What is the fate of those involved in the Yukos case?

What is the essence of the Yukos company's case?

Editor's response

On Monday, July 28, it became known that the claim of former shareholders of the Yukos company to Russia was partially satisfied by the arbitration court in The Hague: the company's shareholders also received compensation for legal costs of 65 million (instead of the requested 114 billion).

AiF.ru explains the essence of the sensational case of the Yukos company, the largest lawsuit in the entire 60-year history of the European Court of Human Rights, and also the reasons for the bankruptcy of the company.

How and when did the Yukos company appear?

The Yukos company was formed in 1993 on the basis of state enterprises, from which its name came - Yuganskneftegaz and KuibyshevOrgSintez. The main co-owners of YUKOS were Mikhail Khodorkovsky And Platon Lebedev.

In 1995-1996, the state privatized YUKOS, after which the company entered the international market.

In 2000, YUKOS formed an international independent board of directors, which included representatives of the global business community. Yukos also developed a corporate governance code, began publishing financial statements in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP), audited by an external accounting firm, and was open to financial analysis. At that time, Yukos became the largest oil company in Russia.

What happened to Yukos in 2003?

In 2003, Russian authorities accused the company's management of economic crimes. The claims of the tax authorities of the Russian Federation were related to transactions for the sale of oil and petroleum products between YUKOS and 21 organizations registered in regions that provided tax benefits in 2000 (Kalmykia, Mordovia, Closed Administrative Unit Trekhgorny).

As a result, the largest fines and penalties in Russian history were imposed on the company. Their total amount for 2000-2003 amounted to 582 billion rubles, and taking into account claims against subsidiaries - 703 billion rubles or almost 25 billion dollars at the then exchange rate. According to Yukos, tax claims for 2004 significantly exceeded the company's revenue. After these events, Yukos shares fell sharply in price.

A number of company executives were also convicted (including Mikhail Khodorkovsky, Platon Lebedev and Alexey Pichugin), mainly for fraud and tax evasion.

What happened to YUKOS as a result of the tax authorities' claims?

Arbitration courts of all instances recognized the claims of the tax authorities as legitimate, all assets and accounts of YUKOS and its subsidiaries were frozen. Funds were allowed to be withdrawn only to pay taxes and salaries to employees; everything else went to the state to pay off debts.

The company began to gradually reduce staff, and after some time it stopped exporting oil due to a lack of funds for customs payments. As a result, YUKOS began to fall apart.

How did Yukos go bankrupt?

On December 14, 2004, YUKOS filed a claim for voluntary bankruptcy in court in Houston (USA) in order to avoid dismemberment of the company. By a decision of December 16, 2004, this court prohibited companies and banks from taking any action to alienate YUKOS property.

Nevertheless, on December 19, 2004, 76.79% of Yuganskneftegaz shares were sold to the FSSP at auction for $9.3 billion. The winner was the little-known company Baikalfinancegroup LLC.

On March 28, 2006, the Moscow Arbitration Court decided to begin bankruptcy proceedings for the company and appoint a temporary manager, who became Eduard Rebgun.

According to the court decision, on August 1, 2006, bankruptcy proceedings were introduced at YUKOS for a period of one year. After the completion of the bankruptcy procedure, based on the decision of the Moscow Arbitration Court dated November 12, an entry on the liquidation of YUKOS was made in the Unified State Register of Legal Entities on November 21, 2007.

Why did the “YUKOS case” end up in the European Court of Human Rights?

On April 23, 2004, the management of the Yukos company filed a complaint against the Russian Federation with the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), because the company's management "did not believe in the objectivity and fairness of the Russian government and the judiciary."

On January 29, 2009, the court accepted the case for consideration, recognizing some of the arguments as justified. On September 20, 2011, the ECHR partially recognized the actions of the Russian tax authorities against the Yukos oil company as a violation of its right to protection of property.

What was the court's decision in the first and second “YUKOS case”?

According to the first Yukos case, the court in 2005 found the main co-owners of the company, Mikhail Khodorkovsky and Platon Lebedev, guilty of fraud, tax evasion and other economic crimes, and sentenced each of them to nine years in prison. Subsequently, the Moscow City Court reduced this period to eight years.

During the consideration of the first YUKOS case, the Khamovnichesky Court also satisfied the demand of the Federal Tax Service to recover from the ex-head of YUKOS in favor of the state budget the property damage caused by him in the amount of 17.4 billion rubles, as well as the demand of Federal Tax Service No. 5 to pay income tax 52 million rubles. In addition, penalties in the amount of 12 million rubles were assessed on the unpaid amount of taxes.

While Khodorkovsky was in prison, he paid off his debt to the budget about 40 thousand rubles. The remaining amount, according to current legislation, must be paid, since debts recognized by the courts do not have a statute of limitations.

Why is the “YUKOS case” being reconsidered?

In December 2013, the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation began hearings on the first and second “YUKOS case” in connection with unaccounted innovations in Russian legislation on a more lenient attitude towards those who violate the law in the field of entrepreneurship.

On July 18, the court unanimously decided to satisfy the claim of Group Menatep Limited and ruled that Russia had violated the Energy Charter and expropriated the assets of Yukos. At the same time, the court agreed that YUKOS tried to evade full payment of taxes through structures in Mordovia.

According to the court decision, Russia can pay compensation until January 15, 2015, after which interest will begin to accrue. The court's decision can be appealed to a Dutch court.

Former head of the Yukos security service Alexei Pichugin, sentenced to life imprisonment in 2007 for the murder of Nefteyugansk mayor Vladimir Petukhov, appealed to President Vladimir Putin for a pardon.

“The fact of filing the second petition for pardon, which was submitted on May 4, 2017, is connected with the desire to give the Russian Federation the opportunity to implement two decisions of the ECHR, which declared the trials against Pichugin unfair,” said the lawyer of the convicted person, Ksenia Kostromina.

In June 2017, the ECHR published a decision in which it found Article 6 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (on the right to a fair trial) violated in relation to Pichugin and ordered Russia to pay him 15 thousand euros. On the first complaint, the court ordered Russia in October 2012 to pay Pichugin 9.5 thousand euros as compensation for moral damage and legal costs.

As for Pichugin’s first petition for pardon, it became known on June 9, 2016, although it was submitted at the end of 2015. Pichugin accepted the first petition for pardon on the recommendation of the Chairman of the Presidential Human Rights Council, Mikhail Fedotov, who, together with other human rights activists, visited IK-6 “Black Dolphin” in September 2015 and stated that the HRC was ready to support this appeal.

Despite the agreement with the human rights activist, Pichugin was refused his first request. Then his lawyer Kostromina found it difficult to say whether Pichugin would again ask for pardon. “He was unfairly convicted, and the European Court of Human Rights recognized this. But the Supreme Court, contrary to the instructions of the ECHR, refused to send his case for review,” she said in the summer of 2016.

The head of the Human Rights Council Fedotov then said that Pichugin has the right to ask for pardon again. “Of course, he can apply for a pardon again. Every convicted person has the right to ask the President of Russia for a pardon; no one is deprived of this right. And then the president decides.”

Pichugin case

Vladimir Petukhov was killed by a killer on June 26, 1998. During the attempt on his life, the mayor's security guard Vyacheslav Kokoshkin was seriously injured. The death of the mayor was preceded by a conflict with the city-forming enterprise YUKOS - Petukhov accused the company of not paying taxes to the local budget. In June 1998, the mayor went on a hunger strike, demanding that a criminal case be opened against the management of Yukos, and stopped it after the then governor of the Khanty-Mansiysk Autonomous Okrug, Alexander Filipenko, promised to take action. A few days later, Petukhov was shot with a machine gun near the city administration building.

In cases related to the murder of Petukhov, former Yukos security officer Alexei Pichugin was convicted, who in 2007 was sentenced to life imprisonment on charges of organizing murders and assassinations. In addition, a Russian court sentenced the company's former largest shareholder Leonid Nevzlin to life imprisonment in absentia.

Meanwhile, Vladimir Putin in public speeches clearly linked the murder of the mayor of Nefteyugansk with the former leadership of YUKOS. Thus, in December 2010, before the next verdict in the Yukos case, during the traditional direct line of communication with Russians, then Prime Minister Putin, answering the question whether it was time to reconsider the attitude of the authorities towards Mikhail Khodorkovsky, who was in prison, commented on these suspicions.

As Putin stated then, Khodorkovsky’s crimes have been proven in court. “A thief should be in prison,” he used the expression of the hero Vladimir Vysotsky from the film “The meeting place cannot be changed,” referring to the theft that Khodorkovsky was accused of. “I’m not talking about him personally. Let me remind you that the head of the YUKOS security service (Pichugin) is in prison for murder. They didn’t like the mayor of Nefteyugansk Petukhov - they killed him. A woman here in Moscow did not give them her small premises, which they wanted to take away,” "Killed. The killer who was hired was killed, only his brains were found in the garage. What? Did the head of the security service commit all these crimes on his own initiative?" - Putin said.

Putin raised this topic during a direct line in 2009. When the conversation turned to the fate of Khodorkovsky, Putin recalled the case of Alexei Pichugin. “Do you think that he acted at his own discretion, at his own peril and risk?” - Putin asked a rhetorical question. “He had no specific interests, he is not the main shareholder in the YUKOS company. It is clear that he acted on the instructions and in the interests of his masters,” the president concluded.

Let us recall that in November 2013, Mikhail Khodorkovsky turned to the President of the Russian Federation with a request for a pardon. In December, Vladimir Putin signed a decree pardoning the former head of the Yukos oil company. After his release, Khodorkovsky moved to Switzerland, where he received a residence permit. Currently, the former head of Yukos lives abroad.

On January 19, 2016, the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation allowed Russia not to pay almost €1.9 billion to former Yukos shareholders following a 2014 decision of the European Court of Human Rights. The court came to the conclusion that the ECHR ruling in the Yukos case contradicts the norms of the Russian Constitution.

Brief history of the Yukos case

The YUKOS case began with the arrest of the main owners of the company on a number of charges - fraudulent seizure of shares in OJSC Apatit and the Research Institute of Fertilizers and Insectofungicides, failure to comply with court decisions on the return of these shares, tax evasion (under a total of seven articles of the Criminal Code).

On July 2, 2003, the head of the MFO MENATEP Platon Lebedev was detained, and on October 25 of the same year, the chairman of the board of YUKOS, Mikhail Khodorkovsky.

In May 2005, the Meshchansky Court sentenced each to nine years in prison; the Moscow City Court reduced the sentences to eight years. In 2009, the convicts were returned to Moscow from the colonies to face charges in the second case - the theft of shares of YUKOS subsidiaries and oil produced by the company in the amount of more than 890 billion rubles, as well as the legalization of part of these funds. In December 2010, the businessmen were found guilty and sentenced to 14 years in prison, taking into account the punishment in the first case; the Moscow City Court reduced the sentences to 13 years. On December 20, 2013, Russian President Vladimir Putin signed a decree pardoning Mikhail Khodorkovsky, who was released the same day and left the country. Platon Lebedev was released in January 2014 after a Supreme Court ruling that reduced his sentence to the time actually served.

How Yukos property was sold off

The sale of YUKOS assets took place in parallel with the consideration in court of the cases of the company's ex-owners. The first asset of the company sold at the auction was OJSC Yuganskneftegaz, 79.79% of whose shares were transferred to Baikal Finance Group LLC, later acquired by Rosneft.

In March 2006, YUKOS's creditor banks began the bankruptcy process, and in November 2007, a decision was made to liquidate the company. Later, as part of the sale of assets, Rosneft was able to absorb Tomskneft, Samaraneftegaz, all refineries owned by Yukos and the main part of gas stations, and also gained access to subsoil areas.

Trial at the Hague Arbitration Court

In February 2005, former shareholders Yukos International, Hulley Enterprises and Veteran Petroleum filed a lawsuit at the Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague, alleging that Russia violated the Energy Charter's provisions protecting investors from discrimination and unfair and biased proceedings. The amount of claims was initially $28.3 billion, but was later increased to $114.2 billion.

On July 18, 2014, the Hague Arbitration ruled that Russia had violated the Energy Charter and Hulley Enterprises could claim compensation in the amount of $39.97 billion, Yukos International - $1.85 billion, Veteran Petroleum - $8.2 billion. The court also decided that Russia should reimburse $65 million in legal costs. According to the court decision published on July 28, Russia was obliged to pay this amount by January 15, 2015. Then, in case of non-payment, additional interest would be charged (3.3–3.5% per annum). This compensation - $50 billion - became a record amount in the history of the court. Russia challenged this decision by filing a petition in January 2015 with the District Court of The Hague.

On April 20, 2016, the District Court of The Hague decided that the Hague arbitration, which in July 2014 decided to recover $50 billion from Russia in favor of former Yukos shareholders, did not have jurisdiction over this case. Thus, the court upheld Russia’s complaint, declaring the decision to recover funds illegal, and decided to pay the costs incurred by the Russian Federation during these proceedings and preliminary estimated at €16.8 thousand. The Kremlin stated that an immediate process of terminating enforcement proceedings will begin in all countries in the case of former Yukos shareholders. The former head of the oil company, Mikhail Khodorkovsky, explained the decision taken in favor of Russia by saying that “the West decided to ease the pressure.”

Russia's position

The official position of the Russian authorities in disputes with ex-YUKOS shareholders was unchanged: the arbitration court in The Hague did not have the authority to consider this dispute, since the Energy Charter was not ratified by Russia.

The shareholders of the bankrupt oil company, according to the Russian Federation, are not foreign investors, but Russian citizens using shell companies to own shares. In addition, the Russian Federation insisted that procedural norms were violated during the consideration of the dispute: the Hague Arbitration went beyond its mandate, since in addition to the arbitrators, Martin Valasek, the secretary and administrative employee of the court, took the most active part in the case and in drawing up the decisions. Russia also criticized the methodology for calculating the amount of compensation, considering the final amount to be overstated by at least $20 billion.

On March 25, 2016, the Investigative Committee of the Russian Federation reported that, as part of the investigation into the underlying Yukos case, violations were established during its privatization, and this, in turn, casts doubt on the legality of the arbitration decision in The Hague.

How Yukos sued Russia

On October 31, 2007, the District Court of Amsterdam, in a lawsuit filed by former directors of the Dutch subsidiary of Yukos Finance, Bruce Misamore and David Godfrey, declared their dismissal by YUKOS bankruptcy trustee Eduard Rebgun unlawful and ruled that the bankruptcy of the Russian company was contrary to the standards of justice accepted in Holland.

On October 19, 2010, the Amsterdam Court of Appeal confirmed that the Yukos Finance shares were sold illegally during the bankruptcy of Yukos, and did not recognize their buyer, Promneftstroy LLC, Stephen Lynch, as the new owner. In addition, in a separate decision in 2009, the Amsterdam court decided to fine bankruptcy trustee Eduard Rebgun €500 thousand for failure to comply with the decision to reinstate the directors of Yukos Finance.

On April 28, 2009, the Amsterdam Court of Appeal on the claim of Yukos Capital S.a.r.l., controlled by ex-YUKOS managers. decided to enforce the decision of the International Commercial Arbitration Court at the Russian Chamber of Commerce and Industry to recover about 13 billion rubles from Rosneft. for the debts of Yuganskneftegaz, which it absorbed. The Russian state-owned company tried to challenge this decision, but the Supreme Court of the Netherlands refused to consider the complaint.

On September 17, 2010, the Stockholm Arbitration Court ruled to recover $3.5 million in damages from Russia in favor of the former minority shareholder of YUKOS, RosinvestCo UK Ltd. The British, referring to the Russian-British agreement on the protection of investments, demanded compensation first of $75 million, and then $200 million. On November 9, 2011, Russia challenged the jurisdiction of the Stockholm Arbitration Court in the courts of Sweden. In January 2016, the Swedish Court of Appeal recognized that the Stockholm Arbitration Court did not have the competence to recover compensation from the Russian Federation.

On August 1, 2014, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) ordered Russia to pay €1.866 billion in fair compensation to former Yukos shareholders instead of the $38 billion they demanded. Despite the fact that the amount was significantly reduced, this compensation became the largest in the history of the Strasbourg court.

How Russian property was seized abroad

In June 2015, in Belgium, the property of Russian banks registered in Belgium, Russian representative offices, branches of non-governmental organizations, media, as well as the assets of the organization Eurocontrol regulating air traffic over Europe were arrested.

As reported, in total the assets of 47 institutions were under arrest. The Russian Federation responded by summoning Belgian Ambassador Alex van Meeuwen to the Foreign Ministry to present a protest. Mikhail Khodorkovsky then said that he was “glad about the arrests of the property of our bureaucracy in Belgium.” Russia has already appealed this: hearings are expected to take place in October-November 2016.

At the same time, the head of VTB, Andrei Kostin, reported that the country's law enforcement agencies had seized the accounts of Russian companies in a French subsidiary bank. In violation of international treaties, French bailiffs even froze the accounts of diplomatic missions, but soon lifted these restrictions. In France, the accounts of MIA Rossiya Segodnya were also arrested.

In winter, it became known that YUKOS shareholders managed to arrest payments from the French Arianespace, Eutelsat and Air France to their Russian counterparties, an area of ​​4.7 thousand square meters. m in the center of Paris, where an Orthodox center is being built, 7.5% shares of Euronews (owned by VGTRK), funds from the Federal State Unitary Enterprise Goszagranobstvo, financial guarantees to Rosoboronexport for the disruption of the delivery of the Mistral ships and shares of Eutelsat (more than 3%) owned by the Federal State Unitary Enterprise "Space Communication". According to various information, a total of about 150 arrests were made in France, which the Russian Federation appealed.

Evgenia Chernysheva, Evgeniy Kozichev

With a complaint about the actions of the Russian tax authorities, which she regarded as illegal seizure of property. Yukos is seeking compensation from the Russian Federation for more than $98 billion.

In 2004-2005, the Moscow Arbitration Court recovered from Yukos a total of more than 300 billion rubles in tax arrears for 2000-2004, and in the summer of 2006 the oil company was declared bankrupt. In addition, the Moscow Arbitration Court rejected YUKOS's claim to invalidate the auction for the sale of Yuganskneftegaz (a subsidiary of the company) and compensate it for 388.3 billion rubles in losses. Companies affiliated with YUKOS also unsuccessfully sued in arbitration courts in the regions of the Russian Federation.

At the end of January 2009, the ECHR found YUKOS’ complaint admissible in terms of the forced execution of tax decisions, including the sale of Yuganskneftegaz (in order to collect taxes, the main asset of YUKOS was forcibly sold at auction - 76.79% of the shares of OJSC Yuganskneftegaz), as well as in part double tax penalties.

The ECHR held public hearings on this case in March 2010. After them, the plaintiffs expressed hope that a decision would be made in 2010, while Russia demanded that the complaint be rejected.

At the hearing, a Yukos representative said that Russian authorities arbitrarily and illegally assessed the company €19.6 billion in additional taxes, penalties and interest from 2000 to 2003, and "the draconian implementation of these decisions amounted to expropriation."

The company believes that the Russian authorities violated six articles of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, as well as an article of the Protocol to the Convention (Articles 1, 6, 7, 13, 14 and 18 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1).

The company's claims take into account cost estimates allegedly "known to the government through Russian judicial procedures." This is the base value of Yukos shares in Yuganskneftegaz - 19.6 million euros, the value of other assets and compensation for lost profits due to “expropriation”.

The Russian side, in turn, insists that YUKOS in 2000-2003 used tax schemes in circumvention of Russian legislation. The company enjoyed preferential taxation in some Russian regions. The defendant also claims that the auction for the sale of Yuganskneftegaz was held strictly within the law.

On September 20, 2011, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) partially ruled that the actions of the Russian tax authorities against the oil company Yukos violated its right to protect property. Having considered the complaint from YUKOS, the ECHR found Russia to have violated Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms; Moreover, the court found that these violations occurred in the period from 2000 to 2001, while YUKOS asked to recognize violations from 2000 to 2003. At the same time, the ECHR did not see any political motive in the proceedings.

On December 21, 2011, it became known that the YUKOS company in the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) issued a decision in September in which the court refused to recognize the processes that led to the bankruptcy of the company as politically motivated.

On July 31, 2014, it was ruled that Russia must pay former Yukos shareholders about 1.9 billion euros in compensation plus taxes. The document states that “Russia must pay the Yukos shareholders existing at the time of the liquidation of the company, or their successors and heirs, the amount of 1,866,104,634 euros as compensation for material damage, (as well as) the amount of 300 thousand euros in legal costs.” ECtHR that the applicant company suffered material damage due to the retrospective collection of fines for tax offenses for 2000 and 2001 (1.3 billion euros), 7% of the enforcement fee on these fines (0.5 billion euros), the disproportionate nature of enforcement proceedings, which must be compensated.

Russia considers the decision of the ECHR in the “YUKOS case” controversial. Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, that Russia, although it remains under the jurisdiction of the Strasbourg Court, will implement its decisions only taking into account the recognition of the supremacy of the Constitution of the Russian Federation.

In October 2016, the Russian Ministry of Justice on the possibility of implementing the ECHR ruling in the case of OJSC NK Yukos dated July 31, 2014. The Russian Ministry of Justice believes that the obligations imposed on Russia by the contested ruling are based on the application of the ECHR provisions of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Rights freedoms in interpretation, leading to their discrepancy with the Constitution of Russia.

On December 15, 2016, the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation at an open meeting of the Russian Ministry of Justice on the possibility of not implementing the decision of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) in the “YUKOS case”. The Constitutional Court did not support the payment of 1.9 billion euros to the company's shareholders.

At the court hearing, representatives of all government bodies indicated that the ECHR decision should not be implemented, since it not only interferes with the country’s sovereignty, but will also prevent Russia from fulfilling its budgetary obligations to citizens.

The material was prepared based on information from RIA Novosti and open sources

Former British oil company CEO John Brown claimed in his autobiographical book More Than Business that shortly before Khodorkovsky's arrest, Vladimir Putin privately told him (Brown): “I have tolerated this man for too long.” In July 2009, former Russian Prime Minister Mikhail Kasyanov submitted an affidavit in which he said during an informal meeting with then-Russian President Vladimir Putin that Khodorkovsky had "crossed the line" by funding the Communist Party without the Kremlin's permission.

Representatives of the Communist Party of the Russian Federation have repeatedly asserted that neither the party nor its members have ever received funding from YUKOS. However, Mikhail Khodorkovsky claimed that assistance to this party was provided by one of the company’s shareholders from his own funds. In 2003, according to the list of the Communist Party of the Russian Federation, former member of the board of directors of YUKOS Sergei Muravlenko and former head of the analytical department of YUKOS Alexey Kondaurov were elected deputies of the State Duma.

As a number of experts have suggested, one of the factors in the Khodorkovsky case in 2003 and the nationalization of the Yukos company was Khodorkovsky's lobbying for a reduction in the tax burden on oil companies (in 2002, Khodorkovsky opposed government initiatives in this area).

Claims from tax authorities

It should be noted that during the corresponding period, not only YUKOS, but also other Russian oil companies carried out their activities through a network of legal entities registered in preferential tax zones. . In particular, the companies Lukoil and Sibneft acted this way. In December 2003, the Department of Information and Public Relations of the Accounts Chamber of the Russian Federation, based on the results of an audit of the financial and economic activities of OJSC Sibneft for 2001 and the first half of 2002, reported that such a scheme allowed the company “to pay income tax at a reduced rate within the framework of current legislation . We are, therefore, talking about the legal activities of Sibneft OJSC, aimed at minimizing the expenditure side of the company’s budget.”

Thus, what was recognized as legal in relation to Sibneft was recognized as illegal in relation to YUKOS.

In 2001, YUKOS had to pay $14.5 in various taxes for each barrel of oil produced, while all oil companies paid an average of only $5.2. In 2000, for each barrel of oil produced by YUKOS taxes were assessed at $10.50, while the other six oil majors paid an average of $6.00. For 2001 and 2002, the company was assessed taxes that amounted to 49.5% of revenue for 2001 and 58.15% for 2002, and the total amount of claims from the tax authorities, including fines, exceeded the company's revenue for these years.

The total amount of tax claims, taking into account fines and penalties for 2000-2003, amounted to 582 billion rubles, and taking into account claims against subsidiaries - 703 billion rubles. or almost $25 billion at the then exchange rate. According to Yukos, tax claims for 2004 significantly exceeded the company's revenue.

After this, Yukos shares fell sharply in price. Then, in one of his interviews, Vladimir Putin said that the state does not intend to bankrupt YUKOS. As a result, the shares almost quadrupled in price in one day.

Arbitration process for tax claims

All assets and accounts of Yukos and its subsidiaries were frozen. Funds were allowed to be withdrawn only to pay taxes and salaries to employees; the rest went to the state to pay off debts. The company began to gradually reduce staff, and after some time stopped exporting oil due to a lack of funds for customs payments. Russia's largest oil company began to fall apart.

Arbitration courts of all instances recognized the claims of the tax authorities as legitimate. The Federal Bailiff Service of Russia (FSSP) ordered the sale of Yuganskneftegaz to repay the debts of the Yukos Oil Company to the federal budget.

The company's management, together with shareholders, considered the possibility of declaring NK Yukos insolvent (bankrupt) in order to avoid dismemberment of the company. On December 14, 2004, YUKOS filed a claim for voluntary bankruptcy in court in Houston (USA). By a decision of December 16, 2004, this court prohibited companies and banks from taking any actions to alienate YUKOS property. Nevertheless, on December 19, 2004, 76.79% of Yuganskneftegaz shares were sold to the FSSP at auction for $9.3 billion. The winner was the little-known company Baikalfinancegroup LLC, whose shareholders, according to V. Putin, are “individuals who have been doing business for many years.” A few days later, this company was purchased by the state-owned OJSC Rosneft.

Bankruptcy of NK Yukos

Yukos oil production enterprises produced 24.5 million tons of oil. YUKOS's revenue according to RAS for the nine months of 2005 amounted to 2.03 billion rubles, net loss - 2.92 billion rubles. The state's tax claims against YUKOS at the beginning of 2006 amounted to $9.8 billion, and the company owed about $1.2 billion to commercial banks and Group Menatep.

The case of Khodorkovsky, Lebedev and Krainov

The formal reason for launching an investigation by the Prosecutor General's Office against YUKOS and its owners was a request from State Duma deputy Vladimir Yudin about the legality of the privatization in 1994 of the Apatit mining and processing plant (Murmansk region) by commercial entities controlled by Mikhail Khodorkovsky and his business partners.

A few days later, a criminal case was opened on embezzlement and tax evasion by structures controlled by the oil company YUKOS, from which dozens of criminal cases against individual employees of the company were subsequently spun off.

For the first month, the investigation was conducted in conditions of increased secrecy, and the investigation became known only on July 2, 2003, when the chairman of the board of directors of the Menatep International Financial Association, Platon Lebedev, was arrested.

After the arrest of Platon Lebedev, events developed rapidly, and reports of new charges and searches were received weekly. The investigation into Lebedev’s own case was completed in just two months. At first he was accused of stealing 20% ​​of the shares of Apatit OJSC, then a number of more charges were added.

After some time, the Yukos company itself was accused of tax evasion through various tax optimization schemes. Intensified tax audits followed for several years. According to senior managers of YUKOS, the calculated amount of arrears and fines exceeded the company's revenue over the years. According to the Ministry of Taxes and Duties, YUKOS's real revenue was much more than declared.

At first, the Prosecutor General's Office did not bother Mikhail Khodorkovsky himself very much - he was only interrogated several times as a witness shortly after the arrest of Platon Lebedev, and then left alone for a long time. But already in the fall of 2003, unambiguous hints began to come from the prosecutor’s office about the existence of serious claims against Khodorkovsky.

On the morning of October 25, 2003, Khodorkovsky’s plane, heading to Irkutsk, landed for refueling at Novosibirsk airport. As soon as the plane stopped, it was blocked by FSB officers. On the same day, Khodorkovsky was taken to Moscow, appeared in court and was placed in the Matrosskaya Tishina detention center.

The investigation into the Khodorkovsky case was also completed in a record two months. The claims against him completely repeated what Platon Lebedev had previously been accused of - theft of someone else's property, malicious failure to comply with a court decision that had entered into legal force, causing property damage to owners through deception, evasion of taxes from organizations and individuals, forgery of documents, embezzlement or embezzlement of someone else's property by an organized group on a large scale.

According to the investigation, which the court later agreed with, Mikhail Khodorkovsky and Platon Lebedev in 1994 created an organized criminal group in order to fraudulently take over shares of various enterprises (fraud) and then sell the products of the Apatit plant at reduced prices to controlled intermediary companies, who, in turn, sold them at market prices (causing property damage through deception or breach of trust). In addition, they were accused of tax crimes.

In addition to committing economic crimes, a number of Yukos employees were accused of organizing several murders. For example, Yukos security officer Alexey Pichugin, according to the prosecutor's office, organized the murder of Nefteyugansk mayor Vladimir Petukhov in 1998 - on the direct orders of Yukos board chairman Leonid Nevzlin.

Shortly after the arrest of Mikhail Khodorkovsky, the Russian Prosecutor General’s Office launched a “general offensive” against Yukos, bringing charges against various employees of the group’s organizations. By May 2005, the list of defendants in the YUKOS cases already exceeded 30 people, most of whom, however, are abroad and inaccessible to the investigation.

The trials of Platon Lebedev and Mikhail Khodorkovsky began in April 2004, then they were merged, and the trial of the case began in July 2004.

Court verdict in the case of Khodorkovsky and Lebedev

Court verdict in the case of Khodorkovsky and Lebedev (end)

The court sentenced Khodorkovsky to nine years of imprisonment in a general regime colony under articles

• Part 3 of Article 147 of the Criminal Code of the RSFSR - “fraud”, “on a large scale, or by an organized group, or by a particularly dangerous recidivist”;
• Part 3 of Article 33, Article 315 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (edition No. 162-FZ December 8, 2003) - “organizer”, “failure to comply with a court sentence, court decision or other judicial act”;
• paragraphs “a”, “b”, part 3 of article 160 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (N 63-FZ June 13, 1996) - “misappropriation or embezzlement”, “by an organized group”, “on a large scale”;
• paragraphs “a”, “b”, part 3 of article 165 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (N 63-FZ June 13, 1996) - “causing property damage by deception or abuse of trust”, “committed by an organized group”, “causing major damage” ;
• Part 2 of Article 198 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (as amended by No. 162-FZ on December 8, 2003) - “evasion of taxes and (or) fees from an individual”, “on an especially large scale”;
• Part 3, Article 33, paragraphs. “a”, “b” part 2 of article 199 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (edition No. 162-FZ December 8, 2003) - “organizer”, “evasion of taxes and (or) fees from an organization”, “a group of persons by preliminary conspiracy”, “on an especially large scale”;
• pp. “a”, “b” part 3 of article 159 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (N 63-FZ June 13, 1996) - “fraud”, “by an organized group”, “on a large scale”.

According to the decision of the Moscow City Court dated September 22, 2005, the conviction against Mikhail Khodorkovsky, Platon Lebedev and Andrei Krainov, passed by the Meshchansky Court of Moscow, came into force. The Moscow City Court excluded only one episode and reduced the punishment for Khodorkovsky and Lebedev by one year to eight years in prison.

Pichugin case

In 1998-2002, the following crimes were committed, which were later incriminated against the former head of the internal economic security department at the Yukos oil company, Alexei Pichugin:

On April 21, 2008, prosecution witnesses Gennady Tsigelnik and Evgeny Reshetnikov stated that they had incriminated Leonid Nevzlin and the head of the Yukos security department, Alexei Pichugin, under pressure from the investigation in exchange for concessions in their prison sentences.

Criminal prosecution of other workers

The investigation into individual episodes of the activities of other YUKOS managers continued; some of them (managers) were convicted (some of them suspended or with a probationary period), some received political asylum abroad, or the states in which they were located refused Russia in extradition.

The second case of Khodorkovsky and Lebedev

In December 2006, Mikhail Khodorkovsky and his former business partner Platon Lebedev were transferred to the Chita pre-trial detention center to face new charges - in the case of money laundering (“Legalization of funds obtained by criminal means”, Article 174 part 3 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation).

On February 4, 2007, lawyers for Khodorkovsky and Lebedev, Yu. Shmidt, E. Baru, K. Rivkin, L. Saikin, K. Moskalenko, who arrived at Moscow Domodedovo airport to fly to Chita to see the accused, were detained at the check-in counter; they had tickets and passports were taken away, and they were taken to the basement of the line police station, where they were held for some time by armed law enforcement officers; During the inspection, all papers from the lawyer's files, all documents and letters were inspected and filmed.

On February 24, 2009, M. Khodorkovsky and P. Lebedev arrived in Moscow on a stage. On March 3, 2009, the Khamovnichesky Interdistrict Court of Moscow began preliminary hearings on a new criminal case. The prosecution was headed by Dmitry Shokhin, who represented the state prosecution at the first trial in the case of Khodorkovsky and Lebedev

Khodorkovsky and Lebedev were charged with the fact that, as part of an organized group with the main shareholders of OJSC NK YUKOS and other persons, in the period before June 12, 1998, they stole shares of subsidiaries of OJSC Eastern Oil Company in the amount of 3.6 billion rubles, in 1998-2000, shares of subsidiaries of OJSC Eastern Oil Company stolen for the same amount were legalized, and also in 1998-2003 they committed theft by appropriating oil from OJSC Samaraneftegaz, OJSC Yuganskneftegaz and OJSC Tomskneft in the amount of more than 892 .4 billion rubles and the legalization of part of these funds in 1998-2004 in the amount of 487.4 billion rubles and 7.5 billion dollars.

On May 17, 2010, Khodorkovsky went on a hunger strike due to the fact that the court hearing the second case extended his detention. Khodorkovsky considered the extension of the arrest to be contrary to the new law, which prohibits the detention of those accused of economic crimes without sufficient grounds. After that, the press secretary of Russian President Dmitry Medvedev reported that the president was familiar with the contents of Khodorkovsky’s letter to the chairman of the Supreme Court of Russia, and on May 19, Khodorkovsky stopped his hunger strike.

In May 2010, former Russian Prime Minister Mikhail Kasyanov appeared at the trial as a witness for the defense. He said that the methods of work at Yukos were no different from those of other leading oil companies and all companies were characterized by vertical integration, the use of transfer pricing and the use of preferential tax zones. Kasyanov said that he considers the case against Khodorkovsky and Lebedev to be initiated for political reasons and that Putin personally told him that “the Yukos company financed the political parties Yabloko and SPS, which he allowed to finance, and the Communist Party, which he did not allow.”

In May 2010, the defense asked to subpoena a whole group of former and current government officials, including Prime Minister Vladimir Putin and Deputy Prime Minister Igor Sechin. However, the court agreed to hear only German Gref, who in 1998 served as first deputy of the Ministry of State Property, and the former head of the Ministry of Industry and Energy, Viktor Khristenko.

On December 30, 2010, judge of the Khamovnichesky Court Viktor Danilkin found Khodorkovsky and Lebedev guilty under Articles 160 and 174 Part 1 regarding oil transactions and sentenced each of them to 14 years in prison with credit for previously served time. At the same time, regarding the episode with shares owned by OJSC Eastern Oil Company, the case was dismissed due to the expiration of the 10-year statute of limitations.

“I absolutely know for sure that the verdict was brought from the Moscow City Court. And the fact that this verdict was written by judges of the cassation instance in criminal cases, that is, the Moscow City Court. It is obvious".

Natalya Vasilyeva in an interview with Gazeta.ru

According to her, “I know a lot from a person close to the judge,” whom she declined to name. She also drew such conclusions from the fact that “they could have told her [when she brought documents for signature]: don’t interfere, Viktor Nikolaevich is talking to the Moscow City Court. Or he himself told her: “I’m talking to the ‘city’.” According to the statement, N Vasilyeva " this is slang for Moscow City Court" Accordingly, N. Vasilyeva concludes, “ some orders were given“Danilkin called this statement slander, and the Moscow City Court declared provocation.

In February 2011, Judge Danilkin said in an interview that the verdict against Mikhail Khodorkovsky and Platon Lebedev was written by him alone in compliance with all norms of the law. And the threats and pressure were, rather, from those sympathizing with Khodorkovsky: " Some strange people called me on the phone, found out my home phone number, went to my son’s website, and posted some nasty things there. Correspondence arrived addressed to me at the Khamovnichesky Court. At the time the verdict was announced, it had been announced for four days; there were already direct threats.

By a cassation ruling of the judicial panel for criminal cases of the Moscow City Court dated May 24, 2011, the verdict of the Khamovnichesky District Court in relation to Khodorkovsky and Lebedev was changed and their punishment was reduced to 13 years in prison for each.

On May 27, 2011, Khodorkovsky and Lebedev filed petitions for parole with the Preobrazhensky District Court of Moscow, since the articles imputed to them provide for such an opportunity after serving half of the sentence of imprisonment, and out of the assigned 13 years, they served more than seven and a half.

In June 2011, Khodorkovsky was transferred to correctional colony No. 7 in the city of Segezha in Karelia, and Lebedev was transferred to penal colony No. 14 near the city of Velsk in the Arkhangelsk region.

On December 20, 2012, the Presidium of the Moscow City Court, having considered the case in a supervisory manner, reduced the sentences of Mikhail Khodorkovsky and Platon Lebedev from 13 to 11 years. This was motivated by the reclassification of the charges in connection with the liberalization of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. In addition, the Presidium of the Moscow City Court excluded from the charges the indication of money laundering in the amount of more than 2 billion rubles, considering it too imputed. Also, due to the expiration of the statute of limitations, the court terminated criminal prosecution for one of the episodes of tax evasion. As a result, Lebedev should be released on July 2, 2014, Khodorkovsky on October 25, 2014.

Consideration of the case in the European Court of Human Rights

Khodorkovsky's lawsuit

Even before the verdict was pronounced in the first criminal case against Khodorkovsky, he filed a lawsuit with the European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter ECHR). At the end of May 2011, the ECHR, considering this claim, recognized that certain rights of Khodorkovsky were violated, but refused to recognize the case itself as politically motivated.

Lebedev's claims

Platon Lebedev filed several lawsuits with the ECHR.

In October 2007, the ECHR published a decision on one of the claims. According to the decision, the ECHR ordered Russia to pay Lebedev 3,000 euros in moral compensation and 7,000 euros to cover legal costs. In particular, the ECHR considered a violation of Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights by the fact that from March 30 to April 6, 2004, Lebedev was in custody without court authorization. Also, according to the ECHR, in two cases the time frame for considering complaints about arrest was excessively long.

YUKOS shareholders' lawsuit

YUKOS shareholders filed a complaint against the actions of the Russian authorities with the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, which was accepted for consideration on January 30, 2009. In their complaint, Yukos shareholders asked that the actions of the Russian authorities be declared illegal, claiming that their property was illegally taken away, citing a violation of the provisions of the Convention for the Protection of Rights and Fundamental Freedoms regarding the right to a fair trial and the protection of property. The applicants demanded compensation for their damages from these actions in the amount of $98 billion.

The Russian authorities brought in 20 lawyers to consider the case, including the famous British royal lawyer Michael Swainston. YUKOS shareholders were represented by British lawyer Piers Gardner, who, according to lawyer Dmitry Gololobov, has less legal experience than Swainston. According to Gololobov, the class of explanations given by Swainston during his speeches during the hearings contributed to a shift in emphasis in the case in favor of the Russian side.

In its complaint, OJSC NK YUKOS (hereinafter referred to as the Company) argued that the Russian state violated the following provisions of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms of November 4, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the Convention):

• Article 6 of the Convention (right to a fair trial);
• Article 1 of Protocol 1 to the Convention (“Every natural or legal person has the right to the peaceful enjoyment of his property. No one shall be deprived of his property except in the public interest and under conditions provided by law and by the general principles of international law. The preceding provisions shall in no way shall not, in so far as they impair the right of the State to enforce such laws as it may deem necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest or to enforce the payment of taxes or other charges or penalties.");
• Article 14 of the Convention (prohibition of discrimination);
• Article 18 of the Convention (“The restrictions permitted under this Convention in relation to these rights and freedoms shall not be applied for purposes other than those for which they were provided.”);
• Article 7 of the Convention (“No one shall be convicted of any criminal offense on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a criminal offense under national or international law at the time when it was committed”);
• Article 13 of the Convention (“Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in this Convention are violated shall have the right to an effective remedy before a public authority even if the violation was committed by persons acting in an official capacity.”).

On September 20, 2011, the ECHR adopted a ruling on the claim of Yukos shareholders, the claim was partially satisfied:

• The ECHR found that the Russian state violated the company’s right to protect property. In particular, the amount of tax claims against the company for 2000-2001 was calculated with violations (however, the court considered similar calculations for the tax period for 2001-2003 to be legal and correct). Also, according to the court, a violation of the right to protect property was that the company was not given enough time to pay off the additional tax assessments. The court explained that this was “partly explained by the requirements” of Russian laws.
• According to the decision, the authorities allowed a restriction of the rights of Yukos in relation to a fair trial in the framework of the trial regarding tax payments for 2000: Yukos lawyers were not given enough time to familiarize themselves with the case materials in the first instance (to study 43,000 pages from the party there was only 4 days of protection). In the remaining trials in the Yukos case, the ECHR did not find any procedural violations.
• The ECHR did not find a discriminatory or political component in the Yukos case. According to the ECHR, the tax optimization schemes used by Yukos have never been legal in Russia. Also, the ECHR found no evidence that such techniques were generally accepted in Russian business.
• The amount of material compensation was not determined in the decision; it was stated that this issue would be specifically discussed.

The plaintiffs and defendants assessed the ECHR decision differently: both of them actually declared their victory. The press service of the Ministry of Justice of the Russian Federation stated that the ECHR rejected most of Yukos' claims against Russia, recognizing only some procedural violations. A Ministry of Justice spokesman said: “The court completely rejected the accusations against the Russian Federation of the “political motivation” and “repressive nature” of the persecution of the Yukos company, as well as the alleged discrimination against it by the Russian authorities.”. The plenipotentiary representative of the Russian government in the highest courts, Mikhail Barshchevsky, assessed the ECHR decision as a “colossal victory.” On the other hand, plaintiffs' lawyer Piers Gardner said that “the court's decision contains three major victories for Yukos: it was recognized that the company could not prepare for the trial; that property rights have been violated; that the fines were imposed illegally.”

Outside commentators also assessed the outcome of the case differently. The former chief lawyer of YUKOS, Dmitry Gololobov, said that in its decision the ECHR actually recognized that YUKOS optimized taxes illegally, and the Russian state, while fighting YUKOS, although it “went too far” in some places, generally acted reasonably and with for legitimate purposes. According to Gololobov, the recognition by the ECHR of the fairness of the assessment of taxes on YUKOS actually means the recognition that Mikhail Khodorkovsky was “absolutely legally convicted in the tax episode, in the so-called first case.” . Representatives of Mikhail Khodorkovsky, noting that the entrepreneur was not one of the plaintiffs and did not play any role in the court case, nevertheless stated that they “welcome the findings of the ECtHR on serious violations of the right to a fair trial and property rights committed by the Government of the Russian Federation under handling of YUKOS".

Consideration of the case in the International Arbitration Court in The Hague

On February 3, 2005, three companies associated with the former major shareholder of Yukos Group MENATEP Ltd (GML) - Yukos Universal Ltd, registered in the Isle of Man, Cypriot Hulley Enterprises Ltd and the Cyprus Veteran Petroleum Trust filed claims in the arbitration court of the International Chamber of Commerce in The Hague. The plaintiffs demanded about $100 billion from Russia, citing investment protection provisions of the Energy Charter, which Russia has signed but not ratified.

On November 30, 2009, the Hague Arbitration decided to consider the case on the merits on the basis of a special provision of the Energy Charter allowing its immediate application to a signatory state.

Consequences of the Yukos Affair

According to the Federal Tax Service, after the YUKOS case, almost all oil companies clarified their tax payment figures and began to contribute significantly larger amounts to the budget. In 2004, tax collection was 250% of the 2003 level.

The case caused a powerful resonance, including US President George W. Bush expressing concern about Khodorkovsky's fate. As foreign policy expert Alexander Rahr argued in 2005, German Chancellor Gerhard Schröder fully supports the process against Khodorkovsky - he is convinced that it is necessary to punish those people who “have not paid taxes for years, who were bribing the Duma, who participated in corrupt deals, of which there were many in Russia at one time.”

The international resonance was to a certain extent caused by the presence of numerous foreign shareholders. Trying to counteract their pressure, the authorities decided to involve a German bank in financing the transaction, but it was actually ostracized abroad.

In November 2003, Paul Klebnikov, senior editor of the Russian edition of Forbes magazine, wrote: “What conclusions will you draw from the Khodorkovsky case? What will you do to avoid ending up in jail with him? Obviously, you would prefer to always take the side of the president, or even better, to stay away from politics altogether. But you will also make every effort to stay within the law by avoiding get-rich-quick schemes. Then the prosecutor and the organizers of political campaigns will not have a clear reason to find fault with you. It is from such considerations that a law-abiding society is built. Khodorkovsky's arrest does not mark the triumph of the rule of law. Tough actions during detention indicate that the establishment of a civilized law enforcement system in Russia is still far away. It remains to be seen how Putin's people will take this matter further (I suspect things will get worse before they get better). But looking back on these events in the future, we will probably be able to state that they have led to the strengthening of both the fundamentals of property rights and the Russian market.”

Khodorkovsky's supporters held various seminars, organized rallies and distributed stickers, in which they mainly resorted to the following arguments:

• court bias;
• political motivation of the case;
• Khodorkovsky's efforts to ensure transparency of Yukos business.

The YUKOS case marked the beginning of the process of nationalization of the Russian oil and gas complex:

• in 2005, Gazprom acquired a controlling stake in Sibneft,
• in 2006, Gazprom became the main shareholder of the Sakhalin-2 project (previous project participants were presented with environmental claims, which were dropped after Gazprom acquired the asset). In the same year, Gazprom became a major shareholder of Novatek
• in 2007, in addition to the final inclusion of YUKOS assets into Rosneft, by decision of the judiciary, shares of enterprises in the oil and gas complex of Bashkiria were returned to state ownership, Gazprom received control over the Kovyktinskoye gas condensate field. The Russneft company was persecuted, whose owner Mikhail Gutseriev was forced to sell the business and then left the country
• in 2008, information appeared about the likely acquisition by Gazprom of a controlling stake in TNK-BP, which was presented with tax claims in the amount of 6 billion rubles

Opinions on the Yukos case

Some observers spoke out in support of the trial and the verdict, some considered the trial in the YUKOS case to be political, demonstrative and ordered.

In November 2003, Forbes magazine senior editor Paul Klebnikov wrote: “The arrest of Khodorkovsky is not at all the beginning of a campaign against the rich. Nor is it an example of repression based on trumped-up charges, similar to Stalin's show trials. By contrast, too many other Russian business leaders could be accused of crimes attributed to Khodorkovsky. We are watching how the kleptocratic system of Yeltsin's Russia is in its death throes. A blatant example of the depravity of the privatization era is the notorious loans-for-shares auctions of 1995-1997. who provided Khodorkovsky with his fortune.<…>By purchasing assets from the government in such a backroom deal and at such a reduced price, you risk that your rights to the new property will never be reliably protected. Your fellow citizens will view you as a fraud, and the state as a custodian of assets rather than their true owner.”

International lawyer Robert Amsterdam published a white paper in 2007 on abuses of state power in the Russian Federation, arguing that there were violations of the law in the prosecution of Khodorkovsky and his colleagues.

According to a survey of the Russian population conducted in October 2004 by the Public Opinion Foundation, in the proceedings around YUKOS, 47% of respondents were on the side of the state, 7% were on the side of YUKOS, the rest said that they did not know about the YUKOS case or found it difficult to answer.

Opinions and assessments of the “second case” of Khodorkovsky and Lebedev

In December 2009, Prime Minister Vladimir Putin said that “the bankruptcy procedure of the Yukos company was initiated by Western creditors, Western banks. And this bankruptcy was carried out in full compliance with Russian legislation.” According to him, the funds realized from the sale of the company’s assets went to the Housing and Communal Services Fund: “10 million people have already benefited from the results of the work of this fund; their houses and apartments have been renovated; 150 thousand will be resettled in new houses from slums.” Putin noted that “this money was once stolen from the people,” and also recalled: “there are only five proven murders there.” Putin emphasized: “the problem is that crimes of this kind should not be repeated in our country.”

On May 18, 2011, at a press conference, one of the journalists asked Russian President Dmitry Medvedev whether Khodorkovsky’s release was dangerous. Medvedev’s answer was: “The question is short and the answer is also short: absolutely not dangerous.”

Notes

1. S. Besson Switzerland - a refuge for exported Yukos funds (“Le Temps”, Switzerland, 03/04/2002) (translation by www.inosmi.ru)
2. S. Besson How the new Russian oil kings built a secret financial empire in Geneva (“Le Temps”, Switzerland, 06/21/2002) (translation by www.inosmi.ru)
3. Irina Reznik. Prosecutor's discount // Vedomosti, No. 180 (1954), September 25, 2007
4. Why Mikhail Khodorkovsky is imprisoned (part 3) // Izvestia
5. RBC - RosBusinessConsulting
6. Jailed tycoon Mikhail Khodorkovsky ‘framed’ by key Putin aid The Sunday Times, May 18, 2008
7. Sechin started the war against YUKOS out of greed, Khodorkovsky said NEWSru.com, May 18, 2008
8. I ask you to blame for my sentence... Mikhail Khodorkovsky named the initiator of the “YUKOS case” and the conditions for his possible release. Vremya Novostei, May 19, 2008
9. Mikhail Ocherchenko.“The first time BP went into Russia with its eyes closed,” John Brown, managing director and partner in Europe at Riverstone Holdings, former CEO of BP. // Vedomosti, 05/11/2011, No. 83 (2849). Archived from the original on March 3, 2012. Retrieved May 11, 2011.
10. Catherine Belton. Europe - Kasyanov reveals Putin’s pursuit of tycoon // Financial Times, July 20 2009 (Retrieved July 22, 2009)
11. Anastasia Kornya, Vera Kholmogorova. Pointed to Putin // Vedomosti, No. 134 (2404), July 22, 2009
12. Kommersant-Online - Temporary export duties forever
13. Resolution of the appeal court of the Moscow Arbitration Court in case No. A40-17669/04-109-241 dated June 29, 2004
14. Resolution of the Presidium of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation No. 8665/04 dated October 4, 2005.
15. Transfer pricing and art. 40 Tax Code of the Russian Federation
16. According to the Yukos scenario, oil companies may be required to pay $6 billion
17. Problems of taxation of the Russian oil industry
18. Tax claims against Yukos exceed the company's revenue
19. YUKOS
20. Tax legislation of the Russian Federation, tax benefits for large and medium-sized companies
21. The Federal Tax Service has filed new major claims against Yukos.
22. Putin: the government must preserve Yukos
23. A court in Houston confirmed that the Yukos case cannot be tried in the United States.
24. V. Putin said that state-owned companies are not behind Baikalfinance Group
25. VEDOMOSTI - An entry on the liquidation of YUKOS was entered into the Unified State Register of Legal Entities
26. Lawyers demanded to transfer Lebedev closer to Moscow
27. New Year in the Arctic Circle
28. The court again declared legal the transfer of Khodorkovsky to the Chita region
29. News. Ru: Why Mikhail Khodorkovsky is imprisoned (part 2)
30. Kommersant-Gazeta - History of the issue
31. Kommersant-Gazeta - How Alexey Pichugin was tried
32. Kommersant-Gazeta - Alexey Pichugin’s imprisonment will be reclassified
33. Kommersant-Online - The court found Alexey Pichugin guilty of murder
34. Kommersant-Gazeta - Two murders added to Alexey Pichugin
35. Kommersant-Gazeta - The mayor of Nefteyugansk was killed as a gift
36. They renounced perjury, Vera Vasilyeva, Human Rights in Russia, April 21, 2008
37. Lists of those persecuted in the “YUKOS case”, press center of lawyers for Khodorkovsky and Lebedev
38. Fly to Khodorkovsky. Novaya Gazeta (February 12, 2009). - Mikhail Khodorkovsky’s lawyer was promised that they would “take” her to the police station if she did not go there herself. Archived from the original on March 3, 2012. Retrieved March 7, 2009.
39. Khodorkovsky and Lebedev transported to Moscow rosbalt.ru
40. A new trial in the Khodorkovsky case has begun. The prosecution was headed by order bearer Shokhin NEWSru March 3, 2009.
41. The court at the trial in the case of M. Khodorkovsky rejected the defense's motion to disqualify the judge rbc.ru
42. The lawyers of Khodorkovsky and Lebedev were unable to change the judge at the new trial NEWSru March 4, 2009.
43. The defense of the ex-owners of YUKOS asks to dismiss the second case for lack of evidence NEWSru March 6, 2009.
44. Khodorkovsky's third hunger strike ends: he reached Medvedev in record time
45. Khodorkovsky stopped his hunger strike
46. Kasyanov spoke about Yukos oil production methods
47. Gref to the rescue - Gazeta.ru, 06.21.10
48. “They are completely destroying what is written in the indictment” - Gazeta.ru, 06.22.10
49. The court found Khodorkovsky and Lebedev guilty of oil theft. ITAR-TASS. (inaccessible link - story) Retrieved December 27, 2010.
50. Khodorkovsky and Lebedev were given 13.5 years each // Sergei Smirnov, Maxim Glikin, Vedomosti, 12/30/2010.
51. Full text of the verdict against M. B. Khodorkovsky and P. L. Lebedev
52. “The verdict was brought from the Moscow City Court, I know for sure.” // Gazeta.ru, February 14, 2011 (Retrieved March 1, 2011)
53. The head of the Russian Armed Forces refused to comment on the statement about pressure on Danilkin
54. Danilkin: Strange people threatened me during the trial of Khodorkovsky:: Articles:: RBC daily
55. PRESS SERVICE REPORT
56. Mikhail Khodorkovsky and Platon Lebedev filed applications for parole
57. Khodorkovsky was taken to the colony in Segezha
58. Platon Lebedev was transferred to a colony near Velsk, Arkhangelsk region
59. The Moscow City Court reduced the prison terms of Lebedev and Khodorkovsky to 11 years
60. The ECHR decided to recover 10 thousand euros from the Russian Federation in favor of Khodorkovsky. - RIA Novosti, May 31, 2011
61. Russia owes Platon Lebedev - Gazeta.Ru
62. News Time: N°197, October 26, 2007
63. BBC: “Strasbourg accepted the claim of Yukos shareholders against Russia”
64. Error in footnotes? : Invalid tag ; no text specified for footnotes bbc_5.2F02.2F2010