Khodorkovsky & Lebedev Communications Center

• an Honorable Member of Sciences of the Russian Federation,
• a professor, 
• an Academic in the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences,
• an Acting Member of the International Society on Identification, is a specialist in general theory of forensic analysis,
• a Director of the Institute of Forensic Analysis of the Moscow Government Academy of Jurisprudence,
• the Chair of the Department of Forensic Analysis at the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences,
• a Member of the Scientific Panel at the Moscow Government Academy of Jurisprudence,
• a Member of the Advisory Panel at the Federal Forensic Center of the Russian Justice Ministry,
• the Vice-President of the Association of Russian Forensic Experts, and
• is a Member of the Board at the Educational Methodological Center on Forensic Studies of the Russian Education Ministry.

Mr. Rivkin explained that the defense posed to Ms. Rossinskaya questions concerning scientific methodology in one of the expert analyses found in the case materials, specifically the one conducted by Messrs. Migal and Chernikov. [Messrs. Migal and Chernikov were asked to answer the following question "What was the quantity of oil that was obtained during the period of 1998-2000 from OAO "Yuganskneftegaz", OAO "Tomskneft" VNK and OAO "Samaraneftegaz" by the following companies - OAO "NK "Yukos", OOO "Yukos-M", OOO "YU-Mordovia" and others, and what was the market price of this oil according to world prices of oil type "Ural's"(Mediterranean) and "Ural's"(Rotterdam) according to minimal daily quotations, existing during that period?" -Eds.] Ms. Rossinskaya was asked to provide her opinion as a specialist in scientific methodology of forensic expert analysis. Also, defense expected that Ms. Rossinskaya will be able to explain to the court what was and what wasn't part of the responsibilities and functions of forensic experts, in general.

Ms. Rossinskaya took the witness podium. After the preliminary questions were out of the way, Judge Danilkin told Mr. Rivkin to proceed with his questions.

Mr. Rivkin began by asking Ms. Rossinskaya to list for the court her educational background and professional credentials. Ms. Rossinskaya has two degrees - a bachelors in Chemistry and a Doctorate of Jurisprudence. She described her specialty as forensic expert analysis. She went over her memberships and titles, already listed by Mr. Rivkin. Ms. Rossinskaya handed copies of her diplomas and degrees for the court and the prosecution to examine. Mr. Lakhtin took his time and the court finally told Mr. Rivkin to continue.

Ms. Rossinskaya explained that she works as a forensic expert for over 30 years and has published over 300 scientific works. She went over some of her latest publications, including a Judge's Handbook on Theoretical and Practical Questions in Forensic Analysis, Textbook on the Theory of Forensic Analysis, and Theory of Forensic Accounting Analysis. Ms. Rossinskaya explained that she participated in numerous court proceedings, in courts of general jurisdiction and in Arbitration courts, as a specialist and as an expert, on a regular basis. In addition, for over 15 years she worked at the Russian Interior Ministry as an on-staff expert.

Ms. Rossinskaya testified that she never met Messrs. Khodorkovsky or Lebedev, or members of their families. She did not work for YUKOS or any of its subsidiaries.

Ms. Rossinskaya explained that the Moscow Government Academy of Jurisprudence has a center, called SodEx, formed to provide the services of experts. Mr. Rivkin approached the center and requested for a specialist analysis to be conducted. The object of the analysis was the aforementioned expert report. Mr. Rivkin asked to analyze whether the expert report complied with methodological and scientific requirements applicable for the type of forensic expert analysis that was conducted by Messrs. Migal and Chernikov. Mr. Rivkin provided the center with copies of the expert analysis, accompanying supplements and Mr. Tyutyunnik's order authorizing the expert analysis.

Mr. Rivkin asked for Volume 54 where the originals of the aforementioned documents are located, in order to allow Ms. Rossinskaya to examine them and to tell the court whether she worked with the copies of the documents found in the case materials. Mr. Lakhtin demanded to know what Ms. Rossinskaya was being shown by Mr. Rivkin, with the court's permission, because she received some unknown copies from Mr. Rivkin. According to the prosecutor, Ms. Rossinskaya did not see the originals or court-certified copies of the case materials, so she could not identify the documents she was looking at. Ms. Rossinskaya examined the documents for about a minute and told the court that the copies she worked with were of the documents in the case volume. Mr. Lakhtin objected, this time arguing that someone who was not admitted as a specialist or an expert and wasn't a party to the proceeding should not have been allowed to look at the case materials.

Mr. Rivkin continued to question Ms. Rossinskaya. Ms. Rossinskaya told the court that materials provided by the defense attorney were sufficient to answer the questions being posed. There were no barriers for her to objectively explain to the court the results of her analysis. Ms. Rossinskaya explained that she conducted the theoretical analysis of the scientific and forensic methodology of the expert report. The economics evaluation was conducted by her colleague, Mr. Savitskiy, who is a Ph.D. Candidate in Economics and is a professor at the Moscow Government Academy of Jurisprudence. Ms. Rossinskaya explained that Mr. Savitskiy teaches forensic accounting analysis and forensic financial analysis at the academy. In addition, he is a professional auditor and conducted numerous forensic analyses.

Mr. Rivkin asked whether Ms. Rossinskaya discussed the analysis she performed with the defense attorneys. She confirmed that she did not. Mr. Rossinskaya told the court that after her analysis was completed and a report was drafted, she explained the conclusions contained therein to the defense attorneys. The written report was provided to the center, which provided it to Mr. Rivkin.

Mr. Smirnov took over and asked if Ms. Rossinskaya ever participated in forensic accounting expert analyses. She explained that she did not. As an instructor, she trains forensic accounting experts. That was why Mr. Savitskiy was involved in the analysis prepared by her, after being appointed by the center. Next, Mr. Smirnov asked if she had education in economics or accounting. Ms. Rossinskaya testified that she did not. Mr. Smirnov asked what types of expert analyses she participated in. Ms. Rossinskaya indentified the various types of forensic expert analyses she conducted. She explained that her current work is teaching theory to future forensic experts. Ms. Rossinskaya confirmed that Mr. Savitskiy was present in the courtroom.

Mr. Lakhtin asked a round of questions concerning what case materials Ms. Rossinskaya was allowed to examine - whether it was "all of the case materials in their entirety?" Ms. Rossinskaya told the court that, of course, she was not provided with all of the case materials, either in original or copy form. She told the court that she examined the copy of Messrs. Migal and Chernikov's report, which is what she saw in court. Mr. Lakhtin insisted that Ms. Rossinskaya could not have examined the case volume quickly enough to be certain that the copies of documents she looked at were authentic reproductions of the originals.

Mr. Lakhtin asked Ms. Rossinskaya whether it was correct for her to discuss the conclusions of her report with defense attorneys. Ms. Rossinskaya corrected the prosecutor, telling the court that she did not discuss her conclusions, but explained them to Mr. Rivkin. Ms. Rossinskaya explained that her analysis was conducted pursuant to Article 6 of the Law on [Advocates].

Prosecutor Lakhtin demanded to know how she was paid and what was in the agreement concluded between Ms. Rossinskaya and Mr. Rivkin. Ms. Rossinskaya explained that she did not sign any agreements with Mr. Rivkin. Mr. Rivkin hired SodEx at the Moscow Government Academy of Jurisprudence. The center appointed her to conduct the analysis based on the question presented.

Mr. Lakhtin demanded to know if Ms. Rossinskaya thought she was really independent in conducting her analysis, from Mr. Rivkin in particular. She said that she was independent and objective. She added that after working for over fifteen years with law enforcement, she was used to various pressures, but she never compromised her independence and objectivity. Ms. Rossinskaya explained that her responsibility was to provide an analysis and an answer based on the question that was being presented by Mr. Rivkin. She read the question being posed "To conduct an analysis of the expert report from the position of scientific and methodological substantiation according to requirements of theories and practice in conducting expert analyses."

Mr. Lakhtin demanded to know whether Ms. Rossinskaya thought it was ethical to revise the expert analysis of Messrs. Migal and Chernikov. She explained that she did not conduct a revision, but a review of the expert analysis, as was explicitly allowed by regulations of the Interior Ministry. Furthermore, she noted that SodEx regularly conducted review of the expert analyses prepared by the experts working for the Interior Ministry. She noted that based on these reviews, some of the experts are required undergo additional training in order to continue their certification.

"Do you remember what you testified about? You said that you sought advice from Rivkin?" prosecutor Lakhtin went all in. Ms. Rossinskaya told the court that the she never said that. She told the court that she explained to Mr. Rivkin the conclusions she arrived at. "So when are you lying - now or then?" prosecutor asked nonchalantly. Ms. Rossinskaya demanded that the court protect her from unfounded accusations coming from the prosecutor. Judge Danilkin, belatedly, told the prosecutor to stop behaving inappropriately.

Mr. Smirnov told the court that prosecution needed an hour to prepare the motion to disqualify. As Judge Danilkin was getting ready to adjourn the proceeding, Mr. Lakhtin inquired if Ms. Rossinskaya had contacts with Mr. Rivkin when she was preparing the analysis, telling her that she did not correctly understand his last question. Ms. Rossinskaya testified that she did not have contacts with Mr. Rivkin as she was working on her report.

Finally, Judge Danilkin announced the prosecution had an hour and twenty minutes to prepare their objections.

The trial resumed with Mr. Lakhtin motioning to disqualify Ms. Rossinskaya. He insisted that the court should strictly follow the Criminal Procedure Code and that is what the prosecution will refer to, exclusively. According to the prosecutor, Ms. Rossinskaya could not be admitted as a specialist in this case, because defense was attempting to have her provide legal analysis and to weigh the evidence in the case file. The prosecutor insisted that only the court, investigators and the prosecutors were allowed to analyze evidence. Next, the prosecutor told the court that only experts appointed pursuant to provisions of the CCP can conduct an expert analysis. Ms. Rossinskaya was not such an expert. According to the prosecutor, only the court was allowed to gather additional evidence when the case was brought to trial, not defense and not an expert hired by defense. Furthermore, only the court can order an additional or a repeat expert analysis. [Our readers should note that the defense did not seek to admit Ms. Rossinskaya as an expert, but as a specialist. The prosecutor continued to use the two terms interchangeably, although a specialist and an expert are two different participants in a court proceeding. -Eds.]

According to the prosecutor, Ms. Rossinskaya could not be admitted as a specialist because she did not analyze all of the case materials, including materials provided to Messrs. Migal and Chernikov. Furthermore, the prosecutor determined that Ms. Rossinskaya was unable to confirm for the court whether the expert report she worked on was the exact copy of the expert report found in the case materials.

The prosecutor explained that Ms. Rossinskaya did not have any education in economics, while Messrs. Migal and Chernikov conducted an expert analysis in an economic area. Furthermore, after being informed about potential criminal liability, Ms. Rossinskaya confirmed that she allowed herself to explain her conclusions to Mr. Rivkin, as well as was paid by defense for her expert analysis. Furthermore, the prosecutor noted that Ms. Rossinskaya came to court pursuant to an invitation from defense. Prosecutor Lakhtin found fault in the fact that Ms. Rossinskaya did not work in the crude oil industry, did not work at YUKOS or at any of its subsidiaries. Therefore, the prosecutor argued, "the incompetence of citizen Rossinskaya was obvious to the prosecution and should be obvious to the court." Prosecutor Lakhtin reiterated that Ms. Rossinskaya came to Khamovnicheskiy Court pursuant to an invitation from defense. According to the prosecutor, Ms. Rossinskaya uncovered her own incompetence and dependence on the defense and, therefore, should be disqualified as a specialist.

Before responding, Mr. Rivkin asked Ms. Rossinskaya to provide a brief description of her conclusions. Ms. Rossinskaya told the court that first she wanted to inform the court that she called SodEx and they delivered a copy of the expert report she was asked to use as the object of her analysis. She told the court that it is a copy of the original expert report she examined earlier in the proceedings. However, Ms. Rossinskaya was unable to provide an answer to Mr. Rivkin's question, as the court struck it after an objection from prosecutor Lakhtin.

Mr. Lebedev asked whether her report was signed by Ms. Rossinskaya alone, or together with Mr. Savitskiy. Ms. Rossinskaya confirmed that both of them signed the report they drafted. Ms. Rossinskaya confirmed that Mr. Savitskiy was a Ph.D. Candidate in Economics and lectured professional experts on forensic expert analysis with the emphasis on forensic economic expert analysis.

Mr. Lebedev asked Ms. Rossinskaya to explain to the court what the title classification was of the expert report prepared by Messrs. Migal and Chernikov and whether that title classification was procedurally appropriate for the type of report they prepared. Ms. Rossinskaya told the court that the title identification was "Forensic Accounting," when it should have been classified as "Forensic Financial Analytical," according to the mandatory procedural orders issued by the Interior Ministry, where Messrs. Migal and Chernikov worked. She explained that the competence of the experts to conduct a forensic analysis flowed directly from the head of the expert center who appointed the experts. Ms. Rossinskaya explained that accounting experts, conducting an accounting analysis, would not have been able to answer the questions which Messrs. Migal and Chernikov answered.

Mr. Lebedev asked the court to note that the prosecutor argued that Messrs. Migal and Chernikov conducted an economics analysis, while the expert report was identified as accounting, each one being a distinct classification under the regulations of the Interior Ministry. Ms. Rossinskaya confirmed that her colleague dealt with economical aspects in their joint report, while she analyzed the procedural, methodological and scientific approaches used by Messrs. Migal and Chernikov.

After a short recess Mr. Rivkin filed the defense response to the prosecution's motion for disqualification of Ms. Rossinskaya. [The response is provided in full, with quotation marks omitted. -Eds.]

I would say that the latest Mr. Lakhtin's demarche demonstrates what goal all [of their] actions are directed towards - to prevent the trial's participants from learning the specialists' conclusions. The specialists came to a conclusion that this expert report was unacceptable.

Second, what I want to ask the court to pay attention to in advance is that we only discussed the work these specialists performed in connection with the expert report. But when I discussed earlier why we need [Ms. Rossinskaya], I mentioned that we'd ask her a number of questions unrelated to this expert report, but concerning experts' responsibilities, in general. I counted on an opportunity for her to be able to answer these questions.

Now, concerning the arguments we heard. I'll begin by mentioning that, once again, we come to a conclusion that the prosecution has their version of the Criminal Procedure Code of unknown origin on their table, while we and everyone else have a different version. Section 53 clearly states that we can engage a specialist, in accordance with Section 58. While Article 6 of the Federal Law [on Advocates] states that a specialist is engaged on contractual basis. So I'll ask - how else was I supposed to engage a specialist? How does Mr. Lakhtin imagine this is supposed to happen? Is the specialist supposed to fall here from the sky? Will just come here without knowing any questions? We acted in full compliance with the law, as we did in other cases, as we did during the preliminary investigation. We enagaged [Ms. Rossinskaya] the exact same way. The difference is that a more curious prosecutor is being too nosy about trying to find out the terms of the contract.

Concerning the incompetence of a professor, a Ph.D. and an Academic, I have no idea how his tongue even turned to say what he said. As it was said here recently "whose cow is making the noises here." This is the exact same occurrence.

Concerning arguments. As was said "some kind of analysis by a specialist," by a prosecutor who has a copy of the CCP on his table, but who clearly fails to open it. A specialist's report, just as his testimony, is a unique piece of evidence. The evidentiary weight is not any different from an expert's conclusion. Ms. Rossinskaya knows this better than I do, may be she'll correct me if necessary.

We engaged a specialist not for a legal analysis of evidence - where did you get this, Mr. Lakhtin? We engaged a specialist for a completely different purpose, which I already stated. Section 58 states that specialists are engaged to answer questions within their competence. [Ms. Rossinskaya] is a specialist in the general theory of forensic expert analysis, and this is the direction in which we intend to ask her questions, and in the economical sphere of analysis to ask her colleague, Mr. Savitskiy.

Next, she did not examine the case materials - who told you that in order to come to her conclusions she needed to examine the case materials? Mr. Lakhtin continues to talk about the case materials as a whole, about the full volume of the case materials. I am certain that not one of the experts used by the Office of the Prosecutor General studied all of the case materials, in their entirety - because they acted within the framework of the questions being posed to them by the investigators. The question begs an answer deserving of the question. The kind of question posed to the specialist gave origin to the type of answer that was provided - it wasn't by coincidence that I asked whether the specialist had enough materials to provide an answer to the question being posed. The answer was that those materials were enough. Why do they need all of the case materials?

[Ms. Rossinskaya] was unable to confirm to the court the texts were identical. Here's the court secretary. May be we should ask her to read what she wrote in the trial transcript? Either Mr. Lakhtin wasn't listening or he is blatantly lying to everyone present. No time passed, yet he managed to lie. [Ms. Rossinskaya] confirmed that the text was identical to the one she received for her use. Why the necessity to distort and to lie to everyone present?

Does not have an educational background in economics. I ask the same question: Did you even ask her if she needed an education in economics in order to answer the questions being asked in the sphere of general theory on forensic expert analysis. I hope it is understood where the knowledge of economics and the knowledge of general theory of forensic analysis come in. Although, as applied to the prosecutor, I am not so sure.

Outside the framework of the agreement, after drafting the report, explained her conclusions to defense attorney Rivkin. Where's the crime? Section 58, black on white, in Russian, states that a specialist is being engaged to explain questions within his competence. She explained to me questions within her competence, as applied to the conclusions she came up with. What law was broken? As I remember, in Meschanskiy Court, when we sat there, the judge kept telling us to "cite a legal norm, cite a legal norm, cite a legal norm." We always want to ask Mr. Lakhtin where he found the legal norm - may be you'll name at least one.

Payment, as I already stated, is presupposed by the Federal Law on [Advocates]. I strongly suspect that Mr. Lakhtin is being paid for functioning as a prosecutor. You would not believe it, but a specialist is paid, and so are defense attorneys.

Next. Did not work in the crude oil industry, including YUKOS. Every time I hear these arguments from Mr. Lakhtin and am always amazed. If any of the specialists we wanted to engage worked at YUKOS, they would not have been allowed to testify as a specialists. If we have any first-year law student here, during a recess please explain this to prosecutor Lakhtin, because he does not understand. We engaged [Ms. Rossinskaya] as a specialist and if she worked at YUKOS there would have been grounds to talk about her interest in the outcome in the case and to disqualify her.

Your Honor we have absolutely no reasons to think that Ms. Rossinskaya is incompetent and to say that she has some kind of dependence. The dependence the prosecutor identified is actually independence, because the issue is the relationship between the defense attorney with the engaged specialist. This is all I have. Thank you for your attention and I ask that you deny the motion for disqualification of the specialist.

Next, Mr. Lebedev made a statement in support of the defense's position. First, he expressed regret that the court failed to restrain prosecutor Lakhtin. Next, he told the court that all of the citations to the CCP by prosecutor Lakhtin, including those being blatantly misrepresented, were irrelevant, except for the section concerning the grounds for disqualification of specialists, with none of those relevant. The prosecutor's citation to all sections concerning the conduct of the forensic analysis was simply out of place, if the question was about disqualification of the specialist.

Mr. Lebedev explained that the court and the prosecution were made aware that defense will file a motion to disqualify Messrs. Migal and Chernikov. Ms. Rossinskaya's specialist report will serve as one of the grounds for their disqualification.

Lastly, Mr. Lebedev explained that every time the prosecution attempts to convince the court into believing that specialists are analyzing and weighing evidence, then insists that only the court has the power to do so. Mr. Lebedev told the court that this argument was baseless - no one was weighing the evidence at this stage in the proceeding. Regardless, the specialist's report wasn't even questioned in court, so that the court or the prosecution could come to any conclusion. Mr. Lebedev did not know what incompetence of the specialist the prosecution was talking about without seeing the product that person put together. He, also, asked the court to deny the prosecution's motion.

Mr. Khodorkovsky told the court that Mr. Lebedev and he, using all legal means, were proving the absence of the fact of any crime they allegedly committed. In addition, they sought to show to the court professional violations committed during the preliminary investigation, violations which bordered on being criminal - such as criminal professional negligence and falsification of evidence. Mr. Khodorkovsky explained that the investigator about whom Mr. Lakhtin talked about acted in bad faith and made efforts to ensure falsification of the expert report. According to Mr. Khodorkovsky, without the specialist's testimony the court will not be able to understand the scope of the violations that were committed.

Next, Mr. Khodorkovsky noted that all of the experts appointed by the prosecution were paid for their work, did not work in the oil industry and did not examine the case materials in their entirety. Therefore, these could not be grounds to insist that Ms. Rossinskaya was unqualified or incompetent. In conclusion, Mr. Khodorkovsky asked the court not to cover for the investigators and other persons who, at least, acted in bad faith and, in his opinion, committed crimes.

Ms. Rossinskaya was given the last word. She told the court that she would never presume to weigh evidence. What she would be able to present to the court are conclusions concerning violations committed by the experts. The experts committed numerous procedural mistakes and violations, and that was what her colleague and she were going to show the court.

Second, Ms. Rossinskaya told the court that this was the first time ever that she was accused of lying to the court. She teaches future prosecutors and teaches continuous legal education to current prosecutors. She did not know how the future and current prosecutors would be able to study in her classroom after hearing such allegations by the prosecutor here. She told the court that this was a gross overreach by the prosecution.

Judge Danilkin adjourned the hearing for an hour and went into chambers to write his decision.

As the appointed time approached, the air conditioners stopped working and the courtroom began to heat up almost immediately. Judge Danilkin ascended the bench and began to read the decision on whether to disqualify Ms. Rossinskaya. He recapped Mr. Lakhtin's arguments, focusing on three grounds: Ms. Rossinskaya was not a specialist in economics, she was invited by the defense to provide analysis and to weigh the evidence, and that she was not independent and was interested in the outcome of the proceedings, because she was paid by the defense. According to the court, Mr. Rivkin argued that the prosecution did not state any legal grounds to support disqualification of Ms. Rossinskaya. Judge Danilkin specified that Mr. Rivkin stated that Ms. Rossinskaya was not asked to weigh the evidence and was invited only to answer questions within her competency to answer, as allowed by Section 58 of the CCP. Messrs. Khodorkovsky and Lebedev's counter-arguments were not mentioned. Judge Danilkin added that Ms. Rossinskaya also stated that she was not to analyze and to weigh any evidence. Then, Judge Danilkin ruled that only the court had the power to weigh the evidence. In addition, if the court had any doubts about the quality of an expert report it could order an additional or a repeat forensic expert analysis. According to Judge Danilkin, Ms. Rossinskaya was invited to cast doubt on the expert report she worked with, which was not a circumstance subject to prove in this proceeding. Because Ms. Rossinskaya wasn't engaged for any other purpose, she was disqualified as a specialist.

Mr. Dyatlev told the court that the defense will call to testify as a specialist Mr. Savitskiy, who was currently present in the courtroom. Ms. Rossinskaya departed.