Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
Alexander Auzan, a professor, Moscow State University; a president, "Social Contract" National Project Institute
I’ve got there just in time to hear exactly the part
of Mikhail Borisovich Khodorkovsky’s testimony,
which refers to the facts I understand.
That is because today Mikhail Borisovich has set himself the task,
which generally was not required
by the current structure of the charges.
As he was proving conclusively before,
oil has not been stolen physically,
thought they have charged him just for that.
And today he and his defence were solving an aerobatics,
top class problem: that's what they would say
if he was accused of stealing not oil physically,
but the property rights.
It means they are in a way working as prosecutors keeping in mind
if something might suddenly strike prosecution side of this trial.
I would call it a high level test of patience.
In my opinion, from their point of view
the first series of prosecution’s field-works were destroyed,
so they are trying to create an explanation
and a justification of higher degree now.
The materials relating to the previous cases
have been used perfectly well.
Khodorkovsky said today that having reached
the court decisions in 2003-2004,
they did not expect those decisions
would impede their activities in 2010.
That is exactly what is happening today.
Referring to the arbitration courts’ formula that
Yukos was in possession of these property rights,
Khodorkovsky proves now that it was impossible
to steal from oneself;
that it was his property and that time tax-payments
were demanded from him.
Now they deny a legal status of his property.
Carrying out a "halloo" task in 2003-2004, courts and prosecutors
have created an obstacle to do the same in 2009-2010
and so have come into conflict with each other.
This is very informative case;
I intend to use it in my lectures about movement
of property rights and real movement of goods.