The “Kirovles Case.” Court Video Recording. Hearing 11

Good afternoon. In the Leninsky District Court

of the city of Kirov, in an open court

session, the hearing continues in the

criminal case against Navalny.

and Ofitserov. The composition of the court has not changed.

The parties are present. At the previous

court hearing

the court finished examining the fifteenth

volume of the criminal case. Uh, the state

prosecutors

proposed examining the sixteenth volume

and indicated the relevant pages of the case file. Do the parties agree

to continue and proceed to the sixteenth volume?

>> Yes, Your Honor, of course.

>> The opinion of defendant Ofitserov?

>> The sixteenth volume. Do you agree to continue

with the examination? Agreed.

>> Yes.

>> Yes.

>> Yes. So, we have a motion. Well, let me first

hear the parties' views on the possibility

of continuing, and then I will hear your

motion.

>> Understood. Defense counsel?

>> I am not even objecting. Well, understood.

Defense counsel Mikhailova.

>> Defense counsel

>> a motion

>> A motion. What is it about?

Your Honor, we previously submitted

a motion to exclude the record in which

the attesting witnesses listed, uh,

do not reside at the addresses

specified in the record. We sent

requests to the Northern

Territorial Bureau of Technical

Inventory and to the Southeastern

Territorial Bureau of

Technical Inventory, as well as to

Mosgorspravka (Moscow city address information service).

Responses to these requests have been received. So,

the Northern BTI reviewed our request

and stated that the address, Moscow, Ulitsa

Yuna, building 22, is not listed in the Northern BTI archive or

in its database of residential and non-residential properties.

And from the

Southeastern BTI we received a response

that Volochaevskaya Street, building 4/3,

is likewise not listed in the BTI archive. In addition,

from Mosgorspravka

we received a response stating that

according to the data of Mosgorspravka and the service

maintaining citywide classifiers

for the city of Moscow, as of May 2013, the addresses

Volochaevskaya Street, building 4/3, residential, in

the city of Moscow, do not exist. Ulitsa

Yunata, building 22, residential, in the city of Moscow, does not

exist.

And, in fact, we would like to submit

yes, and in addition,

the information was also obtained from postal

service offices by telephone. This is also indicated in this

certificate. And I would like to present for the court's review the originals

of the requests

made by counsel and these certificates, and

to add copies of these

documents to the case file.

Do the defendants support the motion filed?

Defendant Ofitserov?

>> Defendant Navalny?

>> We support it.

>> Defense counsel? Defense counsel Kozlov?

>> I support it.

>> Does the prosecution need to review these

documents?

>> Yes, Your Honor, I would like to familiarize myself with them.

Please do. Mm-hmm.

Does the prosecution have any objections to the motion

as filed?

>> At the request of the defense, the court adds

to the criminal case file copies

of counsel's requests and

certificates received from the BTI

and from Mosgorspravka; they are added as copies.

The originals are returned to the defense.

Accordingly, counsel's request dated

May 27, 2013, is read out, according to which

attorney Mikhailova, uh,

requested from the Northern BTI

the Territorial Bureau of Technical

information

on whether the BTI database contains a residential property

located at the address: Moscow, Yunatov

22.

A response was received from the Moscow City

Bureau of Technical Inventory stating

that at the address Moscow, Yunatov 22,

nothing is listed in the archive; it is not registered.

Next, attorney Mikhailova's request to the

Southeastern Territorial Bureau

of Technical Inventory

regarding whether the BTI database contains a residential property at

the address Moscow, Volchaevskaya Street,

4/3.

The response from this bureau, according to the second

request, states that Volchavskaya Street 4/3 is not registered with the BTI.

The request to Mosgorspravka,

or rather the response from Mosgorspravka,

addressed to Mark Sergeyevich Kukharenko,

according to which

it is reported that according to the data of

Mosgorspravka and the service maintaining citywide

classifiers for the city of Moscow, as of

May 2013, the address Volochavskaya 4/3

as a residential address in Moscow does not exist. Yunatov 22

as a residential address in the city of Moscow does not exist.

And a certificate from the

Moscow City Bar Association

to Judge Blinov states

that Kukharenko Mark Sergeyevich

is a trainee lawyer with the Moscow

City Bar Association.

These documents have been read into the record. Any further motions?

to be made

further.

Yes, we have a written application, Your

Honor,

>> Please proceed.

>> We have a motion from the defense lawyers.

A joint motion from counsel for the defendants.

Navalny and Ofitserov: a motion for recusal.

Of the presiding judge in this case.

It has been submitted in writing accordingly.

>> All right, understood. Please read it.

>> Before the Leninsky District Court

of the city of Kirov, there is a criminal case pending

No. 1225/2013

against Alexei Anatolyevich Navalny and Pyotr Pyotr

Yuryevich Ofitserov. The said criminal case

is being heard on the merits

under the chairmanship of the federal judge.

The defense believes

that the presiding judge in this case

must be recused due to intentional

violations of the requirements of federal

legislation of the Russian Federation, namely the requirements

of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation and the federal law on the status of judges

of the Russian Federation, as well as the requirements

of the Code of Judicial Ethics, which

indicates his direct

interest in the outcome of the said

criminal case and in the issuance of

a guilty verdict against

Navalny and Ofitserov. Part 1 of Article

120 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation

guarantees that judges are independent

and subject only to the Constitution

of the Russian Federation and federal

law. Judicial independence includes

impartiality. Article 3

of the federal law on the status of judges

in the Russian Federation No. 3132

-1 of June 26, 1992,

provides that judges are obliged

to strictly observe the Constitution

of the Russian Federation, federal

constitutional laws, and federal

laws. In exercising his powers, a judge

must avoid anything that

might diminish the authority of the judiciary,

the dignity of the judge, or give rise to

doubt as to his objectivity,

fairness, or impartiality. The

grounds for the defense position concerning

the need for the recusal of

the presiding judge in this case,

are evidenced by the following

circumstances. First, the intentional

violation of the requirements of the

Criminal Procedure Code

of the Russian Federation, committed by the court during the

questioning of witnesses. 1.1. Thus, on April 25,

2013, during the trial proceedings,

the following person was questioned as a

witness, Opalev. In accordance with Article

56 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, a witness is a person

who may be aware of any

circumstances relevant to

the resolution of a criminal case and who

has been summoned to testify. In

accordance with the provisions

set out in Articles 56 and 278

of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, before being questioned, a witness

must be warned of criminal

liability for refusing to give

testimony, and the witness signs an acknowledgment to that effect,

which is attached to the

record of the court hearing.

The current criminal procedure law provides no other procedure for questioning an adult

witness.

The current criminal procedure law does not

contain one. Contrary to the cited

requirements of procedural law,

witness Opalev was not warned of

criminal liability for refusing

to testify. No written acknowledgment of this was taken from

him. At the same time, Opalev

was questioned specifically as a witness

pursuant to the court's ruling on the procedure for examining

evidence.

There is no information indicating that Oplev was questioned

on April 25, 2013, in any other

procedural capacity.

This violation allowed the witness

to refuse to answer questions from the

defense, in particular from defendant

Navalny, that were relevant to

the criminal case and that would also have made it possible

to verify the reliability of his

testimony and exclude the possibility

that witness Opalev was falsely incriminating the defendants, Navalny

and Ofitserov. Despite the fact that the defense

drew the court's attention to the

fact that Opalev, questioned on April 25,

2013, as a

witness, had not been warned of

criminal liability for refusing to give

testimony, the said violation of the law

was never remedied by the court.

Subsequently, all witnesses questioned

during the judicial examination in this

criminal case were warned

by the court of criminal liability, including

for refusing to testify.

The failure to explain to Opalev the requirements of Article

308 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation allowed that witness

to evade answering a number of key

questions put to him by

the defense, in particular by Navalny,

while the court, time and again, struck those questions

on the grounds that the witness

had refused to answer. I will read

a fragment in support of these arguments

from the court hearing of April 25, 2013.

Question, Navalny: You stated here in

the interview records that, at your request,

VK arranged for Yulia to be hired. Is that right? — Well, yes.

Question: What is your relationship to her?

No answer. Question: Is she the daughter

of your common-law wife? No answer.

Question: Doesn't it seem to you that there is

some inconsistency here? On the one hand,

I can supposedly force you to do anything,

but on the other hand, you forced them to hire

your daughter. How did that happen?

Answer: Well, first of all, I did not force her

accept. It is also recorded in the transcript.

Recorded. The presiding judge did not allow

the witness to finish his answer. The question

is disallowed. The witness may continue answering.

Presiding judge: Witness, you may choose not to

answer this question. Kopolev simply

Navalny is asking the question this way. Well, am I

getting confused? Navalny’s question: Does your son

have anything to do with Kerofles? Answer: No.

Navalny’s question about the company

Kirovlesproekt. Are you familiar with it? Please give

an explanation regarding the criminal case

that was opened against you

on charges of abuse of official

position and which preceded

the present criminal case.

Presiding judge: You may choose not to answer

this question. Opolev: Yes, I do not wish

to answer this question. Navalny’s question:

Do you confirm that this

criminal case was opened

on the application of the government of Kirov

Region, including on the basis of the materials

that I submitted to the government?

The presiding judge

addresses Navalny: he has the right

to refuse to testify. Navalny

explains: "My questions are directly

and immediately relevant to the case, because

Opolev has grounds for

making false accusations."

He is giving false testimony in order to avoid

criminal liability, since

a criminal case was opened against Oplev

over abuses

at Kagurakh Les and Kirovlesproekt. And

the documents concerning these abuses

were prepared by me. In this connection, I ask

the witness to answer the question about

the activities of Kirovlesproekt, because

these explanations are extremely important for

me. Court: The question is disallowed; he has already

answered that he does not wish to respond. Navalny’s question:

Opolev, are you familiar with Peropress

project, Opolev? Well, yes, probably. Navalny’s question:

What is the

legal organizational form of Perofles

project? Presiding judge: The question

is disallowed. Next question. Navalny’s question:

Is it true that the general director

of OOresproekt was

the head of production of the technical

department of Kirovles, Shabane?

Presiding judge: The question is disallowed.

Navalny’s question: Is it true that your

son worked at Kirovlespraved and received

money there? Presiding judge: The question

is disallowed. As to these questions, you may

choose not to answer; all your questions are disallowed.

Navalny: May I nevertheless ask the next

question or may I not? This concerns

the present criminal case, because

it describes the motive in the present case

from the side of... Navalny’s question: Is it true

that the property

as a management payment

was transferred to the Kirovle enterprise

on a gratuitous basis?

Presiding judge: The question is disallowed.

Navalny’s question: Did VLK buy timber products from someone

or steal them?

Presiding judge: The question is disallowed.

>> One moment. Excuse me. You are obliged

to comply with the instructions of an officer of the service

of court bailiffs (Russia’s Federal Bailiff Service).

Navalny’s question: Did you participate in

the theft of 10,000 cubic meters of timber from Kirovles?

Presiding judge: The question is disallowed.

Taking the above circumstances into account, the defense

comes to the conclusion that

the judge presiding over the case

deliberately, in the interests of the prosecution,

failed to warn the prosecution’s key witness

Opolev about criminal

liability under Article 308 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation

in order to allow him, when answering questions

from the defense, asked for the purpose

of exposing the witness as giving

false testimony regarding

the circumstances of the criminal case and as having

grounds to falsely incriminate the defendants

Navalny and Ofitserov.

Moreover, under Article 243 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation,

the presiding judge directs the court

hearing and takes measures

provided for by the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation to ensure

the equality and adversarial nature of the parties in

the judicial process. However, from

the cited fragment of the court hearing

of April 25, 2013, it is directly

apparent that the judge presiding

over the case, during the questioning of witness

Epov, assumed the role of counsel for witness

Opo, a role that is improper for a judge

who is supposed to be an independent and impartial

arbiter in criminal proceedings.

And point 1.2.

Also, on April 25, 2013, during the questioning

of Opov as a witness, before the completion

of his examination by the parties, representatives

of the state prosecution made

a motion to read out the testimony

given by Opolev during the preliminary

investigation in the present criminal case.

The defense drew the court’s attention to the fact

that reading out a witness’s testimony

is impermissible before the completion of his

examination by the parties, because if

the prosecution’s motion were granted,

the defense would not receive equal

opportunities and conditions compared with the prosecution

for examining the

witness. In addition, in objecting

to the reading out of Opolev’s testimony

given during the preliminary investigation,

the defense also stated that if

the motion filed were granted,

the witness’s testimony could

may be read out only insofar as they concern contradictions,

and not in full, since by reading out

the witness’s testimony in full four

times in a row

before his examination by the defense,

the prosecution is simply reminding

witness Opolev of his unreliable

statements given during

the pre-trial investigation.

The defense also noted that the prosecution

had proposed reading out

statements by Opolev given during

the pre-trial investigation in the capacity of

an accused person, whereas in the present

court hearing he was questioned as

a witness. The defense insisted

that Opolev’s statements given during

the pre-trial investigation in the capacity of

an accused person could not be read out

or examined in the present court

hearing, because in the court

proceedings Opolev has the status of a witness,

which differs very substantially

in legal terms from the status of an accused person.

The court granted the motion

of the prosecution to read out the statements

given by Opolev during

the pre-trial investigation in full

rather than only in the part allegedly containing

contradictions, before his examination by the parties

had been completed. In doing so, the court, in making such a

decision, referred to an allegedly existing

gap in criminal procedure

legislation and uncertainty in

the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation as to the stage at which

a witness’s statements given during the

pre-trial investigation may be

read out. The defense maintains that no such

gap exists in the Criminal Procedure Code

at all. Moreover, contrary to

the requirements of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, the court deliberately allowed

the prosecution to read out Opolev’s

statements so that the witness could recall

those unreliable statements that had been

given during the pre-trial investigation in the capacity of

an accused person, which

demonstrates the court’s lack of impartiality

and its interest in

securing a conviction in the case.

Thus, the examination of a witness

is conducted under the rules of Article 278 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation.

Article 278 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation provides that

the examination of a witness proceeds according to the following

rules. First, the witness is questioned by

the parties. The party that first questions the witness is

the party at whose request he

was summoned to the court hearing. The judge asks

questions to the witness after he has been questioned by

the parties.

Under part 3 of Article 281 of the Criminal Procedure Code

of the Russian Federation, the court may decide to read out

a witness’s statements previously given during

the conduct of the pre-trial

investigation if there are substantial

contradictions between the earlier

statements and the statements given in

court. Thus, Article 281 clearly

shows that the court may

decide to read out a witness’s

previously given statements only after

the witness has testified at the court

hearing. Of course, the examination of a witness

may precede the stage of reading out

witness statements. However, to regard

the examination of a witness as completed and to make

a decision to read out his statements under

Article 281 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the court may do so only

after the witness has testified in accordance with

the rules established by Article 278

of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, that is, after he has been questioned

by the parties and by the presiding judge in the case

in court. The defense is convinced that the above

requirements of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation governing

the procedure for examining a witness and the procedure for

reading out a witness’s statements were

known to the court as of April 25,

2013. Consequently, by making

a knowingly unlawful decision to read out

Opolev’s statements before the completion of

Opolev’s examination by the parties, the court created

knowingly unequal conditions for the defense and

the prosecution during the examination of the said

witness. The defense also draws

the attention of the presiding judge in the case

to the fact that

Opolev’s statements, given during

the pre-trial investigation in the capacity of

an accused person, could not be read out during

the court hearing in the present

criminal case by virtue of the requirements of

criminal procedure law.

Thus, under Article 47 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation,

an accused person is a person in respect of whom

a decision has been issued

to bring him as an accused person.

An accused person in a criminal case for which

a trial has been scheduled

is referred to as a defendant. An accused person in respect of whom

a conviction has been issued

is referred to as

a convicted person. An accused person has the right

to defend himself by all means and methods

not prohibited by the Code.

According to the requirements and meaning of Article 276

of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, an accused person’s statements may be read out

in the following case.

If, after the defendant has been questioned, there is

a substantial contradiction between

his statements given in court and

the statements given during

the pre-trial investigation in the status of

an accused person. Article 281 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation,

which defines the possibility and procedure for

reading out witness statements, does not

provide for the possibility of reading out

an accused person’s statements given by him during

the pre-trial investigation, including in

a case where, at the court hearing,

the accused is questioned as

a witness in order to eliminate contradictions in

his testimony. The defense notes that

it is impossible and unlawful to eliminate

contradictions between testimony given

by the same person in the status of

the accused before his

and in the status of a witness. Since

under Article 56, 278 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, a witness, before

being questioned, must be informed of

the contents of Articles 307 and 308 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation and

warned of criminal

liability under those articles.

Whereas before his questioning as

to liability under Articles 307 and 308 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation

he must not be so warned. The defense

is convinced that the presiding judge in

the case is aware of and understands the above legal

requirements. And by making the

decision to read out the testimony of the accused

Opolev, this was permitted solely for

the reason that the presiding judge in

the case is biased in favor of the

prosecution and is interested in ensuring that the

case results in a guilty

verdict. 13.

On April 25, 2013, the following person was also questioned

as a witness: Marina

Valeryevna Bura. Evidence

of the court’s lack of objectivity and bias

was the fact that during the questioning of witness

Bura, just as during the questioning of witness

Opolev, prematurely, before the completion of

questioning by the parties, in violation of the requirements of

Article 278.1

of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, the court ordered the

reading out of witness Bura’s testimony

given by her during the preliminary

investigation. The defense notes that this

violation of the law was never remedied

by the presiding judge in the case, and

subsequently the court made decisions on the

need to read out the testimony of

witnesses before the completion of questioning

by the parties. Thus, in particular, the testimony of

the following witnesses was read out

before the completion of questioning by the parties during the

judicial examination: the Shutovs, Kuznetsova,

Kiselyova, Koretnyuk, Osapova, Bulatova,

Barantseva, Kursova, and others.

The defense notes

that such reading out of witness

testimony is unlawful. Moreover, the already

aforementioned violations cannot be

remedied at subsequent stages of the

criminal process. It follows from this

that the court, understanding the extent of the harm caused

to the rights and lawful interests

of the participants in the proceedings, including the defense,

deliberately and knowingly allowed

the violations set out in this motion

of criminal procedural

law.

The defense also asks that, when

deciding this motion, the following

circumstances also be taken into account, which

vividly illustrate the defense’s arguments

that

the presiding judge in the case has

lost objectivity,

and impartiality in this criminal

case. During the defense’s questioning of witness Bura

in particular by defendant

Navalny, a number of questions were put to the witness

that were directly relevant to

the subject matter to be proved in this

criminal case and which had not been

clarified during the preliminary

investigation. Since witness Bura was unable

to answer those questions,

they were put to witness Opolev. In

particular, the questions were phrased as follows.

What was the

ratio of sales volume through KOTU,

and through the forestry enterprises? Who kept track of which

contracts? How could a large

accounts receivable debt have arisen at KOGUP Kirovles

(the Kirov regional state forestry enterprise)? Is it known that a significant part of the

accounts receivable was written off

as uncollectible? However, the court did not allow

the possibility of obtaining answers to the

questions asked during the questioning

of the witness and interrupted defendant

Navalny, stating as follows

(quoted verbatim): “In my view, they

answer your

questions quite clearly by saying that they do not remember. Let’s finish

questioning witness Bura.”

After defendant Navalny nevertheless

asked the question of interest, the court

instructed witnesses Opolev and Bura to answer

defendant Navalny’s question

as follows. Again, direct quotation.

“Witness, answer either yes or no.”

“There can be no other kind of answer here.”

The circumstances described directly and

unequivocally indicate a loss of

impartiality and objectivity.

The defense notes that impartiality is

a quality whose essence consists in the

requirement of unbiased and fair

treatment of every participant in the judicial

process. Impartiality

presupposes that, when considering a

criminal case, a judge is subjectively free from

personal prejudice or bias toward

the participants in the proceedings, and that his

actions must exclude any

reasonable doubt in that regard.

Point 14. Evidence of the loss of

the court’s impartiality and objectivity

is also the adoption by the

presiding judge in the case of a

decision to read out the testimony of witness

Arzamastsev

at the court hearing on May 29, 2013.

Article

281 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation regulates the conditions

the procedure for reading out in court testimony

previously given by victims and witnesses,

providing, in particular, that such

testimony, if the said persons fail to appear

at the court hearing, shall as a general rule be read out

with the consent of the parties or by a decision

of the court, adopted on its own

initiative or at the request of a party. In

cases of the death of a victim or witness,

a serious illness preventing appearance in

court, refusal of a victim or witness,

who is a foreign national,

to appear when summoned by the court, a natural

disaster, or other extraordinary

circumstances preventing appearance in

court.

Part 2 of Article 281 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation.

The reading out of testimony given during

the preliminary investigation

is regarded as

an exception to the general rule and

is permitted only in cases

provided for by law. Part 2 of

Article 240 and Articles 276 and 281 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation. This

is обусловлено both by the need to eliminate

inequality in the procedural opportunities for

examining evidence between the side

of the defense and the side of the prosecution,

which conducted the questioning of victims

and witnesses during the pre-trial

proceedings and drew up

the relevant records, as well as by

the desire to create conditions for the court

under which it is ensured a free

perception, free from outside influence,

and evaluation of the testimony of participants in criminal

proceedings.

Such a position, in particular, was expressed

in rulings of the Constitutional Court

of the Russian Federation dated December 7, 2006,

No. 548-O, and dated December 21, 2011,

No. 1645-O. At the same time, Article 281

of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation does not provide for the possibility

of an expansive interpretation of the list

of cases in which it is permissible in court

to read out testimony previously given

by victims or witnesses absent from

the court hearing, within the meaning of a number

of decisions of the Constitutional Court of the Russian

Federation, namely No. 233-OO, No. 291-OO,

No. 326-OO,

No. 548-OO, No. 188-OO, and so on.

The text will provide a detailed list.

The provisions of Part 2 of Article 281 of the Criminal Procedure Code

of the Russian Federation do not provide for

any exceptions to the

procedure for proving in criminal cases established by criminal procedure law,

according to which,

in particular, at the basis of

a conviction there may be placed only

evidence that does not

raise doubts as to its reliability and

admissibility. If the court reads out

the testimony of an absent person and

subsequently uses it, the parties

must be given the opportunity

to defend their interests in court by the

means provided by law,

including challenging the read-out

testimony, filing motions for its

verification by means of other evidence,

as well as by using other

means that help prevent,

identify, and eliminate errors in the adoption of

judicial decisions.

The court granted the motion by the

prosecution to read out the testimony

of witness Arzam, contrary to the requirements

of criminal procedure law.

Since the prosecution had

presented no evidence that it

had taken absolutely all measures

to locate the witness and ensure his appearance at

the court hearing, the defense notes

that, contrary to the requirements of Article 15 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation,

as well as Article 6, paragraph 1, and Article 6,

paragraph 3, of the European Convention

for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental

Freedoms, the right of the defendants and their defense to

examine a witness testifying against the defendants

will be illusory or merely theoretical if

the law and judicial practice do not draw

a distinction between witness testimony

given in the presence of the accused at

a public trial in compliance with

the principles of equality of arms and adversarial procedure, and

testimony obtained separately

during the preliminary investigation in the absence of

public scrutiny and with the potential

for pressure or coercion upon the

witness.

The European Court of Human Rights, whose

decisions are binding on

the Russian Federation, has repeatedly

stated that testimony cannot form the basis

of a conviction if such testimony was given

during the preliminary investigation and if

the accused was not given

an adequate and proper opportunity

to challenge the testimony of the witness or

victim and to examine them at the

time the testimony was given. In this case,

the defense was deprived of the opportunity to verify

the admissibility and reliability of the testimony

of witness Arzamantsev by examining him

directly at the court hearing, which

constitutes a violation of the right to defense and,

as a consequence, of the right to a fair

trial in the present

criminal case.

And point two.

A deliberate violation of the requirements

of criminal procedure law

by the presiding judge in the case,

related to the untimely resolution of

the defense's motion to exclude

evidence.

On May 20, 2013, the prosecution was

A list of the evidence

that will be presented at the court

hearing in this criminal case is provided.

Having reviewed the list of evidence

to be presented by the

prosecution at the court hearing on May 21–22,

2013, the defense filed

motions to have a number of

items of evidence declared inadmissible and

excluded from the evidentiary record.

The Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation provides that such

motions are filed in order to prevent

the examination at trial of

inadmissible evidence obtained in

violation of the law. Moreover, the Code

regulates the procedure for filing and

considering such motions, as well as

the time limits for their consideration. At the same time,

the presiding judge in the case

did not consider in a timely manner the

defense motions of May 21–22, 2013.

Moreover, he allowed their full—indeed, he

allowed their

full examination of the evidence challenged in these

motions, despite the

request for its exclusion. That is,

the challenged evidence was presented

to the court. The need for the judge to adopt a

written decision on the motion filed by the

party seeking to have

evidence declared inadmissible, as well as

the procedural rules for adopting such a

decision, are established by Articles 88,

120, 121, 234, 235, and 271 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation.

Under Article 88 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, the court has the right

to declare evidence inadmissible

upon a motion by a party or on

its own initiative, in the manner

established by Articles 234–235 of the Code. As

is clear from the content of Articles 120 and 121 of the Code,

and these are Part One, General Provisions, Section

Five, Motions and Complaints, Chapter 15,

Motions, of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation. A motion may be

filed at any stage and at any time

in criminal proceedings.

A motion is subject to consideration and

resolution immediately after it is

made.

According to Articles 234 and 235, at the

preliminary hearing, that is, before

the start of consideration of the criminal case on

the merits, the examination of evidence

at the court hearing during the trial

stage also includes the right to file

a motion for the exclusion of evidence.

Thus, the law provides that in order

to resolve a motion to exclude

evidence, the parties are not

required to present it at the court

hearing or ask the court to

examine it. Under Article 271 of the Code,

the court considers each motion

filed and issues a ruling based on

the results of consideration of the

motion.

In this case, the court, apparently with the aim of

violating the defense's rights, allowed

for examination and presentation in court of those

items of evidence whose admissibility

had been challenged by the defense. The defense notes

that these actions by the court became

a convincing demonstration of the position

taken by the court, directed at supporting

the prosecution.

It should also be noted that

the defense motion concerning the securing of

evidence, filed on May 29 and 30,

2013, in the absence of lawful

grounds, had still not been considered as of

June 10, 2013. Since on May 30

2013, the court adopted an unlawful

decision, unclear to the defense, to resolve

these motions within an indefinite time frame,

that is, before the completion of the examination of the

written materials of the criminal case.

As a result of the position taken by the court,

the most important legal procedure is rendered entirely meaningless,

namely the procedure connected with

the possibility of filing and obtaining a ruling on

a motion to exclude evidence,

the purpose of which is to prevent the court's judgment from being based on

inadmissible

or unreliable evidence. In

support of its position regarding the

need to recuse

the presiding judge in the case due to

his loss of impartiality and

objectivity, the defense wishes to cite

the following argument as well.

Thus, on May 29, 2013, the prosecution

considered it possible to state its position on the

defense motion to exclude evidence dated May 22,

2013. After that, the court

issued a ruling denying

the motion.

It should be noted that in its

ruling of May 29, 2013, on

the refusal to grant the defense's motion,

when speaking of the need

to reject the motion filed

and of its lack of merit,

the court literally repeated the same arguments that

had been advanced by the prosecution, which objected

to the granting of the

motion, namely the following

quotation:

"The order forwarding the results

of operational-search activities (investigative intelligence-gathering measures) and

the report of June 13, 2011, was submitted on

the basis of the investigator's instruction;

contrary to the position set out in the

defense motion, they contain the appropriate

details and registration numbers; meanwhile, the

defense, in its motion,

requested that the specified

evidence be excluded not on the ground that

it does not contain information about the existing

investigator's instruction, but on the ground that

including for the reason that they

were submitted in violation of Article 1

of Federal Law No. 144 on

operational-search activity.

the Instruction on the procedure for submitting

information on operational-search

activity.

The fact that the court, following the prosecution,

referred to non-existent

defense evidence and arguments and assessed them

when issuing its ruling,

indicates that the motion was resolved only formally

and that there was no intention to include in the

body of evidence

the evidence presented by the prosecution

that had been obtained in

violation of the law.

The defense notes that the arguments of counsel,

set out in the motions of May 21-22, 2013,

were not properly assessed by

the court when ruling on them.

The lack of reasoning in the court's rulings

issued on the defense motions of the 21st and

22nd of May 2013 leaves us

having to guess why the court

reached this particular decision and why it

rejected or failed to consider the defense's arguments.

Moreover, such a court decision does not

comply with the requirements of the law,

since it does not set out the grounds and

reasons for the decision taken.

What is referred to there as the

basis for the decision is in fact

merely a verbatim reproduction

of the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code and the federal law on

operational-search activity.

The Instruction on the procedure for submitting

the results of operational-search

activity.

In issuing the above rulings,

the court demonstrated that it did not intend

to observe the principle of comprehensiveness and

objectivity when deciding the defense motions.

In view of the circumstances set out above,

and the arguments presented, the defense comes to the

conclusion that the presiding

judge in the case, as a result of having lost

objectivity and impartiality,

deliberately violated the rules of

judicial procedure, which resulted in

a violation of the rights of the participants in the proceedings, in

particular the defense. Ruling of the

Constitutional Court of the Russian

Federation of December 8, 2003, No.

18-P,

sets out the following legal position: from the provisions of

of the Constitution of the Russian Federation,

and the corresponding provisions of Article

6 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights

and Fundamental Freedoms, it follows that

justice, by its very nature,

can be recognized as such only on

the condition that it meets the requirements

of fairness and ensures effective

restoration of rights.

By virtue of Articles 46, 52, 118, 123, and 126

of the Constitution of the Russian Federation,

the judicial function of resolving a criminal

case and the functions of the prosecution must be

strictly separated. Each of them

is assigned to the appropriate actor.

A court, however, exercising judicial power

through criminal proceedings

on the basis of adversarial procedure and equality of arms,

in the course of the proceedings may not

take either the side of the prosecution or

the side of the defense, or replace the parties

by assuming their procedural

powers, but must remain an

objective and impartial arbiter.

Imposing on the court a duty, in one form or another,

to perform the functions of the prosecution

is inconsistent with Article 123

of the Constitution of the Russian Federation and

impedes the independent

and impartial administration of

justice, as required by Articles 10,

118, and 120 of the Constitution of the Russian

Federation, Article 6 of the Convention on

the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms,

and Article 14 of the International Covenant on

Civil and Political Rights.

Articles 8 and 9 of the Code

of Judicial Ethics, approved by the Eighth

All-Russian Congress of Judges on December 19,

2012, provide that

the independence of the judiciary

is a constitutional principle

for ensuring the rule of law in

the administration of justice, and a condition

of impartiality, the fundamental guarantee

of a fair trial.

Maintaining the independence of the judiciary

and adhering to the principle of independence

is the duty of a judge. When

hearing a case, a judge is obliged to maintain an

independent and impartial position toward

all participants in the proceedings.

A judge must exercise judicial

powers solely on the basis of

an assessment of the factual and legal

circumstances of the case, in accordance with

his or her inner conviction, while respecting

the procedural rights of all persons participating in

the case, regardless of any

outside influence, direct or

indirect interference in the process

of hearing the case, from whatever side

it may come and whatever motives

and purposes may underlie it. In performing

his or her duties, a judge must

be guided by the principles of equality and

maintain a balance between the parties,

ensuring that each of them has equal

opportunities.

The defense insists that the circumstances set out

in this application directly

and unequivocally demonstrate that

the presiding judge in the case is not

free from outside influence and is not

independent, impartial, or objective

and is not capable, when issuing judicial

decisions, of being guided exclusively

by the law; accordingly, he must be recused.

Based on the foregoing, and guided by

Part 2 of Article 61, Article 62, and Article 64

of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation,

the defense moves to recuse the presiding

judge in this criminal case, of the Leninsky District

Court of the city of Kirov, Sergei

Vladimirovich. Counsel. June 10, 2013.

[inaudible]

>> Defendant Ofitserov, do you support this motion?

[inaudible]

>> Yes, I support it.

Support it.

>> Defense counsel Mikhailov, do you support it?

>> Defense counsel Kobzev. Position of the prosecution?

On the matter.

>> Your Honor, we believe that there are no

grounds for granting the stated

motion for your recusal.

Since the requirements of Article sixty-

three of the criminal

procedure code have not been violated,

and no violations, uh, in the consideration of

motions under criminal procedural

legislation have been committed either.

Therefore, we object to

granting the stated motion for

your removal as judge and ask that you

continue hearing the case on the merits.

The court will retire to deliberate in order to issue a

ruling.

The decision will be announced today at 11:15

a.m.

15.

>> I know.

There’s another one there

even

Listen, do you have the text?

>> Can you email it so that right now

it will be right away

it’s no big deal.

>> Oh no, I have it on the side

you can open it from the collection.

Oh no, wait, it’s posted.

>> Help me

>> Help me, quickly

>> I have it too

It can be done,

I guess?

Everything’s fine.

No, it’s just that we were talking.

Wow! From where?

[inaudible]

Phone.

>> Why is it inappropriate?

Let’s make it

another hour

now

I have charge—I have a charger.

>> I have

>> How much do you have?

>> I have

82%.

Right.

So what, is the decision wrong now?

put

We’re starting now, 16

there was a problem

everyone was in anxious anticipation of what

the judge

is building up among the people.

And

I see

big, big

on the internet

itself

And

procession

10 11

53 56 67 84 81 87 887

28

There even is, there even is

and so on

that very thing writes,

Thank you.

Yes.

there is a report from the Samara festival (Samara, a Russian city)

the people there are really good

they just put it on and watched

I’ll put it on—come on then, put it on, put it on

I’ll put it on

>> Well, go ahead, put it on first

Okay.

Fine

No,

>> Last time he said that

>> I ask everyone.

Ruling. June 10, 2014. City of

Kirov. Leninsky District Court of the city of

Kirov, presided over by Judge

Belny, with the participation of the state

prosecutors: head of the department of

state prosecution and appeals

of the Kirov Region Prosecutor’s Office, Bogdanov,

prosecutor of the department of state

prosecution and appeals of the Prosecutor’s Office

of the Kirov Region, Cheremisin,

defendant Navalny and his defense counsel,

attorneys Mikhailov, Kobzev, and Kobelyov,

defendant Ofitserov and his defense counsel,

attorney Davydov, and secretary Porshinov,

considered in open court

the materials of the criminal case against

Alexei Anatolyevich Navalny, charged

with an offense under Part 3 of Article thirty-

three and Part 4 of Article 160,

Pyotr Yuryevich Ofitserov, charged

with an offense under Part 5 of Article 33

and Part 4 of Article 160 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation,

and established: during the court hearing,

defense counsel Mikhailov, Kobzev, and Davydov

filed a motion to recuse the presiding

judge, stating that the decision made by the presiding

the decision by the presiding judge in the case

in their view does not comply with the requirements

of procedural law, which

indicates a lack of

judicial impartiality. The need

for recusal, in the applicant's view, is due to the fact

that the presiding judge did not

explain the provisions of Article 308

of the Russian Code of Criminal Procedure during the questioning of witness Opolev

questions that had been asked were disallowed, and decisions were made

to read out testimony before

he had been questioned by the defense, including

the reading out of Opolev's testimony

given during the preliminary investigation

as an accused person; the testimony

of witness Arzamasov was also read out

in the absence of grounds provided for by Article

281 of the Russian Code of Criminal Procedure; motions are resolved untimely

the motion to declare the agreement with

inadmissible, which the court ruled

to examine at the court hearing, was unreasonably

denied in response to the motion for

the exclusion of evidence as inadmissible

The defendants Navalny and Ofitserov, and the defense

fully supported the recusal motion. The state

prosecutors stated that the recusal motion

should be denied. Having heard

the parties, the court comes to the following conclusion.

Grounds for the recusal of judges

are regulated by Part 1 and Part

2 of Article 61 and Article

63 of the Russian Code of Criminal Procedure, according

to which a judge may not

participate in criminal proceedings if

he or she is the victim, a civil claimant,

a civil defendant, or a witness in

the given criminal case; has participated

as a juror, expert,

specialist, interpreter, attesting witness,

court session secretary, complainant,

legal representative, suspect,

accused person, representative of the victim,

civil claimant or civil

defendant, or as an inquiry officer

investigator, or prosecutor in proceedings on

the given criminal case; or is a close

relative or relative of any

participant in the proceedings in this

criminal case; as well as in cases where

there are other circumstances giving

grounds to believe that he or she is personally, directly

or indirectly interested in the outcome of this

criminal case. Repeated

participation of a judge in the consideration of a criminal

case is inadmissible. The above grounds preventing

the presiding judge from hearing

the criminal case are absent.

Indeed, the presiding judge did not

explain the provisions of Article 308 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation,

to Opolev, who was questioned in the present case

on charges against Navalny and Ofitserov

as a witness. However,

the defense failed to take into account that Opolev

was found guilty by the judgment of the Leninsky District Court

of the city of Kirov on December 24, 2012

of committing embezzlement, that is,

the theft of property belonging to Kirovles

entrusted to Opolev, using

his official position, on an especially

large scale, by prior

conspiracy jointly with others, in the commission

of an offense under Part 4

of Article 160 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, with defendants Navalny

and Ofitserov charged with committing the offense

together with Opolev, whose case

had been severed from

this criminal case concerning

Navalny and Ofitserov. Under these

circumstances, despite the fact that in

the case against Navalny and Ofitserov

the convicted accomplice appears

as a witness, he, in accordance with

Article 56 of the Russian Code of Criminal Procedure, also

and pursuant to Article 51 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation,

has the right to refuse to testify

against himself, since during

the preliminary investigation in Opolev's case

he was questioned as

an accused person. The court, due to

substantial contradictions in the testimony,

ordered that his testimony

given during the preliminary investigation

as an accused person, in the presence

of defense counsel, be read out. The disallowing

of a question to a witness is also

an independent matter. Under Part 1

of Article 252 of the Russian Code of Criminal Procedure, trial proceedings

are conducted only

in relation to the accused and only on

the charges brought against him. It follows from this

that the presiding judge's disallowing

of a question that does not relate to the subject matter

to be proved in the case is

a necessary condition for ensuring

the lawfulness of the trial proceedings.

The defense's arguments regarding

a violation of the procedure for reading out testimony

given specifically during the preliminary

investigation are unfounded. Under Part 3

of Article 271 of the Russian Code of Criminal Procedure, upon motion

of a party, the court has the right to decide

to read out the testimony of a victim or

witness previously given during

the preliminary investigation or in

court, where there are substantial

contradictions between the earlier

testimony and the testimony given in

court. During the hearing, the court

made decisions to read out testimony

only where there were substantial

contradictions between the earlier

testimony and the testimony given in court

and only upon motion by either the prosecution

or the defense. At the same time,

despite defense counsel's arguments, the law does not

provide for the possibility of reading out

a witness's testimony only after examination

by the parties, including the party examining the witness.

is entitled to obtain the information it seeks

including by reading out

the witness testimony previously given by him, and by

asking additional questions regarding contradictions

The court did not

prevent the parties from asking questions

to the witness despite the reading out of his

earlier testimony. The reading out

of Razamasov's testimony also does not indi

cate any lack of impartiality on the part of the judge. The court

was presented with information that

witness Razamasov has been placed on

the international wanted list, and securing his

appearance in court at the hearing

is impossible. In granting this

motion, the court stated that it was doing so

in order to protect the defendants' rights,

since the defendants also have, among other things,

the right to criminal proceedings within

a reasonable time; postponing the trial

until witness

Razamassov is found would lead to

an unjustifiably prolonged examination

of the case and additional expenses, including

for the defendants' appearance in court,

defense counsel fees, and the like.

The defense counsels' arguments about

the presiding judge's bias on

the grounds that the motion to

declare evidence inadmissible

was postponed by the court until examination of that

evidence, are likewise unfounded and

unsupported by law. Contrary to the defense's arguments,

the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation does not contain a requirement

for immediate resolution of a motion to

declare evidence inadmissible. Under

Part 2 of Article 271

of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, after hearing the views of the participants

in the trial, the court considers

each motion filed and either grants

it or issues a ruling or

order denying

the motion. In accordance with Part

4 of Article 88 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the court may

declare evidence inadmissible upon

a party's motion or on its own

initiative, in the manner established by Articles

234-235 of this Code. Under

Part 3 of Article 235

of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, if one of the parties

objects to the exclusion of

evidence, the court may read out

records of investigative actions and other

documents contained in the criminal case file or

submitted by the parties.

Thus, the defense side's demand

for an immediate decision on

declaring evidence inadmissible not only

fails to comply with the requirements

of the law, but also contradicts the requirements

of Part 4 of Article 7 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, which provides

that court rulings and judges' orders

must be lawful,

well-founded, and reasoned. The court may not

make a decision on the basis of

unchecked arguments from one of the parties,

especially when the other side has stated

that those arguments are unfounded. Other

decisions of the presiding judge

cited in the recusal motions also do not

indicate any personal interest or

bias on the part of the judge. In addition, it should

be noted that the defense, in substantiating

the recusal of the presiding judge,

by its disagreement with procedural decisions,

is ignoring the requirements of Part 2

of Article 389.2 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation,

which provides that a ruling on

granting or denying motions

by participants in the trial, and

other judicial decisions issued during

the course of the trial,

are appealed by way of appeal

simultaneously with the appeal of the final

judicial decision in the case. In view of the

foregoing, the motions

of the defendants and defense counsel for the judge's recusal

must be denied. On the basis of the

foregoing, and guided by Articles 266

and 256.1 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, the court ruled to deny the defense side's

motion to recuse the presiding judge.

The ruling has been signed. A

recess in the court session is announced

for ten minutes, until 11:45.

Can't do 4 hours

the previous one, so that later

he will go.

these

%

It was possible before, but now not for 10 hearings

it was possible.

Why

can't it be one hearing each time?

All right.

Did not summon.

>> No.

>> No.

fine

you'll go to the next one.

Need to see

more.

really good

these

Dzhepori had returned

>> many years Here

now

a crazy salary

and also

spent a month, I left, of course, while there

is now dealing

with all sorts of issues.

I don't know where he knows

they're promising to make now

a database

design

it will be possible to find and return.

The tabs are all being updated now

it's about the resource.

If

at all

any expensive idea

critical interest

all at once

testro

really

of no further interest to anyone

yesterday

10

savishche

they have

or for example,

yes,

well, okay, we need to

sit down.

>> The open court hearing continues.

I see that attorney Kobelev is absent.

Can we continue without

him?

>> We can.

>> Yes.

>> Let's do that.

>> Yes. Possibly.

>> Yes, we can. Minister

>> we can proceed to further examination

of volume sixteen.

>> You may.

the defendants

>> Volume sixteen. Continuation of the appendix

to the record.

Inspection of items dated December 28,

2012. Case file pages 10–11.

A printout of a report on the activities of

the Vyatka Timber Company, which states that

the following: Vyatka Timber Company

was registered in Kirov Region on March 18,

2009. The documents were

received on March 24, 2009. During the period from

March 24 to April 23, 2009, the following was

done: rented

equipment, furniture, office equipment, and

communications equipment were obtained, and

security was arranged for the office premises at

134A Karl Marx Street, Kirov. Contracts were concluded

for maintenance and for

communications and security services. A staff

of nine employees was formed. At the same time,

more than 65 interviews were conducted,

more than 250 resumes were collected. A

staff incentive system was developed,

job descriptions were prepared, and

employment contracts were signed. Tax

reporting for the first quarter of 2009 was submitted.

Development of the corporate

website is being completed; it will be available from April 28.

April

The text has been prepared and a cooperation agreement has been concluded with

Kupka Raffle. The

pricing policy and product range for which

cooperation will be carried out have been agreed; negotiations have been held

with all key players

in Kirov Region: Novovyatsky MLPK, Krasny

Yakor, KMDK, and Domostroitel. The conclusion

of contracts with them is at the stage of agreeing

terms. Some delays in developing

cooperation are explained by

the existing inventories of these

enterprises and road closures. Preliminary

negotiations were also held

with Syktyvkar Pulp and Paper Mill and Volzhsky Pulp and Paper Mill. At

present, a response is being prepared regarding

the renewal of the contract with Vyatka Timber

Company. At present, work is underway to

streamline the operations of the commercial department.

Initial training has been conducted for employees

in new working methods and active sales

techniques. A training plan is being prepared

for sales staff through the end of the year. An agreement has been reached

with the forestry and industrial

college to prepare a special course

covering the nuances of wood processing,

logging, and timber grading. At present,

there is being prepared

the technical brief for the college. In 9 days of work

by the sales managers, an

informational client database has been created, with more than

540 contacts. This includes only those

companies with which

negotiations were held with varying degrees of success.

Thus, Vyatka Timber Company

positions itself as an operator with

a high level of service and above-average prices,

so for traders and other

resellers our offer is too high in

price. Therefore, systematic work is now underway

to identify and

conclude contracts with end

consumers of timber. Currently in the pipeline are

more than 200 warm leads with

a potential purchase volume of more than

25,000 cubic meters of timber materials

per month. Negotiations are currently underway with them

regarding payment terms and

technical requirements for the products. Unfortunately,

a large segment of

potential demand is lost because of

the low level of the technical base and

the limited range of products

being produced. On April 23, 2009, the first

contract was concluded for the supply of

sawlogs on a prepayment basis. The company's reaching

a significant volume

is planned beginning in the second half

of May, after the holidays and the reopening of the roads.

Signed, General Director Ofitserov.

case file page 55

page sixty-six

correspondence and the appendix to it

from Alexei Navalny to Petrov

to Ofitserov, dated April 23, 2009

the note about Volzhsky Pulp and Paper Mill should be removed there

it should just say OAO Volga; basically it's

the same thing, but it's better to correct it so that there

is no awkward mix-up

also from Navalny to Ofitserov

Wow, is all of that really true? And with Domov

did we sign for 130 cubic meters or 1,300?

From Ofitserov to Navalny.

Subject: memo. Hi. Attached is

the memo. Everything in it is true,

I haven’t exaggerated anything. Take a look,

and see if it works.

From Navalny to Ofitserov, April 23

of the same year, 2009.

[Expletive]. Next. Yes, we’ve got another

problem here. I need the Perm train we took

last time, but for now

there’s only one SV compartment left. There are kupe compartments available. We

booked the SV. Tomorrow we’ll try to grab

another SV through a canceled reservation. If we don’t

manage, we’ll buy you a kupe compartment. If that

doesn’t work for you, let me know and we won’t take

the kupe. From Ofitserov to Navalny. Subject:

logo for tomorrow. What time? From

Navalny to Ofitserov: same system,

logo. Okay, I’m buying the tickets. From

Ofitserov to Navalny. Hi. My

phone numbers are 8903 590 8639. Kirovsky: 892

952 9865.

Passport details: Ofitserov, Pyotr Yuryevich.

passport series and number as indicated, issued in

the city of Moscow on November 8, 2001. From

Navalny to Ofitserov: damn, I’ve lost

your phone number, and I urgently need your

passport details. From Ofitserov

to Navalny: attached is a logo option

for the company’s corporate identity. What do you think?

So, from Ofitserov to Navalny. Subject:

contract. Hi. Yesterday there were negotiations with

the Germans about joint production of

fuel briquettes. The terms

of cooperation are as follows: we find a site and

premises of 500,000 m². To accommodate

the production, we provide a raw-material base

of 2,500 tons of raw sawdust per month.

It’s not easy to collect that volume in one district,

either technologically or

psychologically. As soon as there is

an opportunity to sell, the crafty local

forestry people would rather throw it away than

give it away for free. In other words, we need to make it so

that throwing it away is more expensive, but

then they’ll start dumping it out of sheer spite.

The main thing is that they dump it in the right

place. Anyway, the math is as follows:

the equipment costs €500,000. They

do not sell it outright; they deliver it, and if anything happens,

they then either take it back or sell it

to the partner, but not earlier than after 5 years.

Production volume: 1,000 tons of finished

briquettes per month. They buy the entire

volume at €103–118 with delivery to

Germany. Delivery costs €65 per

ton. Roughly, the margin is €38–53 per ton.

Accordingly, per month that is €38,000–53,000. Per

year: €456,000–636,000.

Obviously, minus equipment depreciation

of €6,300 per month. Minus

workers’ wages of €5,000. Minus

electricity costs of €1,000,

payment for raw materials of €5,000 (100 rubles per cubic meter),

which comes to roughly €26,000 per

month, or €312,000 per year before

tax. In money terms it’s not

a mega-project, but it makes it possible

to process sawdust, low-grade

timber, firewood, pulpwood, and other stuff.

But then the price of raw materials will rise, and there goes

the profit. On the other hand, we’ll be able to report

on a super-project for environmental

protection and increasing the level of processing.

They are ready to set up two or three such plants

provided that the site and

raw materials are secured. That’s the project. They guarantee

sales for 5 years. Shall we take this on? The difficulty here is

selecting a site and organizing

the collection of sawdust in that volume. I promised

an answer within a week.

Also, subject: contract. From Ofitserov

to Navalny. Hi. The contract is attached.

Take a look, since you’re a lawyer, in case there’s anything

unclear or incorrect. The contract is

large, risky. There we ship at

one price, then add prices for

services, transport, and so on. They

will be in a supplementary agreement. It is also

attached. I have two questions for you.

What’s happening with Solikamsk? And the second question: what

can be done to speed up the work

of the department handling the contract and

the lease for KAGUP. There is a real

slowdown there; on their side it looks like outright

— dare I say it — sabotage. Next, on pages

61

through 66 is a draft contract

of the Vyatka Forestry Company

with some supplier or other.

The name is already indicated.

And on case file page

67–80 there is a continuation of the correspondence

from Ofitserov to Navalny. Subject: application for

KIBR. June 1, 2009. Hi. The issue

of transferring the funds concerns me. Phone

and other terms — waiting eagerly. From

Navalny to Ofitserov: I found this person.

Astasievich Vladimir Alexandrovich, 8912

82101.

And then more digits follow.

From Ofitserov to Navalny. Hi. I need

this person: Astaseevich Vladimir

Aleseyevich, former director

of Domostroitel, now serving

as an IKEA consultant on the development of

industrial structures in the Volga-Vyatka

region. People in the government

should know him. I want to get in touch with IKEA. Maybe something,

maybe something will come of it.

From Ofitserov to Navalny. Subject: Solikamsk,

hi. Here is everything I was able to do. Next,

on page 69

and 70

there follow

two documents marked “Solikamsk,”

containing the following information. According to

the agreement between the administration

of the Kirov Region and the management

of the Solikamsk Pulp and Paper Mill to organize

effective cooperation between the forestry

sector of the Kirov Region and

the Solikamsk Pulp and Paper Mill, and for fulfilling the incoming

50,000 cubic meters of softwood pulpwood, it is determined that

the company responsible for its

implementation is Vyazkoles Company. This

company will act as the operator in

the Kirov Region market, the official

dealer of Kirovles. Vyatka Forestry

Company will ensure delivery of

the declared volume of 50,000 cubic

meters by rail. The possibility

of delivering softwood pulpwood by road

transport is also being actively explored.

A route is being developed, and

the approximate cost is being calculated. From July

2009, it will be possible to speak of

stable deliveries of pulpwood to

the Solikamsk Pulp and Paper Mill from the Kirov Region districts adjacent to

Perm Krai (a federal subject of Russia),

by truck. Due to the underdevelopment

of road infrastructure, the cost

of truck delivery from different districts

ranges from 670 to 790 rubles per cubic meter

of timber. The cost of delivery by own

transport, if vehicles are purchased, is 450

rubles per cubic meter. The cost

of timber delivery by rail

from Lesnye Polyany station is 436

rubles per cubic meter, from Luza 570.7

rubles per cubic meter, from Polyany 421

rubles per cubic meter. To determine

the feasibility of establishing a waterway

for delivering timber from the Kirov Region to

Solikamsk, a working group has been created, which

is currently making calculations on

cost and on ensuring the possibility

of transportation by water

of harvested timber. The result of the work

of this group will be ready by June 20 in the form of a

feasibility study

for this project. A possible route is

Aloino–Solikamsk, but this project

belongs to prospective developments; for its

implementation, the entire infra-

structure would have to be built, so it is necessary

to calculate the full economics, as well as the possible

results and difficulties of establishing this

route. We consider the project to create a zone

of guaranteed harvesting in the adjacent

districts of the Kirov Region to be

feasible. At the same time, the creation of a joint

venture for the harvesting and transportation

of timber for the mill's needs is considered

advisable.

The second document marked “Sakaams”

contains the same content as well. Plus

a note from Alexei. In principle, delivery

could be even cheaper—not by much, but

it could, provided that vehicles are hired there;

if purchased, the following calculation

applies.

7,142 cubic meters is the monthly delivery volume.

That is 238 cubic meters per day. 35 cubic meters

is the volume of a single delivery. 204

trips would be needed by one truck. In total,

that many trucks need to arrive at the mill per day.

One truck: 2,000–2,500

... 17,500; investment in purchasing the fleet

105,000 rubles. Driver’s salary: one

manager — 20,000 rubles; one mechanic —

15,000 rubles. Premises rent: 20,000 rubles

per month. Monthly maintenance

including the listed

expenses is 685,000 rubles per month. These are

the costs; repayment for the trucks and

salaries is 840,000 per month for fuel.

If everything is correct, then the cost price

comes to 252 rubles per cubic meter.

From Ofitserov to Navalny: greetings in

the attached project and note. Take a look,

and then I’ll call, and we’ll talk about

business matters.

Next, the subject line of a private message from Ofitserov to Navalny, May 13

2009, attached. This is a brief

memo; it gives a general idea. So far I

haven’t been able to shake them off or get

a broader description. They are very

enthusiastic people and get buried in

future prospects. There is a more detailed

romantic description, but it contains more

lyricism than substance.

Next, on case file pages 74

to 76, there is an attached memo, a memo

about the material “drevoplast,” followed by its

technical specifications.

It was provided; the case file does not indicate by whom.

Page 77 and onward contain a continuation of the correspondence from

Ofitserov to Navalny, ending as follows:

This will work. For this, we need approval

for the creation of a unified trading platform for

forest products, with Vyazkaya Forestry Company at the

level of the regional administration. Second,

assistance from the Department of Forestry

and the Department of Industry

in organizing this process. I ask you

to consider our proposal. All

additional information and calculations are ready

to be provided at your request. From

Navalny to Ofitserov, May 12, 2009.

.

Subject: letter. What we need specifically is

legalization, institutionalization, and

recognition of the platform project. That is exactly what the money is for.

Let’s do it through your board/channel.

Received from Ofitserov to Navalny. May

12, 2009. Also the subject of the letter.

So what do we need then? Only approval.

Boys, play around with your own money, and

the bank will only come in if it’s going to provide money. The deputy

chairman of the fund—he’s not

an altruist either. Throwing away 15 million rubles

on risks is not the point. We need legalization. This

letter serves that goal. That’s all

it can provide. And the money for this needs

to be found, or someone else needs to be pressed, until

we’ll scrape it together. But on the other hand, the sale

1,000

of a cubic meter of edged lumber will bring us 3 million.

That’s 3–5 deals. Everything depends on someone else’s resources.

Anyway, you need to bring it tomorrow

with a signature and seal from

Navalny. Ofitserov, May 12, 2009

subject: letter. It’s unrealistic for us to provide a budget guarantee

there—I checked, collateral is required

let’s leave that out for now. From Ofitserov

to Navalny: attached is the revised version

from Navalny to Ofitserov, subject: letter. Everything

is excellent, only the word “chaotically”

appears twice. And most importantly,

for this we need—we need something at all

needed. From Ofitserov to Navalny

Hi, attached is the draft letter, take a look

criticize it—what needs to be added, what removed, and

so on

from officer Navalny, May 9, 2009.

So, in reality, we’re going back to the scheme

with Khagupam, working through him and

gradually preparing the ground for

development, possibly by buying goods on the basis of

a letter with the Governor’s approval. What else

can the letter help with? If it gets signed,

then maybe they’ll give us dead-end rail sidings. Well,

in that case it would be better to ask for specific

sidings. Or maybe leave the money in

the letter—later it will be easier to say, the money

wasn’t provided, but give us the sidings. Think it over, and

I’ll call you tomorrow and we’ll discuss it. Because

this letter can only serve as the basis

for an instruction along the lines of “provide

support to the initiative of the Vyatka Timber

Company to create a unified trading

platform,” which, in principle, could also

work out quite well. Think about it; I’ll call tomorrow. From

Navalny to Ofitserov. As for the budget

guarantee, it’s unrealistic to provide one there, I checked,

collateral is required. Let’s leave that out for now. From

Ofitserov to Navalny: attached is

the revised version.

From Navalny to Ofitserov: everything is excellent,

only the word “chaotically” appears

twice. And most importantly,

for this we need—we need something at all

to work with. From Ofitserov to Navalny: hi, attached

is the draft letter, take a look,

what needs to be added, selected, and so on.

Next, from case file pages eighty-fourth

through eighty-

sixth. Correspondence with attachment

subject: letter. From Ofitserov to Navalny, attached is

the revised version. Again it is repeated:

from Navalny to Ofitserov.

Everything is excellent, only the word “chaotically”

appears twice. But also the most

important thing: for this we need, we really

need something.

What follows is the letter itself,

addressed to the Governor of Kirov Region

Nikita Belykh from the General Director of Vyatka

Timber Company, Ofitserov. The letter

reads as follows: Dear Nikita

Yuryevich, having analyzed the operations

of the timber industry complex of Kirov

Region, one can see that a large

share of transactions by participants in this market

is carried out chaotically, without

strategic goals; they are guided

only by incoming passive demand.

Market participants, in managing their

activities, are guided by short-term gains

and make decisions on pricing policy in

their dealings with clients without taking into account

long-term plans. This approach has led

to a situation where, during periods of low demand,

producers are balancing on the brink of

bankruptcy. A large share of

logging companies have accumulated large

stocks of commercial timber that they cannot

sell. This is especially true of

pulpwood, small-diameter timber, and other

low-grade timber. Today, because of

—apparently, because of the traditionally

low level of marketing work in the industry

and the unstructured work with

clients, most

timber producers do not have stable

sales channels. In current conditions, they are ready

to sell their products below

cost, especially when it comes to

roundwood and low-grade

timber. This leads to unhealthy

competition and a drop in overall prices, which

reduces the profitability of enterprises and

the region’s budget revenues. Such operations

at a loss reduce the prospects

for the further development of the region’s timber sector.

The absence of a unified

marketing effort leads to

lost sales and an extremely low, extremely

limited influence of the region’s timber industry complex on the

timber market in the European part of Russia.

To improve the efficiency

of the timber industry complex as a whole,

we propose creating a unified trading

platform for timber products for

enterprises in Kirov Region. The main

functions of this platform will be

to ensure stable sales for

timber industry products throughout

the year, to create

a consolidated marketing

impact on the market in order to obtain

more favorable terms for timber products

from Kirov Region. The organization

of the logistics component to

ensure cost competitiveness for

enterprises of the timber industry

complex of Kirov Region. The creation

of a unified trading platform for the region’s timber

products will make it possible to create

clear operating conditions for

timber producers and provide them with

stable sales channels, especially for products such

as pulpwood, small-diameter timber,

timber, and so on. Stable sales

will allow enterprises to develop more

systematically, with much greater confidence in

the future. A single operator for external

clients—pulp-and-paper mills, plywood plants, and others—

would be a more attractive supplier and

would be able to secure more favorable contracts

for large-volume deliveries than the terms

that individual small producers could

obtain on their own.

By focusing on customer service,

it would be able to meet a larger share of these clients’ demand

and also provide a higher

level of service through

organized logistics, deferred

business processes. With

a large volume of timber at its disposal, a unified trading

platform would be able to strengthen the position of the timber industry complex

of Kirov Oblast in the European part

of the Russian Federation. Vyatka Timber

Company is ready to establish this platform on its own base.

We have already carried out

all the necessary calculations and held

preliminary negotiations with

most potential buyers of

softwood and hardwood pulpwood and

other low-grade timber. For

this, we need

approval for the creation of a unified trading

platform for forest products at the level of

the regional administration, as well as a financial

guarantee from the region in order to obtain a loan

in the amount of 15 million rubles. This sum will be

invested in the development of the timber

sector through payment for timber actually

shipped. We plan to purchase

pulpwood and other timber under a 50%

prepayment, 50% after payment is made to us

by major pulp-and-paper mills, plywood plants, and so on,

as well as purchase equipment for equipment for

organizing the collection of timber from remote

districts for enterprises that do not have

the ability to haul it out themselves. In

this activity, Vyatka Timber Company

plans to earn no more than 12%.

I ask you to consider our proposal. All

additional information and calculations can be

provided at your request.

General Director of Vyatka Timber Company

Ofitserov.

8788

continuation of the correspondence

from Ofitserov to Navalny, subject: letter, May 12

2009. Dmitry, hi. I’ll change it to

unstructured—hell knows what is needed

I have a slight feeling that

we’re rushing. Look, the price of pulpwood in the

region averages 700 rubles at the yard, while

small batches can be bought

for less; there are also higher prices, up to 1,000. Self-pickup

for pulpwood is an established practice.

I’d rather burn it or ruin my health than sell it

for less. It turns out that we would be able

to earn 30–40 rubles more than with

the other option. Um. Pulpwood is a mess like that. In

principle, its price is low, and even

an increase of 2–3%. Margins hardly

changes the picture in absolute terms.

So I don’t know what to ask for. What

should we ask for? KOGUP has the ability

to cover the needs for this order for the next 2–3 months.

During that

time, we can set up a collection system,

and hold negotiations with suppliers. But

then the next question arises. The cost

of delivery does not differ much from rail, since

we need to find trucks based in the area, and

Kirov carriers are quoting a preliminary price

of 650–710 rubles

per cubic meter. Rail cost

is comparable. We may be able to push back on price,

but not by much. Squeeze it a bit, but not much. And

only if we find, out in the districts,

available trucks. We would need to ship out

around 7,000 cubic meters per month. That is almost 5

million rubles for transport services. The money would come back

within a month, plus procurement would also be

the same amount. In total, we need at least 10 million

rubles, at a minimum, in order to earn

849,750, assuming procurement at 100 rubles per cubic meter. In

the best case, all the risks are ours. If through

KOGUP, then we can make 5965 and the risks are almost zero.

Do we really need to take on 10 million in debt for the sake

of getting an additional 35

rubles? That would be $30,000–40,000. At the same time,

the cost of credit is at least 20–25% per

year, which would be 2–2.5 million rubles. That is,

a potential income of 1.5 million versus

a guaranteed expense of 2.5 million.

Primitive, but clear. Pulpwood is not

something you can make money on under such

conditions. Maybe—where could I be

wrong? I’d be glad to be corrected. Therefore

I don’t know what we need right now from

the administration. We really don’t know. They won’t give us money

interest-free. We need

to think through a scheme without money, but

they will only sell on prepayment or

under a regional guarantee. But again

the question arises: people need cash

now. That was the letter from Navalny

to Ofitserov. May 12, 2009. Subject:

letter. Everything is excellent. Only the word

“chaotically” appears twice. And

most importantly, for this we need—we need

something at all.

Further

9397.

Continuation of the correspondence.

Subject: logo, from Ofitserov to Navalny, April 23

2009. As for the money required,

we will need it. Payroll fund: 117

including me. Without me, 72,000.

Theoretically, my payment can be postponed until next month.

Tax is approximately 17,000, so

I’ll be able to say more precisely after the calculation,

but the amount will remain roughly the same.

We need to develop the corporate identity now.

3,000 rubles, because with what we currently have

the wood design is ridiculous; we need to make letterheads,

business cards, envelopes, and so on. But this is, in

principle, just a deposit. The main amount can

be paid later. Better to do it now,

so as not to drag things out. And for this phone

we need 3,000 rubles right now. Product cancellation

3,000 rubles. There is nothing. So we need to prepare

143,000 rubles,

If without me, 98,000. Right now I’m waiting for

payments from the houses and paying as much as 260,000. Of mine, they have

13,000. Then taxes and so on have to be deducted as well.

The big orders are still hanging in limbo. I don’t know

whether I’ll manage to move anything by the end of April.

Most likely not. It’s not possible to speed things up,

because the shipping cycle is still at least

a week by rail. And by truck, for now,

there’s no option, so we keep working and wait for May.

So, from Navalny to Ofitserov, subject:

logo.

Yes, there’s a snag here again. I need

the Perm train, the one we took last

time, but for now there’s only one SV compartment left,

there are regular compartment berths available. We booked one SV berth and

tomorrow we’ll try to catch another SV berth through

a canceled reservation. If we don’t get one,

we’ll buy you a regular compartment berth. If that doesn’t work for you,

then say so, and we won’t take the compartment berth from

Ofitserov for Navalny for tomorrow. At

what time from Navalny

>> Ofitserov, I’m buying the tickets from Ofitserov

for Navalny. My phone numbers, which were previously

listed, and my passport details were also

provided earlier. There was also

correspondence on this.

And so on. 101

102 correspondence with the attachment

subject: letter from Ofitserov to Navalny, 3

April 2009. Hello, attached is

the letter that was given to friend O. On

the recommendation of this very guy, we need

clarification, because as I understand it

this duplicates the scheme, and now we need

to understand whether they will go through us or whether this will be

something else. Replying to the SMS already on the

train.

And the attachment on page 102 is a letter

containing the following proposal:

addressed to friend O. Our proposal:

our company, acting in cooperation with

its partners in the northwestern

region of the Russian Federation, can

provide services for the sale of timber by volume.

Various kinds of round timber. The possibility of such

joint activity, as well as all

the terms for organizing and conducting transactions,

we are ready to discuss after receiving from

the interested parties a response regarding

the products. In the event of productive and

mutually beneficial cooperation, we will be able

in the future to place at your

enterprise orders from our partner, including

foreign ones. We are contacting you on the

recommendation of the government of Kirov Region (a federal subject of Russia),

Vector S. Suntsov Sergey

Anatolyevich, contact person

Bobrovtsvsky.

And so on.

136 through 143.

Correspondence and its attachment. Subject:

business matters from Ofitserov to Navalny, 2 July

2009. Hi. You asked friend

O. for a list of directors of forestry enterprises who

have their own business in the timber sector. I’m

about to meet with him now and want

to raise this issue as well. You also

promised an introduction to the head of the colony

for the purpose of buying timber from them.

Subject: business matters from Navalny to Ofitserov, 2

July 2009. Yes, I asked for it a long

time ago. And you can press him hard

about it. As for the colony, I haven’t spoken yet. On 2

July 2009, Ofitserov wrote: "Hi

you asked the other guy for a list of directors

of forestry enterprises who have their own business in

the timber sector. I’m about to

meet with him now and want to raise this issue

as well. You also promised an introduction to

the head of the colony for the purpose of buying

timber from them."

So, from Ofitserov to Navalny.

Right now I’ve written letters demanding a penalty

from KOGUP for 100,000 rubles. Of course,

they won’t pay most of it, but I’ll keep pressuring them

to the very end. Right now I want to carry out a full

inventory audit of the remaining stock—or rather, demand

that they do it there. I’m asking you

to demand that they conduct an audit.

Maybe with representatives of the department;

I can assign one of my people as well.

Let him go along; of course he won’t be doing the counting,

but he’ll put on a show of importance and be useful.

I think they really have little harvested timber left,

and it will be necessary

to take measures in order to

block any sales by the

forestry enterprises themselves. Officially they supposedly can’t right now,

but I think they are in fact trading. My contract

with Marbum and the Volsk Pulp and Paper Mill is on the verge of collapse.

They’ve run out of hardwood pulpwood,

they shipped only 700 cubic meters, and that’s it. And

for the next 3 months I’ll somehow have to produce

another 700 cubic meters per month.

Given the low price, I won’t be able

to buy it properly across the whole region. In

short, it’s a complete nightmare. What should we do, who

should we beat up? I’ll have to go myself and throw myself at

the procurement director. There’s a woman there

who’s been working there since the year dot. Or better yet,

how about you, as part of building ties with

other regions—and you might like her,

she’ll be gentle. Basically, everything is converging

on full-scale trading and procurement activity

with our own money and at our own

risk. All in all, absurdly entertaining. I’m waiting for

you to tell me a meeting time. I’m busy until Friday.

negotiations, where I will be with clients

to say that I have timber, yes, beyond that it is not

acceptable to use the word very, very much. Where is friend O,

don’t you know, he didn’t tell you anything,

damn, he disappeared today. What’s going on there? When

are we meeting today? From Navalny,

to the department officers, July 2, 2009. Yes,

had requested it a long time ago. And you will be able to, uh,

you can demand it from him strictly. Regarding the column

he hasn’t said anything yet.

What follows was then read aloud.

from Ofitserov to Navalny, April 9, 2009

Subject: contract. Hi. We’ll take a look.

The case file pages that follow contain an appendix

to this letter. Case file pages 141 through

143.

The appendix is read out in full. Contract

No. 01/29.

No exact date is specified. April 2009

place of execution: Kirov.

Further details are not specified. represented by the General Director

acting on the basis of

the charter, hereinafter referred to as the Supplier, on the

one hand, Vyatka Timber Company

represented by General Director Pyotr Ofitserov

Yuryevich, acting on the basis of

the charter, hereinafter referred to as the

Buyer, on the other hand, together hereinafter

referred to as the Parties, have entered into

this agreement as follows.

The Supplier undertakes to supply products

hereinafter referred to as the Goods, in accordance with the technical requirements to

the consignee’s address specified in

the appendix to this agreement, and

the Buyer shall pay for the Goods on the terms

established by this agreement.

Delivery of the Goods during the term

of the agreement shall be carried out in

accordance with the annual, quarterly,

and monthly schedule. The delivery quota

is established by the appendix to this

agreement. The appendix to the agreement

shall be signed by the parties and shall constitute

an integral part of this agreement.

The appendix contains information on

the name, quantity, price, terms, and

delivery periods of the Goods, the mode of transport

and the delivery region. The appendices may

also contain other additional

information. The Supplier guarantees that at the time

of delivery it is

the owner of the Goods or has

lawfully acquired the rights to them

and that the supplied Goods are free

from any encumbrances or other rights of third

parties. Any amendments or additions to

any appendix shall be made

only with the consent of both parties and

shall be executed in writing.

Quality requirements and the procedure

for acceptance of the Goods. Acceptance

of delivered Goods by quantity and

quality shall be carried out upon delivery

by the consignee, where internal acceptance rules

apply, in

accordance with the internal acceptance rules

set out in the appendices

to this agreement. Upon delivery

to a consignee that carries out

acceptance in accordance with the standards

of the Russian Federation, acceptance of the Goods

shall be carried out in accordance with

Instruction P-6 of June 15, 1965

and P-7 of April 25, 1967

approved by

resolutions of the State

Arbitration body under the USSR Council of Ministers

with subsequent amendments and additions

taking into account the technical requirements for

the supplied timber products set out

in the appendices to this agreement.

Calling in a representative of the Supplier for

participation in the acceptance of the Goods by quantity and

quality is not mandatory. Acceptance

shall be carried out unilaterally,

except in cases provided for in

the appendices to this agreement. An acceptance report

drawn up unilaterally

shall have legal force.

The Supplier is granted the right to

conduct bilateral acceptance. For

the purpose of bilateral acceptance,

the Supplier must notify the Buyer in

writing 3 days before the arrival of the

railcar, flatcar, truck, or vessel at the

destination station or port. Demurrage of railcars,

flatcars, trucks, or vessels while awaiting

the Supplier’s representative for

bilateral acceptance shall be paid by

the Supplier in the amount of the rental fee,

sublease fee, and service charges for each day

of delay; any partial day shall be counted as a full day

if the Supplier’s representative is absent

at the moment the means of transport is placed

for unloading as previously scheduled

for bilateral acceptance,

the decision on unloading shall be made by

the consignee. Based on the results of

the final acceptance of the Goods,

an acceptance report shall be drawn up, the result

of which shall be binding on the parties.

If the actual volume

or quality of the delivered Goods does not correspond

to that stated in the shipping documents

or to the terms of the agreement, the Supplier

shall be notified by telegram or

fax message. The price for Goods

that do not meet the requirements of the agreement

shall be specified in the appendix to this

agreement. The basis for a price reduction

shall be the commission acceptance report. Price

and payment procedure. The price of the supplied

Goods of the corresponding quality

shall be agreed by the parties in appendices

to this agreement. The parties have the right

to change the prices of the supplied Goods

by making

amendments to the appendix to this

agreement. Payment for the Goods shall be made

by the Buyer by transferring funds

to the Supplier’s settlement account in

accordance with the payment terms

set out in the appendices to this

Agreement. Payment under the

Buyer’s obligations shall be deemed made

when the funds are debited from the

Buyer’s account. The Buyer shall have the right, upon notifying

the Supplier, to withhold from the amounts

payable to the Supplier for

delivered goods any and all amounts

payable to the Buyer under this

Agreement, including penalties, fines,

and bonuses, as well as delivery terms and deadlines.

The Supplier shall deliver, and the Buyer shall

accept, the goods in accordance with the

approved order. The Buyer

shall place the order in writing by

fax or email. After

receiving the order, the Supplier undertakes to

acknowledge receipt thereof and

confirm all of its parameters,

including quantity, assortment, quality, and price

of the goods to be supplied, by signing the order

and confirming it in writing by sending its

form by fax or email within

one business day. If

the Supplier is unable to fulfill the order

at all or in full, it shall

inform the Buyer accordingly within

24 hours from receipt of the order.

An order shall be deemed fulfilled provided that there is

full conformity between the

goods specified in the confirmed order and the

accompanying documents for the goods actually

delivered. In the event of delayed

delivery of the goods, the Supplier shall pay

5% for each day of delay, but not more than

5% of the total value of the goods. In the event of

partial fulfillment of the order, the Supplier

shall pay the Buyer a penalty in the amount of

5% of the total value of the undelivered

goods. In the event of delivery of goods

of inadequate quality in a proportion exceeding

20% of the total shipment value, the costs of

return shall be borne by the Supplier. If acceptance is refused

due to the quality of the cargo, the order

shall be deemed unfulfilled, and in such case

Clause 46 of this

Agreement shall apply. Delivery shall be made by the mode of

transport in accordance with the terms

set out in the appendix to this

Agreement. Liability of the Parties

The property liability of the Parties

shall be governed by the current civil

legislation of the Russian Federation

The Parties shall be released from property

liability if non-performance or

improper performance of obligations

occurred as a result of force majeure

circumstances.

Any amendments to the appendix to

this Agreement must be

made in writing and signed

by both Parties and shall constitute its

integral part. Force majeure

Force majeure circumstances

shall mean unforeseen circumstances of irresistible

force for which the Parties are not

responsible, including natural disasters,

strikes, wars, adoption

by state authorities of laws and

subordinate regulations preventing

performance of the Agreement, and others,

which shall release the Party that failed to perform its

obligations due to the occurrence of the said

circumstances from

liability for such non-performance

for the duration of such circumstances and

their effects. If such

circumstances continue for more than 15

days, either Party shall have the right

to refuse to perform its obligations under

this Agreement. The Party for whom

performance of obligations has become impossible

under the Agreement

must notify the other Party no

later than three business days from the date of

the occurrence of such circumstances.

Additional terms: the Supplier

undertakes to supply timber products

harvested in compliance with

environmental laws and requirements

established by the legislation

of the Russian Federation. The Supplier shall bear

liability to the Buyer for

compliance with environmental requirements

by its subcontractors and contractors

and consignors with respect to

the timber products supplied to the Buyer, upon

the Buyer’s request. The Supplier must

provide information about the harvesting area

and forestry documents confirming

the legality of the allocation of timber for logging.

The Buyer has the right to know the location of the Supplier’s logging sites

and, if necessary,

to monitor the logging process

for timber products, including by

inspection of the logging sites by an authorized

representative of the Buyer. Upon request,

the Supplier shall provide the Buyer with

copies of documents confirming

the place of origin.

The Buyer shall have the right, if necessary,

to monitor the production process of

sawn timber, including by

inspecting the production sites.

Final provisions. Any

amendments to the appendices and attachments to

this Agreement must be

made in writing and

signed by both Parties and shall constitute

an integral part hereof. Termination

of the Agreement shall be possible at the initiative of either

Party upon 60 business days’ prior notice

thereof. All disputes arising in connection with the

conclusion and performance of this

Agreement shall be resolved by the arbitration court.

in court. As established by law.

procedure. Matters not addressed by this

agreement shall be governed in accordance with

the civil legislation of the Russian

Federation and other regulatory acts.

The relations between the parties in the performance of

the contractual terms constitute a commercial

secret and may not be disclosed to third parties.

The agreement has been executed in two copies,

one of which is held by the supplier.

The second is held by the buyer. Documents transmitted

by facsimile communication shall have

legal force, and the parties shall mutually, without fail,

within 10 days send each other

the originals of documents transmitted

by facsimile communication. The agreement

shall take effect from the moment of its

conclusion and shall remain in force until December 31,

2009. Supplier. Buyer.

name not specified

further, case file pages 144 through 168. Eighth.

Order on recognition and inclusion

in the criminal case of certain

items of evidence dated October 18, 2012.

Moscow. Investigator

of the investigative group of the Main

Investigative Directorate of the Investigative

Committee of the Russian Federation, Senior

Lieutenant of Justice Chernykh.

Having reviewed the materials of criminal case

No. 2011/71306811,

namely, having examined documents and information

seized during a search conducted on June 8,

2011, from the general director of the Vyatka

Timber Company, D. Yu. Ofitserov.

financial documents, contracts,

documents and information obtained during

a seizure carried out on August 9,

2012 on the premises of, apparently, the

Vyatka Bank, located at K. Marx Street

building 4

seized in the course of proceedings on September 27,

2012 on the premises of

the Volgo-Vyatka Bank of Sberbank of Russia

located at the address: Nizhny

Novgorod, Oktyabrskaya Street, building 35

attached to the interrogation record of the

accused; additionally, an employment contract dated

April 15, 2009; obtained pursuant to

a court order, information on

connections between subscribers and

subscriber devices of Ofitserov and

Navalny, obtained as a result of

an operational-search

measure involving the interception of telephone

conversations; optical discs. I hereby order

that the following be recognized and attached to criminal case

No. 2011/71306811

as physical evidence:

agreement No. 01/29 dated April 15, 2009

between, apparently, Provles and the Timber Company

for the supply of products, together with appendices to

it.

Agreement between

agreement No. 219 dated May 4, 2009 between

VLK and Domostroitel; agreement

No. 04/2009/58

dated May 5, 2009 between VLK and the Kirov

Furniture and Woodworking

Combine; agreement No. 03/29 dated April 28

2009 between VLK and AVS

agreement between VLK and ZAO Plis Pechprom

agreement between VLK and OAO Volga, between VLK

and Lesgarant, between VLK and the Match

Factory Pobeda, between VLK and IO Vlada,

between VLK and the Mari

Pulp and Paper Mill, between

VLK and ZAO Krasny Yakor, VLK and Sevlespil

VLK and sole proprietor Podgorno, VLK and OAO Montazhnik

between OAO VLK and Imond,

which were examined, as well as

delivery notes, invoices,

which were also examined by us.

In addition, as physical

evidence, an employment contract has been attached

dated April 15, 2009 between

the employer VLK and the employee Bura.

Attached are the interrogation records of Opolev.

Information on connections of subscriber

number 8 903 726 0251.

Information on connections of subscriber

number 8 965 206 3083,

which shall be stored with the

materials of the criminal case.

>> Which sheet is this? 167

the legal department of the Vyatka Timber

Company, stitched and sealed with a paper

label bearing an imprint of the seal for packets

of the Seventh Main Investigative Directorate

of the Investigative Committee, provided with the signatures

of the investigators and attesting witnesses; statement of

transactions on account No. 407028 10320

129046

of the Vyatka Timber Company at VCB Vyatka Bank

for the period from April 15, 2009 to

October 1, 2009. Statement of transactions

on account No. 407029 788 3002 129046

VLK, VCB Vyatka Bank. Transit account in euros

for the same period, from April 15 to October 1,

2009. Statement of transactions on account

No. 407029 78530

219046

VLK, VCB, current euro account for

the period from April 15 to October 1, 2009

year. Statement of transactions on account

No. 407028 40130

42 9046, VLK, VCB, transit account in

U.S. dollars for the period from April 15 to

October 1, 2009; statement of transactions

on account No. 407028 408321229046

VLK, VCB bank, current U.S. dollar account

for the period from April 15 to October 1, 2009

year; legal department of, apparently, Rafles, in

two volumes

signature specimen card and seal imprint

of, apparently, Rafles, for current account

No. 406028

104 270212014

dated November 3, 2011, annulled

signature specimen card, Ochisko

Kagubrofles seal, originals and copies in

in the amount of 58 items, account transaction statements

for account No. 406028 10427012154k

Glubrofles at Sberbank of Russia for transfer

from April 15 to October 1, 2009

optical DVD-R disc, serial number

No. 240 4423ts

2493, containing account statements

of the Kagubrofles branch for the period from

April 15 to October 1, 2009

packed in an envelope made of white paper

in color, provided with

the signatures of the attesting witnesses and investigators

bearing an imprint of the seal for packages of the Seventh

Main Investigative Directorate of the

of the Investigative Committee of the Russian

Federation, optical CD-R disc, serial

number N16 LG291

D80 6288C2

2, marked "attachment"

dated July 18, 2011, containing

information on the connections of subscriber

number 8922 952 9865, packed in a

white paper envelope, bearing

an imprint of the seal for packages of the department for

the investigation of especially important cases

of the Investigative Directorate for Kirov Region

provided with an explanatory note and

secured with the signatures of the attesting witnesses

and investigators, optical CD-R disc

serial number N1150D21D8

81 9033

72, marked "criminal case No. 2011"

ro 713168 11, containing information on

the connections of subscriber number

8 985 761 6476, packed in an envelope made of

white paper, bearing an imprint of a seal

of round shape for packages of the department for

the investigation of especially important cases

of the Investigative Directorate for Kirov Region

of the Investigative Committee of the Russian

Federation, with an explanatory note

and secured with the signatures of the investigator and attesting witnesses

optical disc, CD-R disc, serial number

LH6106

OI

0 121

183

D3, marked "Philip," containing

information on the connections of subscriber

number 8903 590 8639, packed in

envelopes made of white paper

sealed with a paper label bearing an imprint

of a round seal for packages of the department

for the investigation of especially important cases

of the Investigative Directorate for Kirov Region

of the Investigative Committee of the Russian

Federation, with an explanatory inscription

and secured with the signatures of the investigators

and attesting witnesses, as well as an optical CD-R disc with

a white front side. optical

CD-R disc, serial number CDL R

that is, 401/18/09

1045, packed in an envelope made of white paper

in color, sealed with a paper label bearing an imprint

of a round seal for packages

of the Seventh Main Investigative

Directorate of the Investigative Committee

of the Russian Federation, with

an explanatory inscription and signatures

of the investigators and attesting witnesses; the specified documents

shall be kept with the materials of the criminal case

so ordered

176

17

order on recognition and attachment to

the criminal case of physical evidence

dated January 10, 2013

Moscow. Investigator of the investigative team

of the Main Investigative Directorate

of the Investigative Committee of the Russian

Federation, Chernykh, having reviewed the materials

of criminal case No. 2011/7136811

established:

that in this case there were

inspected items and objects seized during

the search conducted on August 8, 2012