Retrial of the “Kirovles Case.” Court video recording. Hearing 13

I know, maybe a little more.

You, damn it.

You saw the conversation, right?

Well, he’s kind of normal like that.

Listen, so...

Something like that.

If anything, say it to the SGU.

Just...

Uh...

Third, yes.

Because...

To make it through the means...

With...

Uh, yeah...

If I want breakfast, I go and ask for it.

I go for breakfast: 'Good morning,' something like that.

Or he says with that look, 'Yeah, no, it wasn’t me.'

No, most likely. Though they were, well...

They went off for some project, maybe even...

Or maybe they were drinking yesterday, you know.

Uh-huh, everyone.

I ask everyone...

By the way, hello...

Please, the court hearing is resuming.

Hearing. Secretary, please state...

For the record, the court hearing is attended by...

the state prosecutors, the head of...

the state prosecution department,

the appeals division of the Kirov Region Prosecutor’s Office,

... of the department for oversight of compliance with...

anti-corruption legislation,

of the Kirov Region Prosecutor’s Office, Cherevny...

Nikolaevich, representative of the injured party,

the defendants, Navalny, Alexei,

Anatolyevich, and defense counsel, attorney Mikhala...

attorney Kodi... two attorneys...

present.

Then the presentation of the evidence continues,

the defense’s evidence, at the stage of...

that is, at the stage of questioning the defendant,

Ofitserov.

I propose...

to ask, more precisely, questions regarding your...

testimony. Please explain whether

Navalny provided any support in the area of

your

[music]

relations. Please specify what...

kind of support—did you turn to him for

help for the purpose of increasing sales or

the volume of product deliveries?

And for the purpose of increasing sales? Definitely

no, because I handled that myself, and

as for work... we spoke several

times, but no more than that. He provided no

assistance to me. What were those

conversations about? Well, the conversations were about the fact that

he asked me... please don’t

walk around.

A warning to you: if you continue moving around the

courtroom. He asked me

what I thought, what I knew about ROF,

and I told him what was happening at ROF,

what I thought about it—that was basically all.

And within the framework of those conversations, of course, I

said that they were not shipping.

What... According to the documentation that

was examined in court,

a draft was sent

of a supply contract between VK and VLK Press...

to Navalny. Which one?

Sir, the thing is, as I already said,

yesterday, I was only just beginning to deal specifically with

my own business and wanted additional

reassurance. Therefore, that contract

that had been worked on by Marina Valeryevna Bura,

I sent to Alexei Anatolyevich Nova... because

he is a lawyer, for review, but he did not

reply. I mean, nothing that could

have helped in that respect, that is...

that’s it.

That’s all. As for the question of meetings, as far as you

remember, was information conveyed

about the relations between Kob...

...Press and the timber company to

the directors?

Did he take part in

any meetings connected with that

issue? This is one of the funniest

moments in my dealings with Rosles...

During the negotiations before signing

the contract with

the timber company, during the negotiation process, I

got a call to come over. I came. I was

led by the secretary into the main assembly hall.

It was this huge auditorium, bigger than a

movie theater.

And I was

presented as the saving link that would save

all of Kirovles. I was, of course, somewhat

stunned—I hadn’t promised that and hadn’t expected it at all.

But nevertheless, the fact was that at that

moment he was extremely puzzled and

concerned that they could not do anything

from a sales standpoint, and everyone was

demanding something from him, so he

was trying in every possible way to wriggle out of it

by showing that he was good and really trying.

So at that meeting, where there were

representatives of various branches, I ended up

participating in that way, involuntarily. But

basically all I said there was that yes,

we would work together, we were signing the contract—

if not signed yet, we would sign it soon, that was it.

That was basically all. Then one more time I

participated when I

came again for negotiations. Well,

already on a current matter, he had a

meeting with...

At first I just listened, then he began

also asking questions, sort of about

interaction with the sawmills, and that was all.

That’s all. Did you inform Olya that the director

was in fact refusing to supply to your

address? We did not work with the directors of the branches.

SGU worked with the branch directors.

Throughout the entire court

hearing, I submitted everything to all of them.

the explanations that were presented by the forestry enterprise

the same question was asked: did you have

a contract with OVLK? And they all said no,

because we do not work with them, so

when they talk about how they

supplied to this place and that place, I

know nothing about it, since we ordered

railcars, trucks, and everything else from Gubke

rov Les. And from where it was then shipped

and which forestry operation delivered its timber, I did not

know, so I was actually less

informed. Were you aware of

the issuance of the order

KPO order, apparently

prohibiting the independent sale of products? Well,

of course I was aware. That is, it was one of

the orders by which Oplev

wanted to take these

streams of goods spilling

past Kiroles's cash desk and somehow gather them into

one place. But as I understand it, he

achieved nothing with these orders; they were not

enforced right up to the end of his work, not

by any of the sources from which his aims were known

Yes, as you have now clarified. Well, because

I studied it during the investigation, and I

did not read it very carefully. That is,

the only purpose for which such an

order could exist is to

systematize shipments. In other words,

that is your assumption? Well, yes.

Now, regarding work with the previous

counterparties, were there such

relationships? Yes, there were five companies

with which contracts were concluded. These

were companies such as Krasny

Yakor

damn, KMDK, Krasny Yakor. Well, which ones and which ones

As I recall,

there was also a plywood plant; I have forgotten the rest

those three I remember for sure; there were also

two more, I think. Which two, I do not remember. They all

were located in Kirov Region. Do you remember

you

the circumstances under which

relations with the said

counterparties were formalized, that is, on whose initiative

this was done and by whom

it was carried out, under what

conditions? Well, that

all was actually quite

transparent and simple. That is, when Ol

asked me to hire Burak, then

we discussed it right away, because in order

to pay a salary, it had to be

paid, yes. I asked: well, first

let us wait until a client appears, and only then

will we formalize it. Formalize it in order to pay

the salary, because without formal employment I

would not pay. Well, he

proposed it, then we discussed it, and there was

a problem that everyone was talking about

— namely that large plants were giving

that is,

What is a quota? A quota is the volume

of purchases that a buyer company

is prepared to buy from a single supplier. All

enterprises in Kirov Region that

worked with raw-material suppliers

allocated certain supply quotas for

one simple reason: the biggest

problem is the stability

of supplies. That is, concluding a contract with

a forestry enterprise did not mean that it would supply

the required volume. Therefore, the entire

volume needed for its own

production, KMDK also divided among

all suppliers, each supplying according to

one share or another, and accordingly

offered quotas in that way, calculating

the supply volumes. Accordingly, in order to

increase that quota, it was necessary to conduct

negotiations and explain, prove,

argue—in short, to make sure that

the client believed you and increased it for someone. He

said that accordingly, if

KMDK and Krasny Yar increased the quota,

then everything would be fine. At that time I

did not yet know that

a contract had already been signed for 4 million cubic meters of timber

for pulpwood deliveries, and under it not a single

stick had been delivered. So I proposed to him that

in principle, with my

sales resources—I had six

people—I said that we could, in principle,

expand these contracts to

a larger volume in order to secure

the volume—well, an increase in sales volume for

the state enterprise. For example, the Mari pulp-and-paper plant, with which

the forestry enterprise could not work in 2008–2009,

we increased there up to

6,000

cubic meters of pulpwood deliveries, but again

the enterprise did not have that amount of

raw material, so we switched those contracts over to ourselves

within the range of these

contracts. OVLK's markup, or commission,

amounted to 3% to 5%; that is,

if I remember correctly, the largest was

5.38%. That is how they were concluded. And

for a number of contracts, we conducted negotiations on

expanding supplies

but then the negotiations had to be stopped

because it turned out that the enterprise lacked

the raw material needed to increase supplies, and

continuing the negotiations was

meaningless. And after a month we somehow

threw up our hands because the deliveries were not

being honored. Question: did you exert any

pressure on Opolev when making the deal?

Of course not. Because if we

look at

the criminal case materials and the testimony

of Opalev, contradictory and false though they are,

we will be able to see that the contract

was being concluded, even according to Bury and

Bagin, for almost two and a half months. That is, when

someone is being pressured—for example, a person in

in the alley and say, "I’m putting pressure on you"

pressure: "Give me your wallet, come on."

Let’s meet the day after tomorrow and talk again

about it. That is, that simply doesn’t happen. So

for two-odd months we

persuaded him, convinced him, explained to him, when

already for

Kirovles, everything had already run out, and the loans were gone

then they decided to sign the contract as well, so that

they could somehow develop sales, so

there was no pressure at all; there were

constant negotiations. And between me personally

and

and Opalev. Sorry, please, about

the circumstances of the breakdown in relations between

P, BLK, and as far as I remem

in connection with this meeting—please clarify

please, this may answer two

questions at once

All right. It’s just that if the meeting

the meeting with Kirovles was by phone with O

we held them regularly because they

regularly failed to fulfill their

delivery obligations, so

the phone conversations were fairly

frequent

in June, in June, it was already clear that

they would not be able to supply the goods because

already in June we were procuring timber

from other suppliers there

suppliers from Penza Region were there

there were contracts with suppliers even from

Irkutsk, and naturally from Kirov Region

there were several companies in the region ready

to supply. We understood that

VT could not fulfill its obligations for various reasons

so already in June we

held a meeting in the office with the staff, and I

said that we would work

with them no longer. Because for us

every disruption in timber deliveries turns into

problems with our clients, and we

sent an official letter to Kirovles

it was in the case file, I saw it, and

it concerned termination of the contract, that is

I even remember sending it by courier

a day later he brought it back, and then

a funny thing happened: he called

and said, "I want to terminate the contract with you"

terminate it—well, we terminated it, signed it, here’s your

paper, that is

[music]

he did that and was waiting for something; I didn’t understand what he

was waiting for. We talked for 10–15 minutes, and I left

that was it

and then, as for—well, as for

the breakup, I asked the question. Well yes, now as for

the meetings: there were meetings on Rafs

there were, and they were held

at the regional administration, and how did all this

take place?

[music]

Well,

Once in July, I think, in the evening, I

got an alarming phone call. I got scared and

didn’t answer, but they reached me through

my secretary—a deputy’s secretary

for Rychkov

and she said that I needed

to appear either the next day or

the day after for a meeting at the regional administration

and since I had no

contacts at the regional administration at all

therefore, naturally, I remembered it and

started preparing, that

is

and then, a day or two later, I

came, they issued me a pass, and we sat

[music]

on either the fourth floor, most likely the fifth

floor, in one of those wonderful

rooms. There was quite a large

number of participants. Opalev was not there

there was the deputy governor, there was

Bykov, Navalny

Zagoskina, and

someone else, I think Arina was there

I think, and

a representative of the department that

was in charge of it, I don’t

remember

and in connec

for some reason

everything was directed at me, and all the questions were for me

it was discussed, and I answered

all the questions, and I answered quite

in detail—much more fully than the

information they already had contained, well

but the funny thing was: they said the contract should be terminated

I said, "It’s already been terminated." "Well, terminate it again

one more time, no problem." So

but that was basically it. Then there was also

I think one time Serkov summoned me

because, as I understood it, there was

a serious battle over

this report on timber. He spoke with me again

and asked questions about this

letter, the opinion, and in that role we

talked, and I got the impression

and the position

of Navalny? Well, Navalny’s position was

exactly as he stated yesterday

that the report-copy, the opinion that at the time was still

being called

a complete fabrication and complete nonsense

because it is, by virtue of the fact

that apparently some mind-expanding powers were involved

because that volume of information cannot

be processed in that amount of time, and yet

the investigator claimed it had been processed—so it was fabri

cated, the report. Moreover, entire sections

of the report are the direct speech of

Kirovles employees. That is, because

I worked with them for three months, I

could see that directly, easily, because

Alexei Anatolyevich sent me

a fragment of this opinion that

concerned

And he asked, "What the hell is this? Explain."

Why was this being written about like that? I

answered all of that in quite a lot of detail.

I think that is in the case materials. And so,

basically, that is why

what he said was what he said: he was talking about

how it was a black hole for

the budget, with money constantly draining away, that is,

about how Opalev, instead of

working, was constantly engaged in

extorting money from the regional budget

for employees' salaries, while doing nothing

to help the enterprise

develop. That was roughly the position

being taken.

Regarding the delivery terms under the contract, you

mentioned

that one of the complaints on your side was

the delivery of substandard products,

with 25% being waste.

Please explain.

At the company, there was an employee

who handled acceptance; there was an employee

who carried out acceptance.

In a number of cases, the products—that is, under the

terms of the contracts and appendices—it was

specified that there were two types. The first type was

when, well, the first type was when acceptance

was carried out at the place where the cargo was received, that is,

that is, acceptance

was carried out directly by the

recipient, the consignee. The second

type concerned, apparently,

well, assortments such as pulpwood, such

as veneer logs, such as low-grade sawn timber,

low-grade boards there, third,

fourth, fifth grade—for such

items, it was specified almost everywhere in

the contracts that acceptance took place at

the place of receipt. So in practice

the following happened:

the waybill was issued for the destination.

And then, at the destination,

the recipients drew up an acceptance report, and there

there was more discussion, that is, well,

naturally, regarding quality, we spent a long time

arguing, trying to convince the buyer that they were

wrong, and therefore we demanded from them

always a written explanation of why

they had rejected certain items,

and we also required that this be

supported by photographs. That is, in a number of

cases, we managed to reach agreement that

the assortment would be accepted as it was

listed in the waybill; in other cases, we could not.

That is, in cases, for example, with the factory

Pobeda, with the Balabanovo factory, we could not,

because the situation there was such that

my parents live in Kaluga Region (a region southwest of Moscow),

and in fact one of my

employees—my brother—went there to the

Balabanovo factory and checked all of this, and

it really was the case there: they waited a long time, and later we

paid for it,

for those two days of storage. Well, there was a lot of

half a railcar

of waste.

There were scraps, trimmings, odds and ends.

It was awful.

But then, for accepting

complex

complex items such as

boards with straight edges

and so on and so forth, we hired

an employee who, with specialized

training and special equipment,

went to the shipping points and inspected the entire shipment on site.

So when there were such railcars,

there were very few of them.

A representative of the forestry enterprise (leskhoz) — I forgot his surname —

said that there were good boards there; indeed,

he had also gone there

and checked it; some fairly decent boards had grown out of that,

also from the forestry operation.

They shipped good-quality boards, but in

half the cases, the order was not accepted

because it did not meet

the stated specifications. That is, we

demanded only what had been written in

the appendices, that is, in

the contract. For each client there is

a separate appendix that sets out

the technical specifications for delivery and shipment,

product quality requirements, assortment,

and so on and so forth. At the present

time—do you remember when

—wow, that was a complicated story. We

conducted interviews with almost 15 people before

we found the right one.

And that was the end

of May, late May to early June, when the first

orders started coming in, the first orders for good items,

and that was when we hired him. That is, we

started looking for him back in early May, but

it took us a very long time to find the right person. And

the thing is, we found several

good contracts there, and, well, but

without such an employee, we would not have managed.

So

we are talking about the fact that in June you got

new suppliers of products besides

the previous ones? Yes, besides them, they were already there in

May. There was also Montazh, as far as I

remember, and at one point we ordered from them

something like 100 cubic meters of sawlogs,

they delivered part of it and part they did not,

explaining it by saying they had issues with forest resources,

and then later we sued them.

We won in court. Well, part of the delivery

was completed and part was not; the money also did not

come back in full.

And then there were other suppliers from

different districts; I just do not remember

the names of those companies right now. There were about

five of them, but all of them, except Montazh,

Montazh supplied us only logs, just once,

while all the others supplied us with

edged boards, from raw fresh-cut boards to

dried, with clear, precise dimensions, so to speak

so that’s why this employee was

needed for accepting deliveries under

the state institution; he didn’t travel very often because

there the assortment was—if you look, and I’m

pretty sure you’ve looked at the reports on

shipment by product range

most of the products that

were picked up were balance stock of various

[music]

grades, as products they either

it was extremely limited

Yandex R

and even then

that is, in order to find something in

some city, you have to read through everything

about that region online; on the internet

there were a great many things, from websites

of companies—the group, as far as I remember, didn’t have its own

website, and if it did, it was in some kind of

very rough condition—but there were a lot of

ads from various, well, those same

logging businesses on all sorts of bulletin boards

classified sites, forums, and so on. That is,

I spent

weeks combing through the internet and found

contacts, called around, and found out more. But of course

most of my information I got

from companies that worked in, well, in the

timber industry in Kirov, when I came here for the

first time, I went around meeting people

by taxi. When did you

first approach Olani

directly, to the administration

the regional government

of the region, with the aim of explaining that you

wanted to work in the

region? I

now—after, I think, the fourth or fifth

after I had already prepared the documents

and submitted them for processing to the company

to some auditing

firm. Before that, we had spoken on the phone a couple of times; I

asked whether we could meet, but

like all people who end up in the administration building,

he became very busy. He

said, later, later, later—somewhere

around the fifth time

already

a question about your first and second

trip: did you

the first trip lasted exactly one day

That is, I arrived in the morning, on the morning

train

it arrives at 8:30 now, yes. It used to arrive earlier, I think

a bit earlier

around 8 o’clock, it seems. Well, I won’t—I'm not

sure, I don’t remember exactly. Anyway, it arrived early in the morning

and in the evening, on the evening train at 8

or 7 p.m., I had already left. No, the first

the second time I came, I stayed

at the hotel of the Kirov Region administration

and

and actually—yes, by the way, I had also already

called there

asking whether we could arrange a meeting

he said that, basically, we could—call

later. And I said, listen, where should I stay? He

said, stay at the regional hotel, and I

checked in there. But still, as I say, on the

fourth or fifth visit, because on the

previous visit we weren’t able to

my last question

will be this: in your opinion, are there

grounds

for false testimony, and grounds, grounds

to falsely accuse someone

[music]

of course

first of all, the point is

that it’s no secret to anyone that a criminal case was opened

because of the project. So

accordingly, in order for it to be

closed, he went along with the investigators and falsely accused

me together with Navalny, as he was asked to do

Why am I sure of this? Because

during the confrontation interview with the investigator

he came up to me, apologized, and said that

this is not our war, forgive me

please, I just can’t do otherwise. That

is, this happened in the presence of my lawyer, that is

accordingly

and moreover, everything he says

specifically regarding pressure, regarding

promises, and everything, everything

else—that is simply not true, and at the same time

he

knows it is not true. The only true point is that

there was a contract, and I promised to work, and

promised that he would

be engaged in selling the products that

they would be able to supply there—essentially, like

an ordinary client

And that is essentially all. As for

false accusations and everything else—or rather

all that talk about pressure and all the rest

that is one hundred percent false testimony. Moreover,

he even confuses the timing of the meetings

of when we met, and so

on. I also have a series of clarifying

questions. Let’s see: in her

testimony, witness Bura claims

after all that it was you personally who prepared

the contract between LK and—well, she is either lying or

doesn’t remember. I can’t say right now why

she is doing this. Here’s the thing. And as for

uh

Marina Valeryevna, she

was not a very good salesperson because

she had never really handled sales, but she

understood 94-FZ well—that is the law on

public procurement—so she

accordingly, most sales under

94-FZ are sales on paper: how to properly

prepare the documents. So she understood

that document preparation is

an important point, and if you compare the contract

with contracts with other counterparties

It is almost identical to the contract with LK Rome.

several

points in the contract with... What kind of nonsense is this?

also, we will not pay for goods that do not meet the required parameters

of quality. That is the whole point.

The second point—well, again, this is not

an exception for

VLK; we also had a 4- to 5-day payment deferral.

But it was set out separately in each

appendix; in some cases this

was structured as payment in part: 50%—well, 50% was

paid in advance, and 50% on deferred payment. In some cases it

was 100% deferred payment; it depended on the terms

of the contract. So she prepared the contract because

because this was super, mega

important. It is easy to verify—just compare

the contracts with those of other companies.

The only thing is, I insisted on two clauses.

So the negotiations took a long time. Well, do you believe

that in this respect Bura made some kind of arrangement...

on what basis? Well, because they and OKM

are relatives—that is the first point, and the second

because

is that, well, relatives—or not relatives,

well,

as you understand, it is actually quite amusing.

It really turned out oddly: in the previous trial, we

all remember that they said that he was

her adoptive father, and she was his...

Then, once again, in the course of justice, in that—in this

trial, she says he is nobody to her. And he

says... Really, it is amusing how this point

has such an effect. But nevertheless, we all

noticed that Bura was much more

sharp in her testimony, more

negative even than Opalev in relation

to me, and she lies about the clients with whom

they worked—such as the Mari Pulp and Paper Mill and

so on and so forth. Because

again, as I said, for not a single one of

their so-called old clients did they have

contacts with the decision-makers;

we had those contacts. So...

they pestered us for a long time, kept asking, and

more than that, they tried to buy

off my employees so that they would sell them

our database, which caused laughter among

all the employees of my

company. Did you personally give any instructions

in connection with the performance

of the contract?

Please—perhaps you should first ask whether any instructions at all were passed on

Maybe you should first ask whether Ofitserov received

any instructions from Navalny for

Opalev, because your question sounds

roughly like this: 'How long has it been since you

stopped...'

Please rephrase the question.

Let the witness answer. Perhaps in that form we do not have

that formulation. No, he will not answer it in that

form; clarify the question—what do you mean?

All right. So, were there any instructions

from Navalny to you to pass on to Opalev in

the course of performing the contract between... No, there were not.

There were none. Now, at that directors' meeting

where you were introduced as a person from

Perm? Yes, a person from Perm, a person

who was involved in sales. Was Navalny

present?

At that meeting, which was held in the assembly

hall, I think Navalny was present, but

he was sitting in one of the rows, not not on

the podium, where they dragged me, but simply in

the hall, in

a seat, and I did not hear whether he spoke, because

again,

I ended up there completely by accident. Something like that

had happened to me only once before in my life, and both times were

unpleasant.

One more question: did Navalny personally take

part in creating VLK, in preparing

the contract between GUP and VLK, or directly

in VLK's activities? He had no involvement whatsoever.

He

did not. Once again, if I may, back to the question

of price formation, then.

What was the arrangement between the parties?

There

regarding markups from 3 to 5 to 7 percent—was that

a markup upward or downward?

Please clarify. Excuse me,

the price was formed as follows:

my employees would receive an order

from

a client.

They would receive an order from a client in

which the specifications were indicated by size,

characteristics, and many other things

—delivery terms, naturally, yes, and the destination

point, volumes, and of course the price at which they

wanted to buy. We compiled all of this into a single

table and sent it daily to the GUP for

approval. That is, out of those requests there,

KOGU rejected all

but one or two or three were left for processing; some

were later dropped as well. But those that

went forward—we bargained over them for a long time. That is, the

following procedure basically took place there:

I sent it out to all the sawmills and said

that we had an order for such-and-such timber,

such-and-such boards—are you ready to produce them or not?

That is, each one said at what price they

were prepared to do it. At the same time,

KOGU also sent us weekly

a kind of price list, which changed in

accordance with the market price and market

demand in Kirov Region for the main

types and sizes. Moreover, the first price lists

they sent were 50 to 100% higher than

the average price in the region. When I asked,

'What the hell is this?' he said, 'Well, you're kind of

new—maybe it would have worked.' That is,

accordingly, I explained that I had

six people who every day called

20 companies in Kirov and the surrounding regions,

so we knew the approximate—indeed fairly exact—

market average price. In the end, Flis sent

the price—or, as they put it, the minimum prices.

those prices were acceptable to them

either average or slightly above the market, but

and we were, so to speak, working that way because this was

the supplier's price, and so on, that is,

accepted some orders and

accordingly, at those prices we then

already

continued working, that

uh, I would emphasize once again that for the most part

of the contracts

And we were buying from Guf at a price up to 10% higher there

than what he was offering to other suppliers—sorry,

to clients, for these five companies for which

a contract was concluded, or re-concluded,

with VLK, and the price was 3% to 5%

and for the end client it remained the same

exactly the same; VLK simply received its commission

And that

uh, well, for the work, for developing clients in

sales, but also taking into account, again,

the lack of available inventory at Guflesadki and

the inability to ensure fulfillment of orders

that is, uh, the development of this line of business did not

go anywhere, and in July we shut everything

down

Are you aware of anything about

the circumstances

of the removal? Of course, that is,

he was fired because he was running things into the ground

the operation, that is, by the end of the year there were already

large

losses, and instead of

saving the enterprise, Olev made a "brilliant"

move: he took out a loan in order to

give the central office 50 million rubles (about 50 million RUB)

to pay the central office a bonus before New Year

not even salaries, specifically

a bonus; accordingly, that was 50 million, and

also other things—this was all hanging over some kind of

and it dragged him

down. From a management standpoint, Olev

did nothing; he did not

systematize the enterprise's work in any way, and

all, all of his work

basically consisted of him driving around, you understand,

trying to wheedle money out of the administration. That's it. But

well

[music]

by summer there were insane losses, as I understand it, and

simply

a decision to remove him

to you—to me

they said, well, Bura said

she said it

Shlik began performing his duties in his place

and under all the contracts that FS was supposed to

fulfill even after the termination

of the contract, because they had signed them

two or three months before that, that is, and for some

of them they had even received advance payment, so

they were obliged to—well, partial

advance payment, that is, they were basically supposed

to fulfill them, and we were conducting negotiations

you heard, that is, one of them definitely

said that after Olev was removed from his position

Did anyone, including

Navalny, offer you this position? Yes,

they did. It just so happened that I

by profession am a management consultant, and

I was interested in how

Kagu operated, and accordingly

it turned out that in the administration of Kirov Region

people did not know how Kab worked

or what it even was, because they were looking at

paperwork according to which there supposedly remained

a huge number of staff, whereas I

traveled around a number of sites and saw that there was no

production there, that they had no inventory, no

management. It turned out that I was

practically, probably, one of the few people

who knew what was really going on

therefore they offered me the chance to become

director, but I refused because it was

simply

not interesting

that the conversation with

but I, uh, refused because it was

not interesting, since it was already

at the stage where it needed

Let me clarify one more thing about Bura: during the period of her

work at my company, did she receive

a salary? Yes, she did receive

a salary. I want to emphasize once again that all

the company's employees were formally employed under

contracts and received salaries. From what

funds?

From the company's funds and from my own personal funds

that is, at the beginning I was spending entirely

my own money on the company's operations. And

I cannot now recall exactly which month

but I think it was somewhere around May

that the company's profit in

May—no, there was no profit in May; in June there was

some laughably small amount, something around 100,000 rubles

(100,000 RUB). In July some of the orders were fulfilled, and there

was a little more. But in August it started

to decrease because

well, because there were already fewer

shipments. Although later, I think in September,

again there was a VAT refund for all the

export

shipments. According to the payment

documents and the settlement records

of the manufacturer, and

from what funds, from what funds

did the company

make payments

I don't even understand

the question. Well, first of all,

it paid out of the funds that were

in the company's account; they got there

in two ways. The first way was

my own money, and the second way was

money received from the sale of

timber products

14

million 785 thousand rubles and 66 kopecks (14,785,000.66 RUB) out of 16 million rubles were transferred to the Kirovles account

shipped to the address of, to the address of

receive SBO, and the question is: where did they put

the money? Correct, Kirovles?

I apologize, please say that again.

You don't have any either.

questions.

Now, one of the final motions in this

proceeding

concerns the appointment

of expert examinations. In writing, after

the announcement, I

believe that for a full

comprehensive and objective consideration

of this criminal case, it is necessary

to appoint and conduct a repeat

forensic financial and economic

examination, as well as

other expert examinations.

Navalny and Ofitserov are accused of the following:

acting together, they signed 36

appendices to supply contract No.

2009 dated April 15, 2009, which

specified the type of timber products,

the volume, delivery terms, and also the price,

which, without any

economic necessity, was

deliberately understated by all participants

in the crime compared with the price at which

it

could have been sold directly

by the counterparty. At the same time, Navalny and Ofitserov

were aware that, by depriving Kirovles of the ability

to independently sell the produced

timber products at market prices, they were thereby

transferring these products into the

disposal of VLK without corresponding

equivalent compensation for their market

value, with Navalny organizing and directing

the commission of the crime, and Ofitserov, using

his official

position as general director of Kirovles,

acting out of self-interest,

unlawfully appropriating property in his

custody, namely timber products

belonging to Kirovles, in the amount of

10,084

277 cubic meters, worth

16,152 rubles 65 kopecks, on an especially large scale,

for the benefit of third parties, the participants

in the crime, and the LLC VLK under their control,

thereby causing property damage

to the owner of this property, Kirovles.

Thus, the conclusions that Navalny,

Ofitserov, and Opalev committed embezzlement, that is,

the theft of property entrusted to Opalev, namely

Kirovles timber products, for the benefit of

Navalny, Ofitserov, and Yakovlev,

and the VLK under their control, are based

on the assertion that Kirovles transferred

timber products

without corresponding equivalent

compensation for their market value, a conclusion made

by officials of the Main

Investigative Directorate of the Investigative

Committee of the Russian Federation and

by representatives of the state

prosecution supporting these

charges in court, without conducting

the examinations mandatory in such cases,

and without obtaining the opinion

of specialists with expertise in financial economics.

Under GOST standards, fixed prices for raw materials and

materials, including timber products,

are not set by the state; under

a market economy, the following apply:

the principles of free enterprise,

freedom of contract, freedom

of pricing. However, this

circumstance is being completely ignored

by the prosecution. The prosecution did not

conduct any analysis of market prices for timber

products, and no experts were engaged

who possessed specialized financial

and economic knowledge

in pricing and valuation.

The prices for timber products were not examined

as stated in the appendices to supply contract

No.

0129 dated April 15, 2009, and in the товарных

documents. The charges brought required

expert examinations that

should have analyzed comparable

prices on the timber market and taken into account

the impact on the market in 2009 of various

factors, including supply and demand factors,

the effect of the region's territorial

location, seasonality,

and the delivery terms for timber products. Forensic

examinations aimed at determining

the cost of timber products and the market

price of timber products during the

investigative period relevant to the criminal case

also were not

conducted. It is entirely obvious that, in the

absence of an expert opinion

based on an analysis of the available

materials, the investigation's assertion of the lack

of equivalence in the prices is clearly

contrived and

unfounded. Nevertheless,

the state prosecutors continue

to support the charges in

court. During the investigation of this

criminal case under Article 160 of the Criminal

Code of the Russian Federation, in the Main

Investigative Directorate of the Investigative

Committee, no forensic accounting

or financial and economic

examinations were carried out; specialists

in these fields were not

engaged. The charges were brought

solely on the basis of the subjective assessment

of investigators who did not possess

specialized knowledge of the mechanisms of

the market

economy. The only expert examinations

contained in the materials of this

criminal case were appointed and

conducted as part of the investigation.

of the criminal case initiated on

the grounds of indications of an offense provided for by

paragraph B of part

of the article of the Criminal Code of the Russian

Federation by investigators of the investigative

directorate of the Investigative Committee

of the Russian Federation for Kirov

Region, this is the forensic accounting

examination No. 79 dated December 12

2011, Volume 1, case file

1354; forensic financial and economic

examination No. 6/2012 dated March 6

2012, Volume 17, case file

779; forensic economic examination

No. 201 dated April 9, 2012, Volume 17

case file

9412, conducted in the course of the investigation

of this criminal case by the investigative

directorate of the Investigative Committee for

Kirov Region, the examinations, including

the forensic and financial-economic ones,

containing only two pages of text, and

the economic one on eight pages, do not

contain any information about any understatement

of prices for timber products, nor do they contain

any data on damage to Kirovles in the amount of

16,582.65 rubles. We particularly note that

it was precisely the data obtained in the course of

conducting these examinations that allowed

the investigation to issue a ruling on

terminating the criminal case and criminal

prosecution of Navalny and Ofitserov in

connection with the absence in their actions of

the elements of a crime.

Nevertheless, the examinations conducted in the

case are incomplete,

contain answers to an extremely limited

range of questions; when the examinations were ordered,

the ability

to exercise the rights provided for by

Article

198 of the Criminal Procedure Code

Thus, when conducting the forensic accounting

examination, the experts were asked

questions concerning only

the volume of turnover.

OLK: for what amount did OLK ship

timber products to its

counterparties in the period from April 2009

to September 2009; for what amount was

timber products purchased from VLK, in the purchases

that were sold by the above-mentioned

counterparty in the period from April 15, 2009

to September 30, 2009; and the third

question: what is the difference between the price of timber

products purchased by OLK and the price

at which they were sold by the counterparty in the period from the 15th

of April to September 30, 2009. When

conducting the forensic

financial and economic examination dated March 6,

that year, the following questions were put

to the expert. First:

What was the financial and economic

condition of KOGU Kirovles in the period from April 15

to September 30 according to the accounting

statements? And the second question: how

would the financial and economic

condition of KOGU Kirovles in the period from April 15

to September 30 change if it had received

additional profit in the amount of 1

93 rubles 87 kopecks?

In forensic economic examination No.

9/22 dated April 9, the expert was asked

only the following questions.

First: what share of timber product sales

by LLC VLK in the amount of 14

7854 rubles 66 kopecks constituted in the total volume of sales

of KOGU Kirovles products in the period from the 15th

of April to September 30, 2009? And the second

question: the difference between the cost of timber products

purchased by KOGU Kirovles and the price of their

sale by the former counterparty of KOGU

Kirovles — AVS Les, Garant, Domostroitel

KMDK, Vlada, Krasny Yakor — for the period from the 15th

of April to September 30, 2009.

Thus, the experts

examined only questions related to

the cost and volume

of OLK's product purchases; at the same time, the experts

were not asked, and did not examine,

the most

important questions in the proceedings of this

criminal case, namely those connected with

the examination of timber product prices in

specific time periods. The actual

value of the timber products was not

established; no analysis was conducted of the movement and expenditure of

funds.

In the Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court

of December 27, 2007, on practice in cases of

fraud, misappropriation, and

embezzlement,

paragraph 25 states

the following: when determining the value of property

stolen as a result of fraud,

misappropriation, or embezzlement, one should proceed

from its actual value at the time

the crime was committed; in the absence

of information about the price of the stolen property,

its value may be established on the basis

of an expert opinion.

However, in this criminal

case, the actual value of the timber products

of KOGU Kirovles was not established.

Experts to determine the actual

value of the timber products were not

engaged. Moreover, during

the preliminary investigation, Navalny

and Ofitserov had limited ability

to exercise the rights granted

by criminal procedural

legislation to suspects

and accused persons in the conduct of forensic

examinations.

In accordance with the Resolution of the Plenum

of the Supreme Court on forensic examination in

criminal cases, suspects, accused persons,

and their defense counsel must be familiarized with

with the order appointing the expert examination before

it was carried out. However, Navalny

Ofitserov and their defense lawyers were acquainted with

the investigator’s order appointing

a forensic accounting examination

issued on October 4, 2011

only after this

examination had been conducted, on February 15 and 16, respectively

(Vol. 17 of the case file, p. 58). On the same

dates, Navalny and Ofitserov were

also acquainted with the expert opinion itself,

Expert Report No. 79 of December 12

2011 (Vol. 17 of the case file,

pp. 56–57). Thus, Navalny and Ofitserov

were deprived of the opportunity to exercise

the rights provided for in Part 3

of Articles 195 and 198 of the Criminal

Procedure Code, in particular

to put additional questions to the experts,

and to petition for

the examination to be conducted in a higher-level

institution, as reflected in the records

of familiarization with the order on

the appointment of the forensic accounting

examination. In addition, the investigators

refused to grant the motion

by Navalny and Ofitserov to conduct

the forensic accounting examination at

the Center for Forensic Examination under

the Ministry of Justice of the Russian

Federation, since the examination had already been

carried out by experts from the Forensic

Center of the Russian Ministry of Internal Affairs for

the Kirov Region (Vol. 17 of the case file, p. 69).

Two other forensic examinations — a financial-

economic and an economic one — were conducted

by the same expert, Olga

Gennadyevna Rykova. As follows from the materials

of the criminal case, Rykova is

an expert in the forensic department

of the Investigative Directorate of the Investigative

Committee for the Kirov Region, and earlier in

this criminal case she had prepared

a study.

The fact that she was subordinate to the Investigative Directorate

of the Investigative Committee for the Kirov

Region was reflected neither in

the orders appointing the examinations nor in

the expert opinions themselves.

Paragraph 2 of Part 2

of Article 70 of the Criminal Procedure

Code provides that an expert may not

take part in proceedings

in a criminal case if he or she

is in official or other

dependence on a party to

the case. Thus, expert Rykova could not

participate as an expert

in the criminal proceedings

in a case whose investigation

was being conducted by investigators of the same

body in which the expert works — the

Investigative Committee of the Russian

Federation. In addition, the investigation

left unconsidered the motion

by Navalny and Ofitserov to conduct

the examinations at the Center for Forensic Examinations

under the Ministry of Justice

of the Russian Federation, submitted during

their familiarization with the order on

the appointment of the forensic

financial-economic and economic

examinations.

According to the Resolution of the Supreme Court on forensic

examination in criminal cases, a court may

order a repeat examination

if it establishes facts showing violations of

the procedural rights of participants in the proceedings

when appointing or

conducting a forensic examination that

affected or could have affected

the substance of the experts’ conclusions. We believe that

the above-described violations of the rights of

Navalny, Ofitserov, and their defense lawyers

during the appointment and conduct of

the accounting, financial-economic, and economic

examinations indicate

the need to appoint and conduct in

this criminal case a repeat

financial-economic examination at

the Center for Forensic Examination under the Ministry of Justice

of the Russian Federation. We consider it necessary to submit

the following questions to the experts for resolution:

the following.

Question one: Was the contract between

VLK and KOGUP Kirovles remunerative? To what extent did

KOGUP Kirovles sell timber products to

VLK under the contract of April 15,

2009? Did VLK LLC make payment for

the products acquired from KOGUP

Kirovles? If so, in what amount? At what

price did VLK purchase timber products from

KOGUP Kirovles in April, May, June, and July 2009?

What financial result did

VLK obtain from the sale of timber products?

Were the prices at which

it sold lower than the prices at which KOGUP

Kirovles

sold in May, June, and July 2009?

Did the price at which VLK

purchased timber products from KOGUP

Kirovles under the contract of April 15, 2009

correspond to the average market price for similar

timber products as of April,

May, June, and July 2009, as established in

the Kirov Region?

What were the sources of funds credited

to VLK’s settlement account?

What were the directions, what were the directions

of expenditure of funds from

VLK’s settlement account? Did there occur

any transfer of funds from

VLK’s settlement account to Navalny

or Ofitserov? In addition, taking into account the provisions of

the Order of the Ministry of Justice of the Russian

Federation of 27

December approving the list of classes and types

of forensic examinations performed in

of the federal budgetary forensic institutions

of the Ministry of Justice of Russia, under the list

of expert specialties for which

the right to independently conduct

forensic examinations is granted

of the federal budgetary forensic institutions

of the Ministry of Justice, which

establish that, where necessary,

for the examination of industrial

non-food goods, including

for the purpose of carrying out their valuation, a

forensic merchandise examination shall be ordered

the defense considers it necessary

to order, in this

criminal case, a forensic merchandise

examination, the conduct of which should also

be entrusted to the Center for Forensic Examination under

Ministry of Justice of the Russian

Federation. The expert should be asked

to address the following questions:

What was the average market price of

the timber products purchased by VLK

Oles under Contract No. 09 dated April 15, 2009?

Did it correspond

to the price at which VLK purchased timber products

from KOGU Kirovles under the contract dated April 15,

2009, to the average market price for

similar timber products as of

April, May, June, and July 2009

as established in Kirov Region?

We believe that, in order to conduct

the above examinations, the experts

must be provided with Contract No.

0129 dated April 15, 2009, together with

its appendices, accounting and banking

documents of OLK Kirovles, and the specialist opinion

obtained by the defense, which

contains indicators of the average prices

of producers in Kirov Region for timber

products for 2009. It is entirely

obvious that without carrying out the necessary

forensic examinations, without obtaining answers

from specialists to the above questions,

without a proper valuation of the allegedly stolen

products, without examining and

establishing and analyzing the indicators of VLK in

the appendix to Contract No.

0129 dated April 15, 2009, against the average

market prices in effect at that

time on the timber products market in

Kirov Region, the court is deprived of the ability

to render a fair judgment in this

criminal case. On the basis of the

foregoing, in accordance with

Articles 195, 207, and 283

of the Criminal Procedure Code, we request

that a repeat

forensic financial and economic

examination and

a merchandise examination by the

Ministry of Justice of the Russian

Federation. Water from my bottle, Poma

is nearby

Does the defense wish to speak on this issue?

No. Support—yes, we support it, I support it.

your motion

The state prosecutor is ready now

to provide the materials of the criminal

case. The forensic accounting, forensic

financial-economic, and forensic

economic examinations that were

conducted, the expert findings showed that

all questions relevant

to this criminal case were resolved

Moreover, in the previous

submission by the defense, there was also an opinion on

the issue of market price formation, No.

1392. Therefore, we believe that all questions

that concerned price formation were, in

principle, and besides that, also

the contracts concluded were examined

between KOGU and other counterparties besides

that company, and the contract directly

with that company, as well as the appendices to

the said

contracts. As for the issue of price formation,

we believe there is no evidence

indicating that the school (?) that

conducted the above-listed

studies was in an official

relationship of dependence on the investigators

who were part of the investigative team for

the investigation of the criminal case against

Navalny (Alexei Navalny) and others. Therefore, we believe that in

this case it is necessary

to deny the motion

That is all.

Uh

Uh

Well, I just mean, what contracts have we even

looked at? I'm interested—there isn't a single company

other than VLK Rosles

there. Please continue.

There is no need to conduct an additional

repeat examination

No

possibly

please

please

The court withdraws

The court withdraws. Go on. Well, yesterday we were following you

timing everything—the point is that this needs to be written down

naturally, this is not just made up off the top of one's head, it's all simply

like that, but let's move everyone along faster now

having reviewed volume 912 there

pages, you know

what to do. Shall I give you a hint?

I'll write a hint: having considered the parties' positions

Anatolyevich, you are dragging this out so much at

the present moment

I am engaged in the process without

why, you must admit, there are certain grounds

for it; all our motions so far

have been denied

But really, what contracts have we

examined? There is nothing there

very much

Well, and also his responsibility is very

a lot

This is essentially not even something that can be sold.

yes

but

about sales...

So, I’m checking the email, and there aren’t any

reports on

the plan, yes, and the client base for November

but not for December.

This is how low you can sink for

money. So what?

Say what can be done on the basis of this.

Nothing.

It can’t be done—tell them to fill it out for us.

Look, call me now and tell them to

fill out the tables for us, because

we... because...

Look, we need to

write it in place of the post...

...loudly... Why? Oh, very good.

you can throw the camera away, it’s

just

and this here

when... turn on the sound here, quieter...

Proceed.

will be

...

it’s possible. Uh-huh, well, we do have public insult

this is a

violation. That is, in principle, it can

be—there is a legal basis for it.

How long, 20 minutes to prove it? And in order to

somehow be able to

argue that the judge is insulting you, you need to

record it. If the judge

insults... what actually happened, what the circumstances were

there won’t be

any way to prove it. Could you tell me, in practice...

will it take long? Because we’d like to keep it short somehow.

maybe before lunch

we can make it. Half an hour.

half an hour to go out

to record everything we say. Like, like in

that... and not because of...

God’s sake. So it’s not the word “ram”/“idiot” itself that matters

or “lynching” and other similar expressions.

especially in such well-known cases

when it comes to inciting hatred toward

a social group.

For now, no... you have an apple... an apple came out...

I’m not even going to speak by association anymore.

that arise

countries... 2,600... sitting and watching

people are sitting

keeping quiet, yes.

By the way, when the witness came in and stood

with his back to the judge, did I hear correctly that

the judge said

“You...”

comment... That’s elegant. It’s as if, well,

this and that, it’s logical. Like that one

person—only the judge is here to judge

while present here.

and one could also wonder about the person

who

wanted to listen...

at the door. I think the point is that the judge

having taken...

for now does not announce...

that procedure.

Sorry. By the way, when there appeared...

there were several rulings saying that judges

the regional judge...

had violated...

talking about how they comply with it.

Well, I keep

thinking of the status of Constitutional Court judges

in Estonia, because it says there that judges

issue decisions...

Well, that in the presence of some... maybe

notes about feeling the purity of one’s intentions

one’s own.

no

A local lawyer once told me that

there was a court...

another judge forgot some documents...

and by law, walking around...

is not allowed... so the lawyer

said no, back then I would have...

...

back to the proceedings, and during

the hearing... I was sitting there with no...

where I...

heard several

times

some kind of...

The problem is that they are very...

...

little heart

a big lawyer... then VK...

tomorrow

the day after tomorrow I’ll call you and say that if

so-and-so calls, yes.

Fine. No, from here I’ll get it out... no need to

get involved.

[music]

former...

perhaps I’ll say that it’s good.

the regional judge...

I’m telling you that in some year there

...

worked...

with... I say, what kind of...

tomorr...

there were nods, there were whole days...

Uh-huh, for him...

a good habit... they rarely talk about themselves

or tell anything.

openly. So the program will be

called “Rarely”

“Frankly”

rarely about judicial...

come on, come on

[applause]

So, first of all, my...

actually, in fact...

who

someone is doing...

no

mandatory fil

to require

went

I remember Ache, they were remembering

that he is alive and well, alive and well, I spoke with him

there was such a

story, and during that period it is clear

sent most of the deputies, or Priest

came in a dark suit, two came, white there

that is how it is

perhaps those who were leaving as well

insertion

so

the most interesting thing is, he sa-

simply brought up so well, logically, plus

socie

now in 8

Look

in 7 minutes

will appear in a minu

ce

what is this, I don't know, well, I want something

with

by

kicks, by the way

how much, 2024

yes, average for Russia, average pension in Russia

all right, well, the point is that there

some kind of writer, sitting

wrote about how the person there who was leading

comes to the selection, goes through

the so-called pia

in a row, every

day off

will be

I know, maybe already

pogi

now maybe you now can

go out like this

yes

Thank you

until

writes, a heart was sent, and it was already unclear

3,000 people, 3,000 people, yes

yes, ah

Why, I didn't understand, why didn't I understa-

by

about

well

establishment of February 3, 2017, of the city

nsky district, in the composition of the city

chairman, on the appeal, only

Bogdano

offi

cheaper officer of the day

commission

established by the old defen-

why a forensic financial and economic ex-

forensic

economic examination on the basis of forensic

examination under the Ministry of Justice when

ordering a repeat forensic

financial and economic examination

the viewers ask that the following be put

the question is whether

the contract

predu

question: did VLK under contract number 01 20191

of 2009 make payment to OLK for the prod-

carried out by Kirov under contract number

2009 of April 15, 2009, and under the terms of the agr-

shelf of forest products of Kirov from Apri-

in April, May, and June-July 2009 under

financial data of ChLk from the sale

records carried out for Kirovles district under

contract 0129 of April 15, 2009

region, you see, by

under which

products at

under which the products were sold to

other buyers on comparable terms

in May-July 2009, did the price correspond

at which it was acce- by by

under contract 201 of 2009

product value for April, March, June, July 2009

of the Kirov Region state unitary enterprise, which were

the sources of funds credited to

the settlement account of VLK, and what were

the directions of expenditure of funds

from VLK's settlement account, and whether there was

earmarking of funds on

OLK's account for Navalny, the officer

when ordering a commodity examination

the applicant asks that the following be put before

the expert

questions: What was the average market

price of the timber products that

were acce-

Kirov for but 2015 2009 year two

and accordingly, the price at which the speci-

Kira's products under contract number 029 of the 15th

of April 2009, dairy product condition

April, May, and i9

year

state

the higher parties compressed the case materials, prote-

not lying at the level in

accordance

cheni

approximate circumstances in which it turns out

the defense side is not necessarily

in the event of doubt

as to the expert's findings or the presence

of contradictions in the expert's conclusions and

in experts' conclusions on the same questions, there may be

a repeat examination ordered

of the proceedings, which turns out to any

expert, the material was lo-

payment for examination number

7 of 22, 2011, cloth of the financial and economic

type number 6, 2012, of April 6, 2012

forensic economic ex- number 9203 of

9.04.21, which were appointed ear-

consideration during the court hearings

they believe that in the course of these

whether Bakharov's rights in the case were not

violated, including during the conduct of the latest

were familiar with the rulings on

the appointment of

their conclusion about the possibility of putting forward

additional questions

to the expert

the proceedings after being informed of these rights

to make use of them; the court finds a violation

Although

investi- investi-

request for the conduct of an examination by the institution under

under these circumstances, these

expert opinions are admissible

as evidence; the court also finds that

the expert opinion is scientifically grounded and

was made on the basis of the materials

of the criminal

case, by the prosecution and by the defense

having been considered in full, and therefore there are no grounds

to doubt the validity of the conclusions

there are no grounds to reject the specialist's opinion; thus

grounds for conducting a forensic

financial and economic examination as provided for

by law; the court believes that the motion

by the defense for putting

questions to a financial expert

[music]

an economic examination of the sale of products

under

the April 2009 contract and payment

the financial result of these

transactions, as well as on other issues

including clarification of all sources

of incoming funds to the bank accounts

and the direction of funds from those bank accounts does not fall

within the scope of proof in the present case, including

the accounts of the Kirov enterprise, Navalny, and Ofitserov, is not

changed; the court materials of the criminal case

contain the opinion presented by the defense

a specialist's opinion in volume 13, page 592, based on

information from the territorial office

of the Federal State authority for Kirov Region

which, apparently, answered the question

about the average market price of products in Kirov Region

and was used by Zhenya, who supplied Kirovles

under the contract

[music]

of 2009; in accordance with Article 196 of the Criminal Procedure Code

the appointment and conduct of an examination

depending on the circumstances; under part two of the article, in

cases where doubts arise regarding the opinion

of the experts or where

there are contradictions on the same issues, there may be

a repeat examination appointed

however, on the above grounds the court also does not

see any basis for ordering an additional examination

on the basis of Articles 256 and 58

therefore, the defense motion for the appointment of

in this case, a forensic

financial and economic examination, and the appointment of

in the case of a forensic

institution under the Ministry of Justice as

the chairperson of the hearing

please, counsel for the defense, the applicant

may or may not

In the record of February 2 of this year, the defense, as

evidence, submitted

a communication contained in vol.

14, page 116, addressed

to the Deputy Chairman of the Government

of Kirov Region, dated January 12, 2011

and signed by investigator Priv

it follows from that communication that

in 2011, concerning

Oplev, a criminal case was initiated on

the grounds of an offense предусмотренного

under part

the defense considers it necessary

to request from the Kirov Region authority indicated

at the stated address a copy of the decision to initiate

criminal proceedings against Oplev dated the 12th of

January

as well as information on what final procedural

decision was made, and when, in

the above-mentioned criminal case initiated

against Oplev, and to request a copy of that

procedural decision; only evidence

that may serve as the basis of a conviction

must be evidence that does not

raise doubts as to its reliability and

admissibility, and the parties must

be given the opportunity to defend

their interests in court by all

means provided by law

including motions concerning testimony and evidence

evidence

when

considering

if doubts about reliability arise, they are subject to verification

Moreover, the fact that

criminal proceedings were initiated against Oplev

for abuse of authority by the investigation

in the performance of

is relevant to the defense position, since there were

statements given concerning these events

The defense asks that the court request this information

So, what interests us, I will note once again,

is a copy of the decision to initiate

criminal case No. 14003 against Opalev

dated January 12, 2011, and information on the progress of

the criminal case

No. 14003 against Opalev, including information on

what final procedural decision

was made, and when, in criminal case

No. 14003 initiated against Oplev; what interests us

is a copy of the final procedural

decision in this criminal

case. Here, Opalev told us that

the case was terminated against him

on rehabilitating grounds, and I would very much

like to look at a copy

of that decision, and especially at its

[music]

date. The defense team supported the motion

supported it

supporting the application

The materials requested by the defense and

included in the present criminal case file

state your position

The court is asking for the defense's position.

to the criminal division

does not fall within the scope of the subject matter

At present, we have one final matter.

This motion—this motion was

submitted by us at the very beginning of the trial

proceedings; it was the very first

motion with which

the defense appeared even before the start of consideration

of the merits of this case. This is a motion for

termination of the criminal

case on the merits; the decision

was made by you, yes. I will not read it out in writing

beca—because it is all the same, since

at that time no decision on the merits was made by you

you said that it had been submitted

prematurely.

to study the materials, hear the witnesses, and

so on. All of that has already been done, and

therefore we are renewing our motion

to terminate this criminal case in

connection with the position of the European Court

on the basis of which the previous

verdict was overturned, and I ask that the renewed motion

which is signed by all participants, be

added to the case materials.

Yes, and naturally resolve it on

the merits.

at today's court

hearing.

Voice:

We support it.

We support it, yes.

We are not prepared to drag this out; we believe there are no

grounds for further delay in the case.

Because in the court hearings

the circumstances were established

of the criminal case, the circumstances of the

offense imputed to the defendant.

Witnesses were questioned, witnesses were questioned,

the written evidence was examined, uh,

that is, it was assessed.

A direct resolution, that is,

of this motion, in our view,

is currently impossible, because in essence

we would already be revealing our

position, and therefore at this stage

of the parties.

Mm-hmm.

Does the representative wish to speak?

position in connection

with the lunch break. In accordance with the schedule,

the court declares a one-hour recess, please.

Please do not be late returning.

Simply according to the schedule, more precisely—what do you think,

will we have time for the final statement today?

And after that we will try, because

we are prepared as well, because I cannot

answer you on that.

[music]

Essentially, we very much support

that everything be concluded quickly.

on

with

Yes, uh

on

in

please rise

The hearing—yes, yes—this will entail

the premature resolution of issues that may be

resolved only in the court's decision or ruling

as a result of consideration of the case by the court.

A protocol is being prepared without

further consideration. The defense has finished

presenting

evidence. We move to the stage

of additions. Do the parties have any additions?

—

I return to what was stated previously.

In court in February 2013, during the examination

of the materials of the criminal case,

the order on the administrative audit dated

July 10, 2004, and the contract agreement

for that audit

After consideration of this motion

for the purpose of presenting the relevant

documents, we made

a request that same day addressed to

the acting minister

of state property of the Kirov Region, Maltseva,

in which we asked that

the originals of the specified documents be presented to the court for inspection

of those documents, and we ask that the specified documents

The representative of the victim—may I?

A question: does the victim have

the document?

Yes, also for inspection.

Please hand it over.

May I? May I?

uh

photographs

uh, uh

and the actual

request itself

the request—the originals are included in

the case file; I can still

provide them, but the original must be returned

back to the ministry, most likely.

—

Your Honor, we object to

the inclusion of these

documents. Why? First,

the grounds on which the prosecution

asks to have them admitted are extremely unconvincing

and poorly reasoned. That is the first point.

Second, these documents do not fall within

the subject of proof in the present

case.

The submission was examined by me in Volume

Seven, on the first page of the file: the request to

the Department of State

Property of the Kirov Region. The request

was made to Mr.

Arzamasov, a copy of whose order

they are now trying to add to the case

materials—the

prosecution, in this

request, in this request, the investigator

[He/they] asked for clarification as to whether, during the period

2008–2009

any audit inspections were conducted of KOGUP Kirovles.

Also, yesterday the court examined volume seven,

case file page 2, which contains the response to that request,

which was also provided by the Department

of Property of the Kirov Region. In that

response to the request, it is stated directly that

no audit inspections were conducted.

If we also turn to the text of this

order, we can clearly see that it concerns

an audit inspection. If we turn

to the text of the contract, we see that it too

concerns an audit inspection.

At the same time, the prosecution proposed for

examination

a number of documents, including a certain

informational explanation signed by

Zagoskina, and the record—oh, rather, excuse me,

and the questioning of Ms. Zagoskina herself

at the court hearing. During the trial

we will establish that no

audit was conducted, and that auditor

Zagoskina, together with her colleague,

selectively reviewed

documents relating to the financial and business

activities of KOGUP Kirovles for

several months; their selective

review concerned exclusively the

activities in question.

Moreover, during the questioning

of Zagoskina, we did not resolve a number of questions

concerning, in general, how exactly

the contract with Vyatka Academy Audit was concluded; we are speaking

specifically about a state contract.

Therefore, first, I believe that these

documents do not fall within the subject matter

to be proved; second, there are no procedural

grounds for admitting and examining them

as evidence. And third, once again,

I insist that no

audit was conducted, as we can understand

from the materials submitted.

I fully support

my colleague. I would like to note that the document

entitled “Terms of Reference”

contains not a single signature and contains no

seal; it is simply a sheet of paper on which

some text has been produced. It could have been

prepared anywhere and in any manner.

Accordingly, the authenticity of this

document raises obvious doubts. In addition,

the document titled

“Contract,” where precisely on the page

that sets out the subject matter of the contract,

also bears no signatures, seals,

and so on. That is, I do not rule out that this page

could have been replaced as well.

Accordingly, we have doubts in general about

the authenticity of these documents.

I would like to add that if the prosecution

wishes to submit something in order

to reinforce the testimony of its own

witness, Zagoskina, who gave

testimony that clearly does not suit the prosecution,

as we now understand perfectly well,

otherwise they would not be going to such lengths with these—

well, if I may call them that—documents,

trying to add them to the case file. So,

if they really want to clear up the questions regarding

Zagoskina and somehow reinforce her

testimony, then nothing prevents the court from

sending a request directly to

the company Vyatka Academy Audit and

requesting from it

materials that documentarily confirm the

legitimacy of auditor

Zagoskina’s work at the enterprise

as a result of which she prepared

an informational letter addressed to

Vyatka Academy Audit Company, Kirov, Orlovskaya Street,

Building 23,

61002. Well, and since we are already speaking about this,

then, for my part, once again

I

—well, this is, so to speak, a counter-motion. Let us

resolve it.

[inaudible]

Yes, I can explain regarding these

documents. These documents in fact

prove the circumstances of the conduct of

the audit inspection. Yesterday, at the court

hearing, the response was examined

from the Department of State

Property, where it was specifically stated

that the results of the financial and business

activities were not reviewed; the fact

that an audit inspection was conducted

is precisely confirmed by these documents.

These documents confirm that

an initiative audit was conducted, which

should be distinguished from a mandatory audit.

Specifically, the time frames for conducting an initiative

audit differ from those of

a mandatory one. An initiative audit

is conducted within the shortest possible time frame;

it is conducted by decision of the

owner, in this case

the Department of State

Property of the Kirov Region, and within the scope

established by the owner’s assignment and

the contract for the conduct of the audit

inspection. It was carried out by an audit

organization. In 2009, audit activity

was subject to licensing;

the organization had the appropriate

license; the audit work was

accepted. The documents are in their original

form in the

files of the Ministry of State

Property, and once again I ask that they be returned to

the case file; if there are

copies made directly by employees of the Ministry of

State Property of the Kirov

Region, that is perfectly fine.

Excellent. Excuse me, allow me—

Allow me just a couple more words; this is all

taken from the computer.

I don't know what reality we're living in here.

At the time the prosecution was presenting these accusations,

when they submitted this evidence,

at the time of questioning the witness, however,

what is happening now is some kind of improper scheme,

a manipulation. We did not have an audit,

there was no audit at all,

none was conducted. That is a fact, a fact,

established in court. And now, Your Honor,

they are trying to foist these materials on you,

as if they confirm that some kind of audit

was conducted. Fine, I am prepared

to agree with that, but only in one case:

if I am now presented with

the actual audit report.

What we have in the case file is not an audit report,

it is not the conclusion of an audit,

not the conclusion of an independent audit. It is

a piece of paper, just a piece of paper. I cannot call it anything else.

It is called an informational

letter. After all, in these

documents that the prosecutor is now

trying to add to the case, they speak of an audit

review. So what is this now?

A substitution of concepts, or an attempt to create

the illusion that one piece of evidence was examined

and somehow it has now

been transformed into something entirely

different, carrying completely different weight,

because we all understand perfectly well that

an audit report carries

far more legal weight than

some informational letter.

But as we know from the investigator's inquiry to

the Department of State

Property, regarding the time of the audit,

the inspections were carried out,

but no conclusions were issued. That is what is written there plainly.

It is written there.

And now you want to look at this again?

I would also like to note that during

the investigation, which lasted

quite a long time, extensive

document seizures, searches, and so on were conducted,

and yet, for some reason, at that time, although

this informational letter we are talking about was found,

these particular

documents were not found anywhere,

and accordingly they were not included in the case

file. And only in 2017 did they miraculously

appear here today at the court hearing.

Did you file any motions or requests to obtain them?

To obtain them?

Did you ask the investigators to produce them,

or make any request for these documents?

Or did you request them yourselves? They were not there.

We did not know they existed until

today.

And if searches and seizures were conducted in the

organizations, then if these documents had existed,

they naturally would have ended up in

the criminal case file, just like

the other materials, which in our case

amount to more than 30 volumes.

Moreover, Your Honor, in the documents that

the prosecution has just submitted,

there is not a single word about those

fancy terms the victim's representative is talking about,

the victim's representative mentioned there.

"Independent," and whatever else—what kind of

invented terminology is this? I mean, I understand

that we are all participating together in

a certain proceeding called

a court hearing, yes. But Ms. Lakova, you

are, supposedly, a lawyer—so why invent things here?

You know perfectly well what this is, first of all.

And second, this is, well, your

area of competence. Please issue us a warning.

A warning.

Punish me if you like, because I am speaking about what

actually exists.

That is all, Your Honor.

I have said everything.

Thank you. Wait, let's be clear about what is in the case file.

So as not to misuse audit terminology,

I would like to clarify that

under the law applicable at the time, the case file contains

the auditor's written information.

In accordance with the legislation then in force,

in accordance with the legislation

on auditing activity as amended in 2009,

and in accordance with auditing standards,

the result of

an independent audit

is in fact, if you look at the wording

used,

under the legislation in force at that time,

specifically the preparation of written

information for the owner. That is precisely

what constitutes the result of conducting

an independent audit.

Are you aware that this contract

provided for the submission of this very

written

information? It is in the contract.

The first

clause is the preparation of written information.

And that is exactly what this refers to, not something else.

That very written information—the auditor's report—

which is contained in the case materials

and was examined at the court hearing,

those are precisely the documents that exist both in

the department of the Ministry

of State Property and in

the case file. We are speaking specifically about this

audit. I emphasize:

an independent audit, in accordance with

the legislation on auditing

activity, given that the contract is right here

with

us now,

there are no grounds to believe that

that

these documents, in my view,

may be relevant to the consideration of

this criminal case.

I therefore ask that these

documents be admitted.

Make copies, please.

Since we already have the documents,

there is no need to announce any further additions.

Not the second one.

Any additions? Well, Your Honor, given the established

practice in these court proceedings,

we fully understand that everything

presented by the prosecution somehow magically

is deemed relevant to the case,

while—no need, just a second—everything

the defense tries to present

for some reason falls outside the court’s attention.

Therefore, we do not consider it

appropriate to insist on

requesting any documents, and we

have no additions.

No. Is that all?

Do the parties need time to prepare

their statements?

No? Then we move on.

The court will proceed to the arguments.

A further question: right now

we do not have much time left until

the end of today’s working day. Would you like to

clarify—are we staying here today,

or do we catch a flight and speak another day?

Today, in the meantime, Alexei Anatolyevich

asked that everything be completed today. I am ready

to stay today until 9 p.m. if necessary.

No objection.

My visit yesterday was outside working hours,

at the end of the working day, and access to the building

ended when the working day ended.

Perhaps we can continue today after working hours?

Very well, I propose we continue the discussion.

The person arrived on time, and yet on your side

the access procedure into the building was appalling.

[music]

to the court.

On our next trip, will we hear the verdict,

or—wait a moment—will this happen again?

Let’s go in order: first the arguments, then the final statement,

and then, if you want to keep coming to Kirov

and simply live here, that is your right.

Our question is not that. What we want to know is:

will the arguments and the final

statements of both defendants take place today, if we

have enough time? I will do my best.

I said that I am prepared to allow that.

That’s right, yes.

Yes, all right. We are ready to listen.

Prosecution, you do not have a written text there,

do you? No need to write it down.

Please begin.

Your Honor, esteemed participants

in the proceedings, those present in the courtroom: over the course of

nearly two months, we have examined the criminal

case against the defendants Ofitserov and

Navalny, and heard witness testimony.

The evidence has been examined, and today we have been

given the opportunity

to speak. There is no need to say that

criminal cases in the economic sphere, including

those involving state-owned

property and budget funds, are

among the most complex categories of cases

both in terms of gathering and analyzing evidence

and in terms of its assessment by investigators,

the prosecution, and the court. These crimes do not lie

on the surface; they arise under the guise

of lawful civil-law relations,

carefully concealing their true

purposes, which are based on unlawful

enrichment and the infliction of damage

on the property owner. In the case under consideration,

that owner is the state, and

that is precisely where the public danger

of such crimes lies, which fully

applies to the present case. Let me remind you

of the circumstances of the case. In January–February

2009, Navalny,

knowing that he was able to influence

the activities of state unitary

enterprises in Kirov Region by virtue of

his actual

exercise of the powers of an adviser

to the governor on a voluntary basis,

formed the intent to embezzle timber belonging

to KOGUP Kirovles, acting out of selfish motives.

As the organizer of the crime, Navalny

also planned to direct its

execution together with his acquaintance

Ofitserov, who was brought in as

an accomplice and developed

the criminal plan for the theft

of Kirovles property by transferring it

for the benefit of an organization newly created and controlled by them,

which Ofitserov was to establish and

head. While carrying out

preparations for the planned theft,

around February 2009, Navalny,

while effectively exercising the above-mentioned

powers of an adviser to the governor

on a voluntary basis, and on the instructions

of the leadership of Kirov Region, which was not

aware of the crime, together with

Ofitserov, allegedly for the purpose of studying and analyzing

the efficiency of the enterprise’s operations, arrived

at the said enterprise. After that,

Navalny introduced Ofitserov to

the general director of KOGUP Kirovles, Opalev,

and instructed him to provide

Ofitserov with information about the structure of

Kirovles, the range of timber harvested and

processed, as well as

other necessary data, which Opalev

did around February–March 2009.

In 2009, Navalny, continuing to carry out

his criminal intent aimed at

the theft of Kirovles property, as the leader

of the crime, while being in the

building of the Kirov Region government,

informed Opalev of the forthcoming creation

of a sham company for the provision of intermediary

services in the sale of harvested and

processed timber products for the purpose of

subsequently committing embezzlement

of the property entrusted to Opalev under the stated circumstances.

the circumstances, Oule’s testimony shows that

as a result of the creation of this enterprise

and its subsequent operations, which caused

property damage. No actions aimed

at preventing the unlawful actions

of Navalny were taken, and he agreed to

their continuation, thereby

entering with Navalny and Ofitserov into

a prior criminal conspiracy

aimed at embezzling entrusted property

of KOGUP property on an especially

large scale. Ofitserov, carrying out

the role assigned to him for the purpose of carrying out

Navalny’s criminal plan, acted

jointly and in coordination with him, and in March

2009 ensured the creation and

state registration on

the territory of Kirov Region

of a limited liability company controlled by him and Navalny

called Vyatka

Timber Company, hereinafter LLC VLK, and also

the opening of a settlement account, thereby

assisting in the commission of

the crime by providing

information and means for carrying it out. Subsequently, the

Inspectorate of the Federal

Tax Service for the city of Kirov

carried out the state registration

of VLK, and its sole participant and

general director was Ofitserov,

who also opened for VLK

a settlement account with VTB Bank at approximately

the end of March to the first half of April 2009 in

Kirov. Ofitserov, acting on the instructions

of the organizer of the crime and continuing

to aid in the commission

of the offense, arranged for the preparation of a draft

knowingly unlawful supply agreement for KOGUP

and signed it on behalf of VLK.

Under this agreement, VLK ostensibly assumed

the obligation to supply

timber products exclusively at its own expense

to consignees that were legal entities and

individuals, including those who

were in fact existing

buyers of timber products from KOGUP Kirovles

and therefore refusal to conclude with them

direct supply contracts had no

economic sense, and VLK entailed

the causing of damage to KOGUP Kirovles. Moreover,

in the said agreement there were initially

no provisions regarding the price

of the timber products that would correspond

equivalently

to compensation for the timber products supplied by Kirovles.

Thereafter, Ofitserov submitted for signature the said

agreement to Opalev, who

on April 15, 2009, while in the building

of KOGUP Kirovles at the address: Kirov,

4 Avtotransportny Proyezd, acting

deliberately and in coordination

with Ofitserov, being the general director

of KOGUP Kirovles, used his official

position and signed the said agreement

for supply No. 01/29 with VLK,

which provided for the conclusion of

appendices defining the main terms

for the supply of timber products, including their

price. At the same time, Opalev fully

understood the social danger of his

actions and the inevitability of the onset of

socially dangerous consequences as

a result of concluding the supply agreement

with VLK in the form of embezzlement of timber

products of KOGUP Kirovles in favor of VLK and

the causing of property damage due

to the absence on the part of VLK

of equivalent compensation for the value

of the said timber products. Under

the agreement concluded with VLK, KOGUP undertook

to supply timber products to consignees

specified in the appendices to this agreement, while

VLK was to pay for these goods. At the same time,

Navalny, Oule, and Ofitserov reliably knew

that VLK would pay for the goods on

the terms established by the agreement and

its appendices at a deliberately understated

price compared with what could have been

received by KOGUP from buyers without

using the intermediary services of VLK, and

the said agreement was aimed

exclusively at creating the appearance

of the emergence

of civil-law obligations before VLK, allegedly

to transfer the timber products for consideration

to consignees, whereas in

reality these goods would be

transferred without equivalent and

appropriate compensation on the part

of VLK. In the period from April 15 to July 13, 2009,

in Kirov, in execution of their joint

criminal intent, Opalev used

his official position as general director

of KOGUP, while Ofitserov, as general director of VLK,

acted deliberately and in coordination

with Navalny, who had organized

the commission of the said crime.

In carrying it out, they signed 36

appendices to the supply agreement

No. 01/29 of April 15, 2009, by which

the types of timber products were determined,

the volumes, delivery terms, and also the price,

which, without any

economic necessity, was

deliberately understated by all participants

in the crime compared with the price at which

the timber products of KOGUP could

have been sold directly to VLK’s counterparties.

VLK, in turn, through Ofitserov,

during the above-mentioned period, acting on behalf of VLK,

entered into supply agreements for the produced

timber products with buyers in order

to increase the volume of Kirovles property

and also to create conditions allowing it to

single-handedly supply and sell the produced

timber products, acting on the instructions

of Navalny, deliberately and in coordination with

him and Ofitserov, using his own

Using his official position, the general director issued

Order No. 76 establishing the procedure

for the sale of forest products, dated May 19, 2009,

which introduced a ban on the

branches independently entering into

supply and sales contracts for products

with legal entities and individual

entrepreneurs. At the same time, Navalny

and Ofitserov were aware that Popov

was unlawfully depriving KOGUP Kirovles (a regional state-owned forestry enterprise) of the opportunity

to independently sell the produced

timber products at market prices, thereby

placing these timber products at the disposal

of VLK without corresponding and

equivalent compensation at market

value. During the period from April 15 to September 30

2009, in Kirov, Popov

using his official

position, and Ofitserov, acting intentionally

and in concert, on the basis of Navalny's instructions,

ensured the performance of the terms of the supply

agreement of April 9, 2009, and

its appendices, as a result of which Kirovles

supplied timber products in the amount of

10,084.277 cubic meters, for a total amount of

16,165,826 rubles to the following

counterparties of VLK: Domostroitel, AVS,

Garant, KMDK, Volga, Vlada, Montazhnik, Serle,

Spil, Podgornov, Boriskin, TsBK, Krasny Yakor

match factory, Pobeda, Finnish Matches,

Krymskie Zori, ChPM.

And during the trial,

Navalny and Ofitserov did not admit guilt

in the crime charged, explaining that their

actions lacked the elements of embezzlement, namely

self-serving intent, unlawfulness,

gratuitous taking, and causing damage

to the owner; and that the crime

of theft of state

property, in their view, was in fact the proper

performance by Navalny of his duties

as adviser to the regional governor in 2009,

and the actions of Ofitserov were carried out within

the framework of lawful business

activity. In addition, in support of

their innocence, Navalny and Ofitserov

cited the judgment of the European Court of

Human Rights in the case of Navalny and Ofitserov

v. Russia, according to whose findings

the acts of Ofitserov and Navalny, among other things,

were literally indistinguishable from ordinary

commercial activity. The defense

side, the defense side,

believes that the ruling of the Presidium of the

Supreme Court of November 16, 2016,

by which the judgments were quashed

of the Leninsky District Court of the city of Kirov

of July 13 with respect to the defendants, as well

as the appellate ruling of the Judicial

Chamber for Criminal Cases of the Kirov

Regional Court of October 16, 2013,

issued in execution of the judgment of the

European Court of Human Rights,

also indicates the absence in the defendants' actions

of the elements of the incriminated

offense. At the same time, taking into account

the evidence examined in the court hearings,

as well as the factual

circumstances of the case established

during the judicial investigation, we believe

that the arguments advanced by the defense

are merely the version of persons facing

criminal punishment, and of persons who

are naturally interested in a favorable

outcome of the case, who, deliberately or not,

color the circumstances of 2009 and

their own participation in them in a defensive light.

The defendants are trying to justify themselves,

passing over in silence the most inconvenient

points for themselves. At the same time, in the opinion of the

prosecution, the defense's reference

to the ECHR judgment and the Presidium of the Supreme

Court of the Russian Federation has no

legal basis, since they, in

accordance with Articles 17 and 88 of the

Criminal Procedure Code

of the Russian Federation, do not have predetermined

force. When considering the merits of

this criminal case,

from the standpoint of the court's evaluation of the evidence

in the case and the principle

of judicial independence in making a

decision. Your Honor, turning to the analysis

of the prosecution's evidence, let us

look objectively at the events of 2009

and, relying on the evidence and

the established facts, assess the version

presented by the defendants in this criminal case.

In the dock are two defendants: the

organizer of the crime and the accomplice. As for

the third participant in the

crime, the perpetrator, the former

general director of Kirovles, the criminal case

was severed into separate proceedings

in connection with the conclusion with him of a

plea agreement involving a conditional

admission of guilt. Popov, by the judgment

of the Leninsky District Court on December 24,

2012, rendered under a special procedure

for adopting a judicial decision in connection with

his pre-trial cooperation agreement,

was found guilty under

Part 4 of Article 160 of the Criminal

Code of the Russian Federation and convicted of

committing embezzlement of timber products in the amount of

10,427.7000 cubic meters, worth

16,165,826 rubles, belonging to Kirovles, and

entrusted to Popov, using his

official position, on an especially large

scale, by prior conspiracy

together with citizens N. and O. The judgment

entered into legal force. Turning to his

testimony, it is worth paying attention to

Popov's procedural status in the present

criminal case: his questioning was

conducted as that of a person in respect of whom

the materials of the criminal case

had been separated into independent proceedings.

in connection with the conclusion, for the court proceedings,

of a cooperation agreement, before

the start of the questioning, Opol was warned

by the court about the consequences of violating the obligations

he had assumed, including in the event

of deliberately providing false

information or deliberately concealing

from the judicial investigation any

material facts, which fully

accords with the position of the Constitutional

Court of the Russian Federation, as expressed in

Ruling No. 17-P of July 20, 2016

From the testimony of Opol, questioned

at the court hearing, it follows that in 2008 and

2009 he held the position

of General Director of the state enterprise Kirovles

The principal activity

of the enterprises he headed was

forestry operations and timber-related work

processing of wood in the territory

of Kirov Region. His duties

included overall management of the enterprises

and their branches, which operated as part of them

The latter were not independent

legal entities, but their managers

held powers of attorney granting them the right

to independently conclude contracts

for the supply of timber products. On the part

of the government of Kirov Region,

the enterprise's activities were overseen by the Deputy

Chairman of the Government

Shikov. Each year, Kirovles entered into

state contracts for

the conduct of economic activity

with the simultaneous purchase and sale of timber, which

the enterprise harvested and

then sold to buyers. All

finished products made from

wood acquired under state

contracts were

the property of Kirovles and were entrusted

to Opol as the enterprise's General Director

In addition, each year Kirovles

leased forest plots in

the territory of Kirov Region on which

logging and forestry work were carried out

Timber products made from wood

produced on leased forest plots

were also the property of Kirovles and were

entrusted to him by the enterprise. Around the end

of December 2008, in Kirov Region

the governor of Kirov Region arrived. During this same

period, he held a meeting

with the participation, among others, of the head

of the regional forestry enterprise, at which

he introduced his team, including

Navalny and others who were to join

the government of Kirov Region

After that, he repeatedly encountered

Navalny in the government building

of Kirov Region, where he had

an office. At the beginning of 2009, Navalny

began taking an interest in the activities

of Kirovles, requesting documents concerning

the economic activity of this

enterprise, which were

provided to him and contained, among other things,

information on the volumes of timber harvested and

sold by Kirovles

timber products. Subsequently, in the building

of the regional government, there was

a meeting on increasing

funding for Kirovles, since at the beginning

of 2009, due to the economic

crisis, the enterprise began operating

at a loss, which was primarily caused by

the need to pay rent for

an allowable cut volume of more than 2 million

cubic meters, which could not be

used by the enterprise in its

operations due to the absence

of a forest development plan. At that

meeting, the assistant

to the regional governor, Navalny, was present; he

oversaw forestry matters

After this meeting, at the initiative

of Navalny, they had a conversation in

the course of which Navalny voiced the idea