Translated material
“Arbitrariness is also arbitrariness in Africa”
Mikhail Khodorkovsky exchanged remarks with prosecutors
In the Khamovnichesky District Court of the capital yesterday, during the trial of Mikhail Khodorkovsky and Platon Lebedev, prosecutors and the disgraced oligarch exchanged so-called remarks - opinions regarding the positions expressed by the parties during the debate. The prosecution insists that Khodorkovsky and Lebedev stole 218 million tons of oil worth 824 billion rubles, and demands that they be imprisoned for 14 years. In turn, the defense demands an acquittal, not only refuting any facts of theft, but also, on the contrary, demonstrating that Yukos at one time, being one of the leading oil companies, worked in full compliance with the law and business rules.“The prosecution is confident that the court, having retired to the deliberation room, having compared our accusatory speech and the so-called acquittal speech of the defense, will easily be convinced of the absolute falsity of our opponents’ statements and will pass a fair verdict,” said prosecutor Valery Lakhtin, apparently believing that the verdict should be nothing less than guilty. The state prosecutor also emphasized that Khodorkovsky constantly emphasizes the political nature of the criminal case, but such conclusions, according to Mr. Lakhtin, are absolutely unfounded.
The prosecutor tried to refute the defendants' statements that, in particular, the laundering of funds received as a result of the alleged theft of hundreds of millions of tons of oil has not been proven. As confirmation of the opposite, Mr. Lakhtin cited data from printouts of telephone conversations of Khodorkovsky’s former subordinates, namely the head of the legal department of YUKOS, Dmitry Gololobov (listed on the federal wanted list) and the lawyer of the same department, Svetlana Bakhmina (who was convicted of embezzling property and assets of the Tomskneft- VNK"). Here is one of the quotes: “Dyatlev (YUKOS lawyer - Ed. ) brought the scheme, he will hand it over with Albert Mkrtychev (YUKOS lawyer - Ed. ), I mean consolidation, but that note, which is the second, - Albert goes with her today.”
“Mikhail Borisovich,” the prosecutor turned to Khodorkovsky. “The words “scheme”, “consolidation”, “note” - isn’t this a guide to financial operations?” Mr. Lakhtin stated that it was the disgraced oligarch, judging by the conversations cited, who led these operations. “It is clear that YUKOS lawyers are the same victims of your organizational criminal actions, drawn by you into an organized group as a method of protecting yourself with lawyer immunity, and transferred to the status of lawyers in an organized way,” the prosecutor continued.
Mikhail Khodorkovsky, taking advantage of his right to make a comment, stated that during the trial he never focused on the political background of the case. “I’m not going to do it today, I’ll leave it for the last word,” he said. The defendant believed that what was said by the prosecutor was nothing more than a “draft of a guilty verdict.” How did I draw this conclusion? The state prosecutor said two or three times: “The court, in its assessment, comes to the following conclusion,” he quoted his opponent.
Next, the disgraced oligarch focused on two important, in his opinion, aspects: the fact that the oil, according to prosecutors, was stolen in two ways - physical and legal. He recalled that, together with Mr. Lebedev, he is accused of stealing all of YUKOS oil from 1998 to 2001, and from 2001 to 2003, that which was exported. “The oil itself was not stolen by anyone. Mr. Lakhtin once again agreed that it was not physically stolen,” Mr. Khodorkovsky said and showed many documents (court decisions and excerpts from the indictment), which stated that “products by oil producing enterprises are independently shipped directly to Russian and foreign consumers." And, therefore, she could not have been kidnapped.
As for “legal theft,” this, as the disgraced oligarch said, is “another “failure” for a second-year law student.” “Only a loser can talk about the existence of even a theoretical possibility of legally stealing oil supplied by a producer directly to a bona fide consumer,” he told the prosecutor. Khodorkovsky further quoted a textbook on criminal law, which states that theft cannot be considered completed if the criminal or a third party has not taken possession of the property. “This is understandable to a reasonable person, and it is written in the plenum (resolution of the plenum of the Supreme Court - Ed. ),” the defendant continued. - However, in our specific case there is simply no place for such theoretical reasoning, because the courts have established that both legally and in fact, ownership of the oil passed to YUKOS under sales and purchase agreements. Based on an analysis of evidence, the courts established that YUKOS is the owner. This is a very specific legal concept that means the legality of YUKOS obtaining the right to oil from its producing subsidiaries.
Mr. Khodorkovsky concluded that neither he nor Lebedev stole oil from their producing subsidiaries, “since they did not take possession of it either physically or legally.” “There’s nothing more to say,” he said. - Profit, prices, delusional version of deception or bribery of my own subordinates, the rights of pseudo-victims, the legality or illegality of entrustment - all this is empty chatter calculated either on fools or on unqualified people. The item of theft is not stolen from the pseudo-victims, either physically or legally. This is a fact. Dot".
It is impossible, as the accused emphasized, to refute the court decisions that have entered into force on the legality of oil purchase and sale transactions and confirmation of Yukos’s ownership of it, without thereby violating the very foundations of legislation, the judicial system and the Constitution. He also recalled the statements of prosecutors that they are not able to “audit court decisions that have entered into force.” “And they are egging you on to do this, your honor,” Khodorkovsky addressed judge Viktor Danilkin. - If you want, do it. Only then there is no need to talk about legality. Arbitrariness is both arbitrary in Africa and arbitrary in Russia.” At this point, the disgraced oligarch completed his speech, and a break was announced in the court hearing. Today, the defendants' lawyers are expected to speak.