German Gref in the Khamovnichesky Court

German Gref in the Khamovniki Court, Pavel Shevelev Yesterday, the Khamovniki Court unraveled newsmaker witness German Gref. Someone, after listening to the testimony of the current head of Sberbank, said that “he is 80% for Khodorkovsky”, someone saw and heard the opposite and the opposite. It seemed to many that, having ascended the witness stand, Mr. Gref unjustifiably forgot a lot. But many others recalled that Mr. Gref did not seek exemption from witness status, but nevertheless appeared in the Khamovnichesky Court, where he said, in particular, that oil prices in Siberia could in no way be equal to oil prices in Rotterdam. And the second witness of today was Mikhail Yuryevich Vilyavin, a shareholder of Yukos and Yuganskneftegaz.

Waiting for Gref Monday morning in the Khamovnichesky court full house. The bailiffs decided to take the initiative - they drove the audience to the stairs an hour before the meeting. Gref's guards, having examined the empty hall, joined the crowd on the stairs. Finally, the defendants were led into the hall. Then came the cameras, and finally let the public in. People with difficulty sat down on the benches, who did not have enough space, went down to the hall on the second floor. Cameramen in the hall were replaced by photographers. Surrounded by photojournalists, Valery Lakhtin, sitting in his place and pressing his mobile phone to his ear, tried to report something to someone in the general noise. Today, the prosecutor continued to master office equipment - the state prosecutor was literally surrounded by printers, the first (miniature) remained under the table, the second climbed onto the prosecutor's table and was located to the right of the prosecutor's laptop.

Viktor Danilkin attaches postal receipts to the case file

The day began with the permission of the defense motions that had been waiting in the wings since last week.

Before the prosecutors spoke, lawyer Rivkin made a technical addition to the last petition - the lawyer asked that Platon Lebedev's 2003 tax returns be included in the case file.

Then prosecutor Smirnov stood up. “First, about the documents on Lebedev's work and declarations. I believe that the resolution of this petition should be postponed until duly certified copies of the documents are submitted to the court,” the prosecutor said. “Now for the other requests. A petition was filed to demand from Tomskneft VNK an accounting statement on the shortage of products of the main production, as well as on the interrogation of the representative of the victim Pyatikopov and a number of officials of the Prosecutor General's Office and the Investigative Committee of the Russian Federation. According to the prosecution, the stated petition is not based on the materials of the criminal case and is not subject to satisfaction. The defendants are accused of stealing oil by misappropriation. In the period 1998-2003, using their authority to manage the vertically integrated company Yukos, they illegally seized the crude oil produced by Tomskneft for the purpose of stealing. The appropriation of natural resources in order to conceal a crime was formalized by drawing up sales contracts at inadequately low prices. In the financial statements of Tomskneft, the stolen crude oil was not reflected in the loss item, but as shipped products! Hearing such speeches, the audience whispered. "How can this be?!" asked indignantly from the audience. Lebedev and Khodorkovsky laughed. - In this regard, the damage caused by the theft committed in this way cannot be established by the documents of the inventory of material assets. By the way, inventory documents are kept from three to five years, - prosecutor Smirnov recalled, of course, not the last detail. “Pyatikopov was summoned to court at the request of the defense, and therefore there is no need to summon him again.” Prosecutor Smirnov did not see the point in summoning representatives of the Prosecutor General's Office and the RF IC to court.

“And the second petition for the seizure of inventory documents from Yuganskneftegaz, Rosneft. We believe that the arguments of the defense are not to be satisfied on the same grounds. I ask you to refuse to satisfy the petition, ”the prosecutor said.

Then the word went to Valery Lakhtin. He was against attaching a certified copy of the Kommersant newspaper article, as well as lawyers' requests to various authorities (the lawyers tried to get an analytical report prepared by ministers Gref and Bukaev for President Putin - HRC) . We believe that the petition is unfounded! The defense alleges that the prosecution is trying to criminalize the ordinary business activities of a vertically integrated company, and its activities have been exposed and assessed by various government agencies. Once again, the defense is trying to involve the court in the investigation of tax evasion by oil companies. Which is not a circumstance to be proved in this case. As a result, we believe that this petition cannot be satisfied in full. All!"

Viktor Danilkin did not need time: “The court, after hearing the opinions of the participants in the process, resolves the petitions in the order in which they are received,” the chairman said. Viktor Danilkin granted the first petition (on inventories at Yuganskneftegaz) in terms of attaching copies of attorney's requests to Rosneft to the materials of the criminal case. However, the court refused to request the documents themselves (for example, a certificate containing information about the conduct of property inventories by OAO Yuganskneftegaz in the period from 1998 to 2006 and OAO NK Rosneft in the period from 2006 to 2008), the court refused, because it did not find legal grounds. “Pyatikopov was invited to the court as a representative of the victim, after his interrogation, the defense has the right to return to the specified petition.”

Dealing with the second petition, the court again decided to attach copies of attorney's requests, a receipt for payment for postal services, etc., but Victor Danilkin did not demand the accounting certificate itself about the reflection of shortages in the accounting records of OAO Tomskneft VNK. The explanation was similar: “Paltsev, a representative of Tomskneft, was invited to the court, after his interrogation, the defense has the right to apply with a second petition for the recovery of these documents.” The request for interrogation of persons Karimov, Khatypov, Alyshev, Grin, Akimov "is left without consideration by the court, since the issue has already been considered in relation to them, and no new circumstances have been presented by the defendants and the defense."

Viktor Danilkin moved on to the third petition. And again, Viktor Danilkin attached the requests of Dyatlev's lawyers, but refused to satisfy the petition in the main thing - the Khamovnichesky Court would not demand from the Federal Tax Service of the Russian Federation and the Administration of the President of the Russian Federation a certified copy of the analytical report “Problems of taxation of the oil industry”, since “the issues considered in this certificate, are not the subject of this trial." The court also refused to summon Messrs. Bukaev and Shulgin to court, because “since these persons can be summoned to court in accordance with Part 4 of Art. 271 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation "( that is, if they find themselves in the hall without any assistance from the court. - HRC) .
The court granted Lebedev's petition in full, attaching to the case all the documents requested by the defendant.

"Hello, German Oskarovich!" - "Good afternoon, Mikhail Borisovich!" Then we moved on to today's witness. “Please invite witness Gref!” Viktor Danilkin asked. They broke off for five minutes.

During a short break, the hall, which seemed to be already completely filled, was able to accommodate those who still wanted to listen to an important witness. Actor Mikhail Efremov and editor-in-chief of the Kommersant publishing house Andrey Vasiliev came, among others.

The judge returned to his seat. Soon German Gref in a gray suit, smiling shyly, entered the hall. "Good afternoon!" he said loudly, standing on the podium. Judge Danilkin, also smiling embarrassedly, asked him a few formal questions. Mr. Gref said that he was born in 1964 in Kazakhstan and does not feel hostility towards the defendants. "Do you have grounds for their slander?" the judge asked. “No, no,” Gref answered.

Mikhail Khodorkovsky began to ask questions. Rising to the microphone, he said hello: "Hello, German Oskarovich!" - "Good afternoon, Mikhail Borisovich!" - the witness turned half-turned to the "aquarium". - “I planned to ask you questions about two events - the Eastern Oil Company (which is connected with the shares of subsidiaries) and oil. As for the events with the VNK in 1998, the statute of limitations has expired, but the court still decided that this issue should be considered, I apologize that I will ask you to recall such long-standing events, ”the defendant specified to begin with. The judge looked at Khodorkovsky. He explained that at first there are several questions about the documents from the case.

In volume 158, on pages 225-227, there was a letter signed by German Gref to the government of the Russian Federation dated September 6, 1999. “I will now hand over this document to you,” Tom Khodorkovsky picked up, first reading out important fragments from the letter: “Here you indicate that“ the Ministry of Taxes and Taxes informed that the agreement concluded between the Ministry of Taxes and Yukos Oil Company on the guarantee of OAO NK Yukos for the obligations of members of the structure groups of taxpayers, including OJSC VNK and Tomkneft VNK, in terms of paying tax payments ... " . The second point in this letter: “At the same time, the Ministry of State Property of Russia prepared and sent to Yukos Oil Company a draft agreement between OAO VNK and foreign companies, in favor of which the shares of OAO Tomskneft VNK were alienated, with a view to ensuring a buyback (reverse exchange) from foreign companies " . Do you remember this document?

Tom was passed to the podium. Taking off his glasses, German Gref peered at the text of the letter, which was displayed on the wall of the hall. He read it for quite some time. “Judging by the signature, yes, I signed it, although, to be honest, I don’t remember this document. As for the situation with VNK shares, I can imagine the whole situation, ”Gref finally answered.

In the same volume, on page 258, there was a letter from Herman Gref to Khodorkovsky on the topic of VNK dated August 30, 1999 (The full text of the letter looked like this: “The Ministry of State Property of Russia sends to you for signing the draft “Agreement” submitted by you to OJSC “Eastern Oil Company ” , finalized by the Ministry, taking into account the interests of the Russian Federation " ). Khodorkovsky asked the witness to look at the letter, and then on pages 259-266 the witness was shown the following document - the draft agreement itself. The essence of the question was the same - does the witness remember these papers, did he sign them. “Yes, of course, I remember,” Gref confirmed. “And on page 261 in the middle of the sheet, look also at paragraph 5.3 (on the repurchase of shares of VNK subsidiaries from foreign companies Chellita, Sagiman, Montequito. - PC) - my questions will be related to this,” Khodorkovsky asked . German Gref looked at the papers from the volume of the file.

Finally came the questions themselves. “Do you remember our conversations on this issue?” “I’m not sure that’s all, but of course I remember.” “The first letter states that Tomskneft is part of the Yukos group. The letter is dated at the end of 1999, I would like to ask you to explain to the court whether I hid from you in conversations that the shares of Tomskneft after the exchange remained under the control of Yukos, and Tomskneft continues to be part of Yukos? “I'm not sure that it was about the Yukos group, but the fact that these shares are controlled by some of your structures was obvious. You didn't hide it." “In the draft agreement to which you are referring in the letter, you indicate that article 5 of the exchange agreements provides for a buyback. There are contracts in the file, if you want, I can show them to you ... but there it is that the VNK company has the right to buy back these shares ... "-" Do you need to look at the contracts? the judge asked. “I’ll listen to the question now from the beginning,” Gref asked. “How did you know that this clause was in the contract? And more specifically, did I hide from you that the exchange agreement between the foreign companies Cellita, Sagiman, Montequito and VNK contains this very clause 5, which allows VNK to buy back shares at any time at its request "Tomskneft"? I apologize that the question is a little naive, but it is important for the court.” “I can neither confirm nor deny, because I don’t remember ... but if this is indicated here, maybe these agreements were, but I can’t say anything about what is the subject of the agreement between VNK and these companies. I remember the general situation, of course. At that time, we had plans to privatize the VNK, and we found that there was virtually no filling inside the VNK. Shares that were subsidiaries were withdrawn.

I remember our meeting with you, we discussed this topic, you then offered to buy this company for $ 18 million in the form it is, without returning the shares, I said that it was impossible, that we must first return everything there, then sell . The price is a secondary factor, the primary factor is the return of assets and open bidding for this block of shares. We discussed this topic for a long time ... yes, there was a certain claim by a third party, which, as you said, prevents the return of these shares, and actually then the idea was born to make an agreement under which a return would be made. It took probably a month and a half or two to work on this agreement. The agreement was agreed, and I sent it to you for signing. But after a certain amount of time, this agreement was not signed. I called you and asked why the agreement was not signed, you referred to certain circumstances that I don't remember now. I asked either to sign this agreement within a reasonable time, within a month, or warned that we would use all available means to protect the interests of the state in the VNK. The agreement was not signed, and we began to take all steps to return this block of shares back ... Then we discussed this topic with you. Then, at some period of time, the block of shares was returned, and the company, as far as I understand, was sold. I remember the situation of the first part quite well, because we spent a lot of time and effort on this agreement, but it was not signed, as far as I remember.” “You practically answered my last question, did you know about the linkage of the issue with the return of shares and the termination of the Birkenholz lawsuit ... I apologize, I point there, the text of the document is shown on the wall of the hall ... ”, Khodorkovsky explained his gesture, pointing with his hand with paper on the wall behind Gref.

German Gref did not remember himself in Transneft

“You just said that you know superficially about subsequent events, but I would still like to show you the letter on page 249 in volume 5. This is a letter from Deputy Minister of Property Relations Medvedev addressed to me dated April 16, 2001, in which he asks for proposals on the reverse exchange of shares, ”Khodorkovsky continued. Tom went to the podium, Gref looked at the text. "Do you know about this letter?" - "I think no". “Do you know that the last Birkenholz lawsuit was dismissed in February 2001, have you heard about it?” - “Mikhail Borisovich, no, I’m already outside the year 2000, I think, I didn’t follow the situation ...”

• “Explain, if you can, you were the chairman of the board of directors of Rosneft for some time ... Rosneft indicated in its financial statements just for 2003 under US GAAP that agreements for the sale of securities with the right to repurchase are considered as a borrowing operation under security,” Khodorkovsky quoted the document. - Could you tell me, such a situation that sales contracts or exchanges with the right to repurchase are considered exactly as secured debt (secured loan), it was true only for the Rosneft company, or this situation ... "-" Please remove the question! - Smirnov got up - "One minute, the question is not over!" - reminded the judge. - "... or does this situation also apply to other oil companies, including Yukos?" - Khodorkovsky finished his question. - "Do you understand the question?" the judge asked. - "Yes. Judging by the quote, we are talking about REPO transactions. This is a common business practice - a repo transaction - which is executed when a block of shares of a company is transferred to a third company secured with a mandatory right to repurchase. This is common practice. Such a phrase can certainly be read in the Civil Code. As far as I understand, the current situation that we are discussing is not a REPO deal after all. A REPO transaction implies both security and a temporary nature - it is concluded for a period of up to a year and an obligatory right of redemption. That is, it is an exchange for money, as a rule. And repos can be found on the balance sheet of any public company.” – “So a REPO transaction is a transaction with an obligatory right to repurchase, is it a transaction for money or other assets?” “Usually money.” – “Double REPO have not met?” Khodorkovsky specified. “Mikhail Borisovich, let's move on to our case,” the judge suggested. “Usually for money, and temporary,” Mikhail Khodorkovsky continued to sum up what he had heard. “And for up to a year,” Gref explained.

"As far as it corresponds to the situation, it's later..." - Khodorkovsky noted and moved on to another topic. To oil.

Mikhail Khodorkovsky moved on to the second issue - oil.

“Platon Leonidovich Lebedev and I are accused of stealing oil, that is, illegally against the will of the owner, gratuitous seizure of oil from Samaraneftegaz, Yuganskneftegaz, Tomskneft - all the oil produced from 1998 to 2003. It is also stated that the oil passed into my personal illegal possession, that I appropriated the main part of the oil and distributed it among individuals. In addition, during the trial on March 12, 2009, prosecutor Lakhtin stated that “the seizure of oil was carried out by me at the metering stations of Transneft”. In this regard, some questions. There is public information that you have been a member of the Board of Directors of Transneft since September 1999. For what period do you remember? “I don’t even remember that I was on the board of directors,” Gref laughed. “Nevertheless, this is reflected,” Khodorkovsky noted, and continued: “Did you take part in meetings of the board of directors? As a representative of the state? - "I do not remember. I can't remember a single episode. At that time I was a member of the board of directors, probably at least a dozen companies. – “There is also a well-known fact that you headed the Ministry of Economy from 2000 to 2007. The structure of the Ministry of Economy includes the departments of prices and public procurement, export control and the fuel and energy complex. And since you confirmed the fact that you were the chairman of the board of directors of Rosneft, I allow myself to conclude that the oil industry is not completely alien to you. Tell me, did the production divisions of oil companies, including Yukos, hand over the produced oil to the Transneft pipeline? “Probably, yes, maybe not a hundred percent. But some part was definitely handed over. – “Was the Yukos company in those years when you were the Minister of the Ministry of Economy (and until 2004) a significant oil producer in the Russian Federation?” - "Without a doubt". – “Was Transneft a state-owned company?” - "Yes". – “Did I have anything to do with the governing bodies of Transneft?” “I don’t know, I can’t comment.” – “I was not entrusted with such powers on behalf of the state?” - "I do not know this". “I ask strange questions not because I feel like it, but because the indictment is worded in such a way that I have to ask that way. I know everything about myself, but you answer to the court, and your word in this regard is important to the court. Forgive me again for such questions. Gref looked at the judge, the judge sighed.

“Did the Ministry of Economy reflect in its documents, including in publicly available ones, how much oil was produced in the Russian Federation, how much was delivered to Transneft, how much was received and to which plants, how much was shipped for export. If it did, where did the ministry get this information from?” “We use official documentation maintained by Rosstat. Probably, the Ministry of Energy kept more detailed records.” “I again apologize for the wording of the question, but the location obliges. How the Ministry of Economy checked that you and the government of the Russian Federation are not being deceived, that the documents reflect that the oil was handed over to Transneft, exported and delivered to factories, but in fact it was stolen somewhere along the way. We are not talking about insignificant volumes, but I am talking about 60 million tons annually. How did you check that the reports used by the Ministry of Economy do not contain false information in such volumes? “Our functions did not include checking the sources of information. The state has other bodies that are engaged in verification, ”Gref answered. Ibragimova looked unkindly at the "aquarium". - “If 20 percent of Russian production (60 million tons of oil per year) disappeared at the Transneft metering station in some year, would such information reach you as the Minister of Economy? Or are you not required to check? “It wasn’t my responsibility… But I think that if it had been discovered, it would certainly have come through.” “But you didn’t receive such information?” - "No".

“Which bodies or persons in the government of the Russian Federation determined export quotas for oil companies and balance tasks related to the supply of petroleum products for certain types of state consumers? Such as northern delivery, the Ministry of Defense, the Ministry of Emergency Situations, etc.” Mikhail Khodorkovsky asked the next question. “In my opinion, this was done by the Department of Energy. As far as I remember, there was still a certain government commission” - “Mr. Khristenko was not at the head of this commission for some time?” “I think he led it for a while.”

German Gref left the prices of Rotterdam to Rotterdam

“We have dealt with oil. Now a set of questions related to the so-called price difference. At the same time, our accusation contains the allegation that we seized free of charge at the Transneft metering station, and in addition to this, the prosecution, namely prosecutor Lakhtin, stated that the essence of the crime was that the prices for the purchase of oil by Yukos from the production divisions of Yukos were lower than prices for Urals oil in Rotterdam. In general, since oil prices in the Samara and Tomsk regions and the Khanty-Mansiysk district are lower than the prices in Rotterdam, the oil is stolen. So I have a few questions related to oil prices. Tell me, please, who set the export duty on oil and oil products? What was the order? “I could be wrong about the timing, but there were probably two different orders. At some point, a certain commission set duties. Maybe under the Ministry of Energy…then we adopted amendments to the legislation and tied the export duty to the external price, the duty was set by the commission on protective measures under the government, which, perhaps, was then headed by me, after Kudrin. The decision of the commission was made, on the basis of this decision, a government decree was issued, and duties were set for a period of two months. “Why were export quotas set at about 30 percent of production, why not more?” “I think it was due to two factors. Needs of the domestic market and throughput capacity of Transneft systems”. – “Who set the tariffs for pumping oil through Transneft pipelines during this period?” - "The Federal Tariff Service ... who before it, I don't remember." Mr. Gref answered after a long reflection. “Anyway, some federal agency?” - "Yes". “Who set the port dues? Was it related to the powers of the same department?” “At a certain period of time, port authorities were created. As far as I remember, they had this competence.”

“According to my notes from publicly available sources, you, as the Minister of Economy, supervised and controlled the activities of the center of economic conjuncture under the government of the Russian Federation. Was it like that? - "Maybe yes. I don’t remember if it was subordinate to the ministry or the government, but I remember the Center.” – “Do you know that this center regularly prepared reports on the price level of the domestic and world markets for oil and petroleum products, did you receive these reports?” - "Undoubtedly". – “The case file contains both the certificate you provided on the level of prices on world markets (you provided it at the request of the Prosecutor General’s Office), and there is a table of average producer prices, also provided by the Ministry of Taxes and Duties at the request of the Prosecutor General’s Office. If you wish, these documents can be provided to you. The question is next. Please explain to the court the reasons for the significant, three or more times, difference between the prices at the producer in the regions of production, and the prices for Urals oil in the ports of Western Europe.” “There are a number of factors that can explain this, including export taxation.” “What other circumstances determined this difference?” “If we take the producer price, then, of course, these are Transneft tariffs up to the point. Or other tariffs, if it is a railway, etc. Well, export duties. These are probably two key components: transport and export duties.” - “That is, this situation, that the price from the manufacturer was significantly lower than the prices in Rotterdam, was known to you?” - "Naturally. Otherwise it can not be!" German Gref even chuckled.

Rosneft would not have mastered the requirements of the state prosecution

“Now the question is about transfer prices. Prosecutor Lakhtin, your honor, during the meeting, it was March 11, 2009, that the parent company has no right to determine the financial and economic activities of subsidiaries and, in particular, to set transfer prices. For my part, I stated that the prosecutor Lakhtin does not know the law "On Joint-Stock Companies", which says exactly the opposite. But besides that, I made several statements as part of my testimony ... ”- prosecutor Ibragimova whispered something to the judge. He nodded and turned to Khodorkovsky: "Mikhail Borisovich ... I have a request, will you ... be engaged in quoting Lakhtin?" the judge pointed with his palm at the quoted prosecutor. - "No, it's just that Mr. Lakhtin always requires a specific reference."

“Another remark is small, let the defendant then refer to the minutes of the meeting! Incomprehensible some references to my statements! - Valery Lakhtin renounced himself a little. “I refer to the protocol,” Khodorkovsky reminded.

“When approving the pricing procedure at Yukos, I relied on the practice of state VIOCs known to me from public reporting, in particular, Gazprom and Rosneft. In its reporting, according to my notes, Gazprom claimed that internal transfer prices are set by Gazprom's management to meet the financing needs of specific subsidiaries on a case-by-case basis. Prices are determined on the basis of the financial statements of the subsidiary on the principle of cost plus normal profit. I want to ask you to clarify whether there was such a message in Gazprom's financial statements from year to year?”

“You can find out what the defendant has just read out, what document? Is it in the case file or is it not in the case file?” Valery Lakhtin reminded himself again. “I referred to my testimony, these are my notes. And I ask a person who may be aware of whether there was such a practice, ”Khodorkovsky explained. “As for the message, I can't confirm it right now. If this follows from Gazprom's official reports, then it probably was... but now it's hard for me to refute or confirm it... As far as practice is concerned, transfer pricing is generally a big problem. Our usual problem was that in transfer pricing, the assets from which oil or gas was purchased (usually subsidiaries of independent companies) were the cost center. So the profit was withdrawn somewhere. If we talk about 100% vertically integrated companies, then in the end taxation took place in profit centers, these were not offshore zones, as usual (that is, everything was transferred to internal offshores, from there to external ones, and then we actually did not receive taxes .It was a huge problem). This is about the fiscal component. And there was a second component - a violation of the rights of minority shareholders sitting in subsidiaries. If the subsidiary is not 100% owned by the parent company and is a cost center, then the minority shareholders suffer because they do not participate in the profit sharing that is obtained in the profit center, and if we talk about us as minority shareholders, we are in a whole series cases, it was precisely this problem that worried. In addition to fiscal, there is also a violation of our rights as minority shareholders who did not receive dividends, did not receive profitability, and, accordingly, the necessary assessment of the value of our block of shares in subsidiaries.”

“Do you remember such a circumstance. Did you, together with the Minister for Taxes and Duties, prepare an analytical report addressed to the President of the Russian Federation, Mr. Putin, at the end of 2000? The note was entitled "Problems of taxation in the oil industry". “I can’t say about the certificate, but the fact that we did a lot of this during that period of time is obvious.” “In my testimony, I stated that – I will return to the certificate later – that the judicial practice was the confirmation of the correctness of my understanding of the legality of the use of transfer prices in VIOCs. I told the court that in 2002-2003 I followed closely the claims between Rosneft and <…>. <It was> about the acquisition of oil by Rosneft in 2001 from its subsidiary Purneftegaz at a price of 1,100 rubles per ton. Let me remind you, Your Honor, in 2001 Yukos applied the price of 1,300 rubles. The process went on throughout 2002, and in 2003 a final decision was made in favor of Rosneft, it was recognized that the transaction did not violate the rights of shareholders and was valid. I said that, being familiar with this public case, I was also guided in my work by the opinion of the courts. Do you know about this case, about its result? “I ask you to withdraw the question, because Khodorkovsky refers to some of his testimony - for example, it is not clear to me as a state prosecutor! Does not refer to the volume and case sheet! I don’t understand what kind of evidence we are talking about!” Lakhtin waved his hands. - "Do you have everything?" the judge asked irritably, somewhat embarrassed, it seems, in front of a witness for the prosecutor. - "All". – “Do you understand the question?” the judge turned to Gref. He said he didn't remember.

"Let's get back to the help. Tell me, did you, as the chairman of the board of directors, know the prices at which Rosneft purchased from its subsidiaries? We are only interested in the YNAO and KhMAO, since, according to the indictment, the prices at which Yukos was purchased were underestimated. Naturally, in my testimony, I compared not with the prices of Rotterdam, but with the prices of other Russian producers located in the same regions.”

“In fact, the question is asked to a specialist, not to a witness!” the prosecutor interrupted the conversation again. Hall smiled. But German Gref had to answer: “I think that now I can hardly explain the price level at which Rosneft bought from mining companies, especially in some region, I think that this is not a secret, this can be taken from report of the aforementioned company. - “Did Rosneft, like other companies, have prices lower than in Rotterdam?” “If she [Rosneft] bought at prices higher than in Rotterdam, then she would be bankrupt right away! It's impossible.” “At the same prices,” Khodorkovsky and Lebedev clarified. “It is also impossible to buy at the same prices as in Rotterdam,” said German Gref.

Ministers Gref, Bukaev: “The use of internal corporate prices by oil companies does not contradict the law”

Then Khodorkovsky read out an excerpt from an analytical note prepared by Messrs. Bukaev and Gref: “The use of intra-corporate prices by oil companies does not contradict the law and, in essence, is a mechanism by which the parent company exercises financial management of the activities of organizations controlled by it, and also concentrates financial resources for the implementation corporate strategy, including for the purpose of pursuing its own investment policy”.

“Since we are not considering a tax case here, I am not asking about the tax component. The question is the following - when you analyzed this question, was there a position in the government of the Russian Federation that the use of transfer prices between parent and subsidiaries in no way contradicts the current legislation, and was this opinion known to the heads of large companies? - “Mikhail Borisovich, I have already given explanations that a general conclusion cannot be made, it must be considered on a specific situation. There is a relationship between the company and the state, mainly related to the fiscal part, there is a second part - the interests of third parties. If we talk about the first part - if all the taxes along the chain have been paid, then, probably, in the first part it can be recognized that such transactions may not violate the law. It is impossible to say abstractly about the second part, the interests of minority shareholders are involved in any transaction. Because of what we wanted to regulate this situation, we received many requests that minority shareholders suffered if their blocks of shares were part of these subsidiaries ... "-" German Oskarovich, I do not ask you to get deep into this. Since 2001, Yukos has been a 100% owner of its subsidiaries. The problems of minority shareholders are not the subject of this trial.”

“German Oskarovich, what time do you have?” Danilin asked. - "I still have more than an hour, I'm ready to answer all questions." The judge suggested temporarily giving the floor to the prosecutors while Khodorkovsky prepared more questions, but he already had them.

“I have two questions related to the company's reporting. According to published data, from June 99 to September 2000 you were a member of the board of the Federal Securities Commission. In the Ministry of State Property, your competence included the development of methods for market valuation of businesses. I ask you to inform the court whether the standard for issuing securities was approved at that time by the Federal Securities Commission, which, in particular, provided that a joint-stock company issues reports not only in accordance with RAS, but also in accordance with IFRS or US GAAP and must inform about these reports. And did this apply only to those companies whose board of directors you were a member of, or did this provision apply to all companies, including Yukos, Lukoil, etc.?” Mikhail Khodorkovsky asked. – “I can't give a 100% exact answer, but, as far as I understand, neither IFRS nor US GAAP are subject to recognition, acceptance by Russian norms and rules. The FCSM rules always appeal to RAS, they cannot appeal to either IFRS or US GAAP. I could be wrong, but logically it should be like this. We have always struggled to implement IFRS in our country. Because the discrepancies between IFRS and RAS are huge, and this had to be done. But according to the logic of the law, one cannot refer to norms that are not accepted by you. You cannot refer to American standards in the rules for regulating the issue of a Russian issuer.” “Nevertheless, in 2003 it was confirmed,” Khodorkovsky noted and asked a new question: “Why did you defend the position that it makes sense to prepare statements under IFRS and US GAAP, and why Rosneft and Yukos, in particular, did this?” ? “There are two motives. According to US GAAP, those who had placed ADRs (American depositary receipts) or placed loans in dollars in the US markets did reporting. This is a requirement of the American regulator, respectively, they are required to keep all reports in accordance with US GAAP. The same goes for IFRS. These are GDRs (Global Depositary Receipts), or placement in any currencies on European markets, where IFRS is in force.” – “And what did it give investors? Why did you insist on consolidated reporting?” — “I'm sorry, I don't know this at the 2003 level, but in general Russian issuers are not required to report under IFRS. Why this is needed is understandable - it is necessary to bring reporting closer together, it is obvious that this gives a greater understanding of the transparency of the entire economy, in particular, holding companies. We never adopted a law on affiliates and disclosure is much more prescribed in IFRS and US GAAP.” - “So you defended this position, since these reports reveal the situation more transparently, especially in vertically integrated companies?” “Obviously, of course.”

Gref knew Khodorkovsky as head of Yukos

“Last group of questions. Tell me, please, when we talked on various business issues from 1999 to 2003, how did you perceive me, as whom? As the head of the Yukos company? Did I hide from you that I run Yukos?” - “No, Mikhail Borisovich was not hidden!” Gref chuckled, followed by the audience. – “Did you know that Yukos had subsidiaries of extractive enterprises and which of them did you know at that time (1999-2003)?” - “I won’t list it now ... I know VNK with Tomsneft, the Achinsk enterprise ...” - “Such enterprises as Samaraneftegaz, Yuganskneftegaz, Tomskneft, did you know that these are subsidiaries of Yukos?” - "I think yes".

“You were Minister of Economy from 2004 to 2007, did you know then that additional tax claims were made against Yukos for 2000-2003 and that these claims were recognized by the court?” “I think, yes, it was a well-known fact.” - "Did you know that additional tax claims for the same years were also presented to subsidiaries of Yukos production companies - Samaraneftegaz, Yuganskneftegaz, Tomsnkeft?" “I can hardly comment on the details. Don't know". – “Do you know from the sale of WHAT products additional taxes were claimed? Was it said that YUKOS underpaid taxes on the sale of oil and oil products? Or from some other product? “Probably from oil and oil products. As far as I understand, it is unlikely that YUKOS produced anything else, ”Gref was surprised, Mikhail Khodorkovsky apologized again for the questions. – “Did you understand at that time that we are talking about taxes on oil and oil products produced by Yukos subsidiaries, that we are not talking about some abstract oil, but about the one that was produced by the Yukos company?” - "Maybe. I think that for the extracted oil. Maybe for some part of the purchased oil, but most of it, I think, for the oil produced.” – “Tell me that you know whether Yukos or Samaraneftegaz or Yuganskneftegaz or Tomskneft stated to the government of the Russian Federation - a strange question, but I apologize again - that they should NOT pay additional taxes, but vice versa , the previously paid taxes should be returned to them, since they did not receive profit from the sale of oil, and the oil was stolen from them? “I can't comment. Don't know. I haven't come across this." At this, Mikhail Khodorkovsky thanked German Gref and said that he was ready to give the floor to the state prosecutors.

"Need a five minute break?" the judge asked. - "To me? No!" Gref waved his hand, smiling.

Prosecutor Smirnov: “Can such a company be considered transparent?”

After hesitating, prosecutor Smirnov began to ask questions on behalf of the prosecutors. “Intra-corporate pricing has already been mentioned here. What was meant by transfer prices, how should they be formed within the holding, how did they actually develop in the Russian Federation? Smirnov asked. “Transfer prices are intra-corporate transactions for the sale and purchase of manufactured products for the purpose of further sale on the market. The problem is that it is always a very tightly regulated instrument. If we talk about the rules, then there are the relevant OECD rules that regulate the relevant intra-corporate, transfer prices. But in Russia, unfortunately, we have not implemented such detailed regulation. In part, there was such regulation, very patchwork, but it was not possible to implement it comprehensively. It is clear for what purpose this is being done, since this is happening in Europe, there is nothing terrible here, but since we had internal offshores and in transactions with external offshores it turned out that we did not receive funds to the budget through transfer pricing. Especially, in the early 2000s, there was a huge problem with collections to the budget, so we were actively looking for ways to create fiscal mechanisms that would allow us a part of the profit, which was thus withdrawn through internal offshores and external offshores, so that we would receive part of it to the budget. As for practice, it was different. The practice of Surgutneftegaz is known, to which we have always appealed, and which did not use transfer prices, and a number of other companies. But there were companies that used it,” Gref replied.

“You said that in intra-corporate pricing, the interests of both the state in paying taxes and the interests of minority shareholders should be taken into account, do I understand correctly?” - "Yes. This is one of the big problems. Consists of two parts. The first is the protection of minority shareholders. What we tried to do through the federal service for the securities market. And the state itself, which was a minority shareholder in subsidiaries. This has always been a subject of great controversy. In general, logically, if there is transfer pricing, as it is arranged in countries where it is regulated, then if as a result of the transfer price a profit is obtained in a certain parent company, then it should be proportionally distributed among all participants in the chain, including minority shareholders of subsidiaries . But in Russian practice, this often did not happen, and the rights of third parties who are shareholders of subsidiaries were violated.” - "Profits should remain with subsidiaries so that they can dispose of it?" “I have already said that when it comes to subsidiaries with third parties, it should not just remain, profits should be distributed proportionally. This is the main problem. The center of profit production was really the enterprises that created this added value. And the center of its distribution was the parent enterprises, which sent it for their own needs. This is not a 100% practice, of course, but the two key problems of transfer pricing were exactly this.” – “Were there meetings in the government, in the ministry you headed, where Mr. Khodorkovsky was invited, where the issue would be related to transfer prices? Have these issues been discussed? “I can’t remember specifically, but it was often discussed.” – “You mentioned the OECD, whose recommendations take into account countries where transfer pricing is used. As far as I know, agreements are applied there, in particular, in the USA, Canada, France, Great Britain, when the largest taxpayers enter into an agreement with government agencies and a preliminary agreement on setting these prices ... Mr. Khodorkovsky ever made such a proposal to conclude such agreements? » Smirnov asked. But then Lebedev knocked on the microphone: "When asking such a question, the prosecutor must know that Russia was not a member of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development in 1998-2004!" Without listening to it, Smirnov began to ask the following question: “Regarding the reporting. Mikhail Borisovich said that US GAAP reporting was used. In your opinion, is this company transparent if it has underpaid taxes for many years? This is in the light of the fact that the decision of the Moscow Arbitration Court on additional taxes was made ... Can such a company be considered transparent? Are her statements true? - "The question is removed!" the judge announced to the roar of the hall.

The prosecutor does not believe in the arrest

Then Smirnov asked about transactions for the exchange of shares of VNK subsidiaries. German Gref explained again: “In 1999, we were going to sell a stake in VNK, we had about 30% of the shares, and we found that the mining assets contributed to the authorized capital were not available at that time. I called Khodorkovsky, we met. I said that we should sell this asset, but there is nothing inside the asset, and we must return those assets that were withdrawn from VNK. He said that the assets were withdrawn due to a lawsuit by a third party, I don't remember now who it was, and he offered to buy the asset as it is for $18 million. I said that this is impossible, first you need to return the shares back and put them up for auction, after which the price issue should be resolved automatically, depending on what the situation is on the market. There was another one of the leaders of Yukos, I don’t remember now who exactly, we agreed that ... and it was said that something threatened these shares, a lawsuit, that we would sign an agreement binding on Yukos, which would oblige him to return these shares back. We spent two months on agreeing on this agreement, we agreed on this text, I sent it to Mikhail Borisovich, after some time I called again with a request to sign this agreement, but in the end it was not signed. I then sent a letter to Prime Minister Stepashin, he gave instructions to law enforcement agencies and the Ministry of Property, and we began to return these shares.” – “Do I understand correctly that you were forced to apply to law enforcement agencies due to the fact that Mikhail Borisovich did not return these shares?” Smirnov emphasized. “He didn't sign the agreement. There was a certain lawsuit of a third structure, I won’t say what the structure and essence of the lawsuit is now, but a penalty could be imposed on these shares. That's how it was explained." “Who explained it to you?” - "Mikhail Borisovich. We met with him three times, discussed. – “And you yourself delved into this problem? What kind of company could seize?” “Probably did, but I don’t remember now.” “And what happened after you contacted law enforcement?” - "He did not turn!" — reminded Platon Lebedev. - "No?" Smirnov did not understand. - “No, in 1999 I turned to the Prime Minister, and he would give an order. It was a secret letter to which all materials were attached. I think that most likely it is not in the public domain, but it can be found, ”said Gref. He explained that later he no longer followed this situation - “It was a period when I moved to the government and I was no longer actively involved in this. As far as I know, these shares seemed to have been returned, and the company was sold. This is exactly after 2000, ”Gref explained. “Do you know that Khodorkovsky's company already knew in 1999 that there was no threat to the shares! There was a resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Arbitration Court on the impossibility of seizing these shares in the first place. There was a reference to the law on enforcement proceedings of 1997,” Smirnov said. Khodorkovsky stood up, trying to object, but, seeing this, Smirnov asked for volume 22. “There is a letter on sheet 122 ... I want to show it to German Oskarovich. Letter from Aleksanyan to Golubovich. That there was no danger of arrest of shares. This is the beginning of 99. There was a decision of the Plenum of the Supreme Arbitration Court ... ”- the prosecutor gave the volume to the witness. - “The prosecutor gives comments to the document, in which there are no such words, this is his own interpretation!” - said Platon Lebedev from the "aquarium". Then it turned out that this letter had not been read out (prior to this, Smirnov had assured the chairman three times that the letter had been read out).

Then Smirnov asked for the opportunity to read the letter. “Dear Aleksey Dmitrievich, accept the amendment, the Austrian arbitration considered the case on the claim of East Petroleum (a sister structure of Birkenholz), which was not directly related to the shares of the Atyrau Refinery. In addition, it should be noted that during the entire time when the decision against us remained in legal force, i.e. it was possible to write off money from VNK, the Birkenholz company never tried to issue a collection and write off money. Also, the explanation of the Supreme Arbitration Court (Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Arbitration Court of March 3, 1999) clearly indicated that shares owned by holding companies created by the state in the process of privatization should in fact be attributed to their fixed assets - in accordance with the law, they are levied only in third turn. Accordingly, the actions of the bailiff are frankly illegal, which, among other things, raises the question of his bias in favor of Birkenholz . Cheerful reading of Smirnov met with laughter from the audience. "So, what's the question?" the judge was annoyed. Smirnov asked: “What do you think of Khodorkovsky's actions, his words about threats from the Birkenholtz, when there was no real threat. How do you rate it?"

Khodorkovsky spoke out: “Your honor. Since the document was made public, please note that this information is intended for distribution outside the company. That is, it is not confidential information hidden within the company. And we are specifically informing everyone about it. Now. I would ask that the prosecutor's assertion that there was no threat be excluded from the question before the distinguished witness. This is a deliberately false statement, because not only arrests were actually made in subsequent years, up to 2000 inclusive ... "-" Mikhail Borisovich, you have already testified about this, be shorter, please! the judge asked. Khodorkovsky suggested reformulating the question. The judge also invited German Gref to answer. “As for this letter, I have little to comment on. I did not know about this situation, nor about the letter. This should be dealt with simply, ”Gref answered.

“We would ask for a ten-minute break ...” Smirnov asked. “Ten minutes is too long! The witness warned that he was up to 12.45! Five minutes break! Viktor Danilkin was worried about Herman Gref's schedule.

After a short break we continued. “Conversation about the return of shares with Khodorkovsky. where did it happen? He came to you, you to him? And when?" Smirnov asked. – “In my office of the Ministry of State Property. 99 year. - Whose initiative was it? - "My". “But did you get any explanations from Khodorkovsky? Why did he refuse to sign the agreement?” “There were some explanations. I don't remember exactly. We agreed as follows - either we sign an agreement, or, if the agreement is not signed, I will be forced to act at my discretion to return the shares. And when it was not signed, on the eve of my appeal to the prime minister, I told Mikhail Borisovich - so that there were no offenses - that I would act in a different way.

Viktor Danilkin: "Time!"

As it turned out, prosecutors had no more questions. But they were again with Mikhail Khodorkovsky. They took 54 volumes. On page 280-283 there was a letter signed by Gref to the prosecutor's office, which reported the dynamics of world and average contract prices for oil. Tom was passed to the podium. Gref looked at the text. “Here it is indicated: the price of Urals, and you say that you indicate this price of Urals based on the average data of quotation agencies on the sales markets in the ports of the Mediterranean Sea and Rotterdam. Further here is indicated the average contract price to non-CIS countries, the average contract price to the CIS countries. If you can, please explain what the average contract price is. Why do prices differ? What do you remember?" Gref carefully peered into the text. “I don’t remember the details, of course. Logically, as I understand it, Urals is a derivative of Brent, Urals, unfortunately, is not quoted, so this is a calculated value. It’s clear from what .. ”-“ German Oskarovich, you don’t need to think anything! the judge warned. “No, an explanation is being given,” Khodorkovsky remarked. “Here's the average contract price.. I can't comment on the document for sure. I think, most likely, it was prepared on the basis of customs statistics and on the basis of average contract prices…”. “There is a Urals price in Rotterdam, but where is the contract price?” - "I'm afraid to make a mistake". - “Did you take the contract price from customs statistics?” - "I think yes". – “And why did the prices of deliveries to the near and far abroad differ, if you look at the certificate, quite significantly?” “The CIS countries – firstly, we have different trade regimes, and there are internal agreements, the EurAsEC, the CES. There were intergovernmental agreements on the terms of supply, so prices will vary. There were not always market deliveries.”

“If the market price is indicated in the documents on prices abroad in your certificates, then in the documents on oil prices in the Russian Federation they are indicated as average producer prices. Therefore the question. Was there a market for oil supplied on the scale of Yukos in the Russian Federation from 1998 to 2003, and were official market prices for oil (not producer prices) published somewhere? “Here we must first agree on terms. Because the market price is understood as a combination of three key elements. This is the free will of the buyer, the free will of the seller and an unlimited exposure period, that is, the transaction is not limited in time, the product is on the market for a sufficient time for the price to be formed regardless of the period of its stay on the market. That is, three basic freedoms must be respected - the free will of the seller, the buyer, and there should be no time pressure. Sometimes a product must be sold urgently and the price for it cannot be considered a market price. If we talk about this definition of market prices, then it is given by the stock exchange. We did not have such prices inside the country, we are trying to create such a mechanism, perhaps next year we will have it.

In the sense of classical economic theory, there were no market prices in the domestic market during purchase and sale transactions. But there was some level of prices prevailing in the market. There were all the oil companies that sold and bought oil. If we summarize all these transactions, it would probably be possible to derive some average prices that existed at that time on the market. I think that these prices were called average producer prices. This is not a classic market price, but this is the price that was developing at that time.” “The prosecutor asked you questions related to the interests of minority shareholders. In Yukos, profits were not distributed in subsidiaries of extractive enterprises, no decision was made by the general meeting of shareholders, and in Yukos itself, profits began to be distributed in significant volumes from 2000, following the results of 1999. Please tell me, in such a situation where profits accumulate, is the operation to switch to a single share taken into account the interest of shareholders? And what do you know about it? Transition to a single share or consolidation of the company? “This is actually a takeover deal by the parent company of the subsidiary company. If profits accumulated in the parent company, this is just a classic case of violation of the rights of minority shareholders of subsidiaries.” – “Specifically in relation to the situation with the Yukos company. The exchange ratios were not disputed by the minority shareholders, or were disputed, but the court made a decision which exchange ratios were accepted. Is this one of the ways to take into account the interests of minority shareholders?” “Through conversion rates? This may be. If there was such an agreement with minority shareholders, the whole economy was shown to them, relatively speaking, their part of the profit was aggregated upwards and all this was calculated and increased by this part of the conversion factor. Theoretically it is possible, I think. “I apologize for the theoretical question, but the other side asked theoretical questions, so I have to ask a theoretical question.”

"Time!" The judge kept watch.

"Last question. Tell me how the situation works in the Russian Federation if all the oil that they produced was stolen from the producing enterprises of Yukos and from the Yukos company as a whole, and money, revenue, profit, in different ways, were received personally by individuals. Who is obliged to pay taxes - a company from which all the oil is recognized as stolen, and which did not receive profit and revenue, either a thief, or no one at all ?! - “I ask you to remove ...” - Smirnov jumped up, but the judge was ahead of him: “The question is removed!”. Hall laughed.

Mikhail Khodorkovsky passed the turn to Platon Lebedev. The judge again pointed to the time, but Lebedev explained that he had only a few questions.

“For the period of 1998-2003, did the government of the Russian Federation, by its decree, approve this or that method, the system of calculations for determining market prices for oil?” “I know that work was carried out on this topic, but whether the methodology was approved or not, I won’t say.” – “Have official oil prices been published by regions of the Russian Federation so that they can be used by market participants and regulatory (regulatory) authorities?” “As far as I know, no.” - “98-2004 - please tell us, did the Russian Federation approve the standards of consolidated financial reporting for joint-stock companies? Russian standards for the preparation of consolidated financial statements? If not, please explain why." “I can’t say for sure one hundred percent, but there was some kind of document. The FCSM or the Ministry of Finance… because according to RAS we have always had a problem with consolidation, we needed something to give companies an incentive to disclose consolidated financial statements… the document was, how detailed it is, this is a separate issue.” – “Are you aware of cases when any Russian vertically integrated company purchases oil from subsidiaries in the regions of production at Rotterdam prices?” “We discussed it. It is obvious. Unknown! Gref answered to the laughter of the audience. Thanking the witness, he was released. Together with German Gref, a good half of the hall ran out of the hall - journalists and the public wanted to listen to witness Gref on the porch of the court. But German Gref declined to comment and quickly left.

A new witness is a shareholder of Yukos

Meanwhile, the next witness was invited into the hall. A man in a sports windbreaker with a briefcase squeezed into the hall through the crowd of people leaving. The judge apologized to the witness that they had to keep him waiting. It was Vilyavin Mikhail Yurievich. But as soon as the witness introduced himself, he was interrupted again. “Mikhail Yuryevich ... we needed a break ... is half an hour enough?” the judge asked the defendants. Ibragimova asked for lunch. “A man has been waiting since 10 in the morning ...” the judge said, explaining that lunch would come later. Interrupted for 15 minutes.

Here is what the lawyers wrote on May 25 in a petition to summon the witness Mikhail Vilyavin to court: “The defense believes that this witness, who was a shareholder of OAO Yuganskneftegaz and OAO NK Yukos, and whose testimony during the preliminary investigation about the alleged violation of his and other shareholders’ rights , the prosecution considers evidence of the guilt of Lebedev and Khodorkovsky, may have information about the circumstances that are significant for the case.”

After the break, questions to the new witness were first asked by lawyer Alexei Miroshnichenko. “When and under what circumstances did you become a Yukos shareholder?” - “During the privatization, I read in the newspapers that the Yukos company has very large oil reserves, much more than other companies, so when a specialized cash auction was held in April 96, I participated in it. Then he became a shareholder. – “Did you receive dividends?” - "Yes". – “And do you have any claims about the completeness of their payment? In connection with an incorrect calculation of the amount, or did you not receive the required amount? “I have been paid everything. I cannot make any claims, if the board of directors has made a decision on the payment, the shareholders cannot make any claims.”

“You have already been recognized as a victim, we know, in another criminal case related to the activities of Yukos. Can you explain as a result of what and whose illegal actions did you suffer damage? “I suffered damage as a result of the bankruptcy of the Yukos company. All my investments are gone." - "From whose illegal actions do you consider yourself a victim?" “I ask you to remove the question, we have a witness here, not a victim,” Smirnov said. “Do you know what Khodorkovsky and Lebedev are accused of? In what actions? “I read in the newspaper that some oil was stolen. And that's it. I can't say anything more."

“You were interrogated at the prosecutor's office as a victim. Did you write a statement on your own initiative? “No, I didn’t write,” the witness managed to answer before the judge declared, “The question is removed.”

Then Mikhail Khodorkovsky began to ask questions. “Did you take part in the annual meetings of shareholders?” “Yes, I did.” - "Every year?" “I tried to take it every year.” Do you remember my performances? In outline?" “Yes, there have been reports.” “When I talked about the profitability and profitability of the company, did I say that the company is highly profitable, or did I say that we work worse than others?” "I think it's highly profitable." - "Did you ask about the activities of the Yukos company, except at the meeting, did you receive any information from the press?" - "Vedomosti", "Kommersant", "Expert", "Profile", "Money", "Power"".

Yukos did not contradict its reflection in the press

Platon Lebedev approached the microphone. “Remember, please, if you can. You said that in the mid-90s you became a shareholder of Yukos. And they reported that Yukos's reserves were larger than those of others. - "Yes, from the press." - “You mentioned that you got to know Yukos not only at shareholder meetings, but also by reading the press. I am interested in the period from 2000 to 2004 - what of what was published in the press, on the activities of the Yukos company, contradicted, in your opinion, the information that Khodorkovsky spoke at the meetings. “Everything came together. There were no contradictions,” answered the witness Vilyavin.

They took 153 volumes. On sheets 39-59 there were a number of publications about the activities of Yukos, including those from Vedomosti and Kommersant. Tom was handed over to the witness. “Look at these posts. If you recognize any publications, tell me, I will ask you a question about them, ”Lebedev explained. Vilyavin leafed through the volume.

The only thing that broke the silence was Valery Lakhtin's new printer, whistling out the fresh thoughts of the prosecutor and not only him.

“Well, it’s hard to remember now… which ones I read,” the witness finally said.

"Do you have a financial education?" Lebedev said. - “No, no, I have a medical education. I don’t have any financial education, I didn’t finish any courses, ”the witness explained quickly. - "When was the last time you were at a meeting of shareholders of Yukos?" “When Gerashchenko was already in charge of the company. Probably in 2005." – “What did the board of directors convey to the shareholders at that time? What information about the company's activities? “2004…we were told that the company was facing a big tax claim. Yukos did not seem to pay, as a result, large fines were imposed on the company, more than its assets ... "-" When did you realize that the company had become bankrupt? “Since 2004, the company has been in a difficult financial situation. She went bankrupt sometime in 2006. It became known from the press. - "During 99-2006, did you file any claims against Yukos, the board of directors of Yukos or not?" - "No, I didn't." - “Mikhail Yuryevich, have you been at all meetings of shareholders since 2000 2004?” - "For all annuals." – “Who spoke before the meeting of shareholders?” — Khodorkovsky. - "Did you understand that Khodorkovsky is the head of Yukos?" “Yes, of course, it was understandable.” “He didn’t hide it at the meetings?” - "Of course not".

The turn to ask questions passed to the state prosecutors.

Additional issue, which was not

“Tell me, please, were there any cases when shareholders were refused to participate in the annual meetings of Yukos?” Ibragimova asked. “In 1996, I came to the meeting, they didn’t let us in, there was a representative at the entrance, he said, we need to register in the building on the other side of Kolpachny Lane. And when the meeting had already begun, we were told that we were free - we had not been registered. ” The witness explained that the case he described was not an isolated one, and the problem was resolved when the shareholders began to threaten complaints to the Federal Securities Commission and other authorities. The prosecutor asked to recall the names of the same non-missing shareholders, but Mr. Vilyavin did not remember.

“Did the name Kenneth Dart sound at Yukos shareholder meetings?” “Yes, of course it did.” - "Explain who he is and in connection with what his name was mentioned?" “He was a shareholder in Yukos subsidiaries, he objected to the exchange of shares in Yukos subsidiaries for Yukos shares. There was actually a struggle between him and the leadership of Yukos. – “And you, as a shareholder, were aware of the situation — in connection with what the dispute arose?” “Dart was not satisfied with the ratio of the exchange of shares of subsidiaries for Yukos shares.” – “As a result of additional issues, was Yukos' share in mining companies somehow diluted, diminished? Decreased? - prosecutor Ibragimova picked up the word and at the same time was pleased with any of the synonyms. - “Yes, additional issues were registered for some offshore companies, and not for Yukos, the share of Yukos decreased, but then the additional issues were canceled and the share of Yukos recovered ...”. Lebedev tapped on the microphone. - “Your honor, let Lebedev not interrupt the interrogation! The interrogation is conducted consistently and on the subject of the criminal case!” Lakhtin jumped up. Lebedev, on the other hand, spoke out: “There has never been ANY additional issue of shares of either subsidiaries or YUKOS!”

Then Ibragimova asked if the witness had asked any questions in connection with the situation around Kenneth Dart and the additional issue. The witness said that during the meeting of shareholders he had raised a question with the presidium whether Yukos was losing control over its subsidiaries in this situation. Ibragimova asked who answered his request. Vilyavin recalled for a long time: "Is it someone from the leadership, or maybe the secretary ... Gololobov, or something ...". - Gololobov? Did I hear correctly?" - Ibragimova was delighted. “I don’t remember, there was some kind of surname on G,” the witness said. Hall laughed.

“Have you had the opportunity to get acquainted with the minutes of the meetings?” “I didn’t contact them.”

Vilyavin said that dividends have been paid since 2000. "Did you have access to the consolidated financial statements of Yukos?" - "At the meetings of shareholders they gave us papers" - "What papers?" “Reporting, probably. There was one report. Apparently, it was consolidated.

“Were there shareholders who were dissatisfied with the policy of the Yukos management?” Ibragimova asked. “They complained about small dividends… there were shareholders who offered help to other shareholders if there were complaints. Here, I even, - the witness rummaged in his bag, - I still have a business card. "Pechkovskaya ... Committee for the Protection of the Rights of Shareholders." Ibragimova carefully recorded the data. – “Well, did the shareholders ask for help?” - "Don't know. I didn't apply."

Valery Lakhtin: “I can’t form questions in my head every second”

Lakhtin also had questions. “Can you reproduce the text of those papers that were handed out to you at shareholders' meetings? Were they written? the prosecutor asked. Hall laughed. “Does he ask if the papers were written!” - hall number 7 was still surprised at "his" prosecutor. Then Lakhtin again delved into the education of the witness, torturing him whether he understands finances, until the prosecutor was interrupted by an angry judge. Then Lakhtin began to pour questions again. "Valery Alekseevich! Well, stop, eventually! The question must be written down! We talked and parted ways, didn't we? I told you once, another! I'll reprimand you next time!" The judge was dissatisfied. Lakhtin fell silent and returned to the Internet. After a pause, Smirnov asked the question: "Can't you say that it was the consolidated statements that were provided to you?" "Of course I can't."

"Have you heard of the Fargoil Society?" Valery Lakhtin pulled out a new question from his computer. - “No” - “And the profit received by Yukos, concentrated, how was it distributed? That is, which enterprises received certain assets from these profits - do you know? again the prosecutor did not confine himself to one question. The witness explained that they simply reported on profits, without division into enterprises.

“Are you fluent in foreign languages?” the prosecutor asked using a computer. "Next question!" the judge waited. The Internet, apparently, was silent, Valery Lakhtin decided to improvise: “I can’t formulate questions in my head every second, as you demand, Your Honor, on your part a clear violation of the competition of the parties! I form questions instantly, which is not normal, Your Honor! - "Questions can be prepared in advance!" the judge recalled. “As a representative of the state, I cannot fully protect the interests of the state, because I have been placed by you, Your Honor, in UNEQUAL CONDITIONS. We are given a few seconds when the defense is being prepared for several days!” the prosecutor was outraged. The audience laughed at this interpretation of the "clear inequality of the parties." - "It is your opinion!" retorted the judge.

Prosecutors have run out of questions. Platon Lebedev asked again: "Was Yuganskneftegaz mentioned at the shareholders' meeting?" “Yes, it was mentioned. It was the main "daughter" of Yukos. - “Samaraneftegaz”, “Tomskneft”? - "Yes". - “When you answered now, you said that the shareholders were worried about the possibility of losing control over the subsidiaries, did you mean these subsidiaries?” - "Yes". - "And you remembered something about the issue..." - "I just read about it in the press." “Was it at the shareholders' meeting, or did you read about it in the press?” - I read it in the press.

We looked in volume 131 of YUKOS's reporting under Russian standards for 2000. It indicated the share of Yukos in Yuganskneftegaz - 91.73 percent. “And what share of Yukos was in Yuganskneftegaz in 98-99?” - "Don't know". – “Did you know that in those years this share was less?” - "No". - Then we looked at the share of Yukos at that time in Samaraneftegaz - 94.79 percent. “That is, what unrest of shareholders in connection with the loss of control was discussed in the press, do you remember?” “I don’t remember, but they wrote.” – “Did you know that since 2001 Samaraneftegaz, Yuganskneftegaz, Tomskneft were 100% subsidiaries of Yukos?” - "Yes".

There were no more questions.

injured witness

“I petition for the disclosure in volume 132 of the protocol of interrogation as the victim Vilyavin Mikhail Yuryevich, due to contradictions!” - Prosecutor Ibragimova said here.

“I would like to see what significant contradictions we are talking about! As required by law. And not just because you want to! Rivkin said. But Ibragimova did not provide any details. The judge granted the request. Ibragimova began to read. Vilyavin was interrogated by investigator Mikhailov.

During the interrogation, Vilyavin told the same thing - how he acquired the shares of Yukos and Yuganskneftegaz, how the shareholders were not allowed to attend the meeting, but he did not appeal this anywhere. When asked by the investigator about what was discussed at the meetings of shareholders, Vilyavin recalled the situation with Kenneth Dart.

The investigator read out a lot of figures to Vilyavina, then asked if it was proposed at the meetings of shareholders "to divide the entire net profit, and not just that which was shown at the meetings as part of the financial statements." “I'm not a financier, I don't know what consolidated reporting is. I don’t know the difference between the consolidated financial statements and the one shown to us at shareholders’ meetings, but I didn’t hear the amounts you mentioned, the amounts were those that were in the financial statements. - "Have you looked at the consolidated financial statements of Yukos on the Internet?" the investigator asked. - "No. I have no acces. There is no computer at home, but at work there is an Internet connection, ”Vilyavin answered. Then the victim told about the same woman, whom he had already mentioned in court, having taken out her business card, who offered her help to the shareholders of the company.

“We would like to draw your attention to the fact that…” lawyer Natalya Terekhova began when Ibragimova's reading was over.

“Terekhova violates the rules of the court session and elementary lawyer ethics!” Lakhtin jumped up.

"Valery Alekseevich, sit down!" the judge suggested.

“The interrogation is dated April 3, 2007,” continued Natalya Terekhova. - Prior to this, a document called the decision to separate this criminal case from case 18/41-03 was studied in the courtroom. So this document is dated February 3, 2007! Mr. Vilyavin was interrogated as a victim in case 18/41-03. And a few minutes ago, prosecutor Lakhtin himself drew attention to the fact that Mr. Vilyavin is not a VICTIGE in this case! And I would like to know where the just announced protocol of interrogation of the victim came from!

“Understood,” the judge reacted, propping his cheek on his fist, and switched to the prosecutors, “please.” Ibragimova asked if Vilyavin confirmed his testimony during the investigation. “I, hmm,” Vilyavin choked with excitement, explaining that he had read about the additional issue in the media. “You said that at the meeting you were given consolidated statements, and during the investigation they said that they didn’t give it to you, but told you to look it up on the Internet,” Ibragimova went on. “We were given a report. What she was like, I don't know." Having specified a few more details, the prosecutor stopped. Mr. Vilyavin confirmed his testimony in full.

Platon Lebedev noted for the record that it was not Vilyavin who spoke about the possibility of viewing consolidated financial statements on the Internet, but the investigator.

Again, a non-disclosure agreement

Mikhail Khodorkovsky had questions: “Of course, I don't really understand how the issue of the additional issue relates to the case, but since prosecutor Ibragimova carefully questions the witness, I would like to understand. Mikhail Yuryevich, you looked at the documents, it follows from them that in 2000 Yukos had a share in subsidiaries of more than 90 percent. In 1999, the issue was discussed with Dart, and in the same year he left the number of Yukos shareholders. I would ask you to clarify - about the situation with Dart and about the situation that someone was diluting stocks, you learned at the meetings of previous years where this was discussed, that is, you were at the meetings of 99? Because in 2000 it was not discussed” — “So I was at the meeting in '99”.

To ask the next question, Mikhail Khodorkovsky quoted the investigator's question from the just announced interrogation of Mr. Vilyavin. “And what does Khodorkovsky read?! Let him say! I did not see him request the materials of the criminal case! Let it not disorientate us! And does not disorient the witness! If this is a protocol from the case file, let him take the protocol and read it. How did I do it! - Valery Lakhtin cited himself as an example. We laughed.

Khodorkovsky went straight to the question: “You were shown excerpts from Vedomosti in the case file, and you could see that the profit there is indicated according to US GAAP, that is, according to consolidated financial statements. I ask you to answer - did I report to you at the meetings what was reflected in the newspapers - that is, consolidated profit, or did I report to you the profit of one of the legal entities? - "I can not tell. I was more interested in dividends than these numbers.”

"Next question!" the judge hurried.

“Do you know, as a shareholder of the Yukos company, I looked - you have a fairly decent block of shares,” Khodorkovsky asked, and Lakhtin, having heard this, once again carefully looked at the witness, looking up from the computer, “you have the right to receive cash in proportion to your shares funds currently on deposit with a Dutch court from the sale of part of the Yukos property and other income that may be credited there as a result of claims brought by Yukos shareholders against the Russian state?

“This is related to the topic of WHAT process?!” Prosecutor Lakhtin jumped up. - “And to the one according to which a person was recognized as a victim!” - Khodorkovsky raised his voice (rare case). - "Khodorkovsky is trying to discredit the preliminary investigation and the prosecution!" - put forward a new version of the prosecutor. - "Why is Khodorkovsky ..." - the judge tried to argue, but the prosecutor did not hear him. Finally, the witness was allowed to answer, he said that he did not know.

Platon Lebedev stood up again: “Did I understand correctly that the investigator showed you any documents during your communication with him, for example, minutes of the general meeting of shareholders?” -

“They took a non-disclosure agreement from me, I don’t have the right to talk about what the prosecutor’s office asked me about!” Vilyavin said. Hall laughed. “You are now in a public court!” Lebedev recalled.

“The witness answered, please, the following question,” the presiding judge understood the intricacies of the public process.

"Did the investigator show you the minutes of the meeting of Yukos shareholders." Lebedev asked. - "Can you talk about it?" Vilyavin asked the prosecutors (not even the judge). “Yes, this is written in the testimony! Look here please!" Lebedev suggested. - “Ah, well, yes, yes, I did!” the witness happily agreed. Hall laughed. Lebedev showed the witness the minutes of the meeting of the YUKOS shareholders' meeting dated June 3, 2000, which Mr. Vilyavin, judging by the protocol of interrogation, studied with the investigator. “Were you shown THIS document during interrogation?” “I can't say right now.” “Can you tell if you were at this shareholder meeting?” “I think it was.” “Look at the agenda, please. The meeting resolved the issue of paying dividends based on the results of 1999. Perhaps you can clarify your testimony in the part where you said that the payment of dividends began on the basis of the results of work for 2000? - “So in 1999” - “Did you receive dividends based on the results of YUKOS in 1999?” - "Received". – “And who reported on the issue of paying dividends?” - "I don't remember" - "Khodorkovsky?" "I don't remember now." - “And the person who presented YUKOS data on the distribution of profits and the payment of dividends, what reporting did he refer to?” “Now I won’t tell. I don't have a financial background." – “Do you understand the difference between the individual reporting of Yukos as a separate legal entity under Russian standards and the consolidated financial statements of the group of companies that are part of the Yukos holding?” “Consolidated is for all companies. I can't say anything more." – “Did the shareholders of other companies included in the structure of VINK Yukos take part in the meeting of Yukos shareholders? Including the shareholders of the foreign assets of Yukos” — “In my opinion, it was a meeting of the shareholders of Yukos. But there were foreigners there too.” - "Were there foreigners among the shareholders of Yukos?" “I think they were.”

There were no more questions for Mikhail Vilyavin, he was released.

Mikhail Khodorkovsky then asked to interrupt today's session in order to prepare for tomorrow's interrogation of Viktor Khristenko.

“It’s clear… Witness Anisimov was called to us today at 14:00… he said that he couldn’t come due to illness,” Viktor Danilkin said, noting that there was a sick leave and an extract from the medical record.

Source: http://khodorkovsky.ru/