Witness Testimony Summary: Tatyana Lysova
Testimony Dates:
Bio:
Ms. Lysova is the editor-in-chief of Vedomosti. Prior to that she was a journalist and covered the crude oil industry. YUKOS was one of the companies she followed closely and reported on.
Testimony Summary:
Ms. Lysova testified that she worked as a journalist from 1994 and specialized in reporting on the crude oil industry and crude oil companies since 1995. In 1999 she joined Vedomosti, first as the editor in the energy resources section. Rising through the ranks she became the paper's editor in chief. Ms. Lysova testified that she knew Mr. Khodorkovsky since 1995, while she met Mr. Lebedev for the first time either in 2000 or 2001.
Ms. Lysova testified that she collected information on YUKOS in connection with her journalistic activities, in order to be able to publish it. She explained that she had numerous sources of information: company press-conferences, meetings with YUKOS management and other employees, financial reports based on Russian and international accounting standards which the company published, information which was provided to financial analysts, statistics from various government agencies and other information.
Ms. Lysova testified that as a reporter she was most interested in the information on YUKOS crude oil production and financial results - specifically crude oil production and refining figures, how much oil was being exported, what the company's revenue and net profit were, as well as any pending acquisitions. According to Mr. Lysova, she was interested in how the company was managed and what its relationship was with its shareholders. According to Ms. Lysova, the information that was provided and that she was able to obtain from other sources was more than enough to form an opinion about YUKOS' business activity and to compare it with other crude oil companies.
Ms. Lysova testified that during 1998-2004 she never experienced a circumstance when YUKOS employees provided her with incorrect or misleading information. About major indicators - production volumes, revenue, profit - Ms. Lysova explained that the company was required to report these and the information was easily verified from government sources, particularly about crude oil production volumes and exports. The Central Dispatch Section of the Fuel-Energy Complex (CDS), which was part of the Fuel and Energy Ministry, maintained all crude oil related statistics, so even if YUKOS would have refused to disclose certain figures, journalists could obtain them from the government.
Mr. Klyuvgant explained that the indictment was replete with assertions that YUKOS concealed information about its results and lied to everyone, Ms. Lysova testified that prior to 2000 YUKOS was average amongst its peers. However, the situation markedly changed from 2000 on, with YUKOS beginning to work with investors and actively pursuing increase in the company's capitalization. Ms. Lysova explained that an open and easy access to information, which was easily verifiable, was an indispensable part of achieving that goal.
Ms. Lysova testified that beginning in 1999 YUKOS implemented an overhaul in the way the holding was managed, setting up a management structure which in many ways mirrored those of internationally known crude oil companies like Shell, BP and others. She explained that YUKOS had divisions dedicated to managing upstream and downstream. She explained that aside from some issues with shareholders of production subsidiaries, which were resolved and the company switched to single share, with shares of production subsidiaries being exchanged for the parent company's shares, YUKOS was not any different than its main competitor LUKOIL.
Ms. Lysova testified that it was a widely known fact that crude oil prices at which YUKOS production companied sold crude oil in production regions were several times lower than what the crude oil was selling for in European ports. This information was easily calculable from the figures found in the company's reporting. She noted that this difference was common to all crude oil companies within Russia and YUKOS was not an exception.
Ms. Lysova testified that through all of her time following and reporting on YUKOS she thought of Mr. Khodorkovsky, regardless of what his official title was at the time, as the head of YUKOS. She never encountered instances when Mr. Khodorkovsky tried to conceal the fact that he was running the company. He gave numerous interviews, participated in press-conferences, investor presentations and other events and always represented himself as the company's CEO. Ms. Lysova testified that it was obvious that Mr. Khodorkovsky was in charge of the company and its strategic direction.
Ms. Lysova testified that she knew nothing of crude oil embezzlement allegations and had no reason to suspect that something like this could even happen - in addition to the information provided by YUKOS, government agencies regularly provided information on the crude oil production volumes, how much of it was being delivered to refineries and how much of it was being exported. She added that it was impossible that YUKOS produced more than it was reporting and for that crude oil to have disappeared without anyone noticing, particularly since reporting to the CDS was automated.
Prosecution, instead of probing substantive information, focused on attempting to discredit Ms. Lysova by posing baseless and insulting questions. "While working for Vedomosti and other business-media, what kind of payments did you receive for your services from organizations controlled by Khodorkovsky and Lebedev?" prosecutor Lakhtin began the initial salvo. The next question was about how Ms. Lysova organized publications in the interest of Messrs. Khodorkovsky and Lebedev or edited information provided by their defense counsel. Mr. Lysova replied in the negative to both questions. "So was it a ‘yes' or a ‘no'"? Prosecutor Lakhtin dithered. He repeated the question about organizing publications for Messrs. Khodorkovsky and Lebedev. Another answer in the negative.
Prosecutor Lakhtin sought information on how Ms. Lysova covered the story on GML's disclosure of its ownership structure. Ms. Lysova explained that after GML published the information on its website, she called Mr. Khodorkovsky and sought his commentary for a story she published. The subject of the story was that Mr. Khodorkovsky, through GML, owned 51% of the company, putting his 2002 net worth at around $7.8 billion USD. Prosecutor Lakhtin demanded to know how Mr. Khodorkovsky corrected the information in Ms. Lysova's story. Ms. Lysova assured the court that he did not, in any way.
"What do you mean?! It's obvious the public information was not enough for you. You called Khodorkovsky. Why did you call him? If you're an independent journalist, then public information should have been enough for you! You needed some corrections, or were you scared to publish your article without checking with him first?" prosecutor Lakhtin began building his own theories. Judge Danilkin cautioned the prosecutor, but the latter would not let up, seeking the purpose of Ms. Lysova's conversation with Mr. Khodorkovsky. Ms. Lysova explained that at the time, June 2002, Mr. Khodorkovsky was the first head of a major company to disclose publically how much of the company he owned. "This was an important event and I sought out his commentary on why he decided to take this step, what reaction he expected from the business community and what consequences may follow," Ms. Lysova told the court. She explained that it was important to get comments from the event's key participant.
"So this article was published. And the payment for this lengthy article? I know the payment system in newspapers. Did you get a deposit into your personal account or into the paper's?" prosecutor Lakhtin stated derisively. Mr. Klyuvgant objected, telling the judge he should not allow this. "Of course it's allowed! It's necessary!" prosecutor insisted. Judge Danilkin inquired how the prosecutor knew that Ms. Lysova was paid. ‘That's what I want to know. You didn't publish the article due to altruistic motives, did you?" prosecutor Lakhtin continued.
Prosecutor Ibragimova wanted to know what kind of articles Ms. Lysova published about Mr. Lebedev. Ms. Lysova asked if the prosecutor meant about his business activities. "Look, I don't know what kind of relationship you have with Lebedev, so what else would you write about?" the prosecutor insinuated something. Mr. Lebedev laughed, while the gallery murmured in outrage.
Prosecutor Ibragimova asked who invited Ms. Lysova to come to Khamovnicheskiy Court. Ms. Lysova testified that she was invited by defense counsel. "Did you get any additional payments... We can see that Khodorkovsky and Lebedev were happy with your coverage of their activities, so what kinds of bonuses or privileges did you receive?" prosecutor Ibragimova returned to prosecutor Lakhtin's line of questions. Ms. Lysova told the court that she did not know if Messrs. Khodorkovsky and Lebedev were happy with her articles and she wasn't interested to know. Furthermore, Vedomosti did not have bonuses based on publications about specific companies.
The big insult came towards the end of Ms. Lysova's testimony. Prosecutor Lakhtin told the court that he literally had just one more question. "So why did you agree to come here and testify? Why are you so interested in Khodorkovsky and Lebedev?! Are you their personal PR flunky?" prosecutor Lakhtin demanded from Ms. Lysova.
Ms. Lysova, head held high, told the court that she came to Khamovnicheskiy Court in the interest of justice. "If my testimony can help the court establish the truth, I am ready to do my civic duty," Ms. Lysova stated.