Khodorkovsky & Lebedev Communications Center

Morning Session.

Mr. Anilionis returned to the witness stand. Judge Danilkin asked, in view of Mr. Anilionis's last appearance in court, whether Mr. Anilionis had any feelings of personal animosity towards defendants and could testify objectively. Mr. Anilionis told the court that he could not guarantee his objectivity. Judge Danilkin allowed cross-examination to proceed.

Mr. Lebedev's "Good Morning" was met with Mr. Anilionis's silence. Mr. Lebedev returned to promissory note sales contracts concluded between South Petroleum and Baltic Petroleum, as sellers, with Arley Ltd., as a buyer. [Mr. Anilionis had difficulties with the substance of these contracts on March 1 - the content in these contracts contradicted Mr. Anilionis's statements to investigator Karimov and to the court. -Eds.] Mr. Lebedev asked Mr. Anilionis to explain to the court whether on February 24, when Mr. Lakhtin questioned Mr. Anilionis while showing these contracts, the information contained there was different than what Mr. Anilionis saw on March 1, and if these contracts, indeed, showed Arley selling "worthless candy wrappers" to Baltic and South, in order to commit "blatant theft."

In what would become Mr. Anilionis's standard answer to this line of questions, he told the court that he could have forgotten something and, therefore, chose not to answer invoking his right not to testify against himself. Judge Danilkin told Mr. Lebedev to move on to the next question.

Mr. Lebedev did not change the topic. Mr. Anilionis continued to refuse to answer when Mr. Lebedev asked if, while being interrogated by Mr. Karimov, Mr. Anilionis saw different content in the aforementioned contracts. Mr. Anilionis told the court that he would not testify against himself.

Mr. Anilionis refused to tell the court whether the contracts he handed over to investigator Karimov were the same contracts he was discussing with the investigator and was now being shown in court. Mr. Anilionis told the court that he was not an expert, would not be able to recognize if documents were falsified and could not do anything else.

Mr. Lakhtin interrupted with a demand for Mr. Lebedev to cite to the official trial transcript when Mr. Lebedev asked if Mr. Anilionis testified according to what investigators expected to conform to the indictment. Mr. Anilionis told the court that he could not answer Mr. Lebedev's question. He denied knowing what was in the indictment.

Mr. Anilionis, examining the South Petroleum contract, testified that it was his signature which appeared on South Petroleum's behalf. He refused to confirm where the signing took place. When confronted with his description of the events from a few weeks earlier, Mr. Anilionis, once again, told the court that he was unable to answer.

After a short break, Mr. Lebedev turned the floor over to Mr. Krasnov. Mr. Krasnov asked if Mr. Anilionis was still the subject of a criminal investigation, as was reported in the media. While Mr. Lakhtin was demanding for the defense to stop pressuring the witness, Mr. Anilionis assured Mr. Krasnov that his information was outdated.

Asked if he took part in a working group developing strategy to protect YUKOS shares, Mr. Anilionis, almost sneering, told Mr. Krasnov that he did not check his work history "prior to going to sleep." Mr. Krasnov asked Mr. Anilionis to explain a 1999 document showing him being a member of such working group. Mr. Anilionis told the court that SP RTT was doing some work for YUKOS. Mr. Krasnov's question about whether Mr. Anilionis was particularly trusted, as was evidenced by his membership on VNK's Board of Directors or as part of the aforementioned working group, was answered with insistence that all of these were part of a normal working relationship.

Mr. Krasnov asked whether Mr. Anilionis realized that, at the time he served on VNK's Board, he represented the interests of VNK's owners. Mr. Anilionis confirmed that was the case. Mr. Krasnov asked whether Messrs. Khodorkovsky and Lebedev were among VNK's owners, but Mr. Anilionis insisted that it did not matter who the owners were - he always acted according to Mr. Gololobov's instructions.

Mr. Krasnov asked if Mr. Anilionis acted voluntarily or if anyone pressured him to act a certain way. Mr. Anilionis sought to decline to answer, telling the court that no matter what the answer was, he would be thought of as being incorrect. Judge Danilkin asked Mr. Anilionis to answer and Mr. Anilionis admitted that no one forced him to act a certain way.

Mr. Lakhtin began objecting continuously as Mr. Krasnov attempted to find out what Mr. Anilionis remembered about his vote to approve the VNK share exchange. Mr. Lakhtin argued that Mr. Krasnov sought to use Mr. Anilionis's answers to form an opinion about what happened. Meanwhile, Mr. Anilionis did not remember whether Rosprom managed VNK, whether any SP RTT employees served on Rosprom's Board and whether Rosprom made a decision to implement the VNK share exchange.

Mr. Krasnov was asking if Messrs. Anilionis and Kraynov discussed Rosprom's approval of the VNK share exchange, but Mr. Anilionis sought to put a categorical answer on everything Mr. Krasnov was asking about by telling him that he and Mr. Kraynov did not discuss anything at all. Judge Danilkin asked Mr. Anilionis to wait for Mr. Krasnov to finish asking a question before answering.

After a short break, Mr. Miroshnichenko took over for Mr. Krasnov. He asked if Mr. Anilionis, while his work was connected with Bank MENATEP, Rosprom and YUKOS, considered himself as being involved in anything illegal. Mr. Anilionis was ready to declare that at not time he was involved in any illegal activity.

Mr. Miroshnichenko sought to find out if Mr. Anilionis knew that, according to the indictment, all crude oil purchase transactions with participation of companies registered and managed by SP RTT were a sham. Mr. Anilionis told the court the he never read the indictment. Mr. Miroshnichenko asked whether Mr. Anilionis, through his testimony, was helping the prosecution to prove Messrs. Khodorkovsky and Lebedev's guilt. Mr. Anilionis, while explaining that he could not answer the question, told the court that he wasn't here to prove anyone's guilt, to accuse anyone or to defend anyone.

Mr. Lebedev returned to Mr. Anilionis's interrogation by Mr. Karimov. Mr. Lebedev asked why Mr. Anilionis lied to the court by affirming his transcripts, including his statement to Mr. Karimov that "YUKOS sent Gusarov to Geneva." Mr. Anilionis insisted that he was not lying to the court - Mr. Gusarov worked in Geneva with Behles, Baltic and South and these companies traded YUKOS crude oil. According to Mr. Anilionis, Mr. Gusarov, while in Geneva, almost certainly worked for YUKOS.

Mr. Lakhtin, changing strategy, demanded for Mr. Lebedev to stop citing to the transcripts. According to Mr. Lakhtin, only the prosecution was allowed to cite to the interrogation transcripts of prosecution's witnesses.

Mr. Lebedev asked if Mr. Anilionis remembered that in 1994 Bank MENATEP received authorization from Russia's Central Bank to acquire 100% of MENATEP S.A., which was based in Geneva and that it was Mr. Lebedev who sent Mr. Gusarov to manage MENATEP S.A. that same year. Mr. Anilionis did not remember. Mr. Lebedev asked what position Mr. Gusarov had at YUKOS, but, as was the case most of the time, Mr. Anilionis did not remember.

Mr. Lebedev turned to another one of Mr. Anilionis's interrogation transcripts and, once again, pointed out "inconsistencies" in Mr. Anilionis's testimony. Mr. Anilionis was unable to explain how he was able to take part in incorporating Behles Petroleum in 1972. Or how he and Mr. Gulin purchased and registered South Petroleum

Prior to lunch, Mr. Lebedev told Mr. Anilionis that he was going to have him examine documents which Mr. Anilionis brought with him to his interrogation. Mr. Anilionis told the court that he wasn't the only one to bring documents - investigators told him and his employees that they had a choice to bring the documents or their offices will be "turned upside down" when investigators conducted search and seizure. Mr. Lebedev asked about some of these documents - South Petroleum's financial statements, in particular. Mr. Anilionis denied knowing if the information found in financial statements was correct. Mr. Lebedev asked why Mr. Anilionis relied on it when interrogated by Mr. Karimov. Mr. Anilionis did not remember.

Afternoon Session.

Mr. Lebedev asked Mr. Anilionis to explain his answer in Basmanny Court that the last time he was interrogated by investigator Karimov was in 2003-2004. Mr. Anilionis told the court that he meant that he was not interrogated for the Malahovsky/Pereverzin case when Mr. Anilionis questioned him in December 2006 and January 2007.

Mr. Lakhtin objected to this line of questioning, telling the court that the verdict in the Malahovsky/Pereverzin trial was in force and was not subject to revision. According to Mr. Lakhtin, Mr. Anilionis should not be questioned on any of the circumstances surrounding that trial.

Mr. Lebedev attempted to question Mr. Anilionis on the latter's knowledge of Peter Bond's acquisition of Baltic Petroleum and South Petroleum, including Mr. Anilionis's attendance at a YUKOS meeting where Stephen Curtis was offering to sell his shares in crude oil trading companies to YUKOS. Mr. Anilionis did not remember anything, telling the court that he left the meeting before the aforementioned discussions. Then, preemptively, he told Mr. Lebedev that he did not remember anything and would not remember even if shown additional documents.

Mr. Lebedev asked about audits PwC conducted for Behles Petroleum, Baltic Petroleum and South Petroleum. Mr. Anilionis told the court that he did not know anything about this topic. Mr. Lebedev asked how Mr. Anilionis was able to discuss these audits with Mr. Karimov. Mr. Anilionis did not remember.

Mr. Lebedev did not have anymore questions. Mr. Lakhtin, without waiting for the court to inquire if defense had additional questions, asked the court for Volume 100. The court's comment that Mr. Lakhtin should wait until the court inquired if defense had any other questions was met with Mr. Lakhtin's assurance that they did not. Mr. Lakhtin asked for a five minute break to allow him to review the volume.

Mr. Lakhtin received the court's permission to announce a letter from a Geneva-based law firm about a case Karran Tankers Ltd. initiated against a former employee, Charles Nahas, who set up accounts to embezzle funds from the company. Mr. Mohammed Mardam Bey was informing Mr. Drel about the current status of the case. The letter was dated August 15, 2003. Mr. Lakhtin insisted that the letter was relevant to the current proceeding because it mentioned Mr. Anilionis and Mr. Lebedev.

Mr. Lebedev reminded the court of where he was since July 2003 and, also, noted that Mr. Khodorkovsky's name wasn't even mentioned. [The letter mentioned Mr. Lebedev's named in connection with an explanation that Mr. Nahas may want to call as witnesses a number of people, including Mr. Lebedev. -Eds.] Mr. Lebedev wondered what Mr. Anilionis was expected to clarify about this letter.

No one knew why Mr. Nahas was important and, after Mr. Anilionis told Mr. Lakhtin that he did not remember what this whole episode was about, Judge Danilkin struck Mr. Lakhtin's questions. Mr. Lakhtin began arguing with the court, telling the judge that Mr. Anilionis was not being given a chance to give "all encompassing testimony."

Mr. Lakhtin turned to questions about Mr. Peter Levonowich and what he had to do with selling YUKOS crude oil. Mr. Anilionis, telling the prosecutor that this was the fourth time he was talking about the same thing, explained that Mr. Levonowich sold crude oil and petroleum products. Mr. Lakhtin began asking about the "Geneva office," which prompted the court to ask what "Geneva office" the prosecutor was asking about. Mr. Lakhtin started arguing with the court, once again, and accused defense of preemptively trying to disrupt his line of questions and threatened, to growing laughter, to continue asking these questions well into the week.

In Volume 105 Mr. Lakhtin found payment confirmations from Jamblick Limited to Peter Levonowich, made during January-April 1997. Mr. Khodorkovsky approached the microphone and attempted to object, but Mr. Lakhtin had his mind set on not allowing Mr. Khodorkovsky to put a word in. He yelled that a defendant had no right to interrupt the prosecutor - that right was not granted under Russian or international laws. Judge Danilkin reminded the prosecutor that defendants had a right to object. But Mr. Lakhtin insisted that he was being prevented from exercising his rights as a prosecutor. Judge Danilkin asked Mr. Lakhtin to take a seat.

Mr. Khodorkovsky told the court that anything prior to January 1, 1998, was beyond the scope of the charges. Furthermore, no one was alleging that Mr. Levonowich was a member of an organized group. Mr. Khodorkovsky told the court that if prosecution would be allowed to ask questions about anyone who was mentioned in the indictment, he hoped the court would not prevent him from asking questions about Rosneft, prosecutor Lakhtin, and others.

Mr. Lebedev asked what Mr. Lakhtin was expecting Mr. Anilionis to remember about some "Geneva office" and 1997 payments to Mr. Levonowich and what any of this had to do with Mr. Khodorkovsky and him.

Mr. Anilionis could not shed any light on what Mr. Lakhtin was asking, telling the court that, aside from knowing that Jamblick Limited periodically made various payments, he did not know much else about the company.

There were no more questions for Mr. Anilionis from either side and he was free to leave.

The trial will resume on Tuesday, March 16, 10:30 Moscow Time.