Where did the $9 billion go?

It turned out that the money from the sale of Yuganskneftegaz did not go to Yukos accounts

The whole week passed under the impression of events that unfolded far from the Khamovniki Court of Moscow: arrests of Rosneft property in England and the United States for hundreds of millions of dollars - we are talking about $ 400 million - and a ban on settlements on ...

The whole week was under the impression of events that unfolded far from the Khamovniki Court of Moscow: arrests of Rosneft property in England and the United States for hundreds of millions of dollars - we are talking about $400 million - and a ban on settlements on transactions in dollars that fell upon the Russian company , profited at one time by Yukos, as an interim measure after losing the court in Amsterdam. Because of what, a complete paralysis of the entire export of the company may occur. What happened this week in the trial in Moscow has only strengthened the position of Yukos Capital, which is trying to prove that Yukos property was simply taken away in favor of state-owned companies.

day one hundred and seventy five

Witness Anilionis returned to the Khamovniki court, having taken time off from interrogation last week. The “nervous breakdown” of the witness was caused by Platon Lebedev, who analyzed his testimony during the investigation, where Anilionis told the investigator Karimov a lot of such funny things that he even laughed with him during the interrogation (this is heard on the audio recording).

On March 15, Judge Danilkin first asked the witness if he had a feeling of hostility towards the defendants.

“After that interrogation… I can’t say that I feel absolutely nothing…”

- Well, are you capable of giving evidence objectively? — said the judge.

“I’ll try…” Anilionis answered after a pause. But he did not answer a single question of the defendants:

“I want to exercise my right not to testify against myself.

“Please…” the judge said softly.

- You, as an experienced businessman, could you explain ... - the lawyer Krasnov asked, but Anilionis answered without listening to the end:

- I can not!

- Do you remember...

- I do not remember…

"I'll repeat the question," Lebedev intervened.

“I won’t answer any more!”

day one hundred and seventy six

The new witness for the prosecution, Vladimir Kudasov, once worked for the Yukos-Moscow company as deputy head of the treasury. His immediate superior was Andrey Leonovich, whose extradition the UK refused to Russia. Apparently, Kudasov's summons to court was another attempt by the prosecutor's office to use the courtroom as a room for preliminary interrogations in other Yukos criminal cases. In any case, the prosecutors did not ask about the subject of the charge against Khodorkovsky and Lebedev.

- Explain what "company budget" means? asked prosecutor Lakhtin.

The witness told the basics:

— Salary, current salary, expenses…

— And what can you say about the assets of the accounts?

What does "account assets" mean? — the witness-economist was perplexed.

Let's leave this question then.

The baton was continued by prosecutor Kovalikhina:

What is a "company budget"?

- It has already been asked! the judge remarked. The prosecutor apologized and, together with her colleagues, bent over the papers. Thought. After 30 minutes, Lakhtin, as always, asked to read the testimony of the witness during the investigation.

There were six interrogations in total, dated May-June 2008. And that's all - not in the case of Khodorkovsky - Lebedev, but in the bottomless mother case of YUKOS - 18 / 41-03, from which cases against individual employees of the company periodically sprout. But the witness's six trips to the prosecutor's office did nothing to help the investigation. Khodorkovsky had questions, only to the judge:

- It seems to me wrong that interrogations conducted outside of our criminal case are being announced, and, in fact, we now have a situation of a certain procedural fraud.

- Do you have everything? the judge said in an annoyed voice. Khodorkovsky did not answer and began questioning the witness.

— Have you ever had such a situation when money left one account and did not come to another? asked the former head of Yukos.

“There have never been such cases,” Kudasov chuckled and confirmed that the money received by the Yukos group from the sale of oil and oil products was placed by the Treasury in securities and on deposits, and was not written off or put into someone’s pocket.

day one hundred and seventy seven

Answering Lebedev's questions, the witness recalled that the Yukos subsidiaries transferred the powers of the sole executive body to the companies Yukos EP and Yukos RM.

Lakhtin can no longer wait to ask his questions: after all, the executive bodies, in the understanding of the investigation, forcibly forced the oil-producing "daughters" to transfer authority to dispose of the oil produced. And there is a scandal. The prosecutor acquaints the witness with a document entitled "Management of Rosprom enterprises: parent and management companies." (CJSC Rosprom used to be the managing company of Yukos.)

“Here we are talking about the creation of such a structure of management companies as Yukos RM, Yukos EP,” Lakhtin assured the witness.

- He's lying! Lebedev notes. — Nothing is mentioned in this fake about CJSC YUKOS-RM and CJSC YUKOS-EP!

Lakhtin continues to ask about "depriving the daughters of their independence." The witness answered for a long time and in detail, in the end - there was no crime: the “daughters” were not deprived of anything. But prosecutor Lakhtin did not even listen to him:

— Were you aware that such management was introduced in order to take away the right to dispose of the produced oil from the general directors?

“Your Honor,” Khodorkovsky noted, “I would ask that the question be dropped and that a remark be made to the state prosecutor, since I consider it unacceptable when the state prosecutor misleads the witness by saying that the general director’s powers are being “withdrawn,” and instead of a legal entity, “the decision is made by some management company. The public prosecutor cannot be unaware of Article 103 of the Civil Code, which regulates: the management company is the general director or executive body of the company. Well, why deceive a court? ..

- Valery Alekseevich! Repeat the question without statements! - bursting out either at Khodorkovsky, or at the prosecutor, the judge said.

- Do you know that ... - and Lakhtin asked the same question-statement.

Are you aware of such a target? the judge asked the witness sternly.

- About such a goal - no, it is not known.

Again at the microphone, Lebedev, who, together with a witness, dealt another blow to the investigation: Kudasov confirmed that the most valuable asset, Yuganskneftegaz, which produced 60 percent of all oil, suffered the most during the tax attack on Yukos.

- Can you confirm that after the auction for the sale of Yuganskneftegaz the money went to Yukos' accounts? Is that a huge amount, more than $9 billion? Lebedev asked.

— For Yugansk? No. The accounts that I supervised in the Treasury did not pass such an amount.

What was required to be proved: the state simply took away the most important producing subsidiary of Yukos from the company without any compensation, and the auction with one participant - Baikalfinancegroup * - was, apparently, fictitious.

day one hundred and seventy eight

...Prosecutor Lakhtin decided to read to the court the testimony of one of the employees of the ALM Feldmans law office, Natalia Petrosyan. This bureau, according to the prosecutor's office, "under the guise of fulfilling the terms of the contract for the provision of legal services" participated together with Yukos in the "legalization of stolen funds" through offshore companies. The witness sent a letter to the Khamovnichesky court stating that because of her son's treatment abroad, she could not appear and requested that her testimony be read out during the investigation, "which I confirm." But to some extent, this went sideways to the prosecutor's office: the methods of work of some investigators shocked the public.

There were six interrogations. Six intense interrogations dated November-December 2004, the period when the wave of arrests touched the rank and file employees of Yukos and its partners. The first one took place on November 15, 2004. Petrosyan, together with her lawyer Ivlev, came for interrogation to the investigator Khatypov. The investigator was interested in the foreign companies of Yukos, to which Petrosyan, as a lawyer for the bureau, provided legal assistance, in particular, Nassaubridge Management Limited.

“It was a Yukos project,” the witness said. — For this client, I received a standard power of attorney of a general nature.

A day later, on November 16, the second interrogation. Petrosyan also came with lawyer Ivlev. The third interrogation is a month later, on December 23. Petrosyan refused to testify - she did not have a lawyer with her: a few days before this interrogation, the prosecutor's office opened a criminal case against Ivlev, the deputy head of the bureau, and put him on the wanted list.

On December 24, 2004, the witness comes for questioning with another defense attorney, Kuznetsov. The interrogation is conducted by the investigator Rusanova. And he is interested not so much in Petrosyan herself, but in Mr. Ivlev.

“Lawyer Kuznetsov was proposed to protect your interests by Ivlev, with whose interests your interests may not coincide,” the investigator convinced. “Lawyer Kuznetsov sends his interrogations to Ivlev,” Rusanova hinted knowingly.

Three days later - December 27 - the next interrogation. Again investigator Rusanova. The witness again emphasizes that she did not deal with financial matters. Then Rusanova, right during the interrogation, classifies Petrosyan as a member of the “organized group”:

- The investigation established that the funds that were transferred to the Fargoil company to Nassaubridge accounts were stolen from mining and oil refineries and legalized with your participation.

- I did not participate in the decisions on the legalization of stolen funds. I performed technical work within the framework of my official powers ... - the witness answered.

“In none of Petrosyan’s interrogations, the most significant question was raised to her as to whose interests she acted: did she act in the interests of some organized group, or did she act in the interests of the Yukos company,” Khodorkovsky noted. - And, in fact, this is the subject of the trial. By default, apparently, it must be assumed that she acted in the interests of Yukos.

The judge didn't answer.