Current Trial Background

On February 5, 2007, Russian prosecutors brought new allegations against Khodorkovsky and Lebedev. Those allegations ensured that Khodorkovsky and Lebedev would not be released from prison when they would have been eligible for parole after having served half of their original eight-year sentence. Khodorkovsky was denied parole in 2008.

In the new allegations for embezzlement and laundering of stolen property, investigators allege that Khodorkovsky and Lebedev embezzled the entire crude oil production of YUKOS over a six-year period. In a statement made by Khodorkovsky on October 22, 2008, referring to the investigation that was open for nearly two years, he asked the "investigative group not to humiliate itself and the country with making knowingly absurd assertions."

The investigation into these allegations has been extraordinarily drawn out. Khodorkovsky and Lebedev have endured numerous procedural violations and erratic behavior by the investigators. In November 2008, investigators rejected a request by the defense to introduce evidence which Khodorkovsky and Lebedev insisted would result in dismissal of these baseless allegations. Notwithstanding the protests of the defense team, the court refused to grant a defense complaint against the investigators' rejection. The court also refused to grant a defense complaint, against the investigators' failure to explain to Khodorkovsky and Lebedev the essence of the charges brought against them. In response to the court's decision, the defense stated: "The investigators have committed serious procedural violations in pursuing this case. They will not even answer legitimate questions from the defense concerning the allegations under investigation. The defense considers this investigation to be incomplete and replete with violations of Russian law. The fairness of any trial to follow will be compromised by these and other legal defects."

Moreover, the fact that the allegations were investigated in the far eastern city of Chita, and not in Moscow, was a clear violation of Russian law, which stipulates that the investigation and trial of the case should be conducted in the place where the alleged crimes were committed.

On January 26, 2009, the defense team and Mikhail Khodorkovsky were asked to sign a protocol acknowledging the completion of the defense team's and Khodorkovsky's review of the case. In response, both the defense team and Khodorkovsky signed a motion stating that they were not able to complete their review of the case because they were illegally limited in time to do so by the prosecution.

As a result, the defense regards the investigation as incomplete and conducted with numerous violations of Russian law. To support their position, the defense requested the prosecution include over 470 individuals in the list of witnesses and experts to testify at trial as well as over 270 documents that the investigation previously refused to attach to the case materials.

On January 27, 2009, defense lawyers for Khodorkovsky and Lebedev filed a motion to dismiss the charges against the men. Citing the numerous violations of their clients' constitutional rights and lawful interests that had been allowed, the attorneys asserted that it would be impossible for Khodorkovsky and Lebedev to receive a fair trial.

On February 16, 2009, the Russian Prosecutor General's Office finalized the indictment against Khodorkovsky and Lebedev. The preliminary hearing for the defendants began in Moscow on March 3, 2009, and the prosecution began presenting evidence later that month. The trial started with the prosecution's reading of the indictment which was done in full and lasted several weeks. Upon the conclusion of this on April 21, Khodorkovsky and Lebedev both pleaded not guilty to all charges.

Afterwards, the trial was put on recess for nearly two weeks and restarted with the prosecution's presentation of written evidence which was completed on September 18 - more than six months since the first preliminary hearing and almost five months since Prosecutor Lakhtin began to monotonously announce documents.

During the presentation of written evidence, the defense regularly raised objections to glaring omissions, incorrect dates and figures, misstatement of key facts and generally misleading evidence presented in the prosecution's case. During this stage of the trial, the defense team several times attempted to have the prosecutors removed from the case, but had each try rejected by Judge Danilkin.

On September 28, the prosecution began calling its witnesses. Many of the prosecution's witnesses had never met either Khodorkovsky or Lebedev and could not comment on anything directly related to the charges in the indictment. Shortly thereafter, Khodorkovsky hit a milestone on October 25 as it marked the 6th anniversary of his arrest and subsequent persecution on politically-motivated charges. Three weeks later, the prosecution filed a motion to extend Khodorkovsky and Lebedev's detention in SIZO by another three months until February 17, 2010.

The testimonies and cross examinations of the prosecution's witnesses continued to confirm the baseless nature of the indictment and supported the claims of the defense that Khodorkovsky and Lebedev were innocent of the crimes they had been charged with. Prosecution witnesses from YUKOS's tax auditing firms including PricewaterhouseCoopers to members of YUKOS' own legal team and executives of YUKOS subsidiaries substantiated the defense's case.

In February 2010, Judge Danilkin was again presented by the prosecution with a motion to extend the detention of Khodorkovsky and Lebedev. For the third time, he agreed and extended the detention of the two defendants in the SIZO center until May 17, 2010.

In March 2010, the prosecution called the last of their 51 witnesses - Eduard Rebgun, the former bankruptcy receiver of YUKOS. Rebgun's testimony, like others before him, praised YUKOS for its organizational structure as a vertically integrated holding company. Furthermore, he was forced to admit that no information to support the allegations of embezzlement was ever uncovered.

On March 29, 2010, almost exactly one year after its commencement, the prosecution announced they had finished presenting their case. The court then scheduled the start of the defense's case for April 5th.

Throughout the proceedings, motions from the defense team have continued to be overwhelmingly rejected by Judge Danilkin and several decisions were appealed to the higher Moscow City Court - including appeals on Judge Danilkin's decision to extend Khodorkovsky and Lebedev's stay in the SIZO detention facility.

Commenting on the first year of the trial, Khodorkovsky lawyer Vadim Klyuvgant said, "The last 12 months have provided continuous proof of the artificial, political and corrupt nature of the persecution of my client. In the course of the year, neither by presenting irrelevant evidence nor by questioning frightened witnesses has the prosecution been able to prove the absurd charges."

Following the conclusion of the prosecution's case, Mikhail Khodorkovsky came to the stand to give his testimony. He laid out 12 theses for counting the allegations included in the prosecution's indictment. In his testimony, Khodorkovsky provided an educational overview of the Russian oil industry and the formulation and organization of YUKOS during his tenure as CEO, which under his leadership became Russia's largest oil company.

The arrest, prosecution and conviction of Khodorkovsky and Lebedev, as well as the new charges against them, are politically motivated. Not only are the charges groundless, they are contradictory when compared to the charges in the first criminal trial and the current arguments presented by the Russian side in YUKOS v Russia in the European Court of Human Rights.

The charges also attempt to retroactively define regular business activities as criminal acts. The prosecution has systematically manipulated evidence, and deprived the defendants of their rights to remove these men from public life and take away their property, making a fair trial and a just outcome impossible.