(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
5
- 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
7
- 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
25
- 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) and (d), it may be that it is expressed badly in
- (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.
27
- 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
29
- 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
31
- 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
45
- 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.
47
- 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
73
- 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
75
- 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
81
- 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,
83
- 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
89
- 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
91
- 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)
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
- Closing submissions by MR MILNER …………………1
- Closing submissions by MR STROILOV ………………60
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
L15/89/40
155
July 8, 2016 Day 45
A
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
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
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
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
F
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
I
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
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
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
N
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
O
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
P
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
Q
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
R
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
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
T
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
U
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
0
1
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
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
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
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 (6) 97:23 100:3,12 122:22,24 125:21
6.2 (1) 61:1
7
7 (2) 63:11 140:17
72 (1) 125:11
8
8 (3) 1:1 101:1 125:21
989(2) (2) 50:21 51:5
L15/89/52