,5,15 preparing (2) 30:3
92:14 13:4,13 16:14 17:5 48:12
paying (2) 26:8 80:24 66:22,24,25 67:23 present (3) 26:13
payment (6) 30:11 84:4,11 85:9,21 97:23 106:5
65:3 91:1 92:22 108:18 presented (1) 43:11
93:8,13 pledged (18) 2:7 3:4 presumably (2) 62:16
payments (1) 92:25 11:20 12:9,10,13 89:19
pays (1) 87:19 13:6 14:17 56:18 presumed (1) 108:12
peculiarity (4) 42:8 58:16,17 65:7 67:3 pretty (6) 22:5 34:19
60:2,5,6 74:21,23 84:8,10 64:15 69:9 91:10
people (10) 6:16 20:6 87:20 91:25
20:12 34:8,10 55:3 pledgee (1) 42:14 prevent (1) 84:9
61:21,25 82:7 pledges (2) 68:6 85:24 previous (4) 15:19
83:20 pledgor (5) 11:1 12:17 39:22 52:16 79:5
perfect (1) 18:18 13:3,5 42:14 previously (4) 3:9
perfectly (1) 84:16 pledgors (2) 84:7,25 7:23 17:1 70:2
perform (1) 43:13 plot (31) 56:8 65:20 price (43) 3:1,6,7,11
performed (1) 43:17 66:1,2,9 67:8 71:22 3:12,13 12:14
period (13) 24:7 31:9 72:7,9,11,17,23 13:17 15:7 17:10
31:20 46:9,9,18 74:15,21,23 75:1,3 17:14 26:9,11
47:5 51:5 82:3 75:6,15,24 77:11 38:10,12,13 39:4
101:25 102:20 77:18 78:9,14 79:2 39:16 40:11,14
103:6,17 79:4,5,5,17 103:22 41:11,13,17,18,22
periods (1) 106:12 103:25 43:7,19,21,23 46:1
person (6) 29:9 55:3 plots (1) 79:12 46:3 53:15 61:9,15
69:14 75:16 84:23 pm (7) 54:13,15 81:11 61:18 65:21 66:6
93:24 81:13 91:9,14 66:16 69:20 70:22
personal (7) 88:12,20 110:2 78:18,22 80:24
90:10 93:1,15 99:6 point (26) 3:20 7:10 prices (1) 66:3
99:15 7:19,22 18:22 Prichaly (17) 54:19,24
personally (7) 32:18 22:14 28:1 32:10 55:6,7,13,16,21
32:21 37:17 44:9 54:2 58:24 60:7 59:16,19,22 68:19
73:17 89:2 99:9 66:4 70:18 73:20 68:20,24 69:21,23
Peter (1) 51:25 75:14 76:9 78:4,23 70:8,24
Peterburga (2) 1:11 79:20 80:10 84:5 prior (6) 26:19 41:20
1:14 84:22 86:17 87:17 41:23 65:23 68:6
Petersburg (14) 1:12 103:10,22 99:25
10:18 25:3 32:16 police (1) 32:16 private (4) 97:21
34:13,16 51:24 policy (1) 79:11 98:18,20 107:17
52:2 54:22 56:3,4 poor (1) 30:13 privatisation (1) 66:4
58:17 61:20 98:14 popular (1) 8:3 privatised (2) 66:2,9
phone (3) 62:24,25 port (8) 25:3 54:22,24 privy (1) 68:14
63:1 55:5,6 61:23 62:1 probably (3) 38:3 63:6
picture (2) 9:24 96:14 80:17 102:2
pieces (1) 74:12 Ports (4) 27:2 77:3 problem (6) 9:20,20
Piotrovsky (4) 32:11 92:15 94:14 9:22 10:5 52:13,19
32:15,23 33:4 position (18) 5:20 problematic (1) 53:22
place (22) 15:13 20:2 22:6,10 27:3 33:4,5 problems (1) 19:2
20:14 25:20 26:24 39:8,10 40:22 procedurally (1) 12:24
28:21 32:6 33:19 63:16 79:15 85:15 procedure (2) 14:24
33:21 35:16,20 86:15,21 87:20 21:12
43:14 50:22 55:12 88:8 89:5,6 procedures (2) 37:25
56:5 57:25 58:12 positions (1) 23:6 87:12
59:3,18 60:19 68:4 possession (2) 3:16 proceedings (25) 1:3
94:20 4:2 5:5,17,19 6:3,7

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

117

April 15, 2016 Day 39

11:1,10,15 16:6 26:19 27:17 31:22 32:23 52:1,5,6,8 56:21,23,23 57:8 57:24 58:11 60:18
proceeds (1) 79:7 process (5) 29:18

42:12 78:25 86:4 94:9

processes (1) 57:25 products (2) 95:5,6 profile (8) 21:19,21 95:8,9,13 98:5,8

100:1

profit (7) 31:12,12,14 31:19 68:23 69:13 69:19

profits (1) 98:23 project (11) 48:14,15

48:17 49:13,15,20 49:25 50:19 69:6 95:1 108:17

projects (7) 6:10 17:20 18:3 23:18 36:22 51:15 103:18

promissory (4) 92:12 92:19 93:8,11

proper (5) 26:8 29:10 80:23,24 89:20

properly (1) 20:2 properties (3) 43:6 71:18 75:14

property (18) 11:19 12:9,10,12,17,19 13:6 14:17 16:15 34:2 58:2,16 61:9 65:20 69:24 72:18 72:24 76:8

proposed (2) 18:9,11 prospekt (1) 104:25 protect (1) 86:15 protocol (1) 40:24 protocols (2) 33:11

39:9

provenance (1) 62:14 provide (1) 74:20 provided (9) 14:18

27:22 29:25 47:12 48:8 49:16,17 50:2 85:20

public (9) 13:17 14:17 15:13,16,19 16:21 26:11 43:5,11 publication (2) 51:23

51:23 published (3) 56:2

81:17,19 purchase (6) 30:10

46:7 48:21,25 49:16 66:6
purchased (14) 7:4,12 7:15,19 26:10 41:24 42:2 43:6 53:1,3,12 69:16 71:18 88:21

purchaser (2) 15:17 15:22

purchasing (1) 49:25 pure (1) 31:12 purported (1) 24:6 purpose (16) 5:13,14

7:4,12,16 11:18 14:13 15:6,8,22,25 16:13 31:17 49:3 60:18 80:20

purposes (5) 18:24 27:17 88:13,25 89:19

pursuant (6) 21:12

31:9 56:24 57:21 58:11 59:7

pursue (1) 71:8 pursued (3) 57:23,24

58:2 pursuing (1) 60:3

put (8) 6:21 23:5,18 25:21 55:11 67:13 69:11 88:19

putting (2) 14:11

66:25

Q

qualifies (1) 84:12 question (14) 4:4
18:25 20:7 36:1,13 36:17 50:8,10 63:17 67:18 73:15 74:6 75:23 92:9

questions (1) 93:22 quicker (1) 9:10 quickly (5) 11:11 13:8

39:22 44:22 98:5 quite (20) 7:10,11

18:7 27:9 30:2 32:2 36:23 54:2 63:21 72:21 75:6 76:6 79:16 90:8 94:6 101:3 102:10,13 103:20 106:11

quotation (1) 70:14 quote (1) 85:14

R

raided (1) 85:16 raider (3) 84:13 85:13
85:18

raiding (4) 82:3,9,23 83:24

railway (5) 2:19 3:18 4:1,20,24

raise (3) 48:20 71:4 93:9

raised (2) 47:23 71:19 raising (2) 48:14 50:19 ran (1) 108:19

rate (3) 47:2,4 72:22 rationale (1) 6:14 Razvitie (2) 1:11,14 reached (3) 83:1,13

88:7

read (12) 28:9 30:24 31:4 62:12 82:25 87:13,15 90:15 91:9,14,19,20

readable (1) 72:5 reading (6) 29:21 63:7

83:10,15 90:19 91:8

real (7) 15:4,6 43:18 43:21 60:17 89:13 103:19

realise (4) 12:4,15 66:24 67:4 realised (9) 12:5

48:12 51:9 66:16 66:23 84:5 86:11 92:19 105:13

reality (5) 12:24 14:13 20:10 31:22 42:17 really (11) 5:13 13:25 15:18 52:10 84:12 85:13 86:22 89:5

91:22 92:8,20 reason (8) 8:2 9:2

23:19 35:13 53:19 69:19 85:8 94:14

reasonable (1) 78:8

reasons (1) 37:22 101:8,15 102:5 75:24 88:1,2 90:24
recall (5) 4:14 17:16 103:18 107:5,18,21 93:23
44:7 68:20 107:13 remind (1) 91:23 respectively (1) 33:15
receipt (1) 91:24 reminding (1) 27:23 respects (1) 39:8
receive (1) 27:19 Renord (135) 1:12,14 response (5) 29:4,11
received (9) 28:2 29:9 1:15,16 2:24 11:25 30:1 75:23 76:15
30:11 36:10 58:7 12:25 14:24 15:12 responsible (2) 32:18
60:23 70:3 71:17 18:2,17,23 20:11 32:22
103:24 20:11 22:22,25 rest (1) 4:21
receiving (1) 30:16 23:2 26:7,16,17 result (6) 11:5 13:12
recollection (2) 28:23 27:6,10,15,19 14:16 57:17 73:12
29:16 28:24 29:1,8,10 85:23
reconvene (1) 54:11 33:25 35:1,2,3,24 return (2) 58:5 87:20
record (2) 92:24 96:23 36:6,20,21 39:3,3 returned (3) 25:14
recorded (5) 64:19 42:18,20,23 44:4,5 85:11 88:3
85:6 102:3,8,10 45:7,9,12 48:2,2,25 right (92) 3:5 8:23
records (1) 22:20 49:2,4 50:2,25 51:6 9:12 17:10,13,24
recover (1) 49:23 52:19,21 60:1,2,4 18:3 19:20 20:4
recovery (2) 11:19 61:2,3 62:24 63:4 22:24 23:4 24:5
86:19 63:15 68:1,22 69:2 26:14,18 27:9,11
red (1) 54:8 69:7,13,21 70:4,23 30:13,17,21 31:1,3
reduce (7) 15:7 70:4 70:25 71:3,4,14,16 31:15 33:25 34:17
75:17,22,25 76:11 71:20 73:7 74:5 34:23 37:20 38:14
79:8 75:4,16 76:7,19,22 41:1 42:17 44:21
reduced (1) 70:8 78:2,3,10,12 79:3,3 45:13 46:9,17 47:1
refer (2) 46:11 68:10 79:5,15,22 80:5 47:8,9 52:23 53:11
reference (3) 48:12,19 81:2 86:13,14,18 53:16,19 54:11
95:24 86:22 87:22 88:6 55:9,10,23 57:11
referred (2) 20:8 88:21 89:23 92:25 58:1,11 60:19 62:2
29:12 94:22,23,24 95:20 62:4 63:7,12,22
referring (5) 6:5 32:5 96:25 97:4,8,11 65:5 68:7 69:14
47:15 48:11 91:11 101:9 102:4,6,22 70:10 71:1,8,23
refers (2) 21:5 48:1 102:24 103:1,2,3,7 72:10 74:22 76:8
reflection (1) 33:13 103:13,14,16 104:7 76:15,21 77:10,12
reflects (1) 100:20 104:11,17 107:4,6 78:6,10 79:14 81:5
refresh (1) 28:23 107:6,7,9,10,19 81:6 83:5 84:22
refreshed (1) 29:15 Renord’s (5) 47:22 92:1 95:7,18,23,23
regard (3) 12:20 59:11 53:4,16 80:7 89:6 97:20 98:12 102:23
60:21 Renord-Invest (10) 103:9 104:10,19
regarding (1) 12:14 7:15 45:4,5 52:17 105:5 107:23,25
region (6) 4:17,22,23 75:13 86:5,6,9,18 108:24 109:1,16,23
26:2,5 80:13 104:9 rightly (1) 95:12
Register (1) 77:13 rent (2) 21:15 41:4 rights (9) 14:9 57:23
registered (12) 11:10 repaid (3) 85:6,11 64:6,11,23 66:1
19:14,24 20:1,17 88:17 71:9,15,17
20:20,24 21:1,15 repeat (2) 13:5 26:3 rise (1) 9:12
35:15 37:5 72:17 replace (1) 23:1 risk (1) 92:17
registration (6) 19:11 replaced (2) 85:7 risks (1) 15:17
19:15 20:3 21:4,10 100:11 roadmap (1) 93:12
21:10 repo (7) 75:10,11 ROK (17) 54:19,24
registry (3) 71:25 72:6 79:20 80:10 84:6 55:5,6,13,15,21
74:20 85:24 86:3 59:16,19,22 68:19
regulations (1) 94:11 report (6) 44:8 66:18 68:20,24 69:21,23
reinforcing (1) 42:6 66:20 81:17 82:1 70:8,24
reiterate (2) 25:24 82:14 role (5) 23:2 52:24
71:16 reported (1) 32:24 86:7 99:16 103:12
related (2) 56:25 representative (9) roles (1) 99:7
74:24 34:12,13 37:1,2,6,9 Rosreestr (1) 74:19
relates (3) 56:10,14 40:4,10 41:6 roubles (38) 2:12,18
77:18 representatives (2) 2:20 3:10,19 4:17
relating (1) 64:13 34:15 37:16 4:23,25 13:10,18
relation (2) 39:10 represented (2) 40:9 40:11 41:11,22,25
40:22 41:9 45:19,19,21 46:1
released (1) 13:13 request (9) 27:7,10,16 56:9 58:7 61:8,14
relevant (3) 1:15 22:8 28:24 29:5 30:1,6 64:19,20 65:3,4,14
22:11 90:23 91:15 65:17,25 66:5,7,11
relying (1) 29:16 requesting (1) 27:16 69:3 70:17 71:2
remained (3) 3:21 4:2 require (1) 98:21 78:18,20 87:19
66:14 required (1) 21:11 roughly (3) 65:3 82:4
remaining (2) 58:13 requirements (2) 38:4 105:24
75:13 86:19 Rozbitshi (1) 96:13
remains (1) 102:20 requires (1) 85:5 rule (2) 20:25 22:16
remember (28) 11:3 research (1) 82:20 rules (2) 94:8,11
16:22 19:6 32:17 resolve (1) 11:15 Russia (6) 7:1 82:3,10
33:21 35:5 57:16 resolving (1) 11:18 93:20,21 94:18
58:22 61:13 63:1 respect (16) 23:21 Russian (55) 1:22 5:10
64:24 65:1,21 69:4 24:21 27:21 49:24 5:23 6:17,23,23 7:9
79:1 94:3 97:15,21 67:16,24 68:2,9 8:10 19:3,25 20:17
98:15 99:22 100:17 69:5 71:17 74:13 28:4,7,14,19 31:5

33:9,11 34:4,7,11 34:16 37:14,23 42:14,21 43:4 44:14,17,20 50:22 55:24 64:5 70:9 74:20 77:16 82:18 87:2,4,9 89:17 90:1 90:19 91:3,14,21 93:16 94:9,19 104:5 105:14 106:1 106:2,10,20

Rybak (1) 95:15

S

safe (2) 109:8,20 safety’s (1) 109:18 Sainkt (2) 1:11,14 sake (1) 109:18

sale (43) 2:1,2,5,12,21 2:22 13:17 15:12 16:5,7 18:9,13,14 18:16 26:11,19 27:21 29:4 30:10 33:12 34:2 36:10 38:12 40:22 43:6 43:11 49:23 56:5 56:14,16 58:12,12 60:25 68:24 69:24 70:1,10 75:12 78:16,17,18,24 79:3

satisfy (2) 38:3 86:18 Savelyev (1) 62:22 saving (1) 108:15 saying (23) 3:5 10:13

20:16,18,21 33:5 36:7 41:15 48:24 53:7,10 61:8,15 65:17 67:21 68:11 70:25 71:12,20 73:17 75:23 76:14 78:22

says (13) 5:18 9:23 11:17 14:18 17:12 37:9,15 38:21 48:7 48:8 56:7,17 85:2

scan (12) 33:24 34:22 38:9 39:12 42:14 42:19 77:12,22,23 78:14 79:16,21

Scan’s (1) 78:24

Scandanavia (10)

57:18,22 58:10,15 60:19,21,22 61:4 65:1,20

Scandinavia (13)

27:22 34:2,13 49:13,15 56:11,24 57:6,8,9,14 85:25 96:4

Scandinavian (1) 80:3 scenarios (1) 23:8 scheme (9) 50:6,15,17

82:21 83:1,17,23 84:13 85:13

schemes (2) 82:22,23 screen (35) 1:21 2:10 3:14 5:3 8:9,20,25

9:2 13:7 28:14 29:18,23 30:20 39:23 41:2 44:23 51:19 55:24 62:5 64:17 72:2,4 77:20 81:16,23 82:17,18 86:25 90:6,13 91:3 105:22 106:2,3,9

screens (3) 2:11 38:7

92:5

scroll (27) 2:10 13:7 22:1 38:7 40:7 41:8 64:17 72:13 77:20 81:20 82:17 83:3,5 83:8 86:25 90:6 91:3 92:4 96:1,19 100:6,22 104:19 106:1,3,8,19

sea (2) 67:9,11 seal (1) 31:15 second (4) 8:20 9:2

35:9,19

Secondly (1) 76:10 section (2) 77:18

104:20

secured (2) 65:11,12 securities (2) 84:25

108:18 security (6) 32:12

76:24 84:24 85:10 85:21 108:18

see (128) 2:5,8,9,10 3:14 5:3,12 6:15 7:1 8:14,25 9:24 10:17,20,21,23 11:14 13:9,10,13 13:14 14:6 18:6 21:3,6 22:6,9 30:22 31:15 33:19 34:8 34:10,18,24 36:25 37:8,10 38:8,9,10 38:11 39:18,24,25 40:3,8,19,21 41:4,9 46:11,17,24,25 47:2,3,6,8,18,20 50:3 51:20,22 52:3 52:4,10 56:1,10,14 58:11 60:1,5,6 62:8 62:11,20 64:18 72:7,8,9,15,16,22 72:24 76:12 77:17 77:21,22,25 78:6,7 81:17,19,21 82:1,4 82:5 83:22 90:16 90:19 91:4,17,19 91:25 92:6 95:14 95:24 96:4,5,20,22 98:8,9,12 99:2 100:23,25 101:25 104:20,23 105:24 105:25 106:4,7,18 106:21 108:23 110:1

seen (2) 69:20 74:25 selection (1) 29:13

Seleznevskaya (1)

74:16

Seleznovskaya (1)

71:23

sell (12) 13:20 24:11 51:4,15 60:10,12 67:5 68:2,10 70:1 79:4,6

selling (8) 2:6 13:17 46:1,3 62:2 67:6 70:16,19

send (1) 27:14

sense (4) 18:19 31:25 82:10 106:14

sensible (1) 39:5 sent (1) 28:17 separate (2) 2:19

99:10 separately (2) 30:7

60:10

September (1) 48:10 sequence (8) 11:6

24:3,7 38:6 63:25 64:3 84:2,15

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

118

April 15, 2016 Day 39

Sergeevich (1) 96:24 50:4 52:6,11 53:17 sophisticated (1) stole (2) 75:6 76:14
series (2) 7:13 80:20 60:9 71:8 75:4,6 49:17 stop (1) 92:21
serves (2) 17:10 53:11 79:15,16 85:9 93:4 sorry (18) 4:18 8:12 stopped (3) 1:19
service (1) 108:7 94:25 98:4 101:20 18:10 19:2 20:24 25:15 102:25
services (2) 43:3 101:22 29:7 44:17,19,20 stories (2) 53:22 82:8
107:18 single (1) 16:8 47:14 53:18 72:2 story (1) 77:4
Sestroretsk (3) 39:12 sir (3) 20:7 47:15 73:25 91:11 95:9 straight (1) 27:25
40:22 41:4 91:12 97:14 105:19 straightaway (1)
set (10) 3:13 4:16 site (1) 56:18 109:21 38:24
41:4 49:3 98:17 sitting (3) 4:14 44:2 sort (3) 10:10 76:24 strange (1) 39:2
99:3 105:8 107:15 76:3 84:20 Stroilov (32) 1:7,8,10
107:16 108:11 situation (11) 42:24 sorted (1) 100:3 8:12,14,23 9:2,10
sets (5) 21:12 48:24 51:10 53:24 60:2 sorts (1) 89:21 9:14,19 10:1,5,8,14
62:8 106:14,15 60:22 80:5 86:9 sound (4) 63:12 95:18 12:21 27:12 28:20
setting (1) 6:14 87:25 88:4,6 94:13 102:17 103:8 29:15 44:22,24
settlement (14) 10:17 SKIF (11) 48:8,14 49:6 sounded (1) 67:19 54:9,16 73:25 74:2
11:5,12,14 14:7,21 49:11,17,24 50:12 SPARK (12) 21:19,21 81:8,14 83:12
14:25 15:23,25 50:18 66:9 106:25 22:18 95:8,9,13 84:18 89:24 108:22
16:7 17:24 18:15 107:6 98:5,8 105:15,24 109:7 111:4
33:23 88:7 skip (1) 52:15 106:15,17 Stroymontazh (3)
Severnaya (1) 24:22 Sklyarevsky (9) 58:25 speak (5) 70:11 71:2 52:22 53:4,8
Sevkabel (1) 53:16 59:2,5,25 70:14,18 89:9,15 93:21 structured (1) 96:7
Sevzapalians (9) 57:2 73:3 107:14,15 speaking (8) 7:24 17:9 stuck (1) 1:24
57:2,8,19 58:4 61:2 Sklyarevsky’s (1) 41:19 56:13 67:9 stuff (1) 24:11
73:24 74:2,2 59:15 78:4,20 89:1 subclauses (1) 2:4
sham (3) 43:8,12,16 Skyarevsky (1) 59:11 special (1) 7:12 subject (2) 83:21
share (6) 29:4 30:10 Skylarevsky (14) 73:9 specific (2) 47:17 89:18
75:12 96:2 101:2 100:9 101:1,4,6,10 68:11 subsequent (1) 95:25
104:11 101:12,21 102:21 specifically (2) 7:13 subsequently (4) 3:22
shared (1) 104:12 107:22,24 108:1,4 28:15 4:3,5 57:20
shareholder (5) 58:25 108:9 specifications (1) substance (1) 45:6
59:4,6 102:10,14 slightly (10) 5:20 6:15 66:13 substantial (4) 26:20
shareholders (10) 6:17 22:19 29:24 speculate (2) 18:4 31:19 98:23 101:13
95:11,18,19,20 30:22 33:16 53:24 68:3 substitute (1) 81:22
96:15,16 98:9 57:1 97:3 spend (1) 27:23 success (1) 79:6
99:20 106:18,21 small (4) 81:4 103:25 spent (3) 48:24 49:4 successful (2) 98:20
shareholders’ (1) 105:4,11 69:17 98:24
100:24 Smirnov (53) 5:9,13 Spetsteplostroi (2) suddenly (1) 88:5
shareholding (3) 5:18 6:5 17:4,19 106:24 107:19 sued (2) 57:22 58:9
18:12 102:15 107:1 18:1 23:2,11,17 split (2) 8:25 50:9 sufficiently (1) 29:15
shares (22) 27:21 70:1 24:8,20 25:6 27:7 spreadsheet (2) 44:25 suggest (4) 14:2 78:8
76:19,23 77:2,8 27:15,19 28:15 45:12 88:4 109:5
79:16 80:3 86:1,8 29:2,8,10,13 30:6,9 St (13) 1:12 10:18 suggested (2) 70:2
95:14 96:3 97:25 31:18 36:24 43:5 25:3 32:16 34:12 104:17
99:5,8 102:1,9 55:9 59:8,11 60:7 34:16 51:25 52:2 suggesting (7) 50:12
103:24 104:6 61:19 68:15 69:12 54:22 56:4 58:17 50:14 63:7 65:14
108:13,13,17 69:17 70:15,19 61:20 98:14 65:16 87:18 92:24
sharing (1) 88:20 73:9 74:10 76:5,14 stage (7) 11:25 16:17 suggests (6) 37:21
sheet (4) 7:17 52:12 76:15 88:11 89:9 23:11 25:15,16 38:17 46:21 53:19
53:21 54:5 89:15 93:2 97:18 79:19 87:22 87:21 96:8
shell (2) 101:20,22 98:10,13,15 104:15 standing (1) 66:3 sum (4) 13:11 70:3
shipments (1) 25:4 107:15,24 108:1 stands (1) 69:18 84:18 85:15
Shipyards (1) 24:23 Smirnov’s (4) 6:1 Stanislav (1) 22:6 summary (5) 11:12,13
short (3) 9:16 54:14 23:22 51:8 79:11 start (9) 18:10,18 75:9 15:15 85:17 100:15
81:12 smoking (1) 81:9 76:22 106:6 109:6 summer (1) 4:8
shortly (3) 10:24 sold (40) 2:15,17,19 109:11,17,20 sums (1) 48:24
41:22 56:5 3:10 4:20,21 6:9 started (2) 32:19 84:7 support (1) 30:11
shout (1) 83:2 11:8 14:17 15:20 starting (19) 1:18 15:7 supporting (1) 27:22
show (3) 29:18 77:10 16:15 17:11,14 17:13 21:16 23:23 suppose (12) 15:3
96:23 41:16 46:3 53:3 38:5,10,13 39:16 16:12 20:4 39:7,9
showed (1) 37:19 54:18 55:13 56:8 40:11,13 41:10,13 88:4 103:14 104:19
shown (5) 1:21 51:18 58:6,15 60:8 61:23 87:11 102:8,9,14 105:16 106:6,15,16
62:4 81:15 89:25 61:24 62:10 64:1 102:15 109:9 supposed (3) 5:18
side (3) 33:24,25 65:11 66:9 69:21 starts (1) 90:8 16:23 101:16
109:8 70:8,21 75:18 state (6) 19:10 20:2,3 sure (22) 17:16 18:25
sight (2) 62:13 82:15 76:10,18 79:7,12 21:4 24:23 73:20 20:7 21:2 29:17
signature (2) 21:8 86:11 95:1 103:4 statement (7) 5:8 7:6 44:2,2,7 63:21 67:4
31:16 103:22 25:8 45:4 49:22 67:18 73:15 74:6
signed (4) 11:5 19:10 sole (1) 58:25 64:8 79:24 76:24 89:9,15 99:8
34:7 43:15 Solo (17) 35:3 36:4 statements (1) 6:11 101:15 102:5,6,10
signs (4) 10:7,10,11 37:1 38:12 39:14 statutory (1) 100:18 107:19
10:12 39:15 40:9,13 41:9 steal (1) 79:16 surname (3) 37:9,15
similar (6) 64:12,15 41:12 42:16 48:20 step (11) 17:13,15,16 63:20
77:11 105:13,15,24 49:25 52:2,7 53:20 17:25 38:13,16,21 surrounding (2) 74:11
simple (1) 49:9 70:9 39:15 40:12,13 94:13
simply (27) 9:10 15:6 somebody (2) 84:1 41:12 suspect (2) 46:15
15:11 16:23 20:10 94:7 steps (6) 16:12 22:22 48:17
21:12 25:10 26:7 someone’s (1) 50:13 22:25 23:22 68:12 SV16 (2) 3:17 4:2
30:6 35:14 43:9 somewhat (1) 2:15 84:15 system (1) 8:17

T

tab (3) 39:22 77:14 98:6
table (12) 34:24 36:25 37:8 44:13,16 45:14 47:4 48:7,8 48:24 49:3 50:3

take (15) 9:6 15:12 17:6 19:5 20:14 25:20 35:20 39:20 43:14 51:12 62:18 68:14 86:14 102:12 105:19

taken (8) 16:12 20:2 31:11 35:16 57:12 68:12 84:1 94:20

takeover (1) 33:1 takes (1) 84:23 talking (9) 3:17 4:1

27:8,18,25 29:17 30:19 80:15,16

talks (1) 56:16 Tallinn (1) 105:6 tangible (1) 85:7 tarmac (1) 42:6 Taroukha (1) 103:23 tax (7) 5:25 6:4,7,8

75:17,20 78:12 team (1) 42:18 technical (4) 48:13

49:9 66:12 92:8 telephone (1) 63:10 tell (4) 38:24 63:18

76:3 103:3

telling (2) 82:7 102:11 tells (1) 88:5

ten (1) 87:11

term (3) 15:20 19:7 21:3

terminal (101) 2:2,8 13:20 17:20 18:23 19:9 20:6,20 21:22 22:24 23:9,12,18 23:25 24:21,24 25:6 26:1,4,10,13 26:21,24 31:8,15 31:20,24,25 32:1,5 32:7 33:1 34:22 36:22 39:11,25 49:1 54:18 55:13 56:11,15,18,24 57:3,7,13,17,25 58:2,5,5,9,13,13 59:14,17 60:17,23 62:10 64:13,14,15 65:16 68:18,23 69:1,21 70:4,16 72:10,12,16,18,25 73:11,23 74:3,8,9 74:13,16,19 75:6 79:22 80:3,8,13,15 80:17,17,21 85:25 88:9,13,15 92:12 92:13 93:4,10 97:5 97:6

Terminal’s (1) 58:8 terminals (4) 55:17 60:14,15 88:8

termination (1) 53:15 terms (11) 2:23 4:11 13:8 14:8 15:1,12 19:6 77:6 78:17

86:19,20 terrible (1) 90:12 territory (1) 24:24

thank (12) 1:19 12:21 33:7 54:9 72:14 81:8 83:6 89:24

91:3,24 108:22 109:4

Thanks (1) 91:2 thereabouts (3) 65:15

78:19 108:25 thing (5) 25:15 39:6 56:17 100:20

106:13

things (6) 3:1 52:24 76:7 89:20,21 99:21

think (139) 1:18 4:14 4:19 5:8,20,24 6:1 6:13,15,16 7:11 9:2 9:3,19,21,22 10:13 10:14,24 11:7 13:22 15:20 17:4 17:11,13,15 20:8 21:24,25 24:25 25:5 27:9,10 28:6,7 28:12,13,16 29:8 30:7,11,15,21,22 31:5 33:5,15,18 34:21 37:19 41:22 42:6,25 45:3,16,17 45:24 48:1,22 51:16 52:15 54:10 54:17,23 55:22 56:6,20 58:14 59:5 59:14 63:3,6,16,19 63:22 64:7,13,21 65:21 66:4 67:17 68:22 69:2,7 70:2 70:13,14 71:6,22 72:2,20 74:24 76:6 77:10,14 79:14 80:1,1 81:9,22,23 82:18 83:23 84:21 85:15 87:1,17 89:17 90:12,14 91:4 93:25 94:21 95:1,11,12,19,20 96:1,13 97:7 98:3 99:24 100:22,24 101:4,9,18 102:6 105:20 106:19 107:1,13 108:4,9 108:19,23 109:18 109:20

thinking (2) 24:25 25:5

third (10) 13:21 14:1 14:9 15:14 24:10 24:17 25:18 52:9 87:10 92:2

thought (3) 25:14

80:11 89:10 thousands (3) 6:24

45:18,23

three (7) 11:17 19:9 21:7 34:10 46:17 99:3,4

ticket (5) 37:24 40:6 40:10 41:7,10

time (82) 3:3,20 4:7,8 5:2 7:22 13:20,22 13:25 14:11,20 16:25 17:4,18,20 18:1,22 22:20,22 23:5 24:8 27:23 31:20 35:5 36:21 36:24 51:5 54:2 55:11,15,18,20 58:16,24 59:5,8,13 59:24 60:7 62:13 63:15 66:4,11 69:17 73:2,20 74:15 75:14 77:4 78:4,23 79:6 84:5

85:4,4 86:7,17 89:6 89:10,18,22 91:18 92:11 93:3,7 94:17 94:24 96:25 97:3 98:13,15,19 99:22 101:14,17 103:10 103:17 105:5 106:12 108:21,23 109:5

times (3) 1:15 43:19 58:18

title (4) 72:16 73:21 75:13 81:19

today (11) 4:14 18:6 21:25 24:4 44:2 76:3 83:18 88:13 89:4 91:22 109:20

told (4) 35:6,9 59:5 88:10

top (13) 9:5 10:20 22:5,23 45:20 52:9 90:5,16,20 91:17 91:20 96:22 99:3

Torgovy (3) 95:17 96:8,9

total (2) 41:21 45:17 totally (7) 32:9 49:25 65:13,22 66:16

79:24 84:3 trace (1) 74:25 track (3) 2:19 4:2,24 tracks (2) 3:18 4:20 trading (2) 95:17

96:17

transaction (11) 25:17 43:8,12 50:5 73:6 73:19 75:10,11,19 85:24 86:3

transactions (6) 7:13 18:7,18 23:24 24:3 80:21

transcript (4) 87:2,9,9 90:21

transfer (23) 2:24 4:10 18:12 19:13 19:17,18,20 20:2,4 20:9,9,11,12,14,19 20:22 21:11,13 30:10 50:6 65:18 73:11,13

transferred (15) 3:22 3:24 4:3,5,24 11:8 20:23 21:7,10 43:9 53:14 57:6,18 77:9 102:16

transferring (1) 5:14 translate (1) 21:20 translated (2) 28:10

95:15 translation (6) 29:24

30:14 31:5 81:23 90:12 91:7

transpired (1) 9:23 trends (1) 82:9 trial (2) 27:4 45:10 trials (2) 74:12 93:6 tried (3) 51:10 68:3

82:8

trouble (1) 109:10 true (13) 6:5 15:8 24:2 25:20 32:3

48:24 54:20 59:12 59:21 69:2 75:8 94:1,2

trust (1) 100:19 truth (3) 49:20 68:19

100:20

try (15) 10:14 14:1 16:3 24:10 28:7

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

119

April 15, 2016 Day 39

39:3 42:9 44:22 45:14 67:4 68:1 84:25 86:20 92:18 103:3

trying (11) 25:11 28:4 44:16 50:18 55:1,2 67:16 79:4,6 86:14 89:4

Tsvelodubovo (2)

77:12,19 tune (1) 13:5

turn (2) 28:3 96:11 turns (1) 87:19 two (33) 2:4,7,24

22:23 23:6,14 34:24 35:13,22 36:3,20 37:21 39:10,14 40:3 41:23 42:15 46:3,8 47:1,21 57:25 64:14,24 65:23 69:24 76:7 90:6,10 95:2,11,14 96:18

types (1) 15:16 typo (1) 49:10 typographical (1)

50:14

U

unable (1) 63:13 underlying (1) 9:20 understand (17)

12:23 13:23 16:3 20:13 21:2 24:11 28:23 37:25 43:25 45:14 48:11 53:24 72:21 76:6 82:11 93:2 104:15

understanding (11)

17:4 51:12 56:22 56:22 59:9,15,16 70:24 87:25 102:13 108:8

understood (8) 14:23 15:4 20:7 30:5 60:7 60:8 67:2 74:6

undertaken (1) 32:8 unencumbered (3)

3:15 4:1 64:2

unenforceable (1)

20:17 unfortunately (3)

94:10 97:23 100:18 unlawful (2) 65:9

85:17 unlawfully (4) 57:5

60:23 84:7,8 unnecessary (1) 39:10 unquote (1) 85:14 unsatisfactory (1)

31:6

unsecured (1) 92:18 untoward (1) 7:2 unusual (1) 94:6 updated (2) 22:20

96:23 upgrading (3) 42:5

88:15,23 urgently (1) 92:10 use (4) 10:11 29:18

51:13 84:6 usual (2) 19:2 90:4

V

valid (7) 19:13,18,18 19:23 20:3,23,25
validity (1) 35:14 valuable (1) 82:23

valuation (12) 3:12 41:19 43:22,25 44:4,6,8,10 61:11 61:11 66:18,20

value (23) 12:15,16,18 12:20 13:6 15:4,9 16:1 26:1,4 35:18 35:20 36:8 43:18 58:18 65:7,15,18 65:19,25 66:17 80:13 89:13

valuer (3) 26:6 44:3 66:21

various (8) 27:7,16 52:13 69:10 74:12 74:18 81:4 95:5

Vector (38) 2:2,6,22 3:25 5:15,15,18 6:16,20,22 7:1,3,5 7:7,14,18,22 8:2,2 8:3 10:18 11:1,9,20 12:8,8,11,17 13:3,9 13:12,22 14:4,16 15:3 16:5 18:14,15

Ved (5) 101:1,6,10,21 102:21

vehicle (1) 7:12 venture (1) 107:24 Verf (1) 24:22 versa (1) 54:25 verse (2) 67:15 68:13 version (20) 1:22 5:10

5:23 8:10 19:3 28:5 28:6,18 33:10 44:14,17,20 64:5 77:15,16 83:9 87:4 90:1 104:5 106:20

vice (1) 54:25 view (4) 79:24 84:3

88:12,20 viewed (1) 108:14 violate (1) 14:9 Virgin (1) 102:17 virtual (1) 20:10 vis-a-vis (1) 71:4 Vladislav (1) 32:11

volunteered (2) 85:23 85:25

W

wait (2) 8:14 9:11 want (6) 6:2,6 39:9
87:16 93:17 102:12 wanted (9) 9:4 12:14

13:4 15:12 29:17 35:17,20 86:16 105:25

wants (1) 85:5 wasn’t (8) 12:3 14:13

16:19 30:3 36:13 42:1,2 89:4

water (1) 95:5 wavey (1) 9:25

way (24) 2:16 6:21 7:7 9:22 33:8,16 42:25 44:9 49:17 62:2 66:23,25 67:24,25 69:11 83:24 84:24 85:1,21 88:18 92:21 96:6 100:8 102:11

ways (1) 15:19 week (1) 109:22 weekend (2) 109:3,25 weeks (1) 11:11 weight (1) 28:21 went (4) 17:10 23:21

25:16 60:24

weren’t (1) 58:8 Western (68) 2:2,8
13:20 17:19 18:23 19:9 20:5,19 21:22 22:24 23:8,12,17 23:25 24:21,23 25:6 26:1,4,10,13 26:21 31:8,15,19 31:24,25 32:1,5,6 33:1 56:18,23 57:3 57:7,13,17,24 58:2 58:5,8,9 60:23 72:10,11,16,18,25 73:11,23 74:3,8,9 74:13,16,19 75:6 79:22 80:3 85:25 88:9,13 92:12,13 93:4,10 97:5,6

whatsoever (1) 8:4 whilst (1) 98:22 widespread (2) 82:8,9 willing (3) 24:14 55:16

67:11 wish (1) 14:10

witness (6) 5:8 25:8 32:3 45:3 64:7 109:16

witnesses (1) 70:2 won (1) 58:22 wonder (2) 9:10 44:13 wondering (3) 10:9

12:22 109:8 words (3) 32:21 70:6

73:13

work (5) 1:20 8:21 71:6 89:19 105:12

worked (3) 53:2 74:4 105:5

working (11) 1:25 9:3 12:25 13:1 33:8 49:10 53:9 63:14 69:18 98:22 99:13

works (1) 93:20 workshop (3) 65:21

65:25 66:2 world (1) 43:11 worsened (1) 85:22 worth (2) 3:18 80:18 wouldn’t (8) 16:12

18:19 22:25 39:4,5 42:13 92:3 94:6

wreaked (1) 6:10 wriggle (1) 25:22 write (2) 27:6 93:17 writing (1) 82:7 written (1) 62:12 wrong (7) 11:6 12:1,2

56:19 79:18 80:19 94:25

wrongly (1) 95:12 wrote (1) 71:3 WT (1) 27:21

X

X (1) 62:11

Y

Yatvetsky (27) 1:5,10 5:24 8:11 10:16 13:19 23:10 24:16 31:3 36:13 45:1 49:21 51:20 54:17 56:1 74:4 81:17,25 83:12,16 90:2,15 90:17 93:25 94:16 107:1 111:3

year (6) 2:14 27:5 41:23 66:1 89:3,3

years (4) 41:23 65:23 95:2,24
yesterday (10) 1:20 1:25 2:14 3:19 15:18 18:6 21:24 24:4 83:18 97:7

Yurevich (1) 96:11

Z

Zelyenov (2) 35:6,12 Zelyenov’s (1) 36:5 zero (1) 69:9 zoomed (2) 51:20

55:25

0

0 (1) 102:2

0:10 (1) 87:10 01/10/09 (1) 46:25 02/11/2015 (2) 30:25

31:7

08/02/98 (1) 31:10

1

1 (21) 8:9 11:4 13:9 14:22 33:14 38:5 46:13,16,19,20 55:17 60:8,14 62:5 67:7 69:1,25 77:18 80:16 111:3,4

1,056,000 (1) 41:12

1.0 (1) 54:13

1.1 (1) 2:4

1.2 (1) 13:10

1.3 (1) 21:3

10 (4) 46:1 69:8 109:9 110:1

10,000 (1) 102:1
10.00 (1) 110:3
10.30 (4) 1:2 109:6,11
109:19
10.40 (1) 1:4
100% (3) 102:3,6,14

105 (2) 41:24 87:1
105.6 (1) 41:11
11.00 (1) 9:15
11.15 (1) 9:17
12 (3) 91:19 92:6,10

14-FZ (1) 31:10

14.3 (1) 64:20

140 (2) 26:2,5

15 (1) 1:1

15% (5) 102:2 106:22 106:23,23,24

15.2 (1) 106:25

15A (1) 104:7

160,000 (3) 4:17,21 4:23

161,000 (2) 2:17 3:10

174 (3) 104:25 105:6 105:9

18 (1) 110:4

1977 (2) 66:13,14

2

2 (14) 13:10 14:22 30:25 46:19 54:12 55:17 60:8,14 65:25 67:7 69:1,25 80:16 90:13

2.0 (1) 54:15

2.1 (1) 2:11

2.1.1 (3) 19:7 21:6,12

2.2 (3) 72:8,15 77:22

2.3 (3) 2:12 3:5 77:25

2.4 (2) 72:22 78:7

200 (2) 80:14,18

2002 (1) 95:24
2004 (1) 95:24
2005 (1) 77:23
2006 (3) 104:23 107:2
107:8
2007 (7) 98:13 100:10
101:1,9 107:10,11 107:19

2008 (5) 1:16,18 72:17 100:10,10

2009 (28) 19:11 22:8 22:12,14,21 23:16 26:21 31:9 32:5,19 33:19,22 46:13,14 46:16,19 47:5 51:6 57:15 60:20 67:2 77:24 82:3 97:4 100:12,13 101:25 102:8

2010 (6) 72:19,23 73:1 91:5 96:23 102:9

2011 (22) 16:13,16 47:5 55:22 56:4 59:23 62:17 68:7 81:20 82:4 87:3,22 88:5 89:3,5 90:3 91:19 92:6,10 93:1 102:14,15

2012 (6) 4:8 7:15 10:25 13:11 21:23 26:21

2013 (4) 32:10 102:24 102:25 103:4

2015 (3) 30:15,23 51:23

2016 (3) 1:1 89:3 110:4

207 (2) 41:22 45:20

207,000 (1) 45:20

2181 (1) 98:6

23 (1) 19:11

24 (2) 104:22,23

25 (1) 48:10

26 (3) 33:19 39:14 40:1

27 (2) 65:12,17

27/28 (1) 65:4

28 (9) 5:21,23 7:14 13:11 30:15,23 31:10 65:14 66:19

29 (3) 91:5,9,14

3

3 (14) 13:13 14:22 37:20,24 40:6 41:7 55:18 58:14 60:9 60:15 66:7 67:6 69:1 80:16

3.07 (1) 81:11

3.20 (2) 91:9,14

3.22 (1) 81:13

3.30 (3) 108:24 109:5 109:12

3.4 (1) 56:12

30 (1) 22:8

31 (1) 22:12

31.28 (1) 40:11

313,000 (1) 40:12

34.5 (1) 56:8

4

4 (20) 13:15 14:24 19:4 37:21,24 40:10 41:10 55:19 58:14 60:9,15 64:15 67:6 69:1 80:16 82:22 83:1

83:23 87:19 90:1 4% (1) 102:10

4.35 (1) 110:2

43 (1) 66:11

456 (1) 64:19

46.1 (1) 77:14

5

5 (1) 69:7 50/50 (1) 96:11 53% (1) 96:9 55 (1) 69:3

6

6 (7) 2:20 3:19 4:20 4:22,25 11:7 58:7
60 (2) 5:9,12

670 (2) 13:18 17:12

675 (1) 17:12

69 (2) 87:8,8

7

7 (1) 96:23

700 (1) 78:20

8

8.5 (1) 106:24

800 (2) 65:11 71:2

82 (1) 82:18

89 (1) 48:9

9

900 (2) 65:2 78:20

96% (1) 102:9

97% (1) 64:21

99,000 (2) 56:9 61:8

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