Witness Testimony Summary: Natalya Petrosyan
Bio:
Natalya Petrosyan was an associate at ALM-Feldmans law firm.
Transcript Reading Dates:
Transcripts Summary:
In a March 3 letter, Ms. Petrosyan informed the court that she was now living in Germany with her son, who was seriously ill, and would not be able to come in to testify. Ms. Petrosyan asked for her interrogation transcripts, which she preemptively affirmed, to be entered into evidence. The defense objected, telling the court that the circumstances in Ms. Petrosyan's letter were not enumerated in the Criminal Procedure Code for determining the witness's unavailability - the witness's death, his illness, being a foreign citizen or being a victim of a natural disaster. Furthermore, reading of interrogation transcripts without calling the witness in to testify violated the defendants' rights, because the defendants did not have an opportunity to ask those questions the investigators neglected or purposefully did not ask.
The first transcript was of interrogation which took place on November 15, 2004. Ms. Petrosyan was represented by Mr. Ivlev, deputy-managing partner at ALM-Feldmans law firm. [Notably, both Ms. Petrosyan and Mr. Ivlev would be interrogated separately a day later. -Eds.] Investigator Khatypov questioned Ms. Petrosyan about her connection with Nassaubridge Management Limited, Fargoil's shareholder. Ms. Petrosyan testified that she worked with numerous international clients because of her knowledge of the English language. Her representation of Nassaubridge Management was assigned to her by Mr. Ivlev and was part of legal services that ALM-Feldmans provided to YUKOS. Ms. Petrosyan testified that she was issued a general power of attorney to represent Nassaubridge Management's interests.
On November 16, 2004, Ms. Petrosyan was questioned by investigator Sakharova. The interrogation lasted less than an hour, with Ms. Petrosyan answering questions about Silkmillenium Trading and Investments Ltd., a company for which Ms. Petrosyan acted as an authorized representative for a short period of time. At the end of her interrogation, Ms. Petrosyan noted that in providing legal representation to her clients, including acting pursuant to a power of attorney, she acted in accordance with Russian laws, with professional rules and regulations and only according to enumerated authority in power of attorney letters.
On December 23, 2004, Ms. Petrosyan, after Ms. Rusanova began interrogating her, refused to testify without an attorney being present.
On December 24, Ms. Petrosyan was interrogated in the presence of Mr. Kuznetsov, her attorney. Ms. Rusanova began the interrogation by demanding to know if Ms. Petrosyan chose Mr. Kuznetsov to represent her. Even after Ms. Petrosyan answered that she hired Ms. Kuznetsov, Ms. Rusanova continued to insist that Mr. Kuznetsov represented Mr. Ivlev and was acting against Ms. Petrosyan's interests. Furthermore, Ms. Rusanova insisted Mr. Kuznetsov was sending interrogation transcripts to Mr. Ivlev, which proved a conflict of interest. Ms. Rusanova, despite Ms. Petrosyan's insistence that Mr. Kuznetsov should remain in the room, offered Ms. Petrosyan a chance to refuse Mr. Kuznetsov's representation, but Ms. Petrosyan did not.
The interrogation topic, once again, was Silkmillenium Trading and Investments. Ms. Petrosyan, looking at a power of attorney, once again testified that she was appointed to be Silkmillenium's authorized representative in the Russian Federation for a one month term. She explained that being an authorized representative meant representing the company's interests, to sign any documents she was authorized to sign and to open and manage bank accounts according to the company's instructions.
Mr. Kuznetsov added handwritten comments at the end of the interrogation. He wrote that the interrogation began in an impermissible manner, with investigator Rusanova providing the witness with false information about Mr. Kuznetsov's contacts with Mr. Ivlev. Mr. Kuznetsov wrote that, as Ms. Petrosyan's attorney, he considered Ms. Rusanova's statements to be nothing short of a provocation towards Ms. Petrosyan with the intent to compromise Ms. Petrosyan's attorney.
On December 27, Ms. Rusanova continued to interrogate Ms. Petrosyan. [Interrogation took place at the hospital where Ms. Petrosyan's son was being treated. -Eds.] Ms. Rusanova continued to question Ms. Petrosyan about Nassaubridge Management and Silkmillenium Trading, as well as Fargoil's dividend payments to Nassaubridge. Ms. Rusanova characterized these payments as funds that were embezzled from crude oil production and refining companies and laundered with Ms. Petrosyan's participation. Ms. Petrosyan denied any participation in embezzlement and laundering.
On December 27, Ms. Rusanova questioned Ms. Rusanova on how attorneys at ALM-Feldmans were being compensated for their work. Using documents that were seized from the law firm's offices, including documents dealing exclusively with matters internal to the law firm, Ms. Rusanova demanded to know why ALM-Feldmans implemented a compensation policy whereby its attorneys would be paid part of the compensation as dividends from a company based on Cyprus. Ms. Petrosyan testified that decision to approve this method of compensation was made by the law firm's partners. According to Ms. Petrosyan, everyone filed appropriate returns with tax regulators, with the latter not raising any issues concerning this type of arrangement.
Mr. Kuznetsov, Ms. Petrosyan's attorney, left another comment. He wrote that during the interrogation investigator Rusanova regularly violated Ms. Petrosyan's right to consult with her attorney, including by preventing Mr. Kuznetsov from offering brief consultations during interrogation.