"The Kirovles Case." Court Video Recording. Hearing 4

Please rise.

Please.

Judge: The hearing is declared open.

The Leninsky District Court continues

the consideration of the criminal case against

Navalny and Ofitserov.

Please identify yourselves for the record.

So, all parties are present.

With the exception of the representative of the

injured party, who was summoned to the hearing

for 9 o’clock, the following arrived:

witnesses Kiselyov, Shcherchkov,

Osapov. Witness

Koritnyuk was brought in under compulsion.

The court invites

witness Shcherchkov into the courtroom. Please.

Bailiff, please escort witness Shcherchkov

in.

I think that now, of course, it seems...

Now,

>> Your Honor, before the questioning of witnesses,

we have a motion.

>> Please, go ahead.

>> Well, I will read it into the record in written form.

On the night of May 8 to May 9, 2013,

the public holiday Victory Day (marking the Soviet Union’s victory in World War II) was being observed.

The office used by a lawyer of the Moscow

Bar Association, Interregional, by Navalny,

as well as by attorneys Mikhailova and Kobzev,

who are defending Navalny in the criminal

proceedings currently taking place in the

Leninsky District Court of the city of Kirov, was

subjected to an unlawful and arbitrary

search by officials of the city police department

of Kirov. The entry

of law enforcement officers into

the lawyers’ office, rented for the duration

of the hearings in this

criminal case, took place at night

under a completely fabricated pretext

and supposedly for an inspection of the scene in

connection with a report allegedly received from some

resident claiming that in these premises

leaflets of an extremist

nature were being printed.

Having established that no unlawful acts were taking place in the office,

that no unlawful acts were being committed,

the police officers, under various

pretexts, inspected all rooms,

including the lawyers’ room, where

documents and legal case files

related to this criminal case were kept. A full

live video broadcast of all events

was carried on various resources on

the internet. From the video broadcast

it became known that the officers

of law enforcement, without witnesses to the search

or other public representatives,

remained for a long time behind a closed door

in the defense lawyers’ office

and had unrestricted access to

the lawyers’ confidential materials in

this criminal case. It is entirely

obvious that this situation, in which

law enforcement officers

of the city of Kirov, on fabricated

grounds, burst into premises

used by Alexei Navalny and his

lawyers to prepare for court

hearings in this criminal case,

testifies to attempts by

law enforcement officials

to carry out acts of intimidation against

the lawyers, to exert pressure on

the lawyers, and also to obtain

unhindered unlawful

access to legally protected attorney-client

privilege and confidential information,

related to the defense’s position in

this criminal case. Undoubtedly,

the above-described situation that has arisen in

connection with the consideration of this criminal

case in the Leninsky District Court of the city

of Kirov requires an immediate response from

the presiding judge in order

to ensure the rights of the participants in these

proceedings. We believe that

these actions by the police flagrantly

violate attorney-client privilege and

obstruct the exercise of

Navalny’s full defense by himself and

his lawyers, which undoubtedly has led

to a violation in this case of the provisions of

Article 6 § 3 of the European Convention on the Protection

of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. Moreover,

these actions by the police

were allegedly carried out in search of certain

extremist materials, specifically

in the office of opposition figure Navalny.

This circumstance most clearly

demonstrates the existence of political

motivation in the actions of the authorities

against Alexei Navalny. It is obvious that

the authorities of the Russian Federation regard any

opposition public activity

as extremism, which

confirms a violation by the authorities of

the Russian Federation of the provisions of Article

18 of the European Convention on

Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.

In view of the above, on the basis of Part

4 of Article 20 of the

Criminal Procedure Code, we ask the court

to issue a special ruling with respect to

the Ministry of Internal Affairs directorate for the city of Kirov in connection with the manifestly

unlawful actions falling under

Articles 285 and 286 of the Criminal Code

of the Russian Federation. I ask that this motion

be attached to the case file.

Defense counsel. Attorney Kobzev

supports the motion.

>> Attorney Kobzev.

>> I support it.

>> Defendant Navalny.

>> Your Honor, I support it. I would also like to

add on my own behalf that I live in another

city. This trial is a lengthy proceeding

and

requires me to travel here constantly. We have

a large volume of materials in the criminal

case. In order to exercise all available means

of our lawful defense, we regularly

file motions and take other

actions provided for by law.

It is obvious that for this I need

some kind of organizational base; I need

an office where all of this is printed. It is entirely

obvious that this office contains

confidential materials belonging to me and my

lawyers, which are protected by,

among other things, the law on legal

practice, and they are also subject to

attorney-client privilege. Therefore, I

would simply like to add that I have

an entirely obvious need

to rent such premises and to

use such premises. I use it

in accordance with the manner in which

the law provides. All of this

has been legally formalized. And when, on the night

of May 9, ten officers somehow enter the place

from the Main Directorate for

the city of Kirov of the Ministry of Internal

Affairs of the Russian Federation, I can explain it

in no other way except as

pressure on me, on my defense, and

the desire of certain persons, as yet unidentified,

yes, and still unknown to me, simply

to find out

our defense strategy, our defense plans, and

to violate the regime of attorney-client

privilege with respect to documents that

belong to me and, possibly, to the defendant

officer. Thank you.

>> Attorney Davydova, please.

>> Yes, I fully support the motion.

>> Understood. Defendant Officer?

>> Yes, I support it, Your Honor.

>> The prosecutor's position on the motion?

>> Your Honor, we object to the issuance of a

special ruling. We believe that

this does not relate to the subject matter of

these proceedings, and it is unclear how

this violates the rights of either

the lawyers or their clients. Your

view? Your Honor, frankly, for

us this is a first. We heard that

there had been some kind of entry,

some searches, but as I understood

from Attorney Mikhailov's statement, the reason

for conducting the searches was a report

alleging the presence of, well, extremist

materials in the office. Therefore, I believe

that this has nothing to do with

the subject matter of the present court case. Um,

as for seeking a special

ruling addressed to law enforcement

agencies, the defense may pursue that

by filing a complaint about the actions

of law enforcement officers under

Article 125 procedure. That is, no one is depriving them of

that right. Having heard the parties' views,

the court rules to deny

the motion for the issuance of a

special ruling addressed to

law enforcement officers.

No materials confirming

that a search was conducted have been presented to the court.

The court was not aware of this,

therefore there are insufficient grounds for

issuing a special ruling

at this time.

The court now proceeds to the examination

of witness Cherchkov. Please step

up to the stand,

and identify yourself.

Good afternoon. Shcherchkov Sergey

Vladimirovich.

>> When and where were you born?

>> February 5, 1969.

Where were you born? In Gorodok.

>> What is your ethnicity?

>> Russian.

>> Are you a citizen of Russia?

>> Yes.

>> Your education?

>> Higher education.

>> Marital status?

>> Married.

>> Where do you work, and in what position?

>> First Deputy Chairman

of the Government of Kirov Region.

>> What is your registered address?

Where do you live?

>> Temporarily registered at the address: city of

Kirov, Karla Liebknechta Street, building 69,

block 4.

>> I do have permanent registration.

Permanent registration: city of Perm,

Kuibysheva Street, building 95A, apartment 25.

You have been summoned to court to be examined as a

witness. I explain to you that, in

accordance with Article 56 of the

Criminal Procedure Code, you

are obliged to tell the truth and are obliged

to appear when summoned by the court. I also

explain that you have the right to refuse

to testify against yourself,

your spouse, and other close

relatives. If you agree to testify,

you are warned that your testimony may

be used as evidence in

the case, including

in the event of your subsequent

refusal to maintain that testimony. You also have the right

to appear for questioning in the presence of your

lawyer, the right to make motions,

to file complaints regarding the actions,

inaction, and decisions of the court concerning

your examination, and to request

the application of security measures if

necessary.

In addition, I explain to you that if

you do not have grounds

for a justified refusal to give

testimony, criminal liability may arise.

liability for refusing to testify

under Article 308 of the Criminal

Code of the Russian Federation, and for giving

knowingly false testimony under Article 307

of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.

Your rights and responsibilities have been explained to you. Understood?

>> Yes,

>> understood. Please provide the court

with your signed acknowledgment through the secretary.

Do you have any grounds to refuse

to testify?

>> No.

>> Then please answer the prosecutor's questions.

>> Sergei Vladimirovich, please explain,

whether you are acquainted with the defendants

Navalny and Ofitserov? Yes, I am.

>> Um, what kind of relationship do you currently

have with them? Friendly,

business, or some other kind? Do you feel

any hostility toward them?

>> Well, we have not seen each other for a very long time, so

there is no hostility

between us. When Alexei Navalny was working

here, we had a good relationship

>> with Ofitserov, it was strictly professional.

>> I see. Please explain your place

of work and the position you held

during the period from April to October

2009, and what fell within your

direct responsibilities. From April

to October 2009, I held the position

of Deputy Chairman of the Government

of Kirov Region. My duties

included oversight of five executive

government bodies. These were the Department

of Roads, Transport and Communications,

the Department of Forestry,

at that time the Directorate for Ecology and

Natural Resources, the Directorate for the Protection and

Conservation of Wildlife, and the Directorate

for the Development of Physical Culture and Sports, plus, um,

relations with the municipal

entity of the city of Kirov.

>> Are you familiar with the state enterprise

Kirovles?

>> Yes, certainly.

>> Who was its founder in 2009?

As far as I remember, in 2009 its

founder was the Department

of State Property of Kirov

Region.

>> What was the nature of

Kirovles's activities?

>> Kirovles carried out

state contracts for the performance of

forestry work on

non-leased areas of the forest fund

of Kirov Region.

>> Besides that, what else was the enterprise

engaged in, specifically the sale of timber

products? Well, that was not within my remit,

but I knew that, certainly,

it was involved in sales.

>> Please explain, as far as you know,

Sergei Vladimirovich, what was

the financial condition of the enterprise in

2009?

>> The financial condition in 2009, at least

at the time when I began taking a serious interest in it,

which was sometime around the middle of the year,

was difficult.

>> Did you, um, personally visit

the state enterprise Kirovles? If so, with whom, and

>> I visited the head office, uh, which

is located in Kirov, with Alexei Navalny.

I visited the branch in the settlement of Luza, in Luzsky

District, and later visited

a number of other branches there.

What connection did Navalny have to

Kirovles? Why was he traveling with you there?

As far as I had been informed at that time,

the governor had instructed him to deal with

the matter of

Kirovles.

Did Navalny hold any position in

the regional government?

>> He was an unpaid adviser,

serving on a voluntary basis,

an adviser to the governor.

>> Who was the director of Kirovles in 2009

?

In 2009, at least in the middle

of the year,

the director of the state enterprise Kirovles was Opalev

Vyacheslav Nikolaevich.

>> What was the relationship between Opalev and

Navalny, as far as you know?

>> As far as I could observe, at first their

relationship

was, let's say, fairly good. Later

it deteriorated.

>> What caused it to deteriorate? Well, the exact

reason is unknown to me.

I see.

Could, um, Navalny control

the activities of Kirovles?

Was he interested in this

enterprise at all? Did he propose any ideas,

um, that is, any principles for its

development?

>> He was not a public official, so

he could not control the work of Kirovles

.

But because he had

an instruction from the governor to deal with

Kirovles, he did express his ideas regarding

the enterprise's operations and development

.

>> And what was the main idea? Perhaps

there were several.

Well, one of the ideas was to carry out

a comprehensive audit, um,

by one of the world's largest auditing firms.

To finally understand what was happening with

Kirovles.

There was also the idea of organizing a timber exchange

in Kirov Region and establishing the sale

of timber products, because in 2009

for all enterprises in the forestry sector, in

general, product sales were the main

problem because of the global crisis.

>> Did Navalny, in connection with

his position as an adviser

to the regional governor, take part in any

operational meetings or working

groups that were devoted to

the activities of Kogukerovsk? Alexei

Navalny was, pursuant to an order by the governor,

a member of the working group on

assessing the effectiveness of Korbka.

>> Did he have the right to an advisory

vote in those working groups?

He was a member of the group.

>> Sergei Vladimirovich, please explain,

um

in more detail, um, whether you knew Ofitserov

and when you met him, when

you first saw him at all?

I do not know the exact date, but

Alexei Navalny introduced me to him,

describing him as a person

who possessed,

so to speak, expertise in the sale of

forest products, and who was

the director of the Vyatka Timber Company.

>> I see. Did Ofitserov take part in

the working groups that were held

by the regional government?

Well, in that particular working

group I do not recall, but once or twice

he took part in working meetings. Was he

a member of the working group, or did he

just participate?

>> He was not a member of the working group.

>> He participated by invitation.

>> Well, as I recall. That is, Alexei

invited him.

>> You mentioned a timber company in your testimony.

When did you first learn about

that enterprise?

Opol told me about it, saying that

the government had recommended that he

work with the Vyatka Timber Company on

the sale of

timber products.

No specific names were

mentioned, so he said that if

someone asked for something,

send them to him.

You stated that Navalny was also

the initiator of an audit

inspection. In fact, the audit

of Kirovles was conducted in 2009.

>> That inspection was not carried out

at the demand or request of Alexei

Navalny.

The audit itself

was commissioned by the Department of State

Property

of enterprises, um. I may be mistaken about

the exact name, I think.

>> Uh-huh. Sergei Vladimirovich, did you review the findings of this

audit, and were the results of this

inspection discussed at all

within the government of Rus (Russia), at

any meetings?

>> Yes, I was familiar with the results of this

inspection. That audit report

was discussed

at a meeting with the governor.

>> Well, what were the main conclusions?

As far as you remember, from that inspection?

The main conclusions were fairly debatable.

In particular, one of the main conclusions

um, was that Kogurovles was

the only enterprise in the territory of

the Kirov Region capable of

performing, uh, the full range of

forestry-related work, which,

strictly speaking, did not

correspond to reality, because

we had

a fairly substantial sector, so to speak, and

many enterprises could carry out

forestry work, having

sufficient equipment, sufficient

competence,

and enough

staff.

>> Were any,

that is, assumptions or specific

conclusions expressed regarding the activities of Kogobkirov

Les, and one second, please, excuse me.

Please continue.

>> Please ask the question.

>> Were any conclusions stated in the

audit report, that is,

regarding the contractual

relations between the Vyatka Timber Company

and Raflis?

>> I do not recall any such conclusions.

All right, and my last question

will be this.

Did Navalny, as an adviser to the governor,

have his own office in the

regional government administration building?

>> He did not have his own office

as such. There was what was called the advisers'

office. So all the advisers who were there

were based there.

>> And where was it located? In the

government building? It was located in the building of the

Government of the Kirov Region, building number

one.

Do you remember the address, something like

561

building.

>> Sergei Vladimirovich, please explain,

please, after all, regarding

the relationship between Navalny and Opolev,

what can you say?

Were there any complaints on the part of

Navalny toward Popolev? How were they expressed?

Yes, there were complaints, because

Navalny repeatedly suggested to Opolev and

to conduct an audit as well, and insisted that

Oplev should seriously address

cutting its own costs. Well,

the costs of Kirovles, but there Oparya

for some reason did not do that.

>> How did Navalny generally assess

Opolev’s performance as head of

the company?

Again, at different stages there

were different views, yes. At first, in the beginning,

as I recall, Alexei, generally speaking,

had a fairly good

>> attitude toward him and spoke quite positively

about his work.

Later on, though, his assessment

of Opol’s performance changed, in

particular

including as a result of the audit.

>> How did it change?

>> In a negative direction.

>> Negatively. Did he specifically

suggest that you do anything about him?

Well, there were no specific proposals

of that kind.

>> Did he suggest removing him from his post?

>> Not to me, no.

>> Did he say it,

>> removing someone from office was not within my

authority.

>> Did he talk about it at all?

>> Well, more likely he did.

>> Your Honor, for the prosecution. No, all

questions

>> the defense may ask a question,

please. May I begin?

>> Sergei Vladimirovich, could you say

a few more words about the financial

condition of Kirovles at the

beginning of 2009, that is, at the start,

when the new governor

took office. What was its condition?

Was it difficult,

satisfactory? What was the scale

of the debt, as far as you remember, these

figures?

The situation is that at the beginning of 2009

I was not holding the relevant

position. So it would be better, if you do not

mind, if I speak about the financial

condition by the middle of the year, when I

actually, by the middle of 201-, for which

you can say, well, actually,

as far as I remember, the audit

report stated losses by the

middle of the year of around

200 million rubles.

And what caused those losses?

>> Well, there were quite a few reasons and contributing factors

for that. They were not analyzed by the

working group. Uh, still, the main

reason was

the global financial crisis and the lack

of demand for timber products.

That was the first main reason. The second

main reason was the lease agreements

for forest fund plots that

Kirovles entered into in 2008—

lease agreements

for forest fund plots with a total

allowable logging volume of 2 million cubic meters at 180 rubles per cubic meter,

which, in effect, created for it

a financial obligation in the amount of

around 360 million rubles per year. In

conditions where there was no market for timber products,

for Kirovles this was, of course,

unacceptable. And,

>> well, to finish my thought, in addition,

there were, of course, very high costs for

the administrative and management staff.

>> You have now mentioned twice

the lack of sales. Can you

confirm or deny the information

that at meetings attended by

the governor, including the first

introductory meeting, when

the governor had just arrived, Opolev

repeatedly made requests

and expressed wishes, including

to the governor, to help establish sales

for the company’s products, since Kirovles’s

warehouses were overstocked and there were huge remaining

inventories of products?

>> Yes, that did happen. And, as far as I know,

the governor appealed to many

enterprises located, including those

outside the Kirov Region,

asking that

they, so to speak, buy the products

of enterprises from the Kirov Region, including

Kirovles. So one could say

that the governor—

and this request was addressed to all

members of the governor’s new team—

were engaged in promoting

sales for the region’s largest

enterprise and were trying to do everything possible

to ensure that Kirovles sold as much

product as possible.

Well, I would not use the word “lobby” here,

but it is true that there was an instruction from

the governor to help all

enterprises, not only Kirovles, but

all enterprises in the Kirov Region that

came asking for help with

sales. Well, that request definitely existed.

And please tell me, do you not

remember the figures, or at least the rough scale of the figures,

regarding

the accounts receivable at that time,

for Kirovles, and the value of the remaining

inventory in the warehouse

in the warehouses?

>> The sales figures,

the amounts for the inventory—those were on the order of,

certainly, at that time,

tens, and perhaps even more than a hundred

million rubles.

So that was also one of the reasons

for, essentially, the severe financial

situation of Kirovles — namely,

the existence of such enormous accounts

receivable, connected with the fact that

counterparties either paid late or did not

pay at all for the supplied

timber products.

Well, as for the remaining stock in the warehouses, unfortunately,

I did not understand.

You said that counterparties were not

paying, right? And the accounts

receivable — was it tens or hundreds

of millions of rubles. Witness Zmeyev told us

— he was the one handling accounts

receivable — testified in these proceedings

that there were no less than 180 million rubles

in accounts receivable. So are you

saying that this was some kind of

widespread phenomenon, where counterparties did not

pay Kirovles?

At that time, it was a widespread phenomenon,

and I think not only for Kirovles,

but for many enterprises in the timber industry

complex in the Kirov Region.

>> Do you know what is happening with

Kirovles now? What condition

is it in?

>> It is in bankruptcy proceedings.

>> It is bankrupt.

And was one of the reasons for

the bankruptcy the fact that these accounts

receivable were, to a large extent, never

collected and had to be written off as

bad debt, so the money never really returned to

Kirovles? I do not have that information.

So

the bankruptcy petition was filed by

the Kirov Region Department of Forestry,

to which Kirovles had not been paying

rent for forest plots that

had been leased.

>> Now, regarding the lease issue. Please tell me,

please, could

this rent

have been written off by anyone at all? I mean,

the unpaid rent. What level of decision

would have had to be made

in order to forgive Kirovles these debts? And

was it even possible to forgive them at all?

Well, under the legislation in force at the time,

and the applicable rules,

if you incurred a debt, of course, it could not be

forgiven. That is, if we leased

forest plots, then you were required

to pay that rent without fail.

>> And please tell me,

>> only a change in federal legislation

could affect that, and moreover

>> that is, it is clearly stated in

the legislation, and nothing could be

forgiven. And please tell me, did you

or perhaps the leadership

of the forestry department, or Opalev himself,

could someone have been mistaken on

this point and believed that someone, by their own

decision, could simply forgive debts and

arrears on rent?

>> A great many people were mistaken about that,

including Opalev, including

the directors of Kirovles branches; that is,

very many people believed that it was possible

to forgive the rent.

Was this issue discussed

at meetings, and were any

explanations given to them on this subject?

>> Well, the issue was not discussed much, because

what was there to discuss? Essentially,

when such a question was asked, I

gave everyone a clear answer: you cannot

forgive rent payments.

>> And did you tell Opalev on this subject that

rent payments could not be forgiven because

it was legally impossible? I do not recall

such a specific conversation in which I

said that to Opalev. That is,

this was said to a very wide circle of people,

because, well, I do not know, every

other person was talking about it, including other

forest users, who were saying

that, well, at least then let us

tie the rent not to

the estimated allowable cutting volume,

but to the actual volume

of harvesting, which, essentially, was also

impossible. I see. I will explain why I am

questioning you in such detail. Because

witness Opalev testified at the hearing

that I had promised him to reduce or

forgive the rent payments and stop

certain actions in that regard. So the question is:

were there any meetings or

informal conversations, and are you aware of

any information under which I

could have, or someone else could have,

promised him to stop some

actions in order to forgive the rent payments?

At least as far as your actions are concerned,

I know of nothing of the sort.

>> Did anyone at all, perhaps at meetings

with my presence or in my

absence, give Opalev any

assurances on this issue and say, do it,

act in some way, and we will forgive

your rent payments? In my presence,

that never happened.

And please tell me, was my status

in the Kirov Region, at that time, known to you?

Of course. Did you have

any, I do not know, mixed

feelings about my status and my

authority?

>> Mixed feelings? What does that mean?

>> Well, mixed feelings. For example, did you

think that I was

a civil servant or not

a civil servant?

>> No, I clearly understood that you were an adviser to

you were not serving on a voluntary, unpaid basis

as a civil servant, that is, on this

I have mixed feelings about that. Were there

any doubts about the fact that

I did not have the right, for example, to give

instructions to civil servants

who work in the administration or

somewhere else?

>> To issue an official instruction, of course, you

could not.

>> And please tell me, at the

meetings that took place and in which

I took part, was it

explained by the governor or by you

what my status was? That is, did you introduce me

in some way, or was I just

a person with unclear authority in the

capacity of the governor’s friend?

Was it clear to everyone who this

person sitting on these commissions was?

>> Well, you were introduced as an adviser

to the governor, among others.

>> So everyone understood that I was an adviser

to the governor on a voluntary, unpaid basis.

>> Well, I don’t know whether everyone understood that, but

I certainly did.

>> I can’t speak for anyone else.

I’ll explain why I’m asking. It’s just that

the witness Opolev testified that he believed

that I had certain powers

that would allow me, among other things, to

waive rent and remove from them

debts, or impose

debts, and so on. So, regarding that,

on that point

>> The question is withdrawn; witness Opolev

does not say that exact phrase.

>> All right. Please tell me, how often

were meetings on forestry issues held?

You organized them? How often?

on forestry issues. That is,

there was, of course, every week on

Monday, first of all,

an operational meeting, and then as

needed

quite frequently.

>> Well then, at these weekly operational

meetings, do you confirm the information

that I was present weekly

almost every time on matters of

forestry?

>> I don’t remember. That is, at our

meetings, people were present

generally speaking.

>> And please tell me, were there any

operational meetings

at which I gave instructions to Popolev

to ship products to OOO VLK or to

any other companies?

>> Well, I do not recall any such facts. The witness

Opolev testified—Your Honor, this is

the exact wording—that at operational

meetings, if this is in the record, I

asked a specific question in the

presence of, among others, Cherchkov:

Navalny gave instructions to increase

shipments of products to OOO VLK. Do you

remember that or not?

>> Please tell me, in general,

was it even possible, in the format of these

meetings—who exactly attended them,

what was the approximate composition?

Present were

the head of the Forestry Department,

the head of

the Kirovles Center institution,

that is, at different times these were different people.

the head of Kirovles, and my assistant,

who dealt with forestry matters. Well,

at meetings of that kind, in that format,

with that group of participants, was there ever any discussion of

the issue, and were instructions ever given to Opolev

regarding

sales policy toward particular

suppliers, or pricing policy in

terms of selling to specific sole proprietors more cheaply or

more expensively?

>> Issues concerning the sale of timber products in no way

relate to forestry matters,

so such issues were not raised at those

meetings. Issues concerning the sale

of timber products were discussed only

in formats such as

the working group on assessing the

effectiveness of

Kirovles.

>> And please tell me, I understand, they were not

raised. Within that group, perhaps

the one on assessing effectiveness, were there

any episodes when I gave any

instructions regarding specific

suppliers—to ship to them, to ship more cheaply

and so on?

>> I do not remember any such cases. Did anyone else, perhaps,

give instructions to sell

more cheaply, more expensively, or with regard to

specific companies?

There were no such facts.

>> And please tell me,

which office did you mention? The office—the office

of the governor’s advisers. On which

floor was it located?

>> I mentioned not the office of an adviser

to the governor, but the office of the governor’s advisers.

It was on the third floor. Please tell me,

did I ever have

an office on the fifth floor, temporary,

permanent, or any other kind? Do you

remember anything like that?

>> I do not remember you having an office on the

fifth floor.

>> And which officials did? If you

recall, who had offices on the

fifth floor of the first administration building

of the regional government? The four deputy governors.

The governor himself, his aide,

and his secretary.

I never

>> that is, meeting rooms

and the room where government meetings are held

of the government. Plus there is an office

that is currently unoccupied, but in which

the governor's adviser used to sit

Akatelyev,

>> Please tell us, witness Opolev

testified verbatim that in his office

on the fifth floor I instructed him, ordered him

to ship products to VLK.

Could that have happened in some

office on the fifth floor that

belonged to me as an adviser

to the governor? I repeat once again, you did not have one.

.

>> I did not have an office on that floor. And

please tell us,

>> In that case, I do not remember.

Please tell us, how would

my relations with Sobolev be

characterized

during the stage of the audit

and everything else—as

friendly, hostile,

or tense?

>> I would characterize them as tense.

>> As tense. Please tell us, were you

present at the meeting

organized by the governor of Kirov Oblast

following this audit

that you mentioned?

>> Yes, I was present.

>> Do you confirm the information that

at that meeting I demanded

that Opolev be removed from his position?

>> Well, honestly, I don't remember.

>> But following that meeting, he was removed

from his position.

He was removed from his position, but I do not

remember whether it was as a result of that

meeting.

That's all, I have no further questions for now.

>> Counsel for the officers, do you have any questions?

>> I have no questions.

>> Please, counsel, two questions.

And please tell us, in your

testimony you stated that an

audit had been conducted at

the organization Vyatkales Audit, and

you noted that you had reviewed

the audit results, and that the main conclusions

of that audit were disputed. And

in particular, you indicated that

according to the audit results it was

stated that the enterprise had deviations

in the scope of work. What other findings did you

identify in that audit?

There were several. That is, some of them

were indisputable, but in particular there was a conclusion

that the issue needed to be resolved

of leaving overmature aspen standing

unharvested, which, frankly, I did not

understand how an auditing company could

first, make such a conclusion,

>> and second, well, that is certainly

outside the competence even of the government

of Kirov Oblast; that is

exclusively a federal matter.

And the issue itself, the resolution of that issue,

is quite controversial even among scientists

themselves.

>> So it turns out, it is not left that way,

>> so it turns out that the auditors, the team

of auditors that carried out this

audit, somewhat overstepped

and went beyond the limits of their authority

and their expertise. Yes.

>> Well, yes, I suppose you could say that.

>> And I have one more question. Um, you

said that Kogoles had

high administrative costs.

>> And what does that mean? In what sense?

>> Well, there was a fairly large

administrative staff. Right now I

don't remember the exact number,

but I think it was more than a hundred people.

Although each branch could essentially

operate as a separate enterprise

without such an administrative superstructure.

And did you ever discuss with Opolev

issues concerning reorganization?

>> We did discuss it, but directly with

the members of the working group, that is, including

in Opolev's presence, that yes, it was necessary

to carry out reorganization.

>> So you believed that

this enterprise needed reorganization? Yes, at

that time I did.

>> And how did Opolev feel about that?

Well, he regarded it

more or less supportively; he understood that

things could not continue the way

the enterprise was operating at that time.

>> Please tell us, did Opolev take

any measures to bring

the enterprise out of the deplorable

condition it was in in 2009?

In particular, do you know whether

Opolev took measures to recover

accounts receivable from counterparties,

or to search for new markets for the sale of

the products? Perhaps?

>> Well, as far as I know, he did that work; that is,

again, it was not entirely within my

competence once the working group

started working, but he did take

some steps.

>> Specifically what? Well, specifically? That is,

he reported that

they had tried to recover from this one, from that one,

they had tried to collect from debtors there. That is,

the register of debtors included dozens of

enterprises.

Here it worked, there it did not. These

ones paid, those did not. Well, you cannot say that

he did nothing there; that would also be

incorrect.

>> Please tell us, do you know anything

known regarding the fact that in 2009

there was a significant drop in prices

for forest products?

Well, as for a significant drop in prices,

probably there

a significant drop in prices compared to

what?

>> Well, compared to 2008 prices.

>> Well, certainly, compared to 2008 there

was a decrease.

That is, it is difficult to judge there, there

whether it was significant or insignificant

again, in the machine's understanding

of what is significant and what is not, but I

think it was at least 10 percent,

of course,

excellent questions

>> May I, Your Honor, ask a few more

questions.

>> In your testimony, you stated that

you once told Opolev that if there were

any questions, if people approached him

some people citing

the government, he should send them all to me.

>> Correct. So, did anyone ultimately come to you afterward

?

I don't think so, no.

>> Officer,

>> No.

>> That is, were there any people who

after that conversation, or perhaps

did Opolev ever return to that conversation?

Did Opolev ever say that he was being

pressured?

>> He never came back to it again.

>> And did he have the opportunity to speak with

you, well, one-on-one, outside my

presence?

>> He had that opportunity.

>> And he had the opportunity to turn to

you if he understood that he was under

some kind of unlawful

pressure.

Without question, he had such an opportunity.

He did.

>> He never did.

>> No.

>> Please tell us, as I understand it, you quite

often visit, as I understand it,

various districts of Kirov Region,

>> visiting districts by name. Do you have

the opportunity to meet periodically with

the directors of the forestry enterprises and

interact with them directly without the presence of

Opolev, me at that time, and so

on?

Over the last two years, there has been no need

for that. Well, a forestry enterprise director can,

for example, make an appointment to see you.

>> Certainly.

>> Has that ever happened?

>> Well, Natalia Kritnik did,

>> When any forestry enterprise directors

spoke with you in a situation where they

understood that there was no pressure from

me, Oplev, or any other

people, did they ever come to you with

complaints that they were being forced

to sell products more cheaply,

or for free? I met with directors

with several, so to speak, more active

directors,

uh, but the issues raised concerned the future

activities

of KOGUP Kirovles, changes in the format

of its work, that is, product sales.

I did not have conversations with forestry enterprise directors

about that.

>> Has anyone ever complained to you that

the company VLK was causing damage to

Kirovles?

Mm.

On that subject, I was once complained to by

Arzamassov, but

strictly speaking, Kiro- I mean

the forestry enterprise directors who

>> The forestry enterprise directors? No.

>> And please tell us,

regarding the issue of causing damage to

KOGUP Kirovles.

Which entity, I don't know, within

the government? And within this system of

interactions can make a decision that

damage has been caused to the enterprise Kirovles

?

>> I think the founder, its property department,

could. Are you aware of

any formal acts, calculations,

expert examinations, or assessments

by the Department of State Property that

resulted in

a finding of damage caused

by OOO VLK?

>> I know nothing about any such calculations or expert examinations.

Please tell us,

are you aware of any facts regarding

the fact that

I

received money, gifts,

funds, or anything at all from

the Vyatka Timber Company.

>> I am not aware of any such facts. Did I

ever ask you, or in your presence ask

anyone, that Kirovles should

in some way establish a special

separate, particular arrangement

with VLK?

>> Not in my presence.

>> That's all, no further questions. Thank you.

>> Counsel Mikhailov has a question.

>> Counsel Kobel. Counsel,

please

I ask that you keep it simpler.

In your testimony just now, you stated that you

wanted to conduct an independent audit

and thereby reduce expenses for the

administrative apparatus of Kirovles.

For a number of reasons, Opol did not do this. Can you

he did not want to say for what reasons.

>> Well, regarding, regarding, regarding conducting an audit.

Essentially, it was characterized as

a fairly expensive undertaking, and he

did not have the money for it.

The second issue

was to reduce expenses for the administrative

staff.

>> Well, once again, I cannot say what Opol

did. That is, he was trying in some way

to propose a new staffing

schedule to the founder there, and so on.

That is, I know that he

was, so to speak, trying to work within that logic,

but most likely he lacked

the necessary expertise.

And please tell me as well,

whether the owner's approval is required

for a transaction by the humanitarian

enterprise for the sale of the produced sheet

products?

The charter—if I remember correctly—

provides that up to a certain transaction amount

the general director may conclude transactions; beyond that he may not.

That is, well, I do not remember the specific charter

or up to what amount.

>> Your Honor, may I still ask one more—

I have not seen Sergey Vladimirovich for so long—

please finish. Sergey

Vladimirovich, do you know anything about

the criminal case that was opened

against Opolev

on the grounds of abuse of official

powers?

>> No, nothing.

>> And

are you aware that the deputy

chairman of the government, Pereskov,

filed a request to initiate

criminal proceedings against Opolev? This

criminal case was opened on the grounds of

abuse of official powers

and the transfer of 54 million rubles (about 54 million RUB) to

a company where Popolev's son worked.

Do you know anything about that? No, I do not.

>> You do not know about the fact that such a case was opened or

closed? Not about the fact that it was opened, nor

that it was closed. The only thing

I remember is that some kind of statement

regarding Opolev's activities was indeed

prepared by the government administration, but

that is all that

>> And in your view, for what reasons,

why did Opoli Fdogi cease to be

the director of Kerplyas?

In the end, first of all, he submitted

a resignation letter of his own accord.

>> May we release the witness? Yes, Your Honor.

>> Defense.

>> Thank you, you are excused.

>> Witness Kiselyov is called.

Thank you.

Please step up to the stand,

and identify yourself.

Kiselyov...,

>> When and where were you born?

>> In 1969... please state the month

of birth. February 12, 1969.

>> Nationality?

>> Russian.

>> Russian citizenship?

>> Yes.

>> Your education?

>> What?

>> Your education?

>> Incomplete higher education.

>> Marital status?

>> Married, two children.

>> Where do you work, and in what position?

>> At the moment, I am a founder

of an LLC

Reskom.

>> That's all.

>> So what is your role in that company?

>> I am just a founder.

>> Where do you live, and where are you registered?

I live in the settlement of Svecha; my registered address is there as well.

Please state it.

>> Uh...

Village of Glushki, 6.

>> You have been summoned to court for questioning as

a witness. I explain to you

that you are obliged to tell the truth and have the right

to refuse to testify against yourself,

your spouse, and other close

relatives. If you agree to testify,

you are warned that your testimony may

be used as

evidence in the case, including

in the event of your subsequent

refusal to maintain that testimony.

You also have the right to file motions and submit

complaints regarding the actions, inaction, and decisions

of the court concerning your questioning, and you have the right

to appear for questioning in the presence of your

lawyer, and to request protective measures

if necessary, and I warn you of criminal

liability

in the event of an unjustified

refusal to testify and for knowingly giving false

testimony under Articles 307 and 308

of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.

Do you understand your rights and responsibilities?

>> Yes.

>> Please provide your acknowledgment; come forward

and sign here.

Do you have any grounds to refuse

to testify?

>> No.

>> Please answer the prosecutor's question.

>> Igor Viktorovich,

>> Please explain. Are you acquainted with the convicted Navalny

and Ofitserov?

Personally, I am not acquainted with him

and

I do not know him.

>> I see. You do not bear them any ill will?

>> No.

>> Very well. Please tell the court,

what position you held and where from

April to October 2009. What fell

within your duties? Who was

your direct supervisor?

>> In 2009, I was the director of

the Kotelnich forestry enterprise, a branch of Kagub

Kirovles.

My supervisor was Opole Vyacheslav

Nikolaevich, and I reported directly to him.

>> Please explain what powers

the enterprise you headed in 2009

was vested with, that is, the Kotelnich

forestry enterprise. Did it have, was it

entitled to independently sell

its products, set prices, terms

of transportation, product range, and so

on? I may be mistaken, but at that

time, at that time

>> At that time, at that time, at that time, we all

reported to Vyacheslav

Nikolaevich, and basically carried out

the contracts that were sent down from, from

management.

Our contracts

at that time, in any case, if there were any,

they only took effect after they

went through a certain approval process in

management.

How was the price for

the timber products being sold determined? Was

approval required for this

directly from Kirovles, or was this

something the director could decide independently?

>> No, approval from

management was mandatory.

>> Please explain in more detail,

how prices were set.

Well, I could not sell timber products,

so to speak, without agreeing the price with that same

Vyacheslav Nikolaevich or with management,

with the commercial department there, because

we were subordinate to them.

That is all I can say; the minimum

there was some kind of market, after all, and

so from that market there followed

further on, the minimum price for

timber products.

>> I cannot say, as of that time,

sorry for the vagueness.

>> At that time I

simply do not remember the prices.

>> No, who set it? Not what it

was, but who set it.

>> And who set it? In any case, it was

management. That is, there was like

some kind of fixed schedule.

>> I see. Are you familiar with the company

Vyatskaya Timber Company?

Well, that, that company existed during the

period when we, when, when I

worked there.

>> I understand.

Did the Kotelnich forestry enterprise and the Vyatskaya Timber

Company have any

contractual relations, or did it perform

some other role?

>> I think that we had contractual relations

with management at that time. I even

cannot really remember, but as far as I

understand, there were contractual relations,

that is, management still sent down, not

not directly Vyacheslav Nikolaevich,

probably, but contracts under which I

was supposed to work.

>> I see. As far as you remember, what were

the terms of those contracts? What

was specified there: the price, the terms

of transportation—were these defined in those

contracts?

>> I do not remember.

>> I see. Did you supply any timber products

to VLK, or to

VLK's consignees?

>> I cannot say, but there must probably be

some

financial documents. Right now I cannot

say whether it was supplied or not,

I cannot tell. One would need to look at

the contracts and the documents.

>> I understand. And can you explain anything

about the delivery terms?

>> About the delivery terms.

>> Well, traditionally, how did your counterparties

pick up the timber? The counterparties

picked it up. Some used their own transport,

some used railcars, some used other means. That is,

that was the usual practice, so to speak.

>> Well, did the enterprise have its own transport

to deliver it? No, no. No.

>> If the products were shipped

by rail to the station,

how was the product delivered, at whose

expense?

We had our own siding to the station, so

to the station we delivered it

ourselves. I see. Yourselves—but you did not have

your own motor transport, so you hired

some transport?

>> Well, there were probably some kind of

hiring contracts.

>> Who paid for transportation from the logging site

to the station?

When did you learn about the company VLK,

and were any meetings held in connection with this? At

Kagubkerafles, were there any meetings?

>> Again, I may not be objective here,

if I am just trying to remember. A company simply

appeared that

started working with management

at that level. That is, no one

introduced me to it or went into details

about what kind of company it was or what it

did.

And the director of the company VLK

was not introduced to you either.

>> I only knew that it was this kind of

person, like an official, but I never

saw.

Your Honor, we would like to make a motion

on the grounds that all questions from the prosecution

have been exhausted. As to most of the

questions that are of material

importance to this case, the witness

is unfortunately unable to give

answers because he does not remember,

although, despite this, during questioning as

a witness at the pretrial investigation,

when asked these questions, he gave

clear and consistent answers, and therefore

we move to have his testimony

given during the pretrial

investigation read into the record.

They are located in volume one of case file two on

pages 13

through 15.

Case file one.

Your position?

>> I do not object to the reading.

>> I have the defense's position regarding the reading

of the witness interview record taken during

the pretrial investigation.

>> Well, Your Honor, the defense is, as usual, opposed,

because, first, the premature

reading of the witness's testimony violates

the defense's right to present its case

independently and effectively. That is the first point.

Second, the defense maintains its position that

the law still does not permit

the reading of a witness's testimony before

the completion of his examination, and therefore the defense

asks to be given the opportunity to question

the witness. We can then return to

discussion of this issue later, in the event

the court does not agree with the position

that has been stated. I would also like to note that

I do not observe any material contradictions in

his testimony.

Having referred

to his statements contained in

the case materials cited by

the prosecution, I do not see much

specificity there either. Here too the witness

states that he needs to look at

documents and contracts. In other words, I

do not see any contradictions at all. Moreover,

I believe that the defense can

be given the opportunity to question the witness.

At this point,

can the prosecution specify

more precisely which parts and what

contradictions there are?

>> In particular, at this hearing the witness

was unable to explain

how the contractual relations

between the forestry enterprise he headed and the Vyatka Timber Company were structured.

That is, regarding the terms of

transportation, despite the fact that during

the pretrial investigation he

clearly stated that transportation

was carried out at the forestry enterprise's expense.

Accordingly, this business relationship

was disadvantageous to the enterprise.

But, essentially, that is the only issue

at stake. So in that respect we

can read it out, but the point is that there is no

single specific passage from the examination; this

follows from the testimony as a whole.

>> Understood. The defendant Ofitserov's position?

Your Honor, I object because, well,

counsel has already said everything. Moreover, I

carefully read the testimony, and

the discrepancy I heard

the prosecutor refer to, namely that witness Kiselyov

said they delivered it themselves, but

he has already answered that question. He

said that was how deliveries were made for all the other

clients as well.

>> There was no such question and no such answer.

I support the defense's objection and

draw the court's attention to the fact that the prosecution

is once again resorting to what, in my

view, is an unlawful tactic of

effectively putting pressure on

witnesses and obstructing

the effective examination of the witness by

the defense. We would first like to

question him as well, and after that, if

the prosecution insists, then let us read

his prior testimony, but there is no need now

to remind him of the statements he gave,

possibly under pressure from

investigators and operational officers.

Not counsel.

>> Yes. I also support the view that

reading the testimony before the defense examination

is absolutely unlawful and

violates the right to a defense in this

trial.

Counsel Kurts's position: I believe that

the motion should be granted

despite counsel's objections.

>> The court grants the prosecution's motion;

in view of the contradictions,

the witness's testimony given during

the pretrial investigation is read into the record.

The court does not find any violation of the right to a defense,

since the defense is in every case

given

the opportunity to ask additional questions

and clarify those circumstances that are

of interest to the defense.

>> The interview record dated the twenty-fifth is being read out

from case file pages

13

The interview was conducted in the city of Kirov

by an investigator for especially important cases of the department

for especially important cases of the Investigative

Directorate of the Investigative Committee

of the Russian Federation for Kirov

Region, Colonel of Justice Nosov.

Interviewed: Igor Viktorovich Kiselyov, born

on December 13, [year unclear in transcript].

The interview was conducted from 11

10 a.m. to 12:15

p.m., with Articles 307 and 308 explained.

of the Criminal Code for refusing to give

testimony, [and for] giving contradictory testimony

the witness has been warned; signatures are present

the interrogation, beginning from the first page, regarding

the merits of the case, I can state the following:

At the beginning of 2009, I was appointed to the

position of acting

director of the Technichesky forestry enterprise

a branch of Kirovles. Before that, I worked

as director of the Syuchinsky forestry enterprise. My

official duties included

managing and ensuring execution of orders

and directives of the director of Kirovles. At that

time, the general director of Kirovles

was Opalev.

Regarding transportation

of timber products. As to who the witness was,

what position he held, who appointed him

and to whom he reported, he has already

testified,

which does not contradict what I

understood from your statement. Indeed,

please read out the testimony only in the part

where there are contradictions.

>> All right, let's move on.

So,

as to transportation itself. I did not have

any motor transport, so all

timber products were picked up on site. In the spring

of 2009, there was a meeting of the directors

of the forestry enterprises. At that meeting, Opalev

announced that all sales

of timber products from that point on would

be carried out through the Vyatka Timber Company

(VLC). Also present at that meeting

was Ofitserov, Pyotr Yuryevich,

whom Opalev introduced as the director

of the Vyatka Timber Company. Under what

circumstances the contract was signed

between the Vyatka Timber Company and

Kirovles? I know nothing about that.

As far as I remember, at that time

the Kotelnich forestry enterprise had

made deliveries of timber products to

the Vyatka Timber Company. There were

deliveries of edged lumber. At what

price the lumber was delivered to

VLC? I do not remember now. The deliveries

of lumber to the Vyatka Timber

Company were on an FCA railcar basis.

That is, all expenses connected with delivering

the lumber from section A

of the forest allotment at Obedini-Zhikha to

the railway siding, including loading,

were borne by the Kotelnich forestry enterprise,

although before that the same lumber

had been picked up on site. At what minimum

price were deliveries made to the

Vyatka company? I do not remember now in

what volume deliveries were made

to the Vyatka Timber Company; I do not remember.

As far as I remember, the timber products were sent

through Volka to Volga in

the Nizhny Novgorod Region.

I believe that the people at the Vyatka Timber Company

were unprofessional in how they approached

commercial matters.

>> Your Honor, those are evaluative judgments; the

questions concerned transportation only. And

as for the level of professionalism

of the employees of VLC, first, the witness

was not asked that question in this court

hearing. And since it was not asked,

what is the point of reading all this out?

>> Understood. Yes, indeed, on this

issue

the witness did not answer and did not give testimony

on it.

>> And then, regarding the deliveries, further,

for deliveries to the Vyatka Company, there only

came dispatch instructions specifying volumes and deadlines

for delivery. And

>> the Vyatka Timber Company did not, at the time,

pay for the delivered

products.

At the time of my dismissal from the Iskotenichesky

forestry enterprise, the Vyatka company still owed a debt.

>> Your Honor, again, this has nothing to do with the issue of delivery.

It is entirely unrelated.

>> How is it unrelated?

>> Because you asked only about

transportation and delivery. That's all,

thank you.

Read out in the part

>> One thing was requested, and the motion concerned

only that part.

>> Please, have a seat. Counsel is being given

a warning by the court to the prosecution side.

Indeed, please explain.

Ask the questions that interest you, and when

you receive a contradictory answer, then

you may file a motion. If you did not ask

the question, then accordingly, as to

which no answer was received,

accordingly, reading out that testimony

is inappropriate.

And I remind the defense side as well on this

point. You have just raised an objection regarding

evaluative statements. However, in your own

questions, too, you constantly, uh, ask

witnesses to give assessments. You are putting

>> them to one or another set of facts. No objections

have been raised, but I simply want to note that

all assumptions

cannot be evaluated by the court and cannot

be accepted as

evidence.

Please, are there any further questions?

>> Yes. Igor Viktorovich, please explain,

please, you are hearing now

the record that I read out; do you agree

with the testimony that you gave

to the investigator?

>> Yes.

Please explain,

regarding, then, the delivered

timber products—was payment made on time

by the timber company

the company for this product.

>> I can't say, because the payments

did not go through my enterprise,

>> Then through whom?

>> Well, probably through the administration.

>> I see. So you could not control that

money.

>> That's all, Your Honor, no questions for the

witness.

>> Counsel for the defense. You may ask questions,

please.

Yes. Pyotr Officer. Igor, let me clarify

the question now. So you could not know for certain

whether VLK was delaying or not delaying

payment, because the payment

was handled with the central office,

>> right?

>> And we transferred it to the central office.

>> Well, probably, I can't say here.

Igor Iktorovich, a question.

Please explain, what is

a franco-wagon?

A franco-wagon is a railcar,

a railcar loaded with a certain

product and standing at the station.

>> Well, that's a technical term, correct?

>> Well, probably.

>> So a franco-wagon means goods

loaded into a railcar and ready for shipment.

>> Well, that's more or less what I said.

>> Right. So shipment by franco-wagon

was that VLK's prerogative, or was it

a standard type of shipment for the Kotelnich forestry enterprise?

I can't say.

>> So apart from VK, you did not ship any

franco-wagon consignments to anyone?

>> I can't say; we'd need

to pull some documents. Right now I

can't say.

>> Can you say approximately how many

railcars? No,

>> you don't remember for that year?

>> No.

>> All right.

And another question. Besides VLK, did the

Kotelnich forestry enterprise have other clients?

>> Well, of course it did.

>> Were there many of them?

>> Well, again, that's hard to say. You could

pull all the contracts and look at

that.

>> Well, just the general range, not exactly.

>> I can't say. You don't remember? Well, more

than two at least.

>> Well, probably, yes. No, I can't say.

Again, I'm speaking entirely subjectively,

because, well, how can I say

how many clients I had at that time,

five years ago? Well, it's impossible to say.

>> All right. And you said that the

Kotelnich forestry enterprise had its own

dead-end siding.

>> It was not our siding. It belonged

to the administration.

>> Uh-huh. But you operated it, correct?

>> Yes.

>> And just tell me, why does a forestry enterprise need

a siding? In general, what is it for?

>> To load a railcar.

That is, to ship

timber products by rail to a consignee; also

it can be used as a storage area, as a

transshipment site of some kind. That is,

there are many ways to use it.

>> And how did you use it?

>> That's how we used it.

>> In different ways.

>> In different ways.

>> All right. And one more question.

You said that in your

testimony, Opolev said, gave

an instruction to begin carrying out

sales of products through VLK.

Ah, yes. And just now you said that you

had clients other than VLK. And

can you say why you shipped

to other clients besides VLK?

>> That I shipped to other clients?

>> Well, you yourself said that you had other

clients.

>> But that was before VLK.

>> But you don't remember exactly?

>> No, I don't.

>> So you don't remember whether you shipped

to other clients or not?

>> No, for that period I do not remember exactly

where we were shipping.

>> Check the documents.

>> All right. And now a question. If

another company, another customer

ordered this franco-wagon shipment,

then you would also load timber for them into a railcar,

correct?

>> Probably, yes.

>> And would you bring it from the sawmill site and

ship it in a railcar?

>> Well, at that time, as I said, at that

time we were not shipping that many

railcars; there was the 2008 crisis,

and so in some cases it was

economically more advantageous to ship directly from

the sawing site. So right now I cannot

say how many railcars we sent

to parties other than VLK. Basically,

most of our work was from

the site

of sawing or logging, so to speak,

that sort of thing.

>> Uh-huh. All right. You said that in 2008

the crisis began; how did it affect

product sales?

>> It was the same everywhere, just like everywhere else: it

came to a standstill.

>> So at the beginning of 2009, in your

words, your products were at a standstill? Well,

there were simply difficulties

in selling products, as everywhere. And in

a situation where the products,

>> It's not for me to judge, it's not for me to judge,

whether it was right or not,

let's just say he was my

immediate superior, and therefore

all questions should be directed to him. I was just carrying out orders.

>> I haven't asked my question yet. I was thinking,

of asking a different question. Igor Viktorovich,

here's the question. In a situation where the product

has stopped moving, what's better: for it to sit there

or to sell it?

>> I'm not an expert.

>> So, in other words, you can't really say because you're not an expert.

That's what I'm saying: I'm not an expert.

I was just carrying out orders.

>> But you were managing the outcome,

>> right? Calling it mere execution

is a bit much.

>> Uh-huh. Then I have no further questions. Thank you.

>> May I, please?

>> Please, go ahead.

>> Igor Viktorovich, could you clarify,

please, about this "franco-wagon" term.

Am I correct in understanding that the management office

enters into a contract with someone? And if in

that contract the delivery terms specify

franco-wagon, a franco-wagon price, then that

client of the management office wants to buy the timber already

loaded in the railcar, at the railcar price. Correct?

>> And that client doesn't care at all which

forestry enterprise supplies it.

>> He wants to receive his timber in the railcar, yes,

>> and as for who brings it from where,

or how it is delivered, that doesn't concern him.

You were simply setting the railcar price.

>> All right. Thank you. And please tell me,

from what you've said, I understood that

there was nothing particularly memorable to you about VLK

at all.

>> Well, it doesn't stand out in any way from

the line of other clients. Correct?

>> I can't really say that right now,

I just don't remember how much it

stood out. I simply can't say.

>> Well, if you don't remember, then apparently,

it wasn't noteworthy.

>> After so much time, I simply can't.

>> No. All right. Please tell me, if

someone had instructed you to give

timber to VLK for free, would you have remembered

that?

Give timber away for free? That's

a paradoxical thing.

>> So you would have remembered it,

>> did anyone ever give you

instructions to ship this timber free of charge

or almost free, at a price two times

below market, and so on?

>> I never gave such testimony. As for whether there were

any situations that stayed with you, any

situations in which this timber

was shipped at a price significantly

below market, such that it really

stuck in your memory somehow?

>> No, the thing is, everything came down from

the management office, so

the commercial relations between VLK and,

let's say, Kirovles, I can't

really comment on. I didn't even know the pricing policy.

>> Well, timber wasn't shipped to anyone free of charge.

>> Free of charge, we... If you had received

some instructions from, uh, as you said,

paradoxically, from head office,

that concerned, well, possibly,

some unlawful actions, what would you

have done?

>> I would have been outraged.

>> You would have been outraged? What would you have done?

Would you have complained somewhere?

>> Well, probably yes. I would have complai-

>> But nevertheless, there were no facts that

required you to go somewhere

to complain or report it to

the authorities, and so on. Was there anything

like that?

>> No.

>> You never complained to anyone?

>> Well, I didn't go around complaining to anyone.

There were simply orders, and I

carried them out.

Okay. All right. Thank you very much.

>> Are you finished with your questions?

>> No.

>> Counsel for the lawyer—lawyer Kobel.

May we release the witness for the

prosecution, if you permit? Igor,

a clarifying question regarding your answers to the

defense and the prosecution. You keep referring

to the management office. What do you mean by that?

>> The management office is,

well, what was it called? The office,

that was in Kirov. That's what

all the directors called it: "going to the

management office."

>> What was the official name of that office?

>> Which one? The branch. Kogobrovlebrovle

That's all? No further questions.

>> May we let him go?

>> Yes. No objection.

>> Defense counsel's position?

We object—no, we do not object.

>> Thank you. You are free to go.

>> Courtroom.

Let's question Retnyuk first. Clerk,

please call Koretnyuk.

Who?

>> Koretnyuk.

>> Koretnyuk...

Please step up to the stand,

and identify yourself to the court.

>> Natalia Alexandrovna Koretnyuk.

>> When and where were you born?

>> September 2, 1955, in the city of

Arkhangelsk.

>> Nationality?

>> Russian.

>> You are a Russian citizen.

>> Your education?

>> Marital status?

>> Married.

>> Where do you work, and in what position?

>> Retired.

>> What is your residential address? Where

are you registered?

>> 57 Svoboda Street, apartment 3. Podosinovets.

>> In which district of the region?

>> What?

>> Which district of the region?

>> Podosinovets, Kirov.

>> Podosinovsky District, Kirov Region.

You have been summoned to court for questioning as

a witness. I explain to you that

you are required to tell the truth. I also explain

that you have the right not to testify against

yourself, your spouse,

or other close relatives. If

you agree to testify, you

are warned that your testimony

may be used as

evidence in the case, including

if you later refuse to

maintain that testimony. You also have the right to file

motions and complaints regarding the actions

or inaction of the court in connection with

your questioning, and to appear for questioning

with your lawyer.

Uh, and I also warn you of criminal

liability for refusing to give

testimony under Article 308 of the Criminal

Code of the Russian Federation, and for giving

knowingly false testimony under Article 307

of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.

Have your rights and responsibilities been explained to you?

Do you understand?

>> Yes, I understand. Please provide the court with

your signed acknowledgment. Sign the form.

Hello.

>> Tell us, do you have any grounds for

refusing to testify?

>> No.

>> Then please answer the prosecutor's questions.

Natalya, please explain whether you are acquainted

with the defendant Navalny and

Ofitserov?

>> I saw them twice.

>> What is your current relationship with

them? Do you maintain any relationship

with them at all? Do you bear them any ill will?

>> No.

>> Natalya Aleksandrovna, please explain

your place of work and the position that

you held in 2009.

>> Director of the district forestry enterprise.

Natalya Aleksandrovna, please

speak into this direction so that both the parties

and the defense can hear you.

>> Please explain who was your

immediate supervisor?

>> Okulov Vyacheslav Nikolayevich.

>> So, Natalya Aleksandrovna,

did the enterprise you headed in 2009

have the right independently

to conclude contracts for the sale of

timber products, set prices,

determine transportation terms,

the product range, and so on?

>> Yes.

>> Who set the minimum prices for

the timber products being sold? By Kirovles management.

Kirovles management.

>> Yes, by Kirovles management.

>> Mm-hmm. And how exactly did

the approval of those prices take place? Please

explain in more detail.

>> Every month we were given an approved

price list approved by the head of the administration or the head

of the sales department, or the deputy director—

minimum prices for timber products,

a price list with minimum prices. We did not

have the right to conclude contracts below those

prices.

>> Thank you. Are you familiar with the company

Vyatka Forest Company?

>> Yes.

>> In 2009, did the Podosinovsky forestry enterprise

make deliveries to the said

company?

>> The thing is, we did not work under direct contracts;

Kirovles concluded the contracts directly.

In that case, we simply carried out

shipments and followed the instructions of

Kirovles—that is, we were given

shipping specifications. In particular, we

shipped pulpwood logs; that is what we shipped.

During that same period, during

its dealings with VLK, did the Podosinovsky

forestry enterprise have other counterparties?

>> I don't remember.

There may have been, but I don't remember.

>> As far as you remember, at that time

was the price for the timber products supplied

to VLK lower or higher than the prices at which the enterprise sold to others?

to other buyers?

>> The thing is, those prices were

not really comparable. We shipped,

for example, only

pulpwood there. Before that we had shipped to

Volga, while here the contracts were for

Solikamsk. The prices and

conditions there were completely different, so

you can't really say they were lower or higher.

>> It was a different buyer and different delivery

terms.

>> I see. Then let me put the question a bit differently.

Were these business relations beneficial

to the Podosinovsky enterprise? I shipped only

five railcars, so whether it was beneficial or not

I cannot say, because I did not have

a settlement account; the money did not come

to me. I did not even have that

information.

I did not even see those documents.

>> As far as you know, who was the director

of that company?

>> Ofitserov.

>> Ofitserov. Did you know him as the director

Did you submit them?

>> Yes. We were told so at the meeting. Yes.

>> The meeting—where was it held?

>> In Kirov.

>> And when can you say that was?

>> Oh, what? No, of course not. Well, in 2009,

but when exactly

>> In 2009—assume it was in the spring

it could have been.

>> I don't remember, I can't say.

>> All right.

>> Were the instructions to ship timber products to

VLK given orally or in

writing?

>> I believe we had an order. Although I may

be mistaken now. But as for the fact

that there was an order and we were made to ship here,

that is certain. We were gathered together,

and told—well, that's what I remember.

>> So, Natalia Alexandrovna, one more

question from me. Please explain,

whether you were aware that in

relation to Kogobkera... in 2009 there was

an audit conducted?

>> I believe I was aware of it. At that

time, I knew about it.

>> Did any of the auditors speak with you

about the activities of Kirovles?

As far as you remember,

>> I think someone did speak with me, but

I no longer remember the details now, so much

time has passed.

A female auditor spoke with me. That's

something I do remember.

>> Your Honor, the prosecution has no further

questions for the witness.

Do you have any questions? The defense

may proceed. Hello.

>> Hello,

>> Natalia Alexandrovna. I also have a question for this witness.

And you—

do you remember roughly, approximately

what volume of timber your

enterprise harvested?

>> I don't remember.

>> And how many people worked at your enterprise?

>> Well, at that time, around 100.

>> Around 100 people. You said that

you sent five railcars of

pulpwood to VLK.

>> Yes. And can you say,

or recall, whether that was a large part

of the timber harvested?

>> No, of course not.

>> So five railcars of pulpwood was

much less, right, than what you

harvested?

>> No, it was a small part.

>> It was a small part of the total volume,

>> correct?

>> All right. Another question: how would you characterize

the market conditions in 2009, well,

during the period from

April to June 2009?

Well, there were certain difficulties in

the supply of timber materials,

because, well, basically in our case

our forestry enterprise had its own specifics, so for

us there were none, but for the other forestry enterprises

there were.

>> And what was specific about your forestry enterprise?

>> We had Apatite in our district,

so all hardwood pulpwood was taken,

there was very strong demand. Then

there was also a plywood plant nearby in

Syktyvkar, close to us, and not far away

was Koryazhma, and we had a contract with

Volga. So, specifically for

our enterprise, there were no sales problems.

None at all in our forestry enterprise; in other

forestry enterprises, as far as I know, there were.

>> Mm-hmm. One more question. As for the terms of

delivery, transportation, and shipment,

were shipments to VLK in any way different from those to other

customers, or was this standard

practice?

>> I can't say anything about that

because I did not see the documents.

.

Did you also ship to other clients in

railcars?

>> Well yes, of course, in railcars. The same way.

>> So you received from them

>> specifications were sent to us, and we loaded in

accordance with the specifications. I did not see the waybills.

>> Mm-hmm.

And as for payment, did you also receive money

only from the Kirov forestry administration

of Kirovles? Yes. They did not transfer money directly

and were not supposed to.

>> And were not supposed to, yes, and did not transfer it. And

I don't even know the settlement details.

>> Mm-hmm.

>> I was not informed.

>> So you said that for your

forestry enterprise there were no sales problems. But

as for the other forestry enterprises, do you think there

were?

>> Well, based on the conversations I heard, yes,

there were. They complained that they had nowhere to sell it.

In particular, there was nowhere to sell hardwood pulpwood

at that time.

>> Well, there were never any particular problems with pulpwood.

.

>> Mm-hmm.

>> There were also no problems, generally speaking, with edged lumber.

>> And did you ship edged lumber?

>> I had a specification, but it was

impossible for me to load it, because

we had an overhead crane there, and under the

technical requirements that had been

set, it was impossible to

load it, so we did not ship it. Now,

this may sound odd,

but let me just clarify. So, you

shipped only five railcars of pulpwood.

>> Well, as I remember it,

>> yes. And zero railcars of debarked

timber.

>> Yes, yes, yes.

>> Mm-hmm.

>> Well, I may still be mistaken about something

after all. So many years have passed.

This is how I remember it,

>> that the balance for Ilova and debarked

lumber was that way. But all the documents exist.

>> Mm-hmm. Well, once again, the delivery terms

for shipments to VLK were in no way

different from the standpoint of technical

execution from the larger destinations. No, well,

for Solikamsk, I think, if I

remember correctly, there were some

specific conditions for Solikamsk.

>> All right, Alexander, thank you.

May I ask, Natalia Alexandrovna, you

just said that you saw me twice.

Could you please say under what

circumstances you interacted with me,

spoke with me?

>> No, we did not speak. You

were simply present once at a

meeting, and the second time we were gathered by

the board of directors at the government of

the Kirov Region, and you were also

present there.

>> Please tell me, did I, or

anyone on my behalf, ever approach you

anywhere with any

requests or anything like that? No, no.

>> And please tell me, in general, in

the sales volume of your forestry enterprise

what share did VLK account for?

Was it half?

>> Well,

>> how significant was it — a major client or

a minor one? If we take it on a

monthly basis, we loaded around twenty

railcars

>> per month.

>> Per month, yes.

>> And to VLK, over the entire period, five railcars,

>> right? Well, we loaded about 15 to 20 railcars per month

approximately.

>> So would it be correct to say that over the entire

period you shipped to VLK roughly

20% of what you shipped on average in a month

?

>> Roughly, yes.

>> So it was generally insignificant,

>> well, maybe 30%, something like that, but not

more.

>> So over the year that comes to

>> literally about 2–5%.

>> Yes.

And am I right in understanding that you

mentioned Volga and Solikamsk. By Volga, you mean

the Nizhny Novgorod mill, and by Solikamsk

you mean the Perm mill. And

the delivery terms and different pricing may

be connected with the fact that Nizhny Novgorod

is in one place and Solikamsk is in another

and Nizhny Novgorod is closer. I don't know

whether it's appropriate for me to say this in court, but

well,

>> The judge says everything appropriate here.

>> Well, when we shipped to Volga, they

adjusted the prices; they rejected some of the goods. We already

knew for certain that in each railcar, 6–7 cubic meters

would be rejected as defective. And the price was practically

reduced because of that.

>> So am I right in understanding that

shipments to Volga and Solikamsk could

differ for certain objective

reasons, because the delivery terms were different,

there were different complications,

>> different acceptance conditions, but for Volga

prices were traditionally higher than for

Solikamsk, but they adjusted them

through the volume. In the end, the price

came out to be about the same, but in this

case I do not have the information, because

I have not seen the documents.

>> Please tell me, did you ever load timber for someone

for free? Ever? Yes.

How could that be?

>> Has anyone ever

instructed you to ship to someone free of charge

to any person?

>> No, do you mean without prepayment

or what do you mean by free of charge?

>> I mean literally, gratuitously,

without compensation? No,

>> of course not. Well, what about with the understanding that you

would ship it, and you still would not

be paid. Did someone wink and

say, "Go ahead and ship it, Natalia

Alexandrovna, there will be no money"?

>> No, that is not a serious question. No,

of course not.

>> That's not a serious question. That's what they are building this on.

Well, no,

>> nothing like that happened. No one gave you instructions

of that kind. And did anyone

ever instruct you to ship to

some VLK company, perhaps

at below-market prices?

>> I was not setting the prices, excuse me,

please; we received a specification

to load five railcars. I shipped them. At

what price they were shipped there, we did not know.

>> So, in other words, you did not see any

unusual terms or anything

out of the ordinary? Our higher management gave us

an order, and we carried it out.

That was essentially all.

>> Natalia Alexandrovna, let me ask you

this question. You recently gave an interview

in which you called this case political.

And why

>> that's my personal opinion.

>> Well, why is that your personal opinion?

>> Well, if you permit me, I would rather not

talk about that.

>> Well, unfortunately, until the judge has disallowed it

my question, you must. Sorry,

>> you do not have to answer.

>> All right. And in that same interview, you said,

that you met with the directors of the forestry enterprises,

laughed, and decided that this case was

a politically motivated order. And why do you think

that the territorial gatherings also

viewed it that way?

>> Well, that is not exactly how it was. I said that

it was not that we gathered and laughed, but that we

spoke with the directors of the forestry operations, and

many of them expressed the opinion

that this was politically motivated. Why?

Because at that time there were many intermediary

companies, and it was

perfectly normal to work

under commission agreements, taking

a commission fee—say, 5% was

the average commission, if I remember correctly,

for delivery. And in fact, Volga

directly, and Salkams as well directly,

never entered into contracts at all. They

would gather several clients—for example, a company

would take on 10 to 15

customers, conclude commission agreements with them,

and that was standard practice.

>> So, am I understanding correctly? That this

was absolutely standard practice, when

traders were involved, and the largest

pulp-and-paper mills, your

main and only consumers

of your timber stock, had no other way

of working except through intermediaries.

>> Of course, they do not work any other way. And

the opening of a case over the work of one

of the intermediaries—do you consider that a politically

motivated order?

>> Well, Your Honor. I ask that the question be withdrawn.

>> Yes, I very much ask that. As it were,

>> All right. No further questions. Thank you.

>> No.

>> Does counsel have a question?

>> No questions.

>> Counsel Mikhailo?

>> No questions.

>> Counsel Kubki?

>> No.

>> Counsel Kuberli, may we release the witness

to step down? Perhaps,

>> is there one more additional question from the court?

Please tell us, Natalia Aleksan-

in your view, how beneficial

was the cooperation between the Podosinovsky forestry enterprise

and OOV VLK?

>> The thing is, I cannot come to

any definite conclusion. I do not

have the necessary information. Several times I

contacted Perkhles. I asked them at least

to give me a reconciliation statement. They did not even

provide that. I had no

information. I still do not have it now. So I

cannot say anything; I have long been retired, and

all the more so, I do not know now. Well,

do you remember whether the price for OOV

VLK matched the market price, or was it higher or lower?

She answered that she had not seen

the prices and shipped timber products according to

the specifications. As I recall, that

was the witness's answer. We truly were not told the price;

that information was withheld from us—I do not

know whether it was deliberately concealed or not, but in

any case, we did not have it.

>> All right. Natalia Alexandrovna, do you

remember the testimony you gave during the investigation?

?

>> Well, of course I remember.

>> Do you remember it well?

>> Well, no, perhaps not exactly anymore; after all,

a lot of time has passed. Here I have

in connection with substantial

contradictions in the testimony of witness

Koritnyuk Natalia Alexandrovna, specifically in

the part concerning the assessment of, uh, the interaction

with OOV VLK, I move to read out the testimony on

page 64 of volume

22.

>> Your Honor, I support the motion stated by my

colleague for the defense.

>> Your Honor, in court today the witness

gave far more detailed

testimony than the one

that was given at the stage of

the preliminary investigation. In addition,

I would also like to note that what

the respected

representative of the prosecution is asking to have read out is nothing

other than a value judgment. And as for

what value judgments are,

we have already discussed that today in

the court hearing. It is the witness's subjective

opinion at that stage of

the preliminary investigation in 2011.

At that time it was one thing; now it is another.

Moreover, I would point out that now,

at this moment, the witness is giving more

detailed testimony. She explains

her position; she states why she

is giving this or that testimony. Therefore, I

do not consider it appropriate to read out, in

this part, her prior witness testimony.

I do not support the motion.

>> Your Honor, the witness gave more

comprehensive answers than she gave during

the preliminary investigation. Moreover,

she repeatedly stated that she

did not see the prices, and therefore cannot give an assessment

based on something she did not see.

She cannot do that. And the respected prosecutor

wants precisely to read that out, and therefore I

object.

>> Understood,

>> I support the defense's objection.

>> Yes, we support the objection

as stated.

The court, having heard the parties and the prosecution's position,

permits the reading out of the testimony of the injured party /

witness given during the preliminary

investigation. The witness, while giving testimony at

the investigation, explained the reasoning behind his answer.

Why was it disadvantageous? There was a discrepancy.

SVLK.

twenty-second, almost

>> What would you like to say?

>> I just wanted, uh, well, to ask

if possible, that the prosecutors

refer specifically to the part where there is

a discrepancy, and not read out the entire text again.

Indeed, it should be read out only in the part concerning

the contradictions be read out.

>> Well, Your Honor, let me remind you that our

request was specifically to read out page 164

of the entire interrogation, if it was hard to hear.

>> The prosecution requested, in connection with

the contradictions, that the testimony be read out,

therefore I ask that only the portions containing

the contradictions be read out.

>> So, page 61 of the case file

through 66 is the examination of witness

Koritnyuk Natalia Alexandrovna, dated 17

June 2011, who was questioned as a

witness.

Also, on page 264

there is the following testimony.

Investigator's question: Were the deliveries beneficial for

the forestry enterprise and KOGUP Kirovles (a regional state enterprise) under deliveries by LLC

Vyatka Timber Company under contract No.

1/29 dated April 15, 2009? Answer

of the witness.

In my opinion, for the Podosinovsky

forestry enterprise and KOGUP Kirovles, deliveries by LLC VLK

were disadvantageous. The timber products, namely

sawn timber and spruce pulpwood,

which were in high demand, could

have been sold at average market prices,

however, they were sold at reduced prices, that is,

below market rates. In addition, the

aforementioned contract lacked

a clause on advance payment for

the timber products, which also indicates

that the supplier's interests were not

protected, although under the existing custom of

business practice with counterparties, terms

requiring advance payment for goods

are mandatory. And the second question:

Did the price of the products supplied by

LLC VLK correspond to the average market price? Was it

higher or lower? If it was

lower, for what reasons? Answer

of the witness: The price of the products supplied by LLC VLK

did not correspond to

the average market price. It was lower. For what

reason the price was below the market average, I

do not know. I cannot explain.

That's all.

You may proceed.

>> Please tell us, Natalia

Alexandrovna, do you confirm this part of

your testimony?

>> I confirm it completely. I see no contradiction with

this testimony whatsoever.

Why?

>> In your opinion?

>> Because it says there about the prices of KOGUP Kirovles.

Yes. When I gave that testimony,

I was guided

by the views and conversations I had with all

the directors, because my forestry enterprise supplied only a very

small amount of products. The other

forestry enterprises, as far as I know,

supplied much larger volumes. And when I

spoke with them, they all said the same

thing. That is what I repeated.

Now that some time has passed, and I, so to speak,

am now answering only for myself. Here in

this court, I answer for myself, for my

specific forestry enterprise. And the questions are specifically

specifically to you regarding this

testimony. Do you confirm it? I confirm it

as it relates to Kirovles, but not

as it relates to the Podosinovsky forestry enterprise. I did not see the prices.

I did not see them.

>> Specifically, I did not see them myself.

>> There is a contradiction. Thank you.

>> I have a question.

>> Please tell me, am I correct,

dear witness, that in the portion of the

testimony that was read out, you were speaking not about

the situation specifically at the Podosinovsky

forestry enterprise, but about the situation at other

forestry enterprises within Kirovles, which

you knew about from the words

of the directors of those forestry enterprises. That is, as for

the Podosinovsky enterprise, what was

just quoted by the prosecutor,

has nothing to do with it. I cannot

know, because I did not see the prices and do not

know the specifics of the Podosinovsky forestry enterprise. I simply

do not have that information. I saw neither

the prices nor the contracts, so how could I make

any determination?

>> Please tell us, witness, what

you have just said in court regarding

the fact that you did not see the prices,

regarding the fact that you did not see the reconciliation statement,

regarding the fact that you cannot

say whether it was beneficial or

disadvantageous for the forestry enterprise — are you

telling the truth now?

Should this testimony of yours be trusted?

What?

>> Should it be trusted?

>> Thank you. I have a question.

>> May we release the witness? Yes, the defense has no objection.

from the defense side.

We object, object

>> Do you

>> have no objection.

>> Thank you, you may go.

>> Goodbye.

>> Whom did you ask to have called in? Osapov.

>> Please call witness Osapov.

2538

1042 467

Hello.

>> Hello. Please step up to the stand,

and stand there.

>> Is there a remote control for the air conditioner?

Please introduce yourself.

>> Asa Politsii Sezovich.

>> When and where were you born?

>> Uh

>> When and where were you born?

>> I was born in '50.

>> Please state the day and month.

>> ... of March.

>> Where were you born?

In the Republic of Tatarstan.

>> Your ethnicity?

Are you a Russian citizen?

>> Russian.

>> What is your education?

>> Secondary...

>> What is your marital status?

>> Where do you work, and in what position?

>> Right now I work as a site supervisor.

>> For now.

>> What is your residential address? Where are you

officially registered?

>> Registere...

in Kirov Region, Polyansky District,

village of Nich Antonin, 13 Gorodskaya Street.

>> Do you live there,

>> yes?

>> You have been summoned for questioning as a

witness. I explain to you that you are

obliged to tell the truth,

uh, and have the right not to testify against

yourself, your spouse,

or other close relatives. If you

agree to testify, I warn you that your

testimony may

be used as

evidence in the case, including

in the event of your subsequent refusal to

maintain that testimony. You have the right to give

testimony in your native language or in a language

you speak, and the right to

use the assistance of an interpreter,

the right to file motions and submit

complaints regarding actions, inaction, and decisions

of the court. You have the right to appear for questioning

in the presence of your counsel and to petition

for security measures if there is

a need. I also explain that

criminal liability may arise

for refusing to give

testimony and for knowingly false testimony under

Articles 308 and 307 of the Criminal Code

of the Russian Federation. Are your rights and

responsibilities clear to you?

>> Please hand over the acknowledgment here

for signature.

All right, ma'am.

>> I ask for silence in the courtroom. I can't hear either

the witness or the parties. Especially now that

the air conditioner is on.

Do you have any grounds to refuse

to testify?

>> No.

>> Answer the prosecutor's question.

>> Alexei Semyonovich, please explain,

whether you know the defendants Navalny and

Ofitserov?

>> No. Well, I've heard of them. No, no,

>> I see. Do you bear them any ill will?

>> No. Please explain your place of

work and the position you held from

April to October 2009.

>> I worked as director

of the Polyansky enterprise.

>> Who was your immediate

supervisor?

>> Oplevich,

the general director.

>> I see.

>> Please explain whether the enterprise you headed

in 2009 had the right

to enter into contracts independently,

determine prices for its products,

delivery terms, product range, and so

on.

>> Yes. Well,

>> Louder, please.

>> We could operate independently.

>> I see. Who were the main

counterparties during that period for

the Sapolyansky forestry enterprise, as far as you

remember?

To whom did you sell the most products? Well, mostly