Unrequited

The week was wasted by the prosecutors: on the interrogation of ordinary employees who knew nothing about oil or theft

Day 108 Again, not a word about the stolen oil. Prosecutors continue to discuss the business of MFO MENATEP and its structures, which carried out registration and accounting services for companies, including Yukos subsidiaries. And again as...

day one hundred and eight

Again, not a word about the stolen oil. Prosecutors continue to discuss the business of MFO MENATEP and its structures, which carried out registration and accounting services for companies, including Yukos subsidiaries. And again as witnesses for the prosecution - ordinary employees of the holding. One of these, Vera Grishnyaeva, was also listed as a physical representative of a number of legal entities - client firms of the holding and, of course, signed documents.

- Have you ever wondered where the money for such significant amounts indicated in the contracts came from? the prosecutors asked her with anxious notes in their voices.

- No, - the witness answered and referred to the "authority and competence" of Alexei Golubovich, who offered her to become a trustee of one of the companies, and at the same time the most diligent witness for the prosecution in the Yukos case. But for obvious reasons, the prosecution did not focus on the role of Golubovich.

Grishnyaeva was such an ordinary employee of Yukos that the prosecutors did not seem to know what to do with her, so they showed her the documents she had signed over and over again. And so for three hours... Not a word about the defendants.

“Listen,” Judge Danilkin could not stand it at some point, “you will limit yourself to questions only: is the witness familiar or not familiar with the document?

“Yes,” the prosecutors responded, not at all embarrassed, and continued. — And what do you know about the nature of the exchange of shares? asked prosecutor Lakhtin.

- Valery Alekseevich, what kind of "essence"? Let's get down to business! the judge returned him to the merits of the accusation.

- And what do you know about the employees of MENATEP, ROSPROM, with whom did you associate these companies? Lakhtin did not listen.

- Valery Alekseevich! How should I write in the sentence? Also about "associations"?! - once again, Danilkin could not stand it.

Soon the accusers fell silent. Everyone looked at the "aquarium" with interest - the defendants remained suspiciously silent. Finally Lebedev got up:

“Your Honor, given the nature of the “information” provided by the witness, we and the defense cannot have questions.

day one hundred and nine

They begin with a defense motion to recognize the expert opinion of Shkolnikov and his colleagues (they were heard with a scandal last week) as inadmissible evidence and exclude it from the case file. The opinion of the prosecutors is expressed by Lakhtin:

— The arguments given by the defenders about the alleged violations of the rights of Khodorkovsky and Lebedev ( in that they were not acquainted with the examination . — V.Ch. ) do not meet the requirements of the Criminal Procedure Law. Completely unfounded are the arguments about the professional incompetence of the experts and allegedly that they were rigidly bound by the instructions of the investigator ( Karimov . - V.Ch. ) ... So the petition is unfounded.

And Judge Danilkin fully agreed with the prosecution's opinion, even adding on his own behalf: "There are no legal grounds." However, he left the defendants hope - "at this stage of the process" ...

A new witness from the prosecutor's office was invited into the hall - Vera Kovalchuk, also an ordinary employee of the structures of the MFI MENATEP and the SPR RTT. But Kovalchuk, unlike her yesterday's namesake, took the prosecutors' questions as a joke. Prosecutor Gulchekhra Ibragimova was interested in:

— How exactly did the signing of the documents of the Cypriot company Sagiman Holding Limited take place? she asked the witness in a menacing tone.

- Well, I opened the package brought by the courier, looked ... If there were a lot of people in the office corridor - I went into the office, if there were a lot of people in the office - I went out into the corridor, signed ...

The judge, so that no one could see that he was laughing, bowed his head over the papers. Prosecutor Lakhtin (he acted as a porter of volumes of the case - from the judge's table to the podium and back) brought piles of all sorts of agreements to the witness, Ibragimova asked the lady to find her signature in them. The first document failed:

“There is no my signature here,” Kovalchuk stated.

“There is a signature,” said Lakhtin standing behind her.

- There is no signature of mine! the witness insisted. The prosecutor grumbled indignantly:

- Well, you signed such documents?

The hall laughed, and the judge hastened to intervene:

- Stop! What kind of "similar", Valery Alekseevich ?!

In other papers, Kovalchuk's signature was there, which she herself did not deny at all.

— Were you involved in determining the price of the shares of VNK subsidiaries that you acquired for Sagiman? Ibragimova asked.

“But the witness did not purchase the shares personally?” - the defense hurried.

“I didn’t do it,” she confirmed. The judge asked Ibragimova to "correct the question."

“Your Honor,” she protested, “well, I can’t ask if the witness was considered a figurehead. You will remove this question ...

Yes, I'll take a picture.

- Present, please, to that judge - I want to show the court what is presented to the witness, - Lebedev asked the prosecutor in the meantime.

- Please do not interrupt! Ibragimova jumped up.

The defendant explained to the judge what motivated his request: the witness was read translations of the original documents in English, and these translations were made by the prosecutor's translator Kopachinsky. Protection with a projector shows two slides on the wall: the original and the translation. In the first case - some dates and numbers, in the second - completely different. The prosecutors do not explain the strange discrepancies, they only demand that the defendant be punished with a remark. Skirmish again.

— Listen! Enough! I urge you to be more restrained, - the judge turned more to the public prosecutor.

- I'm interrogating! - Ibragimov sharply threw to the judge, as if he was sitting in the "aquarium".

- Five minutes break! Danilkin cooled her ardor.

After the break, Ibragimova was interested in why the witness agreed to issue a power of attorney when registering companies for herself:

“Yes, because it was more convenient,” she laughed. “So that the client doesn’t go back and forth ten times,” according to the witness, after the company went through all the stages of registration, she, Kovalchuk, resigned as CEO, and a person directly from the client company was appointed in her place.

The defense and the defendants again refused any interrogation. Mikhail Khodorkovsky only considered it necessary to make a statement:

“Your Honor, with all due respect to Mrs. Ibragimova, I cannot help but react to her statement about bogus directors. Mrs. Ibragimova obviously missed the testimony of witnesses Koval, Khvostikov and Zakharov, where the functions of one of the types of proxies, namely nominee directors, were analyzed in detail. These functions are provided for by the Civil Code and business practice. There is a clear difference for people who speak Russian between a trusted person and a figurehead. Native Russian speakers understand that the figurehead is not acting on the basis of a legal agreement, but is an accomplice to some criminal act. The fact that Ms. Ibragimova does not understand or does not want to understand the need for the work of a nominee director only means that this is not her field of activity, and not that this work is a crime. Why there is an institution of trusted representatives, I can explain by my personal example.

I was on business trips for six months a year, and often in very remote corners of Siberia. My interests in Moscow and in many countries of the world were represented by persons whom I trusted. In some countries this procedure is obligatory!

And I want to add that the decision to exchange shares was made not by nominal directors, but by the relevant leaders of VNK and its parent company, that is, Yukos, and these actions were approved by me personally as the head of Yukos.

day one hundred and ten

The lady reappeared in the courtroom. Also from the rank and file employees of MENATEP and JV RTT. And again the discussion of issues not related to the prosecution. Witness Svetlana Borodina said that she was engaged in the registration of companies, she was a trustee of a number of companies, in particular, the Cypriot Chellita Limited.

On this day, Lakhtin is again in the role of a volume carrier. However, along with the volumes, he carries leaflets with his questions and explanations for them. Explanations, as if by chance, flash before the eyes of the witness, she peers for a second, as if at something distracting attention, but again returns to the documents and answers strictly according to them.

— Do you know with what funds Chellita Limited acquired the shares? asks Lakhtin, standing behind Borodina and shaking the crib. - This is evident from the translation.

- What is visible? - the witness looks into the translation and does not see any “means” there.

Towards the end, Lakhtin THREE TIMES asked the witness if she knew Lebedev. Having received a second negative answer, Lakhtin reformulated it as follows:

- And as a result of the document flow, did you meet?

“Listen…” the judge was amazed. - What does “as a result of document flow” mean? How can I write this in the protocol ?! Then people will read the protocol ... I don’t even know, reformulate, or something, the question ...

The prosecution requested a break, after which they said they had no more questions.

- I ask, and she answered: “I won’t talk about Lebedev!” I won't, he says, and that's it! - Prosecutor Lakhtin complained to someone on the phone for a long time ...