Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
Journalist: Konstantin Yevgenyevich, yesterday, Prosecutor Lakhtin wasted six hours without managing to ask a single normal question;
he again kept asking about salaries, about who was meeting or vacationing with whom, etc.
After that, at 21:30, a subpoena was served to witness Wilson. Please comment on that.
Konstantin Rivkin: First of all, what lies on the surface is that this serving of a subpoena demonstrated a fact
that is evident enough: a parallel investigation is under way, and the problem is that investigated are the same circumstances
that are the subject of our criminal case.
We have been pointing to that repeatedly; nonetheless, all this is continuing like nothing has been said.
The paradox, in my opinion, also consists in that yet another demonstration took place as part of this trial,
when in the middle of the questioning of Steve Wilson an attempt was made to throw in a set of documents,
which, per se, are evidence, proceeding from how they are procedurally formalized.
The prosecutors made no secret of the fact that they were making an attempt to throw in documents precisely
in order to interrogate this witness.
The judge has to be given credit for not giving in to this provocation and refusing to subjoin those materials.
Nonetheless, the service of the subpoena, in my opinion, is a logical continuation of what was happening in court. That’s number one.
Number two. In my opinion, lying on the surface here is yet another aspect of this problem.
Potential witnesses who are going and planning to come and testify in defense of Khodorkovsky and Lebedev
were given a clear demonstration of what will happen to them if they come here and testify in favor of the defendants:
look what will happen – you may be called to an interrogation, and what will happen at the interrogation
and what the result may be is anyone’s guess.
Also, I would say this in this connection: the level of professionalism of this witness was so high
(let me remind you that he was in charge of tax planning connected with the operation of the foreign portion of Yukos’s corporate structure)
that his level is incomparable to the level of the prosecutor, who indeed found nothing better than to ask about
than what cards money was being transferred for him.
I was shocked again, and I liked it again when [the prosecutor] heard how much the respected expert was earning.
And it was downright cynical to state something like: now we are going to compare his earnings
with what he was actually doing and will make certain conclusions.
One wants to ask, “Mister Prosecutor, what for are you in this trial: for assessing other people’s salaries
or for trying to prove our clients’ guilt?” Therefore, in part, we are not surprised at what is happening.
In the first trial (I have been in it since 2003) those kinds of thing started happening beginning from the second or third witness.
I personally was the initiator of making a statement that we were refusing to call any other witnesses
because obvious threats were happening, [witnesses] were being threatened with criminal prosecution, etc.
If you’ve noticed, in our trial even the court noticed that Prosecutor Lakhtin has repeatedly said things
that were interpreted as threats to our witnesses and experts even by the court.
What happened yesterday night may be interpreted as the prosecution moving from words to action – this is extremely distressing.
On the other hand, I am happy they started doing it so late, when dozens of witnesses have come and given excellent testimony.
If we add it to what has been said by those people whom we have artificially called witnesses for the prosecution,
then I think that the position of the defense in this case is strong enough,
and no strikes at individual experts or witnesses can shake it.
As for what happened to Mr. Wilson, it is a shame;
you were absolutely right when you noted that Lakhtin had been questioning him for six hours.
We began questioning him at approximately 10:15, which means that the person stood at the rostrum for 10 hours
answering all questions in good faith, including those asked by the prosecutor,
to characterize which you’ll have a hard time finding literary expressions.
Imagine, after all that, the man walks out into the street, takes in a breath of fresh air, and has a surprise in store for him:
will you be so kind as to come to an interrogation tomorrow?
No normal man will like that, and I would say this in his place: guys, I have said in court all you wanted from me and all I know;
if you have any questions, request the minutes of the court session – I cannot add anything to what it says. That’s all.
Journalist: Konstantin Yevgenyevich, please clarify the technical side of the matter: yesterday, he did not receive the subpoena;
what can they undertake now to make him come to an interrogation at the Prosecutor’s Office Investigation Committee?
Konstantin Rivkin: You are asking me a very difficult question,
because I was a participant in all those events and I would not like to comment on some of the matters.
What I can state at this point is this: the person they wanted to call for an interrogation
has not received this subpoena in an official procedure and is free not to go there.
He was told verbally that the investigation committee wanted to see him, but he was not happy,
and we explained to him that he had the right to use the services of a linguist and assistance of an attorney,
and the subpoena, by the way, contains that information.
Nonetheless, the situation at this point is this: he received no official subpoena and did not go to the investigation committee.
On one hand, this is his right; on the other hand, to take any action, the investigators need, as a minimum,
to try to serve him a subpoena officially, and if they have grounds to believe that he is intentionally avoiding receipt
of the subpoena or, having received it, fails to go, then they may bring him forcibly.
But then, he is a foreign citizen, you know… In his place, I would first of all turn to the embassy
and ask its officers to track his steps, I would ask for a lawyer and a linguist,
and in that connection the investigator would have certain problems if he, let’s suppose, wanted to put pressure on him.