The Kirovles Case. Court Video Recording. Hearing 8

Please be seated.

The court session is continuing.

The court is hearing the case against

Navalny and Ofitserov. The court session

is attended by the prosecution and the defense.

Defense counsel Kobelev is absent. May we

continue hearing the case in

the absence of counsel?

>> We may.

>> We may.

>> Understood. Your

the prosecution's position? We do not object.

>> I do not object, Your Honor.

>> The court has ruled to continue hearing

the criminal case in the absence of defense counsel

Kobelev. Next, please,

the motion.

>> Your Honor, uh, given that

at today's court session there is,

in principle, the appearance of witness Belykh in

this criminal case, we ask

to change the order of examination of

the evidence that was proposed

to us on May 20, 2013, and begin by questioning

witness Belykh at this court session.

Support

the motion on behalf of the defense; we have no objection.

We do not object.

>> We do not object.

>> We do not object.

>> We do not object.

>> No.

>> The court grants the prosecution's motion, and

the following is invited into the courtroom:

witness Belykh. The bailiff should

bring him in.

Do not

remain present,

please.

>> Hello. Please introduce yourself.

>> Nikita Yuryevich Belykh.

>> When and where were you born?

>> June 13, 1975, in the city of Perm.

>> What is your nationality?

>> Russian.

>> Citizen of Russia?

>> Yes.

>> Your education?

>> Higher education.

>> Marital status?

>> Divorced.

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

>> Governor of Kirov Region.

>> What is your registered address?

Where do you live? Karlutnik 69, Building 4.

>> in the city of Kirov.

>> Yes. You have been summoned 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. You

have the right to refuse to testify

against yourself, your spouse, and

other close relatives. If

you agree to testify, you

are warned that your

testimony may be used as

evidence in the case, including

in the event of your subsequent

withdrawal of that testimony. You also have the right

to testify in your native language or

another language you speak, and to use the services of

an interpreter free of charge.

to file motions and complaints regarding

the actions, inaction, and decisions of the court concerning

your questioning, to appear for questioning

with a lawyer, and to request

the application of security measures if

necessary. In addition, I explain to you

that in the event of an unjustified

refusal to testify or the giving of

knowingly false testimony, you may incur

criminal liability under Articles 308

and 307 of the Criminal Code of the Russian

Federation. Are your rights and

responsibility clear to you? Yes, Your Honor.

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

Acknowledgment.

Do you have any grounds to refuse

to testify?

>> No.

>> Please answer the prosecutor's questions first,

and then the defense counsel's.

>> Nikita Yuryevich, please explain:

>> are you acquainted with the defendants Ofitserov and

Navalny?

I have known Alexei Navalny since 2005.

We have been acquainted since 2005.

I do not personally know Pyotr Ofitserov.

I met him two or three times at

meetings.

>> Do you currently have any feelings toward either of them?

at the present time?

>> I do not have any feelings toward anyone at all.

That applies to the persons mentioned as well. Thank you.

>> What position did you hold in 2009?

Since January 15, 2009, I have been

the Governor of Kirov Region.

>> Please explain, were you familiar

with the enterprise Kirovles in 2009,

and what place did it occupy in

the structure of Kirov Region's forestry sector?

>> The Kirov Regional State

Unitary Enterprise Kirovles

was established, I believe, in 2007 or

possibly in early 2008.

It performed

both commercial functions and

state contracts for

forest protection, forest conservation,

reforestation,

and the management of forest plots not leased out.

At that time, Kirovles was a major

forest operator, one of the major

forest leaseholders, but by 2009 its

operations were already deeply unprofitable and

inefficient, which was obvious to all

participants in the process.

>> As far as you remember, who was

the director of Kirovles in 2009?

>> Vyacheslav Nikolayevich Opalev.

Were you acquainted with him?

>> I met him several times at meetings,

no more than three or four times.

>> During your questioning, you explained that since

2005 you have known the defendant

Navalny. Please clarify: did Navalny hold

any position in the government

of Kirov Region in 2009?

>> Alexei Anatolyevich Navalny was

an unpaid volunteer adviser,

along with four other people. Uh,

strictly speaking, he was not

a civil servant, received no salary,

and did not have any

official powers by virtue of this

position.

>> Please clarify whether Navalny was introduced

to members of the regional government, as well as

to directors of enterprises, state-owned

enterprises, and when this took place,

if such an introduction took place?

To members of the regional government,

he certainly was introduced as an unpaid adviser.

He had the right

to participate in government meetings

and in various kinds of

working groups and commissions. As for

the directors of individual

enterprises, let alone their subdivisions,

I do not have that information. In any

case, I did not introduce him there.

Uh, as far as you now remember, what

were the powers of Governor's adviser

Navalny in 2009?

>> Unpaid volunteer advisers have the authority

to give advice.

Strictly speaking, he had no other

powers

just like the other unpaid volunteer advisers.

He

had the right to attend meetings,

working groups, and express his

views. He had no powers

of a managerial nature over

any civil servants or

employees of state-funded institutions, or

employees of enterprises.

What, uh, were the assignments

you gave him so that he could,

so to speak, carry out

your instructions?

There was a set of issues concerning

the handling of

matters related to the management of

state property, the conduct of

public procurement,

including issues related to the

activities of

Kirovles as a regional enterprise in the

forestry sector.

In connection with reviewing the financial

condition of Kirovles, did Navalny have the right

to request any

financial documents related to

the enterprise's activities for their

subsequent study, analysis, and the like?

>> He could ask for them, just as

the head of the enterprise could refuse

to provide them. That is, in this

case he had no official authority

to demand documents or conduct

any official inspections.

Nor does anyone else have such powers,

except the relevant department—in this

case, the Department of Forestry,

the Department of State Property,

which represents the owner's interests, and

oversight bodies, including

the Finance Department, the Audit Chamber,

and a number of others; no one else,

including even civil

servants. And let me remind you that Alexei

Anatolyevich was not a civil

servant. There were no such powers. He could

ask for those documents, and they could

be provided to him, but no one was obliged to provide

documents.

So, what measures were ultimately taken

by Navalny to, so to speak, improve

the financial situation that had developed at

the Kirovles enterprise?

Recommendations were prepared

regarding the need to reorganize

the operations of the Kirovles enterprise itself,

Kirovles,

and these were not only the recommendations

of Alexei Anatolyevich, but of other people as well,

since the enterprise was in

serious financial difficulty. The existence

of a large number of debts, both for

lease payments and to the budget,

which, under current

law, cannot be forgiven

or restructured. That is, it was

obvious that the enterprise, in the form in which

it existed, was not capable of continuing

its operations for any significant

length of time. Therefore, all the recommendations—I

emphasize that this was not only Alexei

Anatolyevich, but other experts as well, including

the relevant departments—put forward

proposals on the need for

the reorganization of Kirovles as a whole and in

its individual areas. That is, this included

issues related to day-to-day

procurement activity, issues

related to the execution of

state contracts, issues

related to management functions, and

issues related to personnel,

staffing problems.

>> Apart from these proposals, were any

specific measures taken by Navalny?

In particular, I am interested

I am interested in whether you conducted a search

for counterparties outside the region in order

to increase sales

of timber products produced

by enterprises in the region. I cannot

state that for certain, but I cannot rule it out either. That

is, uh, there was one, uh, trip we made

together, uh, to Tsarkansk BumProm, that

is, where we discussed, uh, with

the management of Tsarkansk BumProm, uh,

issues related to increasing

supplies from Kirov Oblast in general, that

is, not separately from one enterprise such as

Kirovles, but from enterprises

across Kirov Oblast, because, as you

probably know, the problem associated with

the disposal and use

of low-grade timber is, in

general, a problem for Kirov Oblast, which

has never had, unlike

our neighbors Perm Krai, the Komi Republic,

Arkhangelsk Oblast,

and Nizhny Novgorod Oblast, never had

pulp and paper mills that

actually use

low-grade timber and production waste

to manufacture their own

products. There was one such joint

trip. Possibly Alexei Anatolyevich

made some other contacts and

did some work in that direction, but

I cannot provide any exact information about whom

he met and when, or whether he met

anyone at all.

>> Did the trip to Salikan BumProm result

in any agreements, perhaps

of an oral nature?

>> There were oral agreements to increase

the volume of supplies from Kirov Oblast

in general, that is, not with respect to

any particular enterprise or, so to speak,

Kirovles specifically, but overall to increase

supplies of low-grade timber and

waste from enterprises in Kirov

Oblast.

In connection with this trip, did you give

Navalny any instructions to

prepare, so to speak, a written

document following the trip to

Salikansk BumProm, that is, written

confirmation that Kirov

Oblast was ready to cooperate with

that enterprise?

>> I asked him to oversee these relations,

because it was obvious that I could not personally

monitor the implementation of these

agreements. As for any specific

letters or contracts, no such

instructions were given, of course.

Did Navalny inform you that

it was necessary to centralize the sale

of timber products at Kirovles?

Yes, he did, including in the form

of memos about the need to reorganize

the system of state procurement and

product sales, since the existing

branch-based system at that time

at Kirovles was indeed poorly

coordinated. Moreover, we had

very serious, um,

suspicions that part of the sales

was being conducted in cash, contrary to

the applicable law. Therefore, both

Alexei Anatolyevich Navalny, and

other experts, discussed issues related to

the need for changes through

reorganization, including the centralization

of the sales system; such proposals

were made. Was the creation of any specific

enterprise proposed in this connection?

And was the form of that enterprise

also proposed?

>> Nikitavich, please clarify. In connection with the difficult

financial condition of, as stated, Kirovles,

according to the explanations, including those

given by Navalny, was there

an audit conducted at the enterprise, and

what were its findings,

to the best of your knowledge?

I know of one audit

which, in fact, led to

what was essentially

the only meeting, or perhaps there were two

meetings, in fact,

one of which was attended by

Pyotr Ofitserov. The audit opinion

was prepared, if I am not mistaken,

by the company Vyatka Audito. I may be mistaken

about the name, that is, well, by one of the

audit firms that had been

engaged by the Department of

State Property.

And

the quality of the audit

that was carried out was, during the

meeting, subjected to fairly

serious criticism. It, uh, in

my view, uh, and in the view of the other participants

in the meeting, had been conducted improperly.

Therefore, following that meeting,

only two decisions were made

and announced by me. The first was

the removal from office of Popolev

Vyacheslav Nikolaevich. The second was

the termination of all relations between, apparently,

Kirovles and the Vyatka Timber Company. But

at the same time, the question of the need

to conduct

a more comprehensive audit

of the Kirovles enterprise remained open. This issue

remained unresolved. Over

a fairly long period it was

raised several more times at various

levels, but, as I understand it,

a full audit after that

was never conducted.

No—please clarify.

Pyotr Ofitserov at this meeting

some specific enterprise

he represented, or whether he was a private

individual?

At that meeting, Pyotr Ofitserov mostly

remained silent when, um,

if I am not mistaken,

the discussion turned specifically to the relationship between

Kirovles and VLK. In fact, one of

the main criticisms of

the audit report was that

the audit report was devoted

primarily to the relationship between UPIS and VLK, rather

than to, um,

the financial and business condition in

which Kirovles found itself, and the tasks

related to its

reorganization. Despite the fact that in

the overall volume of activity, apparently

the forestry company occupied

a relatively minor place, the auditors' work

was concentrated precisely on this

part, and, um, most of the

information was obtained by the auditors not

through the review of primary

documents, but from comments

made by the management of Kirovles,

which, obviously, cannot here

be regarded as objective

information in the presence of

a conflict between the two counterparties.

Therefore, when the discussion turned to this

contract, Pyotr Ofitserov did indeed

take part in the conversation when discussing

certain specific contract terms,

appendices, but as far as I remember,

we did not really delve

into a detailed discussion, because that

was definitely not within the competence or purpose

of that meeting. Therefore, in subsequent

discussions of a different kind, Mr.

Ofitserov did not take part. Have I understood you correctly

that Ofitserov was a representative of

a timber company?

>> As I understood it from, um, the document

that was given to me there at the beginning of

the meeting—that is, for every meeting

a document is prepared listing who is

present at the meeting and, essentially, what

position the person holds and whose interests

he represents. Especially since, as I

have already said, I was not personally

acquainted with Mr. Ofitserov. There, Mr. Ofitserov

was listed as representing the interests of a Soviet

company.

>> As far as you know, who invited him

to this meeting?

I do not know. At that time,

the procedure for participation in

meetings was rather loosely

regulated. Let me remind you that this was

the first year of work both for me as

governor and for the people who had

come with me. So it is difficult for me

to say who initiated his

invitation.

>> Was the director of Kirovles aware

that Navalny was

your adviser?

>> I think so, yes. Yes, that was not

some kind of confidential information. And the fact that

he was an adviser

to the governor on a voluntary basis—this

information was public and

equally accessible. That is, I did not have

any formal procedure for introducing him

to Mr. Opalev, just as I did not with

the heads of other regional

state enterprises or

institutions, but, um, I think this

information was available to him, just as it was to

other enterprise managers.

...evich, before your official

appointment as governor

of Kirov Oblast, did you hold

any meetings in Kirov Oblast

where he was introduced, including

as a member of your future team?

>> The very procedure of taking office

involves

rather

fragmented

stages.

On December 15, 2008, my candidacy

was submitted to the Legislative Assembly

of Kirov Oblast by the President of the Russian

Federation, Dmitry Anatolyevich

Medvedev, and was voted on by

the Legislative Assembly

by its deputies, accordingly.

From that

time, my status became that of

a governor-elect who had not yet taken

office. I officially took office

on January 15, 2009, as I

have already mentioned. During the period

from mid-December to mid-January, including

the New Year holidays and

the Christmas holidays, I considered it

necessary to spend time in Kirov in order

to familiarize myself with affairs, in order

to study those areas of work

that were the most problematic and difficult

in Kirov Oblast. Therefore,

from the second half of December through

the first half of January, there were

dozens of meetings,

if not hundreds, with different people in different

combinations. Every one of the

then-serving members of the

government was invited. Major

institutions and enterprises were invited, and they

essentially spoke about

what activities they were engaged in, how

they saw the prospects for the work of their

organization, department, or

directorate, what main tasks

they set for themselves, and what main

problems they identified. That is, alongside

and, naturally, at the meetings on this matter

along with me, there were also

what you call team members, that is,

the people who had arrived but had not yet

had any legal status either as

members of the government, since

the government could not be formed

before the governor officially, um, took office

nor in any other capacity.

So as a rule, it would be a group

of five or six, maybe

sometimes seven people, who simply

attended the meetings and also

asked questions and drew

their own conclusions, and based on these

meetings they also formulated their own

vision and proposals regarding

what should be done with respect to

a particular enterprise,

department, or directorate.

>> In particular, at these meetings

>> Navalny was present.

>> I don’t think at all of them, but at some of them,

he was certainly present. Yes. Nikolaevich,

please clarify: did Navalny begin carrying out your

instructions

only from the moment of his official

appointment as an adviser to the governor,

or somewhat earlier?

To be honest, I don’t remember what date

was on

the order for

>> appointing Alexei Anatolyevich

as a volunteer adviser, but

I allow for the possibility that, well,

he may have carried out instructions and, accordingly,

prepared recommendations, internal memos, and

reports even before, um,

his official appointment as

an adviser. Again, I cannot

state this for certain, but I allow that

this may have been the case.

>> In the criminal case, your order was examined

regarding the appointment of an advis-

er to the governor. It is dated May 2009.

Before May, was he carrying out instructions?

>> Yes. Yes.

>> Thank you. Please clarify. Um, probably

this will be the last question.

What was the reason for the dismissal of

Opolev?

Or were there several reasons discussed at the meeting where

the issue was raised, including the initial one?

There were two legally significant

actions. First, as I already said, following

one of the meetings, um, at which

a decision was made to

terminate all relations between

Kirovles and VLK, and at the same time

to remove Vyacheslav Nikolaevich Opolev

from the post of general director.

After this removal,

upon,

let us say, recommendations

and requests, as a result of many

meetings, a decision was made to return

Vyacheslav Nikolaevich Opolev temporarily

to work

to carry out the processes of

reorganizing the enterprises, since

the need for reorganization was recognized

and understood by everyone, at least

by everyone

in the government of Kirov Region and in

the sectoral departments. One of the

problems that everyone identified

was the need for fairly serious and close

working relations with the forestry enterprises,

which were spread across the entire

region. The managers of these forestry enterprises were

generally rather particular people.

You had to speak their language.

Therefore, the main argument of the people

who asked for Vyacheslav

Nikolaevich to be reinstated was

precisely the need to conduct

negotiations with Kirovles branches throughout

the region, since he was one of the

few people who knew them all and who could

communicate with them. Therefore, um, I made

a decision which I consider

mistaken: to reinstate Vyacheslav

Nikolaevich. Well, later on

Vyacheslav Nikolaevich himself

submitted his resignation. As you

understand, no one tried to stop him. Moreover,

later, in 2010, a number of statements were sent to

the government and administration of Kirov Region

to law enforcement agencies

— the Ministry of Internal Affairs and the prosecutor’s office —

requesting that they conduct

inspections and open criminal cases against

Vyacheslav Nikolaevich and other

officials of Kirovles regarding the

violations that had been committed.

Kivich, please tell us, were there any other

reasons for Opolev’s removal

from office?

Uh,

>> in particular, were you aware that

Opolev’s relatives worked at VLK?

>> Well, in fact, the discussion at

that meeting I already mentioned,

about the relations between

Kirovles and VLK came as something of

a rather unpleasant surprise to me.

In the sense that

it emerged during that meeting that

Vyacheslav Nikolaevich’s daughter, or adopted daughter,

worked

for the Vyatka Timber Company.

This does not directly indicate the existence of

any corrupt or other

improper ties or personal interest, but I

believe that examples of this kind

should not occur in principle,

when between a state-owned

enterprise and private entities,

that were in contractual relationships,

there were also family ties of this kind

involved. Therefore, this was one of the

serious arguments in favor of making the

decision that it was necessary to terminate all

relations, not on the basis of an analysis of whether

the contracts were profitable or unprofitable,

but because, overall, this

system and this cluster of enterprises seemed to me, uh,

at that time,

to be wrong and flawed. Therefore,

instructions were given to terminate all

relations, carry out all

mutual settlements, and after that each party was to

operate separately. This included, of course,

raising concerns as well

regarding Vyacheslav Nikolaevich, namely that

his position looked very strange

when he hires this very

company to do the work, and then makes complaints

that this company was performing

its functions as a counterparty poorly.

>> Your Honor, we have no further questions for the

prosecution witness.

>> No questions.

>> Counsel for the defense, do you have a question?

>> Yes, I do. May I?

Nikita Yuryevich, please tell us,

when did you first learn about the existence

of an enterprise such as Gubkirovles?

>> In the winter or early spring of 2009, that is,

after taking office. I mean,

I cannot say that it was the first

enterprise or the first sector with which

we became acquainted. That is, perhaps

perhaps we learned about the enterprise itself,

incidentally, during those meetings

that took place in late December and

early January 2009. Now,

please tell us, these

meetings—what format did they take?

Who attended them? How

were matters presented to you? Was Opolev there?

I cannot recall exactly now, because

formally these meetings were in the nature

primarily of meetings with the executive

authorities. So therefore

there was definitely a meeting with the ղեկավարство of the

Forestry Department.

Whether representatives of subordinate

institutions and enterprises

were present at that meeting—I cannot say for certain now.

Let me remind you that the

Forestry Department, in addition to

Kirovles, had and still has

a whole range of institutions and enterprises:

Kirovlescenter, aerial forest protection services, and a number

of other enterprises, as it were, that

perform one function or another

connected with carrying out state

powers. Therefore, to say with certainty

whether Opolev or someone else

from Kirovles management was present at

the meetings with the department complex

I cannot. That is, I can neither assert

that this was the case nor assert that it

was not. Therefore, well, even if that

did happen, in any event Vyacheslav

Nikolaevich did not stand out to me during

those meetings. And please tell us,

when, when you received

the first information about the existence of such an

enterprise, how was its

financial situation, its current condition, described to you

as satisfactory, neutral,

critical, catastrophic? That is,

what were the main, perhaps, if you

remember, financial indicators that

were given to you?

I cannot say for certain whether from the very beginning

or not from the very beginning, but fairly

quickly

it became obvious both

that the organizational model itself was flawed.

I will explain to the honorable court that

according to the idea of Kirovles’s creators,

Kirovles

simultaneously performed both commercial

functions and functions related to

the performance of state functions,

state contracts. The point is that,

as a rule, the state,

both at the federal level,

which is the owner of forest

resources, and at the regional level, to which

part of the powers has been delegated, often simply does not have in its

budget the money needed

for the proper performance of

state functions, including, in

particular, forest protection,

reforestation,

and forest conservation. Given the scale

of the forestry sector in

the Kirov Region, we are talking about hundreds

of millions of rubles. Therefore, what was devised was,

in my view, an incorrect

model: to create an enterprise

and endow it with a large volume of forest

resources, so that by earning money from them this

enterprise, through what economists call

cross-subsidization,

could finance these state

functions. I believe that such a combination

within a single enterprise of commerce and

the fulfillment of state assignments is,

in principle, wrong, yes. Therefore,

because it creates a huge number

of preconditions for various kinds of

corrupt and other unlaw

ful actions, regardless of

who heads the

enterprise. And secondly, already, uh, in

the first quarter, in the first half of 2009,

it was absolutely clear that

the financial and economic,

that the financial condition of the enterprise

was extremely dire.

Moreover, as for prospects related to its

No, there was no fundamental improvement. I can

explain what this is about. The point is that

when this enterprise was created,

it was given a large allowable annual logging volume

under terms that, at the time

this enterprise was established, as I recall,

that was at the end of 2007, when

the economy was on the rise, when

prices were high. At that time, transferring

that volume of allowable logging was

economically justified and

profitable, and the enterprise, carrying out its

operations, was indeed earning money

and by the end of 2008 had made

a certain net profit, which,

incidentally,

was even paid out in excess in the form of

bonuses to Kirovles employees, yes, which,

in fact, was one of the issues on which

we appealed to

law enforcement agencies, since this was done without

approval from the depart-

the Department of State

Property. And, well, in a situation of

changing global market conditions,

with falling prices for timber products

and, essentially, declining sales

volumes, the situation changed radically

because the input

cost base could not be reduced.

That is, the lease arrangements that

had been concluded

with Kirovles could not be

revised, restructured, or

written off, because these forestry payments

go both to the regional and to the

federal budget, and they were already,

in effect, planned as part of the revenue

side. Accordingly, the amount of debt

that Kirovles had and that

continued, in effect, to grow,

was

so to speak, a kind of

burden on the enterprise that did not

allow it, in principle, to recover. And

if those lease agreements were terminated,

the enterprise would automatically lose its

privileged status, yes,

because, in fact, its

privileged status stemmed precisely from

having a large volume of

allowable logging rights, and giving that up

would have turned Kirovles into an entirely

ordinary enterprise, burdened with a large

amount of infrastructure, an enormous

number of employees, but with no

resource base whatsoever. Therefore, as of

the first half of the year, by the end of

the first half of 2000

and-something, if I am not mistaken, the amount of

debt, both on lease payments

and, well, on payments to the budget,

that is, unpaid taxes

and mandatory charges, amounted to,

I believe, somewhere between 150 and 200 million rubles.

I do not remember the exact figure. At the same time, the very

model that existed did not

allow one to predict any

miraculous way out of this situation. That is,

the only miracle solution would have been simply

a change in global market conditions, a rise

in timber prices by four or five

times. But obviously, it was impossible

to forecast that. Therefore, the question of

the need for serious reorganization,

the need for a serious overall

review of both the model and the organizational

structure, was a question that

was not some kind of revelation

coming from Alexei Anatolyevich

Navalny. That is, it was a position

held by the majority of experts

who, one way or another, including

the Forestry Department, who

were involved in the work. Nikita Yuryevich, and

you just mentioned this essentially manual

cross-subsidization scheme and

the large allowable logging volume

that was transferred to the enterprise, KOGUP

Kirovles. Can you confirm that

this operating scheme, broadly speaking,

was even formalized in a

business plan that was submitted to you,

which provided that KOGUP Kirov-

les would lease timber at 185 rubles and sublease it at

450, and, essentially, live off

that difference.

There was something like that; I cannot now

state it with certainty. That is, I

did see that business plan and

became familiar with it in some way, but the figures

you are talking about, I did hear them, and

I remember that we discussed where

the figure of 450 rubles came from as the

minimum cost level at which

Kirovles could sublease, given that

market prices at that time were

significantly lower. But since

Kirovles was factoring into that, essentially,

the costs associated with carrying out

state functions, with its entire

structure and full staffing,

it is clear that the fixed or quasi-fixed

costs in such a model were extremely

high. So, again, I do not remember

whether this was reflected in the

business plan or in some separate

document, but the ratio itself,

that I do remember, yes: about 180 and

450. Tell me, please, did the

representatives of the enterprise themselves, if you

remember their view, see any possible way out of

this situation? They

did think so—yes, I did not mention this—they believed

that one possible solution could be a kind of

debt forgiveness, which could not

in principle be done, yes, because

such

does not have such powers there

the region or some kind of state

subsidy, that is, to cover these

debts. Let me remind you that in 2009

the budget of Kirov Region was revised

downward seven times. That is,

this can be verified from the documents, uh,

since all of this was formalized through laws and

resolutions of the Legislative Assembly.

It is clear that when, over the course of a year,

we cut both the revenue and expenditure

sides of the budget seven times, talking about allocating

several hundred million to enterprises

to cover their losses, well,

was simply absurd, that is,

so it was not even seriously discussed. And

please tell me, have you ever heard

from Toplev, from a representative of

the forestry department, from

anyone else, that a possible

way to solve the problems would simply be

to help Kirovles with sales, since it had

accumulated

really or allegedly huge stocks of

finished goods. And in general, did I ever approach

you with a request along the lines of, let us

help Kirovles sell its products,

establish sales channels? I do not think that

this was mentioned as some necessary

and sufficient measure for normalizing

the operations of KOGUP Kirovles. But the fact that

the problem related to sales

was identified not only by Kirovles, but

also by the forestry department and

major enterprises in the timber industry

of Kirov Region, that was indeed the case. In fact,

so to speak, that was one of the reasons for

my trip, uh, to Solikamskbumprom

that is, when we were conducting

negotiations there, without mentioning either

Kirovles or any specific

enterprise, speaking simply about

the need to increase the volume

of supplies of low-grade timber and

waste from enterprises in Kirov

Region. We will come back to the trip to Solikamsk

later. Right now I wanted to

clarify regarding this

debt on lease payments. Could you

explain to the court the nature of this

debt? That is, is it a mandatory

payment to the budget, or not necessarily? To what extent

could the region regulate it, and to what extent could it not

regulate it?

>> It is a mandatory payment to the budget. Moreover,

the lease payment consists of two

components. Part of it goes to

the federal budget. Let me remind you that

forest is, in general, a natural resource

owned by the Russian Federation.

That is, it is federal

property, and the region has merely been delegated

certain powers. Therefore, part of the

lease payment goes to

the federal budget, and we have absolutely

nothing to do with it. The amount above

that

portion goes to the regional budget and

is reflected in the revenue side of the budget,

naturally, of course, as

non-tax revenue, which is recorded in

the budget and against which corresponding expenditures

have already been planned, including those

related to that forestry

sector. Therefore, there are no mechanisms

for revising it downward

that exist. There are mechanisms

for revising it upward, usually

connected with the introduction of deflator indices.

That is, if we are talking about

long-term contracts, then, uh,

they provide, accordingly, for

annual indexation. And the problem in 2009

specifically was that, on the one hand,

everyone understood that the real

economic situation had worsened,

but formally the federal

uh, ministry—I do not remember now whether it was

Rosleskhoz or the Ministry of

Natural Resources or the Ministry of

Finance—mandatorily introduced

a deflator index that increased this

lease payment. Therefore, Kirov Region had neither

the authority to revise it

yes, that is, neither to

reduce it nor, in fact, to move toward

forgiveness of the debt. Moreover, we do not

even have mechanisms for freezing

this debt, for any kind of

suspension. In accordance with

the law, if within two

months the lease payment is not made,

we have no other, uh, course of action

but to file suit to terminate these

contracts. Therefore, all enterprises

in the timber sector, both those operating

then and those operating now,

would perhaps prefer, if it came to it,

not to pay, uh, or to underpay taxes

or even wages, but when it comes to

payments related to forest leases,

to settle them, because otherwise

there is a risk that, essentially,

the contracts will be

terminated in court, and that allotted

cutting area, which is essentially

the asset through the exploitation of which

the enterprise earns money,

the enterprise or logging company

would simply disappear.

Therefore, options involving neither

writing off this debt, nor its

restructuring, nor its suspension,

simply do not exist. Therefore,

essentially, these options, which

may possibly have been discussed at meetings

with the participation of Sergei Vladimirovich Sheshkov

or some other managers there

were mentioned; that is, they were, in principle, not

possible. Nikita Yuryevich, here is

this question—these questions—may seem to you

completely elementary, but nevertheless

they seem elementary to you

because you are in public service and

understand the principles of budget formation.

Nevertheless, I would like to clarify: within the scope of my

authority, could I change or

cancel the rent payment?

>> Of course not.

>> Within the scope of your authority, could you

change it, or could the government of Kirov

Region change or cancel

the rent payment? The government of Kirov Region

could, at most, come forward with

amendments to the budget law, with

a reduction of that amount. So,

in the event of termination—that is, theoretically there could

have been a situation connected simply with

the termination of contracts and the shortfall of

budget revenues due to the fact that

there was simply no new tenant. That is,

there were no other mechanisms, but all of this

is done through the courts, through

termination of the contract, and through making

changes to the budget law of Kirov

Region by reducing the corresponding

budget revenue line item.

>> Am I correct in understanding that only the

budget law of Kirov Region can be amended only by the

Legislative Assembly of Kirov

Region?

>> But still, can some

fairly small group, some

small group of people, officials,

not do these things? And tell me,

please, did the head

of the Forestry Department have

a clear understanding of this? That

you cannot simply go and cancel the rental payment plan?

>> I think so, of course.

>> Well, and what about the other participants in the meeting,

the head of the Finance Department, uh,

by virtue of their positions, and the management

of KOGUP Kirovles, should they

have understood very clearly that payments

to the budget cannot be changed by decisions of

officials? Please rephrase

the question. Was it communicated to the attention of

the employees of KOGUP Kirovles, rather than asking

hypothetical questions?

>> Let me rephrase it this way.

Should, by virtue of their positions, the managers

I will answer the question. I understand what

is being asked, uh,

>> defendant Navalny.

>> Defendant Navalny. Tetovich, born in

1976. So, uh,

this information about the procedure for

payment and what a constituent entity of the federation

can and cannot do—uh—

was definitely available to

the relevant department, the Forestry

Department. I think it was definitely

available to the Department of State

Property, and it was absolutely definitely

available to the Finance Department. The Finance Department

in general, and in our case in particular, is a very

strict

defender of the interests of the budget. That is why

no options connected with

revising or, uh, worsening

the contract terms for the budget were, in principle, not

considered. Whether this was communicated to the attention of

specific officials of

Kirovles—I do not know. That is, in

general, it is clear that I do not convey such

information to individual

subordinate institutions or

subordinate enterprises.

Whether the Forestry Department or the

Finance Department conveyed this information

I cannot say. It seems to me, of course,

that, uh, managers of the level of

the leadership of a large

regional enterprise, well, by virtue of

their competence, should know

about this. But I may be mistaken.

>> Am I correct in understanding that KOGUP

Kirovles was, at that time, the largest

enterprise, at least in terms of

number of employees, that

was owned by Kirov

Region?

4,500 people work there.

Mm, I do not know, possibly yes. That is, I

think there were comparable scales—I do not know

about staffing, but certainly

in terms of volume of work—in

the road sector. Ah,

I think, uh, comparable sales volumes

existed in the network of

state pharmacies. That is, well,

the fact that it was, essentially,

one of the largest enterprises in which

the region either had a stake, that is,

or, accordingly, fully

owned it—that is certainly true. Does it follow from this

that Kirovles’s problems and

its financial difficulties were the subject of

some kind of constant discussion at

government meetings, within the framework of

various groups, and so on? Well, as for

government meetings, I would not put it

that way. I think you

understand that, despite all the importance of

both Kirovles and even the forestry

sector, this is not the only

issue that the government of Kirov

Region is obliged to deal with.

Obviously, this could have been

a regular topic at working meetings

that the heads of the relevant

specialized department should have held, and surely

did hold—the Forestry Department,

possibly,

of the Department of State

Property and the relevant deputy,

in this case, Sergei Vicharchkov,

who, as I understand it, has already given

testimony. As for the level of

the government, I do not recall that

the specific issue of Kirovles, uh,

was ever brought up in any formal consideration

of issues related, uh, to its current

financial condition. Of the major

meetings, there was one meeting that

I already mentioned, namely when

the audit report was being reviewed,

when decisions were made on

the removal and termination of contracts with

VLK. I do not recall any larger-scale

meetings. I cannot say with

one hundred percent certainty,

that there were none, but in my view, none

of that kind were held. And

please tell us, you mentioned

a state contract that was

concluded with Kirovles for carrying out

forestry work, and for lease arrangements. And

is it correct to say that all

such state contracts are concluded

under the regulation of the so-called

94th Law, that is,

through open bidding via auctions,

tenders, and so on.

>> Yes. And please tell me, was there

any possibility, within the scope of my

authority, for me to make it so that some

contract would be concluded or renewed

outside the 94th Law?

>> Knowing your attitude toward the 94th

Law, Alexander

Anatolyevich,

I can hardly even suggest to the court; perhaps you can explain to the court

your position on that.

I do not think such a possibility existed even

theoretically. That is,

>> And even if I had, hypothetically—sorry

for interrupting—at some point

come to hate the 94th

Law and wanted to do everything outside of it,

would I have had the legal ability

to carry out such actions?

>> I doubt it.

>> And did you have the ability to push some

contract through outside the 94th

Law?

>> That is, through bidding procedures, please tell us.

Well then, what do you think,

>> I will simply explain again to the honorable

court why

there is some uncertainty in the wording.

The point is that during this same

period, around 2009–2011,

there were serious changes in the

procedures for conducting public

procurement. The platforms were changing,

the organizers were changing. So therefore,

if we were talking about events, uh,

as of today or in 2012, I would

perhaps speak more definitively,

because with

bidding conducted on the existing platforms,

which have absolutely no connection

to Kirov Region, platforms such as

Sberbank's or others, such

interference is impossible even theoretically,

technologically speaking, yes, except perhaps

at the level of drafting the terms of reference,

which, in the case of a state order, seem to me

quite difficult to

manipulate. What the situation was in 2009

or in 2008,

I cannot say, but again I doubt

that anyone could

make any such manipulations. Moreover, in

fact, uh, if you recall, uh,

in 2010

or 2011 there was a situation

connected with the fact that state contracts

were being won by entities that were, frankly,

quite strange in our view, lacking

the capacity, uh, to perform these

state contracts. Yes, that was

2011. Uh, Your Honor, if you

recall, that was the year when there were a large number

of forest fires in the territory of

Kirov Region. It was precisely then that

it emerged that, uh, the state contract for

forest protection had been awarded to certain

entities, including some that, according to

some information, were affiliated with

Mr. Opolev, and they were simply physically

unable to fulfill the terms

of the state contracts for protecting the forest from fire.

And please tell us, could a manager

of the rank that Vyacheslav Nikolaevich

Opolev held, as head of

the Kirov Regional State

enterprise, which had 4,500 employees,

have had any misunderstanding

about the fact that

auctions for forest leases, for example,

all go through a competitive procedure

and that there is no person who can

cancel that competitive procedure? Could

he have been honestly mistaken

about that? I do not know Vyacheslav

Nikolaevich well. I have already said that I personally

spoke with him no more than two or three times. But

it seems to me that managers of that

level, with that degree of expertise in

forestry and that amount of work experience,

should not have such misconceptions. But I

have lately grown used to being surprised by

nothing. So again,

I cannot maintain one hundred percent certainty

as to whether he knew this or did not know it.

That is, well, of course he should have

known, since, uh, he had been

the head there for more than a year.

>> Excuse me, the question probably should

have been phrased more precisely.

Do you know whether Opalev was mistaken about

this report or not?

>> I don't know. I don't know.

>> No, Your Honor, I'm just trying

to have the witness explain to the court, as far as he

understands them, the principles of public

service. Can

a person of that level, someone who heads

a state-owned enterprise, fail to

understand how

>> That is a matter of judgment, not a matter of what

is known, Your Honor; it is a matter of judgment.

Besides, it is clear that Mr. Opalev

was hired before we—

that is, before I, uh, actually

became head of Kirov Oblast (a region of Russia). So it is difficult for me

to assess the criteria by which

the previous

administration was guided when hiring this person.

Therefore, I cannot speak about his

competence in this area. That is,

what is recorded in his

employment record book and in his résumé

indicates that he is a person

with substantial expertise

and experience in forestry management. But

whether he is a specialist in the area of

lease relations and terms, contracts

and their bidding procedures—I, of course, cannot say

here.

>> Therefore, I ask that more

specific questions be asked. And please tell me,

with regard to my status

as an adviser, my former status—former

adviser—that is, did it change, or

was it from the outset defined as adviser on

a voluntary basis? And did

the members of the Kirov Oblast government, for example,

understand my status clearly enough?

The status did not change.

During that time, I made proposals to you

concerning

your taking up work in the civil

service and assuming responsibility

for one area or another there,

which, apparently because of

your convictions, you declined to do, yes.

>> So. Therefore, I do not know whether

the members of the government were aware that

such discussions were being held with you and that

the possibility of

changing that status was being discussed. I don't know, but

formally, the status did not

change during all that time. You remained an adviser on

a voluntary basis throughout.

>> Well, perhaps you told some of the

government members or other people

something suggesting that there was some kind of

major informal status, that there might

be a change of status, that Navalny was

not just an adviser on

a voluntary basis, but some separate or

special adviser?

>> No. Alexei Anatolyevich Navalny was

simply an adviser on

a voluntary basis. Am I correct in understanding

that, as you said, there were four of them,

and they were absolutely equal

in status?

>> Yes. The only difference

between Alexei Anatolyevich Navalny and

the other voluntary advisers

was that he

spent most of his time in Kirov,

unlike the other, uh, people who

also held the status of advisers on

a voluntary basis. And would it be correct

to say that this

status of mine as an adviser on

a voluntary basis was widely

known because, among other things,

the local media constantly wrote about me

as an adviser on

a voluntary basis?

>> I think, Alexei Anatolyevich, that if you

had written less about yourself, the situation

would have been much simpler. That is,

because from what you wrote, it was very hard to draw

conclusions about your status.

As for

formal documents in

press releases, naturally, you were everywhere

mentioned exclusively as an adviser

on a voluntary basis, and in no other

status. Well, you mentioned that I wrote

something about myself. So, did I write somewhere

that I was an adviser on

a voluntary basis, but that I could also

do some additional things within

the framework of the civil service or in relation to

the civil service? Was there anything like that? No, you wrote nothing about the civil service.

It was simply that within those

posts that have, uh, broad

popularity in certain circles, your

status was very actively discussed

by well-known bloggers trying

to figure out what exactly you were

doing there after all.

>> Well, apparently that was necessary somehow.

And, Nikita Yuryevich, please tell me,

uh,

am I correct in understanding that

one of the

goals you most actively proclaimed

upon your appointment as governor, upon your

election as governor of the region, was

to increase the investment

appeal of Kirov Oblast?

>> Yes, that task was formulated that way,

and it is still formulated that way now.

>> And attracting businesspeople who

worked, who would work in

Kirov Oblast, certainly. And in the course of

that activity, did you put forward

any initiatives

to have oligarchs or

semi-oligarchs re-register here, to create a so-called

village of freelancers and other such things? What was this

Does this question relate to our case? And this

question, Your Honor, is directly related

to it, as I have repeatedly stated,

and the reason why both I and the other

advisers were and are obliged

to interact, including with

various businesspeople, is

that the governor of Kirov Region was pursuing

a targeted effort to attract

investment to Kirov Region. I wanted

specifically, on the matter of registering legal

entities here, in Kirov Region,

>> Well, if a legal entity

is registered here, then it is here,

>> Your Honor, I will explain what this is about.

Indeed, there was such an initiative involving

a proposal to register individuals with, uh,

large incomes, uh, in the territory of

Kirov Region. As you know, one of the

main revenue-generating taxes for

the municipality and the region is

personal income tax. So therefore

naturally, if within the region

a businessperson with

a high level of income registers there, it seriously

boosts the budget. In fact, there have been

such precedents, as you probably know. Mr.

Prokhorov registered, as it were, in

Krasnoyarsk Krai at one time, and his

income there amounted to several percent

of the revenues of the Krasnoyarsk Krai budget. And

such an initiative certainly did exist.

Moreover, I sent letters there to

major businesspeople. With some of

them we are currently working on similar

projects. Ah, but, essentially, if

I correctly understand what you are getting at,

Pyotr Ofitserov was not on the list of those to whom these

letters were sent. Well yes, Pyotr

Ofitserov is hard to compare with

Prokhorov. And even if he had

registered, for example, in Kumensky District,

it is unlikely that large payments,

of course, would have been made to Kumensky District

anyway. Nevertheless, tell me,

please, how often do you

meet with various

businesspeople, large, small,

and medium-sized?

>> Often, I meet with them often.

>> Am I right in understanding that both

the advisers, the governor, and the members

of the government regularly and, one might

say, constantly meet with

various businesspeople? To begin with,

there are government members whose

official duties include

working with the business

community. That is, in this case,

if we are talking about the current composition of the

government, that person is

Georgy Nikolaevich Machekhin. Before that,

it was Oleg Alexandrovich Kovtsev, who

is now a member of the Federation Council (the upper house of Russia’s parliament),

and officially, in his, uh, allocation of

duties, relations with

business associations,

the Chamber of Commerce and Industry, Opora

Rossii, Delovaya Rossiya, and other

organizations and entrepreneurs were included.

Naturally, each of the deputy

chairs of the regional government or

government members, within their

area of competence, meets with

businesspeople in their respective

field. The head of the

Department of Agriculture,

Deputy Chairman of the Government

Kotlyachkov works with major

businesspeople in the field of agriculture.

Uh, Deputy Chairman of the

Government, there, Sergeevich Cherchkov,

naturally, meets with

enterprises. Please explain, and

what does “works with” mean? In what

way does Kotlyachkov, for example,

interact with businesspeople

in agriculture?

>> Objection to the question.

I wanted

>> the criminal case is being considered within

the limits of the charges brought; what

the regional government does,

the governor personally, and others,

>> Let me ask again: please tell us, what

is the possible framework for such interaction?

Some entrepreneur comes in,

approaches the government of Kirov

Region and says: "I would like

to engage in purchasing Vyatka saffron milk caps (a local mushroom variety)." And

what should happen next within

the law?"

>> Objection to the question on the same grounds.

If you wish, I can state a third one as well.

>> And please tell us, if

some entrepreneur were to approach

me or any other

advisers to the governor, or you, or

members of the government with a wish

to purchase timber in the territory of

Kirov Region, what would be the

proper actions with respect to that

entrepreneur?

Your Honor, I will allow myself to answer

the question a bit more broadly, uh, perhaps. Within the

framework

of working with the business community

there are several

categories, uh, of entrepreneurs, work with

whom is carried out under special

conditions. That is, it is clear that there are, uh,

such business entities

that simply receive, in one form or another,

subsidies

from the budget within the framework of existing

regional targeted programs. For example,

agricultural enterprises, as you

know, within the framework of the regional

receive certain benefits under the targeted program

subsidies if they meet certain

conditions regarding milk production volumes,

profitability, and various other indicators.

It is clear that this group of enterprises, yes,

and interaction with them has

an entirely separate character. There are

enterprises that interact with

the regional government because of

the activities they carry out,

which fall under tariff

regulation. That is, relations with

energy companies, utility providers,

railway operators, and other

entities, regardless of their form of

ownership, take place within the framework of

tariff regulation issues.

There are

enterprises that are implementing so-called

priority investment

projects. These are projects that

have major economic significance for

the region. As a rule, these are

projects involving an investment

volume of at least 1 billion rubles (about 1 billion RUB). That is,

there are certain thresholds, that is,

for example, for agricultural

enterprises it is 400 million rubles (about 400 million RUB), and for other

industries as well, but we are talking about

large-scale projects. Such projects

are being carried out in the region, including a series of

projects such as the construction of an IKEA plant in

the Ryatskopolyansky District. And the company

Pereli is carrying out

the restructuring

of the Kerb Tire Plant, as well as

modernization. The company KNI is carrying out

the modernization of the joint-stock company Vesta

and so on.

With enterprises of this kind, there are

separate agreements for the implementation of

a priority investment

project, under which they receive

the right to make use of tax

benefits on property tax, and from this

year also on profit tax, and they even

become eligible for reimbursement of

part of their costs from the regional budget. This usually

concerns expenses related

to staff training or

to reimbursement of part of the interest on

borrowed credit funds. There is also

a separate category called

priority innovation projects in

the timber processing sector.

These are projects that receive approval

from the regional government,

the Federal Forestry Agency (Rosleskhoz) and the Ministry of Industry.

These projects gain the right—this is

the only way—to obtain

an allocated allowable cut outside the auction process, that is,

to receive it on special terms at

the minimum lease rate for

carrying out their projects. At present, in

the region there are eight such projects in operation,

and another six are under review.

So I am simply explaining why

when Alexei Atovich says that if

there were an entrepreneur in the field of

logging or timber processing, then

theoretically, if we were talking about large

projects involving

a substantial volume of investment, then such

projects could be considered within the framework of

these priority investment

projects in the forestry sector. If, however, the matter

simply concerns an inquiry from

an entrepreneur who wishes

to conduct business in

the territory of Kirov Region, then, as a

rule, either the relevant department,

that is, in this case

the forestry department, or

the separate department for

entrepreneurship should meet with

the entrepreneurs and explain the

support measures and forms of assistance

provided by the state,

that exist in

Kirov Region, and provide

every possible assistance so that

the entrepreneur can operate in

the region, pay taxes here, and create

jobs.

And please tell me, this all-around

assistance—can it

if it is, of course,

provided within the framework of

the law—be regarded as some kind of

negative conduct or something

else?

And if this assistance is not connected with

breaking the law, a conflict of

interest, or any other

unlawful actions or actions that could

create conditions for unlawful conduct, then it is,

of course, not. Well, please tell me,

if the following specific situation is being described:

an entrepreneur

approaches someone, let us say,

an entrepreneur wishing to purchase

timber, and informing this

entrepreneur about the existence of

the enterprise Kirovles, about the large inventories

remaining in its

warehouses, and about the strong desirability of

increasing sales—would that be

perceived as some kind of assistance on the part of the regional authorities

or as some kind of improper conduct?

That would be perceived as a positive

thing. Another matter is the issuance of

documents that instruct people

to conduct sales through this

enterprise—that would already

fall into a somewhat different category.

If we are speaking generally simply about

interaction with an enterprise,

then naturally that is a positive thing.

on market-based and mutually beneficial terms. That

is, this work can and should

be carried out.

Please tell me, have you ever

heard, or has anyone informed you about

the issuance of any documents that

would require Kirovles?

to conduct its sales exclusively

through a timber company.

>> I heard about it, uh, but I did not see the document myself.

I heard about it in the course of discussions in the mass media

regarding the materials of this

criminal case.

>> Did you study the materials of this criminal

case?

>> I did not study them in detail. That is, in this

instance I did not say that such a

document existed. I simply, by way of

example, mentioned what could be considered

positive cooperation and

is supported in Kirov Oblast (a region of Russia). Which,

presumably, in Kirov Oblast there

could not be supported. Well, you

just mentioned that from the mass

media you had heard about

the existence of some document

that prescribed the sale

exclusively through a certain timber

company. You probably heard about such a

document on Channel One television (Russia’s main federal TV channel).

document.

>> I do not watch Channel One

television, that is, but in some

other mass media

sources it was mentioned.

>> And did you personally see any such document

yourself? No, you did not. Did anyone

from among the staff

of the Kirov Oblast government or from among

the employees of Kirovles inform you of the existence of such a

document? No, no one did. Oryva

Alexandrovich, I have already said that I do not

claim that such a document existed. You

asked me to give an example of what

constitutes positive cooperation. I

gave you an example of positive

cooperation, contrasting it with another

counterexample of what is not

positive cooperation. So this was

simply a figure of speech on your part

that you used. Please tell me, could you

confirm for the court the information that

I repeatedly

communicated to you my opinion that

Kirovles’s sales should be

centralized rather than carried out

through 36 different forestry enterprises.

>> Yes, along with other experts, you expressed such a

position. I cannot

say it was many times, but it

was expressed.

>> But nevertheless, this was an open

position that I communicated to everyone.

>> It was an open position. Yes. And

please tell me, Kirovles

issued the so-called Order No. 76,

which

established

a ban on forestry enterprises selling

their products independently at prices above

1 million rubles. And at the same time, it did not specify any

specific commercial

enterprises. So the issuance of

such an order, which

centralized sales

through a single settlement

account of the parent enterprise—does this involve

any violation of the law?

>> The question is improper. The question requires

an evaluative judgment.

>> The question requires, Your Honor, the question

requires an evaluative judgment. I can say that

there certainly may be economic sense in such an order.

It is simply necessary

to take into account the particular features

of how the structure functioned. I cannot

say right now whether it was in principle possible

to organize such sales at

that time, taking into account the

condition in which the branches

of Kirovles were. The economic logic of

centralizing these sales certainly

exists.

>> And please tell me, how often did we

communicate during the period

in the first half of 2009?

Well, more often than—than one might have liked. No,

more often than with many of my other

colleagues, because you really

were one of the few people who

came with me, that is, and

whom I had known for several years before that. We spoke often.

And did I have the opportunity

to communicate with you in some informal

setting?

>> Certainly, you did. And please tell me,

did I ever approach you with

requests, demands, or proposals that

all Kirovles sales should

be conducted through some

particular commercial company, in

particular a specific timber company?

>> I think not. I think you understood perfectly well

that it would be pointless to approach me

with such matters.

>> And in general, was there ever any discussion that

the sale of Kirovles timber, perhaps

not involving me, should

be carried out through some company,

that it needed to be imposed, or anything like that?

I do not remember any such conversations. I do remember

conversations about the topic of centralizing sales,

that is, but, uh, any specific

names or any particular structures,

any surnames, were not

mentioned in those conversations. And please tell me, do you

often travel around the districts

of Kirov Oblast?

>> Very often.

>> So you have the opportunity to meet with

district heads?

>> Absolutely.

>> Do forestry enterprises

across the region also come to see you?

And

can a district head

or the head of a major enterprise

make an appointment with you?

Not only can they, but every week I have

meetings

with one or several district heads.

That is not counting the general-format

meetings that take place monthly

with all district heads. And please tell me,

since you communicate so often

with the heads

of various enterprises, district heads,

including forest districts, have you ever

received complaints that

an enterprise like Kirovles

was being forced to sell through

a particular company?

District heads could not really have made such statements.

As a rule, if Kirovles came up

in conversations during that period,

it was in terms of tax payments,

jobs, and the use of

the allowable annual cut. In other words, in this case

district leadership was not

an internal actor within the forestry enterprise

and therefore not the party engaged in

sales, but rather an outside party

interested in effective

operations. Therefore, there were no such statements

or conversations from

district heads saying that someone was

forcing them to do something,

or from the heads of the relevant Kirovles branches—

nothing of that kind.

>> Perhaps the branch managers themselves

or Opalev made an appointment

and spoke about this?

>> The head of the Forestry Department?

?

>> Neither the head of the Forestry Department nor

Vyacheslav Nikolayevich Opalev ever spoke to me on this subject.

I also met with the leadership of the Forestry Department

regularly,

as I still do, within the framework of

current work. And with the heads

of enterprises, regional

state enterprises or

budget-funded institutions, we meet

when one side or the other takes the initiative.

Vyacheslav Nikolayevich never

initiated that kind of meeting, so

there were evidently no problems

related to current operations or

the commercial activities of the enterprises

that would have prompted him to do so. Please tell me, under

the established structure of

subordination in Kirov Region,

what steps should

the head of a Kirov regional

state enterprise have taken if

someone made unlawful

proposals to him or put

pressure on him, including, perhaps,

by officials in Kirov Region?

I think he should report this

to the head of the department

for state property, which represents

the owner's interests. He should

report it

to the head of the relevant department,

that is, in this case, the Forestry Department,

and possibly contact

law enforcement agencies

if he believes that what he is being

forced to do constitutes illegal

criminal activity.

>> Do you have any information that

the head of the Kirovles state enterprise, Opalev, or

any of his subordinates or superiors

initiated any of the

actions you have just described?

I do not have such information. That does not

mean it did not happen, but I

did not have that information.

And please tell me,

can you confirm or

deny the information that I

repeatedly insisted on carrying out

an audit of

Kirovles by an independent

auditing company, preferably one

of the Big Four.

>> Yes.

>> And please tell me, was such an audit

carried out?

No, such an audit was not carried out due to

a number of organizational problems. That is,

as you understand,

audit opinions themselves and, accordingly,

payment for those audit

opinions from the budget are fairly

strictly regulated. Therefore,

since, formally, an audit had already been conducted,

yes, although during a meeting it was

criticized and deemed

superficial and insufficiently

thorough. At the same time, in order

to formally conduct another audit,

a whole series of procedures was required,

procedures that the Department

of State Property and the

Forestry Department, for one reason or another,

either could not or did not want to undertake.

Still, you do confirm

that you remember I insisted on this. Do you

remember

whether this caused, well,

some kind of mild, serious, or moderate

conflict between me and

Kirovles?

>> I can't say. I remember that it was

the subject of some kind of conflict between you and

the State Property Department. Yes, that’s right.

That is,

in fact, regarding your

relationship with Kirovles, I have little

information, because, um,

essentially, practically

the only meeting at which we

were both present on the subject of Kirovles

together was that very meeting I

already mentioned. So I think

that on this matter, probably more detailed

comment can be given by the relevant

deputy, Seryochkov.

And please tell me, at that

meeting that

you mentioned, where the audit

and so on were discussed, was there

any information presented by

Opolev? Was he not at that

meeting? Was Opliv present at that

meeting or not?

>> I don’t remember. I do remember that the main

speaker was a woman, the deputy for

finance at that enterprise, and

essentially, the audit. So I can’t

say for certain whether Opolev was there or not, but

in any case, he certainly didn’t stand out by making any remarks

there. And were there any statements at

that meeting to the effect that

Kogubkerov Les had shipped

products free of charge to the Svyatsk Forestry

Company?

>> No, there were not.

>> Were there perhaps any

claims or allegations that

damage of 16 million rubles (about 16 million RUB) had been caused and that all

the products had been given away for free?

If I’m not mistaken, in that audit

report

there was

a phrase about the inefficiency

and inadvisability for Kogubrov Les

of that contract. Were there any

amounts or damage calculations? I don’t

remember now, since that document was, in

general, reviewed quite a long time ago. And

do you confirm the information that

I repeatedly demanded the removal

of Opliv from office, his dismissal, and even

the initiation of criminal proceedings against him?

As for the removal,

I now

don’t remember, because, um, it was sort of my

decision to remove him.

And in this case I remember that

that decision was based on the opinions

of several people. So whether you were

among those people, I can’t say

right now. Again, I can’t rule out that

you did say that. Ah, well,

the later reinstatement of Opol in

his position—was that, uh, one of the reasons for

among other things, my disagreements

and conflict with the Property Department,

for example?

>> I think it could have been. Well, how did I, how did I

react? You don’t remember how I reacted to

Opolev’s reinstatement?

>> I don’t remember, but I think negatively.

It really is very difficult for me, um,

to recall the emotional state

of individual participants in events

from four years ago, right? But

I think negatively, yes. So your

relations with Mr. Opolev at that

time could not be described as close and

warm. And please tell me, you

mentioned that

the government of Kirov Region

filed a number of applications for

the initiation of criminal cases against

Vyacheslav Nikolaevich Kopol. Do you

know what became of those applications?

Well,

that information could probably be obtained, uh,

officially by requesting it. Uh, as far as

I remember,

since the requests were sent to, uh,

the regional office of the Ministry of Internal Affairs,

and to the prosecutor’s office,

at first there was

a refusal to open a criminal case,

then a complaint was prepared regarding

that refusal. And at some

stage, if I’m not mistaken, a criminal case

was in fact opened. So

I can’t say for certain right now, actually,

but all that information can

be provided, uh, at the court’s request,

that is, all the correspondence. So

the subsequent fate of those criminal cases,

of course, was no longer within

the competence of the government of Kirov Region,

especially since Mr. Chupolev

was no longer working at that time

for Kirovles and, so to speak, no longer fell within

the sphere of our interests.

And please tell me, what was

the reason for those applications? What grounds

were there? Do you remember?

>> Ah, if I’m not mistaken, it concerned

several incidents, and we appealed to

law enforcement agencies asking them

to conduct an inquiry into these and possibly

other incidents. That is, if I’m not

mistaken, there were issues related to

the acquisition of property,

without approval

from the owner in the prescribed manner

through the State Property Department; payments

under contractor agreements to current

employees, that is, in addition to the

contracts that were already in place.

A rather strange scheme connected with

the creation of a forest planning department,

and then, essentially, the establishment on its

basis of a separate commercial

the enterprise, but by individuals who worked in this

department, and by their relatives.

a whole series of episodes, but we did not ask

for a criminal case to be opened over any particular

episode; we asked for reviews to be conducted,

because we fully understand that

our authority does not allow us

to make a definitive conclusion about, um,

whether these actions were criminal or non-criminal

in nature. We asked for

a review to be carried out and, accordingly, for an

official conclusion to be issued in the proper form.

>> And when was this, roughly speaking?

When were these statements made? When

were they submitted, do you remember?

Summer to autumn 2010.

>> Please clarify: am I correct in understanding

that employees of the Kirov Region government

recorded certain

actions or events that were assessed

as signs of corruption? In connection with this,

you contacted law enforcement

agencies to conduct reviews, correct?

>> Those reviews were already, so to speak, based on the results of

2009. That is why, in fact,

we are talking about the summer and autumn of 2010.

I do not remember now whether this was

the result of audit reviews

for 2009, I mean, based on the results of 2009,

or of some other reviews. I do remember

that the relevant materials were prepared

by the Department of State

Property. And, um, we specifically

asked law enforcement agencies to give

an assessment of these actions. It is clear that

when it comes to such specific

issues as whether or not, uh,

a forest planning department was needed within the structure

of Kirovles, and if it was needed, then why

it was transformed six months later into

a separate enterprise with private

capital, having no connection to

the Kirovles group. This requires very

serious expert analysis, and we are precisely

hoping that law enforcement

agencies will give these

actions the appropriate assessment.

Please tell me, do you have

any information that I

received money, gifts,

or promises of money and gifts from

the Vyatka Timber Company?

>> Do you have any information about that?

>> No, I do not. I cannot even imagine who

would have told me that.

>> Well, I am just clarifying, to be safe. And

did you receive from any other persons

any information, perhaps in the form of rumors, in

the form of some indirect indications, that

I received some money,

payments, remuneration, gifts? The question

has already been answered for you. No further questions.

>> Then I have no further questions. Thank you. Do you

have

any questions

>> No questions?

>> I have one question. Please tell me,

in your opinion, was there, or do you know whether there was,

any damage caused

to the economic interests or the budget

of the Kirov Region, uh, as a result of

Alexei Navalny's activities as

an adviser to the governor of the Kirov

Region?

Based on the data available to me and the information

I have, I have no grounds

to draw such conclusions. At the same time,

it is clear that I cannot speak here

officially, that is, because

we did not conduct, on our side,

any expert examinations on this matter, so I

have no grounds to make such conclusions.

That is, based on the information

available to me. At the same time, I do know

that the Department of State

Property has been recognized by the Investigative

Committee as an injured party, right? That is, the

Investigative Committee, within the framework of

the criminal case, considers

that damage was caused. That is, as for

any expert examinations on this matter,

yes, or calculations, I personally, so

to speak, have not seen them. That is, I have not been

officially acquainted with the materials of the, uh, criminal case by anyone

officially. So, well,

in general, it is probably not my

hobby to familiarize myself with the materials of

a criminal case.

>> Any more questions? No, the defense has no more

questions.

We can release

the witness for the defense.

>> We object.

Thank you.

>> Thank you very much.

>> Right, a ten-minute recess is declared.

Please be seated.

We continue examining the written

materials of the criminal case. So, in

order: volume eight, case file pages

134.

Investigator, volume eight.

Case file

from page 1 through 34:

record of the inspection of items and

documents dated October 5, 2012,

Moscow,

investigator of the investigative group

of the Main Investigative Directorate

of the Investigative Committee of the Russian

Federation, Chernykh, in the period from

9:10 a.m. to 4:25 p.m.,

conducted an inspection

of documents and items seized during

a seizure carried out on August 9,

2012 on the premises of Kabave

Avtobanko.

The seizures were also carried out on August 9, 2012.

in the premises of the Kirov branch

Sberbank of Russia is located in Kirov

25, and the seizure was carried out on September 27, 2010

in the bank premises

Sberbank of Russia is located at

Oktyabrskaya Street, Nizhny Novgorod

35; a seizure was also carried out on June 8

2011 from the witness

Ofitserani

the inspection established that, seized in the course of

the seizure conducted on August 9

of 1990, in the premises of Koby

Otkabank, located at the address: city of

Kirov, Politsidom 4

the legal department of Vyazkaya Lesnaya

Company, on sixty-seven sheets

stitched together

fastened with a paper label bearing the imprint

of the seal for package of the Seventh Main

Investigative Directorate of the Investigative

Committee of the Russian Federation, containing

the signatures of the attesting witnesses

contains the following documents

including Agreement No. 15817

for a bank account, dated March 25, 2012, on

the opening of a settlement account for the forestry company

account No. 407028 10330 201129046

concluded between JSCB "Vyatka Bank" and

represented by the manager of the city

additional office, and Vyazkaya Lesnaya

Company, represented by its General

Director, Pyotr Yuryevich Ofitserov

an addendum to the agreement

for the bank account dated March 25, 2009, on

one sheet; a copy of the certificate of

state registration of Vyazkovisnaya

Company under the Primary State

Registration Number 109 434 500126

dated March 18, 2009, on one sheet

a copy of the certificate of tax registration

of the company with the inspectorate

of the Federal Tax Service for the city of

Kirov, assigning

Taxpayer Identification Number 434 525

2729

dated March 18, 2009, on one sheet

Agreement No. 16608 for a bank account in

foreign currency, dated June 15, 2012

on opening for the company a current

account in euros, No. 407029 785

3021129046

and a transit account in euros, No. 407 029

7858 30022

129 046, on three sheets; an addendum

to the said agreement

for a bank account in foreign currency

dated June 15, 2009; a bank account agreement

in foreign currency dated September 22

2010 on opening for the company

a current account in U.S. dollars

under No. 407 028 40830

212946

and a transit account also in U.S. dollars, No. 407

028 401 30 44 9046

on three sheets

a statement of transactions for account No.

407028 103021 1 29046 of Vyatka Forestry

Company at JSCB Vetkobank for the period from April 15

2009 to October 1 of the same

year, containing records of completed

transactions totaling 441 entries

the date of the first entry is April 22

2009; the date of the last entry is October 1

2009

payment order for the transfer of

funds from the settlement account of Vyazkaya

Vesna Company to the settlement account of

Kogubkiraples; payment order No.

P dated May 6, 2009, for the transfer of

378,685

rubles 60 kopecks. Payment order No. 6

dated May 7, 2009, for the transfer of 42,880

rubles. Payment order No. 7 dated May 7

2009 for the transfer of 40,328

rubles 52 kopecks. Payment order No. 8

dated May 7, 2009, for the transfer of 91,200

rubles. Payment order No. 9 dated May 7

2009 for the transfer of 70,980

rubles.

Payment order No. 11 dated May 13

2009 for the transfer of 39,501

rubles. Payment order dated May 27, 2009

for the transfer of 94,671

rubles 40 kopecks. Order No. 28 dated June 5

2009 for the transfer of 274,000

rubles.

No. 29 dated June 9, 2009, for

the transfer of 293,963

rubles 83 kopecks.

Order No. 33 dated June 10, 2009

for the transfer of 189,342

rubles 28 kopecks. No. 34 dated June 10, 2009

for the transfer of 283,920

rubles. No. 35 dated June 10, 2009, for

the transfer of 92.32

rubles 79 kopecks. No. 36 dated June 10, 2009

for the transfer of a monetary amount in

the amount of 86,997

97 rubles 88 kopecks. No. 37 dated June 10, 2009

for the transfer of 105,279

rubles. No. 38 dated June 10, 2009, for

the transfer of 377,937

rubles 7 kopecks. No. 41 dated June 11, 2009, for

the transfer of 18,250

rubles. No. 50 dated June 16, 2009, for

the transfer of 460,292

rubles 85 kopecks.

No. 52 dated June 18, 2009, for

the transfer of 97,472

rubles 96 kopecks. No. 57 dated June 23, 2009

for the transfer of 227,828

rubles 31 kopecks. No. 61 dated June 26, 2009

for the transfer of 268,140

rubles 92 kopecks. No. 62, June 2009, for

the transfer of 466.

603 rubles 16 kopecks. No. 64 dated June 29

2009 for the transfer of 50,000 rubles.

No. 65 dated June 29, 2009, for

transfer of 117,000 rubles, 700 117,705

rubles. No. 66 dated June 29, 2009

transfer of 49,031

rubles 87 kopecks. No. 68 dated June 29, 2009

regarding the transfer of 578,000

796 rubles. No. 73 dated July 1, 2009

transfer of 74,614

rubles 27 kopecks. No. 74 dated July 3 of that year

regarding the transfer of 240,506

rubles 77 kopecks. No. 75 dated July 3, 2009

regarding the transfer of 325,856

rubles 72 kopecks. No. 76 dated July 3, 2009

regarding the transfer of 225.68. 688 rubles 95

kopecks. No. 78

dated July 7, 2009, regarding the transfer of 445

rubles.

445,253

rubles 36 kopecks. No. 79 dated July 7, 2009

regarding the transfer of 323.52

rubles 90 kopecks. No. 98 dated July 20, 2009

regarding the transfer of 62,000

298 rubles 60 kopecks. No. 99 dated July 20

2009 regarding the transfer of 274,000

387 rubles 46 kopecks. No. 100 dated July 20

2009 transfer of 154.9 rubles 20

kopecks. No. 101 dated July 20, 2009, regarding

the transfer of 99,561

rubles 44 kopecks. No. 103, July 20, 2009

transfer of 90,599

rubles, kopecks. No. 104 dated July 20, 2009

transfer of 79,149

rubles 16 kopecks. No. 105 dated 20 of July 20

2009 transfer of 43,000

751

rubles 25 kopecks. No. 119 dated July 30, 2009

regarding the transfer of 23.28

rubles. No. 120 dated July 30, 2009, regarding

the transfer of 89,463

rubles 45 kopecks. No. 125 dated August 5, 2009

for the transfer of 60,500 rubles. No.

129 dated August 6, 2009, regarding

the transfer of 3,606.

666 rubles. No. 136 dated August 11, 2009

regarding the transfer of 75,402

402 rubles 61 kopecks. No. 143, August 14

2009 regarding the transfer of 624,572

rubles 17 kopecks. No. 170 dated August 27

2009 transfer of 73,723

rubles 18 kopecks. No. 178 dated August 3, dated 3

September 2009 regarding the transfer of 68,878

rubles 50 kopecks. No. 190 dated September 7

2009 regarding the transfer of 75,480

rubles. No. 197 dated September 11, 2009

regarding the transfer of 143,956

rubles. No. 219 dated September 17, 2009

regarding the transfer of 24,560

rubles, and in total for the overall amount of 12,557,191

rubles 70 kopecks.

payment

also a payment order for the transfer

of funds to the settlement accounts of other

legal entities

order No. 3 dated April 22, 2009

year, No. 4 of the same date, No.

22 dated May 27, 2009, No. 23 dated May 27, 2009

year, No. 24 dated May 28, 2009, No.

25 dated June 4, 2009, No. 26 of the same

date, No. 27 as well

June 4, 2009, No. 30, and June 9, 2009

year, Nos. 32 and 31 of the same date, No.

39 dated June 10, 2009, No. 51 dated

June 17, 2009, No. 53 dated June 18, 12

2009, Nos. 54, 55, 56 dated June 19, 2009

year, Nos. 58, 59

60 and 63 dated June 24, 2009, No. 67 dated

June 29, 2009, No. 69 dated June 30

2009, No. 70, dated No. 7172 of 1

July 2009, No. 77 dated July 3, 2009

year, Nos. 80, 81, 82 dated July 7, 2009

No. 83 dated July 8, 2009, Nos. 84, 85

86, 87 dated July 9, 2009, No. 96 dated 10

July 2009, Nos. 106, 107, 108, 109 and

110 dated July 21 of that year, No. 112 dated 23

July 2009, No. 113, July 24, 2009

year, No. 114, July 27, 2009, No.

115, July 28, 2009, No. 116 dated 29

July 2009, Nos. 118 and 121 dated 30

July 2009, No. 122, July 31, 2009

year, No. 123 dated August 3, 2009

Nos. 124, 126, 127 dated August 5, 2009

128 dated August 6, 2009, Nos. 130, 131

132 dated August 7, 2009, No. 1334

135 dated August 10, 2009, No. 137 dated

August 11, 2009, No. 1381

dated August 12, 2009, No. 140 dated 13

August 2009, No. 142 dated 14

August 2009, Nos. 144, 146, 146, 147

dated August 19, 2009, No. 15617

August 2009, No. 159

160 dated August 24, 2009, No. 16113

dated August 25, 2009, Nos. 164, 165

166 dated August 26, 2009, No. 167

168 dated August 27, 2009, names

1712

174 dated August 31, 2009, No.

1779 9 dated September 3, 2009, No.

Nos. 180, 181

September 7, 2009, No. 1882

183, 184, 185, 186 dated September 4, 2009

No. 189 dated September 7, 2009, Nos.

1912, 193, 194, 196 dated September 8, 2009

year

No. 2021 dated September 15, 2009

Nos. 211, 212, 213, 214, September 16

2009, Nos. 216, 218, September 17

2009, Nos. 221, 222, 223, 224

September 2009, No. 225, 23

September 2009, No. 226 dated 24

September 2009, Nos. 227, 229 dated

September 28, 2009, No. 230 dated

September 29, 2009

payment documents regarding transfers from

the counterparty of the Prestnaya company for

the supply of products, funds to

settlement account No. 407028103129046

of Vyatka Timber Company, VKB RDKBank, on

one sheet each, stitched, sealed

certified by the signatures of the attesting witnesses

contains specifically a cash deposit slip

cash deposit slip No. 4 dated April 22, 2009

according to which, apparently

4,000 rubles. Cash deposit slip

No. 96 dated May 25, 2009, according to

which Ranniko transferred 1,000 rubles.

Cash deposit slip dated May 27, 2009

No. 1, according to which

Ofitserov transferred 25,000 rubles. Payment order

No. 237 dated June 24, 2009

according to which the company LtoR

transferred 30,000 rubles. Payment order

No. 2193 dated July 14, 2009

according to which Kiroples

transferred 2,550 rubles. Payment order

No. 98 dated July 16, 2009

according to which Kontrolny transferred 60,000

rubles. Order No. 179 dated July 23

2009, according to which Poskoren

transferred 60,000 rubles. No. 94 dated July 28

2009, Ostav transferred 891,000

rubles.

No. 129 dated July 2009 transferred

100,000 rubles. No. 504 dated July 30

2009, according to which the company

transferred 255,360

rubles. Payment order No. 410 dated June 31

2009. According to

Lestrans transferred 135,828

rubles. Payment order No. 101 dated August 3

2009, according to which Kornits

216,209

rubles 60 kopecks. Payment order No. 419 dated

August 5, 2009, according to which

Resttrans transferred 289,872

rubles. Payment order No. 724 dated July 8

2009, according to which Krasny

transferred 162,479.4

rubles 50 kopecks. Payment order No. 138 dated July 29

dated July 2009, according to which

Krasny Yakor transferred 37,298

rubles 50 kopecks. Payment order No. 530 dated July 27

2009, according to which

Prispichkum transferred 80,000 rubles.

Payment order No. 5690 dated August 11

2009, according to which Lits

Pichprom transferred 90,000 rubles. Payment order

No. 6663 dated September 25, 2009

Polits Pichprom transferred 7,945

rubles 60 kopecks. Payment order No. 217 dated June 2

2009, according to which

Podgornu transferred 312,000 rubles.

Payment order No. 274 dated July 6, 2009

Podgornost transferred 48,105 rubles.

2 kopecks. Payment order No. 314 dated July 21

2009, Podgorno transferred 60,000

rubles. Payment order No. 316 dated July 22

2009, according to which

Podgornykh transferred 130,000 rubles.

Payment order No. 318 dated July 23, 2009

according to which Podgorny

transferred 142,800

rubles. Payment order No. 434 dated September 22

2009, according to which

Podgorno transferred 5,000 rubles. Payment

order No. 126 dated July 10, 2009

according to which Volga transferred

298,868

rubles 90 kopecks. Payment order No. 184 dated July 13

dated July 2009, according to which

Volga transferred 98,613

rubles 70 kopecks. Payment order No. 383 dated July 20

dated July 2009, according to which

Volga transferred 311,702 rubles 60 kopecks.

Payment order No. 919 dated July 27, 2009

according to which Volga

transferred 140,137 rubles 70 kopecks.

payment order No. 8797

dated July 2009, according to which

Goloda transferred 306 rubles. 510 rubles.

306,510 rubles 80 kopecks. Payment order No. 307

dated August 3, 2009, according to which

Volga transferred 160,101

rubles 70 kopecks.

Payment order No. 443 dated August 5

2009, according to which Volga

transferred 909 rubles. 909,000

992 rubles 90 kopecks. Payment order No. 516 dated August 26

2009, according to which

Volga transferred 69,413

rubles 70 kopecks. Payment order No. 10737 dated September 1

2009, Volga transferred

282,646

rubles 10 kopecks. Payment order No. 10738 dated September 1

2009, Volga transferred

195,012 rubles 95 kopecks. Payment order No.

10776 dated September 2, 2009, Volga

transferred 341,338

rubles 70 kopecks. Payment order No. 869 dated September 3

2009, Volga transferred

94,470

rubles. Payment order No. 2234 dated June 24

2009, Domostroitel transferred

200,000 rubles. Payment order No. 2264 dated June 8

2009, Domostroitel

transferred 200,000 rubles. Order No.

2354 dated June 11, 2009

Domostroitel 200,000 rubles. Payment order

No. 2375 dated June 15, 2009

Domostroitel transferred 300,000 rubles.

Payment order No. 2450

dated June 18, 2009, Domostroitel

transferred 300,000 rubles. Payment order No.

2512 dated the 23rd of 2009, Domostroitel

transferred 500,000 rubles. Payment

order No. 2553 dated June 25, 2009

Domostroitel transferred 63,000

rubles. Payment order No. 2592

dated 2009, Domostroitel

transferred 350,000 rubles. Payment

order No. 2593 dated June 29, 2009

according to which Domustroitel

transferred 250,000 rubles. No. 2627 dated June 30

2009, according to which Na

stroitel transferred 228,073 rubles 50 kopecks.

Payment order No. 2656 dated July 1, 2009

according to which Domostroitelnik

transferred 250,000 rubles. Payment order No.

No. 2678 dated July 2, 2009, according to which

Domostroitel transferred 347

421 rubles. Payment order No. 1892 dated June 8

2009, according to which Kirovsky

sawmill and woodworking plant

transferred 31,344

rubles 60 kopecks. Payment order No. 1893 dated 8

June 2009, according to which

KMDK transferred 37,321

rubles 20 kopecks. Order No. 1894 dated 8

June 2009, according to which

GMDK transferred 31,309 rubles 60 kopecks.

Payment order No. 1895 dated June 8, 2009

KMDK transferred 28,867

rubles 20 kopecks. Order No. 1896 dated 8

June 2009 KMDK transferred

28,868,868 rubles 90 kopecks. Payment order No.

1897 dated 8/2009, KMDK transferred 31,477

rubles 50 kopecks. Payment order No. 1898 dated 8

June 2009, KMDK transferred

30,842 rubles 10 kopecks. Payment order No.

1899 dated June 8, 2009, KMDK

transferred 31,061 rubles 30 kopecks. Order

No. 1920/2.0 dated June 8, 2009

KMDK transferred 48,993

rubles 70 kopecks.

Payment order No. 239 dated June 17, 2009

KMDK transferred 50,111 rubles 40

kopecks. Order No. 240 dated June 17, 2009

KMDK transferred 52,272

rubles 90 kopecks. No. 2107 dated June 24, 2009

KMDK transferred 28,862 rubles. No.

2108 dated June 24, 2009, KMDK transferred

83,367

rubles 85 kopecks. No. 249 dated 25/2009, KMDK

transferred 52,168

rubles 30 kopecks. No. 250 dated 25 of 2009

KMDK transferred 40,686 rubles 70 kopecks.

No. 2131 dated June 25, 2009, KNDK

transferred 46,661

rubles. No. 2132 dated 25, 2009, KMDK

transferred 30,754

rubles. No. 251 dated June 26, 2009

KMDK transferred 51,655

rubles 10 kopecks. No. 2257 dated July 3

2009, KMDK 55,694

rubles. No. 2259 dated July 3, 2009

KMDK transferred 41,470

rubles 20 kopecks. No. 226 dated July 3, 2009

KMDK transferred 50,339

rubles 10 kopecks. No. 2261 dated July 3, 2009

KMDK transferred 45,553

rubles 10 kopecks. No. 2262 dated July 3, 2009

KMDK transferred 52,788

rubles 60 kopecks. No. 2263 dated July 3

2009, KMDK transferred 43,146

rubles. No. 2393 dated July 15, 2009

KMDK transferred 42,823 rubles 40 kopecks, but

No. 2394 dated July 13, 2009

KMDK transferred 88,694

rubles 20 kopecks. No. 2395 dated July 15

2009, KNDK transferred 47,600

47,657

rubles 80 kopecks. No. 2396 dated July 15

2009. KMDK transferred 94.42

rubles 30 kopecks. No. 2397 dated July 15

2009, KMDK transferred 27.80

rubles 70 kopecks.

Payment order No. 1 dated May 12, 2009

according to which AVS transferred

40,950

rubles. No. 651 dated June 24, 2009

Vlada transferred 117,705 rubles for

railway freight charges. Payment order No.

713 dated July 9, 2009, Vlada

transferred 400,000 rubles. No. 721 dated 14

July 2009, Vlada transferred

800,000 rubles. No. 734 dated 16, 2009

Vlada 500,000 rubles. No. 747 dated 22

July 2009, Vlada made 400,000

rubles. Payment order No. 748 dated 22

July 2009, Vlada transferred

6,148 rubles 50 kopecks. Payment order No. 780

dated July 31, 2009, Vlada transferred

400,000 rubles. No. 854 dated August 14

2009, Vlada transferred 400,000

rubles. Order No. 865

dated August 18, 2009, Vlada transfe

230 rubles. 750 230,756

rubles. Payment order No. 245 dated September 8