Day 45

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

July 8, 2016 Day 45

1 Friday, 8 July 2016

(10.30 am)

MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Yes, good morning, welcome back,

Mr Milner.

Closing submissions by MR MILNER

MR MILNER: Good morning, my Lord, I am going to address

certain points relating to the valuation and Russian law

points, points which were not addressed in

the defendants’ written closing, and also respond to

some of my learned friend’s points on those topics.

MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Will you give me one second?

MR MILNER: Yes, of course.

MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: I do apologise.

Yes, sorry, on you go.

MR MILNER: I’m going to deal with the points that were not

raised in the defendants’ closing but also points that

were raised in the claimants’ closing, and also made

orally by Mr Birt over the last two days.

Before I do that, can I just make clear for the sake

of good order that I am appearing pro bono today. I say

that not by way of apology or as a boast, but just in

light of the comments that were made about the

Arkhangelskys having chosen to spend money on me at

various stages. It is true that they did pay me for the

cross-examination but nothing I have done since then has

any more about this, but just so it is clear what we are

saying, let me make two further points: first, I didn’t

put to Mr Millard, it is true, that he deliberately set

out to come up with a figure of $21 million or

thereabouts, but I did put to him that he must have

deliberately set out to come up with a low valuation.

That was {Day37/118/12-15}. I said that because the

flaws in his methodology, as I will go on to explain,

are so serious and so obvious that it is difficult to

believe that anyone seeking to achieve a neutral

objective valuation would adopt that method, but again

I don’t need to ask your Lordship to go that far.

Mr Lord objected to that question at the time, and

your Lordship ruled that although I had put the question

quite fiercely, Mr Millard was well up to answering it,

he did answer it, of course he denied that he had been

seeking to do anything other than give an objective

valuation, and we don’t now seek to go behind that at

all because, as I say, we don’t need to.

Just as a sort of jurisprudential aside, or

digression, very briefly, that allegation as it was put

wasn’t an allegation of dishonesty. It is not dishonest

for an expert to come up with a theory and advance

a theory that supports his client’s case. That’s what

happens in every single trial that comes before the

L15/89/2

Secondly, the auction has to be properly publicised.

And I don’t mean just comply with the minimal

requirements of Russian law. I am not making a point

about law, I am making a point about valuation and

market practice.

You have to allow time to — well, you have to reach

the maximum number of potential bidders. You have to

allow them time to investigate the asset. If it is

a complex asset, you have to enable them to do due

diligence, and all of that does take time. That’s

a point that I can illustrate with reference to

an authority, and it is {AUTH2/9/50}. It is the

Pugachev case, which your Lordship will recall having

had some involvement in last year.

At the early stage of the litigation an application

was made to set aside a freezing order on the ground of

material non-disclosure. One of the complaints was that

some assets which Mr Pugachev owned had been auctioned

off at what he said was a massive undervalue. There

were a number of indications that the price achieved was

an undervalue, and it was said that the claimants had

wrongly failed to disclose those.

One of those complaints was the fact that the

auction hadn’t been properly publicised, and

Mr Justice Mann dealt with this, starting at

but I have seen nothing in the evidence which I have

looked at, which creates any possibility that a buyer

such as a shipyard operator in another country would

have had any real prospect of finding out about these

auctions and bidding for them if it was interested in

doing so.

That’s something that needs to be considered when it

comes to assessing the claimants’ argument, that the

auction, by definition, gives you the market price.

The final point, of course, is that everyone who

wants to bid has to be admitted to the auction. If

bidders are excluded from the auction, then that

obviously makes the auction less competitive and

potentially reduces the final price.

So unless all those are satisfied, you can’t begin

to rely on the auction price as a guide to the real

value. As I say, Mr Stroilov addressed those to

the extent it is necessary in the context of the facts

in this case.

On a related point concerning auctions, and it is

more of a legal point, but it is convenient to deal with

it here, can I just address a question your Lordship

asked Mr Stroilov yesterday about whether it is

legitimate to have two connected bidders at an auction.

That was at {Day44/73/1}. Your Lordship asked

L15/89/3

L15/89/4

July 8, 2016 Day 45

So it piles non sequitur upon non sequitur in our

submission.

MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: I dare say if Southampton was the only

access to the Channel, it might bear greater value in

proportion to the land behind it.

MR MILNER: Exactly, it depends upon the features and

characteristics of both the industrial land you are

looking at but, particularly, the port. Mr Millard

accepted all those points, and I think the quote is in

our written closing, where he accepted there are a whole

series of characteristics of the land that would affect

the value. He didn’t accept the ultimate conclusion

that follows from that; that you simply cannot

simplistically compare some land in England with some

land in Russia and assume that the relationship between

land in a port and land outside a port is the same. He

didn’t accept that final conclusion.

But it follows inevitably from all the points that

he did accept that you have to look at the markets that

the ports serve, the extent of competition from other

ports, and so on.

So we say that it is simply unreliable. No reliance

can be placed on that method at all.

The cross-check that Mr Millard performed against

the ports in Australia and — yes, against the ports in

As I pointed out to him, it is like valuing

an airport without taking into account the fact that

planes can land there. It is ridiculous, we say. And

that was the basis of my comment to Mr Millard, that no

objective valuer could seriously believe that it was

a realistic way of going about this exercise. As I say,

I make that point rhetorically, I am not asking

your Lordship to find that, but it is so far-fetched

that it is difficult to take seriously.

Now, having rejected Mr Millard’s evidence on those

assets, one is then left with Ms Simonova’s evidence.

As I said, the claimants don’t really criticise her

methodology as such; what they criticise is her figures.

And it is said that the discounted cash flow method that

she has used is sensitive to changes in inputs, and

she’s not done a sensitivity analysis. That’s

a criticism that is made a number of times in

the written and oral closings for the claimants. It is

also said that some of her individual inputs are

unrealistic.

Now, as to the first point, it is correct that

Ms Simonova didn’t do a sensitivity analysis, but the

relevance of that is limited, in our submission, because

a sensitivity analysis in our submission goes both ways.

The numbers she has used are her best estimates. They

L15/89/5

L15/89/6

there is a market, you are looking at comparable assets

and what they actually sell for, and that data is

available and it can’t simply be based on one’s

experience. If there isn’t a market or a normal market

and one has to look at the business potential, then

again one is looking at an objective exercise in

estimating how much business they can expect to do.

Because it is a unique asset, by definition the

experience with other buyers and other applicants is,

again, of limited assistance.

You are looking at the objective features of this

property, and what a buyer who is in a position to

maximise its potential, because that’s what the basis of

valuation is, it’s the highest and best use, and one

assumes that it is going to be put into that use, what

profit they can make from it.

In relation to the other real estate assets, there

was an additional issue, which is that they were

agricultural land and needed to obtain a permission for

a change of use. We say that that’s not a serious

difficulty, and doesn’t seriously reduce the value,

first of all because there have been already

an indication from the authorities that there was no

fundamental objection to a change of use. The letters

are at {E8/26.1/29.1} and {E8/26.1/30.1}. So

it is irrelevant, really, whether the 2008 agreement was

a binding contract or not, but we say the better view is

that it was and that Professor Maggs’ objections don’t

stand up, and that therefore gives rise to liability

under Article 179 of the Civil Code on the basis that

the agreement was procured by misrepresentation — when

I say misrepresentation, I mean fraudulent

misrepresentation — or duress, or on the basis that it

was an unfairly one-sided transaction. Alternatively it

was breached because the moratorium was not complied

with.

There are three issues which are dealt with in

the claimants’ written closing, which are not dealt with

in our written closing, which I should address. The

main one is the question of reflective loss. The others

are limitation and competition between claims.

Dealing with reflective loss first, it’s

an important point that reflective loss is not

a defence, on any view, to Oslo Marine Group Ports’

claim. It is not, therefore, relevant to the question

of liability for the value of Western Terminal. It is

only relevant to the question whether we can recover

damages in respect of the loss of Scan and its assets.

I need to address specifically what the claimants

say about this at paragraph 987 of their written

L15/89/7

company might have suffered. That’s quite obvious: the

company might not have suffered any loss at all. It

might have flourished under the new owners and done

extremely well, but OMGP would have lost the entirety of

the value of the shares.

So the loss of the shares is a real and direct loss

suffered by OMGP itself, it’s not reflective of

anything. How one then measures the value of that

loss —

MR BIRT: I don’t want to interrupt, it may be that it is

being misunderstood. If I can’t clarify, then I am

sorry, but I think the distinction being drawn between

(c). (c) is talking about a loss in the value of the

shares, whereas (d), which we acknowledge can be

recovered, is the loss of the shares. It may have been

picked up, and it may have been unnecessary of me to

stand up, but just in case I thought I would make the

point.

MR MILNER: I am grateful for that. It may be that there

isn’t much between us in that case, but I do want to

make clear that what is being claimed is the value of

the shares because the shares were what was lost. It is

not merely a case of lost value of shares; it is the

loss of the shares.

benefits can be priced in, so to speak.

MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: I mean, if there was a market, if they

were publicly available shares on the market, then it

would be the value in December 2008, because the market

would have priced in the potentiality.

MR MILNER: Yes.

MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Where there is no market, and there

wasn’t, you have to work out what the economic benefits

conferred by the bundle of rights to shares comprised?

Is that not right?

MR MILNER: Yes, I think that’s right.

MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Yes.

MR MILNER: So no, issue, really, with Western Terminal.

With the other assets, it is a claim for reflective

loss, and the question arises whether there are any

circumstances when such a claim can be brought under

Russian law, and if so whether this case falls within

those circumstances.

MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Yes.

MR MILNER: Now, it is common ground that there is no rule

of substantive Russian law which prevents a claim for

reflective loss. There is a general rule regarding

compensation for loss. What is meant by «loss» is

a matter of interpretation.

There is also — and this is common ground as

L15/89/8

a claim if the company was disabled from bringing the

claim as a result of the wrongdoing complained of.

That’s {Day41/91/1} and {Day41/92/1}.

MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Is that a derivative claim?

MR MILNER: Not necessarily, no. If we look at what he

said. I said at line 21 in {Day41/91/21}:

«There could be circumstances, couldn’t there, where

a company had a claim in principle but it was in

practical terms impossible for it to bring it, and

impossible for the claimant to cause the company to

bring it.

«Answer: There might be such situations.

«Question: And in that situation it would be very

unfair, wouldn’t it, if nobody had any remedy for the

loss which the company, and through the company its

shareholders, had suffered; it would be a raider’s

charter wouldn’t it?

«Answer: That would be a very unfortunate

situation.

«Question: And it would be contrary to the general

principle of Russian law that harm should be

compensated?

«Answer: Yes.

«Question: So it is possible, isn’t it, that if you

had that factual scenario that a Russian court would

exception to the rule against reflective loss.

MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Giles v Rhind was rather an odd case.

MR MILNER: Well, it may have been odd and, as I say, it is

not uncontroversial, but it is authoritatively settled,

at least up to the level of the Court of Appeal, that

that is right, and I think it is Parker v Waddington,

a 2009 case, that holds that Giles v Rhind is good law,

despite what Lord Millett said about it. I may have got

the name of that case slightly wrong, it’s

Parker v someone …

MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: I shall have to look at Giles v Rhind.

MR MILNER: I say it is not surprising because of course the

policy underlying these rules is the same: there

shouldn’t be double recovery, but equally, loss should

be compensated. And it is how you balance those

interests.

But going on with —

MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: The two aspects in England are not

altogether easy to analogise with Russian. In England

we simply have a strict rule as to the proper claimant,

and where the source of the problem is damage to

the company, we are pretty rigorous, subject to

the exceptions you mentioned, in demanding that the

company and only the company should be the complainant.

The second is, where there is coordinate duty owed

L15/89/9

actually damage that’s been suffered by the company and

should, therefore, be claimed by the company, otherwise

there may be double compensation.

Causes of actions are only relevant if the

shareholder has one and the company doesn’t, and then

there can’t be any objection to the shareholder

recovering it because the company can’t recover it.

Just while I think of it, the names of the cases

have come back to me, and I will send these in more

formally, but it is Gardner v Parker is the case in the

Court of Appeal, and Webster v Sandersons, I think are

the two Court of Appeal cases since Giles v Rhind, but

which affirm the principles in that case.

Just going on with what Professor Maggs said,

because I think this makes the position even clearer,

Professor Maggs went on to discuss the article from

Professor Yarkov, whom he agreed was an eminent scholar

in Russian civil law, and if we go down in his evidence

to pages 93 and following, at the bottom of 92

Professor Maggs agrees that Professor Yarkov is a very

well known expert, and if we then go over to the next

page, {Day41/93/1}, he referred to an article which is

at {E4/14.1/288}.

Professor Yarkov in this article expressed the view

that it would be wrong to limit shareholder claims to

then he should be able to bring a claim directly. By

the same token, it is open to an English court to hold

that a claimant can do that under Russian law, just as

he would be able to do under English law, applying

Giles v Rhind.

There is no risk of double recovery or prejudice to

creditors because the creditors are not going to cause

this claim to be brought otherwise.

So we say that the reflective loss doesn’t provide

a defence in this case in relation to the Scan asset.

Dealing more briefly with the other points, the

first one was competition between claims. The point

here is that because we are asserting a contractual

claim, it is not open to us to assert a tort claim

because the Russian court doesn’t allow you to bring

those claims at the same time.

We say that even in Russia, no Russian court has

applied such a principle. The cases where a similar

principle has been applied are different. They involve

claims for vindication, in other words the recovery of

property, where the courts have said you can’t combine

a vindication claim with a contractual claim because

they have totally inconsistent regimes for restitution

of property, there’s a clash of the rules and,

therefore, you can’t claim both at the same time.

L15/89/10

L15/89/11

L15/89/12

Bradford Investments, and then it arose in

Johnson v Gore Wood 20 or so years later. I don’t know

what one should assume in Russian.

MR MILNER: Well, it is, in a sense, a blank canvass. There

are simply no decisions that discuss it. We have

Professor Yarkov’s view about what the law should be or,

indeed, is, as I would submit.

I mean, there are really two ways one can go about

it, and ultimately they come to the same end point. One

can say: There is no effective Russian law, so I may as

well apply English law principles. Which is what one

does when there is a vacuum of foreign law generally.

Or one can say: Well, doing the best I can, how do

I think a Russian judge would approach this? Would they

say, «Never under any circumstances», or would they say,

«Yes, no prohibition at all», or would they say, «It’s

available in defined and limited circumstances», exactly

as English law does? I submit that the last of those is

the most plausible analysis, although there is no

guidance from Russia, really, either way.

There is no good reason to refuse to allow a claim

to be brought where it would be unjust not to. Why

would one do that, one asks rhetorically.

MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: I mean, the thing is that reflective

loss in England can cause unjust results to some extent.

introduced or not yet discovered a notion of reflective

loss, depending on their jurisdictional view, whether

the law is always there and uncovered, or whether it is

introduced, or should I say, in this uncertain

situation, I should simply follow the precepts of

English law with which I am familiar?

MR MILNER: I think ultimately the outcome is going to be

the same, but as a matter of strict doctrine, the

question that your Lordship has to answer is: on the

proper interpretation of Articles 1064 and 15 and the

other provisions we are concerned with, are the

conditions for liability made out? And the ones which

reflective loss may affect are, first of all, the

question of whether there is a loss within the meaning

of Articles 1064 and 15 and so on, and secondly the

question of whether the loss has been caused to

the claimant as opposed to the company, for example.

There is, as your Lordship says, no real guidance as

to the scope of those terms in this particular context.

So I think all that your Lordship can do is seek to

apply those substantive rules in a way which seems to

your Lordship to be sensible and fair and reasonable.

That, in practice, may very well be the same way

that the English courts approach the same question, and

of course in English law we don’t conceptualise it as

L15/89/13

L15/89/14

L15/89/15

L15/89/16

L15/89/17

document in those four sequences insofar as they

postdated the actual decision on 17 July.

In my submissions the —

MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Of July?

MR STROILOV: Of June, I beg your pardon. 17 June 2009.

In my submissions the explanation for the deletion

given to your Lordship by Mrs Blinova, admittedly as

a speculation, essentially she thought that she was

ordered to do so by Client Monitoring Directorate, and

then she defended this as being perfectly proper. But

essentially what we are concerned with, obviously, is

not the propriety of Mrs Blinova’s personal conduct, and

I stressed in cross-examination, after being rightly

prompted to do so, that I am not alleging any dishonesty

against her personally.

What is important is why would Client Monitoring

Directorate give her such an instruction, and if it was

simply a matter of correcting a mistake and avoiding

confusion, it would have been sufficient to change the

last of the reports rather than go through this huge

sequence of scores and scores of reports, which are

identical, and erasing it from every report in

the chronological sequence.

And of course there was no inaccuracy because, as we

know from that specific disclosure given pursuant to

We say that with the evidence of this intention,

that really casts a new light on what really happened

subsequently, and the explanation — where the assets

were actually transferred, albeit via purported public

auctions rather than just like this, just arbitrarily.

That actually shows what intentions the Bank already

had by that time, and the explanation about this being

a desperate, sporadic reaction to the news of the

Morskoy Bank loan and Mr Arkhangelsky going to war with

the Bank does not hold water. Well, he didn’t go to

war; he tried to take a perfectly legitimate legal

action against the Bank, which the Bank sought to defeat

by unlawful, dishonest means.

My Lord, considering the events of 2009, I think

I want to make a few minor additional points. A point

I make, and which my learned friend has criticised,

about the significance of whether it was Mr Savelyev who

evaded contact with the Bank or Mr Arkhangelsky who

evaded contact with — well, with the Bank. I beg your

pardon, let me start again. Whether we say Mr Savelyev

was evading contact with Mr Arkhangelsky, there were

persistent letters seeking a meeting and Mr Savelyev had

never genuinely reacted to it, except that note he made

on one of the letters where he suggested that Mr Guz and

Mrs Volodina should see him.

L15/89/18

But it is perfectly consistent with our case where

we say: well, once they had the shares in their hands,

there was, from their point of view, nothing to talk

about. They were busy really trying to remove the

shares and assets from within the possible reach of

Mr Arkhangelsky.

My Lord, just trying to look back at where we are in

our analysis, as I suggested yesterday, good method

analysis was really to look back at the result and then

go backwards to see when the relevant intention was

formed. Well, we find the purported auctions which

were, in my submission, clearly dishonest and lawful.

Now, then we see that the auctions conclude or

appear in the context of a series of transactions

designed clearly to — well, in our submission quite

clearly to achieve several purposes, including further

removal of the assets, making it more difficult to

unwind the transfers, to unify them so as to maximise

the value in the hands of the ultimate beneficiaries of

the transfers, and at the same time to encumber them in

various ways so as to minimise the potential price at

public auctions.

Coming back for a moment to your Lordship’s point

about: well, how did they ensure that independent

bidders wouldn’t come forward, it’s important to

But other than that, it wasn’t that important

whether it’s 300 million or 500 million in relation to

any particular asset, so that was — so if there was

a risk that some independent bidder might come forward

after all, that was a risk they might have well taken.

It does not contradict our case on the fraud.

So, my Lord, looking back at this, if we try to

understand when this sequence of transfers starts, that

really brings us back to the transfer to subsequent

purchasers and the replacement of management connected

to that, and in my submission it would be a proper

inference, given the proximity of these two events and

the connection between them in terms of logic, that the

main purpose of replacing the management was to enable

a transfer of the assets away from the two companies.

So you see a perfectly logical, coherent plan in

operation, rather than a series of sporadic reactions to

events which the claimants tried to present as

an explanation of their actions.

Now, but the next question, I think, is whether this

intention to appropriate the assets was formed prior to

the December agreement. I know the claimants don’t like

the term «December 2008 agreement», but at the moment

I rather refer to it as a factual landmark rather than

any legal agreement as such. That’s a matter for

L15/89/19

yesterday that I don’t want to spend a lot of time on

discussing the credibility of various witnesses, I think

I need to address you, if only briefly, in relation to

what the claimants have said about Mr Arkhangelsky’s

evidence, since so much turns on it. Of course, I do so

without the benefit of actually being there when he gave

evidence, and I am sure your Lordship has formed your

own impression, whereas I only read the transcript, but

I will make a few points.

Mr Arkhangelsky was a very frank witness. There is

no doubt about that. He told you about a number of

matters about himself which are not attractive. Unless

he was keen to comply with his oath to tell the truth,

he had no reason to do so. He had no reason, to take

the brightest example, to tell your Lordship about the

bribes, apart from his determination to tell the truth.

If it was a question of explaining away

a discrepancy in the figures, and if he was prepared to

make things up, as the claimants would have you believe,

there would be a hundred ways to explain it away which

would be far less damaging than admitting to paying

these massive bribes.

So he came to court clearly being determined to tell

you the truth about himself, including very unattractive

things; apart from bribes, he also told you about

given after that, his reaction to that was not to become

more cautious and less frank, really; it was to become

more aggressive, admittedly, and you will have seen —

there is no denial, you will have seen from his evidence

that there is very considerable animus that he has

against the Bank and people associated with it,

including, unfortunately, the legal representatives,

which is obviously not right, but that’s something

that — well, he is not the first one who has this

feeling, misconceived as it may be.

It is true that he was — well, therefore,

considering in this his manner of giving evidence, it is

important to distinguish or to recognise that at times

he may have failed to distinguish between argument and

factual evidence. Now, he was at times clearly arguing

the case, he was polemicising, and sometimes, as

argument does go, his arguments do go over the top. It

does happen to him. And that’s especially regrettable

when it happens in the context of giving evidence.

For instance, I think, to take an example, I don’t

think it is exactly what he said, but that’s pretty much

in the manner of some of his answers, he is perfectly

capable of saying in the heat of the argument: well, you

know what, Mr Lord, your clients are such crooks that

all the documents they have produced are forgeries as

L15/89/20

L15/89/21

alternative basis, for the value of the assets, if not

business.

It is only if the assets were overvalued that,

really, the claimant’s submission on financial pyramid

should succeed. So it all comes down to valuations,

ultimately, in my submission.

Similarly, of course, any suggestion that part of

the assets were siphoned off and hidden does not appear

likely at all, and hasn’t been proven to any

satisfactory degree.

Firstly, I think it is a rather astonishing

submission made by the claimants repeatedly that

Mr Arkhangelsky claimed to be impecunious in order to

avoid judicial scrutiny of his assets position. Now,

firstly, by claiming impecuniosity in response to

a freezing order, you rather invite judicial scrutiny

than avoid it.

Secondly, as a matter of fact, there has been very

considerable judicial scrutiny of the assets position.

It occupied your Lordship’s time for about two years in

2012 and 2013. It was dealt with very professionally

and, without meaning a criticism, aggressively by the

then legal team of the claimants. The disclosure was

scrutinised in every possible means. There were

cross-examinations, there were additional evidence,

can’t break it down what that company was, why it was

there and so on. We say —

MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: I can’t remember where they deal with

this in there.

MR STROILOV: That, my Lord, will be — it is near the

beginning. I will find it —

MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: It is mentioned at 1132. I think it

is 1133, is it?

MR BIRT: I was going to say page 127, my Lord.

MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: 127. I’ve got it at 594.

MR BIRT: We come back to it later, my Lord, as well. Yes,

my Lord is quite right, {AA3&4/14/127}.

MR STROILOV: I am very grateful to my learned friend.

My Lord, I think what they quote, perhaps to put it

in context, if you turn to 129, you see they discuss the

response which Mr Arkhangelsky gave to them.

MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Page?

MR STROILOV: That’s {AA3&4/14/129} and paragraph 15(3) and

then (4).

Now, my Lord, I think the letter of Mr Arkhangelsky

is not quoted in full, to I would ask to call on the

screen that letter at {I24/34/61}. I will invite

your Lordship to read through this letter, and then make

submissions. I think that’s the best way.

(Pause)

L15/89/22

L15/89/23

whatever, well, then, if it was handled, if the assets

were simply transferred to an agent to handle in some

way on behalf of the company, well, there is nothing

suspicious about him not remembering it.

MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Is there anything you want to say

about — he seems to have no knowledge of City Centre at

all.

MR STROILOV: Indeed, my Lord. He has no recollection of

that.

MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: So it’s not only he can’t remember the

transfer, but he is putting a conjecture in respect of

an entity which he supposes might have received all this

money, but he has no idea about the entity at all?

MR STROILOV: Yes, my Lord. Well, it is consistent — so,

if he is right in his conjecture, that’s not that

surprising. Well, if it was simply a broker, well, he

knew that the assets were invested in some way as part

of the group’s normal operations; well, through which

broker it may have been done is not something — well,

that’s a level of detail you would not necessarily

expect from the head of a group —

MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: That’s a bit of a brave submission,

isn’t it? I mean, in an imaginary discussion between

a liquidator or other insolvency officer, saying: now,

there’s a billion went to this entity — and one would

as a director, he is bound to give an account to

the fiduciary.

MR STROILOV: Yes, my Lord — no, but in normal

circumstances it is being done with some access —

MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Well, he says they were normal

circumstances. He says it was all perfectly normal.

Why can’t he account for it?

MR STROILOV: Because he hasn’t got access to the documents.

MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Right.

MR STROILOV: To the — well, it is — obviously

your Lordship is right, but it is subject to

clarification. Well, the director is asked about

matters such as this and he, in a properly run company,

would know which account to look at and which file to

open and find the answer.

But whether or not he carries it in his head is just

a memory test. It’s a slightly different standard, if

you see what I mean, my Lord.

MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Well, in any event, you say, however

surprised I may be, it would be even more surprising on

the balance of probabilities if what was happened was

a salting away to City Centre, if that hadn’t been

discovered. So as much one source of surprise against

another, and you say in doing that I come up with the

not proven verdict.

L15/89/24

L15/89/25

L15/89/26

L15/89/27

105

MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: She was a cipher, and she realised

that he was just using Vyborg as a conduit for payments

to entities which he controlled, or himself.

MR STROILOV: My Lord, I will check.

MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: I think you had better, because my

initial instinct is that one could understand why she

might have got cold feet about saying such a thing.

MR STROILOV: But my Lord, then you would expect, and

I think it is a rather established test, you would

expect someone on the claimants’ side to say: well,

we’ve tried to get Ms Krygina to give evidence, but

unfortunately she got cold feet, and you could have

readily believed it because people do get cold feet

about these kind of things.

MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Implicating themselves in a massive

fraud?

MR STROILOV: Yes, my Lord, but that’s not what you are

told, really. Well, you are told nothing about why

Ms Krygina is not here. And, indeed, if the claimants

rely on what has happened to Vyborg Shipping as

an example of fraud, well, they should have explained

why their friend, who was prepared to give them —

really, well, she indicates — perhaps we had better

have a look at the e-mail which I showed to Ms Mironova

at the time, which is at {D153/2567.1/1}.

107

had been perpetrating in siphoning off money.

MR STROILOV: Well, firstly, obviously, she would have had

a right to refuse to incriminate herself, and secondly,

and most importantly, you are not told that she refused

for that reason or for any other.

Now, for all you know, the claimants didn’t ask her

to give evidence. Indeed, Ms Mironova said that, to her

knowledge, no one from the Bank asked her to give

evidence.

I think I cross-examined her on this on Day 35,

starting at page 93, {Day35/93/1}. I’m not sure we need

to go through all of it, but if your Lordship is minded

to consider this in more detail, I think Ms Mironova is

the witness with whom I went —

MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Sometimes one is uncertain as to why

someone hasn’t been called, sometimes one can see the

likelihood why they haven’t been called. I would have

thought this was a latter case.

MR STROILOV: Well, my Lord, in the light of your

observations, I would like possibly to return to this on

Monday.

MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: That’s fine.

MR STROILOV: Because I think there are some documents which

are not consistent with this conjecture and it is

obviously no more than a conjecture.

L15/89/28

109

of the seal. Are you going to address anything on that

or shall I just read it and reach my own conclusion?

MR STROILOV: At the end I will briefly, yes, deal with the

issue of the seal.

MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Don’t take yourself out of your chosen

course.

MR STROILOV: I think that’s actually helpful. On the issue

of the seal, my instructions are he unreservedly

acknowledges that what he did was wrong. He regrets

having done that, but that’s what he has done and he has

told your Lordship about this. And that’s pretty much

the end of it.

MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: He misled me, didn’t he?

MR STROILOV: He did, yes.

MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: And not only misled me but, whilst

I note his acknowledgement and apology now, he didn’t

make it in Paris when he was being examined; he kept on

along the line that this was a bit of a mystery.

MR STROILOV: I’m not sure he —

MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Maybe I have recollected wrong.

I don’t know.

MR STROILOV: — did. I think he — no, I think he did tell

your Lordship that — I mean, perhaps I had better find

that element, but my — I will try to summarise it and

if my learned friend prefers to look at the actual

111

MR STROILOV: That’s right, my Lord.

MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: So it was a direct — I don’t mean to

torture you, Mr Stroilov, but it was a direct misleading

of me on a point of which I had expressly asked for

confirmation. It is pretty flagrant, isn’t it?

MR STROILOV: Well, it is, and really we don’t make any

reservations. But as for the extent to which you were

misled, it was not — well, the substance of it was

right, of the document: he was a director general, he

had the power to authorise himself to conduct litigation

on behalf of the company. So, in substance, it was

right, and I don’t understand the claimants to suggest

otherwise. But on top of that, for whatever idiotic

reason, he actually made it — made the document sealed,

whereas he didn’t have the seal and he didn’t have to

provide the sealed document. The signed document would

have been enough.

I do submit that this does not amount to evidence of

habitual dishonesty, as such. People make mistakes,

people get carried away, and it does not compliment him

and he acknowledges that it was clearly wrong of him to

do that.

But, again, the inference of habitual dishonesty,

and really that everything he does must be dishonest, is

quite far-fetched.

L15/89/29

L15/89/30

L15/89/31

L15/89/32

L15/89/33

L15/89/34

133

it was good practice, and why, as a matter of common

sense, and if not a matter of a legal obligation as

a matter of good order, you have to have this consent.

The intention is precisely to protect the rights of

the borrower’s family, of the borrower’s wife,

ordinarily, against him recklessly guaranteeing various

loans and then creating a huge liability for the family

assets without her consent. It was to protect her

rights. And that is why it has to be signed in the

presence of the Bank’s employee. Other than that, there

is no purpose; it is really to protect

Mrs Arkhangelskaya against Mr Arkhangelsky just creating

liabilities for family assets.

On their case, the Bank was prepared to let

Mr Arkhangelsky possibly sign it himself without really

checking that Mrs Arkhangelskaya knew anything about it.

So effectively the Bank admits that they were quite

happy to be a party to loading liabilities on

Mrs Arkhangelskaya without her knowledge. What we

disagree about is whether Mr Arkhangelsky was part of

that fabrication or whether it was done without his

knowledge as well.

Indeed, extraordinarily, even now, at the trial,

none of the Bank’s witnesses were prepared to admit that

it was wrong. I think Mrs Blinova has quite clearly

135

corrected — her evidence is that she had no idea about

that and she believes these to have been forgeries, she

never had any intention of signing any such consents.

Whereas the Bank gave evidence that they believed —

and, if I’m not mistaken, everyone who said that seemed

to believe that — on the basis of what they say

Mr Arkhangelsky told them, that it was simply a matter

of convenience and she wouldn’t mind.

I don’t think any of them has told your Lordship

that they have in any way verified with

Mrs Arkhangelskaya that, in fact, she does not mind.

Well, the purpose of this document being effectively

for the Bank to check on Mr Arkhangelsky that — you

know, that his wife agrees to him providing the

guarantee. Even on the Bank’s case, effectively they

combined with Mr Arkhangelsky to cheat

Mrs Arkhangelskaya, to create liabilities against family

assets to which she — in which she had her 50 per cent

interest, without her knowledge or consent. That is

what — in my submission, that is what follows from what

the Bank’s witnesses told you.

Well, we disagree with that. We say that

Mr Arkhangelsky was among the victims of this rather

than among the forgers.

But, as between the Bank and Mrs Arkhangelskaya,

L15/89/35

July 8, 2016 Day 45

it’s clear that they wronged her and they are not

prepared to admit the obvious.

My Lord, but that, in my submission, indicates

a rather broader picture, and in a way I don’t want to

try and score too many points out of it, rather than

saying — I’m not suggesting that this in itself

indicates any outrageous dishonesty on the part of

the Bank; I am rather saying that this illustrates that

the Bank did not regard the guarantees as anything

particularly important. It did not envisage that it

would ever have to enforce them, and for that reason

it’s thought it is quite acceptable to cut a few corners

and not to be particularly strict about it and, indeed,

to forge a signature for convenience without intending

it to cause anyone any harm. But — it was not seen as

something quite unacceptable. It was part of

the practice on the understanding that it was all

ultimately unimportant.

The Bank has given evidence about the practice it

has of backdating documents from time to time. It is

not — again, it is not something they find unacceptable

when it is — when they consider it as being helpful to

the parties concerned.

Now, what I’m driving at is that in these

circumstances it is not particularly improbable that,

«I recall that, in the context of the restructuring,

the Bank required personal guarantees from

Mr Arkhangelsky to be in place. I believe that this was

considered to be necessary to show that Mr Arkhangelsky

was acting in good faith and would stand behind the

obligations of his companies.»

Then to the end of this paragraph.

My Lord, what is rather striking about this evidence

is that it is so categorical and unambiguous. Her

recollection is that it was in December 2008 or possibly

in early January in the context of the restructuring of

the loans that the Bank required personal guarantees to

be in place, and that implies that at least some of them

were not in place by that time.

My Lord, it is not in the overall context — that

puts it in quite a different context. Obviously you

have heard a lot of evidence from the witnesses on the

Bank’s side about —

MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: What were the alleged dates of

the guarantees? Much earlier?

MR STROILOV: They are, yes.

MR BIRT: They go back to 2006, my Lord, and the first Onega

loan, middle of 2006. There are, of course, a lot of

extensions to the guarantees as part of

the restructuring, when all the loans were extended,

L15/89/36

L15/89/37

L15/89/38

L15/89/39

July 8, 2016 Day 45

there is — well, and essentially I think I will just

have a final summary and then possibly I will pick up

any points I may have forgotten. I don’t expect I will

need more than an hour and a half to two hours, in

the worst case scenario, on Monday morning.

MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Well done.

We will start at 10.30 am, then, on Monday; does

that suit you all?

MR STROILOV: It does, my Lord.

MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Thank you. Have a good weekend.

(4.34 pm)

(The court adjourned until 10.30 am on

Monday, 11 July 2016)

Closing submissions by MR MILNER …………………1

Closing submissions by MR STROILOV ………………60

L15/89/40

155

July 8, 2016 Day 45

A1/2 (1) 140:10 A1/2/73 (1) 140:21

AA3&4/14/127 (1)

84:12

AA3&4/14/129 (1)

84:18

AA3&4/14/136 (1)

96:16

AA3&4/14/138 (1)

96:18

AA3&4/14/523 (1)

25:1

AA3&4/14/524 (1)

51:6

AA3&4/14/530 (1)

54:16

AA3&4/14/72 (1)

125:13

AA3&4/14/73 (1)

126:1

AA3&4/14/77 (1)

132:10

AA3&4/607/1 (1)

111:11 ability (1) 11:4

able (9) 17:1 36:1,4 52:2 75:4 80:13 81:3 85:25 100:7

absence (2) 50:22 149:16

absolute (1) 33:2 absolutely (7) 21:24

45:18 52:9 73:20 91:5 118:19 119:19

absurd (1) 14:23 abusive (1) 10:19 academic (1) 47:23 academics (1) 47:21 accept (14) 4:16 13:12

13:17,19 27:1 29:14 41:8 49:2 50:6 65:6 95:9 127:16 145:23 147:19

acceptable (1) 137:12 acceptance (2) 125:22

127:23

accepted (8) 13:9,10 19:10 29:25 38:11 41:14 125:21 152:19

accepting (3) 11:25

127:19 141:7 access (8) 12:9,24

13:4 56:6 85:14 91:12 92:4,8

account (10) 15:2 17:14 18:10 75:11 92:1,7,14 120:25 122:21 145:25

accountable (3) 85:18 85:20 97:8

accountants (1) 94:12 accounted (3) 87:18

94:19 96:25 accounts (11) 80:6

81:10,11 87:12,19 89:7,8 94:13 123:18,22 147:9

accurate (1) 16:7 accusing (1) 69:9 achieve (7) 3:10 5:15

5:25 7:11 70:16 71:2,5

achieved (1) 6:20 achieving (1) 5:24 acknowledge (1)

assumes (1) 22:15 assuming (2) 7:9

45:15 assumption (4) 12:16

12:19 127:15 145:18

assumptions (2) 12:15 20:13

astonishing (1) 82:11 attaching (1) 129:2 attachments (1) 120:5 attempt (1) 138:16 attempts (2) 71:4

88:6

attention (1) 99:10 attractive (1) 74:12 auction (20) 5:3,8,21 6:1,24 7:2,18 8:9 8:11,12,13,16,24

10:13,16,25 11:1,5 71:6,15

auctioned (1) 6:18 auctions (11) 5:20 8:5

8:20 62:3,5 68:5 70:11,13,22 71:8 71:12

Australia (1) 13:25 AUTH2/9/50 (1) 6:12 authorise (1) 112:10 authorising (2) 85:10

111:24 authoritative (1) 35:6 authoritatively (1)

32:4

authorities (3) 22:23

23:1 35:17 authority (5) 6:12

27:4 40:10 42:11 83:3

available (6) 22:3 28:3 46:17 51:20 52:16 91:23

average (1) 16:4 avoid (4) 82:14,17 144:16,17 avoiding (1) 66:18 avoids (1) 83:13

award (2) 29:10 51:12 awarded (2) 51:9

148:3

b (4) 25:5 62:23 63:3 78:17

B1/5/1 (1) 138:21 B1/5/13 (1) 138:25 B1/5/14 (1) 138:23 back (26) 1:3 34:9

40:3 44:9,23,24 56:14 59:6 60:7 70:7,9,23 71:15 72:7,9 84:11 113:16,19,23 115:8 116:5 118:15 123:4 139:22 140:17 145:3

backdated (1) 138:13 backdating (2) 137:20

141:6 background (3) 63:5

83:22 109:13 backtracking (1) 11:16 backwards (1) 70:10 bad (3) 10:22 65:2

104:9 badly (1) 26:13

Baker (3) 83:3 116:5 116:10

L15/89/41

156

July 8, 2016 Day 45

105:1 129:11 152:25

businesses (2) 20:23 80:18

businessman (1)

89:14 busy (1) 70:4

buy (7) 9:17,19 10:8 10:12 21:21 75:4 80:12

buyer (4) 8:2 21:3 22:12 58:8

buyers (5) 7:12 20:20 21:18,18 22:9

buying (3) 20:23 75:3 80:9

BVI (4) 83:10 86:4 116:7,19

c (5) 26:13,14,14 63:1 63:8

C1/1/30 (2) 121:16,22 C1/2/1 (1) 152:12 C1/2/5 (1) 152:15 cadastral (1) 124:19 calculated (1) 12:10 calibrated (1) 2:12 call (3) 84:21 104:18

105:3

called (11) 21:2 42:12 45:25 83:24 86:6 96:4 105:6,10 108:16,17 111:22

candid (1) 75:24 canvass (1) 46:4 capable (4) 4:15 50:4

76:23 77:2 capital (1) 146:19 captured (2) 61:15

62:12 cards (1) 93:14

careful (1) 75:19 carried (2) 63:16

112:20 carries (1) 92:16

carry (5) 54:22 77:25 95:9 125:3 131:8

cars (1) 14:15 case (73) 2:25 3:24

4:5 6:13 8:19 14:2 17:9,10 19:24 26:18,21,24 28:17 29:1 31:3,7,15 32:2 32:7,9 34:10,13 35:22 36:10 37:15 38:12,14,23 40:12 42:12 45:25 50:14 51:16,25 52:12,14 53:2,20 56:13,19 58:16 69:24 70:1 71:24 72:6 76:16 78:14 85:12 100:13 101:18 105:1,6,18 108:18 109:5,6,11 109:14,23 120:16 130:1,10,10,14 132:1,2 133:12 134:14 136:15 138:16 141:6 146:22 153:5

cases (14) 21:25 31:22 34:8,12 36:18 51:8 51:9,11,13,15,20 52:6 75:16 109:5 cash (3) 11:20 15:14

19:14 cashing (1) 83:7

L15/89/42

157

July 8, 2016 Day 45

77:21 78:17 125:7 141:19 147:21 148:5,7

credible (1) 146:16 credit (4) 71:19 145:6

145:6 147:23 creditor (1) 88:17 creditors (3) 36:7,7

151:11 crew (1) 101:6

criminal (1) 75:16 criminals (1) 75:2 crisis (4) 94:14 101:6

101:24 103:14 crisply (1) 120:6 critical (2) 102:23

104:6 critically (1) 29:25 criticise (4) 11:19

15:12,13 75:9 criticised (1) 68:16 criticism (4) 15:17

44:4 82:22 125:17 criticisms (3) 60:24

77:5 102:12 crooks (1) 76:24 cross-check (3) 13:24

57:18 58:5

cross-examination (…

1:25 54:7 66:13 102:2 104:15 105:8 113:8 116:13 144:11 151:4

cross-examinations …

19:21 82:25 cross-examined (1)

108:10 cross-examining (1)

65:11 cross-referring (1)

142:13

current (3) 25:7 35:12

35:19

cut (1) 137:12 Cyprus (1) 96:4

d (4) 26:13,15 27:1 62:24

D104/1397/1 (1)

102:24

D104/1425/1 (1)

104:2

D153/2567.1/1 (1)

106:25

D196/2937/1 (1)

97:18

D45/784/1 (2) 122:24 123:1

D49/855/1 (1) 133:9 damage (3) 32:21

33:25 34:1 damages (4) 17:22

24:23 29:10 31:1 damaging (1) 74:21 danger (1) 45:14 dare (2) 13:3 148:12 dark (1) 49:18

data (4) 16:19,21,25 22:2

date (9) 25:7 60:21 100:11,19,19 123:19 124:2 143:14 151:17

dated (6) 62:18 100:4 100:12 122:23 140:4,25

dates (3) 139:19

140:8,23

day (4) 67:23 108:10 113:18 151:21

Day3/92/1 (1) 117:23

Day3/93/1 (1) 117:23

Day35/93/1 (1)

108:11

Day37/118/12-15 (1)

3:7

Day37/126/1 (1) 19:9 Day41/10/1 (1) 9:9 Day41/78/1 (1) 39:10 Day41/79/1 (1) 39:11 Day41/82/1 (1) 39:10 Day41/82/21 (1) 29:4 Day41/87/1 (1) 29:24 Day41/91/1 (1) 30:3 Day41/91/21 (1) 30:6 Day41/92/1 (1) 30:3 Day41/93/1 (1) 34:22 Day43/92/1 (1) 2:14 Day43/93/1 (1) 2:14 Day44/73/1 (1) 8:25 days (1) 1:18

DCF (1) 11:22 dead (1) 91:24 deal (14) 1:15 8:21

18:17 43:3,4 56:4 73:6 84:3 96:11 109:22 110:3 118:6 125:6,7

dealing (5) 24:17 36:11 52:25 69:15 147:2

deals (2) 20:17 23:20 dealt (7) 6:25 9:7

24:12,13 54:17 82:21 147:4

debate (3) 11:14 41:4 113:18

debit (2) 98:2 144:15 debt (4) 65:2 71:16 87:18 124:17

debts (4) 119:15 124:16 147:23,25

December (17) 27:23 28:4 40:25 72:22 72:23 73:15 78:18 79:2 103:1 104:3 124:13 138:11 139:10 142:5,22 143:5 144:9

decided (1) 51:11 decision (3) 11:19 66:2 144:12 decisions (1) 46:5

declaration (4) 131:11

133:8,11,16

declarations (3)

130:20 149:11,14 declining (1) 69:4 deemed (1) 149:17 default (3) 81:22,23

85:9

defeat (1) 68:12 defence (8) 24:19

36:10 43:23 44:20 57:5 58:13 59:3 140:22

defendant’s (1) 7:3 defendants (3) 41:19

44:17 56:25 defendants’ (4) 1:9,16

23:20 50:8 defended (1) 66:10 defined (1) 46:17 definition (3) 5:4 8:9

22:8

degree (2) 82:10

119:20 delay (1) 42:17

deleted (3) 65:5,9,25 deletion (3) 65:11,13

66:6

deliberately (3) 3:3,6 4:6

delighted (1) 104:11 demanding (1) 32:23 demonstrate (3)

80:20 120:19 150:10

demonstrates (1)

80:21

denial (2) 76:4 122:6 denials (1) 117:2 denied (2) 3:16 33:25 deny (1) 114:6 departments (1)

62:22

depend (4) 14:5 20:14 80:16,18

depending (2) 41:10 48:2

depends (3) 13:6 58:17 79:21 depth (1) 102:2 derivative (4) 30:4 31:16 35:1,25 derive (1) 111:18 derived (1) 16:20

described (3) 7:2 75:2 104:8

describing (1) 93:4 designed (4) 7:11 10:21 47:1 70:15

desperate (2) 68:8 119:16

desperately (1)

119:14 despite (1) 32:8 destroyed (1) 33:4

detail (8) 4:25 23:17 44:5 90:20 98:9 99:22 108:13 152:8

detailed (3) 61:6 115:13 121:24

determinant (1) 21:12 determination (2)

47:6 74:16 determinative (1)

69:8

determined (1) 74:23 determining (1) 81:17 develop (1) 35:14 developed (1) 49:9 development (3) 23:9

47:4 56:20 devices (1) 103:13 difference (5) 18:19

27:9,16 141:3,20 different (16) 36:19 37:23 38:4 39:25 45:16 49:11 54:7 85:9 92:17 95:16

116:20 139:16 143:17 146:4,21 147:9

difficult (12) 3:9 15:9 47:15 57:12 58:14 59:11 64:6 69:11 70:17 87:22 114:20 128:20

difficulties (3) 114:12 124:21 138:17

difficulty (5) 20:4 22:21 121:1 129:23 129:24

digression (1) 3:21

L15/89/43

158

July 8, 2016 Day 45

88:22 95:20,22 116:15

explained (9) 9:5 38:18 50:23 75:2 81:3 86:23 95:10 105:7 106:21

explaining (3) 74:17

126:17 127:18 explains (5) 7:1 64:14

80:23 129:6 152:17 explanation (15) 44:4

44:17 66:6 68:3,7 72:19 85:6 86:7 95:7,11 96:6 98:4 109:8 138:10 142:14

explanations (2)

69:25 120:6 explicitly (1) 55:16 explore (1) 62:4 explored (4) 61:5

86:14 102:1 144:23 exposed (2) 135:22

151:13 express (1) 42:14 expressed (4) 2:7

26:13 34:24 113:8 expressly (2) 112:4

120:6 extend (1) 150:7

extended (1) 139:25 extension (1) 146:18 extensions (1) 139:24 extent (11) 8:18 12:10 13:20 17:23 25:19 46:25 80:19 112:7

124:18 125:7 142:3 extinguish (1) 71:16 extinguished (1)

71:20 extracted (1) 148:1 extracts (1) 64:16 extradition (3) 75:7

75:14,21

extraordinarily (1)

134:23 extreme (1) 124:18 extremely (2) 26:4

152:14

fabricated (1) 147:7 fabrication (1) 134:21 face (1) 50:6

facie (2) 91:23 109:4 facilitate (1) 56:20 facilitated (1) 67:17 fact (38) 4:7 6:23 7:20 11:21 12:8 14:21 15:2 16:5 17:6

19:11 27:16 38:12 42:5 43:25 52:20 52:21 53:4,9 67:5 80:16 82:18 91:15 91:16 99:14 116:24 117:15 118:12 120:12 123:5 124:23 125:22 133:15 136:11 138:7,10 142:12 144:23 146:4

factor (1) 23:7 factored (1) 27:17 factors (1) 33:8 facts (6) 7:24 8:18

37:7 50:14 54:12 95:18

factual (4) 30:25

37:22 72:24 76:15 fail (3) 109:12 150:22

152:20

failed (4) 6:22 17:14 76:14 83:12

fails (2) 38:21 148:2 failures (1) 102:15 fair (5) 48:22 61:22 71:9 97:1 129:4

fairly (2) 133:25 135:25

fairness (1) 64:4 faith (5) 10:22 45:13

45:14,15 139:5 fall (2) 37:5 144:10 falling (1) 40:3 falls (3) 28:17 39:4

40:14

false (3) 127:15 128:9 141:21

falsely (2) 135:1 141:7 familiar (1) 48:6 family (10) 134:5,7,13

136:17 149:4,15,18 149:21,24 150:4

far (19) 3:12 7:25 29:12 52:11 57:8 62:3 64:8 74:21 77:1 85:25 91:20 114:7 119:9 141:5 141:25 148:7,22 150:16 151:6

far-fetched (4) 15:8 87:2,3 112:25 far-reaching (1) 95:24 fast-growing (2) 80:15

80:20

fault (2) 39:15,17 favour (2) 67:23 135:4 favourable (1) 93:7 features (2) 13:6

22:11 feel (1) 79:7

feeling (1) 76:10 fees (1) 83:9

feet (6) 44:24 45:3 106:7,12,13 118:2

felt (2) 105:12 135:5 fiduciary (1) 92:2 field (1) 21:19 fiercely (1) 3:15 fifth (1) 63:18 figure (7) 3:4 16:12

17:3,4,10,15 81:8 figures (5) 14:22

15:13 16:6,20 74:18

file (6) 92:14 116:18 116:20,20,21,21 filed (3) 86:5 103:7

113:17

files (5) 62:21 64:13 97:14 116:7,17

fills (1) 16:22

final (6) 8:10,14 12:5 13:17 40:20 153:2 finally (3) 37:8 104:16

147:19 financed (2) 114:11

124:25 financial (14) 69:16

77:15 78:3 79:21 80:2,14 82:4 86:1 94:14 101:24 103:24 109:12 123:23 144:13

financially (1) 86:13 find (25) 2:16,20 15:8

37:19 45:10 47:14

L15/89/44

159

July 8, 2016 Day 45

108:15,22 109:1,22 110:5,13,15,20 111:4,12,19 112:2 113:1,11,24 114:19 115:5,10 117:15,24 118:14 120:4 121:4 121:8,14,20,25 122:3,8,11,19 123:1,8,15,17,25 124:5,10 126:11,13 127:6,9 131:13,21 132:6,15 133:3,5 135:7,14 139:19 140:2 142:4,9,20 143:3,7,13,20 144:4 148:6,11,24 149:10,23 150:4,6 151:17,21,24 152:9 153:6,10

historically (1) 58:10 history (1) 45:23 hoc (1) 124:16

hold (4) 35:22 36:2 68:10 127:6 holding (1) 27:24

holds (1) 32:7 hole (1) 94:18 holes (1) 94:15

honest (3) 5:22 69:12 118:18

honestly (1) 119:4 honesty (1) 93:9 Hong (1) 31:20 hope (3) 118:8 129:4

135:24 hoped (1) 122:13 hopeless (1) 51:19 hopes (1) 21:22 horrified (1) 151:5 hour (1) 153:4 hours (1) 153:4 houses (3) 19:1,17

23:9

huge (4) 66:20 86:21 134:7 141:16

hundred (2) 74:20 83:9

hundreds (1) 16:22 hurdle (1) 148:17 husband (1) 151:13 hypothesis (1) 144:7

I24/34/61 (1) 84:22 idea (9) 10:13 69:20

73:15 90:13 114:17 135:20 136:1 142:25 151:5

ideal (2) 102:18 104:4 ideally (1) 99:22 identical (1) 66:22 identified (2) 98:2,19 identify (1) 33:17 identifying (2) 58:1

59:11

idiotic (1) 112:13 ignored (1) 145:21 illegal (2) 58:24,24 illegality (2) 58:17,19 illustrate (2) 6:11

119:10

illustrates (1) 137:8 illustration (1) 7:20 illustrative (1) 111:15 image (1) 69:1 imaginary (1) 90:23 imagine (1) 69:15 imbue (1) 4:17

immaterial (1) 10:14 immediately (3) 2:6

100:9 103:7

impact (3) 56:18 77:20,22 impecuniosity (1)

82:15 impecunious (1)

82:13 impel (1) 33:9

imperfect (2) 77:4,19 implementation (1)

98:5

implicating (2) 106:15 107:24

implication (1) 125:16 implies (1) 139:13 import (1) 14:15 importance (1) 71:18 important (21) 9:8

20:21 24:18 33:22 66:16 67:5 69:23 70:25 71:17 72:1 76:13 89:23 115:25 129:17 131:11 132:22 137:10 145:12,14 148:11 148:17

importantly (3) 108:4

127:2 131:10 impose (1) 59:9 impossible (5) 30:9,10

86:20 88:4 124:20 impression (1) 74:8 improbable (5)

119:25 129:14,16 129:20 137:25

improper (1) 10:24 improvements (1)

93:22 imprudent (1) 77:8 inability (1) 95:22 inaccuracy (1) 66:24 inaccurate (2) 79:23

127:14 inadmissible (1) 53:25 inaudible (2) 85:7

111:13 incapable (1) 52:13 include (1) 27:8 included (1) 124:16 includes (3) 60:19

62:20 63:4 including (6) 63:11

70:16 74:24 76:7 95:1 145:8

income (1) 80:1 income-generating (1)

14:14 incoming (1) 58:8 inconclusive (1)

128:14

inconsistencies (2)

101:12 130:17

inconsistent (3) 10:12

36:23 133:1

incorrect (2) 29:19 133:15

incredible (1) 89:13 incriminate (1) 108:3 indebtedness (2)

71:19 73:24 independent (8) 55:1

55:2 57:5 58:20 70:24 71:7 72:4 128:2

indeterminative (1)

47:24

INDEX (1) 154:1

L15/89/45

160

July 8, 2016 Day 45

kind (8) 75:19 77:8 89:10 91:21 105:21 106:14 143:1 145:16

knew (8) 90:17 101:10 115:18 117:16 119:1 124:21 134:16 135:23

know (37) 4:7 19:7,9 40:22 43:5 46:2 50:2 51:14 53:14 57:23 61:24 66:25 69:17 72:22 76:24 91:2 92:14 93:20 94:22 96:19 99:12 100:6 108:6 109:18 110:21 116:6 117:5 121:18 122:15 135:19,21,22 136:14 140:15 147:11,17 148:12

knowing (1) 120:2 knowingly (1) 141:21 knowledge (10) 90:6

108:8 134:19,22 135:9,10,13 136:19 146:5 147:8

known (1) 34:21 Kolpino (1) 99:16 Komninos (2) 42:12

44:6

Kong (1) 31:20

Krygina (12) 97:15

102:23 103:2,13,20 104:1,13,18,21 105:20 106:11,19

L (1) 116:20 laborious (1) 23:5 labour (3) 38:2,7 40:1 lack (2) 133:20 150:24 lady (1) 107:3

Lair (2) 73:23 79:22 land (41) 12:7,7,9,11

12:11,12,13,17,18 12:23 13:5,7,11,14 13:15,16,16 14:7 14:12,13,17,19,20 15:3 19:8 22:19 54:20,21,25 55:8 55:11 58:6 96:4,11 96:22,25 97:7,22 98:1 99:5 124:20

landmark (1) 72:24 language (1) 107:2 large (2) 7:22 130:11 largest (1) 88:17 Lastly (1) 62:10

late (4) 102:21 151:21 151:22 152:2

latest (1) 138:15

law (68) 1:7 6:3,4 10:2 10:18 23:14,17,19 28:17,21 29:7,9,23 30:21 31:12,15,19 31:20,22 32:7 33:16,20 34:18 35:12,13,19 36:3,4 37:4,17 38:1,19,24 39:1 42:1,10,25 43:6,11 44:5 45:7 45:11,21 46:6,10 46:11,12,18 47:12 47:16,17 48:3,6,25 49:3,5,7,20,24 50:7 51:24 53:20 54:8,8

L15/89/46

161

July 8, 2016 Day 45

M (1) 116:21

Maggs (17) 9:9,18,25 10:18 27:7 29:17 34:14,16,20 35:8 35:17 38:10,18,24 51:3,17 53:1

Maggs’ (5) 9:1,7 24:3 29:3 54:6

main (10) 11:11 18:6 18:18 19:16 23:20 24:15 31:11 41:19 72:14 121:21

maintain (1) 4:21 major (1) 11:8 majority (1) 130:24 make-believe (1)

144:8

making (6) 6:3,4 17:8 20:12 70:17 105:21

management (9)

60:13 63:4,6 64:8 67:2,17 72:10,14 85:25

manipulate (2) 5:20 125:15

manipulation (2)

128:4,11

Mann (2) 6:25 7:4 manner (2) 76:12,22 manufacturer (1)

39:15

March (1) 123:22 marginal (1) 105:18 Marine (3) 24:19

61:14 79:20 marked (1) 116:21 market (31) 5:3,6,8,19

6:5 7:12 8:9 11:25 14:2 16:21 20:6,15 21:4,5,10,10,12,13 21:16 22:1,4,4 28:2 28:3,4,7 80:9,12,17 81:6 124:19

markets (1) 13:19 marriage (6) 149:2,16

150:11 151:7,14,17 married (1) 151:23 Marshall (2) 99:7,19 massive (6) 6:19

74:22 91:17 102:8 106:15 107:10

massively (1) 18:2 material (3) 6:17 60:20 95:23

matter (28) 2:6 11:2 11:17,21 17:19,24 19:24 21:4 28:24 29:5 33:21 38:4 48:8 50:9 51:1 54:23 63:9 66:18 72:25 82:18 85:8 95:16 122:8 125:8 134:1,2,3 136:7

matters (12) 17:21 52:16 54:13 69:16 73:4 74:12 83:19 86:3 92:13 114:15 143:14,17

maximise (2) 22:13 70:18

maximises (1) 5:12 maximum (1) 6:7 Maxwell (1) 53:17 McGregor (2) 63:18

63:24

McKenzie (3) 83:3 116:5,10

mean (26) 6:2 10:14 20:15 24:7 27:13 28:2 33:14 44:1 46:8,24 57:17 87:11 89:7,21 90:23 92:18 93:20 107:16 109:24 110:23 112:2 115:3 117:14 120:23 135:14 152:10

meaning (2) 48:14 82:22

means (8) 54:7 57:22 59:18 68:13 71:2 81:21 82:24 99:23

meant (5) 9:9 28:23 118:8 129:7 144:19

measured (1) 50:1 measures (1) 26:8 meeting (4) 68:22 127:12 129:21

146:23 memorandum (8)

16:13 115:22 116:12,16,20 117:16 120:9,14

memory (4) 83:8 92:17 93:24 117:24

mental (1) 103:23 mention (1) 145:1 mentioned (2) 32:23

84:7 mere (1) 16:5

merely (2) 26:24 29:2 Messrs (1) 111:21 method (9) 3:11 11:8

11:23 12:1 13:23 15:14 17:17 19:3 70:8

methodology (7) 3:8 11:20,22 15:13 17:11 18:7 19:15 methods (1) 57:14 middle (3) 87:7 98:19

139:23

Millard (18) 2:9,10,16 3:3,15 11:8 13:8,24 14:16 15:4 16:23 19:3,15 20:1,15 21:2 23:3 58:5

Millard’s (6) 12:2 14:10 15:10 17:17 18:9 19:22

Millett (2) 31:19 32:8 million (18) 2:17 3:4 17:14,16,25 18:1,1

18:1,2,5,13 71:23 72:2,2 93:25 94:1,4 146:20

millions (1) 51:11 Milner (65) 1:4,5,6,12

1:15 2:4 4:12,16,24 10:17 11:3 13:6 20:8 21:24 23:16 26:20 27:16,25 28:6,11,13,20 30:5 31:17 32:3,12 33:15,19 37:19,21 43:9,17 44:16 45:3 45:6,18 46:4 47:1,5 48:7 51:4,7 52:7,9 52:21 53:10,13,18 53:24 54:1,5,17,19 55:23 56:1,6,12 57:1,8 58:2,13 59:13,21,22 154:3

Milner’s (1) 60:5 mind (5) 59:10 65:16

136:8,11 141:11

minded (1) 108:12 minimal (1) 6:2 minimise (1) 70:21 minor (1) 68:15 minutes (1) 59:18 Miranda (1) 75:19 Mironova (7) 67:5

104:19 106:24 108:7,13 118:25 135:4

mirror (1) 69:1 misappropriation (1)

54:25 miscellaneous (1)

116:21 misconceived (2) 55:4

76:10 misinterpretation (2)

4:15 39:12

misleading (2) 112:3

127:1

misled (3) 110:13,15 112:8

misrepresentation (3)

24:6,7,8 missed (1) 117:10 missing (2) 130:18

142:23 mission (1) 51:6 misstating (1) 4:7 mistake (2) 66:18

127:21 mistaken (5) 127:14

127:23 136:5 138:22,22

mistakes (1) 112:19 misunderstood (1)

26:11

Mm (3) 67:12 95:6 100:24

mode (1) 73:6 moment (4) 70:23

72:23 115:17 125:5

Monday (14) 45:3 79:6,8 103:5 107:11 108:21 113:24 115:9,16 118:7 122:18 153:5 153:7,13

money (28) 1:23 20:23 58:7 71:11 71:11 87:17 88:23 90:13 91:18 93:22 94:8,19 96:7,8,24 97:10,21,24 98:4 98:14,23 102:10 108:1 109:3 145:25 147:8 148:4,12

monies (1) 98:18 Monitoring (3) 66:9

66:16 67:4 month (2) 146:9,20 monthly (1) 147:4 months (1) 87:9 moratorium (3) 24:10

73:9 146:18 morning (5) 1:3,6

115:11,16 153:5

Morskoy (1) 68:9

Moscow (1) 7:6

Moscow-based (1)

20:17 mother-in-law (2)

87:20 89:9 motive (1) 93:14 mounted (1) 109:23 moved (1) 107:8 moving (2) 23:14

115:12

mustn’t (1) 102:17 mystery (5) 88:19,22 110:18 113:4

114:23

N22/53/1 (1) 60:18 N22/53/33 (1) 60:22 N22/53/37 (1) 60:25 N22/53/40 (1) 61:10 N22/53/42 (1) 61:12 N22/53/47 (1) 61:18 N22/53/48 (1) 62:2 N22/53/49 (1) 62:2 N22/53/50 (1) 62:7 N22/53/51 (1) 62:8 name (2) 32:9 99:19 named (2) 86:4

122:24 names (1) 34:8 natural (2) 54:24

127:22 nature (1) 40:5 near (2) 18:5 84:5

nearly (4) 94:25 96:13 109:17 123:5

necessarily (6) 30:5 50:12 51:10 71:5 90:20 95:9

necessary (6) 8:18 18:9 57:12 59:4 73:13 139:4

need (24) 2:19,25 3:12,19 5:9 7:22 17:5 24:24 39:14 56:24 60:4 74:3 75:13 79:7 81:20 83:21 94:11 108:11 111:17 144:16,17 145:15 147:11 153:4

needed (2) 22:19 23:6 needs (4) 8:7 64:5

78:8 114:23 negative (3) 80:7 81:8

101:5 negotiate (2) 69:3

147:3 negotiation (1)

145:11 negotiations (2)

115:19 119:9

neighbouring (1)

97:20

Neither (1) 58:11 net (1) 83:11

neutral (2) 3:10 18:24 never (14) 46:15

68:23 71:11 78:14 91:3 101:9,16,21 101:21,23 104:11 125:3 126:4 136:3

nevertheless (4) 5:22 25:13 71:4 87:17

new (5) 26:3 42:3 68:2 111:6 127:25

Newman (1) 45:19 news (1) 68:8 non (2) 13:1,1

non-controversial (1)

133:19

non-disclosure (2)

6:17 7:13

normal (7) 22:4 52:14 90:18 92:3,5,6 142:18

normally (4) 39:8,16

51:24 130:4

notably (1) 117:2 note (8) 63:20 68:23

98:7 105:8 110:16 113:17 115:23 132:9

notice (8) 7:7,16,17 7:19,23 52:23 53:20 87:24

notion (2) 45:12 48:1 notorious (1) 75:2 notoriously (1) 58:14 notwithstanding (1)

129:14

number (21) 5:9 6:7 6:20 14:8 15:17 19:14 23:9 37:21 61:5 73:3,19 74:11 86:8,11 100:5 101:17 104:20 122:22 130:2,17 145:8

numbered (1) 101:1 numbers (4) 15:25

16:3 18:10 23:11

oath (1) 74:13 obiter (1) 42:14 objected (1) 3:13 objection (3) 22:24

34:6 37:11 objections (1) 24:3 objective (6) 3:11,17

15:5 20:10 22:6,11 objectively (1) 21:25 obligation (1) 134:2 obligations (2) 39:1

139:6 observations (2) 57:2

108:20

obtain (3) 22:19 23:8 83:4

obtained (3) 103:20 128:2 148:13 obtaining (1) 23:6 obvious (11) 3:9 7:21 26:1 51:23 105:3 109:12 133:25

137:2 145:19,20 146:7

obviously (37) 8:13 31:4,6 44:1 60:2,5 62:14 66:11 71:10 73:9 75:8 76:8 77:16 79:9 83:21 85:8,15 88:16 91:7 92:10 94:12 102:16 102:18 107:1 108:2 108:25 114:9 119:3 120:15 126:14 128:23 129:23 133:10,17 139:16 147:22 152:2

occupied (1) 82:20 October (1) 62:18 odd (2) 32:2,3 offer (2) 145:1,13 offered (1) 73:8 officer (1) 90:24 offices (1) 121:2 offshore (1) 99:4 oh (1) 141:8

okay (2) 127:6,9 old (3) 42:4 115:1,2 oldest (1) 132:3

OMG (14) 71:23 77:14 80:6 83:25 86:2,13 86:24 103:25

115:20 119:16 121:2 144:25 145:3 145:9

OMGP (8) 25:4,5,17 25:23 26:4,7 111:20,25

once (4) 42:6 54:21 69:14 70:2

one’s (4) 22:3 58:17 91:1 117:24 one-sided (1) 24:9 one-year (2) 41:22

146:17

Onega (18) 11:9 14:10 14:12 18:15 37:10 41:2 54:14,15,19 54:20 55:5,6,12 61:1 63:14 93:22 132:7 139:22

Onega’s (1) 55:19 ones (6) 48:12 64:15

126:11 132:17 140:18,23

oneself (1) 87:22 ongoing (1) 115:19 onwards (2) 43:16

54:15

open (8) 7:12 14:13 35:21 36:2,14 39:9 52:22 92:15

opening (1) 96:16 operated (1) 99:15 operating (2) 101:11

101:13 operation (3) 72:17

99:2 125:3 operational (2) 67:18

101:17 operations (3) 90:18

94:14 99:3 operator (1) 8:3 opinion (4) 53:8

127:25 128:12,13 opponents (1) 69:22 opportunity (2) 41:24

117:6

opposed (3) 17:8

48:17 149:15 optimistic (1) 16:1 oral (3) 15:18 116:3

128:16

orally (2) 1:18 56:22 order (21) 1:20 5:8

6:16 12:4 62:16,18 62:20,24 63:17 64:12,25 67:1 77:19 82:13,16 83:6 85:22 102:8 114:14 134:3 143:22

ordered (2) 66:9 127:17

ordinarily (2) 29:13

134:6

ordinary (4) 12:7,17 12:23 14:18

original (1) 2:12

Oslo (3) 24:19 61:14

79:20

ought (1) 140:11 outbid (1) 9:14 outcome (1) 48:7 outline (1) 79:12 outrageous (2) 111:16

137:7 outright (1) 89:13

outside (3) 13:16 41:7 41:9

outstanding (6) 71:23

146:1,8 147:9,23 147:25

overall (4) 71:22 109:2 121:1 139:15

overarching (1) 5:1 overcome (1) 148:18 overestimated (1)

18:11 overstated (1) 7:5 overvalued (2) 79:24

82:3

overwhelmingly (1)

119:25 owe (1) 118:11

owed (2) 32:25 33:19 owned (3) 6:18 54:21

149:18

owner (2) 87:4 149:18 owners (1) 26:3 ownership (2) 65:20

114:22

owns (2) 113:5 150:6

pack (1) 47:21

page (28) 34:22 51:5 54:15 60:22,25 61:9,11,17,18 62:1 62:1,6,8,19 63:3,8 63:23 64:10,20 84:9,17 96:17 108:11 117:22 125:11 126:1,24 154:2

pages (3) 16:22 34:19 111:10

paid (15) 2:1 56:19 57:16,16,17,20,23 58:10 71:12,22 83:9 96:3 98:4,24 148:3

paper (1) 105:23 paragraph (24) 7:1,4

9:23 24:25 38:16 61:3 62:8 63:11,24 84:18 107:6 121:18 121:19 125:12 127:3,4,5 132:10 138:22 139:7 143:23,24 152:13 152:16

paragraphs (5) 61:13 64:3 126:9 140:17 152:16

paraphrase (1) 10:22 parcels (2) 5:13 14:17 pardon (4) 66:5 68:20

138:24,25

Paribas (1) 119:11

Paris (2) 110:17

113:16

Parker (3) 32:6,10 34:10

part (22) 2:8,10 39:15 61:2,20 78:13 79:25 80:6 82:7 90:17 96:8 98:15 105:6 113:8 116:4 120:18 130:11 134:20 137:7,16 139:24 151:1

particular (8) 20:16 48:19 52:23 54:11 58:12 72:3 99:8 126:24

particularly (6) 13:8 132:16 137:10,13 137:25 142:24

L15/89/47

162

July 8, 2016 Day 45

purposes (8) 2:20 57:3 65:14,15 70:16 81:17,21 105:22

pursuant (4) 63:17 64:12 66:25 127:19

pursue (2) 4:13 93:10 pursued (5) 88:12

91:22 109:5,7,9 pursuit (1) 111:24 put (29) 3:3,5,14,21

20:4 22:15 27:22 43:6 59:5 60:16,17 67:9 84:14 93:7,13 94:21 100:10 116:22,23,23 117:8 117:11,12,16 141:4 142:11 143:15 147:14 150:12

puts (2) 139:16 141:2 putting (3) 90:11

111:5 118:12 puzzling (1) 45:11 pyramid (7) 77:15

78:4 79:21 80:2,15 82:4 109:12

quality (1) 19:2 quantifying (1) 17:22 quantum (1) 78:13 quarter (3) 65:17,21

65:21 queried (1) 89:7

question (43) 3:13,14 8:22 9:16,22 21:9 24:15,20,22 27:21 28:15 30:13,20,24 33:4 42:20 43:15 44:21 47:16 48:9 48:14,16,24 49:1 50:3 53:9 56:18 57:19 72:20 73:22 74:17 78:7 89:3 94:8,17 104:17 105:3 107:21,22 127:10 140:12 146:4,8

questionable (1)

12:14 questioning (4) 75:6

75:14 113:15 123:3 questionnaire (1) 86:5 questions (2) 23:13

75:17

quick (3) 45:8 104:2 122:22

quickly (3) 103:21 126:21 140:18 quite (36) 2:9 3:15

18:3 26:1 49:5 60:24 69:14 70:15 84:12 86:20 87:17 89:9,21 94:3 95:10 99:21 102:8 107:10 107:17 112:25 114:15 123:8 126:15 127:14 130:16 134:17,25 135:22 137:12,16 139:16 140:14 143:11 148:11 149:2 151:21

quote (2) 13:9 84:14 quoted (1) 84:21

race (1) 33:4

Radley (1) 128:1 Radley’s (1) 128:13 raid (1) 81:22 raided (1) 109:16 raider’s (1) 30:16 raiding (2) 67:9 125:3 raised (3) 1:16,17

56:8

random (2) 17:15 133:8

range (2) 16:3,5 rate (1) 23:9 re-examined (1)

102:19

reach (4) 6:6 70:5

85:1 110:2 reached (2) 78:11

91:24 reacted (1) 68:23

reaction (5) 68:8 76:1 102:22 103:11 151:4

reactions (1) 72:17 read (6) 74:8 75:25

84:23 110:2 126:9 127:6

readily (3) 29:20 91:23 106:13 reading (2) 81:11

144:2

reads (3) 16:23,23 127:3

real (16) 5:19 8:4,16 16:4 18:16,18 22:17 26:6 47:18 48:18 50:7 80:12 94:7 129:7,7 150:18

realise (1) 80:13 realised (1) 106:1 realising (1) 141:15 realistic (3) 15:6 23:11

118:17 reality (4) 51:25

101:15 142:4 144:22

really (71) 10:15 11:5 15:12 16:6 17:19 18:20 19:16,23 20:13,14,16 21:4 23:16,18 24:1 28:13 33:8 46:8,20 49:18,25 53:6 56:17 57:15,18 58:11 63:4 68:2,2 70:4,9 71:6 72:9 76:2 77:13 78:24 79:21 80:23 82:4 85:24 86:20,21 87:6 88:3,6 89:9 93:6 94:10 103:14 106:18,23 107:13 107:16 109:13 112:6,24 125:10 128:6,25 130:18 134:11,15 135:9 141:2 142:1,17 143:21 144:19 145:11 147:9,18

reason (16) 23:2 29:9 39:23 42:23 46:21 47:11 49:6 50:11 74:14,14 93:12 97:9 108:5 112:14 118:19 137:11

reasonable (8) 7:15 20:13 48:22 62:21 62:25 85:11 91:23 101:2

L15/89/48

163

July 8, 2016 Day 45

32:20 37:2,3 38:15 38:15,16,21,22 39:2,3,12,13,14 40:4,5,6 113:22 129:15,18

ruled (1) 3:14

rules (14) 11:1 29:6,9 32:13 36:24 39:25 43:7 45:16 47:1 48:21 49:20,23 50:23 54:3

rulings (1) 41:25 run (4) 19:18 92:13

99:4,8 running (3) 42:22

69:19 80:25

rush (3) 118:7 141:10 141:15

Russia (14) 12:7,21,24 12:25 13:15 29:16 33:10 36:17 46:20 47:19,20,25 75:16 151:24

Russian (52) 1:7 6:3 11:4 16:22,23,24 23:14,17,19 28:17 28:21 29:1,7,7,9,14 30:21,25 31:6 32:19 34:18 35:4 35:12,13,19,21 36:3,15,17 37:4,17 38:19 41:15 42:1 45:6,21 46:3,10,14 47:12,16 49:5,15 49:16,20,23 50:11 51:11,17 54:8 133:20,20

S (2) 42:12 44:6 safely (1) 95:3

sake (2) 1:19 143:22 salaries (1) 98:24

sale (3) 2:17 5:24 18:5 sale/transfer (1)

63:14

sales (3) 17:23 20:6 61:13

salting (1) 92:22 Sandersons (1) 34:11 satisfactorily (1) 95:10 satisfactory (4) 35:20

49:14 82:10 89:11 satisfied (4) 5:9 8:15

23:25 50:15 save (1) 132:1 Savelyev (7) 68:17,20

68:22 129:21 138:4 146:17,24

saw (3) 56:7 135:4 142:10

saying (19) 3:2 4:7 9:4 35:9 49:16 50:12 56:1,12,13 76:23 77:2,3 90:24 105:12,24 106:7 107:17 137:6,8

says (22) 9:18 17:25 25:5,16 35:3,16 38:14 48:18 53:19 88:20 92:5,6 100:11 104:7 115:24 121:25 126:25 127:13 128:6 129:20 138:3 143:6

scale (1) 91:17

Scan (25) 24:23 36:10

54:21,25 55:3,8,21 61:1 71:14 83:24 85:16,19 87:4,12 87:19 88:13 89:4 89:14,20 123:7,7 123:11,12,19,21

Scan/Onega (1) 63:12 Scandinavia (1) 64:23 scanned (1) 111:3 scenario (4) 30:25

31:3 37:22 153:5 schedule (6) 62:23 63:1,3,8 140:9,21

schedules (1) 63:3 scheme (2) 77:16

151:10 scholar (1) 34:17 science (1) 20:9 scope (1) 48:19 score (1) 137:5 scores (2) 66:21,21 screen (2) 84:22

140:19

scroll (9) 60:22,25 61:11,17 62:6,19 63:2 138:21,23

scrutinise (1) 98:9 scrutinised (1) 82:24 scrutiny (5) 82:14,16

82:19 83:11 91:19 sea (7) 12:9,12,13,17

14:13,19,21 seal (6) 110:1,4,8

111:6,24 112:15 sealed (2) 112:14,16 search (3) 61:15 62:13

63:25

searches (6) 62:21,25 63:11,16,25 64:7 second (6) 1:11 32:25 33:10 62:9 65:18

117:3 second-guess (1)

49:22

secondly (8) 6:1 48:15 73:6 77:16 79:24 82:18 97:12 108:3

seconds (1) 121:16 secret (2) 7:5 67:6 secretive (1) 7:3 section (4) 42:2 53:18

96:15,20

secure (2) 67:18

129:17 secured (5) 80:17

81:25 145:7,19 147:24

security (4) 129:7

145:1,13,16

see (47) 9:16,22 17:12 21:23 27:5 33:13 38:16 43:10 47:6 52:6 56:3 57:13 58:2 60:23 61:1,10 61:12 62:17,19,24 64:14,20 68:25 69:11,15,18 70:10 70:13 72:16 84:15 92:18 100:2 102:25 108:16 109:3 111:5 115:3 120:5,22 122:10 125:25 126:1 127:13 135:3 144:12 146:5 149:23

seeing (1) 115:15 seek (4) 3:18 48:20 77:12 148:14 seeking (4) 3:10,17

68:22 123:2 seeks (2) 25:17,19 seen (10) 8:1 43:9

76:3,4 94:23 129:4 137:15 146:10 147:17 151:4

selected (1) 128:8

Self-evidently (1)

41:25

sell (4) 5:14 7:21 20:22 22:2 seller (1) 39:15

sellers (2) 20:20 80:10 selling (5) 2:13 5:15

7:10 20:19 21:1 send (1) 34:9 sending (1) 145:17 sends (1) 104:5 sense (17) 9:23 10:7

14:3 16:18 17:19 17:21 40:5,6 46:4 49:8,21 53:12 59:9 80:2 117:6 119:24 134:2

sensible (3) 5:11 48:22 50:13 sensibly (2) 12:22

49:21 sensitive (1) 15:15

sensitivity (4) 15:16 15:22,24 16:2

sent (5) 64:17 121:5 121:11 145:9,10 separate (13) 25:25 38:25 73:1 77:20

99:7 114:15 116:18 123:15,16,18,19 124:20 149:25

separately (5) 5:14 14:18 78:21 148:25 150:6

separation (2) 149:4 150:11

September (1) 62:18 sequence (5) 65:2

66:21,23 67:10 72:8

sequences (2) 65:25 66:1

sequitur (2) 13:1,1 series (4) 12:14 13:11

70:14 72:17 serious (3) 3:9 22:20

114:14 seriously (5) 11:10

15:5,9 22:21 104:25

serve (3) 13:20 52:22 53:20

served (1) 53:7 serves (1) 14:7 Sestroretsk (2) 18:21

18:23

set (9) 2:16 3:3,6 6:16 11:11 61:23 100:22 111:10 152:19

sets (4) 63:9,24 64:11 123:7

setting (1) 78:22 settled (1) 32:4 seven (1) 85:13 Shabalina (1) 144:24 shaking (1) 91:1 shams (2) 149:7

150:12 shan’t (1) 59:20 share (1) 107:7 shared (1) 107:9

shareholder (13) 25:4

L15/89/49

164

July 8, 2016 Day 45

supports (1) 3:24 suppose (1) 79:6 supposed (2) 143:21

151:12 supposes (1) 90:12 Supposing (1) 47:23 supposition (1) 101:2 sure (14) 27:13 74:7

94:15,20 100:9 107:15 108:11 110:19 113:21 117:1,2 130:23 131:16 152:25

surely (4) 16:25 88:13 116:10 151:12

surprise (2) 92:23 103:14

surprised (1) 92:20 surprising (9) 23:18

32:12 90:16 91:14 92:20 95:14 99:23 120:17,24

surrounding (1) 138:6 suspicion (1) 142:1 suspicious (5) 73:5

81:2 90:4 95:13 115:1

swapping (1) 123:23 sworn (2) 83:1 102:5 symbolic (2) 129:12

144:19

table (2) 61:25 93:14 tacit (2) 138:4 142:17 take (30) 4:12 6:10

14:23 15:9 16:7 17:15 18:10 25:16 43:24 49:17 50:13 55:9,19,20 65:20 68:11 74:14 75:10 76:20 78:24 109:25 110:5 114:7,17 120:25 125:10 126:21 129:5 130:25 133:8

taken (13) 16:12 27:14,14 35:19 37:11 54:12 57:9 58:5,11 62:11 72:5 75:24 121:2

takes (1) 52:16 talk (3) 69:24 70:3

126:25 talked (1) 99:13 talking (5) 26:14

81:15 85:12 89:19 120:7

talks (6) 120:8 121:12 143:11,17,18,24

Tallinn (1) 103:3 task (2) 49:19 58:4 team (2) 16:23 82:23 technically (1) 11:5 technique (1) 21:9 tell (13) 49:24 52:11

74:13,15,16,23 95:8 110:22 113:1 113:2 123:22 130:25 144:3

telling (1) 118:24 tells (1) 5:3

ten (1) 59:18 tensions (1) 79:19 term (3) 18:24 72:23

146:13 terminal (27) 2:18

11:9,9 14:10,25

17:25 18:14,15 24:21 25:4,6,18,19 25:21,24 28:13 37:10 54:20,22 55:12,21 56:21 63:14 64:23 65:24 93:21 124:17

Terminal’s (2) 25:8

41:2

Terminal/other (1)

61:1

terminals (1) 11:14 terms (23) 17:22

23:21 30:9 33:13 44:1,8 45:2 48:19 55:15 61:15 62:3 62:13 63:25 72:13 93:7 101:5 104:16 114:7,8 115:19 119:12 143:12 145:16

terrible (1) 101:6 test (3) 58:20 92:17

106:9 tests (1) 58:20

TEU (2) 16:12 17:3 textbook (1) 51:25 thank (6) 23:15 56:15

111:12 124:5 133:6 153:10

theme (1) 132:18 theory (4) 3:23,24 33:2 79:20 thereabouts (1) 3:5 thereof (1) 150:24

thing (11) 21:11 27:14 46:24 57:24 69:18 89:10 94:6 97:5 106:7 120:10,11

things (23) 4:2,2 20:24 33:8 56:16 64:5 69:14 74:19 74:25 75:6 79:19 93:19 94:25 106:14 107:5 109:18 118:5 118:11 144:10 145:8 146:21 150:6 150:16

think (161) 4:10,16 13:9 17:5 23:15 26:12 28:11 31:19 32:6 34:8,11,15 37:16 42:10 43:21 44:8,12,19,22 45:25 46:14 47:1 48:7,20 49:5 50:3 52:16 53:13,22 57:21 60:11,20 61:8,9,16,21 62:8 62:15 63:16 64:3 64:10 65:10 68:14 72:20 73:3,13,25 74:2 76:20,21 77:13 78:1,4,6,9 79:5,8 82:11 83:2 83:24 84:7,14,20 84:24 86:2 88:24 93:6,24 94:21 95:25 96:7,13,14 96:24 97:1,2,12 99:2 102:1,6,12 103:9,16 104:3 105:15,19 106:5,9 107:11 108:10,13 108:23 110:7,22,22 111:1,4,4 113:3,16 114:2,19,23 115:12 115:15,25 116:1,21 116:22 117:8,11,13

L15/89/50

165

July 8, 2016 Day 45

118:24,25 121:6,12 122:4,12 123:9,20 123:22 124:3 125:16,25 126:9 127:2,4 128:25 130:22 131:10 132:2,13,13,16,18 133:18 134:25 135:12,24 136:9 138:14 140:4,5,6,8 140:12,20,25 142:14 143:6,11 144:23 145:22 146:20 149:1 151:19,23 152:7,21 152:24 153:1

thinking (1) 67:21 third (5) 16:15 17:5

61:3 123:9 128:2 third-party (1) 144:16 thought (13) 23:3

26:18 37:16 66:8 67:3,5 99:10 108:18 131:13,23 135:14,15 137:12

three (10) 5:10 24:12 99:14 101:8,10,13 101:15 114:24 123:6 126:9

three-year (1) 146:18 throwing (1) 75:23 ticked (2) 138:6

142:20 ticks (1) 142:11 tied (1) 55:16

Tikhvin (3) 100:1,15 101:7

time (55) 3:13 6:6,8 6:10 23:7 27:20 36:16,25 41:5 43:1 45:3 49:9,9 54:17 62:11 68:7 70:20 73:21,21 74:1 78:1 78:9 82:20 85:14 89:15 97:24 99:25 100:2,6,14,14,20 101:1,10 102:22 104:13 106:25 111:19 113:15 114:10 115:2,15 116:14 122:10,11 122:18,23 123:17 127:17 129:2 133:23 137:20,20 139:14 146:10

time-barred (6) 37:11 41:4 42:10,16 43:11 44:21

Time-Charter (1)

122:24

time-consuming (1)

23:5

times (4) 15:17 73:19 76:13,15

today (6) 1:20 44:3 57:1 77:18 79:8 122:14

token (2) 11:23 36:2 told (21) 67:21 74:11 74:25 75:5 103:12

106:18,18 108:4 110:11 118:20 125:20 126:4 129:12 130:9 133:14 135:1,1,2 136:7,9,21

tool (1) 11:3

top (7) 61:3 64:14 76:17 77:3 100:3

103:2 112:13 topics (1) 1:10

tort (14) 23:21 27:10 36:14 38:1,8,25 39:2,9,16,19 40:4 40:10,15 43:17

tortious (1) 23:24 torture (1) 112:3

Tosno (2) 99:15 103:3 totally (4) 36:23 51:18

69:8 75:14 touch (2) 77:18 78:7 touched (1) 73:5 trace (3) 88:23 91:18

95:16

traced (2) 88:3 95:12 track (2) 88:8,15 trade-related (3)

11:15,18,22 transaction (2) 24:9

64:7

transactions (6) 70:14 85:17 86:22 94:18 151:8 152:20

transcript (8) 56:7 74:8 111:1,10 113:21 117:19,22 118:13

transcripts (1) 56:7 transfer (13) 60:14

65:23 67:19,24,25 72:9,15 87:13 89:6 89:22,24 90:11 149:3

transferred (5) 67:15 68:4 90:2 113:4 114:4

transfers (14) 63:12 64:22 67:14 70:18 70:20 72:8 78:22 85:10,12 123:4,7 149:1,5 150:10

transforming (1)

142:1 translation (2) 103:9

104:4 transpired (1) 29:19 treated (2) 11:15

135:18

trial (4) 3:25 114:16 121:21 134:23 tried (7) 43:3 67:24

68:11 72:18 106:11 120:1 125:15

trouble (2) 152:4,5 troubled (1) 142:24 true (18) 1:24 3:3

4:14,18 25:9 31:25 52:9 58:1 76:11 80:4,6,14,17 105:5 114:6 120:3 142:3 145:20

truly (2) 11:1 114:16 Trust (7) 37:14 38:17 39:22 50:19 52:9

52:19 53:6 trustees (1) 83:10 truth (3) 74:13,16,24 try (8) 47:4 71:2 72:7

78:25 110:24 122:14 125:6 137:5

trying (10) 45:1 49:22 69:2,24 70:4,7 78:16 118:1 119:22 147:3

turn (3) 44:11 84:15 115:5

turning (5) 11:6 37:8 79:18 83:18 109:20

turns (2) 74:5 147:21 two (35) 1:18 3:2 5:13 8:24 9:2 10:6,11,15

17:8 18:20 21:14 32:18 33:8 34:12 46:8 57:2,3 58:20 67:19 69:15 72:12 72:15 77:13,13 79:21 82:20 83:25 93:21 94:21,22 102:19 126:17 152:3,16 153:4

type (2) 87:18 122:21 typical (1) 102:16

ultimate (2) 13:12 70:19

ultimately (11) 17:19 20:8 23:3 40:18 42:5 46:9 48:7 52:18 82:6 86:25 137:18

unable (2) 104:9 128:17

unacceptable (2)

137:16,21 unambiguous (1)

139:9 unattractive (1) 74:24 unbelievable (1)

89:21

uncertain (2) 48:4

108:15

unclear (1) 105:21 uncomfortable (1)

105:12 uncontroversial (1)

32:4 unconvincing (1)

38:13

uncover (1) 91:20 uncovered (1) 48:3 underlings (1) 147:5 underlying (1) 32:13 undermine (2) 57:4

59:10 undermines (1)

146:22 undermining (1)

18:12 understand (16) 40:4

42:9 54:11 72:8 87:11 94:16 98:20 98:23 99:21 100:2 106:6 112:12 131:25 135:21 148:6 149:17

understanding (3)

58:15 113:6 137:17 understood (2) 25:9

75:18 undervalue (3) 6:19

6:21 17:23 unduly (1) 41:15 unencumbered (1)

5:19

unexplained (3) 93:10 94:17 95:19

unfair (1) 30:14 unfairly (1) 24:9 unfortunate (1) 30:18 unfortunately (4) 75:5

76:7 98:6 106:12 unhelpful (2) 117:14

118:9

unify (1) 70:18 unimportant (1)

L15/89/51

166

July 8, 2016 Day 45

1 (7) 42:13 63:15

1.02 (1) 79:14

1.5 (1) 61:13

10 (7) 9:12 10:1,19 11:3 17:14,16 140:17

10.30 (3) 1:2 153:7,12

100 (4) 18:1 93:25 94:1,4

100% (1) 25:4

140:17

15(3) (1) 84:18

19th (1) 122:5

2 (6) 7:8 27:1 42:2 50:18 60:23 123:6

2.00 (2) 79:13,16

20 (6) 18:5 46:2 100:4 100:13,16 122:23

200 (1) 124:3

200,000 (1) 83:8

2001 (1) 45:20

2002 (1) 151:23

2006 (2) 139:22,23

2008 (24) 24:1 27:2 27:23 28:4 40:25 43:16 72:23 73:15 79:2 87:14 89:19 100:13,16 103:1 104:3 123:21 124:13 138:11 139:10 141:1 142:5 142:22 143:5 144:9

2008/2009 (2) 27:19 114:9

2009 (11) 32:7 57:20 60:13 64:19 66:5 68:14 73:22 78:18 123:22 138:11 151:19

82:21

42:18 61:11 2016 (2) 1:1 153:13

3 (4) 50:18,18,25 51:5

3.23 (1) 124:6

3.32 (1) 124:8

30-year (1) 45:22

300 (1) 72:2

152:17

33.7 (1) 53:13

370 (1) 42:13

38 (1) 124:18

4 (9) 7:8 64:11 71:23 84:19 86:11,12 93:18,23 94:23

4.2 (1) 53:18

4.30 (1) 79:10

4.34 (1) 153:11

40 (1) 18:1

42 (2) 61:9,11

47 (1) 61:18

5 (3) 61:13 62:19 151:19

50 (3) 18:2 136:18 149:18

500 (1) 72:2

500,000 (3) 16:12 17:3,11

524 (1) 51:5

530 (1) 54:15

594 (1) 84:10

6 (6) 97:23 100:3,12 122:22,24 125:21

6.2 (1) 61:1

7 (2) 63:11 140:17

72 (1) 125:11

8 (3) 1:1 101:1 125:21

989(2) (2) 50:21 51:5

L15/89/52

Об авторе

Свежие записи