On this day, Khodorkovsky lied in his last statement in court

On this day, Khodorkovsky lied in his last statement in court

In order to move to pity the judges of the Meschansky District Court of Moscow, the swindler called himself a “Russia’s patriot” and promised to work “for the good of my country and my people”. The website Prigovor.ru reminds its readers of what happened on April 11, 2005.

On this day 17 years ago, on April 11, 2005, in the Meschansky District Court of Moscow, the defendant Khodorkovsky Mikhail Borisovich, born 1963, delivered, according to court’s procedure, his last statement. To this penetrant speech of the “borehole swindler”, to its sincerity, gave credence only those who had not seen the materials of the case, but followed the proceedings using the publications created in accordance with theses of Yukos PR-machine, and on the same bases those people were inclined to believe in not so much convincing line of defense, that was presented during the oral arguments.

(See also the article “On this day, Yukos lawyers were dealing with a “brazen lie”).

“I am a patriot of Russia, and that is why I look at what is happening around Yukos, my partners and me personally, in the first place, from the point of view of interests and values of my country”, - it’s with these penetrant words that Mikhail Khodorkovsky started his final statement in court. Now it is evident that Khodorkovsky insolently lied even in this. The escaped to London “patriot” nowadays calls upon his Western masters to liquidate Russia. For many years he has been lobbying for toughening economic sanctions and has been advocating for the delivery of lethal weapons to Ukraine.

At the same time, the subject of the criminal case were episodes of the criminal activity of this “patriot” in the finance-economic sphere. The charges were brought against Khodorkovsky on seven Articles of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.

(See also the article “The preliminary sum of the damage to the state is more than 1 billion U.S. dollars”).

So, in April 2005, the court proceedings came to their logical conclusion – to the final statement of the defendant. And in this last statement Khodorkovsky declares that “it’s known to whole Russia that the prosecution has failed to prove any of the charges filed against me”. “Two years of inhuman travails of the prosecution office – and a null result. And what do they have? Legal, public documents on property, on public and official deals, on civil litigations, protocols of official operational meetings, which would have been easy to obtain with a minimal knowledge about how to use the Internet”.

(It’s worth mentioning that the investigators knew how the use the Internet, and within the framework of the new case tried to find open information on the website of the oil company. There was simply no information there).

Judging from Khodorkovsky’s position, the state itself was guilty of those affairs that had been committed by the organized group of persons under the leadership of Khodorkovsky. Khodorkovsky didn’t steal the shares of the JSC “Apatit”, the machinations in the work of the JSC “Apatit” were confirmed collectively, and, in general, for what reason the investigation interfered with the work of a private company? And so on and so forth in the similar vein. Did he forget why the Western mass media in 1990s he was called a “robber-baron”?

Had Khodorkovsky, while pulling off his affairs, measured up his actions with the Criminal Code and with other legislative norms? They say, he had measured them up, and about that later spoke the lawyers of the company themselves, warning him against excessively risky methods of doing business, but, ultimately, final decisions were taken by Khodorkovsky. An effort from the part of Khodorkovsky to hide himself behind reports of auditors of the “respectful company “PricewaterhouseCoopers”, didn’t help the defendant, and the auditors themselves recognized that there reports had not been credible.

(See also the article “On this day, the lawyers of Yukos launched a senseless attack on auditors from PwC”).

As it turned out, on the episode with taxes, Khodorkovsky, in his final statement, was tough on himself. “Our laws prohibit distortion of reports, they prohibit cheating, to put it simple. And this is fair. If the authority new everything, the rest is a problem of the state, not of taxpayers”, lectured from the “aquarium” the swindler Khodorkovsky, in whose reports, during the investigation of the first and the second case, had been found not only distortions, but also withholding of important information from auditors who, in the end of the day, rescinded all their conclusions, because “the law prohibits the distortion of reports”.

(See also the article “Tax mechanics of Khodorkovsky as a physical person”).

Not less interesting thing Khodorkovsky said in his final word on the episode of his tax evasion as a physical person. In fact, “he could have told about the essence of his consultative services, could have explained why consultations of internationally reputed business leaders worth the money that was paid to me, or more. But legal arguments, as well as reasoning of the common sense, seemingly, do not interest the accusation at all”. “I refused to indicate the names of my clients, as people fear, with a good reason, of persecutions from the part of the Office of the Prosecutor General and the Tax Service”, said Khodorkovsky trying to justify himself.

But the court didn’t believe him. First, one of the Yukos “physical persons” from the Isla of Man, namely Vasily Shakhnovsky, the Meschansky District Court of Moscow, on February 5, 2004, adjudged guilty of the tax crime committed in accordance with the same scheme, in which Khodorkovsky was also mentioned. Second, in the materials of the first criminal case No 1-39/05 there was the preliminary evidence of Khodorkovsky given on the question of taxes.

From the materials of the case:

“According to the court, Khodorkovsky M.B. didn’t perform entrepreneurial activity of providing consultative services to the companies “Hinchley Ltd”, “Status Services Limited”, and his preliminary testimony, as Khodorkovsky explained that he had not known anything about the agreements with these companies, and his lawyers had recommended him to get a status of individual entrepreneur. As to the documents for tax inspection, they were prepared by his assistances, but who of them, in particular, did all that, he doesn’t know. Consulting and managerial services he has provided to various firms, but he doesn’t remember either to which, when and for what price”.

And, suddenly, during the pronouncement of the last statement, it becomes evident that Khodorkovsky remembers everything, but he won’t tell.

A SCHOOL FRIEND BECAME EVIDENCE

Apart from other evidence and testimonies, refuting the line of Khodorkovsky and his defense in the tax episode, is mentioned a reference to the publication in the newspaper “Vedomosti” No 204 from November 6, 2003.

Obviously, the newspaper, in the article entitled “A School Friend Helped Khodorkovsky”, unassisted, analyzed the tax episode, and the experts involved, so it seemed, “were smashing up the episode”, but, at the same time, they indicated nuances that would not be in favor of Khodorkovsky, and paid attention to the notion of “cumulative evidence” which Khodorkovsky persistently ignored. Namely, a connection with Khodorkovsky of his school friend Vladimir Moiseyev, and his subordinate position with regard to Khodorkovsky. “If, at the moment of concluding the deal, Moiseyev was directly subordinate to Khodorkovsky, it can serve as argument for the court in favor of recognizing this deal fraudulent”, wrote the newspaper.

From the materials of the court:

“To the fact that Khodorkovsky, in reality, didn’t provide consulting services to the mentioned companies, bear witness also the actual circumstances of the case, namely, that the company “Hinchley Ltd”, was, in fact, created at the request of Moiseyev V.V., acting on behalf of the organizations, one of the leaders of which was Khodorkovsky M.B.” “Moiseyev later on also represented the interests of Khodorkovsky M.B., Lebedev P.L., and others which follows from the fiduciary (trustworthy) agreement”.

To put it simpler, the lawyers interviewed by the newspaper “Vedomosti”, as early as in 2003, understood that Khodorkovsky was a con artist”.

“Everybody knows”, rhapsodized Khodorkovsky, “that I am not guilty of the crimes I am accused of. That is why I don’t intend to ask for condescension. It’s a disgrace for me and to my country, if, in essence, is considered as legal a direct and blatant cheating of the court by the prosecutor”, declared Khodorkovsky who had cheated during the proceedings not only the prosecutor, but the broad public as well. And this was, within short order, corroborated by the verdict of the court what adjudged Khodorkovsky guilty on all episodes of his criminal activity”, notes the website Prigovor.ru.

(See also the previous article “On this day, Steven Theede decided to fire out 1200 employees of Yukos”. The company Yukos was brought to bankruptcy by “the energy of pathological greed and theft” of Mikhail Khodorkovsky and Leonid Nevzlin. The website Prigovor.ru reminds its readers of what happened on April 10, 2005).

Popular articles