Khodorkovsky & Lebedev Communications Center

The trial resumed with Mr. Khodorkovsky addressing Mr. Lakhtin's line of questions from the day before about YUKOS fund transfers to Yauza-M bank accounts. Mr. Khodorkovsky told the court that Mr. Lakhtin, when explaining why he had asked the witness a question about the transfer of funds from YUKOS accounts to Yauza-M accounts, officially stated that Mr. Khodorkovsky was engaged in proving the disbursement of embezzled funds. According to Mr. Khodorkovsky, if the court thought of Mr. Lakhtin as acting in official capacity and not of "an irresponsible babbler" then it was duty-bound to terminate the trial because of the prosecution having de facto abandoned crude oil embezzlement charges. The very fact that YUKOS itself had proceeds from the sale of crude oil completely ruled out the possibility of this same oil having been embezzled. After providing several examples of exercising his discretion at disbursing YUKOS funds, Mr. Khodorkovsky concluded by telling the court, once again, that questions to the witness with respect to the disbursement of YUKOS funds signified the de facto abandonment of the crude oil embezzlement charges.

It was hard to tell whether Mr. Khodorkovsky's statement gave Judge Danilkin any food for thought, because the first thing out of the latter's mouth was a question to the prosecution about who their next witness was.

Mr. Lakhtin, in as reasonable tone as he could muster, began explaining to the court that the prosecution was experiencing difficulties with the witnesses showing up and it was all the witnesses' fault. However, in order to keep the process flowing, Mr. Lakhtin turned to a back-up strategy of petitioning to read a transcript from an unavailable witness, Ms. Nina Vlasova. Mr. Lakhtin, handing the court a note from Ms. Vlasova's doctor, explained that her presence in the courtroom could expose her health to lethal consequences.

After examining the two pieces of paper Mr. Lakhtin handed the court, the defense, represented by Mr. Klyuvgant, did not object to the reading of Ms. Vlasova's interrogation transcript. However, Mr. Klyuvgant noted the disrespect the prosecution showed to the court, because the doctor's note was addressed to investigator Alyshev, who had forwarded it to Mr. Shokhin. Mr. Klyuvgant also noted that Ms. Vlasova was interrogated on March 26, 2008, for a different criminal case, after the investigation into Messrs. Khodorkovsky and Lebedev's case ended.

Mr. Lakhtin told the court that Mr. Alyshev's letter to Mr. Shokhin did not violate the Office of the General Prosecutor's intra-agency communication policy. Furthermore, Mr. Lakhtin argued that, as he'd explained before, the investigation was within its rights to add additional materials to the case file and in any event the Criminal Procedure Code had no established guidelines on how properly verified information was to be obtained by the prosecution.

It was up to Mr. Lebedev to remind the prosecutor that Article 286 of the Criminal Procedure Code had clearly defined guidelines for gathering and presenting evidence. According to Mr. Lebedev, only the court could determine what additional materials should be added to the case file after the investigation was concluded.

Mr. Lakhtin's motion was granted.

Ms. Vlasova told investigator Iogan that she joined YUKOS-Moscow in April 1999 in the internal audit department. In early 2000 she was transferred into the tax management section, where she worked until 2005, prior to being transferred to YUKOS-RM. Ms. Vlasova described a trip to the City of Strezhevoy, Tomskneft's home base, soon after she joined YUKOS-Moscow. She remembered that, while visiting, her section raised some tax-related concerns about sales of Tomskneft's production as wellhead liquid, but the legal department defended the practice. Ms. Vlasova did not remember what specific concerns were raised.

Ms. Vlasova was asked about "the movement of crude oil" and told investigator Iogan that she tracked sales agreements between various companies, including those based in closed administrative-territorial formations (ZATO). She explained that her responsibility was to make sure that contracts were drafted correctly and complied with applicable tax regulations. Ms. Vlasova remembered some of the companies whose contracts she tracked, including Mitra, Muskron and Business Oil. According to Ms. Vlasova, Ms. Kuchusheva "controlled" all directors of companies based in ZATOs. Ms. Vlasova remembered some of those directors, including Messrs. Kartashov, Malahovsky, Valdes-Garcia and Spirichev, and Mss. Chernikova and Karaseva. Ms. Vlasova explained that the aforementioned companies traded crude oil, with directors serving in nominal capacity, tasked with drafting and signing contracts.

Ms. Vlasova told investigator Iogan that she saw "diagrams showing movement of crude oil." She explained that, when tracking crude oil sales contracts, she made sure contracts were complying with the strategy depicted in a current diagram. The strategy was about crude oil and petroleum product sales and did not change very often. Ms. Vlasova did not know who developed the strategy and drew up the diagrams.

Ms. Vlasova explained that her section was often called upon to consult various YUKOS subsidiaries on how to structure sales transactions to comply with tax regulations. Most of those subsidiaries were refineries and crude oil storage facilities.

After Mr. Lakhtin finished Ms. Vlasova's transcript, Mr. Lebedev asked the court to note that, despite describing "diagrams showing movement of crude oil," Ms. Vlasova discussed the crude oil sales strategy. Mr. Lebedev reminded the court that the physical movement of crude oil was not the same as the transfer of property rights for that crude oil.

Judge Danilkin, once again, asked the prosecution about their witnesses. After a short break, Ms. Ibragimova told the court that their witnesses called and requested to postpone their questioning.

Judge Danilkin adjourned the trial.

The trial will resume on Friday, February 19, 10:00 Moscow Time.