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

  1. (10.30 am)
  1. MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Yes, good morning, welcome back,
  1. Mr Milner.
  1. Closing submissions by MR MILNER
  1. MR MILNER: Good morning, my Lord, I am going to address
  1. certain points relating to the valuation and Russian law
  1. points, points which were not addressed in
  1. the defendants’ written closing, and also respond to
  1. some of my learned friend’s points on those topics.
  1. MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Will you give me one second?
  1. MR MILNER: Yes, of course.
  1. MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: I do apologise.
  1. Yes, sorry, on you go.
  1. MR MILNER: I’m going to deal with the points that were not
  1. raised in the defendants’ closing but also points that
  1. were raised in the claimants’ closing, and also made
  1. orally by Mr Birt over the last two days.
  1. Before I do that, can I just make clear for the sake
  1. of good order that I am appearing pro bono today. I say
  1. that not by way of apology or as a boast, but just in
  1. light of the comments that were made about the
  1. Arkhangelskys having chosen to spend money on me at
  1. various stages. It is true that they did pay me for the
  1. cross-examination but nothing I have done since then has
  1. any more about this, but just so it is clear what we are
  1. saying, let me make two further points: first, I didn’t
  1. put to Mr Millard, it is true, that he deliberately set
  1. out to come up with a figure of $21 million or
  1. thereabouts, but I did put to him that he must have
  1. deliberately set out to come up with a low valuation.
  1. That was {Day37/118/12-15}. I said that because the
  1. flaws in his methodology, as I will go on to explain,
  1. are so serious and so obvious that it is difficult to
  1. believe that anyone seeking to achieve a neutral
  1. objective valuation would adopt that method, but again
  1. I don’t need to ask your Lordship to go that far.
  1. Mr Lord objected to that question at the time, and
  1. your Lordship ruled that although I had put the question
  1. quite fiercely, Mr Millard was well up to answering it,
  1. he did answer it, of course he denied that he had been
  1. seeking to do anything other than give an objective
  1. valuation, and we don’t now seek to go behind that at
  1. all because, as I say, we don’t need to.
  1. Just as a sort of jurisprudential aside, or
  1. digression, very briefly, that allegation as it was put
  1. wasn’t an allegation of dishonesty. It is not dishonest
  1. for an expert to come up with a theory and advance
  1. a theory that supports his client’s case. That’s what
  1. happens in every single trial that comes before the

pastedGraphic.png

L15/89/2

pastedGraphic_1.png

5

  1. Secondly, the auction has to be properly publicised.
  1. And I don’t mean just comply with the minimal
  1. requirements of Russian law. I am not making a point
  1. about law, I am making a point about valuation and
  1. market practice.
  1. You have to allow time to — well, you have to reach
  1. the maximum number of potential bidders. You have to
  1. allow them time to investigate the asset. If it is
  1. a complex asset, you have to enable them to do due
  1. diligence, and all of that does take time. That’s
  1. a point that I can illustrate with reference to
  1. an authority, and it is {AUTH2/9/50}. It is the
  1. Pugachev case, which your Lordship will recall having
  1. had some involvement in last year.
  1. At the early stage of the litigation an application
  1. was made to set aside a freezing order on the ground of
  1. material non-disclosure. One of the complaints was that
  1. some assets which Mr Pugachev owned had been auctioned
  1. off at what he said was a massive undervalue. There
  1. were a number of indications that the price achieved was
  1. an undervalue, and it was said that the claimants had
  1. wrongly failed to disclose those.
  1. One of those complaints was the fact that the
  1. auction hadn’t been properly publicised, and
  1. Mr Justice Mann dealt with this, starting at

7

  1. but I have seen nothing in the evidence which I have
  1. looked at, which creates any possibility that a buyer
  1. such as a shipyard operator in another country would
  1. have had any real prospect of finding out about these
  1. auctions and bidding for them if it was interested in
  1. doing so.
  1. That’s something that needs to be considered when it
  1. comes to assessing the claimants’ argument, that the
  1. auction, by definition, gives you the market price.
  1. The final point, of course, is that everyone who
  1. wants to bid has to be admitted to the auction. If
  1. bidders are excluded from the auction, then that
  1. obviously makes the auction less competitive and
  1. potentially reduces the final price.
  1. So unless all those are satisfied, you can’t begin
  1. to rely on the auction price as a guide to the real
  1. value. As I say, Mr Stroilov addressed those to
  1. the extent it is necessary in the context of the facts
  1. in this case.
  1. On a related point concerning auctions, and it is
  1. more of a legal point, but it is convenient to deal with
  1. it here, can I just address a question your Lordship
  1. asked Mr Stroilov yesterday about whether it is
  1. legitimate to have two connected bidders at an auction.
  1. That was at {Day44/73/1}. Your Lordship asked

pastedGraphic_2.png

L15/89/3

pastedGraphic_3.png

L15/89/4

July 8, 2016 Day 45

 

  1. So it piles non sequitur upon non sequitur in our
  1. submission.
  1. MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: I dare say if Southampton was the only
  1. access to the Channel, it might bear greater value in
  1. proportion to the land behind it.
  1. MR MILNER: Exactly, it depends upon the features and
  1. characteristics of both the industrial land you are
  1. looking at but, particularly, the port. Mr Millard
  1. accepted all those points, and I think the quote is in
  1. our written closing, where he accepted there are a whole
  1. series of characteristics of the land that would affect
  1. the value. He didn’t accept the ultimate conclusion
  1. that follows from that; that you simply cannot
  1. simplistically compare some land in England with some
  1. land in Russia and assume that the relationship between
  1. land in a port and land outside a port is the same. He
  1. didn’t accept that final conclusion.
  1. But it follows inevitably from all the points that
  1. he did accept that you have to look at the markets that
  1. the ports serve, the extent of competition from other
  1. ports, and so on.
  1. So we say that it is simply unreliable. No reliance
  1. can be placed on that method at all.
  1. The cross-check that Mr Millard performed against
  1. the ports in Australia and — yes, against the ports in
  1. As I pointed out to him, it is like valuing
  1. an airport without taking into account the fact that
  1. planes can land there. It is ridiculous, we say. And
  1. that was the basis of my comment to Mr Millard, that no
  1. objective valuer could seriously believe that it was
  1. a realistic way of going about this exercise. As I say,
  1. I make that point rhetorically, I am not asking
  1. your Lordship to find that, but it is so far-fetched
  1. that it is difficult to take seriously.
  1. Now, having rejected Mr Millard’s evidence on those
  1. assets, one is then left with Ms Simonova’s evidence.
  1. As I said, the claimants don’t really criticise her
  1. methodology as such; what they criticise is her figures.
  1. And it is said that the discounted cash flow method that
  1. she has used is sensitive to changes in inputs, and
  1. she’s not done a sensitivity analysis. That’s
  1. a criticism that is made a number of times in
  1. the written and oral closings for the claimants. It is
  1. also said that some of her individual inputs are
  1. unrealistic.
  1. Now, as to the first point, it is correct that
  1. Ms Simonova didn’t do a sensitivity analysis, but the
  1. relevance of that is limited, in our submission, because
  1. a sensitivity analysis in our submission goes both ways.
  1. The numbers she has used are her best estimates. They

pastedGraphic_4.png

L15/89/5

pastedGraphic_5.png

L15/89/6

pastedGraphic_6.png

  1. there is a market, you are looking at comparable assets
  1. and what they actually sell for, and that data is
  1. available and it can’t simply be based on one’s
  1. experience. If there isn’t a market or a normal market
  1. and one has to look at the business potential, then
  1. again one is looking at an objective exercise in
  1. estimating how much business they can expect to do.
  1. Because it is a unique asset, by definition the
  1. experience with other buyers and other applicants is,
  1. again, of limited assistance.
  1. You are looking at the objective features of this
  1. property, and what a buyer who is in a position to
  1. maximise its potential, because that’s what the basis of
  1. valuation is, it’s the highest and best use, and one
  1. assumes that it is going to be put into that use, what
  1. profit they can make from it.
  1. In relation to the other real estate assets, there
  1. was an additional issue, which is that they were
  1. agricultural land and needed to obtain a permission for
  1. a change of use. We say that that’s not a serious
  1. difficulty, and doesn’t seriously reduce the value,
  1. first of all because there have been already
  1. an indication from the authorities that there was no
  1. fundamental objection to a change of use. The letters
  1. are at {E8/26.1/29.1} and {E8/26.1/30.1}. So
  1. it is irrelevant, really, whether the 2008 agreement was
  1. a binding contract or not, but we say the better view is
  1. that it was and that Professor Maggs’ objections don’t
  1. stand up, and that therefore gives rise to liability
  1. under Article 179 of the Civil Code on the basis that
  1. the agreement was procured by misrepresentation — when
  1. I say misrepresentation, I mean fraudulent
  1. misrepresentation — or duress, or on the basis that it
  1. was an unfairly one-sided transaction. Alternatively it
  1. was breached because the moratorium was not complied
  1. with.
  1. There are three issues which are dealt with in
  1. the claimants’ written closing, which are not dealt with
  1. in our written closing, which I should address. The
  1. main one is the question of reflective loss. The others
  1. are limitation and competition between claims.
  1. Dealing with reflective loss first, it’s
  1. an important point that reflective loss is not
  1. a defence, on any view, to Oslo Marine Group Ports’
  1. claim. It is not, therefore, relevant to the question
  1. of liability for the value of Western Terminal. It is
  1. only relevant to the question whether we can recover
  1. damages in respect of the loss of Scan and its assets.
  1. I need to address specifically what the claimants
  1. say about this at paragraph 987 of their written

pastedGraphic_7.png

L15/89/7

pastedGraphic_8.png

25

  1. company might have suffered. That’s quite obvious: the
  1. company might not have suffered any loss at all. It
  1. might have flourished under the new owners and done
  1. extremely well, but OMGP would have lost the entirety of
  1. the value of the shares.
  1. So the loss of the shares is a real and direct loss
  1. suffered by OMGP itself, it’s not reflective of
  1. anything. How one then measures the value of that
  1. loss —
  1. MR BIRT: I don’t want to interrupt, it may be that it is
  1. being misunderstood. If I can’t clarify, then I am
  1. sorry, but I think the distinction being drawn between
  1. (c) and (d), it may be that it is expressed badly in
  1. (c). (c) is talking about a loss in the value of the
  1. shares, whereas (d), which we acknowledge can be
  1. recovered, is the loss of the shares. It may have been
  1. picked up, and it may have been unnecessary of me to
  1. stand up, but just in case I thought I would make the
  1. point.
  1. MR MILNER: I am grateful for that. It may be that there
  1. isn’t much between us in that case, but I do want to
  1. make clear that what is being claimed is the value of
  1. the shares because the shares were what was lost. It is
  1. not merely a case of lost value of shares; it is the
  1. loss of the shares.

27

  1. benefits can be priced in, so to speak.
  1. MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: I mean, if there was a market, if they
  1. were publicly available shares on the market, then it
  1. would be the value in December 2008, because the market
  1. would have priced in the potentiality.
  1. MR MILNER: Yes.
  1. MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Where there is no market, and there
  1. wasn’t, you have to work out what the economic benefits
  1. conferred by the bundle of rights to shares comprised?
  1. Is that not right?
  1. MR MILNER: Yes, I think that’s right.
  1. MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Yes.
  1. MR MILNER: So no, issue, really, with Western Terminal.
  1. With the other assets, it is a claim for reflective
  1. loss, and the question arises whether there are any
  1. circumstances when such a claim can be brought under
  1. Russian law, and if so whether this case falls within
  1. those circumstances.
  1. MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Yes.
  1. MR MILNER: Now, it is common ground that there is no rule
  1. of substantive Russian law which prevents a claim for
  1. reflective loss. There is a general rule regarding
  1. compensation for loss. What is meant by «loss» is
  1. a matter of interpretation.
  1. There is also — and this is common ground as

pastedGraphic_9.png

L15/89/8

pastedGraphic_10.png

29

  1. a claim if the company was disabled from bringing the
  1. claim as a result of the wrongdoing complained of.
  1. That’s {Day41/91/1} and {Day41/92/1}.
  1. MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Is that a derivative claim?
  1. MR MILNER: Not necessarily, no. If we look at what he
  1. said. I said at line 21 in {Day41/91/21}:
  1. «There could be circumstances, couldn’t there, where
  1. a company had a claim in principle but it was in
  1. practical terms impossible for it to bring it, and
  1. impossible for the claimant to cause the company to
  1. bring it.
  1. «Answer: There might be such situations.
  1. «Question: And in that situation it would be very
  1. unfair, wouldn’t it, if nobody had any remedy for the
  1. loss which the company, and through the company its
  1. shareholders, had suffered; it would be a raider’s
  1. charter wouldn’t it?
  1. «Answer: That would be a very unfortunate
  1. situation.
  1. «Question: And it would be contrary to the general
  1. principle of Russian law that harm should be
  1. compensated?
  1. «Answer: Yes.
  1. «Question: So it is possible, isn’t it, that if you
  1. had that factual scenario that a Russian court would

31

  1. exception to the rule against reflective loss.
  1. MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Giles v Rhind was rather an odd case.
  1. MR MILNER: Well, it may have been odd and, as I say, it is
  1. not uncontroversial, but it is authoritatively settled,
  1. at least up to the level of the Court of Appeal, that
  1. that is right, and I think it is Parker v Waddington,
  1. a 2009 case, that holds that Giles v Rhind is good law,
  1. despite what Lord Millett said about it. I may have got
  1. the name of that case slightly wrong, it’s
  1. Parker v someone …
  1. MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: I shall have to look at Giles v Rhind.
  1. MR MILNER: I say it is not surprising because of course the
  1. policy underlying these rules is the same: there
  1. shouldn’t be double recovery, but equally, loss should
  1. be compensated. And it is how you balance those
  1. interests.
  1. But going on with —
  1. MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: The two aspects in England are not
  1. altogether easy to analogise with Russian. In England
  1. we simply have a strict rule as to the proper claimant,
  1. and where the source of the problem is damage to
  1. the company, we are pretty rigorous, subject to
  1. the exceptions you mentioned, in demanding that the
  1. company and only the company should be the complainant.
  1. The second is, where there is coordinate duty owed

pastedGraphic_11.png

L15/89/9

pastedGraphic_12.png

  1. actually damage that’s been suffered by the company and
  1. should, therefore, be claimed by the company, otherwise
  1. there may be double compensation.
  1. Causes of actions are only relevant if the
  1. shareholder has one and the company doesn’t, and then
  1. there can’t be any objection to the shareholder
  1. recovering it because the company can’t recover it.
  1. Just while I think of it, the names of the cases
  1. have come back to me, and I will send these in more
  1. formally, but it is Gardner v Parker is the case in the
  1. Court of Appeal, and Webster v Sandersons, I think are
  1. the two Court of Appeal cases since Giles v Rhind, but
  1. which affirm the principles in that case.
  1. Just going on with what Professor Maggs said,
  1. because I think this makes the position even clearer,
  1. Professor Maggs went on to discuss the article from
  1. Professor Yarkov, whom he agreed was an eminent scholar
  1. in Russian civil law, and if we go down in his evidence
  1. to pages 93 and following, at the bottom of 92
  1. Professor Maggs agrees that Professor Yarkov is a very
  1. well known expert, and if we then go over to the next
  1. page, {Day41/93/1}, he referred to an article which is
  1. at {E4/14.1/288}.
  1. Professor Yarkov in this article expressed the view
  1. that it would be wrong to limit shareholder claims to
  1. then he should be able to bring a claim directly. By
  1. the same token, it is open to an English court to hold
  1. that a claimant can do that under Russian law, just as
  1. he would be able to do under English law, applying
  1. Giles v Rhind.
  1. There is no risk of double recovery or prejudice to
  1. creditors because the creditors are not going to cause
  1. this claim to be brought otherwise.
  1. So we say that the reflective loss doesn’t provide
  1. a defence in this case in relation to the Scan asset.
  1. Dealing more briefly with the other points, the
  1. first one was competition between claims. The point
  1. here is that because we are asserting a contractual
  1. claim, it is not open to us to assert a tort claim
  1. because the Russian court doesn’t allow you to bring
  1. those claims at the same time.
  1. We say that even in Russia, no Russian court has
  1. applied such a principle. The cases where a similar
  1. principle has been applied are different. They involve
  1. claims for vindication, in other words the recovery of
  1. property, where the courts have said you can’t combine
  1. a vindication claim with a contractual claim because
  1. they have totally inconsistent regimes for restitution
  1. of property, there’s a clash of the rules and,
  1. therefore, you can’t claim both at the same time.

pastedGraphic_13.png

L15/89/10

pastedGraphic_14.png

L15/89/11

pastedGraphic_15.png

L15/89/12

pastedGraphic_16.png

45

  1. Bradford Investments, and then it arose in
  1. Johnson v Gore Wood 20 or so years later. I don’t know
  1. what one should assume in Russian.
  1. MR MILNER: Well, it is, in a sense, a blank canvass. There
  1. are simply no decisions that discuss it. We have
  1. Professor Yarkov’s view about what the law should be or,
  1. indeed, is, as I would submit.
  1. I mean, there are really two ways one can go about
  1. it, and ultimately they come to the same end point. One
  1. can say: There is no effective Russian law, so I may as
  1. well apply English law principles. Which is what one
  1. does when there is a vacuum of foreign law generally.
  1. Or one can say: Well, doing the best I can, how do
  1. I think a Russian judge would approach this? Would they
  1. say, «Never under any circumstances», or would they say,
  1. «Yes, no prohibition at all», or would they say, «It’s
  1. available in defined and limited circumstances», exactly
  1. as English law does? I submit that the last of those is
  1. the most plausible analysis, although there is no
  1. guidance from Russia, really, either way.
  1. There is no good reason to refuse to allow a claim
  1. to be brought where it would be unjust not to. Why
  1. would one do that, one asks rhetorically.
  1. MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: I mean, the thing is that reflective
  1. loss in England can cause unjust results to some extent.

47

  1. introduced or not yet discovered a notion of reflective
  1. loss, depending on their jurisdictional view, whether
  1. the law is always there and uncovered, or whether it is
  1. introduced, or should I say, in this uncertain
  1. situation, I should simply follow the precepts of
  1. English law with which I am familiar?
  1. MR MILNER: I think ultimately the outcome is going to be
  1. the same, but as a matter of strict doctrine, the
  1. question that your Lordship has to answer is: on the
  1. proper interpretation of Articles 1064 and 15 and the
  1. other provisions we are concerned with, are the
  1. conditions for liability made out? And the ones which
  1. reflective loss may affect are, first of all, the
  1. question of whether there is a loss within the meaning
  1. of Articles 1064 and 15 and so on, and secondly the
  1. question of whether the loss has been caused to
  1. the claimant as opposed to the company, for example.
  1. There is, as your Lordship says, no real guidance as
  1. to the scope of those terms in this particular context.
  1. So I think all that your Lordship can do is seek to
  1. apply those substantive rules in a way which seems to
  1. your Lordship to be sensible and fair and reasonable.
  1. That, in practice, may very well be the same way
  1. that the English courts approach the same question, and
  1. of course in English law we don’t conceptualise it as

pastedGraphic_17.png

L15/89/13

pastedGraphic_18.png

L15/89/14

pastedGraphic_19.png

L15/89/15

pastedGraphic_20.png

L15/89/16

pastedGraphic_21.png

L15/89/17

pastedGraphic_22.png

  1. document in those four sequences insofar as they
  1. postdated the actual decision on 17 July.
  1. In my submissions the —
  1. MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Of July?
  1. MR STROILOV: Of June, I beg your pardon. 17 June 2009.
  1. In my submissions the explanation for the deletion
  1. given to your Lordship by Mrs Blinova, admittedly as
  1. a speculation, essentially she thought that she was
  1. ordered to do so by Client Monitoring Directorate, and
  1. then she defended this as being perfectly proper. But
  1. essentially what we are concerned with, obviously, is
  1. not the propriety of Mrs Blinova’s personal conduct, and
  1. I stressed in cross-examination, after being rightly
  1. prompted to do so, that I am not alleging any dishonesty
  1. against her personally.
  1. What is important is why would Client Monitoring
  1. Directorate give her such an instruction, and if it was
  1. simply a matter of correcting a mistake and avoiding
  1. confusion, it would have been sufficient to change the
  1. last of the reports rather than go through this huge
  1. sequence of scores and scores of reports, which are
  1. identical, and erasing it from every report in
  1. the chronological sequence.
  1. And of course there was no inaccuracy because, as we
  1. know from that specific disclosure given pursuant to
  1. We say that with the evidence of this intention,
  1. that really casts a new light on what really happened
  1. subsequently, and the explanation — where the assets
  1. were actually transferred, albeit via purported public
  1. auctions rather than just like this, just arbitrarily.
  1. That actually shows what intentions the Bank already
  1. had by that time, and the explanation about this being
  1. a desperate, sporadic reaction to the news of the
  1. Morskoy Bank loan and Mr Arkhangelsky going to war with
  1. the Bank does not hold water. Well, he didn’t go to
  1. war; he tried to take a perfectly legitimate legal
  1. action against the Bank, which the Bank sought to defeat
  1. by unlawful, dishonest means.
  1. My Lord, considering the events of 2009, I think
  1. I want to make a few minor additional points. A point
  1. I make, and which my learned friend has criticised,
  1. about the significance of whether it was Mr Savelyev who
  1. evaded contact with the Bank or Mr Arkhangelsky who
  1. evaded contact with — well, with the Bank. I beg your
  1. pardon, let me start again. Whether we say Mr Savelyev
  1. was evading contact with Mr Arkhangelsky, there were
  1. persistent letters seeking a meeting and Mr Savelyev had
  1. never genuinely reacted to it, except that note he made
  1. on one of the letters where he suggested that Mr Guz and
  1. Mrs Volodina should see him.

pastedGraphic_23.png

L15/89/18

pastedGraphic_24.png

  1. But it is perfectly consistent with our case where
  1. we say: well, once they had the shares in their hands,
  1. there was, from their point of view, nothing to talk
  1. about. They were busy really trying to remove the
  1. shares and assets from within the possible reach of
  1. Mr Arkhangelsky.
  1. My Lord, just trying to look back at where we are in
  1. our analysis, as I suggested yesterday, good method
  1. analysis was really to look back at the result and then
  1. go backwards to see when the relevant intention was
  1. formed. Well, we find the purported auctions which
  1. were, in my submission, clearly dishonest and lawful.
  1. Now, then we see that the auctions conclude or
  1. appear in the context of a series of transactions
  1. designed clearly to — well, in our submission quite
  1. clearly to achieve several purposes, including further
  1. removal of the assets, making it more difficult to
  1. unwind the transfers, to unify them so as to maximise
  1. the value in the hands of the ultimate beneficiaries of
  1. the transfers, and at the same time to encumber them in
  1. various ways so as to minimise the potential price at
  1. public auctions.
  1. Coming back for a moment to your Lordship’s point
  1. about: well, how did they ensure that independent
  1. bidders wouldn’t come forward, it’s important to
  1. But other than that, it wasn’t that important
  1. whether it’s 300 million or 500 million in relation to
  1. any particular asset, so that was — so if there was
  1. a risk that some independent bidder might come forward
  1. after all, that was a risk they might have well taken.
  1. It does not contradict our case on the fraud.
  1. So, my Lord, looking back at this, if we try to
  1. understand when this sequence of transfers starts, that
  1. really brings us back to the transfer to subsequent
  1. purchasers and the replacement of management connected
  1. to that, and in my submission it would be a proper
  1. inference, given the proximity of these two events and
  1. the connection between them in terms of logic, that the
  1. main purpose of replacing the management was to enable
  1. a transfer of the assets away from the two companies.
  1. So you see a perfectly logical, coherent plan in
  1. operation, rather than a series of sporadic reactions to
  1. events which the claimants tried to present as
  1. an explanation of their actions.
  1. Now, but the next question, I think, is whether this
  1. intention to appropriate the assets was formed prior to
  1. the December agreement. I know the claimants don’t like
  1. the term «December 2008 agreement», but at the moment
  1. I rather refer to it as a factual landmark rather than
  1. any legal agreement as such. That’s a matter for

pastedGraphic_25.png

L15/89/19

pastedGraphic_26.png

73

  1. yesterday that I don’t want to spend a lot of time on
  1. discussing the credibility of various witnesses, I think
  1. I need to address you, if only briefly, in relation to
  1. what the claimants have said about Mr Arkhangelsky’s
  1. evidence, since so much turns on it. Of course, I do so
  1. without the benefit of actually being there when he gave
  1. evidence, and I am sure your Lordship has formed your
  1. own impression, whereas I only read the transcript, but
  1. I will make a few points.
  1. Mr Arkhangelsky was a very frank witness. There is
  1. no doubt about that. He told you about a number of
  1. matters about himself which are not attractive. Unless
  1. he was keen to comply with his oath to tell the truth,
  1. he had no reason to do so. He had no reason, to take
  1. the brightest example, to tell your Lordship about the
  1. bribes, apart from his determination to tell the truth.
  1. If it was a question of explaining away
  1. a discrepancy in the figures, and if he was prepared to
  1. make things up, as the claimants would have you believe,
  1. there would be a hundred ways to explain it away which
  1. would be far less damaging than admitting to paying
  1. these massive bribes.
  1. So he came to court clearly being determined to tell
  1. you the truth about himself, including very unattractive
  1. things; apart from bribes, he also told you about

75

  1. given after that, his reaction to that was not to become
  1. more cautious and less frank, really; it was to become
  1. more aggressive, admittedly, and you will have seen —
  1. there is no denial, you will have seen from his evidence
  1. that there is very considerable animus that he has
  1. against the Bank and people associated with it,
  1. including, unfortunately, the legal representatives,
  1. which is obviously not right, but that’s something
  1. that — well, he is not the first one who has this
  1. feeling, misconceived as it may be.
  1. It is true that he was — well, therefore,
  1. considering in this his manner of giving evidence, it is
  1. important to distinguish or to recognise that at times
  1. he may have failed to distinguish between argument and
  1. factual evidence. Now, he was at times clearly arguing
  1. the case, he was polemicising, and sometimes, as
  1. argument does go, his arguments do go over the top. It
  1. does happen to him. And that’s especially regrettable
  1. when it happens in the context of giving evidence.
  1. For instance, I think, to take an example, I don’t
  1. think it is exactly what he said, but that’s pretty much
  1. in the manner of some of his answers, he is perfectly
  1. capable of saying in the heat of the argument: well, you
  1. know what, Mr Lord, your clients are such crooks that
  1. all the documents they have produced are forgeries as

pastedGraphic_27.png

L15/89/20

pastedGraphic_28.png

L15/89/21

pastedGraphic_29.png

81

  1. alternative basis, for the value of the assets, if not
  1. business.
  1. It is only if the assets were overvalued that,
  1. really, the claimant’s submission on financial pyramid
  1. should succeed. So it all comes down to valuations,
  1. ultimately, in my submission.
  1. Similarly, of course, any suggestion that part of
  1. the assets were siphoned off and hidden does not appear
  1. likely at all, and hasn’t been proven to any
  1. satisfactory degree.
  1. Firstly, I think it is a rather astonishing
  1. submission made by the claimants repeatedly that
  1. Mr Arkhangelsky claimed to be impecunious in order to
  1. avoid judicial scrutiny of his assets position. Now,
  1. firstly, by claiming impecuniosity in response to
  1. a freezing order, you rather invite judicial scrutiny
  1. than avoid it.
  1. Secondly, as a matter of fact, there has been very
  1. considerable judicial scrutiny of the assets position.
  1. It occupied your Lordship’s time for about two years in
  1. 2012 and 2013. It was dealt with very professionally
  1. and, without meaning a criticism, aggressively by the
  1. then legal team of the claimants. The disclosure was
  1. scrutinised in every possible means. There were
  1. cross-examinations, there were additional evidence,

83

  1. can’t break it down what that company was, why it was
  1. there and so on. We say —
  1. MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: I can’t remember where they deal with
  1. this in there.
  1. MR STROILOV: That, my Lord, will be — it is near the
  1. beginning. I will find it —
  1. MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: It is mentioned at 1132. I think it
  1. is 1133, is it?
  1. MR BIRT: I was going to say page 127, my Lord.
  1. MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: 127. I’ve got it at 594.
  1. MR BIRT: We come back to it later, my Lord, as well. Yes,
  1. my Lord is quite right, {AA3&4/14/127}.
  1. MR STROILOV: I am very grateful to my learned friend.
  1. My Lord, I think what they quote, perhaps to put it
  1. in context, if you turn to 129, you see they discuss the
  1. response which Mr Arkhangelsky gave to them.
  1. MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Page?
  1. MR STROILOV: That’s {AA3&4/14/129} and paragraph 15(3) and
  1. then (4).
  1. Now, my Lord, I think the letter of Mr Arkhangelsky
  1. is not quoted in full, to I would ask to call on the
  1. screen that letter at {I24/34/61}. I will invite
  1. your Lordship to read through this letter, and then make
  1. submissions. I think that’s the best way.
  1. (Pause)

pastedGraphic_30.png

L15/89/22

pastedGraphic_31.png

L15/89/23

pastedGraphic_32.png

89

  1. whatever, well, then, if it was handled, if the assets
  1. were simply transferred to an agent to handle in some
  1. way on behalf of the company, well, there is nothing
  1. suspicious about him not remembering it.
  1. MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Is there anything you want to say
  1. about — he seems to have no knowledge of City Centre at
  1. all.
  1. MR STROILOV: Indeed, my Lord. He has no recollection of
  1. that.
  1. MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: So it’s not only he can’t remember the
  1. transfer, but he is putting a conjecture in respect of
  1. an entity which he supposes might have received all this
  1. money, but he has no idea about the entity at all?
  1. MR STROILOV: Yes, my Lord. Well, it is consistent — so,
  1. if he is right in his conjecture, that’s not that
  1. surprising. Well, if it was simply a broker, well, he
  1. knew that the assets were invested in some way as part
  1. of the group’s normal operations; well, through which
  1. broker it may have been done is not something — well,
  1. that’s a level of detail you would not necessarily
  1. expect from the head of a group —
  1. MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: That’s a bit of a brave submission,
  1. isn’t it? I mean, in an imaginary discussion between
  1. a liquidator or other insolvency officer, saying: now,
  1. there’s a billion went to this entity — and one would

91

  1. as a director, he is bound to give an account to
  1. the fiduciary.
  1. MR STROILOV: Yes, my Lord — no, but in normal
  1. circumstances it is being done with some access —
  1. MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Well, he says they were normal
  1. circumstances. He says it was all perfectly normal.
  1. Why can’t he account for it?
  1. MR STROILOV: Because he hasn’t got access to the documents.
  1. MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Right.
  1. MR STROILOV: To the — well, it is — obviously
  1. your Lordship is right, but it is subject to
  1. clarification. Well, the director is asked about
  1. matters such as this and he, in a properly run company,
  1. would know which account to look at and which file to
  1. open and find the answer.
  1. But whether or not he carries it in his head is just
  1. a memory test. It’s a slightly different standard, if
  1. you see what I mean, my Lord.
  1. MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Well, in any event, you say, however
  1. surprised I may be, it would be even more surprising on
  1. the balance of probabilities if what was happened was
  1. a salting away to City Centre, if that hadn’t been
  1. discovered. So as much one source of surprise against
  1. another, and you say in doing that I come up with the
  1. not proven verdict.

pastedGraphic_33.png

L15/89/24

pastedGraphic_34.png

L15/89/25

pastedGraphic_35.png

L15/89/26

pastedGraphic_36.png

L15/89/27

pastedGraphic_37.png

105

  1. MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: She was a cipher, and she realised
  1. that he was just using Vyborg as a conduit for payments
  1. to entities which he controlled, or himself.
  1. MR STROILOV: My Lord, I will check.
  1. MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: I think you had better, because my
  1. initial instinct is that one could understand why she
  1. might have got cold feet about saying such a thing.
  1. MR STROILOV: But my Lord, then you would expect, and
  1. I think it is a rather established test, you would
  1. expect someone on the claimants’ side to say: well,
  1. we’ve tried to get Ms Krygina to give evidence, but
  1. unfortunately she got cold feet, and you could have
  1. readily believed it because people do get cold feet
  1. about these kind of things.
  1. MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Implicating themselves in a massive
  1. fraud?
  1. MR STROILOV: Yes, my Lord, but that’s not what you are
  1. told, really. Well, you are told nothing about why
  1. Ms Krygina is not here. And, indeed, if the claimants
  1. rely on what has happened to Vyborg Shipping as
  1. an example of fraud, well, they should have explained
  1. why their friend, who was prepared to give them —
  1. really, well, she indicates — perhaps we had better
  1. have a look at the e-mail which I showed to Ms Mironova
  1. at the time, which is at {D153/2567.1/1}.

107

  1. had been perpetrating in siphoning off money.
  1. MR STROILOV: Well, firstly, obviously, she would have had
  1. a right to refuse to incriminate herself, and secondly,
  1. and most importantly, you are not told that she refused
  1. for that reason or for any other.
  1. Now, for all you know, the claimants didn’t ask her
  1. to give evidence. Indeed, Ms Mironova said that, to her
  1. knowledge, no one from the Bank asked her to give
  1. evidence.
  1. I think I cross-examined her on this on Day 35,
  1. starting at page 93, {Day35/93/1}. I’m not sure we need
  1. to go through all of it, but if your Lordship is minded
  1. to consider this in more detail, I think Ms Mironova is
  1. the witness with whom I went —
  1. MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Sometimes one is uncertain as to why
  1. someone hasn’t been called, sometimes one can see the
  1. likelihood why they haven’t been called. I would have
  1. thought this was a latter case.
  1. MR STROILOV: Well, my Lord, in the light of your
  1. observations, I would like possibly to return to this on
  1. Monday.
  1. MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: That’s fine.
  1. MR STROILOV: Because I think there are some documents which
  1. are not consistent with this conjecture and it is
  1. obviously no more than a conjecture.

pastedGraphic_38.png

L15/89/28

pastedGraphic_39.png

109

  1. of the seal. Are you going to address anything on that
  1. or shall I just read it and reach my own conclusion?
  1. MR STROILOV: At the end I will briefly, yes, deal with the
  1. issue of the seal.
  1. MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Don’t take yourself out of your chosen
  1. course.
  1. MR STROILOV: I think that’s actually helpful. On the issue
  1. of the seal, my instructions are he unreservedly
  1. acknowledges that what he did was wrong. He regrets
  1. having done that, but that’s what he has done and he has
  1. told your Lordship about this. And that’s pretty much
  1. the end of it.
  1. MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: He misled me, didn’t he?
  1. MR STROILOV: He did, yes.
  1. MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: And not only misled me but, whilst
  1. I note his acknowledgement and apology now, he didn’t
  1. make it in Paris when he was being examined; he kept on
  1. along the line that this was a bit of a mystery.
  1. MR STROILOV: I’m not sure he —
  1. MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Maybe I have recollected wrong.
  1. I don’t know.
  1. MR STROILOV: — did. I think he — no, I think he did tell
  1. your Lordship that — I mean, perhaps I had better find
  1. that element, but my — I will try to summarise it and
  1. if my learned friend prefers to look at the actual

111

  1. MR STROILOV: That’s right, my Lord.
  1. MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: So it was a direct — I don’t mean to
  1. torture you, Mr Stroilov, but it was a direct misleading
  1. of me on a point of which I had expressly asked for
  1. confirmation. It is pretty flagrant, isn’t it?
  1. MR STROILOV: Well, it is, and really we don’t make any
  1. reservations. But as for the extent to which you were
  1. misled, it was not — well, the substance of it was
  1. right, of the document: he was a director general, he
  1. had the power to authorise himself to conduct litigation
  1. on behalf of the company. So, in substance, it was
  1. right, and I don’t understand the claimants to suggest
  1. otherwise. But on top of that, for whatever idiotic
  1. reason, he actually made it — made the document sealed,
  1. whereas he didn’t have the seal and he didn’t have to
  1. provide the sealed document. The signed document would
  1. have been enough.
  1. I do submit that this does not amount to evidence of
  1. habitual dishonesty, as such. People make mistakes,
  1. people get carried away, and it does not compliment him
  1. and he acknowledges that it was clearly wrong of him to
  1. do that.
  1. But, again, the inference of habitual dishonesty,
  1. and really that everything he does must be dishonest, is
  1. quite far-fetched.

pastedGraphic_40.png

L15/89/29

pastedGraphic_41.png

L15/89/30

pastedGraphic_42.png

L15/89/31

pastedGraphic_43.png

L15/89/32

pastedGraphic_44.png

L15/89/33

pastedGraphic_45.png

L15/89/34

pastedGraphic_46.png

133

  1. it was good practice, and why, as a matter of common
  1. sense, and if not a matter of a legal obligation as
  1. a matter of good order, you have to have this consent.
  1. The intention is precisely to protect the rights of
  1. the borrower’s family, of the borrower’s wife,
  1. ordinarily, against him recklessly guaranteeing various
  1. loans and then creating a huge liability for the family
  1. assets without her consent. It was to protect her
  1. rights. And that is why it has to be signed in the
  1. presence of the Bank’s employee. Other than that, there
  1. is no purpose; it is really to protect
  1. Mrs Arkhangelskaya against Mr Arkhangelsky just creating
  1. liabilities for family assets.
  1. On their case, the Bank was prepared to let
  1. Mr Arkhangelsky possibly sign it himself without really
  1. checking that Mrs Arkhangelskaya knew anything about it.
  1. So effectively the Bank admits that they were quite
  1. happy to be a party to loading liabilities on
  1. Mrs Arkhangelskaya without her knowledge. What we
  1. disagree about is whether Mr Arkhangelsky was part of
  1. that fabrication or whether it was done without his
  1. knowledge as well.
  1. Indeed, extraordinarily, even now, at the trial,
  1. none of the Bank’s witnesses were prepared to admit that
  1. it was wrong. I think Mrs Blinova has quite clearly

135

  1. corrected — her evidence is that she had no idea about
  1. that and she believes these to have been forgeries, she
  1. never had any intention of signing any such consents.
  1. Whereas the Bank gave evidence that they believed —
  1. and, if I’m not mistaken, everyone who said that seemed
  1. to believe that — on the basis of what they say
  1. Mr Arkhangelsky told them, that it was simply a matter
  1. of convenience and she wouldn’t mind.
  1. I don’t think any of them has told your Lordship
  1. that they have in any way verified with
  1. Mrs Arkhangelskaya that, in fact, she does not mind.
  1. Well, the purpose of this document being effectively
  1. for the Bank to check on Mr Arkhangelsky that — you
  1. know, that his wife agrees to him providing the
  1. guarantee. Even on the Bank’s case, effectively they
  1. combined with Mr Arkhangelsky to cheat
  1. Mrs Arkhangelskaya, to create liabilities against family
  1. assets to which she — in which she had her 50 per cent
  1. interest, without her knowledge or consent. That is
  1. what — in my submission, that is what follows from what
  1. the Bank’s witnesses told you.
  1. Well, we disagree with that. We say that
  1. Mr Arkhangelsky was among the victims of this rather
  1. than among the forgers.
  1. But, as between the Bank and Mrs Arkhangelskaya,

pastedGraphic_47.png

L15/89/35

July 8, 2016 Day 45

 

  1. it’s clear that they wronged her and they are not
  1. prepared to admit the obvious.
  1. My Lord, but that, in my submission, indicates
  1. a rather broader picture, and in a way I don’t want to
  1. try and score too many points out of it, rather than
  1. saying — I’m not suggesting that this in itself
  1. indicates any outrageous dishonesty on the part of
  1. the Bank; I am rather saying that this illustrates that
  1. the Bank did not regard the guarantees as anything
  1. particularly important. It did not envisage that it
  1. would ever have to enforce them, and for that reason
  1. it’s thought it is quite acceptable to cut a few corners
  1. and not to be particularly strict about it and, indeed,
  1. to forge a signature for convenience without intending
  1. it to cause anyone any harm. But — it was not seen as
  1. something quite unacceptable. It was part of
  1. the practice on the understanding that it was all
  1. ultimately unimportant.
  1. The Bank has given evidence about the practice it
  1. has of backdating documents from time to time. It is
  1. not — again, it is not something they find unacceptable
  1. when it is — when they consider it as being helpful to
  1. the parties concerned.
  1. Now, what I’m driving at is that in these
  1. circumstances it is not particularly improbable that,
  1. «I recall that, in the context of the restructuring,
  1. the Bank required personal guarantees from
  1. Mr Arkhangelsky to be in place. I believe that this was
  1. considered to be necessary to show that Mr Arkhangelsky
  1. was acting in good faith and would stand behind the
  1. obligations of his companies.»
  1. Then to the end of this paragraph.
  1. My Lord, what is rather striking about this evidence
  1. is that it is so categorical and unambiguous. Her
  1. recollection is that it was in December 2008 or possibly
  1. in early January in the context of the restructuring of
  1. the loans that the Bank required personal guarantees to
  1. be in place, and that implies that at least some of them
  1. were not in place by that time.
  1. My Lord, it is not in the overall context — that
  1. puts it in quite a different context. Obviously you
  1. have heard a lot of evidence from the witnesses on the
  1. Bank’s side about —
  1. MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: What were the alleged dates of
  1. the guarantees? Much earlier?
  1. MR STROILOV: They are, yes.
  1. MR BIRT: They go back to 2006, my Lord, and the first Onega
  1. loan, middle of 2006. There are, of course, a lot of
  1. extensions to the guarantees as part of
  1. the restructuring, when all the loans were extended,

pastedGraphic_48.png

L15/89/36

pastedGraphic_49.png

L15/89/37

pastedGraphic_50.png

L15/89/38

pastedGraphic_51.png

L15/89/39

July 8, 2016 Day 45

 

  1. there is — well, and essentially I think I will just
  1. have a final summary and then possibly I will pick up
  1. any points I may have forgotten. I don’t expect I will
  1. need more than an hour and a half to two hours, in
  1. the worst case scenario, on Monday morning.
  1. MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Well done.
  1. We will start at 10.30 am, then, on Monday; does
  1. that suit you all?
  1. MR STROILOV: It does, my Lord.
  1. MR JUSTICE HILDYARD: Thank you. Have a good weekend.
  1. (4.34 pm)
  1. (The court adjourned until 10.30 am on
  1. Monday, 11 July 2016)

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

pastedGraphic_52.png

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

pastedGraphic_53.png

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)

pastedGraphic_54.png

 

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

pastedGraphic_55.png

L15/89/41

156

July 8, 2016 Day 45

 

pastedGraphic_56.png

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

 

pastedGraphic_57.png

pastedGraphic_58.png

L15/89/42

157

July 8, 2016 Day 45

 

pastedGraphic_59.png

 

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

pastedGraphic_55.png

L15/89/43

158

July 8, 2016 Day 45

 

pastedGraphic_60.png

 

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

pastedGraphic_58.png

L15/89/44

159

July 8, 2016 Day 45

 

pastedGraphic_61.png

 

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

pastedGraphic_55.png

L15/89/45

160

July 8, 2016 Day 45

 

pastedGraphic_62.png

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

 

pastedGraphic_63.png

pastedGraphic_58.png

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

pastedGraphic_55.png

L15/89/47

162

July 8, 2016 Day 45

 

pastedGraphic_64.png

 

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

pastedGraphic_58.png

L15/89/48

163

July 8, 2016 Day 45

 

pastedGraphic_65.png

 

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

pastedGraphic_55.png

L15/89/49

164

July 8, 2016 Day 45

 

pastedGraphic_66.png

 

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

pastedGraphic_58.png

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)

pastedGraphic_67.png

 

pastedGraphic_55.png

L15/89/51

166

July 8, 2016 Day 45

 

0

   

1

 

1 (7) 42:13 63:15

pastedGraphic_68.png

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

pastedGraphic_69.png

140:17

15(3) (1) 84:18

pastedGraphic_70.png

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

pastedGraphic_71.png

82:21

pastedGraphic_72.png

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

pastedGraphic_73.png

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

pastedGraphic_74.png

152:17

33.7 (1) 53:13

pastedGraphic_75.png

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

pastedGraphic_76.png

 

7

 

7 (2) 63:11 140:17

72 (1) 125:11

8

  

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

pastedGraphic_77.png

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

 

pastedGraphic_58.png

L15/89/52