Witness Testimony Summary: Olga Dmitriyeva
Testimony Dates:
Bio:
Olga Dmitriyeva is the current Finance Director at AO Tomskneft VNK. Ms. Dmitriyeva joined Tomskneft in May 2001 as deputy-Finance Director and ascended to her current post in January 2002. Prior to joining Tomskneft, Ms. Dmitriyeva rose through the ranks at Yuganskneftegaz, where she began working in 1993.
Testimony Summary:
On direct, Ms. Dmitriyeva was questioned extensively on her knowledge of loans made in July and August of 2004 by YUKOS Capital S.a.r.l. to Tomskneft. Ms. Dmitriyeva signed all three loan agreements on Tomskneft's behalf. Ms. Dmitriyeva testified that she received the first agreement accompanied by a resolution of YUKOS - Tomskneft's sole shareholder - authorizing Tomskneft to obtain loans from YUKOS Capital totaling not more than 4.35 billion Rubles, as well as a power of attorney authorizing her to enter into loan agreement. Each subsequent loan agreement was accompanied by a single use power of attorney, authorizing her signature for a specific loan amount. Ms. Dmitriyeva testified that the decision to obtain the aforementioned loans was made by YUKOS, Tomskneft's sole shareholder. Ms. Dmitriyeva testified that she never objected to signing these loan agreements, because a decision by the sole Tomskneft shareholder seemed sufficient. Ms. Dmitriyeva testified that she could not refuse to sign, first because there was a decision made by the shareholder, second, because Tomskneft was in a difficult financial position. Ms. Dmitriyeva explained that she thought these loans were unnecessary because Tomskneft was going to receive revenue from crude oil exports, and if the counter-party (YUKOS) had issues, it should have been the one to take out loans. According to Ms. Dmitriyeva, interest payments were calculated, but interest was never paid.
On cross-examination, Ms. Dmitriyeva testified that she wasn't sure that she knew the General Prosecutor's office froze all of YUKOS's bank accounts, preventing the company from transferring payments to its production subsidiaries. Pressed further, Ms. Dmitriyeva testified that when she told investigators she thought the loans were unnecessary she did not know that the only way for Tomskneft to receive emergency funds was through a loan agreement. Ms. Dmitriyeva did not know why the loan hadn't been paid back once Tomskneft got access to funds from crude oil sales. Ms. Dmitriyeva explained that no one made a decision to do so and she did not know why. According to Ms. Dmitriyeva, Tomskneft continued to calculate the interest on the loan and to reflect it in its statements. She confirmed that the loan hasn't been repaid still. According to Ms. Dmitriyeva, there was a proceeding underway to determine whether YUKOS Capital S.a.r.l.'s claim against Tomskneft should be enforced. Ms. Dmitriyeva explained Tomskneft's position at that proceeding - the company believed that the loan was made from funds that were actually Tomskneft's profits and should not be paid back.
Ms. Dmitriyeva testified that, at least in 2003, PwC audited Tomskneft. Ms. Dmitriyeva testified that PwC auditors visited Tomsk. There were at least 3 of them. She met with some of them. She explained that they had questions about the settling of accounts with counter-parties. According to Ms. Dmitriyeva, settlement acts contained information on who owed what to whom. Ms. Dmitriyeva testified that auditor's reports did not contain conclusions that there was any embezzlement of crude oil. Ms. Dmitriyeva confirmed that as of March 10, 2010, PwC did not recall any Tomskneft audits.
Ms. Dmitriyeva testified that she was never ordered to do anything illegal. Her functions and those of her Directorate were clearly defined.
Ms. Dmitriyeva testified that she did not know the substance of the criminal case for which she was interrogated in 2007 or the substance of the case as she was testifying in the courtroom. Ms. Dmitriyeva seemed surprised to learn that Tomskneft was a party to the case, as a victim of crude oil embezzlement. When she was informed by Mr. Lebedev that he was accused of embezzling the entire crude oil production from 1998 through 2003, Ms. Dmitriyeva was unable to restrain her chuckle. She admitted that what she knew about the case she learned from the news media - no one briefed her on the specifics. Ms. Dmitriyeva testified that she was a member of Tomskneft's upper management, but no one informed her that the company was a party in this case. This information was not included in Tomskneft's financial statements. Ms. Dmitriyeva reiterated that she was not aware of any changes in Tomskneft's accounting to reflect the alleged embezzlement. Ms. Dmitriyeva testified that she did not participate in crude oil inventory, but inventory was performed by production departments and accounting. Ms. Dmitriyeva testified that no instances of crude oil embezzlement were ever found. Furthermore, Ms. Dmitriyeva testified that she never saw losses from crude oil embezzlement being reflected in Tomskneft's financial statements for years 2004 and on.
Ms. Dmitriyeva readily confirmed that salaries were paid, utilities and services were paid for and capital investments were made. However, as soon as the talk drifted towards acknowledgement that what Tomskneft received for its crude oil was more than enough to cover its crude oil production costs and other costs, Ms. Dmitriyeva would either forget or tell the court that she needed to review documents before answering the question.
Ms. Dmitriyeva insisted that she did not know how Tomskneft's crude oil price was calculated, even as she testified earlier that her department developed monthly budgets based anticipated crude oil prices. She testified that she never cared to find out how crude oil price was calculated. Ms. Dmitriyeva was still unable to explain why tax authorities found Tomskneft to have been under-reporting profits in 2001-2003.