Khodorkovsky & Lebedev Communications Center

Morning Session.

Judge Danilkin entered the courtroom, greeted everyone and, without any other preliminaries, resumed playback of Mr. Anilionis's interrogation from January 18, 2007.

Messrs. Anilionis and Karimov continued to discuss Mr. Anilionis's role in the privatization of YUKOS. That discussion, often sounding like friendly banter between two old acquaintances, was over a half-an-hour long. [As was mentioned in our previous report, Messrs. Anilionis and Karimov often traded places, with Mr. Anilionis sounding genuinely curious about certain events and Mr. Karimov being accommodating and explaining in lengthy detail the investigation's version of certain events. -Eds.]

As the playback ended, Mr. Lakhtin motioned to read two more transcripts, one from a September 9, 2004 interrogation, the other from April 16, 2008. Remembering the court's admonishment, he quickly identified volumes and page numbers where the transcripts were to be found.

Mr. Lakhtin's arguments for reading both transcripts did not differ from those he used on previous occasions. In his view, material contradictions in Mr. Anilionis's testimony included a lack of specificity when identifying company names and certain dates. Also, Mr. Lakhtin argued that Mr. Anilionis wasn't specific enough when describing the restructuring of Bank MENATEP's debt.

Mr. Klyuvgant told the court that, once again, the prosecution failed to identify any material contradictions. Furthermore, he noted that the September 9 transcript came from an unknown criminal case. [Interrogation for case # 18/230252-02 was conducted by investigator Rusanova. -Eds.]

Mr. Lebedev told the court the prosecution should read all transcripts without needlessly extending Mr. Anilionis's in-court presence. Mr. Lebedev noted that the April 14 interrogation was conducted by investigator Nikandrov, who was listed in other procedural documents as a participating witness.

Mr. Khodorkovsky reminded the court that the defense was not making needless arguments when noting that there wasn't a single interrogation conducted in his and Mr. Lebedev's case. He explained that Mr. Anilionis's interrogations illustrated why the court could not issue a verdict in a case where witnesses were shown numerous documents during interrogation, yet those documents were unavailable to defendants and their attorneys because interrogations were being conducted for other criminal cases. Further, Mr. Khodorkovsky noted that based on some of his answers, Mr. Anilionis clearly did not pay full attention when reading some of the documents he was shown by Mr. Karimov, but the defense had no way to question Mr. Anilionis on documents absent from the case file.

Mr. Lakhtin's motion was granted. Before reading the September 9, 2004 transcript, Mr. Lakhtin told the court that investigator Rusanova made a mistake in writing down the case number, with correct case number being 18/41-03 and immediately began reading. The court prevented Mr. Lebedev from objecting to Mr. Lakhtin's offhanded procedural correction. The transcript itself contained testimony about Mr. Anilionis's tenure on VNK's Board of Directors. Mr. Anilionis testified that he voted in accordance with the position developed by YUKOS, as presented by Mr. Gololobov. Mr. Anilionis explained to Ms. Rusanova that he acted according to the wishes of YUKOS, VNK's majority shareholder. Ms. Rusanova, telling him that the investigation concluded that an embezzlement of Tomskneft, Achinskiy Refinery and other VNK subsidiaries' shares had occurred, asked Mr. Anilionis whether he knew of and had received any instructions concerning the event. Mr. Anilionis testified that he did not know anything about any alleged embezzlement.

The second transcript was about the purchase of Bank MENATEP collecting rights and YUKOS shares from Daiwa Europe, West Merchant Bank and Standard Bank London. Despite Mr. Lakhtin's earlier insistence that Mr. Anilionis provided detailed information on the subject, the transcript revealed that Mr. Anilionis was aware that YUKOS shares were pledged to secure a loan for the privatization of VNK, but he lacked any knowledge about actual details. What little he knew was learned from "overhearing brief conversations" at the sidelines of meetings called by Mr. Lebedev.

After Mr. Lakhtin finished, Mr. Anilionis affirmed all transcript testimony. A short break followed.

After the break, Mr. Krasnov motioned to read the remaining transcripts from the case file, as well as the transcript of Mr. Anilionis's testimony during the Malahovsky/Pereverzin trial in the Basmanny Court.

Mr. Lebedev, supporting Mr. Krasnov's motion, asked the court to postpone the start of Mr. Anilionis's interrogation until Monday. He explained that there were too many inconsistencies and omissions between transcripts and audiotapes heard in court and that the defense would need time to compare everything.

Mr. Lakhtin objected, arguing that the defense was violating the Criminal Procedure Code by attempting to delay the trial. Furthermore, Mr. Lakhtin argued that it was the prosecution's prerogative to decide what transcripts to enter into record. Finally, he decried what he called "the defense's attempts to analyze" Mr. Anilionis's testimony. As the court attempted to assure Mr. Lakhtin that no one was asking to conduct analysis of Mr. Anilionis's testimony, Mr. Lakhtin went on a rant about "19 attorneys, numerous experts and consultants who had plenty of time to analyze the evidence."

Judge Danilkin partially granted Mr. Krasnov's motion, allowing the defense to read the remaining transcripts. He postponed ruling on the request to read Basmanny Court transcript, explaining that he needed to verify that the transcript was in the case file.

Mr. Krasnov read three transcripts - from October 3, 2000, May 14, 2001, and October 14, 2003. In October 2000, after describing his work history, Mr. Anilionis was asked by investigator Shumilov why Mr. Anilionis, on September 3, 1998, wrote a letter in support of transferring VNK's management functions to YUKOS. Mr. Anilionis testified that after YUKOS acquired controlling block of VNK shares it made sense for Rosprom to manage VNK, because the former was connected with YUKOS. [Rosprom also managed YUKOS. -Eds.] Furthermore, Mr. Anilionis pointed out that all of Rosprom's functions were clearly defined in the company's by-laws. Mr. Anilionis testified that he did not possess any knowledge about the exchange of VNK subsidiary shares, because at the time of the exchange he was no longer serving on VNK's Board.

In May 2001 Mr. Anilionis was asked additional questions about the exchange of VNK subsidiaries' shares. He denied any knowledge of the exchange and, when presented with a letter supporting the exchange and signed by him, told investigator Shumilov that he always voted based on the materials he received before meetings of the board. In addition, Mr. Anilionis testified that he never asked any SP RTT employees to serve as directors of companies administered by SP RTT.

In October 2003 Mr. Anilionis met, once again, with investigator Shumilov. Written in a form of short answers, aside from his work history and confirmation of knowledge of certain persons, Mr. Anilionis answered "I'm not sure" and "I don't remember" to all of Mr. Shumilov's questions. [Notably, not one of these transcripts contained Messrs. Khodorkovsky and Lebedev's names or any questions about them. -Eds.]

Before the hearing was adjourned for lunch, Mr. Rivkin provided to the court the volume and page numbers of the Basmanny Court transcript containing Mr. Anilionis's testimony. Furthermore, Mr. Rivkin asked the court about the third audiotape containing Mr. Anilionis's interrogation, the one that came without the matching transcript.

Afternoon Session.

As the trial resumed, Mr. Krasnov asked Mr. Anilionis if the latter confirmed the testimony in the three transcripts read before lunch. Unlike the affirmation readily given to Mr. Lakhtin, Mr. Anilionis hedged, telling Mr. Krasnov that "whatever is written there that's what's in there." After being asked for the third time, Mr. Anilionis, with an obvious reluctance, affirmed the testimony from the aforementioned transcripts. Judge Danilkin inquired about Mr. Anilionis's hesitation and the latter explained that those interrogations took place a very long time ago. However, he declined a chance to re-examine the transcripts.

Mr. Rivkin told the court that the defense would not object if the prosecution needed time to figure out what happened to the transcript that was to accompany the third audiotape, assuming that there ever was a transcript. Judge Danilkin asked Mr. Lakhtin's opinion about playing back the third audiotape.

Mr. Lakhtin told the court that the defense was delaying the trial and proposed sending Mr. Anilionis on his way, because it was obvious that the defense did not have any questions. "There was no Anilionis audio recording being sent to court. That was Rybin's audiotape!" Mr. Lakhtin gave everyone another chance to laugh. Mr. Lakhtin insisted that the tape was specifically identified by investigators as containing Mr. Rybin's testimony on side A, thus side B, containing Mr. Anilionis's interrogation, was not even marked as having anything to do with Mr. Anilionis's testimony. If necessary, Mr. Lakhtin was ready to provide an official confirmation from the investigators.

Judge Danilkin, after listening to Mr. Lakhtin, read out loud what was written on the accompanying paperwork. Despite Mr. Lakhtin's assertions, investigators identified the tape as containing interrogations of both Messrs. Rybin and Anilionis. Judge Danilkin allowed Mr. Lakhtin time to obtain an explanation from the investigators.

Regarding the Malahovsky/Pereverzin transcript, Mr. Lakhtin insisted that there was a final verdict, it was res judicata, and the defense sought a revision in this court.

Mr. Rivkin addressed both of Mr. Lakhtin's statements. First, he noted that the audiotape was listed in the case materials, found in Volume 188. He told the court, once again, that the defense did not mind waiting for the prosecution to get an explanation from the investigators, because it was clear that such an explanation was necessary, since Mr. Lakhtin had a tendency to see things that were not there - like his earlier comment that investigator Rusanova mistyped the case number [in Mr. Anilionis's interrogation transcript from September 9, 2004]. Regardless of their answer, Mr. Rivkin insisted on the audiotape's playback. Second, Mr. Rivkin explained that in the Basmanny Court, Mr. Anilionis was questioned about the same events that he testified about in this courtroom. Mr. Lakhtin's assertions about any revision were baseless, particularly since the prosecution always insisted on examining evidence in its entirety.

Judge Danilkin granted the motion and Mr. Miroshnichenko began to read Mr. Anilionis's testimony from the Basmanny Court, where he testified in February 2007.

Answering the prosecution's questions, Mr. Anilionis testified the he had no doubt that Mr. Pereverzin knew Messrs. Khodorkovsky, Lebedev, Elfimov and Brudno, but he did not think that the former received any direct orders from Mr. Khodorkovsky. Mr. Anilionis did not doubt that Mr. Pereverzin received directives from Messrs. Lebedev and Brudno. Mr. Anilionis was asked similar questions and gave similar testimony about Behles Petroleum, South Petroleum and Baltic Petroleum as the ones heard in Khamovnicheskiy Court and in his interrogation transcripts.

When the defense took over, everyone in the Khamovnicheskiy Court immediately became aware that Mr. Anilionis lied in the Basmanny Court about his meetings with Mr. Karimov. Asked by Mr. Dudnik, Mr. Pereverzin's defense attorney, whether he knew Mr. Karimov and the last time he was questioned by the investigator, Mr. Anilionis testified that he was last interrogated by Mr. Karimov in 2003-2004 and not about [the events and circumstances Messrs. Malahovsky and Pereverzin were being tried for]. [As the transcripts found in the Khamovnicheskiy Court case materials prove, Mr. Anilionis was interrogated by Mr. Karimov at least two times within two months of testifying in Basmanny Court. -Eds.]

The transcript was interspersed with questions Mr. Dudnik posed to Mr. Pereverzin. Mr. Lakhtin objected, telling the court that the defense should not be allowed to read Mr. Pereverzin's answers. The defense convinced the judge that the entire transcript was relevant.

Mr. Dudnik asked Mr. Pereverzin whether Mr. Anilionis was correct in asserting that Mr. Lebedev sent Mr. Pereverzin to Cyprus. "That's his opinion. Lebedev did not send me to Cyprus," Mr. Pereverzin replied.

Mr. Anilionis, who previously testified that South Petroleum stopped entering into crude oil transactions after 2000, was shown contracts for purchase of crude oil dated in 2002. These contracts contained his signature. Crude oil was purchased from YUKOS. Asked to explain how South Petroleum transported crude oil through customs and how all contract terms were met, Mr. Anilionis declined, telling the court that he did not know how customs worked.

Mr. Anilionis testified that he did not know anything about Mr. Pereverzin being a member of an organized group together with Messrs. Khodorkovsky and Lebedev, nor about the alleged embezzlement of crude oil and laundering of the proceeds. He learned about these accusations from the mass media.

Mr. Anilionis, answering a question from Mr. Malahovsky's attorney, testified that he never personally heard Mr. Khodorkovsky tell anyone that "a new method was needed." But, Mr. Anilionis insisted that at one meeting he overheard Mr. Lebedev say that Mr. Khodorkovsky said that a new method was required. That was about Pronet Holdings Limited and Routhenhold Holdings Limited.

After Mr. Miroshnichenko concluded and Mr. Lakhtin requested a five minute break requested due to "health reasons," Mr. Anilionis affirmed the testimony from the Basmanny Court. The defense asked the court to adjourn until Monday.

The trial will resume on Monday, March 2, 10:00 Moscow Time.