Translated material
The minority witness
The testimony of Alexei Golubovich on the process of Khodorkovsky broke the logic of the prosecution
The minority witness. At the process of Khodorkovsky-Lebedeva is the 46th week of hearings. The entourage is unchanged: accused of Aquarium, bailiffs in black, judge, prosecutors, lawyers, spectators. But interrogations of the most important witness Alexei Golovich unexpectedly broke the logic of the prosecution and violated the routine course of the matter
From the audio recording of the interrogation of the witness of Golubovich, December 12, 2006:
“Surkov left the company an enemy? - The question of the investigator sounds.
“I never discussed with Surkov why he left, but I think he did the right thing,” says Golubovich, former Yukos Director for Strategic Planning and Corporate Finance. -Khodorkovsky, in my opinion, spared about it, but tried not to give it to the look. Otherwise, he would have to get rid of non -Zapolin.
- There was a choice: either non -Zurkov leaves?
- Well, I think Khodorkovsky is a stupid person. He said that Surkov is a smart and dangerous person. And Nevzlin did not seem dangerous to him. ”
Platon Lebedev, sitting behind the glass, does not withstand, breaks away from solving the crosswordon and laughs cheerfully. The hall too.
Trump card
Alexei Golubovich was interrogated in the Khamovniki court for two weeks. The state prosecution considered him one of the most important witnesses in the second “Yukos case”. But the first interrogations of the former shareholder of the company, dressed in a strict dark blue suit in stripes and tanned not in Moscow weather, disappointed the prosecutors.
Golubovich said that transactions with VNK shares * * Eastern oil company. The accusation calls the exchange of Yukos shares for the "daughters" of the VNK in 1998 by the "breach". were fair and equivalent. He did not repeat his previous statements about the terrible security service of the company, which threatened him and his family. And the matter that was used to be excited against him called the custom. He smiled at Khodorkovsky and Lebedev, laughed at the questions of the prosecutors. The lawyers perked up, the newspapers wrote that Golubovich from a witness of the prosecution had turned into a witness of defense. It was then that the prosecutors decided to read in court the originals of Golubovich’s interrogations by investigators of the Prosecutor General’s Office in 2006 and 2007.
These testimonies in a quiet voice were read by the state prosecutor Gulchahhra Ibragimova for a long time. Lawyers, pitying the audience, transmitted the text of interrogations to the wall through the projector. Then they turned on the tape recorder.
On the film, one could hear the investigator Ganiev asked Golubovich about everything in a row: how the shares between the leadership of Yukos were distributed, why Khodorkovsky offered him a share in the company. Golubovich willingly talked about how Leonid Nevzlin * * * Former Vice President of Yukos was sentenced in absentia to life imprisonment as the organizer of a series of murders and attempts for murders. He collected incriminating evidence for officials and competitors in order to influence them on occasion, and Khodorkovsky "kept away from this." He told, answering the investigator’s question, and about Khodorkovsky’s relationship with Vladislav Surkov, the current deputy head of the presidential administration, and then - the deputy head of the public relations service of Bank Menatep.
Conversation with a younger partner
After listening to the cassett, the lawyer Platon Lebedev Vladimir Krasnov said that reading the protocols of interrogations of the witness was not motivated: according to the law, this is possible if there is a serious discrepancy with the testimony of the witness in court. And there were no such discrepancies. But lawyers noticed 300 inconsistencies between interrogation protocols and their audio recording. It is intentionally or not, the investigators removed the expression “I think”, “seemingly”, “I don’t remember” from Golubovich’s speech. The minority shareholders were called "majority." According to the defenders, the essence of documents was thus distorted. Finally, the accused began to interrogate the witness. According to lawyers, Khodorkovsky prepared more than a hundred questions for Golubovich.
“I’ll say right away that I’m ready to subscribe to all the facts that you said,” the defendant began. Judge Danilkin advised contacting a witness to "you." Khodorkovsky, who knew Golubovich for 20 years, obeyed.
“Dear opponent side all the time asks you about your opinion,” Khodorkovsky said. - But the court needs information. Do you know that subsidiaries had a profit?
“Yes, it was,” Golubovich agreed.
According to the prosecution, the defendants abducted all the oil that they produced, so Khodorkovsky wanted the informed and competent Golovich confirmed: the oil -producing companies of Yukos had a profit. After all, if there was, then there was no embezzlement of all oil. He needs Golubovich to confirm: the company's activities were transparent, and all operations with shares were reflected in public reports.
-If there were any negative news about Yukos, for example, the company showed a profit 10 times less than other companies of its categories, would you know about this? The defendant asked.
“All newspapers would write about this in any case,” the witness answered.
- Do you know that at the meetings of the group (Menatep. - The New Times), issues were discussed free of charge, against the will of the owner, the seizure of Apatite shares or Apatita products?
- I don't remember.
- Have you heard such proposals from me or Lebedev?
- I did not hear.
- Do you know that at the meetings we discuss the issue of acquiring a stake in the VNK by criminal means?
- No.
- Have you heard such proposals from me or Lebedev?
- No. 
“Do you know,” Khodorkovsky methodically continued his line, “so that at the meetings we discuss the issue of assigning anti -settlement and free of charge in our favor of the Tomskneft shares, Achinsky refinery, Tomskneftegeophysics, Khakasnefteprodukt, Tomsknefteprodukt with the aim of securing an unhindered oil embezzlement?
- In this formulation, these issues were not discussed.
The accused prompted the witness that, describing the deals with the shares that Yukos made, he said that it was "the money withdrawn from Yukos." “The word“ displayed ”was not meant in a criminal sense, it means“ financing for transactions was provided, ”Golubovich explained embarrassedly.
“This is a jargon for you, and for us an article,” Khodorkovsky grinned.
I did not justify hopes
The final result of the conversation between the two former partners will be analyzed in the debate of the parties and in the verdict, but so far we can say that an important witness has not justified the hopes that the prosecutors had on it. He said nothing proving the absurd accusation against his former partners. But he did not have the courage to speak in defense of Khodorkovsky.
“Since the accusation of the theft of oil, which was invented by the defendant, then, by definition, there can be no witness if he is not a false evidence that would confirm anything in this matter,” the lawyer Vadim Kluvgan explains the paradox. “Therefore, witnesses are not talking about theft of oil, but about how oil was produced and how it was further prepared for implementation and implemented.”
Interrogations end. And then the wife of Khodorkovsky Inna and his daughter Nastya enter the hall. They sit right opposite the Aquarium. Khodorkovsky smiles and builds the daughter of faces. The process can stretch for about a year: out of 250 witnesses, the prosecution has been questioned so far only a little more than 40. But the defense also has their own witnesses.
In 2004, Alexei Golubovich was accused in the first “case of Yukos”. The investigation claimed that he was involved in the theft of shares of Apatit OJSC. Golubovich was not for interrogations and went abroad. He was put on an international wanted list, Italy refused his extradition, but in December 2006 he suddenly returned to his homeland. The second “Yukos case” was already promoted in the Prosecutor General’s Office, and in exchange for valuable testimony all the accusations from Golubovich were removed, and he himself went into the category of witnesses.
64% of Russians do not monitor what is happening in the Khamovniki court, and a third of the respondents do not understand at all what Khodorkovsky and Lebedev are accused of.