The “Kirovles Case.” Court Video Recording. Hearing 5

Please be seated.

The court session is hereby declared open.

The hearing of the criminal

case

against Navalny and Ofitserov is continuing. The following have been summoned to the court

session and have appeared as witnesses:

Barantsev, Kuzyakin, Smertin, and Bastrygina.

At this time,

the courtroom invites

Bastrygina.

death

death already

death

>> Today is the 16th.

All right, please state

>> Please step up to the stand.

>> 269

>> Please identify yourself for the court.

>> Larisa Gennadyevna Nastrogina.

>> When and where were you born?

>> April 28, 1959, in the city of Kirov.

>> What is your ethnicity?

>> Russian.

>> Russian citizenship?

>> Russian.

>> Your education?

>> Higher education.

>> Marital status?

>> Married.

>> Where do you work, and in what position

>> currently?

>> Yes.

Economist at Versniki LLC.

>> At what address do you live, and where

are you registered?

>> I live at

6 Prudnaya Street, the village of Zaboryan,

and I am registered at 49 Kalinina Street in the city of

Kirov.

>> In the city of Kirov.

>> You have been called to court for questioning 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 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 if you later

withdraw that testimony.

You also have the right to file motions,

to lodge complaints regarding the actions or inaction

and decisions of the court, to appear for questioning with

a lawyer, and to request protective measures

if necessary. And

I also explain to you that in accordance with

Articles 307 and 308 of the Criminal Code

of the Russian Federation, criminal liability may arise

for giving

knowingly false testimony and for refusing

to testify. Are your rights and

responsibilities clear to you?

>> Yes, they are clear.

>> Please sign the acknowledgment to that effect for the court.

Audible.

The microphone.

Please tell us, do you have any grounds

to refuse to testify?

>> Please answer the prosecutor's question.

>> Thank you, Larisa Gennadyevna, please explain,

are you acquainted with the defendants,

Navalny and Ofitserov?

>> Yes, I am. What kind of relationship are you currently in

with them?

>> None.

>> Do you bear them any ill will?

>> No.

>> Very well. Please explain, in 2009

where did you work, and what position

did you hold?

>> I worked as deputy general director

of Kirovles.

>> What were your responsibilities?

I was engaged in,

in general, drafting and adjusting,

monitoring, and analyzing

the production and financial plan,

and I handled the allocation of cash

flows within the enterprise.

>> Please explain, Larisa Gennadyevna,

who was the general director

of Kirovles in 2009?

>> Opalev.

>> Was he your immediate supervisor

or not?

>> Yes, he was. He appointed me

to the position, and I reported

directly to him.

You stated that you are acquainted with

the defendants, both Navalny and

Ofitserov. Please explain in more detail

where you met them. Let's start

with Navalny. Under what circumstances?

>> It was at the beginning of 2009.

There was

a meeting in Shcherchkov's office

and at that meeting

Navalny was present. After that

meeting, Vyacheslav Nikolayevich said

that we needed to go to

Navalny's office and talk. This man

promises to help us solve our problems.

Let's dwell on that in more detail

and clarify it simply for everyone

present. In Shcherchkov's office—

where was that, and who is Shcherchkov? Let's

clear that up right away.

>> He was the deputy chairman

of the government of Kirov Region.

>> Uh-huh. And where was the meeting held?

In the building of the regional government

administration.

>> The government administration building.

>> All right, please continue.

>> I no longer remember, uh...

>> Can you get the hundredth one, switch it off.

>> No, switch it off.

We went downstairs, I don't remember whether it was to the fourth

or maybe the third floor. I remember that

we went down. Well, to which floor? From the fifth.

From the fifth floor.

>> And

it was a large office, I remember who it was.

So, there I was asked a question:

"Explain the problems at Kirovles."

That is, why, Navalny, that is, what

what causes them, what problems there are, and what

leads to the enterprise's losses? Well, I gave

a description of those problems. I was

asked to provide it in writing, to which

I said that in a day or two

the material would be prepared in written

form.

>> All right, I see. Two clarifying questions.

Did Navalny hold some position

in the regional government? Who exactly was he

there?

>> At that moment, I had not been

told who he was. I was simply

told that this person would help resolve

Kirovles's problems. Later, he was introduced to me

as an adviser to the governor.

>> Uh-huh. Um, specify what problems,

what financial problems of the enterprise you

raised when Navalny asked?

>> Well, the main problem was

the unprofitability of the state contract

and the lease that had been taken on by the

enterprise. From that stemmed smaller

financial problems of the enterprise.

>> I see. What happened next?

How did events develop? Did you carry out

Navalny's request and prepare it in

writing?

>> Yes, I prepared the documents in writing,

and gave them to Vyacheslav Nikolaevich. I think

he passed them on. Some time later

there was another meeting with Sherchkov. At that

meeting, Navalny was present.

So, as he had promised, he raised

the issues that were, uh, set out

in those documents.

>> Which ones exactly?

>> Namely, the issue that it was necessary

to terminate the previous state contract and

enter into a more profitable one. And the second

issue raised was the creation of

a single trading platform for the Kirov

region for the sale of timber products. This

platform was proposed to be created so that it

would be established on the basis of Kirovles, and

later other large enterprises would also

be included in it.

>> So please explain the essence of it: what did

the creation of this single trading platform involve? Was it

supposed to be

a state enterprise or

some kind of commercial organization?

>> No, I think it would be commercial,

because what was being proposed here was

specifically to collect products from all

the major enterprises in the city of Kirov. And those

major enterprises are commercial

enterprises. In other words, a state

enterprise cannot force

commercial organizations to work with

it.

>> Products of some specific

assortment, or everything? And in general, what

kind of

>> The discussion was that this, this

platform would take all products,

all timber products from Kirovles.

>> Well, be more specific—low-grade? Well, you see,

our products were divided. At our

enterprise we have workshops, so we had

both

raw timber and sawn timber.

Well, I don't think sawn timber

needs much explanation. But

timber can be low-grade

or high-quality. The difference is,

so, where is the problem? The thing is,

the problem at Kirovles was always

the sale of low-grade timber.

Why did this problem arise? Because

it was a

forestry enterprise. We mainly

obtained timber from thinning operations.

From thinning operations, high-quality

timber amounted to, well, about 30%, and

sometimes on some plots only

10%.

And, uh, in final felling operations,

which are usually carried out by

logging operators, the share of high-

quality timber

is 70%.

And so, when we work a plot,

70 to 80% of it remains low-grade

timber, and the problem always arises of how

to sell it. No entrepreneur

wants to take poor-quality timber.

>> What was your opinion of this

initiative to create a single trading

platform?

Our view was that, under those terms, when

we heard that

all timber products would be taken, frankly

speaking, we were pleased that this would happen,

because it was specifically stated that

a commission agreement would be concluded

and all products would be taken. That suited us

very well.

>> I see. Did Navalny subsequently have

any further involvement with Kirovles,

did he visit the administrative building

of Kirovles? Did he perhaps meet

with the enterprise's management

team?

>> Well, later on,

some time later there was a meeting of

directors organized,

And Navalny was at that meeting. He

introduced Ofitserov as the acting director

of LLC VLK.

Right. And, well, after that I saw Navalny several times

in Opolev's office as well,

well, and after Opolev had already been

removed, Navalny was there.

>> Well, let's probably go through it in order

and in more detail. Uh, Ofitserov—

when and where did you first see him?

>> The first time I saw Ofitserov was

after those events, when

I handed the written documents over to Navalny

in writing. And after that, Ofitserov started appearing

— Ofitserov —

in Opolev's office.

At that point he had not been introduced to us

in any way. To put it mildly, he even

showed up when directors' meetings were being held.

He would pass through the director's office, well,

into the office there, into the house, into Opolev's

break room.

And officially, Ofitserov was then

introduced both to me and to the directors at

a directors' meeting.

Right. And what was that directors' meeting

about, and roughly when did it take place?

>> It was

either in late spring or early summer,

somewhere around that time.

>> Of what year?

>> 2009, I think.

The meeting was basically devoted

to the fact that,

as Navalny presented it,

a trading platform was being created,

and that the director of LLC VLK would be

the one through whom you would

sell your by-products. The meeting

was devoted to conveying this information

to the directors and, accordingly,

the directors were told that all

production now had to go through this

company.

>> I see. At that meeting, did anyone,

besides Navalny, as you say,

introduce Ofitserov? Did anyone else

from management speak, so to say, on

Ofitserov's behalf? Did the forestry enterprise directors

speak? And in general, what was their

opinion of this proposal that

everything would have to be centralized specifically

through LK?

When this information was announced,

the directors were initially

indignant, asking why they needed a middleman,

why they should give up a percentage. But then

Ofitserov spoke up and said

that for a year all of the production would be taken

off their hands. Again, the emphasis was on

all. And when it was said that all

production would be taken, the directors, of course,

understood that this was advantageous. And then, basically,

they agreed to it.

Moving on. Please explain,

whether a contract was in fact concluded

between KOGUP Kirovles and

Vyatka Timber Company?

>> Yes, it was.

>> Well, please tell us in more detail about

the circumstances known to you,

the circumstances surrounding the conclusion of this

contract. When were you informed of it? Were you

informed of this contract at all?

If you were, then

what were its terms? As for the circumstances

of the contract being concluded, I do not know them,

but I learned about the contract after

that meeting, roughly

a week or two later, when calls started coming in

from the directors to me,

because I was the one handling

the distribution of funds,

and the forestry operations were either not receiving money or were receiving

different amounts. Also, all the directors

understood that there was no money to spare at that point, and everyone

was counting every kopeck. So they

called me—one director, then another—

saying that the supply contract

being proposed by VLK was unprofitable. We probably

don't want to sell under those terms. So I

went to Opolev and asked, "What's going on?

How was this contract concluded?"

Opolev gave me the contract to review,

and I read it. First of all, as

had been said earlier, the discussion had been about

a commission agreement. In reality, however, it was no longer

a commission agreement but specifically a contract for

the supply of timber.

The difference between those two types of contract is enormous. And

most importantly, the supply contract was

concluded with one hundred percent

liability placed on KOGUP.

That is, KOGUP was obligated and bore responsibility for

everything. So,

uh,

there was, accordingly, no liability at all on the part of

VLK. In other words, VLK

simply received the money.

This contract did not specify

either the volume of products or the types

of products.

It said that all of that, including the place

of sale, would all

be set out in supplementary agreements.

>> And were supplementary agreements

subsequently concluded?

>> Well, there was a supplementary agreement for each

shipment.

>> Go on.

When I read that contract, the

next day—I had taken it home with me—

yes, the next day I went to

Vyacheslav Nikolaevich and said, "Have you

signed your own death warrant?"

It looked like nothing else, absolutely. It

was clearly one-sided in nature.

And Opolev said to me in response that

let's bring management together and

work out some measures, some changes to the

contract. Prepare your

proposals on what you want to add and

what changes should be made. Then, a day or

two later—I don't remember exactly, it's not

that important—a meeting was convened

at which the following were present:

Popolev, Buran,

Makaveyev, Efitserov, and me. So, I

stated my, well,

proposals.

They listened to all of it. They said that

changes would be made, but in the subsequent

version no changes were made

to the VLK documents. Well, do you know why?

>> I don't know.

>> Let's go back to that as well. Uh, you explained that

the directors expressed

their dissatisfaction to you. Could you say,

well, maybe you don't remember their surnames, but at least

which district forestry enterprises

had complaints?

>> You can't say that, for example,

the same forestry enterprise was involved in every deal. In

each deal, there were different forestry enterprises.

At various times, Kumyonsky, Orlovsky,

Orekhchevsky,

and Slobodskoy, I remember, voiced complaints.

It depended, generally speaking, on where

the loading took place, because the main

disadvantage of the contract was precisely that

the

timber products were gathered in one

particular place, and they had to be delivered

to that place. So in each specific

case, as we would say, under the supplementary agreements,

depending on where the shipment was coming from,

different forestry enterprises found it

unprofitable. Larisa

Ignatyevna,

since you were directly involved

with the financial

documents, please explain what

the payment procedure was for the Vyatka Forest

Company for the timber products supplied by

Kirovles?

>> By the way, that was also one of the

unfavorable

terms of the contract. You see, when we

sold

our products, we took an advance payment of either 50%

or even full, 100%

prepayment. The contract stated that

payment would be made

after

—I don't remember whether on the same day or

some number of days after the money was received

into VLK's account. First, we had no way

to verify whether that money had actually been received.

Second, it delayed things; that is,

we didn't have the money. We normally worked on

prepayment terms—usually 50/50,

with an advance payment.

>> So the funds from VLK's account to

your settlement account, that is, to the settlement

account of KOGUP, were transferred? As I understood from the

contracts, the money for the products sold

for the products being sold

went to VLK's account, and after that VLK

transferred it to us

>> To KOGUP Kirovles.

>> KOGUP Kirovles.

>> But if the timber products were supplied not by KOGUP

Kirovles, but directly by one of its branches,

some forestry enterprise, then how

>> did the money get into KOGUP Kirovles's account?

>> We had

>> subsequently

>> we had agreements with the bank

in order to monitor income and

expenses. We had only one revenue account

at KOGUP, while the expenditure accounts were in the

forestry enterprises, and they operated under a

budget system. That is, money was sent to them for

specific expenses. In other words, money was sent

for salaries, and then only

salaries could be paid from those funds.

If we ourselves sent money for

materials, then that money could

be spent only on materials.

That was the budget system.

>> Did KOGUP Kirovles have any financial obligations to its

branches, any monetary

obligations in connection with its cooperation with

VLK? In other words, were there cases when

funds were not transferred in full

to

the branch forestry enterprises because, as a result of

delays by VLK, funds that had been fully

transferred by VLK to the

settlement account of KOGUP were withheld

by KOGUP for some of its own purposes?

>> Right.

Well, whether specifically VLK or not,

that's not really the point. The money flow system was simply

set up this way: all funds came

into one, so to speak, common cash pool.

So, the money that came into KOGUP's

account was

allocated to each forestry enterprise; despite the fact that

it was a single account, there was

a breakdown showing which forestry enterprise had

which funds. In other words, each forestry enterprise

had its own wallet.

>> Uh-huh. Now, from that wallet, we had a

support fund. This fund

received 5%. This fund was used for

the development of the enterprise and for dealing with

certain emergency situations. For example,

those same fires were financed

through this support fund; into this fund

of course, they immediately took

5%. The remaining money was sent

to the forestry enterprises as needed

according to the budgets that were drawn up at the

beginning of the year during planning.

The only thing was that in 2009,

when there were difficulties, but even then this was how it worked.

We would call the directors; we had

several forestry enterprises. For example,

the Kilmetsky forestry enterprise was a strong one; it was located in

the southern districts. There,

their sales were good, and

they had substantial cash inflows. And I

would make arrangements with the director, and he would allow part

of their funds to be transferred to

other forestry enterprises so they could pay

wages.

>> I see. As for the financial,

so to speak, side of things.

Were payments made in full, so to speak, and

were they made on time by

the intermediary company for the timber products delivered to

its address, or how did that work?

As I already said,

we cannot track when the money

reached their account. All right. In

full, yes,

>> not in full, but there was a delay; if

you compare it with the terms on which we

sold directly ourselves, there was definitely a delay.

Of course, as I said, we received

a 50% advance payment immediately, whereas there the money came in

only at the very end.

>> A 50% advance payment immediately with other

counterparties.

>> Yes.

Regarding the counterparties, as far as you

know, who were the main

buyers,

and who were the counterparties?

The Novovyatsk Ski

and Slobodskoy were among them here.

>> Slobodskoy, Slobodskoy. Right. No,

Slobodskoy shipped to Novovyatsk... Oh, I

probably can’t say this precisely. I know

that there were 10 major counterparties, around

ten major counterparties with whom

we worked on a regular basis. I was not directly involved in

sales matters,

so I can’t say anything specific,

but I do know there were about ten

major contracts with parties we

worked with constantly, and they were simply

transferred to VLK.

>> constantly. So, before the conclusion

of the contract with

>> those were long-standing relationships, going back many years.

Kirovles had been working with it all along.

>> Please clarify, regarding, so to speak,

how the price and the transportation terms

were determined for products shipped

through VLK. Were those

terms the same as with other

counterparties, or did they

differ in some way?

The price, of course, remained the

same. If we take, for example, the same

Novovyatsk Ski Plant: if it bought from us

at that price, it bought from VLK at the

same price. But from that price we were

forced to pay a sales commission to

VLK. That meant we were left with

less money. That is one aspect. And the second

aspect is that, as I already said, VLK contracted volumes

far larger than ours.

Previously, our forestry enterprises individually

entered into contracts based on the volume

they actually had in each forestry enterprise. VLK

would sign contracts for a larger

volume, and because of that, the forestry enterprises had to

concentrate timber in one

particular location. And that meant

additional transportation costs.

That’s it.

>> And who paid those transportation costs?

Who covered the transportation costs?

>> The transportation costs were, of course, borne by the forestry enterprises.

>> That affected the overall cost basis.

>> It did not change the price. The price did not change, but

it increased the cost price. The overall

cost price. That was the issue that interested me.

interested me.

>> Mm-hmm.

In 2009, during the period from

April to October, were there any

audit inspections, so to speak, concerning Kirovles?

audit inspections?

>> At the end of the first half of the year, we

reported the results of our financial

performance to the Department of

Property.

And,

there was a demand that we explain

the reasons for the losses. Several reasons were

given. Some of those reasons,

well, could not really be changed, were accepted

and dealt with by our own means. But

the head of the department ordered an inspection

of the enterprise.

>> ordered an inspection of the sales

activities of the enterprise.

An audit inspection.

>> Yes, an audit inspection.

>> The inspection was carried out.

>> The inspection was carried out.

>> And who conducted

it? Vyatka Audit? The firm Vyatka Audit.

>> Please explain in more detail

how this inspection was conducted, what

documents were requested, and who,

in that connection, was involved?

And what conclusions were drawn from it?

Well, the documents requested included supply contracts,

supply contracts,

contracts from previous years were compared with

those from the current year. An analysis

was carried out,

and invoices and payment records were reviewed.

And

the people who handled these matters were also questioned.

Makaveyev,

uh, Bura. And of course they questioned me, as

one of the managers as well.

That was the issue.

>> Were the financial statements requested?

>> I don't think so,

because the issue was specifically the sales

policy; as far as I remember, I did not look at the balance sheet.

So I can't confirm that.

>> You don't remember?

>> Uh-huh.

>> What were the auditors' conclusions?

The auditors' conclusions

were that

roughly speaking, Piro got involved. After analyzing

the sales, that is,

as regards Kirovles,

that, well, first of all, there was a decline in output

and sales; everyone had that in 2009

because there was a crisis that year. And secondly, yes, it was

concluded that the issue of OOO

VLK had to be addressed, because sales through OOO VLK

were not working out.

Were the auditors' conclusions, uh,

discussed in the regional government, in

particular

at the department for

property management? As I understand it, the initiative

did not come from Kirovles.

>> Yes, of course. The results of the audit,

of course, were discussed extensively.

>> Who was present for the discussion?

>> Well, Mertin was there, his deputy. Then

the chief accountant was there, I was there, and the auditor

our chief accountant.

>> What was Arzamassov's opinion?

>> Well, it was the same opinion.

>> He agreed.

>> He agreed with that opinion. Was this audit

discussed anywhere else?

>> Later on. So, this audit

was discussed

with the regional governor.

>> Who was present at that discussion?

>> Navalny, Ofitserov, Sherchkov,

the auditor,

Arzamassov, and me.

>> What were the views of the people gathered at

the meeting?

Who expressed what opinion?

Let's start with Navalny. Did Navalny

speak about the audit

findings?

>> Navalny said that the audit

had been conducted incorrectly,

improperly.

So,

and in principle Navalny was defending the interests

of VLK at that meeting.

>> More specifically: did he explain

why he thought that? Why did he

believe the auditors' conclusions were wrong?

Do you remember that or not?

>> Well, at this point I don't remember his exact words.

>> Who else spoke?

>> Ofitserov also spoke, which honestly

surprised me a lot.

>> Why?

>> Well, a commercial organization was taking part in

the regional government's discussion of issues concerning

a state-owned enterprise.

>> Was he a member of some working group

or what exactly was his role there?

>> I don't know. I really don't know that.

I'll say again, I was surprised that he was

there.

>> I see. Uh, as a result of the discussion,

were any conclusions or decisions reached?

>> One moment. The witness did not answer the

question of who brought Ofitserov to the

meeting.

The witness answered only that he also expressed his

opinion.

>> He also said he was against the audit,

>> but of course I no longer remember the specific words

he used.

Let me ask again—what are you asking?

>> As for the outcome of the discussion: uh, what

decisions were made?

>> As a result,

as a result of the discussion, Opalev was

removed from his position.

>> Could you explain in more detail why?

>> Well, I don't really know many details either.

When that discussion took place about Opalev

with the governor and at the meeting,

the reason I was there was that

Opalev was away on a business trip. Opalev

returned from the trip, and that very

day he was summoned to the governor. In the evening,

almost at night already, he called me

and said: "Get ready, Lisinalna, because

tomorrow you'll probably be acting as

general director." I asked:

"What happened?" He said: "I'll explain everything

later."

But in the morning, when I came

to work, Tyshlik had been appointed director.

So I can't give any details.

>> Do you know Tyshlik's first name and patronymic?

>> Pyotr. Pyotr—I forgot his patronymic.

He was with us there for literally about half a year,

I think.

>> How long?

>> He worked there, at most, probably

half a year. I see. And as

director?

>> No, he had worked there before that. He was

actually in charge of, among other things,

sales.

>> And as director, for how long after that?

>> As director, I don't know,

a month or two, maybe.

>> And then who was supposed to take over as director

of Kirovles after Tyshlik? Who took

the position of Kirovles director?

>> After Tyshlik, it was Opalev again.

During the period when Tyshlik was, uh, serving as

acting director or had been appointed

director, was he interested in, that is,

what kind of

financial activities of the enterprise?

whether he had requested any documents for

himself or for anyone else.

Oh,

basically, I think it was even that same

day he was appointed, or that same

or the next day—I no longer know that for sure either—

Shlik summoned me to

his office and told me to prepare the documents.

He said Navalny was coming to conduct an inspection.

Right. And that I should vacate my office and

bring all the financial documents there.

Well, of course I vacated the office, since

the director had instructed me to do so. But

I refused to hand over the documents. I said

that I would provide the documents only

if there was an order

from the government stating that I had to

submit the documents.

Then

a few days later, Tyshlik summoned me

to his office. In the office there was

Navalny sitting there.

Uh, they again raised the issue that I had to

hand over the documents.

I again replied that I would provide the documents

only if there was a request from

the government, since we are

a regional state-owned enterprise.

Navalny said that the government order

would be issued. I said, "All right,

once there is an order, I will hand over all the documents

within a day or two as well."

Then Tyshlik brought me

some piece of paper that had no signature

on it at all—no signature, no

seal. I said that this was not a proper document,

and I would not hand over anything.

But apparently they decided to proceed

by another route. After that, Navalny started

coming in; he sat in my office, and

our specialists were called in there one by one.

I do not know what was discussed.

I was not called in.

Were there any other meetings with

the governor, or with Cherchkov, or with

someone else from the senior leadership

of the regional government concerning

the activities and purchase arrangements involving Raflemi

apart from the meetings that have already been listed?

Well, that was probably after all those events,

all of them,

when by that point

Tyshlik had already

been dismissed.

>> I see. Larisa Gennadyevna, in your view

as deputy director,

was it beneficial at all for Kirovles

to work with that company?

>> No, definitely not.

>> Was the contract with that company

terminated, or was it still in force?

>> It was terminated. In fact, incidentally, it was at that

time, when Tyshlik was in charge.

And here, to be honest, Tyshlik did listen to me.

He called me in, I told him, well,

and in the end he terminated it.

But at that point, I know for certain,

there were still debts outstanding. And after

the contract was terminated, invoices came to KGU

for penalties claimed by VLK. That is,

even after the contract had been terminated,

there were invoices saying that certain contracts

had been concluded in violation of the rules.

During your questioning, you stated that

about 10 major counterparties moved over

to VLK, and contracts with them were renegotiated.

During that period,

during that time,

given Kirovles's prior experience working with those companies,

could Kirovles have dealt directly

with those counterparties?

>> Of course it could. As I said before, we had worked with

those counterparties even before

that.

>> You are familiar with Opelev, Ofitserov, and

Navalny. You saw them together. Please explain

your view: were their relations

friendly in nature, or were they

ordinary business relations? What can you

say about this, in your opinion?

>> Well, whether they were friendly or not, I cannot say,

because I only saw them in

a work setting.

As for anything outside the work

environment, I cannot say. In a work

environment, I think that

at least at the meetings that

took place with Sherchkov, Navalny and

Ofitserov always arrived together and,

to put it mildly, expressed the same

point of view.

Do you know

from anyone—and if so,

from whom specifically—that Opelev

was subjected to any pressure in connection

with the conclusion of the SLK contract?

>> Opelev did not personally tell me that he was

under pressure, but I am originally trained

as a teacher, and I simply

could see that his condition was

abnormal, not quite himself. Several times

I went up to him and asked, "What

is the matter, what is happening, Vyacheslav

Nikolayevich?" He replied to me:

"Calm down, it has to be this way."

>> Your Honor, I have no questions for

the witness.

>> No questions.

The defense may question the witness.

Witness Bastrykina, please tell us,

from the very beginning, you worked

at the Kirovles enterprise,

>> correct?

>> Since the enterprise was founded?

>> Well,

>> You said it was a long time, almost

a decade. How long exactly,

since Kirovles was established?

>> The enterprise.

there.

At first, I had just started working.

>> When was the Kagub Kirovles enterprise established

please tell us?

>> In 1997 or 1998?

>> In 1997 or 1998. You worked there

from 1997 or 1998, you do not remember exactly

?

>> I worked from—there was a reorganization there,

I moved from one enterprise to another

as part of it.

>> The forestry enterprises were merged there. Kagub

Kirovles. That large enterprise specifically

was created in 1997 or 1998.

You have worked there from the very beginning. Am I correct

in understanding that you are one of the people

who is most familiar with

its financial

and economic condition, since you

worked there from the start?

>> Please tell us, try to recall

those reports you prepared for me,

yes, on the financial condition of the Kagolov Krovles

enterprises. What were some of the main

indicators contained in those

reports? The enterprise's liabilities,

the enterprise's accounts receivable, and

the remaining finished goods in warehouses—

what were they at the beginning of 1999

?

>> I cannot give the figures today.

Even approximate figures. You see, part of it is that

I am an economist by profession. I am used

to speaking in figures. Five years have passed, and I

am now working, just to get by, at five

enterprises. In my head are the figures for those

five enterprises.

>> [inaudible]. Well,

>> No. I am saying once again, I am asking

you approximately, please. You

were the director of this enterprise, and

as it appears from what you are saying now,

you remember some details

very well.

And these are the key financial indicators

of the enterprise where you were the chief

economist. Can you not remember at least

the order of magnitude? Well, what was the debt—

was it 1 million rubles or 200 million rubles? Not

1 million, of course.

>> Approximately how much?

>> Well, hundreds.

>> Hundreds of millions of rubles.

>> Because there were payables as well.

>> Please answer my questions, please.

That will be your next

question. Am I correct in understanding that

accounts payable—what you owed—

you estimate it at hundreds

of millions of rubles, correct? Now,

what were the accounts receivable?

>> About the same. Hundreds of millions of rubles. And

please explain to the court and to me,

what exactly are accounts receivable

?

>> Money owed to us.

>> Money owed to you. And please tell us,

you said that everyone settled their accounts with you,

and that money was owed to you. How

did it happen that in 1999 you were

owed hundreds of millions of rubles? That

means that someone simply did not

pay you on

>> I said again, there was a 50-50 system,

so such a situation could occur.

>> 50-50, meaning 50%.

>> Please explain it to the court once again.

Are accounts receivable

overdue debt, or

debt provided for under

the contract?

>> Provided for under the contract. Moreover,

within the accounts receivable,

the main portion

was owed by state-funded institutions.

We supplied goods to such institutions even without

prepayment. That was by order

of the government.

>> So you supplied kindergartens and hospitals, yes,

yes, we supplied firewood to those institutions without

prepayment.

>> And there were a large number of enterprises, including

state-owned ones, that

did not pay. And please tell us,

how much did you later write off from accounts

receivable as uncollectible debt?

>> That was written off after I had left; I do not know.

>> But as for overdue receivables, in

those reports you brought me,

there was also information on overdue

accounts receivable, that is,

not just the 50% deferred amount, but rather

amounts that were specifically not paid under the contract. And you

were supposed, indeed obliged, to collect them

through the courts. What was the approximate

amount of such debt?

>> I do not remember.

>> And did you pursue collection through the courts?

>> We did.

>> How much did you recover?

I am saying again, it has been 5 years now.

>> In terms of scale, are we talking millions of rubles,

tens of millions, or hundreds of millions

of rubles?

>> Well, there were hundreds,

>> Hundreds of millions of rubles, that is,

overdue accounts receivable amounted to

hundreds of millions of rubles.

>> From time to time, documents for filing

these matters in court

were submitted.

>> Please remind me, what was the total volume

of your sales with the VLK enterprise

?

Just the approximate scale.

I am now—

>> Well then, please tell us, and in

The case materials indicate that

the total sales volume, the total sales volume, was 16

million rubles. And you said that you had

overdue accounts receivable

in the hundreds of millions of rubles just now.

Please tell me,

all right, one or two hundred? And what is the reason for

such close attention on your part

both in your testimony and everywhere else to these

16 million in turnover, against the backdrop of hundreds, one

or 2 million rubles in overdue accounts

receivable?

>> I didn’t understand the question.

>> All right, I’ll ask you another question.

Please tell me, you, uh, said here

and repeated twice that there was

a meeting with the heads of the forestry enterprises, at which

I was present, where I introduced

Ofitserov as the representative of the company through which

everything was supposed to be sold. Now, in

this court hearing, the following were questioned as witnesses:

Opolev, Makaveyev, Zmeyev, and 20

heads of forestry enterprises. Not one of them

testified, despite the fact that the prosecution

asked them, not one of

them said that I was at that, uh,

meeting, much less that I introduced

Ofitserov. Who is giving false

testimony now? You, or were they all giving false

testimony?

>> You were at that meeting.

>> I introduced Ofitserov?

Please answer very clearly.

Did I introduce Ofitserov and did I tell

the directors of the forestry enterprises that through him

all sales now had to go?

You have been warned about liability

for giving false testimony?

>> Let the witness answer.

>> Well, I can’t say definitively, but, but

the fact that you were at that meeting is certain,

you definitely were.

>> So, what did I say at that

meeting?

>> I’m saying once again, five years have passed, I do not

remember word for word what happened.

>> Then please tell the court and

the representative of the prosecution whether you remember

what happened at that meeting and what

I said there. Do you remember what I

said at that meeting?

>> I’ve said everything I remember. You just

said that at that meeting I

introduced Ofitserov and told all

the directors of the forestry enterprises that now they

would sell products through him. Maybe,

maybe you introduced him not at

the meeting, but before the meeting to me, and I, I had

that association left in my mind, but the fact that you

introduced Ofitserov to me, I definitely

remember.

>> All right, let’s talk now about

the meeting. We’ll get to who

introduced whom there in a moment. We are talking about

the meeting at which

dozens of people were present. Those dozens of people have already

given testimony

here. So please tell me, at that

meeting, do you remember what I said?

>> I already answered that question.

>> You do not remember—you answered that question.

>> Well then, please explain to me what

your answer to that question was. Do you remember what

I said at

>> I already answered that question.

The question has not been withdrawn.

>> Your Honor, the question has not been withdrawn. Please answer,

please,

>> the witness answered that possibly

you told her this before the meeting, and she

formed an association. I am now asking

the question specifically about the meeting. Do you

confirm the testimony that you

just gave, which contradicts all

the other witnesses, namely that at this

meeting I introduced Ofitserov to everyone and

said,

>> I answered your question.

>> I did not understand the answer to this question of yours,

forgive me, please, you—I said that

maybe before the meeting you introduced him

and I formed an association

that it may have been at the meeting, that such a

situation was possible, but as for him being introduced

Ofitserov was not introduced as director precisely at

that moment.

>> At what moment?

>> Either before the meeting or at the meeting itself.

That is, that Ofitserov was the director of OVLK,

I learned from witness Bastrykina. Did I speak with you before

the meeting, and in general at the company

Kirovles, with anyone other than Opolev,

or not?

Now please tell me, I was an adviser

to the governor of Kirov Region, so for what reason

would I, to you, an economist at the enterprise,

have needed to introduce Ofitserov? Well,

then write this down: I was not an economist at the enterprise.

No, not the chief economist. I was

the deputy general director.

>> And when people came

to the director’s office for the meeting, I was the one who greeted everyone.

>> Excellent. Please explain this to me. I met you

and you could have.

>> Please tell me exactly when I

introduced Ofitserov to you at the meeting

I answered that question.

>> I did not understand your answer. Right now you are

trying to launch—I answered this

question.

>> Are you trying to confuse me with the question now

No. Indeed, the witness has already

answered

>> I’ll rephrase. I would like to understand very clearly

once again whether witness

Bastrykina stands by the information she has already

given, namely that at this meeting

in the presence of the directors of the forestry enterprises, I

introduced Ofitserov to everyone and stated that

from now on, the products would be sold through

... Please strike the question. She has already

indeed answered twice that it was either

before the meeting or at the meeting. She

did not

>> the witness has not answered in that wording.

>> This question still concerns one and

the same point. Let's still

clarify it. Yes, that's all. Are you asserting that

this happened specifically at the meeting?

>> No,

>> it could have been. It might not have been at the meeting. Yes.

>> Now please answer the next question. So,

you say that I introduced

Ofitserov to you.

Was the phrase actually said that this was

Ofitserov, through whom from now on

all products would be sold? Did I tell you that

in any setting there, with Sopliv,

without Oplyv, one-on-one, somewhere else? Was it said

or was it not? I repeat once again,

this event was 5 years ago. I do not remember

the exact wording. The meaning was that you

presented him as a director, and that

the products would be marketed. Even at the

first meeting with you, the sense was that

the sale of all products would go through

one enterprise,

>> through KOGUP Kirovles or through VLK? So

then

>> when was that

>> perhaps the name was not mentioned; when we first

met for the first time in the

government offices, the conversation was about the fact that

there would be an enterprise through which

all products would be sold.

>> Witness Postroiki, you are currently

in court,

>> where the possibility is being considered of

a criminal offense having been committed. I do not

understand why the witness here is not

answering my questions. Yuly, through

which enterprise there

>> Defendant Navalny, please compose yourself,

one moment. The court does, after all, warn about

liability. And the court did so at the

beginning of the hearing. About which she signed an acknowledgment.

She signed it. First of all. Second,

there is no need to frighten her with criminal

liability.

>> You ask questions, and she answers those

questions. Indeed, if her

testimony is disproved, then there may

eventually be a question of bringing her

to account for knowingly false testimony. But

there is a separate procedure for that.

>> Then please clarify: you

several times mentioned a single

trading platform. What exactly did you mean, in

your understanding? The single trading

platform I was talking about—what was it?

Was it sales through Kirovles or sales

through an outside commercial

enterprise?

>> Through an outside enterprise.

>> Your Honor, I also ask that this question be struck

as well. It has already been asked; the prosecutor clarified it.

>> The question was not asked in that wording.

>> It was asked in that wording.

>> One moment. Let's proceed in order, one

at a time at least. Yes. The clerk cannot

record the parties' interjections

simultaneously. Please answer the question.

Through an outside organization.

>> Then please explain: here you

said—I'm quoting almost verbatim—

that Kirovles was supposed to collect all

the products and sell them. So, did you mean

sales through Kirovles or through an

outside enterprise?

>> I did not say that. I said that

VLKAS would sell all the products.

>> Said by whom? Who said that?

I am saying once again: it was after the first

meeting, when you were in our office with us,

that you said this outside

organization would take all the products

and sell them.

>> Let's go over this again. Which meeting was it, and who

was present at that meeting?

>> The witness has already answered that question.

>> Your Honor, the witness is clearly confusing

the creation of a single trading platform and VLK.

And she is talking about some

meeting where first it was one thing,

then another. At one point the single

trading platform is Kirovles, then the single

trading platform is VLK. What I want to establish

is something very simple: that she now

explain when, with whom, and under what

circumstances she heard from me

the statement that someone would be

selling something through VLK. From me or from

Topolev?

>> That is, at which of the meetings

>> at which meeting, who was present

there, and what exactly was

said?

I will answer the question once again:

at the first meeting you said that

a single trading

platform for the region would be created on the basis of—who would be included in it—

Kirovles, and then all the other

major

enterprises in the region would be brought in.

>> So

>> I never spoke about a single Kirovles platform,

because that would be disadvantageous

for KOGUP Kirovles. Strange. So perhaps

you are now talking about the timber exchange,

which by definition, of course,

must include all enterprises

working in the forestry sector. Is that

what you are talking about now, please

or not?

>> I am talking about what was said. You

said that about

>> When was it, please answer—when exactly?

Who said it, and in whose presence?

>> At the beginning of 2009, after a meeting in

Shcherchkov’s office, you and I went down one floor

or two to an office. And this was discussed

there. Who else was present?

>> You, me, and Opolev.

>> Excellent. So, at the meeting where

only you, me, and Opolev were present,

according to you.

>> That was not a meeting. After the meeting,

>> we went down to your office.

>> You just said several times that

there was a meeting. Was it a meeting or

wasn’t it?

>> The meeting was in Shcherchkov’s office. And after that

meeting, you and I went down one floor

or two. And there were three people

there. And you said,

>> what was said, once again

>> you asked for an assessment of

>> this enterprise. Which enterprise?

>> Which enterprise?

>> Kogubkirovles. And you promised to help. One form of

that help was that

the contract would be revised.

>> All right, please wait. We are talking

about the trading platform. So after which

meeting with Cherchkov did these weekly meetings take place?

After which meeting did we go downstairs, and

then what? That is exactly right.

The meetings were held weekly. I do not remember the exact dates.

I said at the outset that it was at the beginning

of the year.

>> There, that is the testimony.

>> Yes,

>> please, the question.

Either the creation of a single trading platform,

or the issue of selling everything through VLK.

So what exactly was being discussed?

>> I refuse to answer. I have already answered.

>> You cannot answer that question.

So,

>> I have already answered. I do not understand what

I am being asked. I have already answered several

times. Your Honor, the witness, as you

can observe, is simply

either seriously confused and

remembers nothing, or is plainly

>> trying to change—just a second, no, no,

do not argue.

>> I can also see that you do not like the answers

to the questions. You are trying to get the witness, uh,

by asking the same questions over and over,

simply to make her give different testimony.

>> I would like to understand at which meeting

what was said. Excuse me, the witness

first said that I, in the presence of

some directors of the forestry enterprise, said that

everything would be sold through VLK.

Now it turns out that nothing

of the sort was said at all.

>> Mm-hmm.

>> So, that phrase was said. And who, who heard

that phrase? Kopolev, incidentally, also

gave testimony. So tell us, who

actually said that phrase? Did you hear it

from me? Or perhaps you simply mixed it up

plain and simple?

>> I answered the question.

>> I did not understand the answer.

>> The question was asked, yes. The question is withdrawn.

Please tell me,

>> and

>> in your testimony, you said that the problem

with working with VLK was that VLK

formed very large batches.

Correct?

>> Well, yes.

>> Now please remind me, just

you said there were hundreds of millions

in debt, hundreds of millions

in accounts receivable, and remaining

finished goods in warehouses. What

were the amounts? In those reports you gave me,

you wrote them down; they are probably in

the case materials.

>> They must have been large. At the beginning of the year, as far as I

recall, also on the order of hundreds of millions of rubles,

tens, maybe single digits.

>> First of all, this is a feature of the forestry

industry. In the first—wait—in the

first quarter

>> there is always stockpiling, because the first

quarter is for harvesting, and in the second

quarter sales begin. Therefore

there should have been timber inventories

in the warehouses.

>> What was the volume of those stockpiles?

>> I do not remember. I am saying again, is the figure

correct—

>> 5 million rubles.

>> I see. Once again, rubles.

>> Is that correct? Because I remember that the remaining

inventory at that time amounted to 220 million

rubles.

>> I do not know; if I do not remember, how can I

tell you whether you remember correctly?

>> Well, as you said, you were the deputy

director. You cannot possibly fail to remember such

important—Your Honor, please. She does not

remember.

>> All right, and

>> your witness seems not to remember anything. And

please tell me, were you

a witness, repeatedly a witness

to the fact that the director of your

enterprise, Opolev, repeatedly appealed to everyone

with the request: please help me with the

sale of our products. Did that happen or not?

>> Opolev appealed to the directors.

>> Opolev appealed to Shcherchkov, for example,

and at meetings said that my

problem was that there was no market for the products. Was

that so or

>> it was discussed at meetings, but specifically it concerned

low-grade timber.

Please tell me, then, and for the sale of

sales, right.

>> for selling this product, so what exactly was

the problem with some company that

was assembling large batches?

>> Because those were large batches,

they were assembled for high-quality

timber, not low-grade wood.

>> So am I right in understanding that they

put things together, found customers

and buyers, assembled these

large shipment batches, and then

sent you an order request, and you

could not fulfill it.

Did situations like that happen?

>> You could not fulfill it, despite

the fact that, on paper, you had inventory remaining

worth 220 million rubles.

>> Let me say once again, the specific feature

of a forestry enterprise is that

70-80% of the timber there is

low-grade. And when inventory balances are recorded,

they are recorded without specification.

And you were asking for high-quality

timber, and it might simply not have been

available in stock.

>> Please remind me,

>> One second, excuse me. And who are you?

officer

>> I was demanding high-grade timber from you.

Excellent. Please tell me,

>> and remind me, what was the volume of the allowable

annual cut allocated to Kirovles,

at the beginning of 2009?

>> I don’t remember that either.

>> Well, listen, that was basically the main thing,

the main asset Kirovles had — its allowable

cut... I was left without work and had to survive.

I run five enterprises. I remember these figures.

Tell me, we’ll get to the point

of why you were left without work. We will. I

will ask you about that.

Am I right in understanding that Kirovles

had millions of cubic meters under lease

in allowable cut? It was the largest

forest lessee in Kirov Region.

Is that correct or not?

>> I won’t speak in numbers, but it was one

of the largest. Yes.

>> One of the largest, or the largest?

>> Well yes, the largest.

>> The largest.

>> Am I right in understanding that large

volumes of timber — the largest volumes — could

be supplied only by Kirovles? And the question of

whether it was low-grade or not low-grade

depends on how you

process it. If you just cut it up and

leave it in a swamp, then it becomes low-grade and

turns blue. But if you properly

saw it and turn it into lumber,

then it is high-grade. Correct? No,

that’s incorrect.

>> Why is that incorrect?

>> Because you are not a forestry

specialist. And

>> I’ve become one already.

>> No, you haven’t.

>> You have not understood that it is determined

when the tree is still standing

on the stump, not after it has been felled.

When the quality and price of timber are determined,

the price of the cutting area is set, and each tree

is assessed, and the cutting area is evaluated accordingly.

>> Please answer my question. Let me

make it more specific so that you

don’t, as if lecturing like a teacher,

drift off into generalities.

Please answer me: am I right in

understanding that Kirovles was the largest

enterprise in the forestry sector, and therefore

Kirovles could, and should have,

assembled the largest shipment volumes

of timber anywhere — yes or no? No, not

exactly.

>> Why?

>> Because it was the largest

forestry management enterprise, not a

timber industry enterprise. There is a difference.

That was the difference.

>> You had forest...

>> What we had left were forests that were not

profitable for businesses — swampy areas and

low-quality timber.

>> And please tell me, why was it that

district heads at every meeting,

for example with the governor, in your

view, kept raising the issue that Kirovles

should be broken up because it

had taken all the forest for itself and was not

giving any to anyone else? Did that happen or not? And was there

a situation in which both the regional governor

and I had to defend you in

such situations?

>> I don’t remember such situations. I don’t remember

such situations. I do remember that when we were drawing up the leases,

on the contrary, signatures were being collected

from all the governors on how much should be given to whom in

which district, and how much volume

should go to Kirovles so that this forest would remain with

businesses in Kirov Region.

>> All right. Please tell me, you

said

when describing the interaction with VLK, that

the price difference was enormous. Am I

understanding correctly? Given that

your total sales volume to VLK was 16 million

rubles, and the difference was enormous — enormous

by how much? I’m quoting you: “the difference was enormous” —

those are your words, which you

said here.

>> Well, the difference was in the cost structure. The point was,

as I’m saying again, there was no difference in price.

The price was the same, but at

the state unitary enterprise, yes, there remained

profit; yes, the difference was enormous, because

as I say again, first of all, we

were selling at the same price that had existed

previously, but from that price we were giving a share to VLK.

the amount, and the second part went to additional expenses

transportation expen-

>> The difference was huge—what exactly was it?

So what was the difference in the end? Well,

all right, you are estimating it, but the damage, how

you believe there was damage from

the activity in what amount?

It would have to be calculated—how would I

>> Well, in your written testimony there is

an amount by which you assessed it at the time

somehow, apparently without any calculation.

>> Why without any calculation?

>> Well, in your written testimony

it is there. That is why I am asking you: do you

remember it or not?

>> I don't remember.

>> The loss consisted of the difference, this

that is, what VLK was taking. And the most

important thing is that it is impossible to calculate what

was left in the forest, because our

forestry enterprises sold timber. If, for example,

a cutting area was unprofitable—I am again returning to

the specifics of forestry

operations. If a cutting area is unprofitable, then

90% of the timber there is low-grade. This

cutting area we sold either standing stumpage or

right there in bulk to anyone who would take it. And we

were left with only a few grades.

>> Please tell me this. In

Kirovles's sales volume, the sales volume

for 2009, do you remember at least that

figure? Do you remember?

>> No, I don't remember.

>> What was the rough order of magnitude?

>> Once again, I do not remember the figures.

>> Am I correct in understanding that the figure was around

1 billion rubles

If I said I don't remember, then I am not

going to give you a figure.

>> Am I understanding correctly? That the total

sales volume was on the order of 1 billion

rubles, while VLK accounted for 16 million rubles?

>> Did you hear me or not? If I do not remember

the figure, I will not tell you. I will not

state something as fact if I do not remember. All right.

Am I correct in understanding that the volume

of VLK's purchases from Kirovles amounted to approximately

2% of the total volume?

That is the same question, just in different

units of measurement. I am not going to answer

it. I said: "I don't remember."

>> All right, please tell me, so you

do not remember the specific figures,

>> right?

>> But please tell me, was VLK nevertheless

a significant client for Kirovles in terms of

its sales volume or not?

Let us approach it indirectly.

If we said that the scale

of the enterprise is reflected

in the figures you were able to recall.

That is hundreds of millions of rubles

in debt, hundreds of millions of rubles

in accounts receivable, hundreds

of millions of rubles in overdue

accounts receivable, and hundreds

of millions of rubles in inventory remaining in warehouses. We

have in the case materials the figure for the volume

of sales to VLK: 16 million rubles. In that connection,

please assess the significance of VLK for

Kirovles.

significance—what kind of signifi-

>> Well, its significance was that it was large, a lot

depended on it. It was a key

client, the most important client. Was it

that kind of client?

>> It—it took away the main contracts.

>> The main contracts with the largest

enterprises, yes. And this, this, this

took that revenue for itself, yes. And once again,

you do not want to hear me and

you keep interrupting. Fine, go ahead. I will once again

say that the timber that could

be taken from thinning and maintenance cuttings was sold

to those ten main buyers. And

the rest, which could not be sold,

was sold either as firewood or

in bulk to private buyers in order to

move the low-grade timber. And when

the high-grade timber has been removed, then it

becomes harder to sell.

>> All right, explain something to me that

seems completely unclear to me, and to

the court as well. If the total sales were 1 billion, and

sales to them were 16 million rubles, how is it

that all the key clients were—

One moment, please rephrase the question.

The witness did not state a figure of 1 billion.

What you mean is that an enterprise whose

sales volume

amounts to hundreds of millions of rubles,

which has warehouse inventory worth hundreds

of millions of rubles—how is it that

VLK was able to take away all the key

clients and at the same time buy from you

products worth only 16 million rubles? How

can those two things both be true?

>> I do not know the figures.

>> But you can count, can’t yo-

>> And what is funny about that?

>> I don't know. So are you—I don't—do you want

to understand me or what? It is the same thing over and over, I

am not even asking you for a specific

figure. I am trying to

>> to

roughly

One moment. Everyone calm down. The court is declaring

a recess in the hearing. Five minutes.

Witness, please remain here

and do not speak with the parties, but please

calm down.

Five minutes, calmly.

>> I ask everyone to sta-

>> phone

remain seated, then come to the lectern

the procedure, uh, works as follows

Your Honor, Navalny, you and all

the others may begin asking

question. I will resolve that for you. But we will proceed as follows.

You ask a question,

after that, we hear

the views of the other parties, including the prosecution,

regarding your question. If

they raise objections, the court

considers those objections, and after that

gives the witness permission either to answer

or not to answer. Is that clear to you? No, of course not.

>> I understand that, Your Honor, but I

object. I believe that you are giving

the witness, a key

witness, a key witness

for the prosecution, who in my view

is giving false testimony. And I will

explain why he is giving false

testimony. Simply put, in fact, yes,

you are giving him the opportunity to evade my

direct questions, and you are also giving

the prosecution the opportunity to strike

my questions, which completely expose its lies

for what they are. Thank you.

>> The prosecution has the right to request

that questions be struck. That is, that is, that is first.

Second.

You want your answers, your

questions, to receive full and

truthful answers. Therefore, this is how

the conflict situation is now developing,

when with the witness, you ask the same

questions over and over, essentially. Second, you do not allow

the witness to finish speaking and begin asking

other questions. To prevent that,

so that the conflict does not escalate,

please, you ask a question, and after

that, if no objection is raised and

the question is not struck, the witness answers

that question.

After, after

the witness has fully answered the question,

you may ask other questions.

Is that clear to you? Clear. Please,

continue.

>> I have a technical question about this.

>> Go ahead.

>> Please tell me, this remark of yours—

does it apply to every question from the

defense? That is, the defense asks a question.

After that, we wait for the prosecution's

reaction, then we hear

the court's view. And only after that

does the witness answer.

>> But those are unequal conditions.

>> Every question is put up for discussion by the

parties. Have I understood correctly? Since

this conflict situation is developing,

when you begin adding

questions, your own questions, the prosecution

begins to object, and you begin arguing

with the prosecution. I believe that during

the examination of this witness, as we continue

the examination, we will proceed in this manner.

If

>> Your Honor, there is a provision in the Criminal Procedure Code (CPC),

which I will open now and remind myself of, by the way,

and probably remind all parties as well. Its number is.

It governs the procedure for examining

a witness. It is Article 278.

It sets out very clearly, plainly, and

unambiguously the procedure for examining

a witness. The rule that you are

trying to impose on us now—that

for example, Navalny, Ofitserov,

Mikhailova, Kobzev, Koblev, I, Davydova

must ask a question, hear the views

of the participants on that question, and only then

receive the witness's answer. Well, that

procedure does not exist in the CPC. What you are

trying to impose on us now will

quite simply lead to the fact that we

will not be able to exercise our right to

examine the witness. Which, in turn,

entails a violation of the right to

defense as a whole, which in turn

gives the defense grounds to

object to your actions

as unlawful actions

by the presiding judge in this case.

I, I

>> Your Honor, you are now very vividly,

very clearly demonstrating your partiality

toward the prosecution, because when

the prosecution was examining the witness,

the defense also did not always

like the form and the order

of the questions, and the defense also did not always

like the tone in which

the witness answered one or another

of the prosecution's questions. But the defense did not

try to impose some kind of its own

extra-procedural view on the court, going beyond

the bounds of the CPC, and push the court toward

making unlawful

decisions. All right. Then let us

Yes, let us do that then.

>> If the parties assure the court that

the witness will answer questions and

no one will interfere with him, if during

the answer no one interrupts, if

the parties do not speak to each other

during the answers to questions, we will continue under the

usual procedure. If such a procedure

is impossible, then it is necessary,

I believe, to establish this order.

>> Your Honor, you have procedural tools

at your disposal: warnings,

removal from the courtroom, whatever is necessary.

Naturally, the examination of the witness will proceed

in the manner

provided for by the CPC. That is beyond question. Otherwise,

you are entitled to admonish

me, the prosecution, and

the witness, and the defendants, and my

colleagues—anyone you deem necessary.

>> I agree with you. But such procedures

are provided for

there is no broad scope to these tools.

>> Let's not argue or bicker.

First, when you start arguing between

the prosecutor and the witness, and also

by repeating questions or adding to them

the defendant, who is currently examining

the witness,

you do not allow the court to exercise

these powers. Correct. Correct.

Because I simply do not have time, to be honest with you,

I—I do not have time to respond both to

one side and the other, and to all those

comments, objections, and all

the questions. We will proceed very strictly:

question, answer.

>> Let's work that way. I

agree. If this procedure is

observed,

then please conduct the examination without, uh,

asking all the other parties

about these questions. But if this

procedure is not observed, then

we will proceed in the order that I

proposed.

>> If this procedure is not observed,

it would be easier for us simply to dispense with

this witness altogether, because the procedure

is unlawful. And the testimony that

the witness gives under such a procedure is as well.

Please, let's stop arguing and

continue the examination. Defendant

Navalny, please ask your next question.

>> Please tell us, witness

Bastrygina, uh,

you explained that

the company VLK took away from the company

Kobukerov Les its key clients, and that

interaction with VLK was

one of the reasons for the dire financial

condition of the company Kagukerov Les.

How does that square with the fact that

the company Konbukerov Les shipped to

VLK products worth only

16 million rubles. With total sales of

around 1 billion rubles, and with VLK's share

of sales being around 1–2%.

>> That is not how I answered. I was asked

the question of whether

working with VLK was beneficial. I

answered that it was not. Why?

>> Not the way you paraphrased it.

>> Your Honor, I formulated the question, I believe,

quite clearly. Could you

answer the question as asked?

>> Perhaps you could break your question into

smaller parts so it is easier to answer?

>> All right. I'll try. Uh,

>> given

the sales volumes of Bukerov Les, which

amount to around 1 billion rubles,

was interaction with VLK

significant and key for the company

Kogubkerov Les?

What should be written down?

I ask visitors not to ask

questions themselves and not to make

suggestions.

>> taking into account that these

main suppliers would have remained so, yes,

go ahead.

>> Which suppliers would have remained so,

>> the ones that were transferred to VKATI?

May I?

>> Well, clarify the question.

>> I am clarifying my question. Please tell me,

with sales of 1 billion

rubles, can a company

accounting for 16 million

rubles be considered a key client?

One of the major ones. Yes.

>> Thank you. Please tell us, how do you

personally assess

the amount of possible damage that

was caused by dealings with VLK, given

that the total volume of such dealings was 16

million rubles?

>> First of all, I did not state an amount of damage. I

said that the damage consisted of

the price difference and the fact that

in effect, because the

high-quality timber was taken away, while

lower-grade timber remained. That is where the

loss lay. But I did not state

a figure.

>> The case materials contain information that

the total volume of dealings

between VLK LLC and Kogubkerov Les amounts to

16 million rubles. This figure was calculated on the basis of

the information that was provided

to the investigation by Kakbkerafles. Given that

this figure—I'm telling you now—

how would you assess the amount of damage

or possible losses?

>> I—I did not assess the damage. I did not state or

assess the amount of damage. If, on the basis of

the materials, someone assessed it, then

it was not me who did so.

>> Please tell us, were you questioned during

the investigation stage or the preliminary

investigation?

>> I am asking: please tell us, did you

give the investigator any estimated

figures regarding possible damage?

>> I do not remember.

>> They simply asked me about everything, I do not

remember; I only remember in general terms.

>> One moment, Your Honor.

And what are you requesting?

>> This.

>> Yes.

Your Honor,

witness Bastrygina gave testimony during

the preliminary investigation, and we would

like

to read out part of her testimony that

concerns exclusively, uh, the damage caused,

because there are

contradictions between the testimony she

is giving now and in these court proceedings.

hearing. And we ask that volume

twenty-six

case file page. Now I

her testimony on the case file pages

>> 109, 116, but we ask that the paragraph on

case file page 100 be read out

>> the sixteenth, I think, now

page 115

That is all,

>> yes.

>> This motion is put before the court for resolution,

please, the parties' views; counsel for the defendant

Navalny, do you support the motion?

>> I support it, support it.

>> your position is clear.

>> I support it. As for my position, I do not object, do not

object.

>> The defense's motion is granted in full

and, in view of the contradictions, the following are to be read out:

Gina's testimony

given during the preliminary investigation

in volume twenty-six

case file page 115.

say that

>> Let me read it.

26.

>> Right, case file page 115.

Investigator's question: In your opinion,

was any damage caused to KOGUP Kirovles by LLC VLK

of any kind? Answer: Yes, LLC VLK

caused damage to Kirovles in the form of

lost profits. I do not know the amount; according to

the audit, it was something around

1.5 million rubles. I

agree with that figure.

Is that your testimony? Well,

>> Please keep reading.

>> Read further. All right. I just wanted

specifically to read the part about the amount of the damage assessment

out.

>> No, continue. We had also

moved to have that part read,

when the paragraph was being read out, so

I ask that it be read.

>> And if this phrase really has been taken

out of context, I ask that it be read.

>> And 1.5 million rubles—with that

figure I agree. If

cooperation with VLK had been terminated, then

the damage, the losses, would have been much worse for

the enterprises, if turnover had been

increased because of stockpiled firewood timber

and unfavorable various

forestry enterprises and unfavorable for various

forestries that were located in different

districts of the region, prices for the sale of

timber.

>> Your Honor, while the defense is reading this out,

I asked that the date of the interview record be stated.

So, by what question? Which one is it?

>> I beg your pardon. This is the record

of an interview

dated June 1, 2011, conducted

in the city of Kirov by investigator

Sosnin. That is all, thank you.

Is that your testimony?

>> Mm-hmm.

>> So

you assess the damage as lost profits?

Please explain what, in your

understanding, lost profits means.

It is what the enterprise could have sold at a different

price, that is,

>> or received this—th-that some

actions prevented the enterprise from

receiving that income.

>> Please explain what the difference is

between lost profits and

direct losses?

>> Losses are already real losses; they are already

an accomplished fact. But lost profits can

even be invisible on paper.

>> Please answer the question.

Given that you previously stated that

unrecovered, unreturned accounts receivable

amounted to hundreds of millions

of rubles, the remaining balances were hundreds of millions

of rubles, and the damage, the enterprise's losses, were

hundreds of millions of rubles.

How can you explain your

statement that Kirovles's dire condition

was connected, among other things,

with its dealings with VLK, given that,

in your own view, the damage to

Kirovles was assessed as lost profits

of 15 million rubles.

>> No, that is not what I testified. I said

that the audit assessed it at 1.5 million, but it could have

been more if things had developed further. Well,

I do not see any contradiction at all. I told you

the same thing, I just did not state the

sum, the amount.

>> Please tell us, witness Bastrykina,

what if

>> What is this, did you come to a circus or what?

>> Witness, please address the

court.

>> Please tell us, what if

the KOGUP Kirovles enterprise were attacked by

aliens—the damage would probably be

very large indeed, but does that have

anything to do with this question? A hypothetical

assumption. Please tell us,

>> I would like to admonish those present in the

courtroom. What is this noise?

>> Funny, funny.

>> Please, let us keep quiet.

>> And with

>> if you have finished, I will declare another recess

once again. Those present, I ask you to conduct yourselves

properly. The questioning is conducted by the

parties, and all these snickers, first of all,

are irritating

not, not only, so to speak,

to the presiding judge and the witness, but also

to all parties.

I think this behavior is unacceptable

in a courthouse.

>> Given that in your written

testimony you agreed with the auditor’s assessment

regarding lost profits. And

just now you confirmed that you agree with

the auditor’s assessment. How do you assess this

this

damage from the hypothetically lost profit of

1.5 million rubles (about 1.5 million RUB) compared with the company’s losses

overall, which, as you

said, amounted to hundreds of millions

of rubles?

I’m saying once again, the enterprise operated

for a month or two. She did that in a month.

I said there as well that if the work had continued

and the volumes had increased.

>> The witness is not answering the question. I am not withdrawing this

question.

I will rephrase it.

>> Yes, please. Go ahea

>> Please tell us, if we set aside

your assumption about what might

have happened over the next 10

years?

How do you assess

the ratio between the losses, the actual

losses in the hundreds of millions of rubles

recorded on the balance sheet, and the lost

profits of 15 million rubles (about 15 million RUB)?

>> 1.5%.

>> 1.5% of what amount?

Of 100 million rubles. Well, you said hundreds

of millions of rubles. Then perhaps you

remember the exact amount of the loss?

I said that I do not remember the figures.

>> Please tell us, just now you

said 1.5%.

That is

>> I calculated that from your figures

>> mine,

>> yes, the ones you gave: 100 million and 15 million.

>> Your Honor, I ask that you admonish

the witness, because

the witness may not like jokes, but she

is trying to joke here herself, instead

of answering my question,

I am answering your question.

Witness, please,

let’s proceed this way. If you

do not understand the question, say that you did not

understand it.

You are testifying about circumstances

that are known to you in this case. If something

in the case is unknown to you, you are entitled

to say that it is

unknown to you, and that you will not speculate.

And second, please do not ask

hypothetical questions. After all, you are

asking for assumptions.

>> Your Honor, the only hypothetical question I

asked was only about

aliens. You struck it. I am asking the witness

about a real situation. She is answering me:

“But what if in the

future?” I am asking her to assess the actual

damage in relation to the testimony she gave

about 15 million rubles.” That is all.

>> All right. What exactly do you want

to establish—what specific damage was

caused to the enterprise by SVLK’s activities?

Is that correct?

>> Not exactly. I believe that no

damage was caused, and the materials of this case

show that. In the witness’s testimony

that she has confirmed, I see her

opinion regarding lost profits. And

I want to find out from the deputy director

of the enterprise how

the enterprise,

which allegedly caused possible lost

profits of 15 million rubles, affected the fate of

an enterprise that had hundreds of millions

of rubles in actual losses on its balance sheet.

>> Have I understood your question correctly?

Did this amount

of lost profits from dealings with VLK

in any way affect the operations of the

enterprise itself? Did it lead to any

consequences, for example in the form of

bankruptcy or other negative

consequences for the financial condition of the

enterprise?

>> Correct, that is the right question.

>> Well, not exactly, but let us at least get an answer to

that. I have already answered,

I believe I answered that question,

that as we understood it, this contract

would not be beneficial in the long run. At this

stage it led to 15 million, but if things had continued

further, that is why it was reinstated,

of course, now these 15 million in

turnover measured in billions were not so

significant.

Please tell us, Sveti Vostregin, and

over what period of time did the

contractual relationship with VO VLK take place?

>> Four months, correct?

>> Well, yes, depending on how

you count it. Around spring, roughly.

>> Since we have started speaking in such

subjunctive terms. Am I correct

in using your own math,

extrapolating as follows: the lost profit over 4

months would have been 15 million rubles, if

everything had started developing according to the worst

scenario; then the lost profit for a year, accordingly,

would have amounted to approximately 3.5 million

rubles. Correct?

>> No,

>> then how

>> million? Even during those 4 months many

directors refused to carry this out,

to sell all the products. By the way,

there were even complaints from officers

constantly. No, if everything had, as we were saying,

if all contracts and all

requests had been fulfilled, then the damage would have been even

greater.

>> And why were they not fulfilled?

>> Because it was not in the directors' interest. I

already said that as well. The directors had to

pay wages; they needed to

get the money right away.

Bastrykina, here you are holding the keys to

a car. I am offering to buy your car for

3 rubles. Would you sell it to me or not?

>> No.

>> That's it, our deal did not go through.

Can we say that I have already,

since our deal did not go through, I

did not buy your car for 3 rubles,

and therefore I effectively, potentially caused you

1 million rubles in damages?

I am simply saying this to make the point that

we should look at the real figures. Here we

have an audit report, and you agreed with

it. Tell me,

please, this:

you agreed with the audit report's assessment

regarding lost profits

of 15 million rubles from this cooperation.

If someone told you that this

cooperation caused Kirovles direct

damage of 16 million rubles, how would you assess

that figure?

>> I would not assess it, because I am not

an auditor.

>> You were the chief deputy at the enterprise,

the deputy director of that

enterprise.

>> The audit established

the figure. Why would I dispute it?

>> I am no longer talking about the audit.

Let me ask you a clear question.

>> And I answered you clearly. I agree with

the audit. Do you agree with

the audit? With that in mind,

here is my question. Since you saw the contract,

you saw the payments, and you know the specifics

of this cooperation,

how would you assess the claim that

this cooperation caused 16 million

rubles in damage with a turnover of 16 million rubles?

>> I ask for clarification: are you now trying

to require the witness to state her view on

the charges brought?

>> Well, I am trying to understand. Was it possible, with

a turnover of 16 million rubles, to cause damage of

16 million rubles? That is not exactly the charge

as brought.

Your question is also unclear to me. It

is evaluative in nature and requires

that any answer to it be excluded.

Ask a specific

question about the circumstances that

are known today in the criminal case, and

not about what would have happened if

>> All right, thank you. Then let me move

to a slightly different topic now.

And please tell me, this

audit report that you

are referring to, and that everyone mentions,

you stated in your testimony

just now, in response to the prosecution's question, that the company's balance sheets

were not examined by the auditors.

Is that correct?

>> No, that is not what I said. I said I do not

remember whether they did or not, because the purpose

of the audit was

sales policy.

>> Your Honor, the witness said verbatim, I wrote it down,

"they did not look at the balance sheets." Perhaps

the court clerk can also

>> Your Honor, I ask that this be struck. The witness

answered, then there was a clarifying question. Remember,

I said, "I do not remember."

>> Yes, indeed, in response to

the clarifying question the witness said that she did not

remember; they may have been provided. Then

she explained that since

sales policy was being examined, therefore

she remembers that

supply contracts were examined.

>> Please tell me, was the purpose of this

audit report

to examine sales policy?

>> Yes.

>> Were any other issues examined?

>> No, only sales policy. And how can you

then comment on

the terms of reference for this audit and

the testimony of the witness,

>> what was her name,

>> Zagoskina and witness Shcherchkov? About the fact that

in the terms of reference for the Kirovles audit

six questions were posed, and

only one of them concerned sales

policy.

>> I cannot comment on someone else's

testimony.

Please tell me, did you provide

documents to the auditors for the

audit?

>> Based specifically on the documents you provided,

the documents you provided,

the auditor prepared the report.

>> Yes.

>> And please tell me, in light of

what, given that, as you already said,

accounts receivable, overdue

accounts receivable amounted to

hundreds of millions of rubles, did the audit report

devote so much attention

to the dealings with VLK, whose volume

was only 16 million rubles?

>> First, I said that accounts

receivable were in the hundreds of millions, but

I did not state the amount of overdue receivables.

That is the first point.

>> First. And second, I say again, I cannot

comment on the wishes and orders

of the Property Department. That

was Rzanov's decision. He gave

the instruction to conduct an audit specifically of

sales policy, not me. Am I correct in

understanding that the documents you

provided were documents

relating to sales policy?

>> Yes.

>> Did anyone—Arzamasov or

someone else, Opolev—give you

instructions to provide, first and foremost,

documents specifically concerning VLK?

>> Was there, was there an instruction to check VLK?

Why did it turn out that

the audit report says so much about

VLK and practically nothing about the other

debtors? There is nothing at all about the other

debtors. I repeat once again, I do not have the right

to comment on someone else’s conclusions

or testimony.

>> For now, until the judge strikes the question, you

do have the right.

>> The question is struck; you are directing it to the wrong person.

The witness did not conduct the

audit, and why so much attention was paid there

to LK. It is hardly the case that the

standards of audit

work are such that

an auditor conducts a review based on

only those documents that

the enterprise provides. Witness

Bastrykina explained that she

provided

documents for the audit.

Earlier, witness Zagoskina and witness

Cherchkov testified that there was an audit

that was supposed to examine

financial and business operations and

many other things—six issues in total. One of the

issues concerned sales policy. Now

the witness is effectively confirming that

the audit report was, in a certain sense,

fabricated, because within its

framework only sales-related

activity was examined.

That is why I am trying to understand why,

despite the issued terms of reference,

only sales-related

activity was studied. Did you see the terms of reference for the

audit?

>> Of course, I did.

>> You did? The terms of reference for the audit

listed six issues. Why did you

provide documents only on sales

policy?

>> I provided the documents that were requested.

>> Who requested them?

>> The auditors.

And in your view, does the fact that the auditor

requested precisely those documents

indicate that she

was manipulating the audit

>> The question is struck.

>> Please tell us in more detail about

that meeting with the governor at which

the audit report was discussed.

And you said that

following the audit, following that

meeting, he was removed from his post.

How did that happen?

I said that I cannot

comment on that, because he simply

told me by phone that he had been removed

from his post. Just now, in answering

a question from the prosecution, you explained

that as a result of that meeting, Opol was

dismissed. Did that happen in your

presence or not?

>> I said that he called me on the

phone and said that he would most likely

be dismissed and that tomorrow you will be the director.

At the meeting itself.

>> I was not at the meeting itself.

Where was Opolev removed?

>> Please tell us, you were present

at the meeting you mentioned, where

Belykh, Shcherchkov,

and Arzamas were present. Opolev was not there, and you

were present at that meeting.

Did Governor Belykh make any statement

that Opolev was being removed from

his post?

No, the meeting ended with the understanding that we

would sort it out.

>> Then why did you just testify

that as a result of the

meeting, Opolev was dismissed? You

spoke incorrectly. One moment. You

>> You are also giving somewhat

incorrect information right now. Perhaps you

did not write it down completely.

The witness said the following.

Opolev was present at the meeting. He

was on a business trip. Did I understand correctly?

Then afterward, since he was not there, he

was invited later, the next day or

a day later, when he returned from

his business trip. After that, Opolev called

and said that he would most likely

be dismissed and that by tomorrow she should

prepare to assume the position of

general director. Have I conveyed the meaning of the testimony

correctly?

>> Yes.

>> What exactly are you asking about now? I, I

simply, since Your Honor

was present at that meeting, after which

Belykh stated that

Opolev was being removed from his post.

That is why I am trying to ask witness

Bastrykina whether she remembers this or not.

>> I do not remember.

>> And please tell us, at that point you

said that the contract with VLK was

terminated later by Tyshlik, and so on.

Do you not recall that Belykh, at

that same meeting, said, when he

said: "The Opolevs have been dismissed, and all

contracts have been terminated"? Did that happen or not?

>> I do not remember.

>> You do not remember? Please tell us, and as for

your emotional state during

that meeting, can you in any way

assess?

>> Were people upset there, worried, crying?

>> After the meeting? Yes,

>> people were crying at the meeting. And what was the reason?

Well, just tell us simply. What was the reason?

As I recall, you burst into tears right

at the meeting. Why did that happen?

I felt hurt because the issues

being addressed concerned VLK, not Kogubkiroplesk. As I already

said, not a single issue there was

resolved regarding the state enterprise.

Only issues concerning PVLK were raised. I went to see

the governor thinking that they would address

the issue of the financial condition

of the enterprise.

>> And please tell me, was the topic, uh,

was the topic of this meeting the discussion of

the audit report,

correct?

Well, the topic wasn't really announced to us. We

were told that we were being summoned to the governor

and that certain people were to be there.

>> Well, the audit report was discussed at the meeting

report

>> at the meeting. Yes.

>> If half of the audit report

is devoted to interactions with VLK, then it is logical

that VLK would be discussed at the meeting.

Correct.

>> Correct. I do not deny that, but I felt

hurt that not a single question was asked about the condition of Gubkiraflet

.

Please tell me, in general, how often

were meetings held in the region on

the condition of Kogubki Les?

>> Well,

lately, often, but the issue was always framed as

how to pay this

excess stumpage fee, the above-norm amount. Tell me,

please, is it correct to say that

the condition of Kogubki Les

was discussed at weekly meetings with

Cherchkov and at virtually weekly

meetings in the Finance Department?

>> Well, I can't say that, because I attended the meetings with Opol only.

I only went

when I was there.

>> Am I right in understanding that Kirovles

was the largest

debtor among all enterprises in Kirov Region

?

>> At that time, yes.

Well then, even so, despite the fact that

these meetings were taking place and Kirovles was

the largest debtor, it had a large

wage debt, you still were not satisfied

with the number of meetings

wage debt. Here I do not quite

agree. Our pay regulations

state that when there was

arrears, we paid out base salaries; we

did not pay bonuses or allowances, but the

base salary, that is, the mandatory part

of employees' wages, was paid.

>> Let's go back. And the debts were specifically for

the payment of stumpage fees

above the norm, the part that went to the budget. And

at every meeting we asked to be given

an installment plan specifically for these payments to the

local budget.

>> Let's return to that meeting. You

said that you cried because

you were upset that we were discussing

VLK and not discussing the state

enterprise. Please tell me, then,

was your severe

emotional state and crying not

also the result of the fact that I accused you and

Oplilevo of corruption?

>> Well, there was a phrase to the effect that all 3,000

people were thieves. There was such a phrase.

Could you clarify: was it in fact said

that all 3,000 people were thieves, as you

are now saying, or was it said that

Opolev, together with his relatives and with you,

had set up a corrupt little operation?

>> I don't remember the exact wording, but that was the meaning.

>> Please tell me, so there was

an accusation of corruption against you and Opolev.

Please tell me, and was there any

information voiced at the meeting, including

from Ofitserov, who had conducted

an analysis of your fuel and lubricants supplies and your

transportation expenses and indicated that you

were paying for them at a price three times

the market rate. Was that said or not? Three

times above the market rate.

I don't remember. That is, was there, uh, from

Ofitserov as well, information stated that

in Kogubkerov Les there was

corruption, and that you together with Soplev and

his daughter were stealing money from Kokubki?

>> Your Honor, we ask that this question be withdrawn.

It has no relevance to the case whatsoever,

>> Your Honor, I insist on this question,

because it is of key importance. I

said at the beginning of the trial, and I now

repeat, that the entire case of the witness

is built on the false testimony of three

people: Popolevo, Bury, and Bastrygina. And

all three of these people

are giving this false testimony in order

to avoid responsibility for the

thefts that they systematically

committed at Kokubkerov Les. And the issue of

their thefts was the most important issue

discussed at that meeting.

>> Why was the complexity of the testimony established

by a certain procedure?

>> Let's put it this way. You have asked the question

of whether such a conversation took place at the

meeting; I allow it to be answered.

Was there in fact discussion at the

meeting, including any thefts

at Kogubkerov Les by its officials?

>> I do not remember anything like that being discussed.

Please tell me, was there any

information voiced at this meeting that

that Vyacheslav Opolev and his relatives

set up the company Kirovlesproekt,

which is unlawfully located at

the enterprise, on the premises of the enterprise

Kirovles, receives money from it

and other illegal

assistance.

I don't remember that.

>> You don't remember that?

>> No.

>> All right. Please tell us, had you ever

heard anything about the existence of this company

Kirovlesproekt?

>> I had.

>> Did Opolev's son work at the company Kirov

lesproekt?

>> Yes.

>> Had you heard that criminal proceedings had been initiated

against Obolev?

>> I had.

>> Can you explain that?

>> You don't know anything about it?

>> No. Please tell us, you were

the deputy general director and

handled all financial matters.

Were you aware that 45 million rubles

to the company

Kirovlesproekt were unlawfully

transferred? (about 45 million rubles)

>> Your Honor, I ask that the question be withdrawn, the question is based on

the answer already given.

>> Can you answer whether you knew about that?

>> No,

>> I did not know.

>> No. Please tell us, do you know whether

any of Opolev's relatives worked

at Kirovles or at

companies that were located

on the territory, in the premises

of Kirovles?

>> Burak's stepdaughter

>> and that's all.

>> Well, the son also

>> Opo's son,

>> which company did he work for?

>> Kirovlesproekt.

>> And on what basis was Kirovlesproekt

located on Kirovles's premises? It was

a commercial company.

>> A lease agreement for the premises.

>> Under that lease agreement, rent payments were made,

payments,

>> and on what basis were the 45 million rubles paid? You

don't know anything about that.

>> Please tell us, did any of your relatives

work at the companies

Kirovles, Kirovlesproekt, or similar

enterprises?

>> My son worked for literally a month

at Kirovles as a programmer.

>> I see.

And please tell us, you stated in

your testimony that at the meetings

with Cherchkov, Navalny and Ofitserov came

together.

>> Uh-huh.

>> Given that minutes were kept at every meeting

including a record of

those present.

How many times was that?

>> I don't remember.

>> Well, you say they always came

together. At every meeting where

you were present, Ofitserov was there.

No, I didn't say that he was present at

every one. That

>> no. Maybe I expressed myself

incorrectly. That's why I'm trying

to clarify. You said verbatim that at

meetings with Cherchkov, Navalny and Ofitserov

always came together. How many times did you

see Ofitserov at meetings with

Cherchkov?

>> I saw him two or three times.

>> Two or three times. And when was that?

>> Well, I can't give a date. As far as

I remember, Ofitserov over the whole period only once

was at a meeting with Cherchkov. Are you sure

you're not mixing anything up? There are minutes

and attendance is recorded at each