«Guilmanov formalized trading of marketable oil as crude oil”. Tax evasion to the amount of 3 billion 607 million 118 thousand 338 rubles and 33 kopeks. The website Prigovor.ru reminds its reads of what happened on February 4, 2006.
On this day 16 years ago, on February 4, 2006, the Nefteyugansk District Court pronounced a verdict against Tagirzyan Guilmanov, former director-general of the JSC "Yuganskneftegaz". He has adjudged guilty of committing crimes under Article 33, paragraph 5 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation ("Assistance in a commission of a crime”), as well as Article 199, paragraph 2, subparagraphs “а” and “б” of the Criminal Code of Russia (“Evading Payment of Taxes by a group of persons by previous concert in an especially large scale”.
Based on the results of the proceedings, the Court adjudged him guilty of the crimes imputed to him and sentenced him to three years of a suspended sentence with a probation period of two years.
“MARKETTABLE OIL UNDER THE GUISE OF CRUDE OIL”
According to the verdict, pointed out the newspaper “Kommersant”, “Tagirzyan Guilmanov, being in the years 1999-2001 the managing director of the JSC “Yugansknefnegaz” formalized the trading to the Oil company Yukos marketable oil under the guise of crude oil. In so doing, argued the Court, Mr. Guilmanov assisted in tax evasion – in tax declaration were inserted knowingly false data on payment orders for the right to use mineral resources and on deductibles for the recovery of the raw materials base. In the end, during the mentioned three years ,"Yuganskneftegaz" underpaid the consolidated budget of the Khanty-Mansi Autonomous Region to the tune of 3 billion 607 million 118 thousand 338 rubles and 33 kopeks".
The criminal case against the head of “Yuganskneftegaz” was filed in autumn 2004, and to the Nefteyugansky District Court, actually, it was sent for further consideration at the end of April 2005. So, on July 14, 2005, the Nefteyugansk District Court decided on this case – it didn't find in the action of the oilman elements of a crime and acquitted him on all charges.
On these first proceedings, wrote the newspaper "Kommersant", "the state prosecutor withdrew the accusations with regard to "responsibility for tax evasion by a group of persons by previous concert" but she insisted that Mr. Guilmanov was still guilty of other crimes imputed to him". The prosecutor asked to inflict the punishment of three years of imprisonment (suspended sentence). However, the court held that there had been no elements of crime on the actions of the defendant.
The Prosecution of the Khanty-Mansi Region argued that the court had wrongly interpreted the presented materials and, exercising its right of appeal, could attain the overturn of the sentence of the Nefteyugansk District Court and sent it for further consideration.
At the end of the day, on the second try, the prosecution could prove the guilt of the former head of JSC "Yuganskneftegaz" and that was placed on record in the judgment of February 4, 2006.
THEY COULD NOT GIVE TRUTHFUL EVIDENCE
Apart from that, Tagirzyan Guilmanov was connected to the second case of Mikhail Khodorkovsky and Platon Lebedev as a witness. He convincingly told the Court the version of Khodorkovsky’s lawyers that the amount of oil, “mentioned in the accusation” “is not possible to steal” and that the whole volume of it had been pumped into the “pipe” and had been delivered to clients. However, the court treated all that with skepticism, at least, for two reasons.
First, as in was mentioned on page 620 of the verdict of the Khamovnichesky Court of Moscow in 2010 on the second case of Khodorkovsky and Lebedev, while considering all the circumstances of the case per totality, the witnesses didn't take into account that "the defendants were accused not of stealing oil, but of embezzlement of it by way of diminishing its price".
And, second, the witnesses in their evidence admitted that they had received recompenses from the so-called "center of profit" that had been created with the help of the money received from selling of “borehole liquid”, although the money, to put it more simple, should have gone to cash accounts of producing companies”.
“According to the Khamovnichesky Court of Moscow”, “under such conditions”, it was stressed in the verdict, “the court takes a critical look at the evidence of the mentioned witnesses (Tagirzyan Guilmanov was among them) and holds that they could not give truthful evidence against the defendants who had paid them considerable allowances”, notes the website Prigovor.ru.
(See the previous article “On this day «Sibneft» refused to merge with Yukos”. «Sibneft» backed down from debts and fugitive criminals-shareholders of Yukos. The website Prigovor.ru reminds its readers of what happened on February 3, 2004.