Courtroom Update: December 14, 2009
[To supplement our report from last Friday's hearing we are adding another excerpt from correspondence between investigator Mikhailov and Douglas Miller, which Mr. Lebedev read for the court.
Mr. Mikhailov, responding to Mr. Miller's question about testimony expected from PricewaterhouseCoopers employees to be called as witnesses stated: "Each witness testimony from your company's employees should be unified. Meaning each testifies about the same. The same way. And the same way (attacking and aggressive) towards defense. Of course, based on what each witness knows."
Addressing Mr. Miller's request about getting the prosecution to submit their questions to each witness in advance of their testifying in court, Mr. Mikhailov responded: "Having carefully analyzed you [transcripts] and remembering our recent conversations, you should understand the [general] substance of these questions. We should formulate specific questions together, after you [analyze] the situation."
Judge Danilkin cut Mr. Lebedev short, telling him he fully understood Mr. Lebedev's intent. -Eds.]
This afternoon a panel of judges of the Moscow City Court denied the defense attorney's petition to set aside Judge Danilkin's order extending Messrs. Khodorkovsky and Lebedev's arrest and confinement in investigative isolation custody until February 17, 2010.
Arguing to set aside the order, Ms. Liptser explained that Messrs. Khodorkovsky and Lebedev's rights were violated because their arrest and confinement at Matrosskaya Tishina SIZO placed them in substantially worse conditions than a verdict of Meschanskiy Court, sentencing them serve time in a penal colony. Ms. Liptser noted that the Moscow City Court ignored this argument and referenced Article 77 of the Penal Code. Furthermore, Ms. Liptser told the panel that the presiding judge of Khamovnicheskiy Court did not fully examine and address the defense's arguments in his decision to extend detention. Ms. Liptser argued this violated the defendants' Constitutional rights and rights set forth in Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights, because decisions sanctioning or extending arrest should contain proof that evidence supporting arrest or extension of detention actually exists. None of Judge Danilkin's orders contain such evidence.
Mr. Saikin compared Judge Danilkin's decision with an order issued by a panel of judges from Russian Supreme Court. The panel explained to lower courts that a decision to sanction an arrest or to extend detention should contain analysis of the evidence that an alleged crime could have been committed. Mr. Saikin asked the appeals panel to consider how Judge Danilkin could have found such evidence when the main charge in the indictment - the theft of 350 million tons of crude oil - was absurd on its face. Further, Mr. Saikin argued that Judge Danilkin continued to fail to take into account any new circumstances that took place since the time Messrs. Khodorkovsky and Lebedev's arrest was sanctioned by a court in Chita three years ago. The result was a continued re-examination of Ingondinskiy Court's decision.
Mr. Lakhtin told the appeals panel that a panel of Russian Supreme Court judges did not set the law and, citing their opinion as precedent, was not becoming of an attorney. Next Mr. Lakhtin proffered new reasons for why the defendants should continue to remain under arrest. First, he told the panel that the defendants could be paroled. Also, referring to the defense's impending deposition of Douglas Miller, Mr. Lakhtin argued that it was an example of witness tampering and pressure on foreign courts to subpoena witnesses.
It took the appeals panel approximately 10 minutes to return with a ruling denying the defense petition.
At today's hearing, Ms. Tatyana Vedeneyeva explained how crude oil auctions were organized, how crude oil of transported and, in general terms, what happened to crude oil after it was extracted.
Ms. Vedeneyeva worked at a number of YUKOS subsidiaries, including Yukos-RM and YUKOS-M. The department where Ms. Vedeneyeva worked managed contracts for crude oil deliveries to refineries, ports and various companies. After being informed by Mr. Elfimov that their department would manage crude oil auctions organized by YUKONEKS-Broker, Ms. Vedeneyeva was tasked with preparing up to 200 auction-related documents each month. Although there was interest from outside companies, only companies within YUKOS participated in these auctions. Outside companies found auction terms to be economically disadvantageous. Further, these companies would not have been able to make necessary arrangements to transport a million or more tons of crude oil. Ms. Vedeneyeva testified that traders resold crude oil for more than they paid for it. All agreements between traders and production companies were fully performed.
During the afternoon session, while questioned by Mr. Khodorkovsky, Ms. Vedeneyeva looked surprised when asked questions about "embezzlement." She did not know what that meant in relation to crude oil and seemed to have a hard time imagining the physical act involved. About crude oil production, Ms. Vedeneyeva explained that crude oil was extracted, then went to a facility where it was processed to market grade condition, then transferred onto Transneft. From there it could go to a refinery, a storage facility, or straight for export. Regarding exports, Ms. Vedeneyeva confirmed that due to an export quota system, no company could sell 100% of its production for export. Explaining contracts for purchase of as yet un-extracted crude oil, Ms. Vedeneyeva told the court that transportation of crude oil through Transneft's network needed to be planned and scheduled in advance.
The trial will resume on Tuesday, December 15, 10:30 Moscow Time.